PCA Report paragraph 120. Title from David and Goliath p137.

120. When Detective Sergeant Anderson testified at the trial he gave no description of the process used to calculate the time the message was saved and simply said, "At approximately 2. 16pm Mr Cox carried out a number of functions and he will tell you about that". This was a perfectly proper and accurate statement but in his book, Karam suggests the officer committed perjury and that his use of the word "approximately" was a deliberate fudging of the truth, and that his evidence was palpably false and misleading. Mr Karam presents no supporting data for his assertion. He is incorrect where he says Detective Sergeant Anderson recorded that the computer was turned off at 2.16pm  and where he claims the officer recorded the time the message was saved. When interviewed recently, Detective Sergeant Anderson said he recalled being told his watch was fast when it was returned to him but he attached no significance to that point. He does not believe it was his responsibility to give evidence of the two minute time difference [if there was the need], because he did not do the time check on his own watch. Detective Sergeant Anderson denies he committed perjury, that his evidence was "fudged", "palpably false" or "misleading". When interviewed he said he invariably uses the word "approximately" when testifying as to time because it is seldom possible to be precise. His depositions [prepared by himself] include the word "approximately" on the majority of occasions when referring to time. When pointed out this did not appear to be the case in his trial evidence, he said the transcripts were misleading because the Crown Prosecutor led a good deal of the evidence and times were recorded by the stenographer as the prosecutor put questions to him. Detective Sergeant Anderson said the evidence he gave about the computer was what he recorded [by his watch time] and what he did in relation to it.