Mr bates v the Post Office

Old Blue 2 said:
I take all that you say, but I still contend that any solicitor/lawyer worth their money should have gone into the details in minute depth, and exposed the flaws in the Post Office case. Particularly once it became apparent that this was a national issue, not an individual one. Not a case of believing that 'anything had been withheld', but rather questioning at every turn every contention put forward by the prosecution.

And I've just seen a snippet of Bradshaw being questioned. That guy is an out-and-out liar! Should be prosecuted...
Click to expand...
One of the lawyers questioning him basically called him a liar by saying something like “I am trying hard to avoid accusing you of something that I have not used with any other witness this far in this inquiry”…just left it hanging there in the room for the watching audience.
 
PhilM said:
Back to what I said previously - it smells of fraud by false representation if they used this to obtain monies from people knowing it was incorrect.

There should be people doing some sizeable custodial because of this, but we all know there won’t be or those who are will be fall guys.
Click to expand...
They did obtain monies, they knew the Horizon system was faulty and coerced SPM to fund the shortfalls, knowing the shortfalls could/were systems errors and never existed.
 
terryefc said:
I think they are spending tomorrow on disclosure.
From what I saw today I cannot believe that investigators contend they were not aware of similar cases arising at the same time - pointing to a systemic fault. They were also very careful to stress they never used the line that 'no-one else has had these issues' when it should have been obvious that once they knew that was the case then this surely would point to national software problems / glitches. Are we also to assume all the investigators worked in a silo and did not discuss ongoing cases when common themes would surely have been apparent. Bradshaw seems to have had a difficult role but I am not convinced that he did not believe that the Horizon system was flawed. Fujitsu must also be held to account. A massive cover up by all has happened to protect both the PO / Fujitsu and management / investigator arses. Hopefully this enquiry will flush out the truth.
Click to expand...
Fujitus turn next week i understand!

Now that will be interesting to see who they have called up from them to face the music at the enquiry.
 
Iana said:
One of the lawyers questioning him basically called him a liar by saying something like “I am trying hard to avoid accusing you of something that I have not used with any other witness this far in this inquiry”…just left it hanging there in the room for the watching audience.
Click to expand...
yes I noticed that, in lawyer speak, it was a bit of a kicking
 

arch stanton said:
They did obtain monies, they knew the Horizon system was faulty and coerced SPM to fund the shortfalls, knowing the shortfalls could/were systems errors and never existed.
Click to expand...
Rightly or wrongly (I'd emphasise wrongly, but the legal system has certain ways), it will be proving they did so to obtain the monies rather than correlation.

As @COYBL25 said a few days ago, if they can prove conspiracy (it'll be difficult with their alleged purge of evidence) then it's longer custodials up to eight years.
 
COYBL25 said:
I hear what you‘re saying, but it’s simply not protocol to go questioning disclosure, it’s just not done mate.

It’s only recently that foul play has become apparent, up until that point no one would’ve even suspected that there was a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Click to expand...
I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, rather than disagreeing.

I'm not coming at it from the matter of disclosure, but rather the methodology of investigation, which I believe Bradshaw and any other investigator involved did not follow correctly.

I hope this explains my points better.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, rather than disagreeing.

I'm not coming at it from the matter of disclosure, but rather the methodology of investigation, which I believe Bradshaw and any other investigator involved did not follow correctly.

I hope this explains my points better.
Click to expand...

I think Bradshaw and his mob, had their own rules and made the rest up as they went along tbh.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
I think we may be talking at cross-purposes, rather than disagreeing.

I'm not coming at it from the matter of disclosure, but rather the methodology of investigation, which I believe Bradshaw and any other investigator involved did not follow correctly.

I hope this explains my points better.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're both right, he didnt appear to have the correct mindset to be an investigator, he had a view he wanted find evidence for,. classic confirmation bias, and he bullied people and abused his position to cajole people into doing things (false entries onto their accounts to make them balance) that then they were guilty of false accounting, and using a theft charge to leverage a guilty plea. He was purely a loss recovery monkey, not an investigator (and certainly no cognisance of disclosure).
 
COYBL25 said:
I think Bradshaw and his mob, had their own rules and made the rest up as they went along tbh.
Click to expand...

…..they‘re PO investigators, working in the interest of the PO and not in the interest of right and wrong, not in the interest of justice.

I’ve seen investigators like this so many times before in government. They don’t merely put the facts to the interviewee and guage the response, they exhert a superiority. Government Departments with their own prosecution process need to be limited to low value cases.

A new IT system is introduced and suddenly hundreds of major misdemeanours are identified. Thats an immediate red flag that the IT system is flawed.
 

Eggs said:
…..they‘re PO investigators, working in the interest of the PO and not in the interest of right and wrong, not in the interest of justice.

I’ve seen investigators like this so many times before in government. They don’t merely put the facts to the interviewee and guage the response, they exhert a superiority. Government Departments with their own prosecution process need to be limited to low value cases.

A new IT system is introduced and suddenly hundreds of major misdemeanours are identified. Thats an immediate red flag that the IT system is flawed.
Click to expand...

They also develop their own working culture and work practices , due to not being accountable to anyone, which in turn only ever leads to abuse of power and corruption in many forms.
 
arch stanton said:
Yes, you're both right, he didnt appear to have the correct mindset to be an investigator, he had a view he wanted find evidence for,. classic confirmation bias, and he bullied people and abused his position to cajole people into doing things (false entries onto their accounts to make them balance) that then they were guilty of false accounting, and using a theft charge to leverage a guilty plea. He was purely a loss recovery monkey, not an investigator (and certainly no cognisance of disclosure).
Click to expand...
Agree 100% arch...
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top