Other aspects:

If they needed Sommer, does that indicate that the deleted emails DO exist?

Did they limit Sommer to only the ones still on the server? What I’d do if I were them – have him go through the “privately” preserved emails on the memory stick, to see which ones to delete altogether. The memory stick could be misplaced and be found by others, after all. They are very easy to misplace. Best to eliminate the incriminating emails completely, while keeping the non-incriminating ones that they DID want to keep for posterity. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Steve Garcia

It is at this time established that some of the files were put onto memory sticks (private storage].

If so, then the original files were either left on the servers or they were not, in the act of moving them. Since the inquiries did not find them either the inquiry looked in the wrong places or the files had been put on the sticks by some means that effectively removed them. “Did you in any way removing the files from the server?” is another phrasing that would have left no out for Jones and Briffa.

Using ONLY the term “delete” is about the easiest to doge, most simple-minded, un-lawyer-like approach possible.

Steve Garcia

As you certainly know (but that I have not seen specifically addressed), a right-click-and-drag on the files offers up a context menu that offers, among other things, either to COPY to the chosen location or to MOVE to that location.

In parsing their statements, if they chose the latter (or could reasonably claim to), there was then no DELETING involved on their part. Though the act of moving no longer leaves the files in the previous location, strictly speaking it is not COPYing and DELETE-ing. If they never specifically chose the DELETE option, did deleting occur?

This being the case, they could say with a straight face that they did no deleting, even though that was what Jones’ had been urging.

“But, Sir, I did not at any time pick the DELETE option.”

It was naivete on the part of the inquiries to not include “Did you move any files?” to their questioning, so as to prevent parsing in that particular way. I maintain that that is exactly what happened – and that Briffa and Jones colluded to present the same dodge to the inquiries.

It is even possible (though I do not accuse) that the inquirers may have been part of the collusion, perhaps consciously and specifically limiting their questions so that the dodge would be possible. Jones and Briffa and Wahl were not the only ones with reasons to avoid facing theses facts.

Steve Garcia

SteveMc: The “inquiries” did not carry out any questioning about the deletion of emails.

So Jones and Briffa were fully aware of the FOI request context as they pursued deletion of emails to evade the request. Amazing that Muir Russel & co. could not investigate this obvious simple fact. Oh, unless they never meant to “investigate”….

Monday 26 May 2008 10:12 1701.txt Osborn to Briffa and Jones

So I’m sure that Holland will be pursuing or even expanding his FOI request!

“Reply email sent…”

I take it your reply can’t be posted here? I’m following this with great interest, as are others I’m sure . . .

Steve: it will be posted up when I get a chance.