Re: Unimpressed: false dichotomy
"stop defending Jenkins on your mistaken understanding of what an expert witness is. "
Thanks, but I will make my opinion from the evidence I have seen, not some rando on the internet who doesn't agree with me.
Evidently, unlike you, I have watched his entire testimony. I have no skin in the game.
I entered the week of his testimony on the fence. Until Ian Henderson's testimony (Second Sight) on 18 June, I was of the opinion that Jenkins was a bad actor like the rest of them. Henderson expressed his opinion that Jenkins "was very helpful throughout" and had "no criticism of him in terms of answering my questions and providing support." [Ref: "Ian Henderson - Day 152 AM (18 June 2024) - Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry" 2:01:45]
To be clear, again, I do not understand why he still considers Horizon to be reliable in the face of what we all know now.
As I have stated numerous times, the concept of "expert witness" in the legal sense was brought up dozens of times during the testimony.
This includes adhering to Part 33 of the Criminal Procedure Rules and the Code of Practice for Experts, neither of which he's never read and didn't even know existed.
I expressly draw your attention, for example, to "Gareth Jenkins - Day 159 AM (28 June 2024) - Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry" with key points at 2:28:35, 2:35:00, and 2:40:08.
"If I was going to court as an expert witness I'd be damned sure to read anything stating what my responsibilities were."
I am sure that we all will be know. I wonder, did you know of Part 33 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, or the Code of Practice for Experts, until I drew your attention to it?
I could quite easily have seen me being inadvertently drawn into something like this during my career. Have you ever dealt with corporate lawyers at work I wonder? They're far from good at being forthcoming with anything unless it's going to benefit them. My experience is that you send them an email to have something clarified, but I rarely receive anything back.
I very strongly recommend that at the very least you listen to the first first morning of his testimony, when the concept of "expert witness" was initially covered at some length. This then went on throughout the rest of the day, and was a continually referred to through out the remainder of his testimony.
In my opinion, Jenkins was an individual who was trying to be helpful, but ended up being a useful idiot for the POL lawyers. He was also let down by his own management, who should've picked up on this, but ultimately, it was a failure of POL's lawyers, in particular Jarnail Singh who was the only criminal lawyer employed by POL.
But I won't respond well to demands such as yours to change my opinion based on false claims.
HTH.