"Amazing," senior reporters whispered to themselves. "Extraordinarily hilarious", Chris Bryant said afterwards. What started as a setpiece example of MPs' hostility had quickly descended, unexpectedly and absurdly, into farce.
John Yates could have done with a bit of humour as he struggled, desperately, through a gruelling grilling from vicious MPs.
Their curled lips and sneering expressions would have made Churchill quail. Not since the bankers were hauled up before the Treasury committee have I been in a committee room filled, almost tangibly, with open enmity.
There were eyes everywhere. The journalists, scribbling away in their notebooks. The members of the committee, who - when they were not engaged in direct questioning - muttered darkly to each other, never bothering to veil their utter disapproval at Yates' conduct. To the side, another row of MPs, interested spectators with a special line in contempt. David Davis, hands behind his head, and Tom Watson, arms sturdily folded across his frame, were statuesque in their condemnation. All those eyes, boring into Yates' conscience. This is what is known in the profession as a 'tough gig'.
Then there was Chris Bryant. He began with was mere head-shaking. Then the hand crossed his furrowed brow in disbelief. He shrugged theatrically in disbelief at what he was hearing. Towards the latter stages, Bryant was the first to crack by laughing out loud. Several times he was mentioned, in references veiled or otherwise. He was like the ghost at the feast, flitting in and out of the committee room. Only everyone knew he was there.
The jokes were still to come as Yates struggled on. His problem, exploited to the full by Keith Vaz and co, was that he had admitted "regret" - but only with "the perfect glare" of hindsight. Given his refusal to resign - and it felt like he made virtually every concession bar this final, decisive one - he might have been better off being a bit more bullish.
Nothing was to match the fighting spirit of Andy Hayman, who appeared later on in the session. The man in the hot seat for the original 2006 phone-hacking probe, which resulted in two convictions but let the vast bulk of alleged wrongdoing get away, was - according to Tory MP Nicola Blackwood - "more like a tabloid journalist than a police officer".
He was a breath of fresh air, that's for sure. How extraordinary that someone in such a key position in the original probe, who must have soberly observed the unfolding of this monstrous scandal, could not muster up the tact to handle these questions in a less hapless fashion. "Don't beat me up for being upfront with it, or honest," he protested at one stage. The truth is he was beating himself up.
The room had emptied somewhat after Yates' grilling, but it was still standing room only as incredulous MPs pressed on. This "dodgy geezer", as Conservative MP Lorraine Fullbrook called him, was perhaps a bit too honest.
"You have made a judgement call to accept hospitality from people you are investigating over criminal offences?" one MP asked. Hayman replied, with the high-pitched off-handedness of one conceding a minor point: "Yeah!"
He then claimed it would have been more suspicious to have refused the dinner. Cue laughter. "I don't know why you're laughing," Hayman protested. His feelings had clearly been hurt. "We're laughing because we are astonished, Mr Hayman," Vaz observed placidly.
This was one of several eminently quotable exchanges, any one of which are - on a normal day - grasped by sketchwriters as manna from heaven. It was preposterous, unthinkable, unfeasible that anyone who had once been so senior could be so clueless.
What a transformation. The full weight of moral indignation which weighed upon John Yates had been replaced with an unreality which somehow defied censure, through the usual channels at least.
"I feel a little bit like I've fallen down the rabbit hole," Blackwood observed. She wasn't the only one.
Follow Alex Stevenson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alex__stevenson
These MPs were not interested in the truth. They were unable to grasp that the public were quite rightly expecting police resources to be targetted at terrorism - we all felt under attack. We were unconcerned about phones being hacked. We only became concerned when we found out a murder victim had their phone hacked. Even then, it is not the greatest crime of the century.
This is payback time for many MPs. They hate the press who have informed the public about their misdemeanous in their personal lives, their criminality and misuse of public money in their expense claims. They are enjoying all this.
The Committee today should be ashamed of themselves. They were aggressive, demeaning, ignorant and poor listeners. They asked questions that would not be acceptable if they did not have parliamentary privilege. They must never think that the public welcome such tactics - we do not. The last time we witnessed this behaviour was when a select committee interviewed Dr David Kelly. Future witnesses should have legal protection after the stupid arranged comment between Mr Hubbert and Mr Vaz about a witness being in contempt of parliament if they misled the committee. .....
Forget conspiracy theories, forget pay-offs, even forget lack of resources and time constraints, this lot simply got it unbelievably wrong, but really I dont think they know how. Useless!
I sympathise with Akers who has now got to make sense of a HUGE amount of disconnected information and try and work out some sort of resolution - no easy task. But I suspect she will quietly hack away at it until she has it in submission! She came across as that sort of copper.