Thread by @RichardMoorhead

I’m now reading the submissions from @edwardhenry1 he makes the really important and under appreciated point that, even on the evidence as it was, false accounting should arguably not have been run. #postofficeinquiry

And the equally important point about equivocal pleas. A point almost ignored so far, including by me. The customary anguish when I read about @CastletonLee or @Janetsk20073533 is accentuated with gut wrenching economy

Here’s an example. About Janet Skinner, “She enters a plea, an unequivocal, I suppose, but false plea, because she had been crushed.”

And this. Like SS the weight and seriousness of the situation is not ignored…Serious criminal charges emerged from this scandal,we submit. Perjury is one; perverting the course of justice, the vital administration of justice is another…

…contempt of Parliament, quite possibly even another. So far as legal professional privilege being vitiated, …. [there was] evidence of the iniquity in abundance.

And then this… There is no need now to name the great and the good who Mr Beer mentioned, the "Don't you know who I ams", who then
populated the Central Criminal Court in the east and formerly the Supreme Court in the west with One Essex Court almost plum in the middle?…

…But it seems that the establishment writ large with all its weight was brought to bear on the little people.” #PostOfficeScandal #PostOfficeInquiry

“Those who constituted the directing mind and will of the corporates may rest the blame on middle management or seek to pass responsibility to their internal legal department…

…and, ultimately, given what Mr Beer, King's Counsel, has already alluded to, point the finger at each other and government, in a sort of three-way "The good, the bad and the ugly" Mexican stand-off.” 😂😂😂

“POL might now choose to blame those who were
prepared professionally to stand on their heads and
perform cartwheels for them, ranging from panel firms
who prosecuted, to those august persons Mr Beer, King's
Counsel, mentioned.”

“Now, none of Mr Altman's documents, advices or
reviews were disclosed in the criminal appeals. The
existence of his 2013 review was known, but not
disclosed. It is jaw dropping, when one considers
[it]… Mr Altman's consultation…on 9 September 2013. Jaw dropping.”

Of another Altman advice… “Again, hair raising…. Utterly inimical to the very grave and onerous responsibility on the Post Office as prosecutor that, by that time it knew, or at the very, very least suspected, that innocent people had …been criminalised for nothing.”