Will Paula Venells ever be held accountable?

[PickleB]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Re Gareth Jenkins:

• Feb Update from Sir Wyn Williams
  
  Phases 1 to 4 of the Inquiry are now substantially complete. I use the word “substantially” quite deliberately; oral evidence from a small number of witnesses, including Mr Gareth Jenkins, is yet to be heard and there remains a possibility that the continuing disclosure of documents to the Inquiry will reveal issues related to phases 2, 3 and 4 which will require the Inquiry to make public additional documents or even adduce further oral evidence.
  
  
• He is on the stand for the whole of week 11 Tu 26 to Fr 28 June

[Mouse]

Bit of an odd day at the inquiry today.

There have been several disclosures where it is shown that SPMs, or their family/staff, have actually committed crimes. I'm not sure where the questioning is going today.

[adrianw]

Bit of an odd day at the inquiry today.

There have been several disclosures where it is shown that SPMs, or their family/staff, have actually committed crimes. I'm not sure where the questioning is going today.

Surely if you have a large enough sample of people some of them would have committed crimes

[Mouse]

Surely if you have a large enough sample of people some of them would have committed crimes

Indeed. I don't disagree. It just seemed a bit odd that counsel would refer to them during defensive 'arguments'.

[adrianw]

Indeed. I don't disagree. It just seemed a bit odd that counsel would refer to them during defensive 'arguments'.

Probably an attempt to reinforce a defence that these people are not trustworthy and lacking integrity, what a way to try and justify the post office position

[Mouse]

Probably an attempt to reinforce a defence that these people are not trustworthy and lacking integrity, what a way to try and justify the post office position

Sorry, I've confused matters!

It was the inquiry counsel that was referring to documents which contained these criminal cases. He was trying to further shed light on the failures of the Horizon system, but I just found it strange that these documents were brought up. Of course the inquiry counsel is not a judge or there to 'try' the interviewee and is just trying to get to the bottom of things. I guess I just found it a little shocking that, given everything so far has been all about the innocence of the SPMs, that there actually were some that were not innocent after all.

[Jubal]

Sorry, I've confused matters!

It was the inquiry counsel that was referring to documents which contained these criminal cases. He was trying to further shed light on the failures of the Horizon system, but I just found it strange that these documents were brought up. Of course the inquiry counsel is not a judge or there to 'try' the interviewee and is just trying to get to the bottom of things. I guess I just found it a little shocking that, given everything so far has been all about the innocence of the SPMs, that there actually were some that were not innocent after all.

They can’t all be innocent. But I am certain the guilty percentage did not increase because they installed a new computer system. The frustration I feel is the contempt that maybe led some to believe they were uncovering a mass of hitherto undiscovered miscreants and were on a righteous path to justice. I could be wildly off the mark but I fail to see how else they justified it to themselves? Have any of the PO/Fujitsu mob ever articulated anything of that nature?

[Longblackcoat]

Sorry, I've confused matters!

It was the inquiry counsel that was referring to documents which contained these criminal cases. He was trying to further shed light on the failures of the Horizon system, but I just found it strange that these documents were brought up. Of course the inquiry counsel is not a judge or there to 'try' the interviewee and is just trying to get to the bottom of things. I guess I just found it a little shocking that, given everything so far has been all about the innocence of the SPMs, that there actually were some that were not innocent after all.

There were some who were sort-of innocent, in that losses were caused by Horizon, which were then covered up (criminally) by the postmaster. In these cases there were guilty pleas - strictly speaking, correctly, as the postmasters really had committed a crime - but only as a result of the Horizon fuck-up. In such cases, it's easy for the prosecuting barrister to be sucked into believing they were guilty of all charges.

A good barrister, obviously, would not make this assumption, but a mediocre one (such as one that I know of personally who has appeared at the enquiry in recent days) certainly might, and in this case did.