When the Employment Tribunal hearing was suspended on 14 June 2011, I was cross examining Karen Stark about the document Stirling University fraudulently sent to the ET. My previous post describes the story that Karen invented to deny that it was created fraudulently in an attempt to fool the tribunal into thinking that my allegations against Kathy McCabe were investigated, and that Eileen Schofield's decision not to uphold my grievance was based on evidence, and not simply a response to me whistleblowing to the Principal, Christine Hallett.
The story she gave under oath makes no sense, and she will have to face some very difficult questions when the hearing resumes.
The fraudulent document also states how each allegation was investigated. For this particular allegation, it states that Eileen Schofield referred to a former colleague's email that he sent in response to a question he was asked by Karen Stark about an entirely different matter that had nothing to do with any allegations. So why on earth would she refer to an email that doesn't contain any reference to the allegation? He wasn't asked anything about this allegation when Karen contacted him for the investigation. It's almost as though Mrs Schofield had a miraculous premonition that he would contact the university three weeks later with new evidence about this allegation.
Karen told the tribunal that Schofield did not review her decision for this allegation when they received the new information. Karen said that she just mistakenly typed the wrong decision, and that she also mistakenly typed the wrong facts on which the decision was based. Already that is impossible. But will she dare to tell the tribunal that she also mistakenly typed that they referred to that email; an email that had no bearing on the allegation, but which came from the person whose information she mistakenly typed, and which altered the decision that she mistakenly typed? Surely not! And then there's something else she'll have to explain which I'll keep to myself for the moment.
She has already had to admit to the tribunal that a whole bunch of my allegations were simply not investigated. It will soon become clear that none of them were investigated.
Interestingly, Karen Stark is taking full responsibility for this document, saying that Schofield took no part in its creation. They must have agreed that if anyone has to go to jail for perverting the course of justice, Karen is to be the sacrificial lamb.
Stirling University should have considered the consequences of committing fraud more seriously before creating that document. They are making complete fools of themselves.
Monday
The most incredible typing error ever. Fact!
We've all done it. You're in a hurry, and you press the wrong key. My most frequent error is to type an extra 'o' in the word 'would'. I don't know why. But I usually look over what I've typed and correct it. If I intend to print it on paper, I check very carefully.
However, I have never made the incredible kind of typo that Karen Stark from HR claims to have made.
In earlier posts I spoke of how Stirling University faked evidence and sent it to the Employment Tribunal in an attempt to fool them into believing they investigated all of my allegations against Kathy McCabe. It showed that information that didn't exist was used to influence Eileen Schofield's decision on one of my allegations.
The document they sent includes several columns of information relating to each allegation. One column displays the decision that Mrs Schofield came to, and another column displays the facts on which the decision was based. The fact for this particular allegation was said to come from a former colleague's witness statement. However the fact did not appear in the statement. The fact displayed did not exist until more than three weeks after the decision was made, and it was a fact that supported my allegation.
Under oath at the tribunal, Miss Stark explained that this was because the new information had been clipped on to the original statement, and while she was creating the document for the tribunal, she just mistakenly took that new information to be the fact that Mrs Schofield had relied on for her decision. Already the story sounds fishy, but it's the next part of the story that is the stuff that fairy tales are made of.
Karen said that Eileen Schofield's decision was Allegation not upheld, but that she typed Allegation upheld - but considered not to be material by mistake.
Not only is it an incredible typo, but it's also an incredible coincidence that she should make that typo for the same allegation where she has typed the wrong fact. It's also an incredible coincidence that the wrong fact supported my allegation. It is also an incredible coincidence that earlier in the document it warns that this type of allegation was not considered material. It's also an incredible coincidence that no other allegation in the ten page document has a decision of Allegation upheld - but considered not to be material.
Woould you believe it?
However, I have never made the incredible kind of typo that Karen Stark from HR claims to have made.
In earlier posts I spoke of how Stirling University faked evidence and sent it to the Employment Tribunal in an attempt to fool them into believing they investigated all of my allegations against Kathy McCabe. It showed that information that didn't exist was used to influence Eileen Schofield's decision on one of my allegations.
The document they sent includes several columns of information relating to each allegation. One column displays the decision that Mrs Schofield came to, and another column displays the facts on which the decision was based. The fact for this particular allegation was said to come from a former colleague's witness statement. However the fact did not appear in the statement. The fact displayed did not exist until more than three weeks after the decision was made, and it was a fact that supported my allegation.
Under oath at the tribunal, Miss Stark explained that this was because the new information had been clipped on to the original statement, and while she was creating the document for the tribunal, she just mistakenly took that new information to be the fact that Mrs Schofield had relied on for her decision. Already the story sounds fishy, but it's the next part of the story that is the stuff that fairy tales are made of.
Karen said that Eileen Schofield's decision was Allegation not upheld, but that she typed Allegation upheld - but considered not to be material by mistake.
Not only is it an incredible typo, but it's also an incredible coincidence that she should make that typo for the same allegation where she has typed the wrong fact. It's also an incredible coincidence that the wrong fact supported my allegation. It is also an incredible coincidence that earlier in the document it warns that this type of allegation was not considered material. It's also an incredible coincidence that no other allegation in the ten page document has a decision of Allegation upheld - but considered not to be material.
Woould you believe it?
Wednesday
Digital Recordings
I have sent Stirling University's lawyers sound recordings that support my assertion that a number of colleagues have told porky pies.
One of the recordings includes a conversation I had with Selina Gibb. One contains a discussion that includes David Black. One includes a conversation I had with Una Forsyth. One includes a conversation with Kathy McCabe.
I have written transcripts of the recordings, and the university accepts that they are accurate. They do not, however, accept that the voices belong to the people I say they belong to. They say that they do not want the individuals concerned to hear them in order to confirm that it is them. This makes it more likely that I will have to call them as witnesses to be cross examined.
One of the recordings includes a conversation I had with Selina Gibb. One contains a discussion that includes David Black. One includes a conversation I had with Una Forsyth. One includes a conversation with Kathy McCabe.
I have written transcripts of the recordings, and the university accepts that they are accurate. They do not, however, accept that the voices belong to the people I say they belong to. They say that they do not want the individuals concerned to hear them in order to confirm that it is them. This makes it more likely that I will have to call them as witnesses to be cross examined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)