I didn’t mean to take issue with anything other than your (probably rhetorical) question “Why would she type up a list prepared by Peter Liss or the Royal Society?”

I was just clarifying for the benefit of less it-literate readers that the assumption underlying a literal interpretation of your words would be contraindicated.

I entirely agree that Ms Williams should (be able to) assist you with this query.

“In addition, inspection of the author properties of the list version sent to panelists shows Lisa Williams as the author. Why would she type up a list prepared by Peter Liss or the Royal Society?”

It’s far more likely than the layman might think for someone to be the ‘author’ of a Word document they didn’t write. Because of the way Outlook and Word integrate, something like saving an email as a document can put your name on it. Similarly, since Word is quite free and easy about slapping your name on documents, if you get an email, and copy&paste part of it to a Word document to save, or even just convert from another format, you can end up as the author.

I wouldn’t read much into it, other than that the text has at some point passed through Lisa’s computer.

Steve - As others have observed, the fact that Lisa Williams name is on the document means at least that she handled it and can resolve the small mystery of who made the list. Given the total uninformativeness of Oxburgh and the Royal Society on the matter, please do not underestimate the value of such clues. Perhaps it was really Phil Jones or Trevor Davies or Peter Liss or John Beddington – but right now Lisa Williams is the person who can identify.

This is a continuation, is it not, of an historical – and rather consistent pattern of response – whenever any questions are raised about this particular group of scientists and/or their work.

“JCF – For example Keith Briffa took home emails that were subject to FOI to ensure their safekeeping.”

I wonder what the filename was of the stuff that Keith took home? What would someone call a txt file that contained info subject to FOIA? FOIA.txt perhaps? Too bad Russell didn’t ask this obvious question.

I think the committee with recall Acton and will then call for a new investigation that is truly independent. This new investigation will not have a sock puppet for the UEA as its chairman. I’d like to see SMc as a member of the new panel. Maybe make Shapiro the chairman this time.