|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 26, 2024 9:25:23 GMT
Strong start to the morning. Been caught out already.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jun 26, 2024 9:47:48 GMT
Strong start to the morning. Been caught out already. Not been able to view. What's occurred?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 26, 2024 10:04:58 GMT
Strong start to the morning. Been caught out already. In some respects you'd wish this farce would end Whether Jenkyns was a proper "Expert Witness" or not or as he now claims he didn't understand the heft of that position is neither here nor there. He would have been introduced in Court as such. He admitted yesterday that he submitted his draft testomony to Tatford who made alterations We know Jenkyns is being investigated for Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice, he was reminded about self incrimination yesterday, and presumably Tatford is too based on Jenkyns evidence yesterday alone. Get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 26, 2024 10:10:56 GMT
Strong start to the morning. Been caught out already. Not been able to view. What's occurred? Said he'd not been informed what an expert witness was/did. Had not received a document. Today they show he received the document and yesterday he said he would read every document thoroughly. Today he can't remember that document though he doesn't now dispute he received it.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jun 26, 2024 11:10:18 GMT
Not been able to view. What's occurred? Said he'd not been informed what an expert witness was/did. Had not received a document. Today they show he received the document and yesterday he said he would read every document thoroughly. Today he can't remember that document though he doesn't now dispute he received it. Wonder where in the criminal pecking order that he sits? It seems like he's a stooge rather than a malevolent individual.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jun 26, 2024 14:27:43 GMT
Said he'd not been informed what an expert witness was/did. Had not received a document. Today they show he received the document and yesterday he said he would read every document thoroughly. Today he can't remember that document though he doesn't now dispute he received it. Wonder where in the criminal pecking order that he sits? It seems like he's a stooge rather than a malevolent individual. That's my take. He knew the system had issues but was too weak to insist his technical assessment should be quoted verbatim in court, caved in to pressure and compromised his position as a supposedly unbiased expert witness. However he tries to defend his actions he looks guilty to me but it's the people who manipulated and pressured him who need to be identified, exposed and prosecuted as well.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jun 26, 2024 19:00:20 GMT
Wonder where in the criminal pecking order that he sits? It seems like he's a stooge rather than a malevolent individual. That's my take. He knew the system had issues but was too weak to insist his technical assessment should be quoted verbatim in court, caved in to pressure and compromised his position as a supposedly unbiased expert witness. However he tries to defend his actions he looks guilty to me but it's the people who manipulated and pressured him who need to be identified, exposed and prosecuted as well. You can see the guy becoming a human shield for some significantly wealthy individuals, even though he is nowhere close to the main villain.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 27, 2024 12:04:42 GMT
Lying through his teeth and caught again.
If he told me it was sunny outside I'd go and check.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 27, 2024 12:19:47 GMT
Lying through his teeth and caught again. If he told me it was sunny outside I'd go and check. I'm working away so missing it the rest of this week, caught some of him on Tuesday though, he was lying a bit then, body mannerisms etc. Apparently he worked at ICL all his life, I bet he's on a final salary pension etc.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 27, 2024 12:52:51 GMT
Wonder where in the criminal pecking order that he sits? It seems like he's a stooge rather than a malevolent individual. That's my take. He knew the system had issues but was too weak to insist his technical assessment should be quoted verbatim in court, caved in to pressure and compromised his position as a supposedly unbiased expert witness. However he tries to defend his actions he looks guilty to me but it's the people who manipulated and pressured him who need to be identified, exposed and prosecuted as well. I could be wrong but I just don't buy it. Jenkins worked for ICL which became Fujitsu from 1973 until retiring in 2015. He remained as a Consultant until 2022 including assisting at the infamous 2019 Bates v Post Office Trial. Although not a Witness at the end of the Trial the Judge directed that the Head of COS should investigate Jenkins for Perjury Although employed by Fujitsu he was also paid by Post Office as an "Expert Witness" we know from documents he was quoting £1000/1250 per day in 2012 for his "Expertise". How much in "Bonuses" was he receiving from Fujitsu to keep the gravy train flowing Jenkins may have been a stooge, but he was a willing one because it paid him handsomely to create misery for others This scandal couldn't have occurred unless there was a Criminal Conspiracy. Jenkins, Vennels, van den Bogerd, Internal Lawyers, External Lawyers etc etc If anyone of them had said stop it wouldn't have undone the past injustice but it would have brought it to a halt and there were many opportunities and evidence that couldn't and shouldn't have been ignored but was to protect themselves and their own interest. They are all culpable
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jun 27, 2024 14:07:43 GMT
That's my take. He knew the system had issues but was too weak to insist his technical assessment should be quoted verbatim in court, caved in to pressure and compromised his position as a supposedly unbiased expert witness. However he tries to defend his actions he looks guilty to me but it's the people who manipulated and pressured him who need to be identified, exposed and prosecuted as well. I could be wrong but I just don't buy it. Jenkins worked for ICL which became Fujitsu from 1973 until retiring in 2015. He remained as a Consultant until 2022 including assisting at the infamous 2019 Bates v Post Office Trial. Although not a Witness at the end of the Trial the Judge directed that the Head of COS should investigate Jenkins for Perjury Although employed by Fujitsu he was also paid by Post Office as an "Expert Witness" we know from documents he was quoting £1000/1250 per day in 2012 for his "Expertise". How much in "Bonuses" was he receiving from Fujitsu to keep the gravy train flowing Jenkins may have been a stooge, but he was a willing one because it paid him handsomely to create misery for others This scandal couldn't have occurred unless there was a Criminal Conspiracy. Jenkins, Vennels, van den Bogerd, Internal Lawyers, External Lawyers etc etc If anyone of them had said stop it wouldn't have undone the past injustice but it would have brought it to a halt and there were many opportunities and evidence that couldn't and shouldn't have been ignored but was to protect themselves and their own interest. They are all culpable Press ahead with the early release programme to ensure there are enough empty cells to house them all.
|
|
|
Post by farnborostokie63 on Jun 27, 2024 18:51:16 GMT
What baffles me is the fact that there was a rigorous series of checks made on anybody applying to be a sub postmaster or mistress, and suddenly they became criminals by stealing but not showing any signs of using the money like new cars, holidays or new houses. by allegedly stealing was only making their life worse. This was totally lost on the PO, so hell bent on convicting them all. I hope this inquiry leads to criminal prosecutions and they get the justice and compensation they deserve.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jun 28, 2024 1:27:15 GMT
What baffles me is the fact that there was a rigorous series of checks made on anybody applying to be a sub postmaster or mistress, and suddenly they became criminals by stealing but not showing any signs of using the money like new cars, holidays or new houses. by allegedly stealing was only making their life worse. This was totally lost on the PO, so hell bent on convicting them all. I hope this inquiry leads to criminal prosecutions and they get the justice and compensation they deserve. I've said it several times before on this thread and it goes right to the very heart of the issue for me ... in the contract that the sub-postmasters signed, it explicitly said that any financial shortfalls would have to be personally made good by the SPM's themselves. So what then, was the actual point of them stealing money, when they already knew that they would have to pay it back anyway? Where was the benefit in the crime even if they didn't get caught? Why haven't Post Office been asked this question?
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Jun 28, 2024 9:01:01 GMT
That's my take. He knew the system had issues but was too weak to insist his technical assessment should be quoted verbatim in court, caved in to pressure and compromised his position as a supposedly unbiased expert witness. However he tries to defend his actions he looks guilty to me but it's the people who manipulated and pressured him who need to be identified, exposed and prosecuted as well. I could be wrong but I just don't buy it. Jenkins worked for ICL which became Fujitsu from 1973 until retiring in 2015. He remained as a Consultant until 2022 including assisting at the infamous 2019 Bates v Post Office Trial. Although not a Witness at the end of the Trial the Judge directed that the Head of COS should investigate Jenkins for Perjury Although employed by Fujitsu he was also paid by Post Office as an "Expert Witness" we know from documents he was quoting £1000/1250 per day in 2012 for his "Expertise". How much in "Bonuses" was he receiving from Fujitsu to keep the gravy train flowing Jenkins may have been a stooge, but he was a willing one because it paid him handsomely to create misery for others This scandal couldn't have occurred unless there was a Criminal Conspiracy. Jenkins, Vennels, van den Bogerd, Internal Lawyers, External Lawyers etc etc If anyone of them had said stop it wouldn't have undone the past injustice but it would have brought it to a halt and there were many opportunities and evidence that couldn't and shouldn't have been ignored but was to protect themselves and their own interest. They are all culpable Wasn't aware that Jenkins was charging such a fee for a service. Crazy to think such a practice is possible considering the conflicted interests. I think his credibility rapidly disappears once this becomes known. In effect, he was charging a fee for a service. He needs to stand by his product. Are we saying that he doesn't even know what service that was provided? What baffles me is the fact that there was a rigorous series of checks made on anybody applying to be a sub postmaster or mistress, and suddenly they became criminals by stealing but not showing any signs of using the money like new cars, holidays or new houses. by allegedly stealing was only making their life worse. This was totally lost on the PO, so hell bent on convicting them all. I hope this inquiry leads to criminal prosecutions and they get the justice and compensation they deserve. I've said it several times before on this thread and it goes right to the very heart of the issue for me ... in the contract that the sub-postmasters signed, it explicitly said that any financial shortfalls would have to be personally made good by the SPM's themselves. So what then, was the actual point of them stealing money, when they already knew that they would have to pay it back anyway? Where was the benefit in the crime even if they didn't get caught? Why haven't Post Office been asked this question? Because they don't recall...
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jun 28, 2024 9:38:13 GMT
Wasn't aware that Jenkins was charging such a fee for a service. Crazy to think such a practice is possible considering the conflicted interests. I think his credibility rapidly disappears once this becomes known. In effect, he was charging a fee for a service. He needs to stand by his product. Are we saying that he doesn't even know what service that was provided? It was in some discovery documents where a Lawyer, can't remember which one, wrote/emailed Jenkins and asked what his fee would be to prepare some work for a Trial and he replied £2000/2500 for two days. This was in 2012. This would be paid to him by the Post Office for his "Expertise" , but he now doesn't understand the significance of the capacity he was giving evidence and no one told him or at least he can't recall anyone telling him. Yeah Right.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 28, 2024 9:40:46 GMT
Lots and lots of I can't remember today. This is a really good website that recaps some of the testimony from those that attend from the chap who wrote the book. www.postofficescandal.uk/For an intelligent man he does a lot of not thinking, not knowing. Get him in prison.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 28, 2024 11:04:36 GMT
Lots and lots of I can't remember today. This is a really good website that recaps some of the testimony from those that attend from the chap who wrote the book. www.postofficescandal.uk/For an intelligent man he does a lot of not thinking, not knowing. Get him in prison. Caught the last few minutes before the break, didn't search the internet to find out what role he was in at court, hadn't asked, the company should have trained me, etc. he's got more deflections than a Keith Scott shot into the Boothen end.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 28, 2024 11:34:59 GMT
He was caught out again there, dismissing the possibility of a fault without examining the logs.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jun 28, 2024 11:43:52 GMT
Jo Hamilton never takes her eyes off him, if daggers could kill !!
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jun 28, 2024 11:55:32 GMT
He was caught out again there, dismissing the possibility of a fault without examining the logs. Multiple times this week. He made assumptions, had a chat with a colleague rather than looking himself. Can see why POL liked him,much like them he went to work and did sweet FA if you suspend belief and believe plaything he says.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jul 3, 2024 10:15:18 GMT
Another clueless buffoon that can't remember very much.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jul 3, 2024 12:03:21 GMT
Chair of the post office Tim Parker does one and half days a week.
Asks to cut that back to two days a month.
Absolute shambles.
Proper hooray Henry accent on him too. Failed up numerous times no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 3, 2024 20:45:29 GMT
I'm beginning to wonder just how quickly people's memories will start to work again, if further down the road, they're offered plea bargains to keep themselves out of jail?
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jul 3, 2024 21:02:18 GMT
I'm beginning to wonder just how quickly people's memories will start to work again, if further down the road, they're offered plea bargains to keep themselves out of jail? She genuinely was awful. Claimed complete ignorance asto how a witness statement signed by her ended up in front of the courts. Her and Singh have been the tragic comedy duo of this if it wasn't as serious. Edit - aye the clip above is part of it. She then goes on to chuck aspertions at the husband of the now cleared SPM. Genuinely frightening how many buffoons ended up at the Post Office from the top down, CEO, lawyers, "investigative unit". The only bloody useful lot were the SPM's.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 3, 2024 21:05:17 GMT
I'm beginning to wonder just how quickly people's memories will start to work again, if further down the road, they're offered plea bargains to keep themselves out of jail? I imagine a COVID enquiry would be somewhat similar.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 4, 2024 1:34:00 GMT
I'm beginning to wonder just how quickly people's memories will start to work again, if further down the road, they're offered plea bargains to keep themselves out of jail? Apologies if I'm wrong but I think it was Fullmetaljacket that posted a link earlier that Jenkins had sought immunity for cooperation and was turned down That would imply the Old Bill have no requirement and certainly not of the smaller fry Surely if prosecutions are to follow, as surely they must, they will start with the most senior they have the most compelling case against which will be a Test Case as such. Assuming conviction the subsequent trial cases the defendents would then be wise to plead guilty for a reduced tariff From the outset I posted my unease about the inquiry itself and the conflict of self incrimination. I don't believe the witnesses are as incompetent and collectively beset with early onset Alzheimer's Disease causing memory loss as is being displayed. It is simply not in their interest if they are culpable in any way to recall. It is a completely different scenario if they are facing Criminal Charges in a Court of Law where "I don't remember" simply won't do or aid their defence.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Jul 4, 2024 5:25:34 GMT
I'm beginning to wonder just how quickly people's memories will start to work again, if further down the road, they're offered plea bargains to keep themselves out of jail? Apologies if I'm wrong but I think it was Fullmetaljacket that posted a link earlier that Jenkins had sought immunity for cooperation and was turned down That would imply the Old Bill have no requirement and certainly not of the smaller fry Surely if prosecutions are to follow, as surely they must, they will start with the most senior they have the most compelling case against which will be a Test Case as such. Assuming conviction the subsequent trial cases the defendents would then be wise to plead guilty for a reduced tariff From the outset I posted my unease about the inquiry itself and the conflict of self incrimination. I don't believe the witnesses are as incompetent and collectively beset with early onset Alzheimer's Disease causing memory loss as is being displayed. It is simply not in their interest if they are culpable in any way to recall. It is a completely different scenario if they are facing Criminal Charges in a Court of Law where "I don't remember" simply won't do or aid their defence. Who do you think they're being advised by to follow this tactic, because they're all suffering collective memory loss? It's like the aftermath of an alien abduction. Are they simply crossing their fingers and hoping this inquiry will be the end of it?
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jul 4, 2024 6:23:41 GMT
Apologies if I'm wrong but I think it was Fullmetaljacket that posted a link earlier that Jenkins had sought immunity for cooperation and was turned down That would imply the Old Bill have no requirement and certainly not of the smaller fry Surely if prosecutions are to follow, as surely they must, they will start with the most senior they have the most compelling case against which will be a Test Case as such. Assuming conviction the subsequent trial cases the defendents would then be wise to plead guilty for a reduced tariff From the outset I posted my unease about the inquiry itself and the conflict of self incrimination. I don't believe the witnesses are as incompetent and collectively beset with early onset Alzheimer's Disease causing memory loss as is being displayed. It is simply not in their interest if they are culpable in any way to recall. It is a completely different scenario if they are facing Criminal Charges in a Court of Law where "I don't remember" simply won't do or aid their defence. Who do you think they're being advised by to follow this tactic, because they're all suffering collective memory loss? It's like the aftermath of an alien abduction. Are they simply crossing their fingers and hoping this inquiry will be the end of it? Invasion of the Body Snatchers?
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Jul 4, 2024 7:08:36 GMT
Apologies if I'm wrong but I think it was Fullmetaljacket that posted a link earlier that Jenkins had sought immunity for cooperation and was turned down That would imply the Old Bill have no requirement and certainly not of the smaller fry Surely if prosecutions are to follow, as surely they must, they will start with the most senior they have the most compelling case against which will be a Test Case as such. Assuming conviction the subsequent trial cases the defendents would then be wise to plead guilty for a reduced tariff From the outset I posted my unease about the inquiry itself and the conflict of self incrimination. I don't believe the witnesses are as incompetent and collectively beset with early onset Alzheimer's Disease causing memory loss as is being displayed. It is simply not in their interest if they are culpable in any way to recall. It is a completely different scenario if they are facing Criminal Charges in a Court of Law where "I don't remember" simply won't do or aid their defence. Who do you think they're being advised by to follow this tactic, because they're all suffering collective memory loss? It's like the aftermath of an alien abduction. Are they simply crossing their fingers and hoping this inquiry will be the end of it? They'll all be backed to the hilt by the PO providing legal advice and whilst different legal firms they'll have been briefed on what they can be capable of. It was interesting hearing the evidence of George Thompson the union chap who was a bit nuts, bombastic, and belligerent but he admitted to not having legal representation provided by the Post Office and he wouldn't say what they wanted him to say, was his claim amongst his many rants. As it was he was a classic textbook example of how not to give evidence, I suspect. Said something like if I'd come here today and said Horizon was to blame I would have had legal representation but I won't so no legal rep provided by the post office. I think most of them thi k this inquiry will be the end if it given how high up this reaches. You, at a minimum, I would suspect have members of UK government boards, civil service implicated.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 4, 2024 7:09:43 GMT
Apologies if I'm wrong but I think it was Fullmetaljacket that posted a link earlier that Jenkins had sought immunity for cooperation and was turned down That would imply the Old Bill have no requirement and certainly not of the smaller fry Surely if prosecutions are to follow, as surely they must, they will start with the most senior they have the most compelling case against which will be a Test Case as such. Assuming conviction the subsequent trial cases the defendents would then be wise to plead guilty for a reduced tariff From the outset I posted my unease about the inquiry itself and the conflict of self incrimination. I don't believe the witnesses are as incompetent and collectively beset with early onset Alzheimer's Disease causing memory loss as is being displayed. It is simply not in their interest if they are culpable in any way to recall. It is a completely different scenario if they are facing Criminal Charges in a Court of Law where "I don't remember" simply won't do or aid their defence. Who do you think they're being advised by to follow this tactic, because they're all suffering collective memory loss? It's like the aftermath of an alien abduction. Are they simply crossing their fingers and hoping this inquiry will be the end of it? Pretty much and they have nothing to lose by doing so. It wouldn't be unusual, particularly at a senior level employee's would have in their contracts legal assistance In any event they can well afford to employ legal advise and any competent Lawyer will tell them to stay schtum, it's the equivalent of a "no comment" Police Interview which they obviously can't say at the Inquiry. The key to prosecutions will be to establish precedence, after that it should be a case of establishing individual culpability Edit: It appears to me that one of the more useful purposes of the Inquiry is to establish where each Witnesses memory is faulty. In a future prosecution the Prosecuting Barrister would read the transcripts of the Inquiry and focus on those areas of interrogation. In a Criminal Trial evasion can be interpreted as guilt if it's unreasonable
|
|