early days the recollection of the early days of the conversations we had, so it would have been alice and paula and susan and leslie would have been at the start, as well, and simon baker and myself, early conversations, but in terms of driving this through, i cannot recall exactly, we had our areas of responsibility. plan cannot recall exactly, we had our areas of responsibility.— cannot recall exactly, we had our areas of responsibility. plan a was to persuade _ areas of responsibility. plan a was to persuade james _ areas of responsibility. plan a was to persuade james arbuthnot - areas of responsibility. plan a was to persuade james arbuthnot to i to persuade james arbuthnot to postpone a meeting with second sight? _ postpone a meeting with second sight? plan b was to prepare a full communications strategy with tactics in line _ communications strategy with tactics in line with _ communications strategy with tactics in line with an approach to minimise reputational impact on the post office? — reputational impact on the post office? yes? was that the strategy that was_ office? yes? was that the strategy that was in— office? yes? was that the strategy that was in fact adopted? rebuttal and tactics aimed to reduce reputational impact? | rebuttal and tactics aimed to reduce reputational impact?— reputational impact? i think in terms of the _ reputational impact? i think in

terms of the reputational - reputational impact? i think in i terms of the reputational impact, the feeling was with second sight at this point, they won't evidence and quite a lot of what they were claiming... quite a lot of what they were ctaiming- - -— quite a lot of what they were claimina...~ ., , claiming... who was saying they weren't evidencing _ claiming... who was saying they weren't evidencing what - claiming... who was saying they weren't evidencing what they - claiming... who was saying they l weren't evidencing what they were claiming? — weren't evidencing what they were claimin: ? ., .,, weren't evidencing what they were claimin: ? . .,, , weren't evidencing what they were claimin. ? . ., , ., claiming? that was in terms of lookin: claiming? that was in terms of looking at _ claiming? that was in terms of looking at what _ claiming? that was in terms of looking at what they _ claiming? that was in terms of looking at what they were - claiming? that was in terms of. looking at what they were saying. this is the interim report, prior to this there were 47 cases that were really feeding into this and that's through the spot reviews but by the time we got to the interim report, if i remember correctly, there were only four or spot reviews that second sight was speaking to and my memory of that is not one of those four cases had actually been concluded. so there wasn't an absolute outcome and i think that is what was driving... it was a collective view, i'm not saying

anybody... it was a collective view that there is an issue been raised oran that there is an issue been raised or an allegation made, some investigative work was done but they had not concluded that yet. the interim reports _ had not concluded that yet. the interim reports at least highlighted problems with horizon, didn't it? including — problems with horizon, didn't it? including the two anomalies as they were described?— including the two anomalies as they were described? yes. in fact, a third as well. _ were described? yes. in fact, a third as well. was _ were described? jazz in fact, a third as well. was there any consideration given within post office — consideration given within post office that should be luke deep into her eyes _ office that should be luke deep into her eyes and to see if they were any other— her eyes and to see if they were any other problems with it —— look deeper— other problems with it —— look deeper into horizon. | other problems with it -- look deeper into horizon.— other problems with it -- look deeper into horizon. i don't think there was- _ deeper into horizon. i don't think there was. was _ deeper into horizon. i don't think there was. was instead _ deeper into horizon. i don't think there was. was instead the - deeper into horizon. i don't think there was. was instead the first | there was. was instead the first riori to there was. was instead the first priority to be — there was. was instead the first priority to be damage _ there was. was instead the first priority to be damage limitation i there was. was instead the first - priority to be damage limitation and reputational management? | priority to be damage limitation and reputational management?- reputational management? i don't think it was _ reputational management? i don't think it was as _ reputational management? i don't think it was as stark _ reputational management? i don't think it was as stark as _ reputational management? i don't think it was as stark as that. - think it was as stark as that. protect the brand at all costs? he. protect the brand at all costs? no, that wasn't — protect the brand at all costs? no,

that wasn't my _ protect the brand at all costs? iifr, that wasn't my sense at the time. my sense was this was the precursor to the scheme. this was almost, well, it was a year on from when a second sight had been engaged. we had had an awful lot of effort put into the investigations but very little output so this was about the fact that the rebuttal would be in as much as there were claims and allegations but they weren't being substantiated with evidence because the investigations aren't concluded. i think that was the approach here more thanjust an i think that was the approach here more than just an absolute brand limitation, that wasn't the driving force behind this from my recollection.— force behind this from my recollection. �* . ., recollection. let's get rid of the independent — recollection. let's get rid of the independent investigators - recollection. let's get rid of the independent investigators and i recollection. let's get rid of the i independent investigators and get one of— independent investigators and get one of the big four involved. paragraph 40. why was that the plan? ithink— paragraph 40. why was that the plan? i think it _ paragraph 40. why was that the plan?

i think it was _ paragraph 40. why was that the plan? i think it was because, my early recollection of before we engage second sight, i remember being in some of the early conversations about what we should do in terms of approach and at that point it was kind of one of the big four but that was dismissed in terms of preference going with second sight... mira; was dismissed in terms of preference going with second sight. . ._ going with second sight... why was the preference _ going with second sight. .. why was the preference of— going with second sight... why was the preference of the _ going with second sight... why was the preference of the second - going with second sight... why was the preference of the second sight| the preference of the second sight before _ the preference of the second sight before they had done their work? sorry. _ before they had done their work? sorry. why— before they had done their work? sorry, why did we go with second sight? sorry, why did we go with second siuht? �* ., , , ., sight? before they started their work, sight? before they started their work. what _ sight? before they started their work, what made _ sight? before they started their work, what made you _ sight? before they started their work, what made you go - sight? before they started their work, what made you go with l sight? before they started their - work, what made you go with them? i'm work, what made you go with them? in not— work, what made you go with them? i'm not exactly sure. my take would be that that would have been less costly than getting one of the big four block in. but also i think about addressing the other issues being claimed, that would be outside horizon's system itself because, as you have seen, the focus or scope expanded when the second sight got going and said we had to expand the scope which is what we went with.

and why after the independent reviewers had produced their independent report was consideration bein- independent report was consideration being given to replacing them? from m view, being given to replacing them? from my view. that _ being given to replacing them? from my view, that was _ being given to replacing them? from my view, that was simply _ being given to replacing them? if�*t?t|i my view, that was simply around cost and lack of output. . 50 my view, that was simply around cost and lack of output. ._ and lack of output. . so one of the bi four and lack of output. . so one of the big four would _ and lack of output. . so one of the big four would be _ and lack of output. . so one of the big four would be cheaper - and lack of output. . so one of the big four would be cheaper than - big four would be cheaper than messesm _ big four would be cheaper than messes... godlike i'm not saying they— messes... godlike i'm not saying they would — messes... godlike i'm not saying they would be cheaper but conclusion more quickly than we were seeing. this was— more quickly than we were seeing. this was one year on but we had very little output having spent quite a lot of money. little output having spent quite a lot of money-— little output having spent quite a lot of mone . ~ . , ., , lot of money. was it that they were rovin: to lot of money. was it that they were proving to be _ lot of money. was it that they were proving to be a _ lot of money. was it that they were proving to be a little _ lot of money. was it that they were proving to be a little too _ proving to be a little too independent for the post office? that certainly wasn't my take. was it the take of _ that certainly wasn't my take. was it the take of anyone else? i - that certainly wasn't my take. was it the take of anyone else? i don't| it the take of anyone else? i don't know. it the take of anyone else? i don't know- that _ it the take of anyone else? i don't know. that wasn't _ it the take of anyone else? i don't know. that wasn't shared - it the take of anyone else? i don't know. that wasn't shared with - it the take of anyone else? i don't| know. that wasn't shared with me. did anyone blame susan crichton for suggesting them? at

did anyone blame susan crichton for suggesting them?— suggesting them? at the time, i didn't think _ suggesting them? at the time, i didn't think so. _ suggesting them? at the time, i didn't think so. i _ suggesting them? at the time, i didn't think so. i have _ suggesting them? at the time, i didn't think so. i have obviously | didn't think so. i have obviously been listening to things this week... ., ,., been listening to things this week... ,, ., , week... susan, you got as these --eole week... susan, you got as these people in. _ week... susan, you got as these people in. they _ week... susan, you got as these people in, they are _ week... susan, you got as these people in, they are a _ week... susan, you got as these people in, they are a bit - week... susan, you got as these people in, they are a bit too - people in, they are a bit too independent from us, why don't we go for one _ independent from us, why don't we go for one of— independent from us, why don't we go for one of the big four who we can manage _ for one of the big four who we can manage and control? that for one of the big four who we can manage and control?— for one of the big four who we can manage and control? that is not a conversation _ manage and control? that is not a conversation i _ manage and control? that is not a conversation i was _ manage and control? that is not a conversation i was aware - manage and control? that is not a conversation i was aware of. - manage and control? that is not a conversation i was aware of. i - manage and control? that is not a conversation i was aware of. i do i conversation i was aware of. i do remember in the early conversations susan saying i know these people and quite clearly saying at the time, i'm not making any recommendations. i'm not making any recommendations. i have worked with ron, if you want, i have worked with ron, if you want, i can set up a meeting and you can take your own view. i do absolutely remember that conversation at the start. so what you have just said about there being —— them being too independent, that wasn't something i was party to. i was working quite closely with them at the time, particularly ron and yes, he was very challenging and so they should

be. that is what i expected them to do. ~ , ., . be. that is what i expected them to do. ~ ., ., ., be. that is what i expected them to do. ., ., ., ., ., do. where you are aware of a suggestion — do. where you are aware of a suggestion that _ do. where you are aware of a suggestion that susan - do. where you are aware of a. suggestion that susan crichton do. where you are aware of a - suggestion that susan crichton had failed _ suggestion that susan crichton had failed to— suggestion that susan crichton had failed to mark second sight properly?— failed to mark second sight --roerl ? ., , ., , ., properly? not before listening to her evidence _ properly? not before listening to her evidence yesterday. - properly? not before listening to her evidence yesterday. were - properly? not before listening to | her evidence yesterday. were you aware of chatter _ her evidence yesterday. were you aware of chatter within _ her evidence yesterday. were you aware of chatter within the - aware of chatter within the business, rumblings, that susan crichton's — business, rumblings, that susan crichton'sjob was on business, rumblings, that susan crichton's job was on the line because _ crichton's job was on the line because she had a hyphen introduced reviewers— because she had a hyphen introduced reviewers who were a little too independent and b, when they were introduced _ independent and b, when they were introduced had failed to mark them, or control— introduced had failed to mark them, or control them. that wasn't something i was aware of. susan leavin: something i was aware of. susan leaving was _ something i was aware of. susan leaving was quite _ something i was aware of. susan leaving was quite a _ something i was aware of. susan leaving was quite a shock - something i was aware of. susan leaving was quite a shock to - something i was aware of. susan leaving was quite a shock to me. j something i was aware of. susan - leaving was quite a shock to me. why did ou leaving was quite a shock to me. why did you think— leaving was quite a shock to me. why did you think she left? i _ leaving was quite a shock to me. why did you think she left? i suspected i did you think she left? i suspected it was to do _ did you think she left? i suspected it was to do with _ did you think she left? i suspected it was to do with the _ did you think she left? i suspected it was to do with the fact - did you think she left? i suspected it was to do with the fact that - it was to do with the fact that second sight went delivering the output within that time period. 50 output within that time period. so it was about the quality of second sight's _ it was about the quality of second sight's work? it it was about the quality of second sight's work?— sight's work? it was about the timeliness _ sight's work? it was about the timeliness and _

sight's work? it was about the timeliness and i _ sight's work? it was about the timeliness and i wouldn't - sight's work? it was about the timeliness and i wouldn't sayl sight's work? it was about the i timeliness and i wouldn't say the quality, it was the quantity... we won't sing the outputs... so quality, it was the quantity... we won't sing the outputs. . .- won't sing the outputs... so she felt embarrassed _ won't sing the outputs... so she felt embarrassed she _ won't sing the outputs... so she felt embarrassed she had - won't sing the outputs... so she - felt embarrassed she had introduced second _ felt embarrassed she had introduced second sight and they went to producing enough work quickly enough? — producing enough work quickly enou~h? . �* , ,, ., enough? that wasn't the impression i not. wh enough? that wasn't the impression i got- why do — enough? that wasn't the impression i got- why do you _ enough? that wasn't the impression i got. why do you think _ enough? that wasn't the impression i got. why do you think she _ enough? that wasn't the impression i got. why do you think she left? - got. why do you think she left? look, i listened _ got. why do you think she left? look, i listened to _ got. why do you think she left? look, i listened to her - got. why do you think she left? look, i listened to her evidence this week, i wasn't aware of what the conversations and what was going on in the background. i knew susan had introduced second sight to the business, she hadn't recommended them but she had introduced them and we were in that space of, that was a good thing. i had seen their pack and they came across as being very credible. i never personally thought she was ever embarrassed by anything they were doing but she was aware that we weren't we won't get in the

output we thought we were by that time. . ., time. can we turn on in the document. _ time. can we turn on in the document, please, - time. can we turn on in the document, please, to - time. can we turn on in the | document, please, to annex time. can we turn on in the - document, please, to annex one? it provides— document, please, to annex one? it provides an — document, please, to annex one? it provides an overview if we move through— provides an overview if we move through the document to page eight, please _ through the document to page eight, please if— through the document to page eight, please. if we look at the bottom part of— please. if we look at the bottom part of this page, under the post office _ part of this page, under the post office activity. it has provided continuous support to second sight with all— continuous support to second sight with all ten spot reviews. it has come _ with all ten spot reviews. it has come a — with all ten spot reviews. it has come a second bullet points from the bottom, _ come a second bullet points from the bottom, liaised closely with fujitsu so its _ bottom, liaised closely with fujitsu so its expertise on horizon supports

every— so its expertise on horizon supports every response. lastly, collated and interrogated transaction records were _ interrogated transaction records were second sight has referenced particular— were second sight has referenced particular identifiable transactions. taking those points in tone and _ transactions. taking those points in tone and bearing in mind you i think responsible — tone and bearing in mind you i think responsible for managing provision of information to second sight, was it right _ of information to second sight, was it right that — of information to second sight, was it right that post office had liaised _ it right that post office had liaised closely with fujitsu so that its expertise are supported every response — its expertise are supported every response that was made as god that wasn't _ response that was made as god that wasn't me _ response that was made as god that wasn't me liaising with fujitsu. i didn't— wasn't me liaising with fujitsu. i didn't ask— wasn't me liaising with fujitsu. i didn't ask if you are liaising with fujitsu, — didn't ask if you are liaising with fujitsu, i— didn't ask if you are liaising with fujitsu, i asked do know whether the post office _ fujitsu, i asked do know whether the post office liaised with fujitsu to support — post office liaised with fujitsu to support every response? my support every response? ifi understanding support every response? m: understanding was, support every response? m; understanding was, yes, and i think at the time it was simon baker who was leading on that. its

at the time it was simon baker who was leading on that.— was leading on that. its records secondly that _ was leading on that. its records secondly that the _ was leading on that. its records secondly that the post - was leading on that. its records secondly that the post office i secondly that the post office collated and interrogated transaction records where second sight _ transaction records where second sight had — transaction records where second sight had referenced particular identifiable transactions. did the post office only check transaction records? — post office only check transaction records? for post office only check transaction records? ., , ,., records? for the spot reviews? i don't think _ records? for the spot reviews? i don't think so, _ records? for the spot reviews? i don't think so, i _ records? for the spot reviews? i don't think so, i think _ records? for the spot reviews? i don't think so, i think we - records? for the spot reviews? i don't think so, i think we went i don't think so, i think we went wider. we certainly did in the lipton case. wider. we certainly did in the lipton case-— wider. we certainly did in the lipton case. why does this say, then, lipton case. why does this say, then. that _ lipton case. why does this say, then, that the _ lipton case. why does this say, then, that the post _ lipton case. why does this say, then, that the post office - then, that the post office interrogated transaction records? i'm thinking in particular about event — i'm thinking in particular about event records or letter a r q i'm thinking in particular about event records or letter a r 0 data. i'm event records or letter a r 0 data. i'm trying — event records or letter a r 0 data. i'm trying to — event records or letter a r 0 data. i'm trying to remember. in the case, i'm trying to remember. in the case, i did have a number of conversations with ron on that one, we did

actually get the arc information i think. it is definitely a more broad conversation because we needed to get more information to understand what had gone on in that branch i can't recall again. i think this would have been simon facilitating this from fujitsu. {lilia would have been simon facilitating this from fujitsu.— this from fu'itsu. ok, where you aware of this from fujitsu. ok, where you aware of the _ this from fujitsu. ok, where you aware of the extent _ this from fujitsu. ok, where you aware of the extent to _ this from fujitsu. ok, where you aware of the extent to which - this from fujitsu. ok, where you. aware of the extent to which audit data had _ aware of the extent to which audit data had been examined by fujitsu for all— data had been examined by fujitsu for all of— data had been examined by fujitsu for all of the spot reviews? | data had been examined by fu'itsu for all of the spot reviews?fi for all of the spot reviews? i can't sa that i for all of the spot reviews? i can't say that l was- — for all of the spot reviews? i can't say that i was. do _ for all of the spot reviews? i can't say that i was. do you _ for all of the spot reviews? i can't say that i was. do you know - for all of the spot reviews? i can't say that i was. do you know why i for all of the spot reviews? i can't i say that i was. do you know why that would not have _ say that i was. do you know why that would not have been _ say that i was. do you know why that would not have been done? - say that i was. do you know why that would not have been done? i- say that i was. do you know why that would not have been done? i don't. would not have been done? i don't know why it _ would not have been done? i don't know why it wouldn't _ would not have been done? i don't know why it wouldn't have - would not have been done? i don't know why it wouldn't have been i would not have been done? i don't. know why it wouldn't have been done because that is the approach that we adopted for the scheme and this was the precursor to the scheme so it might very well have been done but i can say that i was aware categorically. i can say that i was aware categorically.— can say that i was aware categorically. can say that i was aware cateuoricall . ., , ., categorically. i thought you were responsible _ categorically. i thought you were responsible for _ categorically. i thought you were responsible for the _ categorically. i thought you were responsible for the management categorically. i thought you were i responsible for the management of the provision of information to second — the provision of information to second sight? |

the provision of information to second sight?— second sight? i thought i said earlier, i wasn't _ second sight? i thought i said earlier, i wasn't responsible, | second sight? i thought i said| earlier, iwasn't responsible, i second sight? i thought i said i earlier, iwasn't responsible, iwas earlier, i wasn't responsible, i was facilitating the flow of information to second sight. it facilitating the flow of information to second sight.— to second sight. it came through ou? to second sight. it came through you? some _ to second sight. it came through you? some of — to second sight. it came through you? some of it— to second sight. it came through you? some of it did, _ to second sight. it came through you? some of it did, not - to second sight. it came through you? some of it did, not all of i to second sight. it came through| you? some of it did, not all of it. it was you? some of it did, not all of it. it was more _ you? some of it did, not all of it. it was more of _ you? some of it did, not all of it. it was more of a _ you? some of it did, not all of it. it was more of a collective - you? some of it did, not all of it. i it was more of a collective approach and simon from the it team, i think it was simon that was liaising with fujitsu. our contact at the time was the account manager from fujitsu. if, as seems to be the case, the post _ if, as seems to be the case, the post office _ if, as seems to be the case, the post office was utterly convinced that its _ post office was utterly convinced that its system was robust, would there _ that its system was robust, would there be _ that its system was robust, would there be any reason not to interrogate all of the data held by fujitsu? _ interrogate all of the data held by fu'itsu? , i. interrogate all of the data held by fu'itsu? , , ., ., fujitsu? sorry, can you repeat that cuestion? fujitsu? sorry, can you repeat that question? if _ fujitsu? sorry, can you repeat that question? if as _ fujitsu? sorry, can you repeat that question? if as seems _ fujitsu? sorry, can you repeat that question? if as seems to _ fujitsu? sorry, can you repeat that question? if as seems to be - fujitsu? sorry, can you repeat that question? if as seems to be the i fujitsu? sorry, can you repeat that l question? if as seems to be the case the post office _ question? if as seems to be the case the post office was _ question? if as seems to be the case the post office was completely - the post office was completely convinced in the integrity of its system, — convinced in the integrity of its system, the robustness of its system, _ system, the robustness of its system, would there be any reason not to _ system, would there be any reason not to investigate all of the data

that fujitsu in regard to all of the spot reviews? | that fujitsu in regard to all of the spot reviews?— that fujitsu in regard to all of the sot reviews? ., ., , . spot reviews? i would have expected it to have been _ spot reviews? i would have expected it to have been investigated. - spot reviews? i would have expected it to have been investigated. the i it to have been investigated. the enhanced ar _ it to have been investigated. the enhanced ar 0 data? it to have been investigated. the enhanced ar q data? i'm - it to have been investigated. the enhanced ar q data? i'm not i it to have been investigated. the. enhanced ar q data? i'm not sure about the enhanced _ enhanced ar q data? i'm not sure about the enhanced data... i enhanced ar q data? i'm not sure about the enhanced data... why i enhanced ar q data? i'm not sure i about the enhanced data... why and it sure if the — about the enhanced data... why and it sure if the robust _ about the enhanced data... why and it sure if the robust arq _ about the enhanced data... why and it sure if the robust arq data i about the enhanced data... why and it sure if the robust arq data would | it sure if the robust arq data would have been— it sure if the robust arq data would have been subject? | it sure if the robust arq data would have been subject?— have been sub'ect? i think it was simon have been sub'ect? i think it was simon baker— have been subject? i think it was simon baker in _ have been subject? i think it was simon baker in terms _ have been subject? i think it was simon baker in terms of - have been subject? i think it was simon baker in terms of liaising | simon baker in terms of liaising directly with fujitsu. but simon baker in terms of liaising directly with fujitsu.— directly with fu'itsu. but these paragraphs — directly with fujitsu. but these paragraphs here _ directly with fujitsu. but these paragraphs here are _ directly with fujitsu. but these paragraphs here are intended. directly with fujitsu. but these . paragraphs here are intended to directly with fujitsu. but these i paragraphs here are intended to give comfort, _ paragraphs here are intended to give comfort, aren't they, too miss vennells — comfort, aren't they, too miss vennells that fujitsu have been closely— vennells that fujitsu have been closely involved and data has been obtained _ closely involved and data has been obtained which backs up the post office's— obtained which backs up the post office's response to second sight? | office's response to second sight? agree. office's response to second sight? i agree- how — office's response to second sight? i agree. how could _ office's response to second sight? i agree. how could this _ office's response to second sight? i agree. how could this have - office's response to second sight? i agree. how could this have been i agree. how could this have been sinned agree. how could this have been signed off. _ agree. how could this have been signed off, then, _

agree. how could this have been signed off, then, without i agree. how could this have been signed off, then, without a i agree. how could this have been signed off, then, without a full. signed off, then, without a full understanding of the extent to which fujitsu _ understanding of the extent to which fujitsu did _ understanding of the extent to which fujitsu did in fact assist the post office _ fujitsu did in fact assist the post office in— fujitsu did in fact assist the post office in the investigation of spot reviews? — office in the investigation of spot reviews? �* ., office in the investigation of spot reviews? �* . ., , reviews? and that might have been the case, reviews? and that might have been the case. all _ reviews? and that might have been the case, all i'm _ reviews? and that might have been the case, all i'm saying _ reviews? and that might have been the case, all i'm saying is _ reviews? and that might have been the case, all i'm saying is i - reviews? and that might have been the case, all i'm saying is i wasn't l the case, all i'm saying is i wasn't directly involved in that and i'm not sure, i can't recall that that absolutely was the case but it very well might have been.— well might have been. thank you, that can come _ well might have been. thank you, that can come down. _ can you remembera can you remember a plan to ensure that the _ can you remember a plan to ensure that the post office took on the role of — that the post office took on the role of investigating cases raised by sub—postmasters rather than second — by sub—postmasters rather than second sight? no. to bring things under second sight? to bring things under the second sight? ito. to bring things under the post office's control and then remove second sight from the process— then remove second sight from the process completely? so, then remove second sight from the process completely?— then remove second sight from the process completely? so, i have seen some information _ process completely? so, i have seen some information disclosed. - process completely? so, i have seen some information disclosed. from i some information disclosed. from memory, that certainly wasn't at the

front of my mind other than if we were to go into a business as usual situation because having established an approach, and i'm talking more about the scheme, i very much was of the view that we needed to embed that into business as usual so that we did have the support to be able to investigate issues within branches that the sub—postmasters raised with us. but in terms of mid scheme, yes, iwas raised with us. but in terms of mid scheme, yes, i was involved in some of the conversations but i never saw that as a reality, to be honest. you aren't aware _ that as a reality, to be honest. you aren't aware ever _ that as a reality, to be honest. you aren't aware ever of _ that as a reality, to be honest. you aren't aware ever of a plan gently to ease _ aren't aware ever of a plan gently to ease second sight out of the equation? i to ease second sight out of the euuation? ., to ease second sight out of the euuation? . ., , equation? i mean, i have seen documents _ equation? i mean, i have seen documents that _ equation? i mean, i have seen documents that have - equation? i mean, i have seen documents that have said i equation? i mean, i have seen documents that have said that| equation? i mean, i have seen i documents that have said that but that wasn't in the four of my mind at all. i was working very closely with second sight on these cases. can be looked please at the next

document. this is an e—mail exchange to which you won't— this is an e—mail exchange to which you won't party. it is a couple of weeks _ you won't party. it is a couple of weeks after _ you won't party. it is a couple of weeks after what we have been looking — weeks after what we have been looking at just now and weeks after what we have been looking atjust now and it is an e-mail— looking atjust now and it is an e—mail exchange between mr baker and mr vennells. e—mail exchange between mr baker and mrvennells. he e—mail exchange between mr baker and mr vennells. he was leaving, yes? yes, _ mr vennells. he was leaving, yes? yes. i_ mr vennells. he was leaving, yes? yes. iwasn't — mr vennells. he was leaving, yes? yes, i wasn't sure of the timeline but i can see this would have been close to it, year. abs, but i can see this would have been close to it, year.— close to it, year. a few closing thoughts. _ close to it, year. a few closing thoughts, nothing _ close to it, year. a few closing thoughts, nothing radical, i close to it, year. a few closing thoughts, nothing radical, and close to it, year. a few closing i thoughts, nothing radical, and his first indented paragraphs, the primary— first indented paragraphs, the primary focus has to be proving to jf fsa _ primary focus has to be proving to jf fsa and — primary focus has to be proving to jf fsa and mps that we can take on the role _ jf fsa and mps that we can take on the role of— jf fsa and mps that we can take on the role of independent investigation of cases. just stopping there, can you conceive of any circumstances in which the post

office _ any circumstances in which the post office could ever independently investigate itself? no. the investigate itself? ij>. the sub—postmasters were eight making allegations against the post office, won't _ allegations against the post office, won't they? allegations against the post office, won't the ? . allegations against the post office, won't they? yes. the sub—postmasters won't they? yes. the sub-postmasters were making — won't they? iezs the sub—postmasters were making allegations against the post office's system, won't they? yes~ _ post office's system, won't they? yes. ., , post office's system, won't they? yes. .,, , . _, yes. the post office could never independently — yes. the post office could never independently investigate i yes. the post office could never independently investigate itself, could _ independently investigate itself, could it? ., independently investigate itself, could it? no. if you had seen this come you — could it? ij>. if you had seen this come you think that isjust could it? ij>. if you had seen this come you think that is just absurd babble? _ come you think that is 'ust absurd babble? , ., babble? so, when i saw this for the first time, which _ babble? so, when i saw this for the first time, which i _ babble? so, when i saw this for the first time, which i think _ babble? so, when i saw this for the first time, which i think was - babble? so, when i saw this for the first time, which i think was this i first time, which i think was this week, i was amazed at the content. he continues, that way, we can start to bring _ he continues, that way, we can start to bring things under our control. that— to bring things under our control. that was— to bring things under our control. that was always the plan, wasn't it? the concern — that was always the plan, wasn't it? the concern amongst senior leadership, it was a bad thing if investigation of complaints were not under— investigation of complaints were not under the _ investigation of complaints were not under the post office's control? 30,

under the post office's control? so, that wasn't — under the post office's control? so, that wasn't my _ under the post office's control? so, that wasn't my take. when i got involved at the start and the early conversations, it was about a genuinely getting to the truth, getting under the skin and understanding whether there was any substance to the claims that were being made by mostly former postmasters at the time. so, as i said, ifind this postmasters at the time. so, as i said, i find this quite amazing... i'm startled but why what i see in here. —— i'm startled by what i see and hear. this isn't why i got involved, i did step into this by my own volition.— own volition. was the post office's concern that _ own volition. was the post office's concern that if _ own volition. was the post office's concern that if things _ own volition. was the post office's concern that if things are - own volition. was the post office's concern that if things are not i own volition. was the post office's| concern that if things are not under our control— concern that if things are not under our control and are instead a little too independent, we can't influence the outcomes of them?—

the outcomes of them? well, again from the disclosure _ the outcomes of them? well, again from the disclosure i've _ the outcomes of them? well, again from the disclosure i've seen, i the outcomes of them? well, again from the disclosure i've seen, then| from the disclosure i've seen, then i can see that. but i wasn't a party to those conversations. i genuinely believed, when we engaged second sight, it was for genuine reasons. but i think we didn't expect it to have gone as long as it did but saying that, the cases are much more complex to investigate and i think anybody anticipated at the start. i'm sorry, i'm probably drifting a little bit more into the scheme here. . ., . ., , ., here. ie, the concern was we want control over _ here. ie, the concern was we want control over the _ here. ie, the concern was we want control over the process _ here. ie, the concern was we want control over the process and i here. ie, the concern was we want control over the process and in i here. ie, the concern was we want. control over the process and in that way, _ control over the process and in that way, we _ control over the process and in that way, we can— control over the process and in that way, we can have control over the substance — way, we can have control over the substance of conclusions?- substance of conclusions? again, that wasn't _ substance of conclusions? again, that wasn't my — substance of conclusions? again, that wasn't my view. _ substance of conclusions? again, that wasn't my view. the - substance of conclusions? again, i that wasn't my view. the suggestion is that the plan _ that wasn't my view. the suggestion is that the plan to _ that wasn't my view. the suggestion is that the plan to do _ that wasn't my view. the suggestion is that the plan to do this _ that wasn't my view. the suggestion is that the plan to do this is - that wasn't my view. the suggestion is that the plan to do this is to i is that the plan to do this is to augment — is that the plan to do this is to augment second sight with post office's— augment second sight with post office's resources? build up our

credibility— office's resources? build up our credibility and then at the right time, — credibility and then at the right time, remove second sight. that is what _ time, remove second sight. that is what happened, isn't it? are time, remove second sight. that is what happened, isn't it?— what happened, isn't it? are you referrin: what happened, isn't it? are you referring to _ what happened, isn't it? are you referring to closing _ what happened, isn't it? are you referring to closing the - what happened, isn't it? are you referring to closing the scheme? again, all i can say is i wasn't aware this was the plan. it again, all i can say is i wasn't aware this was the plan. it was the earl -lan aware this was the plan. it was the early plan according _ aware this was the plan. it was the early plan according to _ aware this was the plan. it was the early plan according to this. i aware this was the plan. it was the early plan according to this. but i l early plan according to this. but i wasn't part _ early plan according to this. but i wasn't part of— early plan according to this. but i wasn't part of that _ early plan according to this. emit i wasn't part of that conversation. early plan according to this. but i . wasn't part of that conversation. if we look at the next paragraph, the strategy— we look at the next paragraph, the strategy was said to fall almost entirely— strategy was said to fall almost entirely on your shoulders. and that certainly wasn't _ entirely on your shoulders. and that certainly wasn't what _ entirely on your shoulders. and that certainly wasn't what i _ entirely on your shoulders. and that certainly wasn't what i was - entirely on your shoulders. and that certainly wasn't what i was aware i certainly wasn't what i was aware of. at this time, which is the end of august. — at this time, which is the end of august, did you know that it was the post office's plan to remove second sight? _

post office's plan to remove second sight? l— post office's plan to remove second siuht? ., post office's plan to remove second siiht? . , post office's plan to remove second siuht? . , ,., , sight? i had been in some meetings, i can't remember _ sight? i had been in some meetings, i can't remember which _ sight? i had been in some meetings, i can't remember which one - sight? i had been in some meetings, i can't remember which one is, i sight? i had been in some meetings, i can't remember which one is, when| i can't remember which one is, when it was reported about concern about second sight�*s rising costs, not getting the outputs and there was some alternatives being mooted about bringing in some additional resource. but it is only through the disclosure process as i have seen the extent of some of those conversations.— the extent of some of those conversations. ~ . , . ., . ., conversations. was the concern that the were conversations. was the concern that they were a — conversations. was the concern that they were a little _ conversations. was the concern that they were a little too _ conversations. was the concern that they were a little too independent i they were a little too independent for the _ they were a little too independent for the post office? | they were a little too independent for the post office?— for the post office? i didn't think so. as for the post office? i didn't think so- as we _ for the post office? i didn't think so. as i've said, _ for the post office? i didn't think so. as i've said, it _ for the post office? i didn't think so. as i've said, it was _ for the post office? i didn't think so. as i've said, it was about i for the post office? i didn't think so. as i've said, it was about the j so. as i've said, it was about the level of output and the cost. i didn't think it was about the independence because i was part of the working group and they were clearly, their role was to be independent and that is how we operated. independent and that is how we o-erated. n... independent and that is how we o-erated. ~ . . ., ., independent and that is how we o-erated. ., ~ a operated. according to mr baker, the strate: operated. according to mr baker, the strategy was — operated. according to mr baker, the strategy was going — operated. according to mr baker, the strategy was going to _ operated. according to mr baker, the strategy was going to fall _ operated. according to mr baker, the strategy was going to fall on - operated. according to mr baker, the strategy was going to fall on you. i strategy was going to fall on you. you were — strategy was going to fall on you. you were seemingly in charge of

easing _ you were seemingly in charge of easing second sight into the wings and then— easing second sight into the wings and then out of the equation. when you ever— and then out of the equation. when you ever told that you held that role? _ you ever told that you held that role? ., , . , you ever told that you held that role? ., , .,, ., _, , you ever told that you held that role? ., , ., , , ~ role? no. this was a complete shock when i role? no. this was a complete shock when i saw — role? no. this was a complete shock when i saw this. _ role? no. this was a complete shock when i saw this. did _ role? no. this was a complete shock when i saw this. did you _ role? no. this was a complete shock when i saw this. did you ever- role? no. this was a complete shock when i saw this. did you ever do i when i saw this. did you ever do an hint when i saw this. did you ever do anything to _ when i saw this. did you ever do anything to carry _ when i saw this. did you ever do anything to carry that _ when i saw this. did you ever do anything to carry that strategy i when i saw this. did you ever do i anything to carry that strategy into effect? _ anything to carry that strategy into effect? l _ anything to carry that strategy into effect? ., �* ~' anything to carry that strategy into effect? ., �* ~ ,., ., effect? i don't think so. i mean, i was there — effect? i don't think so. i mean, i was there to _ effect? i don't think so. i mean, i was there to investigate - effect? i don't think so. i mean, i was there to investigate the i effect? i don't think so. i mean, i. was there to investigate the issues from postmasters. again, overlapping with the initial inquiry for spot reviews and going into the scheme, my role is to lead the team, to do those investigations as thoroughly as we could. in the initial inquiry of spot reviews, it was only a couple of people doing that and then it built going into the scheme. you worked very _ it built going into the scheme. you worked very closely with mr baker, hadn't _ worked very closely with mr baker, hadn't you?— hadn't you? know. not before getting involved in this, no. i'm _ hadn't you? know. not before getting involved in this, no. i'm talking i

involved in this, no. i'm talking about in this, _ involved in this, no. i'm talking about in this, in _ involved in this, no. i'm talking about in this, in the _ involved in this, no. i'm talking about in this, in the second - involved in this, no. i'm talking l about in this, in the second sight investigations. you told us already that he _ investigations. you told us already that he was responsible for the it side of— that he was responsible for the it side of the — that he was responsible for the it side of the provision of information.— side of the provision of information. , information. the first time i met simon baker _ information. the first time i met simon baker was _ information. the first time i met simon baker was when - information. the first time i met simon baker was when we - information. the first time i met simon baker was when we were | information. the first time i met - simon baker was when we were having the early conversations which would have been in 2012. throughout that period, which would have been about one year if he left in august, then i did work quite closely with him at that point. for i did work quite closely with him at that oint. ., ., i did work quite closely with him at that oint. ., . , ., ., that point. for a year or so, you worked closely _ that point. for a year or so, you worked closely with _ that point. for a year or so, you worked closely with him - that point. for a year or so, you worked closely with him on - that point. for a year or so, you worked closely with him on the| worked closely with him on the second — worked closely with him on the second sight project?- second sight pro'ect? yes. srumo: h second sight pro'ect? yes. studio: 0k, _ second sight project? yes. studio: ok, that - second sight project? yes. studio: ok, that is - second sight project? yes. studio: ok, that is where | second sight project? yes. i studio: ok, that is where we second sight project? yes. - studio: ok, that is where we are going to leave the post office inquiry, it has been hearing from angela van den bogerd. she was a senior executive at the post office and dealt with many of the legal cases against sub—postmasters who were wrongly convicted of theft of false accounting. during this afternoon, she was shown minutes of afternoon, she was shown minutes of a meeting in which the then post office ceo paula vennells said the horizon system was very secure and that every keystroke was recorded.

amanda vanden bogarde was asked if she believed what paula vennells said. she said she did and added she had no reason not to believe her ceo and didn't know who had briefed her. she began the day with an apology to the wrongly convicted sub—postmasters, saying she was truly sorry for the devastation caused to them, their families and friends. she told the inquiry that she never knowingly did anything wrong in the horizon scandal. she was asked if she apologised for her role in the scandal knowing what she knows now. she said she apologised for not getting to the answer more quickly but the evidence she had, she said she did the best she could and blamed fujitsu for not being transparent. you can continue watching that evidence on the bbc iplayer and if you havejustjoined us and want a summary of the evidence that we have been hearing during the afternoon, we have a special live page on the bbc news website or app where you can get all

of the evidence that has been presented during the day. right now on bbc news, we are going to get a cheque on the weather with chris fawkes. hello there, the weather will stay on the chilly side for the next few days. satellite picture shows an area of low pressure in the north sea with some patches of cloud bringing some rain to england and wales. scotland is where the cheapest weather is at the moment, those brighter skies will spread to northern ireland and northern england through the day, again with risk of the few showers but it has been cold enough for a few flakes of snow up over the highest hills of scotland and northern england, too. temperatures wherever you are, below par. nine to 13 degrees at best. some areas perhaps just as in temperatures of around seven in parts of eastern scotland and england. certainly feeling pretty chilly. overnight, we will continue to see a bit of cloud and a few patches of rain across the far south of the uk, otherwise the skies are

going to be clearing particularly across the north—west the uk where there will be some areas of frost in rural parts. a few showers coming in off the north sea overnight. that takes us into friday's forecast. the dregs of that weather system still potentially bringing some rain in the far south. otherwise, a bright but cold start to the day with some spells of sunshine. showers will develop, most widespread east scotland and eastern areas of england where some of them could be heavy with some hail and thunder. temperatures again in round nine to 13 degrees which is below average for the time of year. the weekend, it stays unsettled, an area of low pressure is going to be moving up from the south bringing with it some rain. the wettest weather on saturday is forecast for southern england, south wales, the midlands, east anglia, there will be a chilly east anglia, there will be a chilly east north—easterly wind which will develop. further north, northern ireland, scotland, northern england, we are looking at a mix of sunny spells and showers will stop some of them could be quite heavy with a bit of hail mixed in with some of them and temperatures staying below average for the time of year.

sunday, that area of low pressure continues to bring the threat of rain, particularly across eastern areas of england, the rain could be fairly slow to clear here. further north—west here, it is a day of sunny spells and passing showers. some of the show was heavy with hail and thunder, temperature is not really changing much. another cool day. however, if you are fed up with this chilly spell of weather, although it might not be completely dry, at least into next week, it looks like the weather will warm up for a time.

live from london. this is bbc news a new york court overturns harvey weinstein's 2020 conviction for rape, ordering a new trial in the landmark "metoo" case. the us supreme court is considering whether donald trump is immune from prosecution for actions he took as president. the outcome will determine whether he can face trial on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election. what role did climate change play in the severe flooding in parts of the middle east last week? we'll speak to our climate editor. hello, i'm lucy grey, welcome to verified live, three hours of breaking stories, and checking out the truth behind them. a court in new york has overturned the conviction of the hollywood producer harvey weinstein, who was jailed for sex

offences in 2020. the new york state court of appeals ruled that the original trial made