I’ve just finished listening to Michael Foran’s live summary of today and I can thoroughly recommend the subscription. It is worth every penny.
I thought I would summarise for my own benefit and share with youz for those interested.
In February, as part of the initial disclosure, DU submitted screenshots of his ‘contemporaneous’ notes.
In cross examination on Feb 12:
NC Did you show KS phone notes?
DU Can't recall exactly what I said. May have mentioned/shown re phone notes.
NC [reads] KS has info. And notes. And Beth has notes.
Re what you showed KS. Did you show KS your resus notes on phone.
DU Don't remember. KS may be mistaken. Have to ask her.
NC email KS to ED 30/12. Foreshadows IX interview. [reads c SP v diff to work with and Beth kept log]
DU KS understanding but not true cos I don't have note re resus
NC You told KS about it though. [turns to DU
NC contemporaneous notes on phone] reads dates
DU I understand. That is what contemporaneous means
Snarky snark snark
During the hiatus caused by dodgy disclosure NC team submitted an order requesting DU’s phone so they could have it forensically examined.
I suspect that NC/ CE/ MG had already clocked something suspicious looking, aside from their broader suspicions re DU and his relationship to the truth.
This order was refused. I think because the judge felt it wasn’t perhaps within the remit of an ET but also DU offered to provide the data.
NC/ CE/ MG hired JB to examine the data to be provided by DU.
A meeting was set up for JB to talk to DU.
In order to prepare for that meeting he asked for DU to provide information about what phone he has, and what apps he uses so he could be as familiar as he could be before the meeting.
AND THIS BIT I DIDN’T KNOW UNTIL FORAN: DU flat out refused to provide this basic information.
This was why the meeting was cancelled because JB could not do his job without that.
Instead JR’s team choose, according to PD’s testimony under cross, the 6th best option () which was to have the NHS Cyber Security man (how do I know he’s a man I hear you cry! Or should that have been a full stop) PD hop on a Teams call to watch DU produce the screenshots and attendant data in real time.
He supplies an empty log template and instructions in advance.
DU is expected to download the Screenshots live whilst watched and populate the log in real time.
There are three oddities:
- During the live video call DU’s screen seemed to freeze a number of times which meant that PD and his pal had no way of knowing what DU was during those times. We don’t know how long they lasted. Screen freezing usually means the connection has dropped.
- A fair reading of this, in my view in the wider context, is that DU and wife had practiced in advance and new if they clicked off the wifi at their end it would look frozen at the other end and they would have time to manipulate the data that was seemingly being downloaded in real time.
- There are two folders: one is downloads folder where things are automatically downloaded to and the other is labelled Medical etc. DU explanation to PD is that he liked to put things where he could more easily find them but why, then, did 1-5 remain in downloads.
- My guess is that DU didn’t need to manipulate 1-5 and forgot he’d left them in a different folder to the ones he had manipulated.
- The output of this meeting, the downloaded screenshots were not sent to the court as the original screenshots but embedded into another document which means there is no way to access the data. The only thing JB could do was assess the log itself on its own merits.
- The log was appended to PD’s report which implied that he himself had produced the log. He had not. DU had populated the blank template himself.
This was submitted to the court and JB reviewed it, wrote up his report and submitted that the court.
PD reviewed JB’s report and took no issue with it.
JR had plenty of time to parse the report.
JR questions PD and draws him into offering opinions about DU being genuine in claim that the meta data re edit dates happening before creation dates could only be a fuck up at Google. It his not a witnesses role to offer opinions. That is only for expert witnesses and the opinion must be limited to their field of expertise. PD is not an expert witness.
CE does an excellent job of cross and only gives him agree/ disagree questions and so he is slowly taken down an ever decreasing tunnel of honesty. He can’t explain the discrepancies/ they could show manipulation/ he wondered why no forensic exam.
Foran suggests that there is a possibility JR and her team had not clocked what JB’s report actually said and so had to come up with their cross questions in the 20 minute gap and the only thing they could come up with was to try and undermine the credibility of JB.
They tried to suggest that because his report outlined that there was no plausible explanation for the dates of editing to come before the dates of creation as a number of these screenshots of ‘contemporaneous’ notes that JB was saying DU and lied and if he is saying DU has lied be must be a bigot. Basically.
Let that sink in. Only a bigot would imply DU was lying using evidence.
But – get this – the only person who said that DU was lying was JR in cross. JB never said it. Evidence in chief didn’t claim it. They were leaving it up to the panel to make their own inference.
JR Russell in cross said repeatedly ‘the only plausible reason is that Upton is lying’ (paraphrase but more or less).
JR tries to also demonstrate JB is not impartial because of explanation marks and his assertion that its not fair to present the data in this way. JB doesn’t back down and states it is not fair to not give expert witnesses the information they need to reproduce the data and so verify it. Without that possibility they can’t verify and that’s not fair to anyone.
V. Good JB
FEB 3 SP Testimony
JR A week before the Xmas eve incident, DU wrote "won't make eye contact, I can feel the dismissal, cldn't find her, SP wouldnt look or respond to me and left the area" That's her contemporaneous note.
SP I dont recall this
JR Do u have any
JR evidence to refute this?
SP No. But I didn't ignore her.
JR Looking at the IX interviews, and these bullet points re Louise not noting issues but dynamics were difficult. SP might ignore or delegate requests of DU. U cldnt stand being in the same place?
NC: That's a false reading of the doc so ignore please
JR On being told of dynamics of u exiting a cubicle, it had been brought to Louise's attention?
SP I think Beth's making it up
JR Other's had noticed this and that's what I mean
SP Y'll have to ask others
SP I've never ignored Beth
FEB 12 DU
NC Did you show KS phone notes?
DU Can't recall exactly what I said. May have mentioned/shown re phone notes.
NC [reads] KS has info. And notes. And Beth has notes.
Re what you showed KS. Did you show KS your resus notes on phone.
DU Don't remember. KS may be mistaken. Have to ask her.
NC email KS to ED 30/12. Foreshadows IX interview. [reads c SP v diff to work with and Beth kept log]
DU KS understanding but not true cos I don't have note re resus
NC You told KS about it though. [turns to DU
NC contemporaneous notes on phone] reads dates
DU I understand. That is what contemporaneous means.
NC Last wrote note on 28/12
NC notes still on your phone. Backed up? May be q imps you don't delete them.
DU Not intending to.