Anticipation is a beautiful thing, but complaining when the show doesn’t live up to expectations is a bad look when the show is a deadly serious ongoing litigation about peoples’ livelihoods.

Today was a means to an end. We had the independent IT expert for the claimants in the witness box (Jason Coyne) and a highly skilled QC doing the cross-examination (Anthony de Garr Robinson).

I have posted my post-match report here.

My live tweeting throughout proceedings can be read here on a user-friendly single webpage.

Today’s transcript is here.

And if you want to wade through two of Mr Coyne’s 200+ page reports on the “relative” or otherwise robustness of Horizon, you can do so here.

Secret email army

I am beginning to get a fix on just how many movers and shakers are reading these secret emails, which is extremely gratifying and encouraging.

Lots of lawyers, academics, forensic/fraud/accountant/expert witness/union types, journalists, Subpostmasters, claimants and the like. Not enough MPs, though. I’m happy to sign them up for free with their permission. If you can get them or their office to forward me an email saying that’s what they’d be happy to do, I’ll sign them up.

I had three legal types come up to me today and tell me how much they’re enjoying the blog, which is great.

One of those legal prople (politely) made it quite clear my repeated references to Sir Peter Fraser as J Fraser (as in, J for Justice) are completely wrong. Sir Peter is, in legal shorthand, Fraser J.

If he becomes Lord Justice Fraser he will be Fraser LJ, and apparently if one is referring to multiple lord justices they become Smith and Jones LJJ. You learn something every day.

So Fraser J he is. When he is inevitably elevated, I know what to do.

An explanation

To those who have contributed significant sums since I published yesterday’s accounts, thank you.

I specifically asked existing contributors not to give me any more money, yet some cussed secret emailers did. I quite like the idea of people giving me their cash in order to annoy me, and of course I am grateful to them, but let me explain my thinking.

Right now I have enough money to take me through to September.

In September I will come and ask everyone for more donations because:

i) I will have run out of money.

ii) it will be a year since my last request which seems like a decent grace period.

iii) it would be nice to have a large total made over a short period of time so I can make a song and dance about it in the media.

There is also another reason I haven’t spelled out til now, which perhaps I need to:

This litigation means a great deal to some people reading this who are struggling right now. As in struggling to buy food or keep roofs over heads. If any other secret emailer thinks I might be exaggerating, I can promise you I’m not.

If you are a claimant and/or your livelihood and life savings and earning capacity has been impacted by what has happened to you or around you, I really don’t need repeat donations. Really. I have refunded people I know shouldn’t be donating, but I don’t know everyone’s personal circumstances and it’s stressing me out a bit.

I am deeply touched and deeply grateful to those who feel they want to make a gesture in this way, but thanks to your initial donations when this project launched last year and thanks to a large number of people who are watching this litigation with a close interest, I am not going anywhere.

Good people are doing generous things to ensure I have enough money to stick around at least until September.

I can’t predict how long this is litigation is going to go on for, but for those of you who are really, really invested in this, I don’t need repeat donations. When I am close to running out of money, I will ask. If, at the time of asking, you can afford it, great. If not, don’t worry. But please do not give me money in the meantime.

Thank you all for your understanding!

Nick