4 ms·

Assuming that an itemized breakdown was requested, this is a possible answer as to why it can't be provided. How can a prosecution continue following such answe

Assuming that an itemized breakdown was requested, this is a possible answer as to why it can't be provided. How can a prosecution continue following such answer is a different question.

db48x 3y ago
The prosecution would happily provide the itemized transactions, because the missing transactions are exactly what they are prosecuting. They know there were N pieces of mail that day, but payment was recorded only for N − 2 or whatever. The lies and coverup from the Postal service and Fujitsu were to there to hide the flaws in the system from the courts and the defendants. Even the prosecutors have said that they were completely in the dark. It’s only now that the independent reports are out that everyone knows the details. Unless you know about the bugs in the system, the itemized transaction list makes it look exactly like the cashiers were pocketing cash and not actually ringing up the sales. It’s a classic scam that any competent retail manager or owner knows to guard against. The only difference is that these cashiers nominally own the stores they run. If they pocketed the cash from the sale of a candy bar then there would be no crime; the cash was theirs to begin with. But since they are also working for a third party (the post office), the possibility of theft is a real one.
- sorokod 3y ago
  If the money was eventually handed over to the PO, would it not be reflected in a ledger?
  - db48x 3y ago
    I feel like I am repeating myself. You would assume so, but the whole problem was that the Horizon computer system would lose transactions. It might lose the transaction where the customer paid by credit/debit, and the post office received the money directly. Or it might lose the transaction that recorded the check the postmaster sent to the post office to reconcile accounts. Again, the Horizon system never had a reliable record of what transactions had actually happened. Once there were discrepancies, it was always easy for it to look like the postmaster had made a mistake or committed theft.
    - sorokod 3y ago
      I didn't realize that Horizon was used to record "the check the postmaster sent to the post office to reconcile accounts".
      - db48x 3y ago
        Yea, it was their entire bookkeeping system. Obviously nobody else has ever had so complex a bookkeeping situation as The Post Office, so they had to get it custom built. I bet Fujitsu made a mint.

Assuming that an itemized breakdown was requested, this is a possible answer as to why it can't be provided. How can a prosecution continue following such answer is a different question.

db48x 3y ago

The prosecution would happily provide the itemized transactions, because the missing transactions are exactly what they are prosecuting. They know there were N pieces of mail that day, but payment was recorded only for N − 2 or whatever. The lies and coverup from the Postal service and Fujitsu were to there to hide the flaws in the system from the courts and the defendants. Even the prosecutors have said that they were completely in the dark. It’s only now that the independent reports are out that everyone knows the details. Unless you know about the bugs in the system, the itemized transaction list makes it look exactly like the cashiers were pocketing cash and not actually ringing up the sales. It’s a classic scam that any competent retail manager or owner knows to guard against. The only difference is that these cashiers nominally own the stores they run. If they pocketed the cash from the sale of a candy bar then there would be no crime; the cash was theirs to begin with. But since they are also working for a third party (the post office), the possibility of theft is a real one.

sorokod 3y ago
If the money was eventually handed over to the PO, would it not be reflected in a ledger?
- db48x 3y ago
  I feel like I am repeating myself. You would assume so, but the whole problem was that the Horizon computer system would lose transactions. It might lose the transaction where the customer paid by credit/debit, and the post office received the money directly. Or it might lose the transaction that recorded the check the postmaster sent to the post office to reconcile accounts. Again, the Horizon system never had a reliable record of what transactions had actually happened. Once there were discrepancies, it was always easy for it to look like the postmaster had made a mistake or committed theft.
  - sorokod 3y ago
    I didn't realize that Horizon was used to record "the check the postmaster sent to the post office to reconcile accounts".
    - db48x 3y ago
      Yea, it was their entire bookkeeping system. Obviously nobody else has ever had so complex a bookkeeping situation as The Post Office, so they had to get it custom built. I bet Fujitsu made a mint.