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

Now onto the use of witness statement templates and what determined whether Dunks etc included or excluded particular template paragraphs. Clue: it wasn't special knowledge or expertise.

There's something artificial about today's evidence. Effectively, Dunks is being cross-examined on his qualifications to be able to provide witness statements. However, he wasn't qualified and so he shouldn't have provided them. But he's not willing to confirm this, in fact he'd potentially be walking into a perjury charge by coming clean, so is winging it. With Jason Beer having to pick away at this to undermine him. It's a bit of a dance.

Ah, OK, sorry I missed that.

That said, 3-4 calls per month is still a lot to call a helpdesk.

(Nb, I dont call my mother 3-4 times per month either. I do love her 😂)

Uh-oh. Beer has now called up Dunks' evidence to the High Court in the GLO litigation about his witness statements.

Aah I've the cringe for him (Dunks) now.

Basically Dunks deals with that tricky questioning by saying that he has no idea why he gave the evidence he did to the High Court. That's not a very good answer, but he didn't really have any other choice. Because the alternative would have been that he gave a convenient answer to the High Court at the time just to get through the awkward questioning.

Mr Beer sounding a bit sterner now, and incredulous about what Dunks is claiming he 'would have' done.

It's clear that Beer doesn't believe Dunks when he says that his witness statements were supported by careful investigation carried out by Dunks to support the validity of the statements made.

Dunks said he'd have checked the relevant KEL(s). Beer took Dunks to them and then asked specific technical questions about the detail, including deciphering coding, which Dunks was clueless about.

This is a very painful section to watch.

Oh Dunks is tangled up in his own ignorance now. He's coming across as dim, and dishonest due to his pride. He exhibits a bizarrely humble version of vainglory that's hideous to witness.

Is Dunks likely to speak to his lawyers during the lunch break, or is that 'not the done thing' in these circumstances?

This is so awkward.
I'm getting second hand embarrassment for Andy Dunks.

You're right @nauticant and @AutumnCrow .
He can't admit that he ballsed up his witness statements and evidence to courts because this would have legal implications for him
So, instead he is using the "I'm an idiot and dim" defence.

Its what I like to call the "Boris Johnson Defence"
(Which he used regularly for Partygate and the Chris Pincher debacle)

Looks like I’m missing a doozy. Had to be in work but I’ll catch up later.

I don't think they are allowed.

Only based on previous witnesses, I'm sure I heard Sir Wyn explain to the witness they cannot discuss their testimony with thier lawyers during the breaks.

I'm sure he can talk to his lawyer, but not about the Inquiry. Like the weather or traffic 😁

It has a drip-drip-drip water torture/watch through your fingers quality Quebeccles.

I'm watching a bit of James Dreyfus on You Tube to cleanse my mind.

The morning was thematic, the afternoon will be about specific prosecution cases.

Do you think that will mean the core participant lawyers will not ask many questions this afternoon @nauticant?

Jason Beer is going over Jo, Seema, Lee cases quite extensively.
I understand the Core Participant lawyers can't really ask the same questions as Jason Beer, otherwise it would be just repeating the same thing.

Because Jason Beer is being quite thorough, I wonder what else the other lawyers could ask?

Dunks was involved in the Seema Misra case so I'd expect her counsel to ask questions. Possibly there'll have been coordination behind the scenes to avoid duplication for that particular case.

Does Dunks understand that words have specific meanings??

With respect to counsel not having anything to ask, in my view Core Participants being represented has a significant component of CPs having a voice in the proceedings, and not necessarily being there in the hope of them having a major Rumpole moment.

By providing witness statements Dunks advanced himself as being on top of the subject matter when he wasn't, he's now on the spot being asked about the subject matter, and so he's just making up stuff maintaining the pretence he had the requisite knowledge.

I wonder whether Beer will end by cutting through this sham and telling Dunks he's been having a laugh and everyone, including Dunks, knows this.

Lisa Allen from Post Office asked Dunks to include a technical statement into his witness statement ("no effect on counter discrepancies") he didn't have a clue about and he did so seemingly without discussion and without any significant effort.

shakes head

Good work by Anne Chambers in realising there's a bin fire and seeking to extract herself from the vicinity leaving the risks to others. However, she was arm-twisted into giving dodgy evidence in one case and I believe she has been looked at in terms of being criminally charged.

At times Dunks' explanations become somewhat Biden-esque.

Double post so I deleted.