Joseann
So, I wonder, was Mr. Bates' refusal to sign the papers like the others did, in any way less implicating, and less stressful for him personally? He was obviously far more savvy where accounts and record keeping were concerned. He is an interesting character.
They were all guilty of false accounting, weren't they? They signed to say that their accounts were correct, when they weren't because they'd made up the apparent shortfalls themselves. Mr Bates couldn't be guilty of that because he hadn't signed anything. If they didn't bring the police in then presumably they couldn't go for embezzlement instead.
What intrigues me is that surely, at some stage, the there was more money somewhere in the system than the individual post office accounts actually showed, because 100s of Post Masters/Mistresses had put in £1,000s of their own money to make up the apparent shortfalls. I don't know how accounting on a corporate scale works, collating figures from lots of small units, but there must have been some very discrepant figures somewhere along the line.
In addition to any compensation the PO really ought to repay all the money it effectively stole from its victims...