Thread by @tribunaltweets

Day 8 morning session 2 will continue here.

The morning 1 session of day 8 can be found here

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1948634213789347997

resuming
JR - sc sh 19 google orders notes in order of creation - so weird incident some time in august
PD - it was the earliest, shown first
JR - how do we know
PD - there was one earlier
JR - which might it be of the sc sh? 1649, at sc sh 19 16:59 edited 30th Aug, said
CE -

where
JR - 1646 - was sthere something in sc sh before 30th august?
PD - can't say there was or wasn't, showing it carried created date of oct, but order presented if unmanipulated showed
JR - which at top?
PD - can't remember
JR - 1643 - ..
PD - can't recall if that was top

JR - possible?
PD - don't think it's telling us it was sitting at the top in that sc sh.
JR - nothing more.
J - PD you may leave, short break for new witness.

BREAK

*TT - will continue on this thread when we resume*

Still waiting.

we resume:
J - JB you will take an oath
JB - takes oath

CE - morning JB, I'll be asking for C. name and occupation
JB James Borwick, JKB computers, provide expert evidence
CE - called upon for what
JB 20 years giving forensic evidence, criminal - civil
*organising bundle*

CE - 1661 - first pg or your report, you commented on 3 things n report, contemporaneousness of phone note, sync issue and requirement/limit of forensic evidence. First issue - contemporaneousness (cpn),
JB - 1671 - these are printouts of notes given to me, in chron order

JB - so this is first note 310am 16th oct 2023.
CE - when do you say it was created
JB 310 16th oct 23
CE - what do we see here
JB - 313am ???
CE - whats the diff?
JB - highlighted with boxes, only thing changed was name nurse (?) to nurse sandie peggie. made 18th dec '23

CE - 18/12/23 working nights, wont make eye contact, acknowldege, engage can feel hostility - when added
JB - same time, not on previous note, added 5:15 18th dec
CE - bottom text added 18th dec'23
JB - yes
CE - 1673 - what do we see
JB - version of note ?dec '23

JB - 251223 leaving shift at
CE - next page
JB 1244am 25th dec '23
CE - next
JB - in changing all chating, leaves, F leaves I think its weird , sandie hates being in CR with me but whatever
CE - think on 1674 - more highlighting from you. summarise what versions tell you

JB - set ou tin order, showing what was added on particular dates
CE - what does add/edit removal of notes tell you
JB not contemporaneous, been changed over time
CE - you said this section added 5:15am on 15th Dec
JB - yes
CE - 1587 - can see another block of highlighted

CE - explain
JB - added to note 09:28am on 28th dec 2023
JR - where say?
CE - looking at 1687
JB - sorry went to far 01:51 on 28th dec 23
CE - from fig 23
JB - yes
J - leading
CE - sorry
CE - what do the versions mean for events of 18th dec?
JB - added later so not contemporaneou

CE - now the sync issue - 1700 - read what you say para 6.
JB - sc sh 18-20 log of actions attempt to show actions. I could not replicate, creation date post dates edit date. not possible
CE - explain
JB - report explains google note version histories.

JB - just can't happen. The idea that google has a server that would do that not poss
CE - why
JB - google syncs every second, syncing all of your devises, would have to be something catastrophic on google servers, can't replicate.
CE - 1729
J - which bundle?
CE - loose leaf

MG - put in yesterday, printed this am
J - we don't have that as yet, shall i check with clerk?
CE - might put to one side, could jus task witness to explain?
J - yes
CE - doc you created called G sync issue, do you recall?
JB - created to explore how you coud create a

JB - google sync issue. Put my phone on airplane mode, so couldn't sync - mimics an error, can't sync. Created a note, left phone off network for 3-4 hrs, connected phone to network, google keep notes sync'd. Examined. Version history reflected reconnection time

JB - moment of connection, creation time exists, no earlier edit time when I actually wrote it.
CE - you said not possible to have earlier edit dates, look at sc sh both you and PD agree no valid tech explanation for phenomenon
JB - not possible, tried changing phone times and

JB - dates it's not possible.
CE - can you explain how these screenshots are poss
JB - scsh 20 for eg, reports a version hist of...
J - hang on
JB - scsh20 porports note edited on
CE - can I break it down, note below it?
JB - starts alpha med, the one where version hist shows

21aug edit date, slightly diff colour, and creation on 26oct. Only way to make it look that way is the version hist is superimposed. Not a note ass with google keep
CE - anything else on 20 that looks like superimposition
JB - yes version hist, and not possible to have date with

that edit time.
CE - onto 3rd category, requirement for forensic review of device. 1695 - starts, at time of writing, see that? talk about recording of meeting, why helpful?
JB - best way to present any exam of phone, computer etc to sit in person, or this way you record to show

JB - what was done in teams meeting. would allow me to confirm what happened
CE - why do that?
JB - I should be able to reproduce, re-examine to confirm findings, without recording I've no way
CE 1720 - PD's commentary on your report, inc having failed to record

CE - what PD does is put a scsh from teams chat, in that chat, message from mr watson, think you've frozen beth, frozen again, what effect of that on collecting that info
JB - connection has gone down, for however long that went on you couldn't observe what was going on

JR - didn't look at DU phone directly
JB - no
JR - you saw PD sc sh
CE - object DU produced them
JR - mixed, some from both, instructed by C solicitor
JB - correct
JR - not join instruction
JB - no.
JR - 1643, your report, you say told DU produced notes on his phone, were you

JR - told to use thoe pronouns?
JB - no, use she throughout
JR - not told about patient safety? SORRY MISSED

JR - you say at outset, you were asked to examine phone re note creation date
JB - y
JR - fair to say you were told to undermine DU account of patient care allegation

JB - no I was asked
J - hang on
JR - you weren't just asked look at notes, you were given specific part of notes. what were you told to do
JB - recover notes re patient care allegation
JR - why
JB - not told, just to do it
JR - 1089 - tribs note 30th may 2025, 1118

JR - para 87, first line, appears to trib in position in cancelling meeting on basis ????
JB - yes
JR - there was a meeting with DU and the C cancelled it
JB - yes
JR - don't mention in your report
JB - no
JR - why helpful to C case?
JB - just looked at info produced

JR - were you instructions to show DU lying?
CE - are you alleging prof misconduct
JR - were you instructed to undermine the report, if implied prof misconduct withdrawn
JR - instructed to show lies by DU?
CE - astonished, either prof rep of claimant instructing to lie, or that

CE - an expert would accept such
JR - it is about MISSED and I apologise if thats implied
J - his skilled evidence is that it's impossible, thats what the report and evidence says, rest is discussion.
JR - you were paid for report, not pro bono
JB - yes, i will be paid as you wil

JR - so yes
JB - i will be paid yes
JR - who will you invoice
JB - instructor
JR - skilled witness?
JB - yes
JR - duty to be impartial
JB - yes
JR - second sentance 1695 para 3.6 In the first instance I'm at a total loss, ends with an !
JB - yes
JR - that's opinion at a loss

JB - yes
JR - 3rd sent. Once again, describe being perplexed and another ! at the end
JB - yes
JR - opinion?
JB - yes
JR - 1899
JB - y
JR - last sent. you make a comment on fairness
JB - yes
JR - 1700 - 4th para, starts DU produced a series of scshs and go on to say, attempting

to produce, at a loss about producing imp evidence
JB - y
JR - du silent on scsh being rearranged with relative ease
JB - y
JR - not your role to give your opinion on any of this
CE - object, expert in chief, all 3 of my sections he gave evidence and those are prof opin on those

J - give wide range of qu, permissible qu only
JR - he strayed outside of skilled witness role, can't be an advocate, must assist court in areas they are expert. By commenting on fairness, opinion and !!s is straying outside that.
J - further?
CE - submissions may be needed

JR - your comments stray, because it's the trib to determine whats fair correct?
JB - I say it because professional and do wonder why she would be made to prepare her own evidence. I think its fair comment
JR - teh forensic exam you ref to, would have beenwith you?
JB - yes, was

JB - would have been thr phone meeting
JR - meeitng cancelled by C
JB - yes
JR - PD DU production entirely voluntary
JB - yes
JR - comment on rearranging scsh implying manipulation by DU
JB - it's my thought
JR - not reponsible
JB - yes in hindsight

JR - the !!'s not once but twice, inappropriate from expert independent.
JB - I thought fair comment, that's why they are there
JR - not saying what you said, the puncutation!! a level of zeal unusual for skilled witness in a court of law.
JB - maybe should have been a .

JR - 1669 - para 3.2 firm in your conclusion, despite being dated 26th Aug, wasn't created till 3:10 26th Oct. Very certain
JB - yes
JR - scsh2 version hist at 3:10am 26th oct creation date isn't it
JB - y
JR - 1657 - scsh18 terrain shopping list, similar date and time

JB - yes
JR - scsh 1659 - 2 scsh all 26th oct around 3am. Possible something happened at that date/time to impact all 5
JB - no, can't have a version hist with prior edit date
JR - scsh18 edit date 2nd may, sc sh 20 see edit dates all earlier than 26th oct. connundrum

JR -edit preceeds creation
JB - yes
JR - you don't believe the sync explanation
JB - no
JR - must be something else not only explanation
JB - PD and I tried to recreate, it just can't happen
JR - is it the only explanation or you don't know
JB - can't explain, only thing is

JB - someone has put a screen shot over it, there's no recording of it, DU has filed, would expect to see in file names
JR - did you see files
JB - never produced
JR - so if you've not seen the file can you say the lying explanation is the only one?
JB - it's just not possible

JR - look at terrain scsh one of the problem ones, an odd note to manipulate, aluminium mesh from halfords, unless hobby is a secret, odd to lie about this notes creation
JB - go to scsh19 at bottom of weird incident note, gives you part of note, theres 3 dots, those don't appear

JB - elsewhere
J - ask re dots
JB - I can't recreate what's shown might be correct but the version history to the right, i just can't repeat what is on the screen
JR - google gives notes in create order?
JB - yes
JR - framework for Ucat aip note if that was created, the thing

above was created first
JB - not necessarily, theres a tick top left, shows a facility to pin a note to the top, so the logic doesn't work, it's put at top as priority
JR - comment is this one was below something else
JB - the scsh to the left appears to say the framework appear

ed
JR - no comment is that weird incident appeared before this one
JB - I get the logic but these can be moved about, it's how the evidence was produced. Not given access to files to check
JR - it's possible things weren't moved
JB - yes
JR - 10 more mins?

J - yes
JR - 1695 - your report. you say scsh5 was accessed in downloads, 6 in doc/med/work, and that implies not downloaded in meeting
JB - was curious yes
JR - indicate that trib beingm isleaded?
JB - was curious, everything downloaded in meeting would have gone to downloads

JR - so not saying misleading
JB - no
JR - anything else to say ????
???
JR - one explanation for diff pathways, DU moved everything to file during meeting
JB - yes
JR - PD gave evidence that scsh were taken during teams, you in a position to say not
JB - no

JR - 1674 - you disputed these were contempor... headed 25th dec, wording outside says added .>
JB - those comments added on that date yes
JR - and other comments added bit in shading,
JB - yes
JR - 3 mins later, fast type-r
JB - yes
JR - bit in shading all added 12:54 25th dec

JR - 7 mins later, so contemporaneous
JB - yes
JR - all parts that date added within minutes?
JB - yes
JR - no more

CE - you were asked re meeting with you and DU. Can you help with why cancelled?
JB - issues with mobile, I asked for details of type of handset so i could buy

JB - install google keep and try out notes and do a forensic analysis to see how notes work on that phone.
CE - why need to do that before examination of DU phone
JB - being thorough, to help me find evidence, fragments, deleted items etc preparation
CE - without prep what

CE - could yo have done at the meeting
JB - would make it more difficult, at that point we had no agreement to extracting all data, or just Keep app, if I'd done prep Id have known where keep type data stored for a proper examination of DU phone

CE - 1659 - look at scsh box 19, framework for ucap uip, you see edited Aug 30th 2023, version history for that note produced
JB - no, only version hist was for weird incident, would expect them all to be produced in fairness
CE - what do you mean by fairness
JB - lets me

JB - reproduce, it's DU's work, it has to be reproduced, can't do it witout
CE - any other data which is not accompanied by other data that would help you
JB - everything from DU re creation date of Aug 23, no version history, screenshots embedded could do with e-versions

JB - would tell you when image created, date and time, would be helpful.
J - you can go. Dr Currer?
JR - yes this afternoon, estimate 30 mins
NC - we will finishi this afternoon
J - longer than 45
NC - yes, maybe 1 1/2
J - to 4. Return at 2o'clock. Checks new pages produced.

Break for lunch. Return at 2pm.

@threadreaderapp please unroll