Reply With QuoteWho are they, please?Originally Posted by Daveya.
Well yes apart from the fact those under him lied in court
Sent from my Pixel 8a using Tapatalk
Who are they, please?
That was very Jason Beer KC
This kind of cropped up a week or so ago when a report about horizon data integrity was discussed.
The report centred around retrieving the same data that was stored - routinely and in the event of an infrastructure issue. This is a reasonable scope for such a report.
The report did not discuss the integrity of data as it is processed according to business rules - checks, balances, ledgers etc. which is how it was being discussed.
I think the two things are separate and distinct - accounting integrity versus data integrity.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
We were discussing at work today. One of the main problems is that if you ask an IT specialist such as a software engineer a question, they'll answer what you ask, not what you think you've asked = they won't try to second guess it.
If you want proper answers you need someone technical to ask those questions. The evidence is though that neither the PO nor their lawyers actually wanted proper answers even when they got them.
They took whatever evidence supported their world view. So they either lacked critical thinking or were nostril deep in a conspiracy.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
As an ex I.T professional I understand where he is coming from. Unfortunately, in my experience, "techies" like this very rarely understand the realities of life. They tend to be so into their own world they don't understand the implications of what happens on the ground. I worked with a very bright guy but when something cropped up in software would want to stop the computer system while he worked through an error log to get to the problem and fix it. Very laudable. What he missed was that the computer system couldn't be stopped as that would have affected hundreds of employees and millions of lost revenue. The answer was to log the fault, do a information dump, and sort it out "out of hours".
GJ is clearly a clever guy in a certain way and the PO’s lawyers were clever guys in a very different way. They ran rings around him and used him.
Singh and Tatford are to blame here.
I stand very much corrected after today’s performance
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/pos...plex-unravels/
I don't think so. My feeling is still that he simply didn't read the email attachment properly, if at all. To decide he was being malicious goes against every other piece of evidence we have so far.
It also ignores the fact that the solicitors knew full well that they should not have "suggested" changes to his prepared statements and that they should have formally explained the contents of that document to him, not just attached it to an email with no explanation. The two are intrinsically linked: Unless you are made aware of the duties of an expert witness, would you know when lawyers are suggesting that you change your statement, that they are doing something wrong? Not sure I would have before now, I'd have relied on them knowing what was appropriate.
Of course we have another day to see if this bears out.
Last edited by Scepticalist; Yesterday at 05:13.
So far, I'm seeing GJ as (probably) a competent computer guy, but totally incompetent as an expert witness - partly his own fault, though the blame largely lies with his legal support (and ultimately that means personnel under the watch of the PO and Fujitsu).
I don't see him having any agenda or malicious intent with respect to the prosecution of SPMs. He's just way out of his depth when it comes to courts/legal matters.
But I reserve final opinion until all four days are over.
Posting Permissions
