this is to garethjenkins.lts to you. this is to gareth jenkins. it says, from andrew bolts to you. this is to garethjenkins. it says, i havejust spoken to the solicitor for grant allen, it says, i include an extract from the interview in which he is trying to suggest it's an initial loss of £3000 and is attributable to lost data because of installation problems. are you able to comment on the scenario? ultimately we need to discredit this as an explanation that holds any water. he denies stealing the subsequent losses and may be blaming the system for those losses as well. do you think it was appropriate for andrew bolts to e—mail mrjenkins to say that ultimately we would need to discredit the defendants? that say that ultimately we would need to discredit the defendants?— discredit the defendants? that is andrew bolts's _ discredit the defendants? that is andrew bolts's way _ discredit the defendants? that is andrew bolts's way of _ discredit the defendants? that is andrew bolts's way of speaking i discredit

the first is contact with garethjenkins. can we please look at the document? page seven.seven. at the bottom, we have an e—mail from yourself to gareth jenkins. you say, "gareth, can you please see the attached report and our criminal law team ask you to consider the report and for your initial views and comments on the disclosure." if we scroll up, we have his response, he says, "i'm not a whit of this case but when i spoke to charles mclachlan —— i'm not aware of this case, but i mentioned last week he was involved in a case in cumbria." we then have an e—mail on the previous page from penny thomas which seems to be a bit of a telling off from penny thomas to you. she says," steve, your request to gareth jenkins and his response to you have been copied to me, please be aware that it been copied to me, please be aware thatitis been copied to me, please be aware that it is against process for investigators to reproach fujitsu employees directly for assistance with litigation issues —— approach fujitsu employees." in terms of garethjenkins, i think in your witness statemen

have you ever looked into or found out about how much money fujitsu charged for the services of garethjenkinsmuch money fujitsu charged for the services of gareth jenkins for example as a witness over the years? no, i have not. example as a witness over the years? no. i have not-— no, i have not. would you accept litiaation no, i have not. would you accept litigation support _ no, i have not. would you accept litigation support was _ no, i have not. would you accept litigation support was a _ no, i have not. would you accept litigation support was a useful. no, i have not. would you accept l litigation support was a useful cash cow for fujitsu ? litigation support was a useful cash cow for fujitsu? i litigation support was a useful cash cow for fujitsu?— cow for fujitsu? i was professionally - cow for fujitsu? i was professionally very i cow for fujitsu? i was - professionally very surprised cow for fujitsu? i was _ professionally very surprised that service _ professionally very surprised that service even existed. we are meant to be _ service even existed. we are meant to be an _ service ev

we have an e—mail from garethjenkins to the legal team.n. he says i now have confirmation that fujitsu do not have any details regarding this branch so there is nothing i can easily do to address any specifics. the suggestion there is that the call logs from fujitsu had not been obtained. call logs from fu'itsu had not been obtained. . , . call logs from fu'itsu had not been obtained. ., , ., , , call logs from fu'itsu had not been obtained. ., , , , obtained. that is a possibility but i have never— obtained. that is a possibility but i have never seen _ obtained. that is a possibility but i have never seen that _ obtained. that is a possibility but i have never seen that e-mail. i l obtained. that is a possibility but i i have never seen that e-mail. i am i have never seen that e—mail. i am not on it. i have never seen that e-mail. i am not on it. ., �* ., ., , not on it. you didn't have any contact fujitsu? _ not on it. you didn't have any contact fujitsu? no. - not on it. you didn't have any contact fujitsu? no. you - not on it. you did

the post office serve their witness statement by garethjenkins in which he maintained that there wasradically reported to the post office between 2005—2011. other records show numerous difficulties with horizon in 2009. the post office accepts that this was an unexplained shortfall case, and that evidence from horizon was essential to the prosecution of both ms sefton and ms neald. the post office failed to carry out a proper investigation into horizon issues and failed to disclose failed colourful call logs and other records indicating there had been problems with horizon at the branch. in addition, mrjenkins had informed the post office solicitors that he had no information regarding complaints and investigations into horizon, and it has already been established that it's not possible to examine the original horizon system, because it has not been operational since 2010. similarly, i have not been presented with any audit data related to these cases to examine. these defects in mrjenkins' evidence were not disclosed, or were two earlier relevant reports disclosed. in those circumst

have you ever looked into or found out about how much money fujitsu charged for the services of garethjenkins, i have not. would you accept litigation support was a useful. no, i have not. would you accept i litigation support was a useful cash cow for fujitsu ? litigation support was a useful cash cow for fujitsu? i litigation support was a useful cash cow for fujitsu?— cow for fujitsu? i was professionally - cow for fujitsu? i was professionally very i cow for fujitsu? i was - professionally very surprised cow for fujitsu? i was _ professionally very surprised that service _ professionally very surprised that service even existed. we are meant to be _ service even existed. we are meant to be an _

followed that the horizon system has had problems in the past as acknowledged by mr jenkins that is garethjenkinssible impact nor have they provided a list of known defects in horizon. the travellers cheque problem isn't illustration of the known defects that we independently identified, mrjenkins confirmed that fujitsu retained a full list has not been released. the horizon system is a component of the full post office operating environment and elements of this environment and elements of this environment can result in changes to the cash balances recorded at the branch, transaction corrections and emittance is. mrjenkins was unable to provide any opinion as the integrity of these systems was provided with no opportunity to investigate them. so this is a report that you receive that contains quite clear criticisms of the horizon system. do you agree with that? , the horizon system. do you agree with that? yes. your evidence began toda not with that? ils your evidence began today not knowing about bugs or defects in the system. it does seem that you received at least a defence expert report that