People join cult movements for various reasons, most of which revolve around a desire for meaning and community.
Many who become part of such organizations have troubled backgrounds and difficulty fitting into society.
They might also feel mainstream culture has no place for them and nothing of spiritual value to offer either.
Former cult members often describe the long-lasting sense of loneliness and nihilism they felt prior to becoming part of something bigger than themselves.
In psychology, what is known as theillusory truth effect is a phenomenon in which a listener comes to believe something primarily because it has been repeated so often.
The illusory truth effect can cause us to become susceptible to the effects of another dangerous form of reality erosion known as gaslighting.
Deliberate manipulators who gaslight with the intention of eroding your reality and rewriting history tend to use the illusory truth effect to their advantage.
They will repeat falsehoods so often that they become ingrained in the victim’s mind as unshakeable truths.
No Evidence Horizon Was Responsible For Seema Misra’s Thefts
There is no evidence that the Horizon computer system at the West Byfleet post office was responsible for Seema Misra’s thefts.
Susan Harding (Read more here) a former senior manager from the post office, who had trained as an accountant, gave her evidence to the inquiry on 22nd February 2023.
Susan Harding stated;
I’m not disrespecting any of the people that have been jailed, if Horizon was wrong
But there had been many people…
Susan Harding – 22nd February 2023 (At around 35:30 here)
At which point Jason Beer chose to interrupt Susan Harding and stated;
So you said if Horizon was wrong, erm eh eh
Jason Beer – 22nd February 2023 (At around 35:30 here)
To which Susan Harding replied;
Yes I’m not doubting it was wrong
I’m just saying I am…
Sarah Harding
Jason Beer did not give Susan Harding the opportunity to finish what she had started to say, and instead interrupted her again and stated;
Right so we can remove
Can we remove if from that sentence
Jason Beer – 22nd February 2023 (At around 35:30 here)
To which Susan Harding stated
Okay
Susan Harding – 22nd February 2023 (At around 35:30 here)
The aim of the 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.
Jason Beer should not be tailoring witness evidence to suit his agenda and that of the public inquiries.
Susan Harding’s “independent account of the facts” should not be altered to fit with the inquiries biased narrative.
The only calls Seema Misra appears to have made to the Horizon helpline number, during her entire time at the West Byfleet post office, regarding monies was between 20th and 23rd February 2006.
On 27th February 2006 Anne Chambers from Fujitsu investigated and made the following notes;
I have checked very carefully and can see no indication that the continuing discrepancies are due to a system problem.
I have not been able to pin down discrepancies for individual days or stock units because the branch does not seem to be operating in a particularly organised manner.
In particular I have noted
1. There are 6 stock units in this 3 counter branch, which seems a bit excessive.
2. The loss in euros in TP9 appears genuine – the declared quantity was 4000 fewer than the system expected.
It is not clear from the information above whether anyone found out why this happened (there were several rem outs, and a rem in, on 23rd Dec – did the pouches contain the declared number of euros?).
3. Stock is sometimes transferred out of a stock unit where it is not held.
In particular there were several transfers out of stock unit SM1 in TP10.
At the end of the period the stock figures were corrected back up to zero via adjust stock. This
gave a gain of over £2000 in SM1.
Equivalent negative stock adjust in AA gave a corresponding loss in AA.
4. I am not confident that the stock declarations are always correct eg. at the.…
Excerpts from Anne Chambers 27th February 2006 note (Source at around 1:50:22 here)
Below is a screenshot of what the inquiry chose to display;
Where is the rest of Anne Chambers note and what else did she note about Seema Misra’s West Byfleet Branch?
And why did Jason Beer, and the inquiry, choose to hide the rest of Anne Chambers note?
Seema Misra’s evidence in chief was that from mid April 2006 “I basically stopped doing a proper, proper check like counting and entering it as of mid 2006. All I was doing to get this natural figure, checking the amount it should have been there and that is it entering” (p.90 here).
Seema reiterated this to the jury and stated “I didn’t do any balancing as of mid 2006. I didn’t do a proper balancing” (p.99 here).
Referring to area manager Elaine Ridge, Seema Misra told the jury “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 figures in“ (p.117 here).
However Anne Chambers 27th February 2006 note suggests Seema Misra was not completing legitimate stock declarations before April 2006 ie; she was false accounting well before April 2006.
Referring to around this time period, chief enabler Nick Wallis chose to attempt to re-write history via his The Great Post Office Scandal book stating “The Misras redoubled their efforts. In his first phone call to me, Davinder Misra tearfully related the nights of mounting panic he and Seema experienced, printing off the day’s transactions on Horizon’s crappy till roll, staying up to ‘one … two in the morning’, going through the lengths of paper line by line, desperately trying to find some clue as to what might be causing them to lose so much money”.
Tap on button below to read Part 34a of this blog series, regarding grave concerns of Jason Beer’d legal and professional commitments to the inquiry;
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 “£400shortfall” 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 “£400shortfall”.
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 “£400shortfall” 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 “£400shortfall” 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 “£400shortfall” 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”.
Jonathan Longman, the post office investigator, assigned to Seema Misra’s case contacted Surrey police regarding crime reports.
He established that on 8th April 2006 Davinder Misra, Seema Misra’s husband, had contacted the police to report former employee Nadia Badiwalia for allegedly being “an illegal immigrant”.
Jonathan Longman told the jury in October 2010 “The report says that this female, Nadia, is suspected of being an illegal immigrant and that she is causing a nuisance at the post office, that she is in the office shouting and screaming” (p.9 here).
However when the police attended the post office, it turned out to be a waste of time.
Nadia had never been in the post office, she was allegedly on the telephone and it was seemingly Seema Misra who was “shouting and screaming”.
The Misra’s were given the telephone number for “customs”, however it is not known what the outcome of these allegations were.
On 20th January 2020, the Metropolitan police service (MPS) received a letter from judge Peter Fraser via the crown prosecution service (CPS).
“The letter concerned high court proceedings relating to Bates and others v Post Office Ltd which concluded in December 2019”.
Judge Fraser’s 14th January 2020 letter to Max Hill, then director of public prosecutions, can be read in full here
Under the header Prosecution of Mrs Misra, Judge Fraser stated in part;
Mrs Misra was a SPM at West Byfleet in Surrey who was charged both with theft from her branch, and also false accounting. The sums in question in her case which formed the subject matter of the charges amounted to approximately £74,000. Mrs Misra pleaded not guilty, and her defence was that the Horizon system was to blame.
Excerpt from Mr justice Fraser’s 14th January 2020 letter to Max Hill
Seema Misra pleaded guilty to false accounting and her defence was initially that her former employees had stolen “£89,000” to “£90,000” in/around November-December 2006.
Her defence regarding Horizon only came about after she apparently read a Computer Weekly article the night before her trial was due to begin on 2nd June 2009.
To date (13th February 2024) Seema Misra has not retracted her false allegations against her former employees.
The contents of judge Fraser’s letter was “subsequently assessed and a criminal investigation was opened by the MPS”.
The police investigation into alleged criminal activity at Fujitsu and the Post Office has been named Operation Olympus.
The MPS will not be providing a running commentary on the criminal investigation which remains ongoing, but can confirm we are aware of the Criminal Case Review Commission’s referral to the Court of Appeal and subsequent proceedings. It can be confirmed that a man and woman, both in their 60s have been interviewed under caution earlier in September and October. No arrests have been made and enquiries continue.
To confirm the Met does not identify any person who may, or may not be, subject to an investigation. Being given this statement is not a confirmation of any name or profession media may attribute, or wish to attribute. It is given on the basis of being requested for information on the incident, on the date stated and at the location stated. Should media attribute a name or profession to the victim or the person under investigation this will not have been confirmed by the Met.
The MPS continues to be an interested party in the public enquiry and will be supporting the inquiry.
Hornswoggler Nick Wallis stated in his 18th November 2020 blog here
Although Mr Justice Fraser didn’t name Anne Chambers or Gareth Jenkins at the time, he did in his confidential letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, dated 14 January 2020. We know this because it is in the appendix of the CCRC’s Statement of Reasons, circulated to journalists today. In his letter, Mr Justice Fraser sets out what Mr Jenkins and Ms Chambers knew and concludes:
“in order to give fully truthful evidence to the court… namely the prosecution of Mrs Misra and the civil claim against Mr [Lee] Castleton, both Mr Jenkins and Mrs Chambers respectively should have told the court of the widespread impact of (at the very least) the bugs, errors and defects in Horizon that they knew about at the time that they gave their evidence.”
This letter was sent by the DPP to the Metropolitan Police, who immediately started investigating. Last week, Computer Weekly was told the Met had turned their ten month investigation into a criminal investigation. Today we have discovered the names of at least two of the individuals involved.
After some discussion, Lord Justice Holroyde decided there was no need for any need for any reporting restrictions to be imposed on the Court of Appeal proceedings in the light of the Met’s criminal investigation, but reminded the media of the “general need on their part to avoid reporting anything which may prejudice the ongoing investigation or any charges which may flow from it.”
Excerpts by Nick Wallis – Fujitsu staff under criminal investigation named dated 18th November 2020
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 “£400shortfall” 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 “£400shortfall”.
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 “£400shortfall” 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 “£400shortfall” 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 “£400shortfall” 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”.
During his 15th of November 2023 evidence to the post office horizon IT inquiry, Warwick Tatford did not refer to the ARQ data relating to Seema Misra’s “misappropriation” of the £23,374.50 lotto monies.
Tap on the button below to read Part 21, which is the previous blog on the ARQ date;
The following extracts are between Jason Beer, counsel to the inquiry, and Warwick Tatford, in which they spoke about the ARQ data between December 2006 to December 2007 relating to Seema Misra’s West Byfleet branch (Source post office inquiry transcripts here);
Mr Beer: You said – I’m not going to turn it up for the moment – the rationale behind why you were given that 13-month period, ie December ‘06 to the end of December ‘07, is because it’s not tainted by any suggestion of theft, ie suggestion of theft made by Mrs Misra. It’s clean data to look at for computer error.
Warwick Tatford: Yes, not tainted by theft by employees of Mrs Misra, not Mrs Misra herself. It’s to – clean data to focus on whether any patterns could be seen that might be suggestive of Horizon problems. It was really to focus on that – the three possibilities, that possibility that was raised by her defence at the trial.
Mr Beer: Professor McLachlan replied “But I requested the data for the entire period”, and you said: “I fully accept that but, if one requested and received every piece of paper for West Byfleet, we would probably fill this room.” Is that your understanding of why the data was not requested for the entirety of the period of the theft count, ie cost and volume?
Warwick Tatford: Cost, volume, those were the main reasons, I’m afraid. It was also – there was the additional consideration of an untainted period but I – the dominant factors were cost – the dominant factor was cost and the contractual relationship with Fujitsu, I think.
Mr Beer: I think you candidly accept in you witness statement that, on reflection, this was the wrong approach?
Warwick Tatford: Yes. Very much so. And – well, I set out reasons for that. I agree. I accept that. Yes.
Mr Beer: Would I summarise them correctly as follows: the Crown chose to charge an ongoing theft over a long period of time?
Warwick Tatford: Yes.
Mr Beer: Once the defence raised the reliability of Horizon, disclosing the Horizon data for the whole of the indictment period was not a matter of disclosing unused material; it was also the primary evidence upon which the Crown relied in order to prove that the property belonging to another had been appropriated by the defendant?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, that’s right, it was served as evidence.
Mr Beer: In other words, that data was necessary to prove the elements of the offence of theft?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I would agree with that.
Mr Beer: Therefore, Mrs Misra was entitled to receive the entirety of the data for that period as served evidence, so that her expert could analyse it and see whether the Crown had indeed proved its case?
Warwick Tatford: Yes, I certainly would agree with that now. I’ve explained the reasoning. I think the reasoning now was wrong, as exposed by the Court of Appeal. But, actually, the way that you’ve exposed it shows that it’s wrong simply in its basic logic.
Mr Beer: Did you consider that the theft and false accounting charges were essentially alleging the same criminal conduct?
Warwick Tatford: No. I was aware of the case of Eden, which I referred to in my abuse of process argument, and the Crown has to consider very carefully whether to charge both types of offending. In this case, it was fully justified because it allowed Mrs Misra to plead guilty to what she accepted but also allowed the Crown, if it had the evidence to do so, to pursue the clearly more serious allegation of theft.
The 3 Falsely Accused Former Employees Had Left The Post Office By February 2006
Warwick Tatford would have known about the fact that the 3 falsely accused former employees had left the post office by February 2006, therefore from March 2006 to December 2006 would also have been “clean data” and not “tainted by theft by employees of Mrs Misra”.
He would also have known about the fact that Seema Misra intentionally obfuscated throughout her evidence, including during her trial evidence.
Below are extracts from trial transcripts, where Warwick Tatford had asked Adrian Morris, one of the post office investigators, to tell the jury some of what Seema had said during her recorded interview, whilst under caution. The statements were an “agreed summary of the recording” (p.70 here);
Warwick Tatford: Then if you could pick it up at the bottom of the page, please?
Adrian Morris: Okay. “Discussion regarding staff who took money where SM says they were not sacked but left. One person owed 300 to 4,000 losses from the till. Others had left the country”
Warwick Tatford: Mrs Misra says that “one left in February 2006.” She points out that she had taken over the shop in June 2005. “Three of the staff were family members. Others left at the end of 2006. One lady worked only in the shop”
Adrian Morris: I asked “how much was missing at the end of 2006 when the staff left?”
Warwick Tatford: Mrs Misra says “it was around 89,000 to £90,000”
Adrian Morris: “Explains that husband informed him that the police had been notified of the losses but the police were only made aware of £1,000”
Warwick Tatford: So in fact that has been put down as “AM” but in fact that must be Mrs Misra saying that. Would that be right?
Adrian Morris: I think it may be the way that that has been written. I think the husband may have told me that
Warwick Tatford: I am so sorry, my misunderstanding. So you think Mrs Misra’s husband had told you the police had been notified of the losses but the police were only made aware of the £1,000
Adrian Morris: Only just reading that now that is how it looks
Warwick Tatford: I see. Thank you. Then Seema Misra, she goes on to say she found the difference later and they were expecting some repayment
Adrian Morris: “Confirmed that around November or December 2006 there was a shortage in the accounts of 89,000. Recaps that the staff were sacked or resigned or left the country and since November only SM and her husband work in the post office assisted by Malina and Ali”
The alleged “staff who took the money” and who “were not sackedbut left“ appear to have been Shakia Suksener, Javed Badiwalia and his sister-in-law Nadia Badiwalia.
The staff member who Seema Misra alleged had “owed 300 to 4,000 losses from the till” appears to have been Shakia Suksener.
Seema Misra dropped her false allegations against Shakia Suksener just before her trial.
It is not clear who the 3 “family members” were, or who the staff member was who allegedly “leftat the end of 2006”.
Ali Raza appears to have began working for Seema Misra sometime after Shakia, Javed and Nadia had left in February 2006.
Between the time Shakia, Javed and Nadia left in February 2006, Seema Misra chose to not tell the jury who was working in the post office during the 8 months from February to November 2006, instead she chose to obfuscate.
It is also not known if Ali Raza really “was trained by the post office”, like Seema claimed he was during her trial.
Seema Misra Lied By Omission To The Inquiry In February 2022
On 23rd February 2022 Seema Misra lied by omission to the inquiry
Jason Beer, asked her here how many staff she employed to work in the post office.
Below is an extract from the transcript of what Seema Misra told the inquiry (p.39 here);
Jason Beer: Who else worked in the branch?
Seema Misra: We had a staff, which we took over from the previous subpostmaster as well
Jason Beer: How many staff were there?
Seema Misra: There was like one person and then we had employed two more
Jason Beer: So three, other than you and Mr Misra?
Seema Misra: Correct, yes
This was not “correct”. There were five staff members, not “three”.
Seema Misra told the jury during her trial that Shakia Suksener was an “inherited” member of the post office staff and that he left before Seema employed Nadia Badiwalia.
Javed Badiwalia had also been an “inherited” member of staff who had first worked in the shop and was “promoted” to work in the post office.
Ali Raza and Malina had been employed some time after February 2006.
Defence lawyer Keith Hadrill asked Seema who she employed. Below are extracts taken from trial transcripts (p.72 here);
Keith Hadrill: Did you employ other persons to help behind the post office?
Seema Misra: I did, yeah
Keith Hadrill: Who trained those persons?
Seema Misra: It was just one person Ali who was trained by Post Office, Ali Raza. Ali was trained by Post Office, all other was I trained them
An extract taken from the “agreed summary of the recording” of Seema Misra’s interview whilst under caution reads “since November only SM and her husband work in the post office assisted by Malina and Ali” (p.70 here).
Therefore Shakia, Javed, Nadia, Ali and Malina – equals five staff members, who Seema Misra named as having worked in the post office.
Warwick Tatford would also have known that Seema Misra did not seemingly falsely accuse Ali Raza or Malina of theft, and that her defence was that “around November or December 2006 there was a shortage in the accounts of 89,000”.
Yet he omitted to address any of these facts during his evidence to the inquiry – Why?
“Bundle” Relating To October 2005 To October 2006
Warwick Tatford would also have known that Seema Misra had already received the data relating to the time period leading up to the first two “transaction corrections”.
It was discovered in October 2006, not long after Seema Misra and her husband had returned from their luxury trip to Munich, Germany (courtesy of the post office), that she had failed to transfer £23,374.50 from her shops till into the post office account.
It was also during this time period (September 2006), that £3,930 worth of euros went “missing”. Below is an extract from trial transcripts, in which it can be seen Keith Hadrill asked Seema about the “missing” euros (p.82 here);
Keith Hadrill: “—because things were not right. Things we notice there were 4,000 euro missing.” What is this about?
Seema Misra: That is the rem came in and the, I don’t know exact what they was, like they was like a euros down while we were away. There was like euros down
Keith Hadrill: So whilst you were away some euros were meant to have come in and you were down?
Seems Misra: Yeah
Keith Hadrill: So that is 4,000 euros and that caused a currency problem, did it?
Seema Misra: That is right
Keith Hadrill: A reconciliation problem?
Seems Misra: Can recall the actual amount which was like should be on the in pouch. It is a bit less than 4,000 euro lesser
The post office agreed to allow Seema to settle the £23,374.50 centrally, on 21st November 2006, and for the debt to be paid back via monthly instalments from her salary (p.10 here & p.71 here).
However before this was agreed, Seema Misra had received a “thick bundle” from the post office which contained “all the figures” for her branch.
Defence lawyer Keith Hadrill asked Seema Misra about this during her trial, as follows (p.70 here);
Keith Hadrill: And we know from this statement that has been given or the evidence that has been given by Mr Longman, 25th October 2006, the post office issued you with two transaction corrections relating to the Camelot National Lottery. Do you remember that?
Seema Misra: Yes. When I questioned that a thick bundle arrived with all the figures and all that and I rang back again and rang and spoken to. I could not actually make up how to tell you how much losses and all that. All I was told was it is my loss. I have to make it good
Warwick Tatford would also have been aware of these facts.
Seema Misra had already been provided with a “thickbundle” for “all the figures”, so why would Warwick Tatford consider “cost” and “volume” to be his “main reasons” for not having obtained copies of data Seema already had up to November 2006?
He would also have been aware of the fact that between 30th June 2005 and October 2005, the “shortfall” had been £3,184, which Seema Misra had lied about in her defence statement and had inflated to “£5,000”.
Richard Moorhead has recently been described as “a leading academic commentator and researcher on the Post Office scandal” by John Hyde in the law society gazette here.
During her October 2010 trial for theft, Seema Misra told the jury that a trainer called Michael, who was supporting her during her second week of trading in the post office, had allegedly made a telephone call in the office but she did not know who he phoned.
What Seema Misra told the jury was;
Then I remember him staying behind and he made a phone call from office, I don’t know where
Seema Misra – 18th October 2010 – Source trial transcripts from page 52 here
All call logs to the Horizon helpline number were disclosed and addressed during Seema Misra’s trial, starting from the day she went “live”.
There were no calls made from the West Byfleet post office to the horizon helpline number during her first 2 weeks trading.
However by the time of the post office horizon IT inquiry, referring to Michael the trainer, Seema Misra lied and concocted the following;
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
Seema Misra – 23rd February 2023 – Inquiry transcripts page 44 & 45 here
Below is an extract from the inquiry transcripts where Jason Beer chose to go along with Seema Misra’s concoctions, which is surely in breach of his legal and professional commitments to the rule of law (p.45 here);
What are Richard Moorhead’s thoughts on these blatant lies and concoctions and Jason Beer’s behaviour?
Ironically in October 2023 Richard Moorhead, along with Steven Vaughan and Kenta Tsuda from the university of Exeter wrote a report for the legal services board headed WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR LAWYERS TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW? (Read more here).
Nick Wallis – photo courtesy of BBC Scotland TV show “disclosure”
Referring to alleged “leading academic commentator” Richard Moorhead, John Hyde has stated today via the law gazette;
Moorhead said he is aware of a journalist being threatened with ‘SLAPP-like tactics’ by a law firm in relation to their reporting of the inquiry.
John Hyde for the law society gazette here dated 9th February 2024
SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation.
Innocence Fraud Watch emailed the post office horizon IT inquiry about concerns regarding the evidence of Duncan Atkinson, which included the fact Nick Wallis has falsely accused a post office auditor in his book The Great Post Office Scandal.
He has also written and published lies and concoctions regarding the case against thief and embezzler Seema Misra.
Moorhead said the legal profession could no longer approach legal ethics as ‘business as usual’ and that this attitude would result in more scandals like Horizon.
He cited website testimonials for lawyers who were instructed by the Post Office which boasted of how one individual was a ‘steamroller that crushes anything that gets in his way’.
Another KC was said to be able to ‘turn a pile of refuse into something that looks great’.
John Hyde for the law society gazette here dated 9th February 2024
The following excerpts are taken from a paper written by Richard Moorhead, Karen Nokes and Rebecca Helm from the university of Exeter (Source p.41 here);
Richard Moorhead, Karen Nokes and Rebecca Helm have not considered the way the website testimonials for lawyers instructed by the opposition “sell their services”, especially in comparison to their actual online behaviour.
For example, a website testimonial for Edward Henry boasted he was “utterly charming too”.
Yet Edward Henry’s online behaviour betrays this testimonial.
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 