PO Scandal

[stewamax]

...(security team ... financial investigator ... how could he have been unaware of document change control logging)?

I think this is the first time in the enquiry that a 'live' document, i.e. a Word document displayed by running Word live, has been used. Ward was first shown a snap-shot - a .pdf perhaps - to lure him into a false sense of complacency, and then the live one. Boom!

[vandefrosty]

This is the Guardian's reporting on today's evidence. It baffles me that they make no mention at all of Mr Ward's denial in February, under oath, of making the deletion which he acknowledged today.

I watched a YouTube replay of his evidence. Compelling viewing. I'm stunned that Mr Ward did not avail himself of the opportunity to avoid self incrimination when he was reminded of his right to do so at the outset. And I particularly enjoyed - what I imagined to be, but surely misinterpreted(!) - a suppressed smirk from Sir Wyn Williams at the conclusion of Mr Beer's questioning.

Essentially, Mr Ward is now on the record as testifying:
"On the basis of what you showed today, I accept that you have proved I did the unconscionable thing that I denied doing the first time you asked me about it. But I still deny your assertion that I did it for the reasons that I wrote down when I did the thing I originally said I didn't."

Thoroughly thoroughly disgraceful.

[stewamax]

In the afternoon following Graham Ward's forced mea culpa, Dr Kay Linnell - forensic accountant and advisor to the Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance - put the boot into PO coldly, directly and in a way only rivalled by Lord Arbuthnot.
An epitome of conciseness and clarity, and well worth a look (on YouTube).

[oldapple]

Almost comedy today courtesy of George Thomson, former general secretary of the National Federation of sub postmasters. At one point he described Paula Vennel’s performance as a ‘car crash’, totally oblivious that his own was of earthquake proportions (audible laughter from audience). Sir Wynn’s comment on learning about unforeseen glitches was much appreciated.

https://youtu.be/7hu9_BeiKs0?si=6cbhllQPGQkYUa_z

[stewamax]

Sir Wynn’s comment on learning about unforeseen glitches was much appreciated.

Indeed. The quick and dry repartee between Sir Wyn and the counsel - especially with Jason Beer - is a delight to hear.
And particularly today when set against the loud macho bluster of George Thompson who was a caricature of the stereotype militant trade union official of the 1970s.
My sympathy was with the stenographers who had to transcribe his repetitive monologues that were delivered in what sounded like a grating Glaswegian accent.

[Gerry557]

In the afternoon following Graham Ward's forced mea culpa, Dr Kay Linnell - forensic accountant and advisor to the Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance - put the boot into PO coldly, directly and in a way only rivalled by Lord Arbuthnot.
An epitome of conciseness and clarity, and well worth a look (on YouTube).

Do you have a link as I am struggling to find it.

[Leothebear]

In the afternoon following Graham Ward's forced mea culpa, Dr Kay Linnell - forensic accountant and advisor to the Justice for Sub-postmasters Alliance - put the boot into PO coldly, directly and in a way only rivalled by Lord Arbuthnot.
An epitome of conciseness and clarity, and well worth a look (on YouTube).

Do you have a link as I am struggling to find it.

Me too.

[ReformedCharacter]

Do you have a link as I am struggling to find it.

Me too.

Kay Linnell - Day 154 PM (20 June 2024) - Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2nyU9hryC4

RC

[Gerry557]

Graham Ward's forced mea culpa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIa3mn9dQyI

Starts just after 24 min then kicks in around 27 min

It must go on for at least 20 min or so I've not finished it yet.

The other link is probably worth a look too so thanks for that.

[stewamax]

Tomorrow Tuesday for four days we have the long awaited Gareth Jenkins - the ultimate Horizon techo - who (it appears) was not briefed about the role of 'expert witness'. He did not disclose everything he knew about Horizon faults and features (that there was a remote access 'backdoor', for example), and this omission allowed some sub-postmasters to be gaoled when such disclosure could have saved them.

He has clearly perjured himself, but those - lawyers rather than bosses - who leant on him to 'soften' his statements to the various criminal trials are equally guilty.

It will be fascinating to see what the Inquiry counsel plan of action is: to tear him apart from the outset or to go less hard on someone who some feel is a scapegoat thrown to the wolves by PO and Fujitsu management

[stewamax]

It will be fascinating to see what the Inquiry counsel plan of action is: to tear him apart from the outset or to go less hard on someone who some feel is a scapegoat thrown to the wolves by PO and Fujitsu management

Lead Counsel Jason Beer gave him exactly 2 hours lead-in then progressively dismantled him completely over the next three days before handing him over to the co-participant silks for denouement.
How he can afford his own silk Clair Dobbin is unclear: Fujitsu don't pay techos - even former "Distinguished Engineer" techos - that much so perhaps they are covering part of his bill themselves.

[UncleEbenezer]

Tomorrow Tuesday for four days we have the long awaited Gareth Jenkins - the ultimate Horizon techo - who (it appears) was not briefed about the role of 'expert witness'. He did not disclose everything he knew about Horizon faults and features (that there was a remote access 'backdoor', for example), and this omission allowed some sub-postmasters to be gaoled when such disclosure could have saved them.

He has clearly perjured himself, but those - lawyers rather than bosses - who leant on him to 'soften' his statements to the various criminal trials are equally guilty.

It will be fascinating to see what the Inquiry counsel plan of action is: to tear him apart from the outset or to go less hard on someone who some feel is a scapegoat thrown to the wolves by PO and Fujitsu management

I wonder if that bit about not knowing the role of expert witness can really be taken at face value? I'm thinking, it's entirely plausible noone explained it, and the first he got to see of the rules was five minutes before he was due to testify. Or not at all.

From that point of view, he knows the lawyers are there to present their Client's case, regardless of the facts of that case. He has been told his role is to support the lawyers. So he too is going to present facts that help his client's case, and spin or hide any that don't. And if explicitly asked, try to evade without actively lying.

Just thinking back to how I might have reacted in my youth (and innocence) when I worked as a techie on a range of bespoke software projects for big clients (though, erm, never ICL or Fujitsu). Before we had the WWW, I could often be landed with a job I had to figure out without documentation!

That of course is pure speculation.

[stewamax]

It is possible he didn't know the difference between a witness of fact (who is not supposed to give opinion) and an expert witness, at least at the earlier criminal cases at court, but later documentation he finally (under duress - Beer applies the thumbscrews slowly and with subtlety) agreed he had seen "but only scanned" disposes of this excuse for later cases.

But even if he thought he had to support his employers and POL, he is obliged under the pain of the manacles at Wandsworth* or the rack at Pentonville* not to lie when answering an overtly factual question.


* - I am now avoiding 'hard labour at Dartmoor' as I realise UE lives in the West Country ...

[UncleEbenezer]

* - I am now avoiding 'hard labour at Dartmoor' as I realise UE lives in the West Country ...

Some years back I had a neighbour who was author in residence at the Dartmoor prison.

I guess she rented a flat downstairs from me for her time there 'cos she'd rather be literarily than literally in residence there!

[stockton]

Seems to me that all this discussion about Jenkins being an "expert witness" is simply barking up the wrong tree. I notice that in one of the documents shown today he was clearly called as a non-expert witness.