Paula Vennells is history but now at the Post Office Inquiry is Fujitsu distinguished engineer Gareth Jenkins - thread 4

[nauticant]

A continuation of this thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5094266-paula-vennells-was-done-the-other-week-the-post-office-inquiry-is-now-questioning-associates-and-others-thread-3

When the hearings are going on, live-streaming can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/@postofficehorizonitinquiry947/featured

All of the previous hearings can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/@postofficehorizonitinquiry947/videos

'i think you will have read it carefully overnight ' Burn!

That was the second time in only a few days where the trap was sprung of one day looking at a scanned page and the next day looking at the original email and clicking on the attachments originally attached.

Ooh, not watched this one - worse than the odious Mr Aujard? (the hellish offfspring of The Childcatcher and Wormtongue).

Grabiner was, at times, causing-the-blood-to- run-cold territory.

There must by now be a familiar clenching feeling among the witnesses when Mr Beer says 'you told us earlier that you had never at any time….' etc etc, and then calmly proceeds to 'can we please turn to POL 0003579…'

If they’ve watched any of the previous sessions the fear has got to strike at that point.

How can he still be claiming not to understand something that was clearly explained to him? Strikes me as extremely lazy and can't be bothered to do more than 'skim' letters.

Apparently not if this chap was telling porkies yesterday! What was he trying to achieve like? Getting (rightfully) skewered here anyway.

Like a pp said on thread 3, I see autism

I can still believe that GJ was a deeply technical guy who divided the stuff in front of him as either "technical and relevant" or "non-technical and not relevant". Which led to him skimming over lots of stuff he should have paid attention to. Which is where Fujitsu dropped the ball. These were important matters and GJ should have been guided by legal counsel to make sure he was working in a legal context as he ought to have been.

But whenever things like that were clearly explained to him he paid no attention. Do you mean that someone should have physically sat with him and made him read and understand? How was anyone to know he wasn't bothering to read/understand/remember all the things that had been so clearly explained?

@nauticant I agree - he has been vain, foolish and far too trusting of his employer but I really don’t think there was knowledge and intent re wrongdoing with him. He seems to have taken people’s statements entirely at face value and been very literal in some of his thinking.

What worries me is that if his failures are given too much weight, in the heat and noise around that, others who bear considerable responsibility will slink away.

I'm riveted today more than other days. And I thought the other days were astonishing.

It’s riveting because he is actually answering the questions, unlike the “no recollection” brigade.

Have you noticed that when he's asked about technical matters and he gives a fluent answer, sometimes Jason Beer doesn't have much of an idea what it means? There's a gap there in the capabilities of the Inquiry.

I can well believe that GJ might have needed someone to sit with him physically and go through his responsibilities as a witness. As pps have said, it just wasn’t part of his techy mindset and I can see him screening it out instantly as of no concern to him.

It's gripping because he has to answer the questions.
He hasnt got a get out clause like everyone else.

Unlike the lawyers and Senior Leadership, he can't say "This isn't my area of expertise, so I dont know".
(Lawyers - I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I dont know - and vice versa
Senior Leadership - I'm not a lawyer/IT/accountant/have a brain, so I dont know)

Never thought I’d see the day when the Post Office inquiry is being speculated on as an entertainment thread, with spectators live-blogging on Mumsnet poring over the details of the misery

Theres a thin line between this, and the Jay Slater Facebook threads. . The difference is the Post Office bloggers on here would inevitably look down on the Jay Slater Facebook sorts, and not recognise the same behaviour.

GJ seemed to know that the revelation that he had in fact received this letter about expert witness duties was coming. He started to admit it and Mr Beer had to stop him racing ahead.
I find it difficult to believe GJ suddenly decided to go through the documents and attachments overnight and simultaneously did the detective work himself. So could his solicitor have done it and flagged it up to him? Would that be against the rules against witnesses discussing their evidence with anyone mid-testimony? Would Mr Beer have given him a heads up? He did say 'You will have read this overnight'.

Presumably, until his appearance in this enquiry, no one was aware that that would have been necessary and should have been done. They understandably thought that he would have been capable of reading and understanding all the letters and emails sent to him, since he was answering them, so they knew he'd received them.

Now it's Remote Access and the Seema Misra case. ie, that GJ never mentioned in his witness statements.

It 'didn't occur' to him

'didn't give thought to it'

Indeed. No-one should have thought it necessary for this Cambridge graduate. But - as we’ve heard so often in this inquiry - 'with the benefit of hindsight'….

It's my experience that when you take someone from a context in which they're an expert, and put them in a completely alien context with very different rules, then it's best to guide them carefully to stop them becoming lost.