crone and mr. myler that people from news international were not telling the truth, principally mr. myler and mr. crone, as soon as they opened their mouths in evidence in july 2009. can i add something else into the mix, as far as what mr. crone and mr. myler have told us? originally, mr. crone told us: "i questioned neville thurlbeck then and i have spoken to him about the same subject since then. his position is that he has never seen that email, nor had any knowledge of it." yet now we have an e-mail that crone sent on 24 may 2008 to mr. pike, in which he says, "i went through the new taylor docs with x today". he said that x now remembered the transcript -- and x can only be neville thurlbeck, despite the redactions, because of the context, the door-knock and the showdown that the e-mail refers to. those two statements -- crone's e-mail and what he said to us -- are totally at odds with each other. how does that reflect on mr. crone's reliability as a witness? >> with respect, mr. farrelly, it is a

>> presumably he and mr. myler and mr. pika discuss those things but they did not come to me until the 10th of june as i said. >> i still cannot distinguish which is same question which is on what basis did you give the authorities, who gave the 500,000 pounds cap to julia pike? >> certainly after june 10 meeting a range was discussed, and that was, and that would be capped at mr. crone want to give to mr. pike, that was their i had a great certainly with them within a range as we discussed something about 500,000 pounds when you include costs that they had the authority to go out and try to settle it which is their advice they had given me. >> had you given them a cap? when. >> i think the point here is the damages number plus than the costs of both sides to litigate it. and i don't recall a discussion of cap on damages, although it would have been not, it would've been quite, quite normal to say go and have, you know, go and have a go at this number. but i don't, i don't recall the. >> did you get a cap or not? >> certai

crone nor mr. myler discuss suspicion of wider spread phone hacking during the meeting of june 10 or otherwise, in relation to increasing the offer of settlement with mr. taylor's attorneys. >> he said this is not a vague memory. "i was on a knife edge. he was going to show this to james murdoch. there is only one conclusion he is gone to jump to, which is get rid of thurlbeck. the following week i said, 'did you show him the e-mail? .'"d he said 'yes he said it is all right, it is fine, we will settle it. >> mr. crone testified to you that he did not show the e-mail. my understanding is the e-mail was stringent to is -- was subject to stringent confidentiality agreement. mr. myler was part of that, but it was not shown to me at all. i have only recently seen the e- mail itself, which is as described. you have the transcripts of the "for neville" e-mail, and redacted blocks of text, which is all i have seen. i have seen it recently. it was not shown to me before. i am answering your questions in as clear

koh and mr. myler had answered the settlement that the answer came back very strongly that investigations have been made, inquiries have been made, previous investigations have been made and are, had uncovered no new evidence at all. the same surances that you received in 2090 and, indeed, it was only well before i return to london, was only 24 hours after the allegations in december 2002009 emerged that the metropolitan police issued a statement saying that there was no new evidence and this was a matter of very serious investigation by a series of detectives and is nothing new to investigate. >> so when the story was published, but, you know, was published, you didn't even think about saying well, i'd better have a look at this, these transcripts that were mentioned to me previously? i'd like to have a look at the qc's opinion? >> the transcripts themselves a? >> the e-mail. >> as you said, there wasn't much in the. i think there was, a facsimile of our something like that. sort of a redacted one pie

the relevant information for mr. myler and mr. crone to increase their settlement offers. >> you talk to them for up to 15 minutes without any detailed emerging? >> i think if all of those other details had been discussed, it would have been a lot longer meeting. >> you authorize a fairly large payment. you did not ask why the large payment was necessary. >> it was made very clear to me that the case would be lost. there was evidence in the case that linked the voice mail interceptions to "news of the world." the company's own cost, an estimate was made. it was somewhere between 500,000 pounds and a million pounds. this would be required to settle the case. it was a reasonable decision to go with the very strong legal advice we had received. >> why do you think he would immediately question your previous testimony to this committee? >> i cannot speculate as to why they did that. >> their advice was that a case could be lost. in the absence of any new evidence, i was not made aware of any new evidence. criminal trials before i was

mr. ur myler -- mr. myler or i recall. >> when you wanted the opinion before you a great authorize -- >> if they had not had a -- view, i would have asked with a leading council thought, but they did, and they came to me with a recommendation that the leading counsel would provide information. >> you seem to be indicating that when you were not aware of a figure that michael silverly quoted, he said if i remember rightly that you were aware of the exact numbers that mr. silverly gave? >> i was not provided with the documents at all, it was described to me as a range, and this was a reasonable range. >> you were here before last time, you were precise about what the opinion was, because when you are asked about it last time, your answer was that the damages could be to under 50,000 pounds, which was absolutely spot wrong. >> which is what i just answer to mr. watson's question. >> you knew the number plus the costs -- usually people come a seventh time and are more on the ball the second time. using to be