Seema Misra committed perjury during her October 2010 trial when she lied to the jury about trainer Michael, the “£400 shortfall” and omitted the “ad-hoc” training.
Tap on the button below to read Part 40 of this blog series to learn more about Seema Misra’s perjury;
‘..A Good Trick If You Are A Liar’
During his closing speech to the jury, prosecutor Warwick Tatford picked up on Seema Misra’s lies, deception and “inconsistencies” and stated to the jury;
Mrs Misra’s account that she gave from the witness box, because the Crown say there were parts of that which were simply unbelievable.
First of all though did you find it frustrating listening to her yesterday afternoon because her evidence when I was cross-examining her, maybe it is my fault, but it took a long time, partly at least because she would not answer a straight question.
Did you notice that about her evidence, how she would come up with an answer that bore no obvious relation to the question at all?
Why did she do that?
Was she trying to help you or just trying to duck the questions she didn’t want to answer?”
Copies of extracts from trial transcripts of prosecutor Warwick Tatford’s closing speech to the jury from pages 33F-34A here
He then went on to state, in relation to Tamiko Springer and trainers Junaid and Michael;
….the Crown say she was not trying to help.
She was trying to be obstructive in her evidence.
She fails to mention things in her interview, in her notes which were handed over to Mr Noverre, and she mentions them at a late stage, one matter in particular only in the course of this trial.
Why didn’t she talk about Junaid and Michael and Timiko Springer and the fact that the losses were accruing from the very beginning?
Why didn’t she mention any of that in her post office interview?
Was it because she had not made it up then, because you would have thought it would have been an obvious thing to mention.
It has happened to her.
She is not a trainer who has to try and remember all the different offices they have been to.
She just has to remember what has happened to her, but she completely seems to forget about that.
It is not because she was not asked the question because she hands over some notes giving her account and she fails to mention any of those things on which she now relies.
The fact is it is easy to invent things five years later and it is quite a good trick if you are a liar because there is a decent chance that the people who you are talking about will not remember because of the length of time that has passed.
That is why the Crown say there are all these additions.
That is why the Crown say there were changes in the defence statements
Copies of extracts from trial transcripts of prosecutor Warwick Tatford’s closing speech to the jury from pages 34B-G here
Seema’s Hidden 21st January 2010 Defence Statement
Warwick Tatford had previously pointed the jury to parts of Seema Misra’s 21st January 2010 defence statement stating;
“…the details of the defence case as to be run in this trial are set out and in considerable detail, the Crown acknowledge that 5(a)(i) deals with Junaid. (ii) deals with Michael and then Timiko Springer is mentioned, (b)(i), just towards the bottom.
You will see that there is no reference there that the defendant told Timiko Springer about thefts and I cross-examined her on that
Copies of extracts from trial transcripts of prosecutor Warwick Tatford’s closing speech to the jury from page 18D here
To date – Seema Misra and her enablers have chosen to hide her 21st January 2010 defence statement from the public.
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 