Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry Charade: Should Lawyers Jason Beer & Warwick Tatford Be Giving Incorrect Or Misleading Evidence To The Inquiry? (Part 34a)

Warwick Tatford (left) Jason Beer (right)

The following is a continuation from Part 34 of this blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below;

Biased Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Grave Concerns Regarding Jason Beer & His Legal & Professional Commitments To The Inquiry & The Rule Of Law & Fraudster Seema Misra’s Guile (Part 34)

Post Conviction Activist Or Independent Inquirer?

The aim of the public post office horizon IT inquiry should not ‘only be to establish the truth – what happened, why, and where accountability may lie – but also to alleviate public concern and restore confidence.

It should ‘provide an independent account of the facts and a mechanism for recommendations so that a reoccurrence of such events does not happen.

Is Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry, a post conviction activist or an independent inquirer? He is described here as “Smooth, cerebral and reliable, with impeccable judgement. He is unbeatable on the law and very good in appellate cases and in public law”.

On 11th May 2023 during the inquiry, Jason Beer stated to Rod Ismay;

Did it erm

ever occur to you

or anyone else that applied their brain to the issue

that the losses might not be erm

eh caused by postmaster conduct
Jason Beer – 11th May 2023 (At around 47:27 here)

Disclosure & Misleading The Inquiry

On 15th November 2023 during Warwick Tatford’s evidence, referring to calls made to the Horizon helpline number, Jason Beer wrongly stated of the Seema Misra case “We know that there were 135 calls that she made” (inquiry transcripts here).

Warwick Tatford had clarified the actual number of calls made to the helpline with Andrew Dunks, just before he was cross examined by Keith Hadrill (p.70c here).

The total number of calls made throughout Seema Misra’s time at the West Byfleet post office was 105, not “135”.

Below is a copy of extracts from trial transcripts relating to this correction of the error (p.70c here).

Warwick Tatford: Your Honour, can I just ask Mr Dunks some further questions to clarify a matter that there may have been an error this morning?
Judge Stewart: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Mr Dunks, could I just ask you to have a look at page 41 in that statement bundle, please?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: You have listed and given a number to each call. You have said that it was 135 calls in the period up to 15th January 2008. In fact do you want to just look at page 41? Call number 105 is dated, is it not, 17th December 2007?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: There the description of the call is “PM states CP on no 2 is not working“
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Can you help us as to what that means?
Andrew Dunks: “CP” is “counter printer” and “no 2” will be counter 2
Warwick Tatford: So another problem with the printer it would appear?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: That in fact is the last call by the postmaster in the period that we are concerned with. Is that not right? Call 106 for 14th January 2008 refers to an auditor, Keith Noverre. Is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Then you do list calls going into 2008 which do in the end add up to 135, but in fact looking strictly at the period you were asked to look at, the last call is number 105 from the postmaster in that period you were asked to look at. Would that be right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes. It is actually, yes
Warwick Tatford: So it is not 135. 105 calls to the helpline in that period?
Andrew Dunks: Mmm mm

How would Warwick Tatford have known about the 30 extra calls being related to locum sub-postmaster Ramprakash Vasarmy, and his time at the branch, towards the end of January 2008, unless the Horizon call log data history had been disclosed?

Warwick Tatford did not correct Jason Beer on this incorrect, but relevant detail. Why?

And why didn’t Jason Beer know about Warwick Tatford’s clarification on this error with Andrew Dunks during trial?

The following extracts are copied from the inquiry transcripts related to Warwick Tatford’s evidence, in which Jason Beer referred to “Network manager” Alan Ridoutt (inquiry transcripts here);

Jason Beer: Thank you. Can we turn to a new topic, please, disclosure of training material. Can we just turn up your witness statement, please, at paragraph 50, which is on page 25 – in fact, it’s the second part of paragraph 50 on page 26. You’re referring to Mrs Misra’s interview and you say: “On the contrary, she said that she had been able to find the cause of the losses – her dishonest employees. Her interview had not made mention of her suffering losses right from the beginning, in the presence of her trainers while they were training her, before any possible theft was involved, which was something that she later relied on heavily in her evidence at trial”. So the point that you’re making here, is this right, that at trial Mrs Misra relied on an occasion or occasions where a loss was suffered whilst a trainer was in the premises with her, in the post office with her?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You’re making the point: but, hold on, that’s not something she relied on interview?
Warwick Tatford: Well, I think she – I dealt with this. I specifically went – well, normal practice is to go specifically to the questions to see whether it is a matter that could legitimately be raised at that time. But I’m trying to remember exactly how it was. I appreciate I made the point and – that I made that point in my speech and then persuaded the judge that there was a potential adverse inference on that point.
Jason Beer: : So a Section 34 inference
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Against her. But, in any event, you’re making the point here that Mrs Misra relied significantly on the fact that some of the losses occurred in the presence of her trainer?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: : I just want to look at what was disclosed in the trial, as against material that the Inquiry has now uncovered?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, right. All right
Jason Beer: The Post Office has disclosed to us the following document. It’s called a “Request for Ad Hoc Training”, specifically in relation to balancing procedures. Can we look at it, please. POL00047578. Can you see it’s called “Request for Ad Hoc Training”?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: : Name of the outlet, West Byfleet, and its identification code. “Agent’s name”, misspelt Mrs Misra.
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Then if we scroll down: “Ad Hoc Training Required … “Balancing procedures.”
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: “Training Delivery Team to complete”, at the foot of the page. Request received, 25 July 2005; days allocated, 27 July and Wednesday, 3 August 2005. The trainer Michael Opebiyi, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: If we just look at the rest of the page, “Balancing Procedure”, this is for the field trainer to complete. “Balancing procedure”, topic covered: “Check daily procedures, weekly procedures, weekly Horizon reports and cash account”. So it looks like there’d been a request for ad hoc training, specifically in relation to balancing procedures, that looks like it led to Michael Opebiyi being allocated to perform training on 27 July and 3 August. So, overall, this is a request for training relating to Mrs Misra specifically relating to balancing, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Can we look, please, at POL00065114, an “Intervention Manager Visit Log”. This looks like it’s completed by the Intervention Manager for the area, called Alan Ridoutt, and he’s recorded: “This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues and the setting up of individual stock units. I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup as well as arranging ad hoc training. “The [subpostmaster] is still new and is looking for support on many issues – she has the capability but needs occasional guidance”. Then this, if we can just scroll down and highlight it: “This branch is currently holding a loss of £466.73 and an over of £96.80. That was put into the suspense account by the trainer ‘Michael’. Who told the [subpostmaster] that a voucher would be issued to clear it. I have spoken to Michael who confirmed that he did this. I have warned the [subpostmaster] that unless an error comes back they could be liable”. Would you agree that this appears to be a record that, whilst a trainer was there, he agreed that an amount of £466.73 and an over of £96.80 could be put in a suspense account.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, it does. Can I just clarify, it’s me not understanding this: was this something that was disclosed in the trial or it has come forward more recently?
Jason Beer: More recently
Warwick Tatford: Well, it rather looks like I’ve made an error and a bad, unfair point.
Jason Beer: You’re ahead of me because I think you’re thinking ahead to the cross-examination of Mrs Misra
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: When, essentially, you said that what she was saying wasn’t true
Warwick Tatford: Yes, and it looks like a bad point. I’m sorry about that. My understanding was, from what I remember, the training records were disclosed.
Jason Beer: Well, let’s before we get ahead of ourselves
Warwick Tatford: Forgive me, I’m getting ahead. My fault, I’m sorry
Jason Beer: Just see how disclosure unfolded at the trial. Can we look, please, at POL00058503. Can we see at the foot of this page an email from 28 November 2009 from Keith Hadrill to you: “Hi Warwick “Sorry to disturb your weekend. However, herewith the further disclosure request drafted by Issy. “Call me if you need any further clarification”. Then if we can look at the disclosure request, next page, please. Look under the foot of the page, under the cross-heading “Training”, copy of the training manual, when it was supplied, all records provided to the defendant qualifications of the trainer. Then this at paragraph 5: “During the second week of the Defendant’s tenure as a subpostmistress at West Byfleet the trainer was present during the weekly reconciliation. He called the helpline to request explanation as to a loss as, in his opinion, the Defendant had at all times followed procedure. No explanation was given and the Defendant made good the loss. Please provide the following information: “a) The name and contact details of that trainer (to assist in identification the defendant recalls his name was Michael and he was black). “b) What enquiries were made, bearing in mind the request came from a trainer, as to the cause of this loss.” If we go back to page 1, please. You forwarded this, so you were getting it directly from defence council. You forwarded it that night, so the following night, to Jon Longman and Phil Taylor: “Dear Jon & Phil, “Please find yet another disclosure request from the defence, albeit, to an extent, a rehash of what has gone before”. Does the language you’ve used there reflect your frustration at the defence making disclosure requests?
Warwick Tatford: Yes. Not the act of making disclosure requests; that’s not a problem. The problem was their wideness and they were very wide, and they – well, the trouble with very wide defence requests that don’t focus on matters is that it’s possible to be distracted by some things and not concentrate on other more important things. That’s a potential danger. A good prosecutor should be able to deal with everything. But there were a lot of disclosure requests, as I think is clear from the paperwork, and they were very wide.
Jason Beer: That one we’ve looked at was pretty specific, wasn’t it, in the
Warwick Tatford: Oh yes, it’s one of the ones and I think I’d dealt with that in my advice and I think Jon Longman was providing information on that. It maybe that he – he wasn’t aware of the full information when he made disclosure but I’m sure we’ll come to that.
Jason Beer: Can we look at what happened at trial, please, UKGI00014845. So this is the transcript of the trial for 18 October 2010. If we can turn up page 52, please. I’m jumping right in here, this is her evidence-in-chief: “What happened whilst Michael was there? Did he also sit behind and watch what you were doing?” Mrs Misra says: “Yeah, he was sitting behind me, but I mentioned to him – as he come in ‘how is it going?’ I said ‘not good. I am having to put money in every day to the post office’. He was more concerned than Junaid. He said ‘that should not be happening. Let us see how it goes’. Question: “Did it get any better?” Answer: “No. I have to again put money in every day and then when balancing with Michael it came round at £400 short” Question: “At the end of the week?” Then scroll down. End of D: “… second balancing in office with Michael” Question: “So the first day with Michael on the second week?” Answer: “That is right – no – yeah. That is right”. Question: “It is £400 short?” Answer: “No, no, no, that is on the second balancing £400 short” Question: “So that is the end of the second week?” Answer: “End of second week”. Question: “Did you get any error corrections there?”. Answer: “No. Michael said ‘it is a bit unusual. I know you have been doing the transaction correctly’. Then I remember him staying behind and he made a phone call from [my] office … he said he had been observing we are doing the transaction correctly … they have been putting the money in every day to balance the till and he can’t understand why the £400 shortfall is”. So she was showing quite a good recall for the figures there, the £400, wasn’t she?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Can we go towards page 132, please, Question: “It is this interview I am looking at. All right? This is you cross-examining Answer: “Okay” Question: “In this interview you have not mentioned Michael, Junaid, what auditor threatened you with, the £500 and then you will lose the post office. You don’t mention Timiko Springer. Yes? All those things are missing from this interview. Do you accept that?” Answer: “I accept I gave answer to the questions what they asked for” Question: “Right what I want to understand is why these things are missing because in fact you have just given us another potential reason. Is it because you were not asked the question or is it because you had not realised how important these things were at the time of interview?” Answer: “I can’t remember, basically … Question: “If you cannot remember, Mrs Misra…” Question: “in an interview in 2008 how is it you remember your dealings with Michael and Junaid in 2005?” Answer: “It happen. It happen in my post office”. Question: “If it happened why didn’t you tell the Post Office this in interview?”. You were suggesting here, not directly, but by implication, through the use of the word “if”, followed up by the failure to mention something in interview, that what she was saying was false, weren’t you?
Warwick Tatford: Well, yes, that would follow from the not being mentioned there that I’m not sure I was that piece of more recent disclosure. But it may – if I’m wrong about that and I’ve made a mistake, I’ll let you go to where we need to go
Jason Beer: If it’s the case, which appears to be the case that those records were not disclosed to the defence or disclosed to you, relating to the trainer Michael’s experience, when he was in branch, that led you to cross-examine Mrs Misra on a false basis, didn’t it?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, it was a bad point. My understanding was that the training records had been disclosed and that they couldn’t remember the details but I’m trying to remember where that was from. But it certainly appears clear and it’s unfortunate, if there’s a piece of disclosure I didn’t have that’s caused me to take a bad point then it’s an unfair point. It’s not Mrs Misra’s point it’s the fault of the prosecution as a whole

Seema Misra, Her Guile & Enabling Innocence Fraud

As previously referred to in Part 34 of this blog series, Warwick Tatford had asked Seema Misra “You have a clear memory as I understand of what happened between you and Junaid and Michael in 2005 when losses were occurring from the very beginning?”.

Seems Misra had indicated her memory was clear and confirmed this by stating “Yeah” (p.114a here).

Jason Beer chose to read out a cherry picked section of Seema Misra’s trial evidence, where she had referred to trainer Michael and a “£400 shortfall”.

He then stated to Warwick Tatford “So she was showing quite a good recall for the figures there, the £400, wasn’t she?”

Intentional Deception

Whilst Seema Misra may have showed “quite a good recall for the figures”, her recall regarding dates was intentionally deceptive.

Seema Misra’s evidence in chief was that trainer Michael Opebiyi had gone into her branch during her second week of trading on “Thursday” 7th July 2005 (p.51h here).

She clarified this by stating “End of – yeah, end of the balancing Wednesday. That is my first balance –second balancing in office, first with Michael” (p.52d here).

Defence lawyer Keith Hadrill had also clarified this point by asking her “So the first day with Michael on the second week?” to which Seema almost slipped up, when she replied “That is right – no – yeah. That is right” (p.52e here).

Seema Misra knew her dates were not “right”.

Conflating Two Separate Events

She knew trainer Michael had returned to her branch on Wednesday 27th July, and again on Wednesday 3rd August 2005 – neither days being a “Thursday”.

Seema Misra chose to intentionally conflate these two separate events ie; her two weeks training (between 30th June to 13th July 2005), with the two single dates where Michael had returned to the branch for “ad-hoc” training on “balancing procedures”.

She told the jury she had gone along to her “local stationer Eltons” with Alan Ridoutt, but she also chose to omit his name, and did not refer to the actual dates of when exactly this event had occurred.

Seema Misra also omitted these facts intentionally in an obvious attempt to confuse the jury.

Just as Keith Hadrill would also have done in relation to Alan Ridoutt and his “visits log”.

Keith Hadrill would have known, if he questioned Seema Misra in any real detail on Alan Ridoutt, and more specifically around dates, she could have slipped up and blown her defence regarding her allegations about her pretend “losses”, during her first two weeks trading.

Seema Misra did not want the jury to know that Alan Ridoutt had gone to her branch to help her sort out the “mess”. She obfuscated through out her evidence.

She had stated of Alan Ridoutt “Then I remember a guy came in, somebody from Network something” (p.57h here).

Disclosure Of Visits Log & Keith Hadrill’s Knowledge

Keith Hadrill had also asked her “Somebody was sent in from Network to help you and through that you managed to set up the separate tills”, to which Seema was keen to point out “Not to set up” (p.58ab here).

Jason Beer and Warwick Tatford discussed disclosure of Alan Ridoutt’s visits log, with Jason Beer claiming this log was only disclosed “more recently”.

How then would Keith Hadrill have known about Alan Ridoutt’s visit to help with setting up “the separate tills”, unless he had seen Alan Ridoutt’s visits log?

The visits log had stated;

This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues and the setting up of individual stock units

I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup
Copies of some of Alan Ridoutt’s visit log notes

Seema Misra was adamant during her trial evidence that Alan Ridoutt did not help her set up “separate tills” and even stated she told him “let us leave it” (p.58f here).

The Phantom Helpline Call During First 2 Weeks Trading

Jason Beer also read out a 29th November 2008 email from Keith Hadrill in which it had stated “During the second week of the Defendant’s tenure as a subpostmistress at West Byfleet the trainer was present during the weekly reconciliation. He called the helpline to request explanation as to a loss…”.

This was concocted by Seema Misra.

The “£400 shortfall” did not come about until August 2005, when Michael had returned to the branch after being allocated to do so by intervention manager Alan Ridoutt.

When Jason Beer read out some of Seema Misra’s evidence relating to Michael, he omitted to read out the fact that Seema had stated she “didn’t know where” Michael had phoned.

Jason Beer intentionally chose to not read out all of what Seema Misra had stated, which was;

Then I remember him staying behind and he made a phone call from [my] office, I don’t know where he said he had been observing we are doing the transaction correctly”
Seema Misra – Source trial transcripts from page 52g here

Fatally Flawed & Biased Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Grave Concerns Regarding Expert Witness Duncan Atkinson & His 18th December 2023 Misleading, Unreasonable, Inadequate & ‘Smoke & Mirrors’ Report On Embezzler & Thief Seema Misra & How It Does Not Consider The Very Real Innocence Fraud Phenomenon (Part 19)

Link to Part 35 here

Are The Disclosure Issues Referred To By Jason Beer To Warwick Tatford During The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry Genuine Disclosure Issues Or Have They Been Manipulated To Appear That Way For The Inquiry? (Part 34a)

The following is a continuation from Part 34 of this blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below;

Biased Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Grave Concerns Regarding Jason Beer & His Legal & Professional Commitments To The Inquiry & The Rule Of Law & Fraudster Seema Misra’s Guile (Part 34)

Post Conviction Activist Or Independent Inquirer?

It should ‘provide an independent account of the facts and a mechanism for recommendations so that a reoccurrence of such events does not happen.

On 11th May 2023 during the inquiry, Jason Beer stated to Rod Ismay;

Did it erm

ever occur to you

or anyone else that applied their brain to the issue

that the losses might not be erm

eh caused by postmaster conduct
Jason Beer – 11th May 2023 (At around 47:27 here)

Disclosure & Misleading The Inquiry

Warwick Tatford had clarified the actual number of calls made to the helpline with Andrew Dunks, just before he was cross examined by Keith Hadrill (p.70c here).

The total number of calls made throughout Seema Misra’s time at the West Byfleet post office was 105, not “135”.

Below is a copy of extracts from trial transcripts relating to this correction of the error (p.70c here);

Warwick Tatford: Your Honour, can I just ask Mr Dunks some further questions to clarify a matter that there may have been an error this morning?
Judge Stewart: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Mr Dunks, could I just ask you to have a look at page 41 in that statement bundle, please?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: You have listed and given a number to each call. You have said that it was 135 calls in the period up to 15th January 2008. In fact do you want to just look at page 41? Call number 105 is dated, is it not, 17th December 2007?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: There the description of the call is “PM states CP on no 2 is not working“
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Can you help us as to what that means?
Andrew Dunks: “CP” is “counter printer” and “no 2” will be counter 2
Warwick Tatford: So another problem with the printer it would appear?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: That in fact is the last call by the postmaster in the period that we are concerned with. Is that not right? Call 106 for 14th January 2008 refers to an auditor, Keith Noverre. Is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Then you do list calls going into 2008 which do in the end add up to 135, but in fact looking strictly at the period you were asked to look at, the last call is number 105 from the postmaster in that period you were asked to look at. Would that be right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes. It is actually, yes
Warwick Tatford: So it is not 135. 105 calls to the helpline in that period?
Andrew Dunks: Mmm mm

Warwick Tatford did not correct Jason Beer on this incorrect, but relevant detail. Why?

Jason Beer: Thank you. Can we turn to a new topic, please, disclosure of training material. Can we just turn up your witness statement, please, at paragraph 50, which is on page 25 – in fact, it’s the second part of paragraph 50 on page 26. You’re referring to Mrs Misra’s interview and you say: “On the contrary, she said that she had been able to find the cause of the losses – her dishonest employees. Her interview had not made mention of her suffering losses right from the beginning, in the presence of her trainers while they were training her, before any possible theft was involved, which was something that she later relied on heavily in her evidence at trial”. So the point that you’re making here, is this right, that at trial Mrs Misra relied on an occasion or occasions where a loss was suffered whilst a trainer was in the premises with her, in the post office with her?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You’re making the point: but, hold on, that’s not something she relied on interview?
Warwick Tatford: Well, I think she – I dealt with this. I specifically went – well, normal practice is to go specifically to the questions to see whether it is a matter that could legitimately be raised at that time. But I’m trying to remember exactly how it was. I appreciate I made the point and – that I made that point in my speech and then persuaded the judge that there was a potential adverse inference on that point.
Jason Beer: : So a Section 34 inference
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Against her. But, in any event, you’re making the point here that Mrs Misra relied significantly on the fact that some of the losses occurred in the presence of her trainer?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: : I just want to look at what was disclosed in the trial, as against material that the Inquiry has now uncovered?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, right. All right
Jason Beer: The Post Office has disclosed to us the following document. It’s called a “Request for Ad Hoc Training”, specifically in relation to balancing procedures. Can we look at it, please. POL00047578. Can you see it’s called “Request for Ad Hoc Training”?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: : Name of the outlet, West Byfleet, and its identification code. “Agent’s name”, misspelt Mrs Misra.
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Then if we scroll down: “Ad Hoc Training Required … “Balancing procedures.”
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: “Training Delivery Team to complete”, at the foot of the page. Request received, 25 July 2005; days allocated, 27 July and Wednesday, 3 August 2005. The trainer Michael Opebiyi, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: If we just look at the rest of the page, “Balancing Procedure”, this is for the field trainer to complete. “Balancing procedure”, topic covered: “Check daily procedures, weekly procedures, weekly Horizon reports and cash account”. So it looks like there’d been a request for ad hoc training, specifically in relation to balancing procedures, that looks like it led to Michael Opebiyi being allocated to perform training on 27 July and 3 August. So, overall, this is a request for training relating to Mrs Misra specifically relating to balancing, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Can we look, please, at POL00065114, an “Intervention Manager Visit Log”. This looks like it’s completed by the Intervention Manager for the area, called Alan Ridoutt, and he’s recorded: “This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues and the setting up of individual stock units. I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup as well as arranging ad hoc training. “The [subpostmaster] is still new and is looking for support on many issues – she has the capability but needs occasional guidance”. Then this, if we can just scroll down and highlight it: “This branch is currently holding a loss of £466.73 and an over of £96.80. That was put into the suspense account by the trainer ‘Michael’. Who told the [subpostmaster] that a voucher would be issued to clear it. I have spoken to Michael who confirmed that he did this. I have warned the [subpostmaster] that unless an error comes back they could be liable”. Would you agree that this appears to be a record that, whilst a trainer was there, he agreed that an amount of £466.73 and an over of £96.80 could be put in a suspense account.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, it does. Can I just clarify, it’s me not understanding this: was this something that was disclosed in the trial or it has come forward more recently?
Jason Beer: More recently
Warwick Tatford: Well, it rather looks like I’ve made an error and a bad, unfair point.
Jason Beer: You’re ahead of me because I think you’re thinking ahead to the cross-examination of Mrs Misra
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: When, essentially, you said that what she was saying wasn’t true
Warwick Tatford: Yes, and it looks like a bad point. I’m sorry about that. My understanding was, from what I remember, the training records were disclosed.
Jason Beer: Well, let’s before we get ahead of ourselves
Warwick Tatford: Forgive me, I’m getting ahead. My fault, I’m sorry
Jason Beer: Just see how disclosure unfolded at the trial. Can we look, please, at POL00058503. Can we see at the foot of this page an email from 28 November 2009 from Keith Hadrill to you: “Hi Warwick “Sorry to disturb your weekend. However, herewith the further disclosure request drafted by Issy. “Call me if you need any further clarification”. Then if we can look at the disclosure request, next page, please. Look under the foot of the page, under the cross-heading “Training”, copy of the training manual, when it was supplied, all records provided to the defendant qualifications of the trainer. Then this at paragraph 5: “During the second week of the Defendant’s tenure as a subpostmistress at West Byfleet the trainer was present during the weekly reconciliation. He called the helpline to request explanation as to a loss as, in his opinion, the Defendant had at all times followed procedure. No explanation was given and the Defendant made good the loss. Please provide the following information: “a) The name and contact details of that trainer (to assist in identification the defendant recalls his name was Michael and he was black). “b) What enquiries were made, bearing in mind the request came from a trainer, as to the cause of this loss.” If we go back to page 1, please. You forwarded this, so you were getting it directly from defence council. You forwarded it that night, so the following night, to Jon Longman and Phil Taylor: “Dear Jon & Phil, “Please find yet another disclosure request from the defence, albeit, to an extent, a rehash of what has gone before”. Does the language you’ve used there reflect your frustration at the defence making disclosure requests?
Warwick Tatford: Yes. Not the act of making disclosure requests; that’s not a problem. The problem was their wideness and they were very wide, and they – well, the trouble with very wide defence requests that don’t focus on matters is that it’s possible to be distracted by some things and not concentrate on other more important things. That’s a potential danger. A good prosecutor should be able to deal with everything. But there were a lot of disclosure requests, as I think is clear from the paperwork, and they were very wide.
Jason Beer: That one we’ve looked at was pretty specific, wasn’t it, in the
Warwick Tatford: Oh yes, it’s one of the ones and I think I’d dealt with that in my advice and I think Jon Longman was providing information on that. It maybe that he – he wasn’t aware of the full information when he made disclosure but I’m sure we’ll come to that.
Jason Beer: Can we look at what happened at trial, please, UKGI00014845. So this is the transcript of the trial for 18 October 2010. If we can turn up page 52, please. I’m jumping right in here, this is her evidence-in-chief: “What happened whilst Michael was there? Did he also sit behind and watch what you were doing?” Mrs Misra says: “Yeah, he was sitting behind me, but I mentioned to him – as he come in ‘how is it going?’ I said ‘not good. I am having to put money in every day to the post office’. He was more concerned than Junaid. He said ‘that should not be happening. Let us see how it goes’. Question: “Did it get any better?” Answer: “No. I have to again put money in every day and then when balancing with Michael it came round at £400 short” Question: “At the end of the week?” Then scroll down. End of D: “… second balancing in office with Michael” Question: “So the first day with Michael on the second week?” Answer: “That is right – no – yeah. That is right”. Question: “It is £400 short?” Answer: “No, no, no, that is on the second balancing £400 short” Question: “So that is the end of the second week?” Answer: “End of second week”. Question: “Did you get any error corrections there?”. Answer: “No. Michael said ‘it is a bit unusual. I know you have been doing the transaction correctly’. Then I remember him staying behind and he made a phone call from [my] office … he said he had been observing we are doing the transaction correctly … they have been putting the money in every day to balance the till and he can’t understand why the £400 shortfall is”. So she was showing quite a good recall for the figures there, the £400, wasn’t she?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Can we go towards page 132, please, Question: “It is this interview I am looking at. All right? This is you cross-examining Answer: “Okay” Question: “In this interview you have not mentioned Michael, Junaid, what auditor threatened you with, the £500 and then you will lose the post office. You don’t mention Timiko Springer. Yes? All those things are missing from this interview. Do you accept that?” Answer: “I accept I gave answer to the questions what they asked for” Question: “Right what I want to understand is why these things are missing because in fact you have just given us another potential reason. Is it because you were not asked the question or is it because you had not realised how important these things were at the time of interview?” Answer: “I can’t remember, basically … Question: “If you cannot remember, Mrs Misra…” Question: “in an interview in 2008 how is it you remember your dealings with Michael and Junaid in 2005?” Answer: “It happen. It happen in my post office”. Question: “If it happened why didn’t you tell the Post Office this in interview?”. You were suggesting here, not directly, but by implication, through the use of the word “if”, followed up by the failure to mention something in interview, that what she was saying was false, weren’t you?
Warwick Tatford: Well, yes, that would follow from the not being mentioned there that I’m not sure I was that piece of more recent disclosure. But it may – if I’m wrong about that and I’ve made a mistake, I’ll let you go to where we need to go
Jason Beer: If it’s the case, which appears to be the case that those records were not disclosed to the defence or disclosed to you, relating to the trainer Michael’s experience, when he was in branch, that led you to cross-examine Mrs Misra on a false basis, didn’t it?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, it was a bad point. My understanding was that the training records had been disclosed and that they couldn’t remember the details but I’m trying to remember where that was from. But it certainly appears clear and it’s unfortunate, if there’s a piece of disclosure I didn’t have that’s caused me to take a bad point then it’s an unfair point. It’s not Mrs Misra’s point it’s the fault of the prosecution as a whole

Seema Misra, Her Guile & Enabling Innocence Fraud

Seems Misra had indicated her memory was clear and confirmed this by stating “Yeah” (p.114a here).

Jason Beer chose to read out a cherry picked section of Seema Misra’s trial evidence, where she had referred to trainer Michael and a “£400 shortfall”.

He then stated to Warwick Tatford “So she was showing quite a good recall for the figures there, the £400, wasn’t she?”

Intentional Deception

Whilst Seema Misra may have showed “quite a good recall for the figures”, her recall regarding dates was intentionally deceptive.

Seema Misra’s evidence in chief was that trainer Michael Opebiyi had gone into her branch during her second week of trading, on “Thursday” 7th July 2005 (p.51h here).

She clarified this by stating “End of – yeah, end of the balancing Wednesday. That is my first balance –second balancing in office, first with Michael” (p.52d here).

Seema Misra knew her dates were not “right”.

Conflating Two Separate Events

She knew trainer Michael had returned to her branch on Wednesday 27th July, and again on Wednesday 3rd August 2005 – neither days being a “Thursday”.

Seema Misra also omitted these facts intentionally.

Just as Keith Hadrill would also have done in relation to Alan Ridoutt and his “visits log”.

Seema Misra did not want the jury to know that Alan Ridoutt had gone to her branch to help her sort out the mess. She obfuscated through out her evidence.

She had stated of Alan Ridoutt “Then I remember a guy came in, somebody from Network something” (p.57h here).

Disclosure Of Visits Log & Keith Hadrill’s Knowledge

Jason Beer and Warwick Tatford discussed disclosure of Alan Ridoutt’s visits log, with Jason Beer claiming this log was only disclosed “more recently”.

How then would Keith Hadrill have known about Alan Ridoutt’s visit to help with setting up “the separate tills”, unless he had seen Alan Ridoutt’s visits log?

The visits log had stated;

This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues and the setting up of individual stock units

I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup
Copies of some of Alan Ridoutt’s visit log notes

Seema Misra was adamant during her trial evidence that Alan Ridoutt did not help her set up “separate tills” and even stated she told him “let us leave it” (p.58f here).

When selectively recalling her March 2005 training, Seema told the jury about “different kind of post offices”. She re-iterated during her evidence in chief, that she “had done the individual tills myself”, as the following copies of trial transcripts, referring to October 2005, extracts show (p.55c here);

Keith Hadrill: So after the audit of 5th October did you reorganise the sub-post office in regard to accounting procedures?
Seema Misra: Yeah. After the audit which was not helpful(?) to buy me money then I recall for my training, two week classroom training there were different kind of post offices, crown, individual, shared, and what I had that time was shared. I thought if I got individual then at least I can pinpoint where the error coming for or which staff is not doing an input correctly
Keith Hadrill: So you decided to do what?
Seema Misra: Do the individual tills. Spoken to my manager
Keith Hadrill: Who is that?
Seema Misra: Timiko Springer, said still does not help, still losing money
Keith Hadrill: So anyway you want to create individual tills, responsibility for each till?
Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
Keith Hadrill: Did Timiko Springer tell you how to get it done and help you?
Seema Misra: No. She said she will find out how to set up individual
Keith Hadrill: And it was done, was it? They are individual tills?
Seema Misra: Yeah. I done the individual tills myself

The Phantom Helpline Call During First 2 Weeks Trading

This was concocted by Seema Misra.

The “£400 shortfall” did not come about until August 2005, when Michael had returned to the branch after being allocated to do so by “intervention” manager Alan Ridoutt.

When Jason Beer read out some of Seema Misra’s evidence relating to Michael, he omitted to read out the fact that Seema had stated she “didn’t know where” Michael had phoned.

Jason Beer intentionally chose to not read out all of what Seema Misra had stated, which was;

Then I remember him staying behind and he made a phone call from [my] office, I don’t know where he said he had been observing we are doing the transaction correctly”
Seema Misra – Source trial transcripts from page 52g here

Link to Part 35 here

Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry Charade: Continued… Grave Concerns Regarding Jason Beer & His Legal & Professional Commitments To The Inquiry & The Rule Of Law & Thief & Fraudster Seema Misra & Her Guile (Part 34a)

The following is a continuation from Part 34 of this blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below;

Biased Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Grave Concerns Regarding Jason Beer & His Legal & Professional Commitments To The Inquiry & The Rule Of Law & Fraudster Seema Misra’s Guile (Part 34)

Post Conviction Activist Or Independent Inquirer?

It should ‘provide an independent account of the facts and a mechanism for recommendations so that a reoccurrence of such events does not happen.

On 11th May 2023 during the inquiry, Jason Beer stated to Rod Ismay;

Did it erm

ever occur to you

or anyone else that applied their brain to the issue

that the losses might not be erm

eh caused by postmaster conduct
Jason Beer – 11th May 2023 (At around 47:27 here)

Disclosure & Misleading The Inquiry

Warwick Tatford had clarified the actual number of calls made to the helpline with Andrew Dunks, just before he was cross examined by Keith Hadrill (p.70c here).

The total number of calls made throughout Seema Misra’s time at the West Byfleet post office was 105, not “135”.

Below is a copy of extracts from trial transcripts relating to this correction of the error (p.70c here).

Warwick Tatford: Your Honour, can I just ask Mr Dunks some further questions to clarify a matter that there may have been an error this morning?
Judge Stewart: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Mr Dunks, could I just ask you to have a look at page 41 in that statement bundle, please?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: You have listed and given a number to each call. You have said that it was 135 calls in the period up to 15th January 2008. In fact do you want to just look at page 41? Call number 105 is dated, is it not, 17th December 2007?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: There the description of the call is “PM states CP on no 2 is not working“
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Can you help us as to what that means?
Andrew Dunks: “CP” is “counter printer” and “no 2” will be counter 2
Warwick Tatford: So another problem with the printer it would appear?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: That in fact is the last call by the postmaster in the period that we are concerned with. Is that not right? Call 106 for 14th January 2008 refers to an auditor, Keith Noverre. Is that right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes
Warwick Tatford: Then you do list calls going into 2008 which do in the end add up to 135, but in fact looking strictly at the period you were asked to look at, the last call is number 105 from the postmaster in that period you were asked to look at. Would that be right?
Andrew Dunks: Yes. It is actually, yes
Warwick Tatford: So it is not 135. 105 calls to the helpline in that period?
Andrew Dunks: Mmm mm

Warwick Tatford did not correct Jason Beer on this incorrect, but relevant detail. Why?

And why didn’t Jason Beer know about Warwick Tatford’s clarification on this error with Andrew Dunks during trial?

Jason Beer: Thank you. Can we turn to a new topic, please, disclosure of training material. Can we just turn up your witness statement, please, at paragraph 50, which is on page 25 – in fact, it’s the second part of paragraph 50 on page 26. You’re referring to Mrs Misra’s interview and you say: “On the contrary, she said that she had been able to find the cause of the losses – her dishonest employees. Her interview had not made mention of her suffering losses right from the beginning, in the presence of her trainers while they were training her, before any possible theft was involved, which was something that she later relied on heavily in her evidence at trial”. So the point that you’re making here, is this right, that at trial Mrs Misra relied on an occasion or occasions where a loss was suffered whilst a trainer was in the premises with her, in the post office with her?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: You’re making the point: but, hold on, that’s not something she relied on interview?
Warwick Tatford: Well, I think she – I dealt with this. I specifically went – well, normal practice is to go specifically to the questions to see whether it is a matter that could legitimately be raised at that time. But I’m trying to remember exactly how it was. I appreciate I made the point and – that I made that point in my speech and then persuaded the judge that there was a potential adverse inference on that point.
Jason Beer: : So a Section 34 inference
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Against her. But, in any event, you’re making the point here that Mrs Misra relied significantly on the fact that some of the losses occurred in the presence of her trainer?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: : I just want to look at what was disclosed in the trial, as against material that the Inquiry has now uncovered?
Warwick Tatford: Oh, right. All right
Jason Beer: The Post Office has disclosed to us the following document. It’s called a “Request for Ad Hoc Training”, specifically in relation to balancing procedures. Can we look at it, please. POL00047578. Can you see it’s called “Request for Ad Hoc Training”?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: : Name of the outlet, West Byfleet, and its identification code. “Agent’s name”, misspelt Mrs Misra.
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Then if we scroll down: “Ad Hoc Training Required … “Balancing procedures.”
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: “Training Delivery Team to complete”, at the foot of the page. Request received, 25 July 2005; days allocated, 27 July and Wednesday, 3 August 2005. The trainer Michael Opebiyi, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: If we just look at the rest of the page, “Balancing Procedure”, this is for the field trainer to complete. “Balancing procedure”, topic covered: “Check daily procedures, weekly procedures, weekly Horizon reports and cash account”. So it looks like there’d been a request for ad hoc training, specifically in relation to balancing procedures, that looks like it led to Michael Opebiyi being allocated to perform training on 27 July and 3 August. So, overall, this is a request for training relating to Mrs Misra specifically relating to balancing, yes?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Can we look, please, at POL00065114, an “Intervention Manager Visit Log”. This looks like it’s completed by the Intervention Manager for the area, called Alan Ridoutt, and he’s recorded: “This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues and the setting up of individual stock units. I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup as well as arranging ad hoc training. “The [subpostmaster] is still new and is looking for support on many issues – she has the capability but needs occasional guidance”. Then this, if we can just scroll down and highlight it: “This branch is currently holding a loss of £466.73 and an over of £96.80. That was put into the suspense account by the trainer ‘Michael’. Who told the [subpostmaster] that a voucher would be issued to clear it. I have spoken to Michael who confirmed that he did this. I have warned the [subpostmaster] that unless an error comes back they could be liable”. Would you agree that this appears to be a record that, whilst a trainer was there, he agreed that an amount of £466.73 and an over of £96.80 could be put in a suspense account.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, it does. Can I just clarify, it’s me not understanding this: was this something that was disclosed in the trial or it has come forward more recently?
Jason Beer: More recently
Warwick Tatford: Well, it rather looks like I’ve made an error and a bad, unfair point.
Jason Beer: You’re ahead of me because I think you’re thinking ahead to the cross-examination of Mrs Misra
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: When, essentially, you said that what she was saying wasn’t true
Warwick Tatford: Yes, and it looks like a bad point. I’m sorry about that. My understanding was, from what I remember, the training records were disclosed.
Jason Beer: Well, let’s before we get ahead of ourselves
Warwick Tatford: Forgive me, I’m getting ahead. My fault, I’m sorry
Jason Beer: Just see how disclosure unfolded at the trial. Can we look, please, at POL00058503. Can we see at the foot of this page an email from 28 November 2009 from Keith Hadrill to you: “Hi Warwick “Sorry to disturb your weekend. However, herewith the further disclosure request drafted by Issy. “Call me if you need any further clarification”. Then if we can look at the disclosure request, next page, please. Look under the foot of the page, under the cross-heading “Training”, copy of the training manual, when it was supplied, all records provided to the defendant qualifications of the trainer. Then this at paragraph 5: “During the second week of the Defendant’s tenure as a subpostmistress at West Byfleet the trainer was present during the weekly reconciliation. He called the helpline to request explanation as to a loss as, in his opinion, the Defendant had at all times followed procedure. No explanation was given and the Defendant made good the loss. Please provide the following information: “a) The name and contact details of that trainer (to assist in identification the defendant recalls his name was Michael and he was black). “b) What enquiries were made, bearing in mind the request came from a trainer, as to the cause of this loss.” If we go back to page 1, please. You forwarded this, so you were getting it directly from defence council. You forwarded it that night, so the following night, to Jon Longman and Phil Taylor: “Dear Jon & Phil, “Please find yet another disclosure request from the defence, albeit, to an extent, a rehash of what has gone before”. Does the language you’ve used there reflect your frustration at the defence making disclosure requests?
Warwick Tatford: Yes. Not the act of making disclosure requests; that’s not a problem. The problem was their wideness and they were very wide, and they – well, the trouble with very wide defence requests that don’t focus on matters is that it’s possible to be distracted by some things and not concentrate on other more important things. That’s a potential danger. A good prosecutor should be able to deal with everything. But there were a lot of disclosure requests, as I think is clear from the paperwork, and they were very wide.
Jason Beer: That one we’ve looked at was pretty specific, wasn’t it, in the
Warwick Tatford: Oh yes, it’s one of the ones and I think I’d dealt with that in my advice and I think Jon Longman was providing information on that. It maybe that he – he wasn’t aware of the full information when he made disclosure but I’m sure we’ll come to that.
Jason Beer: Can we look at what happened at trial, please, UKGI00014845. So this is the transcript of the trial for 18 October 2010. If we can turn up page 52, please. I’m jumping right in here, this is her evidence-in-chief: “What happened whilst Michael was there? Did he also sit behind and watch what you were doing?” Mrs Misra says: “Yeah, he was sitting behind me, but I mentioned to him – as he come in ‘how is it going?’ I said ‘not good. I am having to put money in every day to the post office’. He was more concerned than Junaid. He said ‘that should not be happening. Let us see how it goes’. Question: “Did it get any better?” Answer: “No. I have to again put money in every day and then when balancing with Michael it came round at £400 short” Question: “At the end of the week?” Then scroll down. End of D: “… second balancing in office with Michael” Question: “So the first day with Michael on the second week?” Answer: “That is right – no – yeah. That is right”. Question: “It is £400 short?” Answer: “No, no, no, that is on the second balancing £400 short” Question: “So that is the end of the second week?” Answer: “End of second week”. Question: “Did you get any error corrections there?”. Answer: “No. Michael said ‘it is a bit unusual. I know you have been doing the transaction correctly’. Then I remember him staying behind and he made a phone call from [my] office … he said he had been observing we are doing the transaction correctly … they have been putting the money in every day to balance the till and he can’t understand why the £400 shortfall is”. So she was showing quite a good recall for the figures there, the £400, wasn’t she?
Warwick Tatford: Yes
Jason Beer: Can we go towards page 132, please, Question: “It is this interview I am looking at. All right? This is you cross-examining Answer: “Okay” Question: “In this interview you have not mentioned Michael, Junaid, what auditor threatened you with, the £500 and then you will lose the post office. You don’t mention Timiko Springer. Yes? All those things are missing from this interview. Do you accept that?” Answer: “I accept I gave answer to the questions what they asked for” Question: “Right what I want to understand is why these things are missing because in fact you have just given us another potential reason. Is it because you were not asked the question or is it because you had not realised how important these things were at the time of interview?” Answer: “I can’t remember, basically … Question: “If you cannot remember, Mrs Misra…” Question: “in an interview in 2008 how is it you remember your dealings with Michael and Junaid in 2005?” Answer: “It happen. It happen in my post office”. Question: “If it happened why didn’t you tell the Post Office this in interview?”. You were suggesting here, not directly, but by implication, through the use of the word “if”, followed up by the failure to mention something in interview, that what she was saying was false, weren’t you?
Warwick Tatford: Well, yes, that would follow from the not being mentioned there that I’m not sure I was that piece of more recent disclosure. But it may – if I’m wrong about that and I’ve made a mistake, I’ll let you go to where we need to go
Jason Beer: If it’s the case, which appears to be the case that those records were not disclosed to the defence or disclosed to you, relating to the trainer Michael’s experience, when he was in branch, that led you to cross-examine Mrs Misra on a false basis, didn’t it?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, it was a bad point. My understanding was that the training records had been disclosed and that they couldn’t remember the details but I’m trying to remember where that was from. But it certainly appears clear and it’s unfortunate, if there’s a piece of disclosure I didn’t have that’s caused me to take a bad point then it’s an unfair point. It’s not Mrs Misra’s point it’s the fault of the prosecution as a whole

Seema Misra, Her Guile & Enabling Innocence Fraud

Seems Misra had indicated her memory was clear and confirmed this by stating “Yeah” (p.114a here).

Jason Beer chose to read out a cherry picked section of Seema Misra’s trial evidence, where she had referred to trainer Michael and a “£400 shortfall”.

He then stated to Warwick Tatford “So she was showing quite a good recall for the figures there, the £400, wasn’t she?”

Intentional Deception

Whilst Seema Misra may have showed “quite a good recall for the figures”, her recall regarding dates was intentionally deceptive.

Seema Misra’s evidence in chief was that trainer Michael Opebiyi had gone into her branch during her second week of trading on “Thursday” 7th July 2005 (p.51h here).

She clarified this by stating “End of – yeah, end of the balancing Wednesday. That is my first balance –second balancing in office, first with Michael” (p.52d here).

Seema Misra knew her dates were not “right”.

Conflating Two Separate Events

She knew trainer Michael had returned to her branch on Wednesday 27th July, and again on Wednesday 3rd August 2005 – neither days being a “Thursday”.

Seema Misra also omitted these facts intentionally in an obvious attempt to confuse the jury.

Just as Keith Hadrill would also have done in relation to Alan Ridoutt and his “visits log”.

Seema Misra did not want the jury to know that Alan Ridoutt had gone to her branch to help her sort out the “mess”. She obfuscated through out her evidence.

She had stated of Alan Ridoutt “Then I remember a guy came in, somebody from Network something” (p.57h here).

Disclosure Of Visits Log & Keith Hadrill’s Knowledge

Jason Beer and Warwick Tatford discussed disclosure of Alan Ridoutt’s visits log, with Jason Beer claiming this log was only disclosed “more recently”.

How then would Keith Hadrill have known about Alan Ridoutt’s visit to help with setting up “the separate tills”, unless he had seen Alan Ridoutt’s visits log?

The visits log had stated;

This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues and the setting up of individual stock units

I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup
Copies of some of Alan Ridoutt’s visit log notes

Seema Misra was adamant during her trial evidence that Alan Ridoutt did not help her set up “separate tills” and even stated she told him “let us leave it” (p.58f here).

The Phantom Helpline Call During First 2 Weeks Trading

This was concocted by Seema Misra.

The “£400 shortfall” did not come about until August 2005, when Michael had returned to the branch after being allocated to do so by intervention manager Alan Ridoutt.

When Jason Beer read out some of Seema Misra’s evidence relating to Michael, he omitted to read out the fact that Seema had stated she “didn’t know where” Michael had phoned.

Jason Beer intentionally chose to not read out all of what Seema Misra had stated, which was;

Then I remember him staying behind and he made a phone call from [my] office, I don’t know where he said he had been observing we are doing the transaction correctly”
Seema Misra – Source trial transcripts from page 52g here

Link to Part 35 here

Killer Luke Mitchell: More On Remorseless Murderer Sean Patrick Toal & How Easily He Lies For Another Guilty Murderer & Robber & Violent Con Scott C Forbes (Part 304)

During a video which aired on the 12th November 2023 killer Sean Toal and Scott Forbes spoke about sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell.

Killer Sean Toal was referred to in Part 301 of this blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below;

PART 301 Remorseless Murderer Sean Patrick Toal Aka Social Sessions Aka @seanaldo1985, Scammer Sandra Lean’s Silence On The Trial Transcripts, The WAP Website & Organised Crime

Read more about Scott Forbes in Part 275 below;

PART 275 Fraudster, Convicted Robber & Violent Con Scott C Forbes & His Alleged Threats To Solicitor Graham Mann

During the video killer Sean Toal and Scott Forbes told many outrageous lies.

The following is some dialogue between the pair of innocence fraudsters;

So the police are now driving people about

They’ve been over the wall of a crime scene

Come on anybody with any..
Scott Forbes

Is this the local police then
Sean Toal

Aye started off with the local police and then Dobbie and that arrived

He was a detective superintendent for Edinburgh
Scott Forbes

But this time the place have already let..
Sean Toal

Aye they’ve allowed people to go home covered in Jodi’s blood
Scott Forbes

And what was Dobbie’s answer to that
Sean Toal

Ah he just says ach we’ve carri.. our investigation was the finest police work that we’ve ever carried out
Scott Forbes

So there’s people there that have been involved in finding the body

They’re covered in blood

They don’t get questioned

They get drove about Dalkeith and then they pick on Luke
Sean Toal

Detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie was not appointed as senior investigating officer until gone 03:00hrs, by which time all the family members had left the scene.

And no one was “covered in blood” like killer Sean Toal stated!

This is another intentional bare faced lie!

Alice Walker was the only person to have gone near her grand-daughter Jodi Jones’ body and Alice had said she might have touched her grand-daughters forehead.

The intentional bare faced lie about Alice Walker “cradling” her grand-daughter body was started by sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell!

Janine Jones, Steven Kelly and Alice Walker were driven directly to Newbattle police station, they were not “drove about” Dalkeith like killer Sean Toal stated and they didn’t go home until after they had been at the police station – where they were asked questions.

Pages 806 and 807 of Janine Jones’ trial testimony describes some of what happened in the early hours of the morning of 1st July 2003;

Tap on the button below to read more, directly from trial transcripts;

LINKS to TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

Link to Part 305 here

Killer Luke Mitchell: Remorseless Murderer Sean Patrick Toal Aka Social Sessions Aka @seanaldo1985, Scammer Sandra Lean’s Silence On The Trial Transcripts, The WAP Website & Organised Crime (Part 301)

Paul Gerard McGilveray (20) was murdered on 8 August 2004 by Sean Patrick Toal.

On 26 July 2005 at Glasgow high court, Sean Toal was found guilty for his murder. Read more by tapping on the button below;

15 YEARS FOR THE SADISTIC PARTY KILLER

Scammer Sandra Lean and her former boyfriend, un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton were involved in killer Sean Toal’s public relations innocence fraud spin campaign:

PART 258 Innocence Fraud Scammers Sandra Lean & Un-Convicted Baby Murderer Billy Middleton From Defunct WAP Website On Guilty Murderer Sean Toal

Excerpts from a July 2023 media article stated of killer Sean Toal;

The thug fought to overturn his sentence and forced his victim’s mum to go to court 36 times.

Now Toal has completed a law degree and is preparing to launch his own crime podcast.

He has also thrown his weight behind Luke Mitchell, who was convicted of killing girlfriend Jodi Jones, 14, in Dalkeith, Midlothian in 2003.
Excerpts by Alice Walker for the Scottish Sun article headed Brazen murderer stabbed our son to death – now he’s launching a crime podcast about ‘justice’, he has no remorse dated 3rd July 2023

In reality – killers Sean Toal and Luke Mitchell had been cohorts since at least 2010.

Sandra Lean has remained (publicly) silent since her bare faced lies, disinformation and misinformation are being exposed by trial transcripts but she recently commented on murderer Sean Toal on Facebook;

Nicola Brennan, who was referred to in Part 296 here commented on Sandra’s post;

Whilst over on X Heather Brunt, who was referred to in Part 288 here also tweeted on killer Sean Toal – commenting on how fraudster Scott Forbes “worked on his case”;

Tap on the button below to read more about fraudster Scott Forbes;

PART 275 Fraudster, Convicted Robber & Violent Con Scott C Forbes & His Alleged Threats To Solicitor Graham Mann

Killer Sean Toal also refers to himself as Social Sessions on various social media platforms, as well as @seanaldo1985 on X.

Social Sessions tweeted Neil MacKay on the 4th December 2023;

Neil MacKay was involved in the fraudulent 2021 channel 5 TV show Murder In A Small Town. Neil MacKay was referred to in Parts 261 and 265 of this ongoing blog series, both of which can be read by tapping on the buttons below;

PART 261 Neil MacKay From The 2021 Innocence Fraud TV Show “Murder In A Small Town”, His Alleged “Phone Call” From “A Senior Police Officer” In 2003/04 & His “Jail” Visit With The Murderer & Conversation With Murderers Mother Corinne Mitchell

PART 265 Where Is The Evidence Neil MacKay Visited Murderer Luke Mitchell & Why Would An Alleged “Senior Police Officer” Linked To The Original Investigation Have Contacted A Random Reporter In Glasgow?

On the 7th December 2023 killer Sean Toal asked John Halley to message him.

John Halley was arrested in March 2023 for sex offences (Read more here) and had also been promoting scammer Sandra Lean’s nonsense on social media, although he too has recently gone quiet on this.

Again – since trial transcripts have been published, Sandra Lean has remained silent

Tap on the button below for links to trial transcripts;

PART 295 FREE Book – Betraying The Innocent Using Psychological Manipulation, Intentional Bare Faced Lies, Disinformation & Misinformation By Innocence Fraud Phenomenon Grifter Sandra Lean