3 ms·

I found that interesting as well. It shifts the blame away from software and a cover up by Fujitsu to more of a perception/reputation/political cover up by the

I found that interesting as well. It shifts the blame away from software and a cover up by Fujitsu to more of a perception/reputation/political cover up by the Post Office. Fujitsu still has some blame, but if their statements were being modified by the post office, who's responsibility is it to review that? If I gave a written statement to a police officer, is it my responsibility to follow up and make sure they didn't edit my statement? Of course... if I found out, it is my responsibility to raise a flag, but I should be able to trust agents of the courts to not alter evidence.

jahewson 3y ago
To be clear it’s the Post Office that’s accused of editing Fujitsu’s statements.
- stefan_ 3y ago
  But it was Fujitsu staff acting as witnesses in trials.
  - PakG1 3y ago
    If it was the Post Office editing Fujitsu's statements, who better than Fujitsu staff to confirm as a trial witness what was in the original pre-edited statements?
    - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
      I'm not sure whether the same Fujitsu people who wrote the witness statements were then questioned in a court room.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    GP's point is that it's not "the police" accused of editing the statements, because these were private criminal prosecutions (a unique feature of the british legal systems) in which the Post Office acted as the prosecutor. ie it's not a matter of trusting that "officers of the court" did this, because the prosecutor was not really an officer of the court, they were acting as a private citizen or (in this case) a representative of a private corporation. You are trusting that some rando working their 9-5 did not unduly "tweak" the words of the witnesses that are used as evidence to prosecute you.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> but if their statements were being modified by the post office, who's responsibility is it to review that? From what I can tell from the inquiry testimony, the witness statements weren't exactly modified by the PO; they were effectively drafted by the PO's legal team. The lawyers produced pro-forma template statements, such that witnesses only had to fill in the blanks for names, dates and so on. Some witnesses balked at some of the language used in the template, e.g. words to the effect of "I believe the Horizon system was working completely correctly". In response, the legal team amended the template. The evidence produced to the inquiry can be viewed here: https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/ https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/ The inquiry has a youtube channel, where videos of the public hearings can be found: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgijUpaux8X4Nvjx3TmrHhg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgijUpaux8X4Nvjx3TmrHhg For what it's worth, I've never given a statement to police that was in my own words. In every case, the police interviewer led me through my testimony by asking a series of questions, and writing down my answer (in his own words).

jahewson 3y ago

To be clear it’s the Post Office that’s accused of editing Fujitsu’s statements.

stefan_ 3y ago
But it was Fujitsu staff acting as witnesses in trials.
- PakG1 3y ago
  If it was the Post Office editing Fujitsu's statements, who better than Fujitsu staff to confirm as a trial witness what was in the original pre-edited statements?
  - fauigerzigerk 3y ago
    I'm not sure whether the same Fujitsu people who wrote the witness statements were then questioned in a court room.
- paulmd 3y ago
  GP's point is that it's not "the police" accused of editing the statements, because these were private criminal prosecutions (a unique feature of the british legal systems) in which the Post Office acted as the prosecutor. ie it's not a matter of trusting that "officers of the court" did this, because the prosecutor was not really an officer of the court, they were acting as a private citizen or (in this case) a representative of a private corporation. You are trusting that some rando working their 9-5 did not unduly "tweak" the words of the witnesses that are used as evidence to prosecute you.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> but if their statements were being modified by the post office, who's responsibility is it to review that? From what I can tell from the inquiry testimony, the witness statements weren't exactly modified by the PO; they were effectively drafted by the PO's legal team. The lawyers produced pro-forma template statements, such that witnesses only had to fill in the blanks for names, dates and so on. Some witnesses balked at some of the language used in the template, e.g. words to the effect of "I believe the Horizon system was working completely correctly". In response, the legal team amended the template. The evidence produced to the inquiry can be viewed here: https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/ https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/ The inquiry has a youtube channel, where videos of the public hearings can be found: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgijUpaux8X4Nvjx3TmrHhg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgijUpaux8X4Nvjx3TmrHhg For what it's worth, I've never given a statement to police that was in my own words. In every case, the police interviewer led me through my testimony by asking a series of questions, and writing down my answer (in his own words).