POL00221743
POL00221743
From: Belinda Crowe[IMCEAEX-
_O=MMS_OU=EXCHANGE+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FY DIBOHF23SPDLT+29
_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=BELINDA+20CROWE79B93F 1 1-569F-4526-A078-
F5B4958A8917220@C72A47 ingest.local]
Sent: Wed 11/02/2015 7:07:04 AM (UTC)
To: Chris Aujard: ~ O Parsons,
Andrewf ~~ ~~ FRodric a
Williams gela Van-Den-Bogerd} _
Bec: Belinda Crowe
Subject: Re: Note of telecon with lan Henderson 20 Jan
Further to this, I think we have four outstanding issues to address with Second Sight re the provision of
information:
1. The provision of emails relating to Bracknell
2. The provision of prosecution documents
3. Further information re what started off as being suspense accounts etc.
4. The few outstanding questions/information requests from the Part Two questions
This where we are and should plan to be going forward:
1, Emails - I have requested from Dave King as much email data as he can get from the people on the list Ian
sent through to me after my conversation with him on 20 Jan. I have some email data for Martin Rolfe and
Dave is looking to what he can get re the other people on the list (Mark Underwood keeping track)
Ihave also obtained the disk we gave to Ian with what data we managed to obtain last time. Dave is trying to
access that data to see exactly what was provided.
When I have both of the above (which should hopefully be within the next few days) I will email Ian to set out
what he has asked for, what we previously provided. I should ask him to, as we discussed on 20 Jan, let me
know what his search criteria are and also exactly what questions he is looking to answer from the emails so that
we can consider how best to answer those questions and provide relevant information. I think that if Second
Sight are, as we believe, looking for evidence to support the erroneous assertion that a team in Bracknell were
able to manipulate branch data without the knowledge of the spmr then the best way of dealing within this may
be a statement from Post Office refuting the allegation. The provision of email data is not going to be
determinative and Second Sight are likely to return for more data which will be inconclusive. I therefore think
we should set out the question we consider they are trying to answer and do a paper/witness statement. In that
we need to set out the history of what we have provided, the conversations we have had with them and how we
have explained why we cannot provide more, if we cannot.
2. Prosecution docs - continue as now.
3. Suspense accounts - I am not involved in tat but presume continue as now
4. Other questions - how many do we have outstanding?
Shall we catch up later about handling?
Best wishes
Belinda
POL00221743
POL00221743
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
On 9 Feb 2015, at 18:18, Belinda Crowe} GRO wrote:
To see
This was a note I made of my call with lan Henderson on 20 Jan. I apologise it is rather scrappy but it
was simply meant to be a note.
This is why I was rather surprised at what he said in his evidence at the Select Committee in which he
made no reference to:
- our conversation
- the WG decision about the prosecution docs (especially as he did not raise this with POL when he came
in to discuss the suspense accounts).
Best wishes
Belinda
Belinda Crowe
148 Old Street, LONDON, EC1V 9HQ
<Discussion with Ian Henderson 20 Jan 2015.docx>