Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 11
1 the most vociferous and he had made something about us
2 being leaders, or something, I cannot remember now, in his
3 notes or in the report of his notes. Then he says: "That
4 was the general impression that those three persons led
5 most of the discussions when they were present."
6 "Question: So that was a general picture from the
7 meetings as a whole, was it? Answer: Yes."
8
9 As I said, he attended twelve meetings and I only attended
10 two, I think of which he only recorded one. I do not know
11 why I have got this one, I am pretty sure that -- or he had
12 stated somewhere early on that he could only remember one
13 meeting I attended. So, he is making impressions based
14 upon one example and applying it to a dozen events, which
15 is an unsafe practice. That is that.
16
17 Anyway, there is nothing wrong with being vociferous. In
18 fact, this is an impression that got into his statement on
19 the top of page 50. So it seems that by the time of him
20 doing his statement the same thing is happening, as we can
21 see a pattern here in the agents, that the McDonald's
22 content, if any, is elevated at each stage higher and
23 higher from, first of all, the persons at the meeting; they
24 predominantly record what people they have been told to
25 look out for about the subject, which they know they have
26 to get information on. So, first of all, that goes into
27 their notes in a sort of elevated and disproportionate
28 form.
29
30 Then the report is done which, we have seen indications of,
31 further elevates and creates disproportionality about those
32 matters. Then when the statement comes to be written me
33 and Helen somehow have become central looming characters,
34 and the statements have been written by the solicitors
35 based upon, often, reports not made by the witness. The
36 witness signs them because they do not actually remember,
37 but they are reliant on disproportionate material, often
38 which they have not written themselves, it goes into
39 evidence at the hearing of their testimony, and then it is
40 very hard to break down and get to the truth, the person
41 having not had any memory. "Are you sure this is the
42 leaflet you picked up?"
43 "I do not know; I am relying on what it says", you know;
44 "It is in my notes; I do not have any memory."
45
46 Anyway, I have made that point many times. But I am just
47 showing how the confusions and disproportionalities are
48 present in the testimony.
49
50 Then, on page 53, he verifies his note that I did not seem
51 to place a lot of importance on McDonald's Company itself.
52 That is at line 46. I asked him: "Do you remember me
53 arguing it should not be called the anti-McDonald's fair?"
54 Answer: "I do recall something of that nature." That was
55 for the fair for 1990.
56
57 The top of page 56, material that are not in his notes or,
58 in fact, reports -- I get confused over which are notes and
59 which are reports. I think paragraph 5 of his statement
60 refers to me, Helen and Mr. Gravett commenting on letters,
