I agree. He understood his own job but was unfortunately it seems pretty easily manipulated by PO to do what they wanted. And defence lawyers and judges didn't understand IT and believed what they'd been assured that it was a given that IT software was robust. It seems only those in the IT software business itself as our business was knew the truth. Huge luck the SPMs had a knowledgeable judge for their case vs the PO. It's well worth reading Fraser's judgement. It is refreshing indeed to have person in the er dock who doesn't have severe Alzheimers.

He's defending his part(s) design of the system. People went to prison, and at least one person , committed suicide. With all due respect, though being forward with his views now, he was probably the key player providing key product information resulting in prosecution case guilty verdicts. He and Jarnail Singh, in my view, were the single most points of failure in the whole episode; they did not do their jobs without bias and that bias was pervasive with up and down the ladder of responsibility.

@@ScarboroughTourist see I would see GJ as the gullible fool who made the bullets but didn’t loaded the gun or pointed it ready for the solicitors to shoot. I respect your opinion as with a jury everyone has their own understanding from lessons learnt. I cast the blame firmly on the PO management and their own agenda of not wanting to be seen as failing. Like with many governmental organisations this comes down to the contract for the system. The contract for the system is the main fault and due to the values, it’s humiliating to admit they got it wrong (so let’s try and sweep it under the rug). To ruins so many lives for “saving face” or bloody mindedness is crazy and the decision makers should pay the price. I fear due to memory loss none will and scapegoats will be used, not the architects of this whole scenario

@@ScarboroughTourist You've missed the entire points of previous posters! In spite of the rather biased (or at least pre-assumptive) attitudes of the vast majority of reports about his role and much other reporting about him! To me, he was USED by POL lawyers to achieve their goals! Again, many aspects of POL lawyers actions were, imo, quite within their remits of obtaining the 'best result' for their client(s). It's those who 'crossed the line' of ethical 'standards' who I blame for the real scandal that this inquiry is investigating.

Yet, he didn't know his 'expert' legal duties of disclosure; very instructive.

Are you being serious or sarcastic ? There was apparently a backdoor UNKNOWN to the PO sub masters and their accounts were apparently being manipulated !! All this monitoring/documentation not being, I believe, made available to the defence for court consideration. The distinguished expert was not aware of his duties on disclosure. It sounds like you're defending him !!

Your comment seems to imply you have some insider knowledge; have you ?

most of the exhibits exists as .pdf or image files. When he says they have the "native" email, it means they have the equivalent of the outlook data file such that they can interact with the email in the same way its original recipient did, including the ability to open attachments.

But, they should not be influencing a witness whom didn't seem to concerned with his draft statement; he is the distinguished engineer after all and those are his words. It should certainly should not be vetted by POL legals.

@@ScarboroughTourist Not "vetted", I agree, but he's entitled to ask for advice from legal people as to whether the language in his statement will be correctly understood. I think in these interviews we're seeing a lot of mismatch between engineering jargon and legal jargon.

I think NOT. Just where are you positioned in this situation ? You think the sub post masters are guilty !!

Really; it sure sounds like you're somehow directly involved in all this. Maybe I've missed other technical witnesses backing up his assessments. All I've seen so far is non-qualified technical software people making decisions.

Why was my reply deleted?

I think you'll find it's "dementia" but don't let your ignorance get in the way of you thinking that your ignorant opinion isn't valued

I think he is an expert in the product but not a person who should have been used as an 'expert witness'. From what I have heard over the 2 days is that he believed he was just answering technical questions without being asked to link them to existing knowledge (a very narrow approach). So, if he was to answer x, he gave an answer to just x. He was wrong to do that from a retrospective prospective (and he agrees with that). The biggest issue is that he and his answers were deliberately misused by the PO and by individuals who should have known better and went against their own codes of conduct. Subsequently this was covered up by senior management. This cover up persisted for years and persists in their evidence to the inquiry. It appears that many people in the PO, including investigators and lawyers were incompetent and 'criminal' in their work which sadly seriously affected many Spms and their families. As for Gareth Jenkins, he certainly did wrong but it is the people in the PO who misused his evidence (and him) are the true culprits and should be investigated, prosecuted and convicted.

​​@@johnsutton4078I agree completely with your assumptions, except from where you say at the end, that Gareth did wrong. I don't believe he did wrong. He should have joined the dots of what POL where doing in terms of manipulating his information to suite their agenda

@@johnsutton4078 Indeed, he clearly knows the software he's working with very thoroughly indeed, but is completely inexperienced in the legal world; for example he's using the problem-solving approach that engineers use to solve complex bugs without the forensic discipline that lawyers demand so that you can prove your conclusions are correct in court.

@@johnsutton4078 Precisely

@@jonquirk329 Agree with you too