did not warrant the apparently concerted press campaign. Hoskins later exposed a police campaign to plant stories prejudicial to Adams in national newspapers, particularly the Daily Mail, whose reporter was briefed by Hannam personally. Hannam was asked by his police superiors in October 1956 to do what he could to deal with the gossip that had arisen and, at the time of Adams's arrest on 19 December 1956 (and aware of his superiors' criticisms of his relationship with the press), he attempted to distance himself from their activities. Discovery of the nurses' notebooks On the second day of the trial, the defence introduced eight notebooks of the daily records made by nurses who had attended Mrs Morrell under Adams's directions. These were not available to the prosecution when the trial started, so that Manningham-Buller had no chance to consider their contents before the defence began to use them in the cross-examination of the first nurse appearing for the prosecution. He was, however, presented with a copy of them by the defence later in the second day of the trial. These books were then used by the defence to counter the witness statements and evidence in chief given by the nurses who had originally written the notes. Comments in the nurses' witness statements which were prejudicial to Adams were disproved by reference to their contemporaneous notes. Six years after the event, the notes could be said to be more reliable than the nurses' own memories. However, Devlin noted the witness statements that supported Hannam's theories were taken by Hannam and his team, and that doing this accurately may have been beyond Hannam's powers. The defence was not required to explain how the books came into their hands, and the Attorney-General neither made any effort to pursue this matter nor asked for an adjournment to acquaint himself with the new evidence, although Devlin later said that he would have been willing to grant it, had Manningham-Buller requested one. His reticence was perplexing, since the Attorney-General was known for his doggedness. As Lord Devlin later said of him: "He could be downright rude but he did not shout or bluster. Yet his disagreeableness was so pervasive, his persistence so interminable, the obstructions he manned so far flung, his objectives apparently so insignificant, that sooner or later you would be tempted to ask yourself whether the game was worth the candle. And if you