(Image Source: BBC)

BY STEVEN HSIEH

ANCHOR MEGAN MURPHY

A bombshell letter and a cache of related documents could put James Murdoch back in the spotlight.  

Parliament will once again question high-level News of the World executives – and possibly James Murdoch – after a former editor’s letter points to more cover-ups.

Members of Parliament Tom Watson and John Whittingdale spoke with various British Media shortly after their announcement.  Watson tells BBC what they hope to achieve with another round of questioning.   

“This is a very narrow inquiry.  Parliament was misled.  James Murdoch has admitted that himself.  But remarkably, there has been contradictory evidence that says James Murdoch misled us.  So, we are trying to get to the facts.  And the written evidence we’ve received is devastating and contradictory, and we are going to go into detail to find out who misled.”

So what’s this written evidence Mr. Watson speaks of?  Well – after serving a four-month prison sentence for phone hacking in 2007 – former News of the World correspondent Clive Goodman wrote this appeal – published Tuesday by the Guardian – to get his job back.

Concerning hacking, he writes – “This practice was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, until explicit reference to it was banned by the editor... Tom Crone and the editor promised on many occasions that I could come back to a job at the newspaper if I did not implicate the paper or any of its staff in my mitigation plea…”

And testimonies from News of the World’s lawyer Tom Crone, and editor Colin Meyer say Murdoch misled Parliament when he claimed no knowledge of an email containing several transcripts of hacked voicemails.  A Sky New writer explains the significance…

“It’s important because it appears to implicate someone at the paper other than Clive Goodman and the investigator Glenn Mulcaire. In other words, it potentially undermines
News International's defence that hacking was the work of one ‘rogue reporter.’”

BBC spoke with a legal expert --  who says these revelations could have criminal implications.

“Anyone who is named and implicated in an arrangement to hack telephones is potentially an aider and abettor of the hacking, which means they can be prosecuted in exactly the same way as the person who physically does the act – subject to a maximum sentence of two years.”

A writer for the Guardian says Murdoch won’t be able to back out of this one.

“When he appeared before Members of Parliament beside his father he chose a strategy of bluster and blaming others. Predictably, those others have bitten back and as a result James must be finished as a company executive in the UK.”

For now, there are no talks of bringing James’ father, and News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch back to testify.

Follow @Newsy_Videos on Twitter.

Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy.

Transcript by Newsy