This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/21/nows-former-royal-editor-accused-of-cooking-his-evidence-in-coulson-trial

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
NoW's former royal editor accused of 'cooking his evidence' in Coulson trial NoW's former royal editor accused of 'cooking his evidence' in Coulson trial
(35 minutes later)
The former royal editor of the News of the World has been accused of “cooking his evidence” in the perjury trial of Andy Coulson.The former royal editor of the News of the World has been accused of “cooking his evidence” in the perjury trial of Andy Coulson.
Clive Goodman, 57, of Surrey, was also challenged over cash payments he requested for stories that he allegedly “lifted” from other newspapers including the Observer, W fashion magazine and the Holy Moly gossip website. Clive Goodman, 57, was also challenged over cash payments he requested for stories he allegedly “lifted” from other newspapers including the Observer, W fashion magazine and the Holy Moly gossip website.
In an intense exchange with Coulson’s barrister, Murdo MacLeod, Goodman denied he had not been doing his job properly and had to use other publications for stories to fill the gaps in his newspaper column.In an intense exchange with Coulson’s barrister, Murdo MacLeod, Goodman denied he had not been doing his job properly and had to use other publications for stories to fill the gaps in his newspaper column.
“Were you not known as the ‘eternal flame’, Mr Goodman, because you never went out of the office?” asked MacLeod to muffled laughter in the public gallery in the high court in Edinburgh.“Were you not known as the ‘eternal flame’, Mr Goodman, because you never went out of the office?” asked MacLeod to muffled laughter in the public gallery in the high court in Edinburgh.
Goodman said he had heard this phrase after he had left the paper. He told jurors he did not read the Guardian, that the Observer didn’t count in his world as it was a mid-market “little read” title and denied that “lifting” stories from other papers was a reflection of any shortcomings on his part. Goodman, from Surrey, said he had heard this phrase after he left the paper. He told jurors he did not read the Guardian, that the Observer did not count in his world as it was a mid-market “little-read” title and denied that lifting stories from other papers was a reflection of any shortcomings on his part. He was giving evidence for the second day as a prosecution witness in the trial.
He was giving evidence for the second day as a prosecution witness in the trial.
Coulson is being prosecuted for allegedly lying under oath in the 2010 perjury trial of former Scottish politician Tommy Sheridan. Coulson denies the charge.Coulson is being prosecuted for allegedly lying under oath in the 2010 perjury trial of former Scottish politician Tommy Sheridan. Coulson denies the charge.
MacLeod started his cross-examination by asking Goodman about a contributor payment request for £300 he made for a “Mr Anderson” in 2002.MacLeod started his cross-examination by asking Goodman about a contributor payment request for £300 he made for a “Mr Anderson” in 2002.
According to internal records, it was for a story about “Fergie in Sierra Leone” published on 3 November 2002 about the Duchess of York in Liberia.According to internal records, it was for a story about “Fergie in Sierra Leone” published on 3 November 2002 about the Duchess of York in Liberia.
“Most of the youngsters had never seen red hair before, except on a witchdoctor’s ju-ju doll, and fled to the corners of the room rather than accept toys from the flame-haired demon,” Goodman had written in the “Carvery” gossip column a week later.“Most of the youngsters had never seen red hair before, except on a witchdoctor’s ju-ju doll, and fled to the corners of the room rather than accept toys from the flame-haired demon,” Goodman had written in the “Carvery” gossip column a week later.
MacLeod pointed out that the words were almost identical to a paragraph in an exclusive interview with the duchess that had appeared in the Observer magazine on 27 October 2002.MacLeod pointed out that the words were almost identical to a paragraph in an exclusive interview with the duchess that had appeared in the Observer magazine on 27 October 2002.
“What did Mr Anderson get his £300 for?“ asked MacLeod. “For spotting it and identifying it as useful to us,” replied Goodman.“What did Mr Anderson get his £300 for?“ asked MacLeod. “For spotting it and identifying it as useful to us,” replied Goodman.
“You were the royal correspondent; why did you not read it?” “You were the royal correspondent; why did you not read it?” Goodman said: “I didn’t read it that weekend, neither did anybody else.”
“I didn’t read it that weekend, neither did anybody else,” said Goodman. MacLeod pointed out that the Sarah Ferguson interview was the cover story on the Observer magazine. “It’s a middle-market magazine; it doesn’t really matter if it’s been in that magazine or not,” replied Goodman.
MacLeod pointed out that the Sarah Ferguson interview was the cover story on the Observer magazine. “If you had read it, you wouldn’t have put this bill in for £300?” Goodman replied: “It depends. I might have read it and not seen it as significant.” Earlier he had declared: “I don’t read the Guardian.”
“It’s a middle market magazine; it doesn’t really matter if it’s been in that magazine or not,” replied Goodman. He was asked about similar requests for payments for other stories that had appeared elsewhere, including an item that had appeared 12 weeks previously in the People newspaper.
“If you had read it, you wouldn’t have put this bill in for £300?” Jurors were shown an email from one of Goodman’s bosses, complaining about the request for payment for the recycled item.
“It depends. I might have read it and not seen it as significant,” he said.
Earlier Goodman had declared: “I don’t read the Guardian.”
He was asked about similar requests for payments for other stories that had appeared elsewhere including an item that had appeared 12 weeks previously in the People newspaper.
Jurors were shown an email from one of Goodman’s bosses complaining about the request for payment for the recycled item.
“Clive, I do not want to pay £300 (let alone £850) for a repeat of a People page lead 12 weeks after they published. The two reports are all but identical even to the first two pars. To claim as you did today that they are entirely different stories (& to have flagged yours as exclusive) is utterly ridiculous,” wrote Paul Nicholas.“Clive, I do not want to pay £300 (let alone £850) for a repeat of a People page lead 12 weeks after they published. The two reports are all but identical even to the first two pars. To claim as you did today that they are entirely different stories (& to have flagged yours as exclusive) is utterly ridiculous,” wrote Paul Nicholas.
Jurors also saw an email from Coulson to Goodman saying Holy Moly, an online gossip website, “claim you are nicking stories from them on regular basis”. Jurors also saw an email from Coulson to Goodman saying Holy Moly, an online gossip website, “claim you are nicking stories from them on [a] regular basis”.
Documents show Goodman was making requests to three contacts, Mr Anderson, Mr Hall and a Mr Farrish, for spotting stories in other publications.Documents show Goodman was making requests to three contacts, Mr Anderson, Mr Hall and a Mr Farrish, for spotting stories in other publications.
“There’s not much journalism going on there?” MacLeod posited. “When you are writing a gossip column, you’re not breaking news, what are you there to do?”“There’s not much journalism going on there?” MacLeod posited. “When you are writing a gossip column, you’re not breaking news, what are you there to do?”
Goodman replied that it was legitimate to take ideas and story leads from other publications and to use parts of interviews from rival newspapers.Goodman replied that it was legitimate to take ideas and story leads from other publications and to use parts of interviews from rival newspapers.
He said the Ferguson interview was “buried in, quite frankly, in a little-read feature, in a little-read magazine in a little-read newspaper”. “The skill is in identifying it” as relevant to the News of the World, he said.He said the Ferguson interview was “buried in, quite frankly, in a little-read feature, in a little-read magazine in a little-read newspaper”. “The skill is in identifying it” as relevant to the News of the World, he said.
Asked why someone would be paid as much as £650 to spot the story, Goodman said that if they weren’t, they would have gone elsewhere with their stories. Asked why someone would be paid as much as £650 to spot the story, Goodman said that if they were not, they would have gone elsewhere with their stories.
McLeod put it to him: “They were doing their job but you weren’t doing yours, were you Mr Goodman?”McLeod put it to him: “They were doing their job but you weren’t doing yours, were you Mr Goodman?”
Goodman replied: “If there was any suspicion over what I was doing it was certainly never being put to me.” Goodman replied: “If there was any suspicion over what I was doing, it was certainly never being put to me.”
The jury heard that Goodman was concerned about his status within the paper being diminished and that he had a poor relationship with two executives in particular, though not Coulson.The jury heard that Goodman was concerned about his status within the paper being diminished and that he had a poor relationship with two executives in particular, though not Coulson.
He told how Jamie Oliver recipes would be read out at the news meetings of all the top editors on the paper ahead of his own story ideas. He told how Jamie Oliver recipes would be read out at the news meetings of all the top editors on the paper ahead of his story ideas. “It looked very much to me they were manoeuvring me out the front door,” he said.
“It looked very much to me they were manoeuvring me out the front door,” he said. “You are cooking your evidence, aren’t you?” said MacLeod. “No, I am not,” said Goodman.
“You are cooking your evidence, aren’t you?” said MacLeod.
“No, I am not,” said Goodman.
MacLeod then asked: “Are you just making this up as you go along?”MacLeod then asked: “Are you just making this up as you go along?”
“No, this is what I have said ever since I was [arrested],” Goodman replied.“No, this is what I have said ever since I was [arrested],” Goodman replied.
The trial, in front of Lord Burns, continues on Friday with further cross-examination of Goodman.The trial, in front of Lord Burns, continues on Friday with further cross-examination of Goodman.