Quite apart from the fact that the day allowance specifically does not cover night work meaning that she was, absolutely, abusing the system, has anyone in the Irish media actually slowed down the video and LOOKED at the emails she quickly flashes up as proof that she was working all night?

Faking emails headers is easy but it is also easy to make small mistakes when doing so:

22:58PM, 6 words, from SINNOTT KATHY to ‘Jenny and Neil Farrell’

23:58PM, 3 paragraphs, from SINNOTT KATHY to ‘jmabbott2@eircom.net’

00:38AM, 2 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to SINNOTT Kathy – to herself, no independent verification possible.

01:28AM, 3 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Jene Kelly’

01:43AM, 2 words, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Kathy Sinnot’ – again, to herself, so, no independent verification possible BUT, note that, this time, the app prints out the TO name differently; HIGHLY UNUSUAL.

02:05AM, 2 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to SINNOTT Kathy, cc SINNOTT Kathy.

03:22AM, 2 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘jnmi@eircom.net’

04:02AM, 3 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to HOWITT Richard

04:39AM, 1 sentence, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Michael O’Sullivan’

04:54AM, 2 words, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Kathy Sinnot’ – again, the TO name is not in line with how the application has previously displayed it. How is this possible? Also, read the content: a reply, sent to herself, in response to another email sent by Kathy to herself with the subject line “Kathy – Do we have information on JP Bonde”. Why on Earth would hail herself by name in a quick reminder email? Does anyone send notes to themselves like “Bob, don’t forget the milk”? I’m guessing the subject and contents were hastily cut n’ pasted from another email, sent to her by someone else at a different time.

05:10AM, 2 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Kathy Sinnott’, cc ‘daithiherriot@yahoo.ie’ – strange, standard practice would be to reply to the person and cc to yourself.

06:41AM, 3 sentences, from SINNOTT Kathy to ‘Therese Dovel’, cc ‘Therese Dovel’. This email contains instructions from Kathy to, apparently, the employee/service provider who provides email-related tech support, so, no independent verification possible and an interesting coincidence that it is to precisely the person you might go to if you needed advice on faking email headers.

SO … in her video she claims to have spent the night “processing hundreds of emails” but that actually turns out to be 12, including 5 quick “Thanks for your email” messages and 4 simple reminders to herself, two of which appear to have been forged.

The differing format of the TO name used in different emails sent to herself is the main problem – an email application would display this in the same way, with the same case, every time. This is a typical rookie mistake when an email is hastily forged.

Also, the workflow does not ring true: anyone dealing with any volume of correspondence would deal with the really short “Thanks for your email” stuff in a batch but, here, the 5 such emails are spread throughout this alleged marathon session.

Even if not faked, it is more than a little deceptive to flash up 4 emails sent only to yourself, as reminders, trying to give the impression they were correspondence.

So, according to Kathy, stem cell research which saves lives and offers hope to millions is wrong, but abusing public funds and fabricating documents when caught with your hand in the jar is okay.