DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

**bb1** Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:55 pm

I am putting this in a seperate thread to make it crystal clear to the pitchforkers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/dec/15/leveson-inquiry-derek-webb-colin-myler-live

12.38pm: Sanderson apologises to Kate McCann.

I have every intention of apologising to the McCanns … I did feel very bad that my involvement in the story had made Mrs McCann feel the way that she had.

Why was it the wrong decision to publish? Because they didn't have permission to, they didn't have Mrs McCann's permission to publish the story.

**crazytony** Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:58 pm

bb1 wrote:I am putting this in a seperate thread to make it crystal clear to the pitchforkers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/dec/15/leveson-inquiry-derek-webb-colin-myler-live

12.38pm: Sanderson apologises to Kate McCann.

I have every intention of apologising to the McCanns … I did feel very bad that my involvement in the story had made Mrs McCann feel the way that she had.

Why was it the wrong decision to publish? Because they didn't have permission to, they didn't have Mrs McCann's permission to publish the story.

Horse and stable door mad

**Sabot** Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:24 pm

Another case of SODDI.

Some Other Dude Done It.

**bb1** Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:29 pm

Yes, Sabot - they all seem to have assumed someone else had cleared it with the McCanns, when in fact no-one had.

And Edmundson gave Clarence Mitchell a load of guff, crossing all his fingers and toes he would never be called to account for what he'd done.

**Sabot** Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:35 pm

Yer, well. Gonc never expected to be called to account either. But Sadly, I am not sure he will.
Portuguese Justice is in a terrible state. You can't even trust some of The Judges.

**bb1** Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:43 pm

Sanderson says he arranged for the document to be translated and he wrote up the story as it came through section-by-section

FFS! He should have known RIGHT THEN there was something dodgy about it.

IF THE MCCANNS HAD WANTED IT PUBLISHED THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED TO TRANSLATE IT BACK FROM PORTUGUESE

THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM THE ENGLISH ORIGINAL.

**lily** Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:00 pm

THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM THE ENGLISH ORIGINAL.

Exactly correct.

**Sabot** Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:02 pm

bb1 wrote:Sanderson says he arranged for the document to be translated and he wrote up the story as it came through section-by-section

FFS! He should have known RIGHT THEN there was something dodgy about it.

IF THE MCCANNS HAD WANTED IT PUBLISHED THEN THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED TO TRANSLATE IT BACK FROM PORTUGUESE

THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM THE ENGLISH ORIGINAL.

This is too much, Bonny. It's fundamental to the situation. KATE HAD THE ORIGINAL IN ENGLISH.

**bb1** Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:23 pm

*Please note, at one point, he most confusingly, and annoyingly, abbreviates Portuguese Journalist to PJ, which is the last thing needed under the circumstances*

For Distribution To CP’s
Statement of Daniel Sanderson
In response to the numbered questions set out in the letter from the Leveson Inquiry dated
2nd December 2011.

1. Please explain exactly how NoW obtained a copy of Dr Kate McCann’s diary: you are not
required to name any sources, but you are required to identify the precise provenance of
the diary, explain the circumstances in which NoW received it, and confirm (if it be the
case) that it was of the original which had been seized by the Portuguese authorities.
A story appeared in The Sun newspaper on July 28, 2008, which said that extracts of Kate
McCann’s diary had emerged in Portugal, covering the first weeks after her daughter
Madeleine disappeared.
In the article there were two extracts that Mrs McCann had made in her diary.
I was asked by my news editor lan Edmondson to track down the person who was in
possession of the diary and was leaking extracts of it in Portugal.
After Mr Edmondson agreed, I called several newspapers in Portugal to ascertain who had
the diary.
I was put in touch with a journalist in Portugal who confirmed that they were in possession
of a copy of the diary and were willing to sell it to the NoW for, if my memory serves me
correctly, 18,000 Euros.
I believe the newspaper agreed to pay something like 9,000 Euros immediately and the rest
on publication of the story. The purchase was authorised by Mr Edmondson.
I liaised with Mr Edmondson and was told to ask a freelance journalist called Gerard
Couzens, who is based in Spain, to travel to Portugal to meet the journalist and collect the
diary.
From there my involvement ended until the diary reached the offices of the NoW.
My understanding is that Mr Edmondson took control of the diary’s delivery to our offices.
I believe that Mr Couzens met the journalist on Friday September 5, 2008 in Portugal and
paid her Euro 9,000 for a copy of the diary.
It’s my understanding that Mr Couzens delivered the diary to the NoW’s offices on Saturday
September 6, 2008.
I was first made aware that the newspaper had the document when I returned to the office
after the weekend on Tuesday September 9, 2008.
Mr Edmondson showed me the diary that morning.

It did not appear to be the original diary, but a copy that had been translated from English
into Portuguese.
MOD100052723
For Distribution To CP’s
2. Was the copy NoW obtained in English or Portuguese?
The NoW copy was in Portuguese.
3. What steps, if any, did you take to establish its authenticity and that it was a document
which you were entitled to possess?
Over the course of the working week commencing on Tuesday September 9th 2008, I
organised for the diary to be translated back into English using a London-based translation
service (I cannot recall the name).
It was a laborious task and the final section was completed on Friday September 12, 2008 -
two days before the story was published.
I spent the week writing the story as and when sections had been successfully translated.
In terms of its authenticity, we approached the diary from the viewpoint that it was a fake.
We had to cross check every entry against our online cuttings system to check that each
entry was correct and the diary was genuine.
For example, if there was an entry where it said the McCanns had met The Pope that day,
I had to check in cuttings that newspapers had reported that the McCanns had indeed met
The Pope on the corresponding date.
My understanding of the situation was that the news editor, Mr Edmondson, would also
confirm with the McCann’s press spokesman Clarence Mitchell that the diary was genuine.
4. What was paid for the diary and to whom?
I believe 18,000 Euros were paid to the Portuguese journalist (the P J). It was paid in two
parts; 9,000 Euros up front and 9,000 Euros on publication. I can’t be certain of this figure,
but it is certainly a fairly accurate estimate. I am aware of the approximate figure because
that is the price that had been agreed with the PJ in my initial phone conversations with the
PJ. The PJ set the price, which I had communicated to Mr Edmondson. Mr Edmondson then
authorised both payments to the source. The PJ then contacted me after publication to 5. By what reasoning process did you and others at News International (whom the Inquiry
requires you to identify) deem it appropriate to publish extracts from the diary given its
the obvious privacy implications, including the fact that you knew or must have know that
the diary was confidential (if it is your position that you did not know this, please explain
its basis)?
In order to answer this question, I need to explain how a national newspaper works. As a
reporter, I reported to my line manager Mr Edmondson, the news editor or assistant editor
(news) as was his official title. Mr Edmondson reported to the editor, Colin Myler, and other
senior executives.
Once I had obtained the diary, obviously there were a number of discussions between
myself and Mr Edmondson as to how the piece should be written sensitively.
MOD100052724
For Distribution To CP’s
Then after I had written it, the decision to publish ultimately rested with Mr Myler.
I feel that it is appropriate to note that in my role as a reporter, I did not have any say as to
whether the story was published.
But I think in terms of considering it being appropriate to publish Mrs McCann’s diary and
the obvious considerations over privacy, the view taken by senior executives was that there
were all sorts of false allegations being made about the McCanns and they really were being
pilloried in the press, that this account gave a true picture of the McCanns and dispelled
some of the lies being written about them.
The NoW had always been wholly supportive of the McCanns’ search for their daughter. Two
weeks after she went missing in 2007, the newspaper teamed up with wealthy businessmen
to pledge £1.5 million to anyone who could help with information leading to Madeleine’s
safe return.
However, with hindsight, the decision to publish Mrs McCann’s diary was clearly the wrong
one. Having read how the article made Mrs McCann feel, I intend to apologise to her for
writing the story once I have given evidence.
Although I feel it is important to point out that I had no say in whether or not the diary was
published.
6. Why did you not contact the Dr Kate McCann in advance of publication in order to check
the facts and in particular to obtain her consent to publication?
It was clear to me that we could not publish the story without the McCanns permission.
My understanding of the situation was that Mr Edmondson had sought permission to
publish the diary from Mr Mitchell.
I acquired this understanding because Mr Edmondson told me that he was going to speak to
Mr Mitchell about the story at the end of the week.
It is only natural Mr Edmondson sought that permission because he had an on going
relationship with Mr Mitchell. As I understand it, they spoke almost daily on the phone to
talk about stories connected to the case.
[I have only spoken to Mr Mitchell once about three weeks ago to inform him of my
intention to apologise to the McCanns for my involvement in the story that upset Mrs
McCann.]
I didn’t actually ever have the conversation with Mr Edmondson specifically that he had
received permission to publish from the McCanns.
I assumed that because that is what he said he intended to do and the story was published,
that he had received permission from Mr Mitchell.
However, following publication, News International released a statement saying they
published the extracts in the belief held in good faith that that they had permission to do so.
MOD100052725
For Distribution To CP’s
They said it was now clear that their belief was misplaced and that Kate neither approved of
nor knew that the extracts were to be published.
I believe that the newspaper agreed to make a donation to be used in the search for
Madeleine and published a correction on September 21, 2008.
It is clear from that statement that Mr Myler believed that the newspaper had permission to
publish by the McCanns when it had not.

I was not responsible for contacting Mr Mitchell to obtain permission to publish Mrs
McCann’s diary.
7. What consideration if any was given by you to any public interest considerations; and if
so, what were they?
As I said in response to question five, I think the view at the NoW was that there were a lot
of lies being published about the McCanns and this was a supportive piece that put the
record straight.
It was part of the Portuguese police case into the disappearance of Madeleine and it was an
account of how Mrs McCann was feeling after her daughter vanished.
8. What legal advice, if any, did you take on any of foregoing issues?
As I understand it, Mr Edmondson, Mr Myler and other senior executives would have taken
advice from Tom Crone, News International’s former legal affairs manager. In his absence,
they would have sought advice from Justin Walford, The Sun’s legal manager.
I wasn’t party to any of the legal conversations concerning publication.
9. Please outline any discussions you had, if any, at sub-editorial and editorial level on the
foregoing issues.
I liaised with Mr Edmondson about how the piece should be written in terms of sensitivity
and the evidence I had gathered over its authenticity.
It is normal for a reporter to discuss with his news editor how he (the news editor) wants a
story written.
It was my job to seek to determine that the diary was genuine and ensure that it was written
as sensitively as possible.
Daniel Sanderson

**bb1** Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:24 pm

I was asked by my news editor lan Edmondson to track down the person who was in
possession of the diary and was leaking extracts of it in Portugal.
After Mr Edmondson agreed, I called several newspapers in Portugal to ascertain who had
the diary.
I was put in touch with a journalist in Portugal who confirmed that they were in possession
of a copy of the diary and were willing to sell it to the NoW for, if my memory serves me
correctly, 18,000 Euros.

And that is the name he really has to come up with.

**crazytony** Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:35 pm

but it is certainly a fairly accurate estimate. I am aware of the approximate figure because
that is the price that had been agreed with the PJ in my initial phone conversations with the
PJ. The PJ set the price, which I had communicated to Mr Edmondson. Mr Edmondson then
PJ= Portuguese Judiciary????
ETA sorry reread and can see it is refering to the scumbag journalist

**bb1** Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:38 pm

No, it isn't, Tony - I put a note on at the top ^^^^ smile

For some reason best known to himself, Mr Sanderson thought it was a good idea to shorten Portuguese Journalist to PJ - which was just about the worst abbreviation he could have picked.

**crazytony** Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:41 pm

bb1 wrote:No, it isn't, Tony - I put a note on at the top ^^^^

For some reason best known to himself, Mr Sanderson thought it was a good idea to shorten Portuguese Journalist to PJ - which was just about the worst abbreviation he could have picked.

I realized after rereading, thanks. smile

**bb1** Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:43 pm

I had to read it twice myself, Tony - of all the abbreviations to choose....

**Sabot** Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:50 pm

bb1 wrote:No, it isn't, Tony - I put a note on at the top ^^^^

For some reason best known to himself, Mr Sanderson thought it was a good idea to shorten Portuguese Journalist to PJ - which was just about the worst abbreviation he could have picked.

Freudian Slip?

Think of the fun we could have with that one if we were as dishonourable as Gonc's Fan Club.

**muratfan** Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:18 pm

Morais perchance ???

**bb1** Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:19 pm

Or that raddled Felicia Cabrita creature, mf - there are one or two names in the frame.

**bb1** Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:31 pm

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16130854

DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged) 16131123

NOTW Reporter Apology For McCann Diaries

The News Of The World reporter who wrote the story about Kate McCann's diaries has apologised and admitted the article should never have been published.

Daniel Sanderson told the Leveson Inquiry he believed the private thoughts were published with the family's permission, and he only learned of Mrs McCann's distress when she gave evidence to the inquiry into press ethics three weeks ago.
"I feel very bad," he said.
Mr Sanderson told the hearing that he had been asked to find the diaries after snippets began appearing in other newspapers. He contacted two papers in Portugal before getting in touch with one particular reporter.
A Spanish freelance journalist was sent to pick up the copy of the diaries, which had been translated into Portuguese by the local police.
They had to then be re-translated back into English before publication in the Sunday tabloid.

==================

Sounds to me that hints are going to be dropped about the identity of the Portuguese person.

**bb1** Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:09 pm

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=48450&c=1

Quote from Clarence Mitchell:

"All of my contemporaneous emails at the time are now with lawyers for the Leveson Inquiry, and I am more than happy to give my side of the conversation with Ian Edmondson if required.

"You only need to look at the fact that the News of the World subsequently rolled over a few days later and not only published an apology in the following week's paper but also paid more than £120,000 to the Madeleine Fund by way of compensation. That speaks for itself."

**bb1** Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:34 pm

GaeMar01 Gael
RT @w_nicht: All the evidence Jay has now: PJ (Portuguese journalist) sold the evidence to UK papers.Wow,am I impressed? #Leveson #mccann

Oh, do try to keep up, dear - we sorted all that out hours ago.

Rotten apples in the police gave the copies to the Portuguese Journalist.

**sans_souci** Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:08 am

gave = sold.

Someone should be worried.

**bb1** Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:27 pm

Someone should indeed, sans.

A lot of relevant material is appearing here:

http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/12/14/clarence-mitchell-denies-giving-ok-to-print-diaries/

Sanderson's appearance at Leveson:

12 A. Thinking back, I mean it had obviously been translated
13 from English to Portuguese. I mean, the source was --
14 I suppose, thinking back, it must have come from the
15 Portuguese police, absolutely.
16 Q. Why do you say that?
17 A. From memory, when I was looking through the documents,
18 I believe there were comments on certain pages, I think.
19 I can't remember.
20 Q. Which -- obviously you don't speak Portuguese --
21 A. No, but there were notes and comments, and I don't know,
22 it looked like some kind of official document, if that
23 makes any sense.
24 Q. So was it at that point that you realised that the
25 source was probably the Portuguese police?

Page 82
1 A. Oh yes, no absolutely, absolutely.
2 Q. Did that cause you any concerns?
3 A. The whole thing caused me concern. The whole thing
4 caused me concern

==============

And a point which had escaped me till I read the post:

samantha

Considering the fact that the diary was only referred to in general terms until C de M published the extracts.............

hmm now where does that lead.................

Indeed; the contents had been in terms of Police sources said, till then, as the contents were leaked with feet, legs and tails added.

You know, it's hard not to think that the trail leads straight to someone who was 'retired' from the PJ just before the whole thing started appearing in CdM.

**bb1** Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:41 pm

McCann fund received £125,000 from News of the World

Confidential deal towards search fund for Madeleine was part of apology for tabloid's publication of mother Kate's diary extracts

Daniel Boffey
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 17 December 2011 13.48 GMT

The News of the World paid £125,000 to the fund supporting the search for Madeleine McCann as part of an apology for publishing Kate McCann's diaries – on condition that the terms of the deal remained secret.

The payment was made after the missing girl's parents expressed their outrage at the story, which Kate McCann said made her feel "mentally raped". All the parties involved in the negotiations over the payment, which was agreed in September 2008, were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement hiding the scale of the newspaper's culpability.

The payment was made despite claims by the defunct newspaper's editor at the Leveson inquiry last week that he believed he had had the full support of the McCanns to publish. Colin Myler, who edited the NoW from 2007 until it closed this year, told the inquiry he had received repeated assurances from his head of news, Ian Edmondson, that the McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, supported publication – a claim which has been strenuously denied.

Myler told the inquiry that he subsequently ran an apology and paid a "substantial sum" because "he felt very bad that she didn't know". However, the Observer has learned that the NoW initially tried to minimise the compensation. A source at News International, the owner of the newspaper, said there were hours of negotiations between the newspaper's lawyers and Carter-Ruck, the solicitors hired by the McCanns, in the days following publication of the story on 14 September 2008.

A deal was finally struck in which a £125,000 payment was agreed, but all parties were obliged to sign agreements that they would not talk about the size of the compensation. Last night Kate and Gerry McCann's spokesman declined to comment on the revelation.

More about next week's hearings at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/17/news-of-world-mccanns-payment?CMP=twt_fd

My my my! So, NOTW knew, 100%, that they were in the wrong - £125,000 of in the wrong. They must have been praying this would never become public.

I am afraid I cannot shed too many tears for NOTW, that it has now gone public.

It is an undeniable example of press misconduct - no wonder Clarence Mitchell was happy to give his emails to Lord Leveson.

asked to sign a confidentiality agreement hiding the scale of the newspaper's culpability.

I think NOTW will find that statements made on oath trump that.

**lily** Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:14 am

Poor Madeleine. Her life was in the hands of the Gonc team straight after being abducted and this is how they have treated her.

I am so glad that they seem to be closer to naming their source in Portugal before the libel trial in February.

As more bits and pieces are coming out, I honestly cannot believe how angry it is making me. I am sure this is having a similar effect on our other members. mad

**Sabot** Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:58 am

I thought I knew what had been going on, Lily. But this is abysmal, and getting worse by the day. This isn't just lack of experience or even basic incompetence, it's a horror story. And I bet we don't know the half of it.
Portugal is going to have to censor Amaral if The PJ ever wish to regain any integrity.
And of course, while all of this is coming out, The Portuguese people are watching the debacle. What must they think of all of these corrupt dealings?
And what of the honest men who are PJ Officers? What does it say to them of their honourable service?
Heads will have to roll, and I hope that everyone hears about it. It's the only way forward for The PJ to recover honest authority. They will be slaughtered in The Courts otherwise.
And The Judges will have to look very carefully at their Rulings, or The Court of Human Rights is going to be swamped for years to come.

Time to Free The Ciprianos.

Sponsored content

DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

STATEMENT BY DANIEL SANDERSON

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)

Re: DANIEL SANDERSON STATEMENT AND APOLOGY + NOTW COMPENSATION (merged)