Post Office inquiry: accusation of 'lying' prompts heated exchange

let me go back to the words in parentheses question mark peom misra f333 go to question mark CCRC the

post

office

was fighting Glo Tooth and Claw because everyone knew that if they lost the civil litigation a cascade of criminal appeals would follow, right? um I don't remember thinking about that at the time, no I suggest you're

lying

, there was a strategy at the Glo that coordinated with the pending appeals, I wasn't there to fight at all costs, uh there was certainly a discussion about it . appeals that the common issue Judgment at that time yes, he even challenged the judge to put a stop to the works uh with the

post

office

he filed a request to challenge the administrative judge yes, why did he need to consult with whoever Mandy should reveal to the CCRC? something blindingly obvious, the spike in the SEMA Misra case that wasn't revealed to her before she was convicted um I I I don't know, this is my notebook from the trial, so you can see in the right column, I kind of draw a line and I try to put references to the transcript so I can go back, so these are issues that arise from the trial that may or may not have required checking that it's my short hand of live evidence, so that's why you needed a question mark.

It was blindingly obvious maybe it clearly wasn't because I put a question mark. I suggest this again was part of the cynical mentality of can we delay? Can we get away with this? What do you say to that? um, I think and no, I don't. No, I don't know how the brackets in my notebook feed a delay Tech um well, let's go to um you say that at no point did you take a cynical approach to disclosure uh, I don't think I said that No, so let's go to your B18 2 document, which is p 00132 38, whose number, Mr.

Bravo 182, thank you. Could we go to page two? This is you writing to Andrew Parson's Andrew Feasant and Gavin Matthews, uh, and they're All Bon Dickinson, right? Yes, they are right. Let's send the first paragraph and I apologize. b82 182 I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I got it. Thank you. See the first paragraph? I would like to start. thinking about whether and how we can start to force the issue with the CCRC, see yes and also use the expression. I am also aware of the noise about the problem of the discrepancy between receipts and payments and its effect on the misra to which document requests can be linked and that, of course, was as we can see in the rest of the documents, it is not necessary to get you there, were the ccc's attempts to obtain information from the post office.

Do you agree with that? Yes, do you agree that noise is dismissive? It wasn't intended to be, it was an abbreviated email that I believe was sent from a Blackberry that attempted to summarize what the overall communications discussion was and I'm being dismissive, isn't it in tone? It's just noise, um, I did it. I'm not saying it's just noise, I just don't know what else I can say, that's the word I chose to use for