Tag: Bare faced lies

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

Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry Charade: Thief & Fraudster Seema Misra Chose To Lie To The Jury & Intentionally Conflate Michael Opebiyi‘s 1st Week In The Branch With His Return To The Branch Weeks Later (Part 34)

Seema Misra
Jason Beer

18th October 2010 ~ Lies & Concoctions During Trial

On 18th October 2010 during her evidence in chief, Seema Misra attempted to dupe the jury by allegeding there had been “shortfalls” in her West Byfleet post office branch, at the end of her very first and second weeks balancing – in front of both her “onsite” trainers Junaid and Michael.

She had been given the keys to the post office on 29th June 2005.

Seema Misra’s evidence was that trainer Janaid arrived at her branch on Thursday 30th June, and stayed for one week, until balancing on Wednesday 6th July 2005.

Her evidence during trial regarding the weekly balance was an alleged “£150” figure at the end of her first week trading with Junaid, and an alleged “£400 shortfall” figure, at the end of her second week with Michael Opebiyi.

She lied to the jury and said that trainer Michael Opebiyi had “made a phone call from office, I don’t know where”, and that she did not hear from Michael again after Wednesday 13th July 2005.

There were no telephone calls to the horizon helpline during Seema Misra’s two week “onsite” training, between 30th June and 13th July 2005, with regards any “£400 shortfall”.

Defence lawyer Keith Hadrill asked Seema Misra about her second week in the branch, which began on Thursday 7th July 2005. Below are copies of extracts from trial transcripts regarding this (p.51 here);

  • Keith Hadrill: So the week goes by. Did you know what the transaction errors were or did you receive anything personally? The second week, the same trainer or a different trainer?
  • Seema Misra: No. This was Michael came in
  • Keith Hadrill: Was that from a Thursday to Wednesday or Wednesday to Thursday?
  • Seema Misra: (inaudible) Thursday
  • Keith Hadrill: What happened whilst Michael was there? Did he also sit behind and watch what you were doing?
  • Seema Misra: 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”.
  • Keith Hadrill: Did it get any better?
  • Seema Misra: No: I have to again put money in every day and then when balancing with Michael it came round about £400 short
  • Keith Hadrill: At the end of the week?
  • Seema Misra: End of – yeah, end of the balancing Wednesday. That is my first balance –second balancing in office, first with Michael
  • Keith Hadrill: So the first day with Michael on the second week?
  • Seema Misra: That is right – no – yeah. That is right
  • Keith Hadrill: It is £400 short?
  • Seema Misra: No, no, no. That is on the second balancing £400 short
  • Keith Hadrill: So that is the end of the second week?
  • Seema Misra: End of second week
  • Keith Hadrill: Did you get any error corrections there?
  • Seema Misra: 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 office, I don’t know where, but he said he had been observing. We are doing the transaction correctly. He can’t understand – and they have been putting the money in every day to balance the till and he can’t understand why the £400 shortfall is
  • Keith Hadrill: Right. So that gets to the end of the week. Did you get any more training?
  • Seema Misra: Not after Michael, no, but he said he will look into it
  • Keith Hadrill: Was that the last you heard of him?
  • Seema Misra: That is right

During his cross examination, prosecutor Warwick Tatford referred to Seema Misra’s memory with respect to trainers Janaid and Michael, and their time at her branch during her first two weeks trading.

Seema Misra agreed with Warwick Tatford that she had a “clear” memory of these events. Below are copies of further extracts from transcripts (p.114 here);

  • Warwick Tatford: Right. I see. 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?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: And that is an important part of your defence, isn’t it?
  • Seema Misra: I don’t understand that. Yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: You are saying that the losses may be down to some kind of computer error, are you not, or are you not saying that?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah. We are saying that, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: Right, or they are down to your incompetence?
  • Seema Misra: Yes
  • Warwick Tatford: Or they are down to theft?
  • Seema Misra: Yes
  • Warwick Tatford: Do you accept it cannot all be down to theft?
  • Seema Misra: I don’t know. It is just I know the losses are there
  • Warwick Tatford: Let us just examine it. £89,000 loss when you dismiss the thieves. The thieves have gone. The losses continue. So the losses that continue cannot be down to the thieves because you have sacked them?
  • Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: So theft alone by your employees does not explain the loss, does it?
  • Seema Misra: Okay
  • Warwick Tatford: So it must be down to one or both of two matters, either computer error or your incompetence?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: Right. So your potential incompetence or the issue of your competence and the issue of computer error are important parts of your defence?
  • Seema Misra: Okay
  • Warwick Tatford: You are saying as I understand it “I knew from day one there was a problem with the system because I was suffering these losses.” Yes
  • Seema Misra: I knew from the day one that we were losing money
  • Warwick Tatford: Yes, and day one in what would have been rather difficult for your employees to steal from you on day one with Junaid there, would it not?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah, when I look back, yes
  • Warwick Tatford: Yes. So from day one you were suffering losses which you could not explain and you now put those down to either failings on your part, a lack of competence, or some sort of computer problem. Do I have it correct?
  • Seema Misra: Sorry, say that again
  • Warwick Tatford: You are saying you think there was a problem with the computer. Is that right?
  • Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: You are saying you are worried that you were not up to running the system, that you were lost?
  • Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: When you were interviewed by the Post Office on 14th January just after the audit those are matters you knew, were they not? You knew on day one that there were losses, that Junaid had found losses. You knew that Michael had had losses that he could not explain. Those are matters fresher in your memory than they are now because you were being interviewed in 2008. Yes?
  • Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: So why didn’t you say anything to the Post Office investigators in interview about what happened with Junaid and Michael?
  • Seema Misra: I got answered the question what they asked for. I did mention in Elaine Ridge’s interview that it was because staff was blaming might be a system error

Seema Misra lied to the jury and chose to intentionally conflate Michael Opebiyi‘s first week in the branch, between Thursday 7th July to Wednesday 13th July 2005, with his return to the branch, several weeks later.

During her evidence in chief Seema Misra had stated “Then I remember a guy came in, somebody from Network something” (p.57h here).

Almost a month after Seema Misra began trading, on 25th July 2005 a request was received relating to her branch for “ad hoc” training to be carried out regarding “balancing procedure”.

Following the 25th July request, trainer Michael Opebiyi was allocated to return to her branch on Wednesday 27th July, and again on Wednesday 3rd August 2005.

These were only one day assignments.

Referring to trainer Michael’s last day of week two of her time as sub-postmistress of the West Byfleet post officer (13th July 2005), Keith Hadrill had asked Seema Misra “Was that the last you heard of him?”.

To which she lied and stated “That is right”.

Keith Hadrill also asked Seema Misra “Did you get any more training?” to which she had stated “Not after Michael, no”.

This was a lie by concealment.

Michael Opebiyi had returned to her branch almost a month after she had last seen him, but Seema Misra chose to withhold this information from the jury.

She also chose to lie about the “£400 shortfall” figure, which was not known about until August 2005.

The “guy” referred to by Seema “from Network something” was intervention manager Alan Ridoutt.

Alan Ridoutt made a record of his dealings with Seema Misra, as well as the “£400 shortfall” figure.

The following are copies of some of Alan Ridoutt’s ”visits log”;

This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues

I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup as well as arranging ad hoc training

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

Copies of intervention manager Alan Ridoutt’s notes

25th February 2022 ~ Lies & Concoctions During Public Inquiry

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 lawyer Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry, a post conviction activist or an independent inquirer?

On 25th February 2022 Seema Misra chose to lie to the inquiry about trainer Michael Opebiyi, and she literally attempted to re-write history – enabled by Jason Beer.

Below is an extract from inquiry transcripts where Jason Beer chose to go along with Seema Misra’s lies and concoctions regarding trainer Michael, which is surely in breach of his legal and professional commitments to the inquiry – and to the rule of law (p.44 & 45 here).

  • Jason Beer: Did there come a time when the trainer rang the helpline
  • Seema Misra: Yes. So the first week trainer, he was.. he was there but, like when the shortfalls were there and everything he said “Oh, and on Wednesday when you do rollover, it will balance up”. And on Wednesday when I do rollover, I have to put again money from the shop counter and he was just gone, nothing.. nothing said. But then when the next trainer came, Michael, the second week, and he asked me “Congratulations, how is it going and everything?”. I said.. you know, I told him what had been happening from the first day until the balancing. He was concerned. He said “Let’s see how it goes”. He was there like Junaid but, he was paying more attention to each and every transaction we do and on Wednesday he was there with the balancing and all that, and there was a shortfall. It was in hundreds.. I think a couple of hundred pounds. He called the helpline said he had been here whole week watching each and every transaction, me doing it correctly, but still there’s a shortfall. So the helpline asked him to do some procedure on the system and the figure doubled up
  • Jason Beer: Just tell us that bit again. He was getting some instructions down the phoneline from the helpline?
  • Seema Misra: Correct
  • Jason Beer: They said to do something with the system?
  • Seema Misra: Correct
  • Jason Beer: And that caused the shortfall to double?
  • Seema Misra: Double
  • Jason Beer: So what happened with the doubled shortfall?
  • Seema Misra: Nothing. He said, like, you know “Just keep an eye”. I can’t remember exactly how was it dealt with but he said “Keep an eye, if there’s any issues there’s a helpline number, call them up”. But he was shocked. He said “I can’t” – I ask him can he stay over another week or something. He said he can’t, he’s supposed to here (sic) for one week only

Why did Jason Beer choose to enable Seema Misra’s lies?

She was referring to events which occurred around a month after she began trading, when a voucher was issued to “clear” the “£400 shortfall” figure.

Seema Misra’s allegations that figures “doubled” was, and still is, yet another blatant concoction.

At no time during her evidence at trial did Seema Misra give any indication that any figures had “doubled”.

PART 34a ~ Continued.. Grave Concerns Regarding Jason Beer & His Legal & Professional Commitments To The Inquiry & The Rule Of Law & Fraudster Seema Misra’s Guile
*UPDATED* 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?

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?

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.

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).

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

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

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)

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

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

Seema Misra
Jason Beer

18th October 2010 ~ Lies & Concoctions During Trial

On 18th October 2010 during her evidence in chief, Seema Misra attempted to dupe the jury by allegeding there had been “shortfalls” in her West Byfleet post office branch, at the end of her very first and second weeks balancing – in front of both her onsite trainers Junaid and Michael Opebiyi.

She had been given the keys to the post office on 29th June 2005.

Seema Misra’s evidence was that trainer Janaid arrived at her branch on Thursday 30th June, and stayed for one week, until balancing on Wednesday 6th July 2005.

Her evidence during trial regarding the weekly balance was an alleged “£150” figure at the end of her first week trading with Junaid, and an alleged “£400 shortfall” figure, at the end of her second week with Michael.

She lied to the jury and said that trainer Michael had “made a phone call from office, I don’t know where”, and that she did not hear from Michael again after Wednesday 13th July 2005.

There were no telephone calls to the horizon helpline during Seema Misra’s two week onsite training, between 30th June and 13th July 2005, with regards any “£400 shortfall”.

Defence lawyer Keith Hadrill asked Seema Misra about her second week in the branch, which began on Thursday 7th July 2005. Below are copies of extracts from trial transcripts regarding this (p.51 here);

  • Keith Hadrill: So the week goes by. Did you know what the transaction errors were or did you receive anything personally? The second week, the same trainer or a different trainer?
  • Seema Misra: No. This was Michael came in
  • Keith Hadrill: Was that from a Thursday to Wednesday or Wednesday to Thursday?
  • Seema Misra: (inaudible) Thursday
  • Keith Hadrill: What happened whilst Michael was there? Did he also sit behind and watch what you were doing?
  • Seema Misra: 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”.
  • Keith Hadrill: Did it get any better?
  • Seema Misra: No: I have to again put money in every day and then when balancing with Michael it came round about £400 short
  • Keith Hadrill: At the end of the week?
  • Seema Misra: End of – yeah, end of the balancing Wednesday. That is my first balance –second balancing in office, first with Michael
  • Keith Hadrill: So the first day with Michael on the second week?
  • Seema Misra: That is right – no – yeah. That is right
  • Keith Hadrill: It is £400 short?
  • Seema Misra: No, no, no. That is on the second balancing £400 short
  • Keith Hadrill: So that is the end of the second week?
  • Seema Misra: End of second week
  • Keith Hadrill: Did you get any error corrections there?
  • Seema Misra: 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 office, I don’t know where, but he said he had been observing. We are doing the transaction correctly. He can’t understand – and they have been putting the money in every day to balance the till and he can’t understand why the £400 shortfall is
  • Keith Hadrill: Right. So that gets to the end of the week. Did you get any more training?
  • Seema Misra: Not after Michael, no, but he said he will look into it
  • Keith Hadrill: Was that the last you heard of him?
  • Seema Misra: That is right

During his cross examination, prosecutor Warwick Tatford referred to Seema’s memory with respect to trainers Janaid and Michael, and their time at her branch during her first two weeks trading.

Seema Misra agreed with Warwick Tatford that she had a “clear” memory of these events. Below are copies of further extracts from transcripts (p.114 here);

  • Warwick Tatford: Right. I see. 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?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: And that is an important part of your defence, isn’t it?
  • Seema Misra: I don’t understand that. Yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: You are saying that the losses may be down to some kind of computer error, are you not, or are you not saying that?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah. We are saying that, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: Right, or they are down to your incompetence?
  • Seema Misra: Yes
  • Warwick Tatford: Or they are down to theft?
  • Seema Misra: Yes
  • Warwick Tatford: Do you accept it cannot all be down to theft?
  • Seema Misra: I don’t know. It is just I know the losses are there
  • Warwick Tatford: Let us just examine it. £89,000 loss when you dismiss the thieves. The thieves have gone. The losses continue. So the losses that continue cannot be down to the thieves because you have sacked them?
  • Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: So theft alone by your employees does not explain the loss, does it?
  • Seema Misra: Okay
  • Warwick Tatford: So it must be down to one or both of two matters, either computer error or your incompetence?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: Right. So your potential incompetence or the issue of your competence and the issue of computer error are important parts of your defence?
  • Seema Misra: Okay
  • Warwick Tatford: You are saying as I understand it “I knew from day one there was a problem with the system because I was suffering these losses.” Yes
  • Seema Misra: I knew from the day one that we were losing money
  • Warwick Tatford: Yes, and day one in what would have been rather difficult for your employees to steal from you on day one with Junaid there, would it not?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah, when I look back, yes
  • Warwick Tatford: Yes. So from day one you were suffering losses which you could not explain and you now put those down to either failings on your part, a lack of competence, or some sort of computer problem. Do I have it correct?
  • Seema Misra: Sorry, say that again
  • Warwick Tatford: You are saying you think there was a problem with the computer. Is that right?
  • Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: You are saying you are worried that you were not up to running the system, that you were lost?
  • Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: When you were interviewed by the Post Office on 14th January just after the audit those are matters you knew, were they not? You knew on day one that there were losses, that Junaid had found losses. You knew that Michael had had losses that he could not explain. Those are matters fresher in your memory than they are now because you were being interviewed in 2008. Yes?
  • Seema Misra: That is right, yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: So why didn’t you say anything to the Post Office investigators in interview about what happened with Junaid and Michael?
  • Seema Misra: I got answered the question what they asked for. I did mention in Elaine Ridge’s interview that it was because staff was blaming might be a system error

Seema Misra lied to the jury and chose to intentionally conflate Michael Opebiyi‘s first week in the branch, between Thursday 7th July to Wednesday 13th July 2005, with his return to the branch, several weeks later.

During her evidence in chief Seema Misra had stated “Then I remember a guy came in, somebody from Network something” (p.57h here).

Almost a month after Seema Misra began trading, on 25th July 2005 a request was received relating to her branch for “ad hoc” training to be carried out regarding “balancing procedure”.

Following the 25th July request, trainer Michael Opebiyi was allocated to return to her branch on Wednesday 27th July, and again on Wednesday 3rd August 2005.

These were only one day assignments.

  • Keith Hadrill: Was that the last you heard of him?
  • Seema Misra: That is right

Again, referring to her first two weeks onsite training, Keith Hadrill had asked Seema Misra “Did you get any more training?” to which she had stated “Not after Michael, no”.

This was a lie by concealment.

Michael Opebiyi had returned to her branch almost a month after she had last seen him, but Seema Misra chose to withhold this information from the jury.

She also chose to lie about the “£400 shortfall” figure, which was not known about until August 2005.

The “guy” referred to by Seema “from Network something” was intervention manager Alan Ridoutt.

Alan Ridoutt made a record of his dealings with Seema Misra, as well as the “£400 shortfall” figure.

The following are copies of some of Alan Ridoutt’s ”visits log”;

This branch was visited on 10, 17 and 27 August 2005 regarding balancing issues

I have spent many hours sorting out balancing issues and helping with the stock setup as well as arranging ad hoc training

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

Copies of intervention manager Alan Ridoutt’s notes

25th February 2022 ~ Lies & Concoctions During Public Inquiry

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?

On 25th February 2022 Seema Misra chose to lie to the inquiry about trainer Michael Opebiyi, and she literally attempted to re-write history – enabled by Jason Beer.

Below is an extract from inquiry transcripts where Jason Beer chose to go along with Seema Misra’s lies and concoctions regarding trainer Michael, which is surely in breach of his legal and professional commitments to the inquiry, and to the rule of law (p.44 & 45 here).

  • Jason Beer: Did there come a time when the trainer rang the helpline
  • Seema Misra: Yes. So the first week trainer, he was.. he was there but, like when the shortfalls were there and everything he said “Oh, and on Wednesday when you do rollover, it will balance up”. And on Wednesday when I do rollover, I have to put again money from the shop counter and he was just gone, nothing.. nothing said. But then when the next trainer came, Michael, the second week, and he asked me “Congratulations, how is it going and everything?”. I said.. you know, I told him what had been happening from the first day until the balancing. He was concerned. He said “Let’s see how it goes”. He was there like Junaid but, he was paying more attention to each and every transaction we do and on Wednesday he was there with the balancing and all that, and there was a shortfall. It was in hundreds.. I think a couple of hundred pounds. He called the helpline said he had been here whole week watching each and every transaction, me doing it correctly, but still there’s a shortfall. So the helpline asked him to do some procedure on the system and the figure doubled up
  • Jason Beer: Just tell us that bit again. He was getting some instructions down the phoneline from the helpline?
  • Seema Misra: Correct
  • Jason Beer: They said to do something with the system?
  • Seema Misra: Correct
  • Jason Beer: And that caused the shortfall to double?
  • Seema Misra: Double
  • Jason Beer: So what happened with the doubled shortfall?
  • Seema Misra: Nothing. He said, like, you know “Just keep an eye”. I can’t remember exactly how was it dealt with but he said “Keep an eye, if there’s any issues there’s a helpline number, call them up”. But he was shocked. He said “I can’t” – I ask him can he stay over another week or something. He said he can’t, he’s supposed to here (sic) for one week only

During the inquiry Seema Misra was referring to events which occurred around a month after she began trading, when a voucher was issued to “clear” the “£400 shortfall” figure.

Her allegations that figures “doubled” was, and still is, yet another blatant concoction.

At no time during her evidence at trial did Seema Misra give any indication that any figures had “doubled”.

PART 34a ~ Continued.. Grave Concerns Regarding Jason Beer & His Legal & Professional Commitments To The Inquiry & The Rule Of Law & Fraudster Seema Misra’s Guile
*UPDATED* 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)

Why Didn’t The Media Ever Report On The Fact Murderer Luke Mitchell Had Stated The “Dancers“ In The Video He Watched Were “Dressed As Elizabeth Short”? (Part 317)

Elizabeth Short (22) was a native of Boston, who had spent her early life in New England and Florida.

In July 1946 she relocated to California, where her father lived.

She stayed in a rented room behind the Florentine Gardens nightclub on Hollywood Boulevard, and worked as a waitress whilst apparently looking for acting roles.

However there is “no record of her having played so much as a bit part”.

Elizabeth Short’s body was found on 15th January 1947 by a woman called Betty Bersinger, who initially thought it was a mannequin.

The media went on to refer to Elizabeth Short as the “Black Dhalia”, a spin on the 1946 crime film the “Blue Dahlia”.

Excerpts from an online article read;

The LAPD identified Elizabeth Short by her fingerprints, and an autopsy was performed on Short’s body on January 16, 1947.

Marks on her body suggested the woman had been bound and tortured, and her official cause of death was cerebral hemorrhage and shock.

By Emily Martin article headed A Brief History of The Black Dahlia

Murderer Luke Mitchell On Elizabeth Short

The following extracts have been copied directly from Corinne Mitchell’s trial testimony in which Elizabeth Short was referred to. Advocate depute Alan Turnbull was telling the jury about the murderers psyche report (from page 2457 of day 2);

  • Alan Turnbull: There is something else in that report that I wonder if you would help me with. Look with me please at page 11 of that report.
  • Lord Nimmo Smith: This is defence production 26?
  • Alan Turnbull: It’s defence production 26 my Lord, thank you very much. And we’ll put it on the screen because the ladies and gentlemen don’t have a copy of it. And it’s that paragraph at the top of the page that I’m interested in. You’ll see there that Luke is discussing with Dr Campbell is the fact that he had a Marilyn Manson DVD which the police took away
  • Corinne Mitchell: Yes
  • Alan Turnbull: And that was the one which was bought on the Wednesday after Jodi’s killing?
  • Corinne Mitchell: Yes
  • Alan Turnbull: It goes on to say that ‘he indicated that the DVD portrayed a video with dancers dressed as Elizabeth short. When he explained, for my benefit, that Elizabeth Short was known as the Black Dhalia and had been a good actress and had been found dead by the side of the road with traumatic incision of (sic) injuries, these were across her face, across her abdomen and chunks of flesh had been removed from her chin and left breast. Luke Mitchell stated that he had not had any knowledge of Elizabeth Short until he had accessed this information via a website. He states that he did this after the death of Jodi Jones’
  • Corinne Mitchell: Yes
  • Alan Turnbull: Now had you seen the DVD that went with the Marilyn Manson CD?
  • Corinne Mitchell: Some of it (incomprehensible) I don’t like Marilyn Manson
  • Alan Turnbull: Yes. It’s just the notion that it portrays dancers dressed as Elizabeth Short that I’m interested in. Did you see that on the bit that you saw?
  • Corinne Mitchell: No
  • Alan Turnbull: Have you by any chance seen another Marilyn Manson video that accompanied the single from that CD, where the dancers had sort of uniforms on and a mark painted up the side of their face as if it was showing some sort of split in their cheek?
  • Corinne Mitchell: No. But as I say I don’t like Marilyn Manson so don’t watch any (incomprehensible)
  • Alan Turnbull: Alright. But you see I’m looking at the reference here to dancers dressed as Elizabeth Short. And it would appear that this is something that Luke has told Dr Campbell about?
  • Corinne Mitchell: Yes
  • Alan Turnbull: And has explained to Dr Campbell that he found the information about Elizabeth Short via a website?
  • Corinne Mitchell: Yes it says that here
  • Alan Turnbull: Do you know where he did that?
  • Corinne Mitchell: No
  • Alan Turnbull: Would it have been at your house?
  • Corinne Mitchell: Possibly, I don’t understand (sic) so I don’t know. More than likely his fathers
  • Alan Turnbull: Was there a computer still working and available in your house after the police came to take things away in early July?
  • Corinne Mitchell: No, there was nothing there
  • Alan Turnbull: Okay. So it couldn’t really have been in your house if it was?
  • Corinne Mitchell: Unless it was Shane, if Shane got his laptop back. I doubt that he would have used Shane’s laptop so it was possibly at his fathers
  • Alan Turnbull: Right. Because Luke’s explaining here that although he accessed this website, he did it after the death of Jodi
  • Corinne Mitchell: Yes
  • Alan Turnbull: Right. But between Jodi’s death, on the 4th July there would be a computer in your house but not afterwards?
  • Corinne Mitchell: That’s right

Tap on the button below for links to trial transcripts;

TRIAL TRANSCIPTS: Her Majesty’s Advocate -v- Luke Muir Mitchell

Excerpts By Scammer Sandra Lean

Scammer Sandra Lean omitted the above evidence from her second innocence fraud book, but did state the following;

Of the August 14th raid on the Mitchell home, one officer said in a statement that he was told to look specifically for anything Manson related.

Also, the officer who found the Dahlia paintings said that the images were “not easy” to find on the internet and that someone looking for them would have to know what they were looking for – which clearly suggests this officer did!

Excerpts by Sandra Lean from her 2nd innocence fraud book Innocents Betrayed

Tap on the button below for links to FREE Ebook;

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

Link to Part 318 here

More Questions For Innocence Fraudster Nick Wallis On His Great Post Office Scandal & How It Does Not Address The Actual Facts Of The Case Against Thief, Embezzler & Fraudster Seema Misra – Including Her Horizon Helpline Calls (Part 27)

Nick Wallis
Seema Misra

Facts Vs Fiction

Innocence fraudster Nick Wallis made the following statement in his book on thief and embezzler Seema Misra, referring to “early 2007” he stated;

The calls to the helpline eased up

Excerpt by Nick Wallis from his book The Great British Post Office Scandal published by Helen Lacey & David Chaplin of Bath publishing via kindle October 2021

There were only ever 4-5 calls made to the helpline relating to monies, towards the end of February 2006.

He then went on to allege;

Seema had been having problems since day one – 18 months of money apparently disappearing, requests for more training, sacking staff, numerous calls to the helpline

Excerpt by Nick Wallis from his book The Great British Post Office Scandal published by Helen Lacey & David Chaplin of Bath publishing via kindle October 2021

Thief and fraudster Seema defence during her trial, was that she alleged she was “having problems since day one”, the evidence however did not, and does not, support these allegations.

The evidence also does not support Seema’s allegations that she was making “requests for more training”.

She had already demonstrated in her first 8 months of trading, that she was competent in using the Horizon computer system and could train others to use it.

There was also no evidence that she had been “sacking staff” and 4-5 calls to the helpline at the end of February 2006, relating to one issue, does not equate to “numerous calls”.

Seema Trained Javed & Nadia To Use Horizon

Seema Misra told the jury that she had trained both Javed Badiwalia and his sister-in-law Nadia Badiwalia to use the Horizon computer system.

Javed was already working in the shop when the Misra’s had bought it, then Seema trained him to work in the post office.

The following is an extract from trial transcripts, where her defence lawyer Keith Hadrill asked her about training (Source from page 60 here);

  • Keith Hadrill: Who trained him as to how to carry out procedures in the post office?
  • Seema Misra: I did
  • Keith Hadrill: Shakia was already working in the post office?
  • Seema Misra: That is right
  • Keith Hadrill: You continued to employ him there?
  • Seema Misra: That is right
  • Judge Stewart: He or she?
  • Seema Misra: He
  • Judge Stewart: He
  • Keith Hadrill: And Nadia Badiwalia, who is Nadia Badiwalia?
  • Seema Misra: Nadia is Javed’s sister in law
  • Keith Hadrill: How did she come to be employed?
  • Seema Misra: It was later on. I was looking for staff
  • Keith Hadrill: You were looking for staff?
  • Seema Misra: I was looking for staff. Shakia was left by then. I was looking for staff and Nadia often came in so I took her on board
  • Keith Hadrill: The sister in law of?
  • Seema Misra: Javed
  • Keith Hadrill: Javed who was already employed in the shop, so you then move him into the —
  • Seema Misra: The post office
  • Keith Hadrill: Nadia was working in which part?
  • Seema Misra: She was working in post office, straight in the post office
  • Keith Hadrill: Who trained her
  • Seema Misra: I did

It is not clear when or why Shakia Sukenser stopped working for Seema, however her trial evidence suggests she had trained Javed, because Shakia had left.

Javed and Nadia were both working in the post office, and presumably they would cover for each other on thier days off, or if Javed was helping in the shop.

Javed Badiwalia only worked for the Misra’s for 8 months.

Therefore if Seema’s claim that she was “looking for staff” and Nadia started working “later on”, Nadia obviously only worked in the post office for a few months.

Compliance Audit & Alleged “Illegal Immigrant”

On 7th February 2006 the West Byfleet post office had a compliance audit, which was made by “appointment”, meaning Seema would have known about the auditors visit in advance.

This would have giving her, and her staff, time to make sure she was seen to be “complying with regulations”.

However, if Nadia Badiwalia was “an illegal Immigrant”, like Davinder Misra had alleged she was to Surrey police, would Seema have had Nadia working at all during this audit, or even following it?

Nick Wallis does not mention or explore this in his book.

Read more about the “compliance audit” by tapping on the button below;

HORIZON CRIME PAYS TIMELINE: The True Story Of Fraudsters Seema & Davinder Misra & Their West Byfleet Costcutters Shop & Post Office (Part 23)

Horizon Helpline Calls

There was zero evidence of there ever having been “numerous calls to the helpline”.

All call logs to the Horizon helpline number were disclosed and addressed during trial, starting from the day Seema went “live”.

Between 30th June 2005, when she took over as sub-postmistress, to 14th January 2008, the day she was suspended, there were a total of 101 calls made from the West Byfleet post office to the Horizon helpline number.

Most of the calls were related to “printer failures”, some were problems with the “bar code readers”, and one call for example, had been made by an auditor requesting a “one shot password”l

The only calls to the helpline relating to monies, throughout Seema Misra’s time at the post office, were a series of calls made between the 20th February and 23rd February 2006.

These 4-5 calls were related to the same thing.

At 10:42am on Monday 20th February 2006 the helpline received a call in which it was recorded “the postmaster states that showing £6,000 down from balance” (Source p.66 here).

There were one (or two?) further calls made on 20th February, one recording “PM states showing 6,000 down from balance” (p.85 here).

Then at 12:45pm on Tuesday 21st February another call log recorded “the postmaster stated that the system is showing her as being down every day. She has been advised by NBSC and the postmaster was advised to follow the advice” (Source p.66 here).

Finally at 8:59am on Thursday 23rd February 2006 there was a call log which had recorded “The postmaster was getting discrepancies. They have been investigated and the postmaster has been advised that the NBSC will take a second look at this as the office stock units appear to be in a mess” (Source p.66 here).

The resolution for these calls was dated Friday 3rd March 2006 (p.86 here).

Staff Leaving Dates Don’t Tally

The following is a further extract from trial transcripts, where prosecutor Warwick Tatford asked Seema about her written statement, made on the day she was suspended (Source from page 86 here);

  • Warwick Tatford: Your note which you completed they tell you, it is read out and on page 3 which is handwritten page 22, you said that one person left owing 3,000 and £4,000 losses from the till. Others had left the country. Who were they that had left the country? Who were the persons who had left the country
  • Seema Misra: That is Javed
  • Warwick Tatford: Javed Badiwalia?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah
  • Warwick Tatford: “One left February 06 and others left at the end of 06.” You were asked how much money was missing at the end of 06 and you say “it is around 89,000 to 90,000.” Is that correct?
  • Seema Misra: Yeah. That seems right
  • Warwick Tatford: How were the monies then reduced from 89 to £90,000 to the £74,000 which we now know is the loss in the indictment?
  • Seema Misra: I have borrowed from family and on the like shop side like to this taking, whatever I needed for tomorrow, all the excess I was putting in the post office and whatever I needed on the shop side for banking or cash I was keeping there on the side and that was going in the post office

Again, Seema Misra only ever contacted the Horizon helpline about a “£6,000” figure towards the end of February, seemingly after Javed and Nadia had left.

Omika Kalia transferred £16,000 into Seema’s bank account on 6th April 2006.

Seema had alleged she was “£6,000 down from balance” on Monday 20th February 2006.

When and how did this alleged “£6,000” figure jump to Nick Wallis’s “By April 2006, Seema’s losses had reached five figures”?

Both Javed’s and Nadia had left the post office by this time.

Javed Badiwalia had not left the country in February 2006, he had made a police witness statement on 13th April 2006.

The crime report relating to his contact with police had stated that Davinder Misra “had started spreading rumours around the community, telling others that Javed had stolen £2,000”.

How Did Seema Misra Know Of The “Missing” £89,000-£90,000 At End Of 2006?

If Davinder Misra was making allegations against Javed in April 2006 regarding a “£2,000” figure, where did Seema get her “£3,000” and “£4,000” trial figures from and how and why did this “£2,000” figure jump to “£89,000” on the day of Seema’s suspension?

Below is what Seema Misra had written in her statement, following the 14th January 2008 audit;

I confirm in office audit there will be around 60K shortage due to staff theft. It was around 89K and we bring it down to 60 and I want to make an arrangement to clear the balance

I would appreciate if I can have a chance to clear the shortage. I made up two brackets, two cash pouches as we were borrowing some money from friends and family to fill the rem bags up

This loss is being carried forward since over a year, over last year.

We put money in to make it right. Shortage. We took over the staff from previous owner for about one to one and a half.

They were running the post office with us as we thought they would, they run it for so many years they ought to be better than us, but after a while when we learned more and more we noticed that things weren’t right.

I think we noticed there were 4,000 euros missing. (2) Money transferred to AA was shorter than actual money transferred over.

Lottery money was being taken from shop but never entered on Horizon

Even on the shop side was low as well, so we got rid of them. They refused to pay and we kept quiet. We do not want to lose the PO

After that as well as we received Lotto error notice when we cleared.

Once again I want to clear all the losses and I promise I will clear everything and will not disappoint you

Excerpts from Seema Misra’s 14th January 2008 written statement – Source from page 65 here

The following is from another hand written note by Davinder Misra;

We have around £2,000 short in the stock unit due to staff theft. It was more than what we have now. We did put some money in this stock unit to make it good. This is what is left, over (or owed – see trial transcript page 65 here) £2,000 which we need to put this money is taken out by Sarah

Davinder Misra – Source trial transcripts from page 65 here

Seema Misra’s evidence was that she wasn’t doing “proper balancing” from around April 2006, therefore if she knew “around 89,000 to 90,000” was “missing” by the “end of 06”, her (and her husband) must have stolen this money.

I said like as of mid April I just a bit lost the interest and all I doing, I didn’t do the balance properly. I was just doing a snapshot and just putting the figure

Seema Misra – Source from trial transcripts page 177 here

Read more on Nick Wallis’s alleged “five figures” in Part 24, which can be read by tapping on the button below;

Questions For Innocence Fraudster Nick Wallis Re: His Great Post Office Scandal Book On Thief, Embezzler & Fraudster Seema Misra & Her Husband Davinder’s 8th April 2006 Police Crime Report (Part 24)

Link to Part 28 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)

Murderer Sean Toal
Scammer Sandra Lean

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

Link to Part 302 here

Violent Rapist Andrew Malkinson & How Forensic Scientists Had Previously Said It Was Impossible To Know If The Undated, Circumstantial DNA Was Associated With The Case, The Criminal Cases Review Commission & His VICTIMS Zipped Up Fleece Top (Part 30)

Violent rapist Andrew Malkinson in July 2023

“Mr B” Arrested In December 2022

In December 2022 it was reported that a Mr B had been arrested by police in Exeter after a minuscule amount of his undated, circumstantial DNA was said to have been found on violent rapist Andrew Malkinson’s victims clothing.

Mr B was reported to be 48 years of age at the time of his arrest, meaning he was almost 10 years younger than Andrew Malkinson.

Andrew Malkinson’s victim had described her attacker as being in his “early-to-mid” 30’s.

NOT his early 20’s!

Obviously Impossible To Inflict Wound Without Removing Clothing

Writer Bob Woffinden stated on behalf of Andrew Malkinson in 2016;

The scientists considered whether the profile did match someone on the national DNA database, but then decided that it probably didn’t.

The FSS (Forensic science service) conceded that it is impossible to know which bodily fluid it derives from, or whether it is associated with the case.

It was because of the partially-severed nipple on the left breast that the prosecution was able to emphasise to the jury just what a vicious attack this had been.

Yet this evidence should be examined properly.

There was saliva staining at the site, from which a DNA profile was obtained, but it didn’t match Malkinson (though the profile could have matched the boyfriend); and the clothing on the upper body was not disarranged.

(The VICTIM’S).. fleece remained zipped up throughout and her bra remained in place.

It would have been obviously impossible for Malkinson to have inflicted the wound without disturbing the clothing.

Excerpts from Bob Woffinden’s book The Nicholas Cases published in May 2016

The miniscule undated, circumstantial DNA profile did not match “the boyfriend”.

When the criminal cases review commission referred violent rapist and convicted fraudster (Thailand 2001) Andrew Malkinson’s convictions to the appeal court they stated;

The new DNA evidence found by the CCRC does not prove that the man on the DNA database committed these or any offences. 

Statement by the CCRC here dated 24th July 2023

If it was “obviously impossible” for violent rapist Andrew Malkinson “to have inflicted the wound without disturbing the clothing” in 2016 – why the double standards around Mr B in 2023?

Bob Woffinden also stated in relation to Andrew Malkinson’s victim;

There is also the matter of what happened to her at around 3.40am when she told her boyfriend that she had ‘found somewhere warm and dry’ and was ‘safe’.

Her calls were then discontinued for about 45 minutes. This is another unexplained part of the case.

Excerpts from Bob Woffinden’s book The Nicholas Cases published in May 2016

Could this be where and when the background circumstantial DNA of Mr B’s was picked up.

The Zipped Up Fleece

How would anyone be able to bite through the material of a fleece, a vest top and a bra – none of which had holes or teeth marks on or in them.

Part of Edward Henry’s argument during the appeal hearing was;

..commonly found in saliva

Which lies directly above the bra

And the reason why the bra is stained in blood is because her attacker virtually severed the nipple of her left breast

No teeth marks were found

But presumably biting through clothing

Practically severing the nipple of her left breast

And as we state at paragraph 9 the images help to illustrate why the jury would have been entitled to conclude that Mr B deposited his DNA on the area of potential saliva staining on the upper left area of the complainants vest top, while biting and severing her left nipple

And then I do not need to erm go further than that

Statements made by Edward Henry at around 34:04 here dated 26th July 2023

It is not known what Edward Henry said before he used the words “..commonly found” as the audio again dropped out at this point of the hearing, as was referred to in Part 21 of this ongoing blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below;

PART 21 What Did Edward Henry Say When The Microphone Dropped Out During Appeal Hearing Of Violent Rapist & Convicted Fraudster Andrew Malkinson 

Link to Part 31 here

Will The Court Of Appeal Judges Address The Misleading Evidence Presented To Them In Relation To Violent Rapist & Convicted Fraudster Andrew Malkinson (Part 29)

As already pointed out in Part 27 of this ongoing blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below;

Can The Court Of Appeal Judges Clarify What The Exact Date Was That Pc Waite & Pc Baybutt Visited Violent Rapist & Convicted Fraudster Andrew Malkinson At Ellesmere Shopping Centre. Edward Henry Stated It Was The “Day After” (20th July), Bob Woffinden Stated It Was The 21st July & The CCRC Stated It Was The 25th July 2003 (Part 27)

Misleading evidence was presented to the three judges presiding over the appeal hearing of violent rapist and convicted fraudster Andrew Malkinson.

Saturday 19th July 2003: Was the date of Andrew Malkinson’s Violent Attack & Rapes

Sunday 20th July 2003: Was the date Edward Henry claimed to the appeal judges police constables (Pc’s) Chris Baybutt & Gary Waite visited Andrew Malkinson at work

Your lordships the very next morning, purely as a result of a hunch, when the description of the attacker had been recited to them, the night before at the scene, police constable Waite and police constable Baybutt, on hearing the description of the attacker said ‘that’s Andrew Malkinson’ because about a month before they had stopped him erm, he hadn’t committed any offence, but he was seen riding pillion on the back of a young Mr Hardman’s moped

And they had stopped him, so as a result of the hunch they went to see him the following day

Immediately the day after the attack at his place of work

Statements by Edward Henry during Andrew Malkinson’s appeal hearing on 26th July 2023 here

Monday 21st July 2003: Said to be the date the VICTIM in this case gave her police witness statement

Monday 21st July 2003: Was the date Andrew Malkinson stated in 2016 (via writer Bob Woffinden) that Pc’s Baybutt & Waite visited him at work

The evidence was that at 2.00pm on the day of the attack two community beat officers, after hearing the description of the attacker, had ‘immediately’ and ‘simultaneously’ named Malkinson as the suspect.

Why would anyone, having heard of the attacker’s ‘smart’ clothes, instantly think of the generally dishevelled Malkinson?

Secondly, two days later, on Monday 21 July, the officers saw Malkinson at work.

Excerpts by Bob Woffinden’s taken from chapter 5 of his book The Nicholas cases

Friday 25th July 2003: The date the CCRC submitted to the appeal court judges that Pc’s Baybutt & Waite visited Andrew Malkinson at work

My learned friend and the respondent says that the commission has over stated this matter

In fact actually if we go to the statement of reason, eh and if I may ask you, and if I do erm ask you very briefly my lords to go to page 114, eh and eh paragraph 165

Forgive me 164, this is what the commission said

‘This is significant because the trial judge raised the question of whether the victim was mistaken about having scratched her attacker at all and told the jury that if she may have scratched her attacker then the person responsible for the attack cannot be the defendant

Dr Anderson’s mistake allowed the judge to suggest that the victim may have been mistaken in her account of scratching her attacker. This undermined an important defence point made by Mr Malkinson’s counsel at trial that the fact that Mr Malkinson was not injured or disfigured in anyway when he was seen by the police on the 25th of July, six days after the attack, meant that he could not have been the attacker’

With the greatest respect to my learned friend but also to the commission, erm the commission erm got that wrong

It was the very next day

Statements by Edward Henry during Andrew Malkinson’s appeal on 26th July 2023 at around 1:14:44 here

Who Was & Is Wrong?

It is not clear who was and is wrong in relation to the date Pc’s Chris Baybutt and Gary Waite visited Ellesmere shopping centre.

However it was reported that both Pc’s Baybutt and Waite were “recommended for a commendation” by Judge Michael Henshall, who presided over the February 2004 trial, for helping to bring violent rapist Andrew Malkinson to justice.

Link to Part 30 here