Thread by @nickwallis

I’m now worried one of the witnesses did acknowledge he’d heard it called the hell-line in the last trial. I think I’d better delete the last few tweets. as this is serious stuff and I don’t want to misrepresent anyone.

It might seem like a small thing, but some PO witnesses refusing to budge on even an issue like that got a lot of SPMs riled. It’s nice for AB to acknowledge it is known as that.

PG has just asked AB about somethings and AB has apologised.
I’ll look at the transcript tonight and make sure I include it in the write up.

We are looking at a doc created on 1 March 2019 for the Post Office about the Patnys situation.
PG when you were dealing with the analysis of the Patny situation you didn’t mention stamps anywhere or calls to the NBSC - any reason? They’re pretty prominent features of the case...

AB I didn’t have much time to put my WS together in November.
PG you were in court when you heard a positive allegation of dishonesty put to Mr Patny, but you don’t allege criminality in your WS. Is that because you don’t believe it was what he was doing?
AB I was looking at...

… the data and the stamps appear to be inflated, but I haven’t gone further to make that allegation.
PG you’ll recall when he noticed the inflated stamps he called up and they took him through some complicated steps. You could have called up the Credence data and seen...

… exactly what he did by following the keystrokes he made on the Horizon keyboard. If we go to the data you’ll see the £17K shortage. If you go to the top - resolution column….

… and look at line 140. There is a request for a credence report. “Office adamant stamps are self-declaring themselves”
PG so at that data a Credence report should have been requested. It would have shown key strokes and would have shown powerful evidence of his dishonesty.

PG yes?
AB well possibly
PG and yet it was Mr Patny who was chasing all this data, wasn’t it? Not the Post Office. Why wasn’t the credence data looked at?
AB well the helpline don’t use credence they use Horace, but if mr patny asked for the data...

… he should have been given it.

[I wondered why Mr Patny was accused of a criminal offence in court the other day postofficetrial.com/2019/03/why-di… - I’m still no wiser]

We are now onto the the MoneyGram issues suffered by Mr Patny [blogged in easy to read style here: postofficetrial.com/2019/03/horizo…]

PG in par 72 of your WS, you have amdended that paragraph essentially deleting everything after “Mr Patny says….” in the third line and the reason for that is when we look at the helpline advice he was told to settle to cash and reverse. Which is what he did.

PG has any of the evidence about the PEAK about the Moneygram latency and the fact your account didn’t actually apply to Mr Patny because it came afterwards. It took place in the week of peak latency problems, duplication was a KNOWN ISSUE. He did precisely what the...

… helpline said. Mr PATNY was worried that the polling time might be an issue, when we see that internally the PO had not picked up on it. Do you want to revisit your WS?
AB there was no reversal which was why we issued a TC. Had he reversed and we issued a TC...

… he would have had a positive variance.
PG he forgot to reverse. Then reversed after 7pm. Should he have been told about the MoneyGram doubling issue? The PO is not very forthcoming on giving SPMs info on errors is it?

PG does the PO suffer from user error...

… bias in the way it deals with concerns about Horizon raised by SPMs
AB yes in some instances yes I do

PG okay let’s go back to Angela Burke’s case where the PO has accepted she is not at fault. She receives a note with the TC saying ...

… “please be careful when entering transactions”. When it was not her fault.
AB it’s a standard thing.

PG finishes. PO QC on his feet. We are straight into the MoneyGram issue re Mr Patny’s doubling cancelled transaction.

POQC is asking AB to look at a document which shows some work is being done to sort out a problem. it’s a “change request” document.

POQC “MoneyGram Issue” goes to explain the timeout issue - leads to no record of transaction at the counter even if one had taken place.

POQC asks what impact this transaction might have in the branch.
AB depends at what stage of the transaction it cancels. If the transaction is aborted before it’s registered there would be no effect.

POQC if it says transaction aborted before completion?
AB no effect

POQC no effect, thank you
J well hang on a minute the document says it may or may not affect branch transactions, are you saying it won’t in this case or every case?
AB if it is before completion then no effect, but if there is a reversal it could affect it depending on if...

… if it’s gone through.
POQC thank you.
POQC takes AB onto reconciliation in MoneyGram doc. “Duplicate transactions are created in MG systems” so in whose system is the duplicate transactions being created
AB in MG’s
POQC any suggestion it would create a duplicate transaction...

… in a branch account.
AB not from this no.

POQC okay let’s go onto Dalmellington bug and the Callender Square bug in relation to Mr Latif as Mr Green suggested you should have had it mind. This is a Fujitsu KEL relating to the Dalmellington bug. Please read it.
[she does]

POQC now when you were asked about Dalmellington PG suggested to you this should have been in your mind. You said this was only affecting outreach branches. Did Mr Latif’s branch have any outreach facility?
AB No
POQC did you need to have it in your mind?
AB no
POQC is it...

… relevant to Mr Latif’s case?
AB no.
POQC what is the Dalmellington bug
Ab explains about too much money going into a stock unit
POQC is that a similar bug to the one Mr Latif complaining about?
AB no
POQC should you have borne that in mind?
AB no
POQC let’s get...

… on to the Callender Square bug. [He refers AB to the claimants IT expert report about the CS bug]
POQC it was discovered in 2005 and fixed in 2006. When was Mr Latif’s statement?
[AB refers to her statement]
POQC it’s 2015. Mr Coyne says it occured in legacy horizon...

POQC does Horizon online use Riposte
AB don’t know, don’t think so
POQC do you think you should have actively borne in mind Callender Square bug?
AB no

POQC okay - re Mr Latif you said he should have kept his discontinued session receipt. Why?
AB it tells him what to do...

…. and tells him a transaction is missing.
POQC and when the SPM calls the helpline is it useful if the SPM has the receipt?
AB explains it is and how it is.

POQC we move on to the Helen Rose report. [blog on it here: postofficetrial.com/2019/03/miscar…]

POQC asking about text in black and blue?
AB it is correspondence between Helen Rose and Gareth Jenkins.
POQC and that email was written six months before the report was written.
AB yes

POQC there mr jenkins appears to be suggesting there was no receipt and you resisted that suggestion when it was put to you
AB yes
POQC if we look further down we see the evidence a receipt was generated by that session, not explicitly, but it was the only receipt...

… was generated this session. What’s your reaction to this document saying a receipt was produced?
AB that it says a receipt WAS produced.
POQC thank you

Re-examination will continue after lunch for a short period.

@threadreaderapp unroll pls