Says there are representations in the hearings as to what was discussed with Dr. Meehan, not about what’s in the report. So, independent of the reports he said there was noting discussed in these meetings that was not work product, and therefore protected.
As to why he would do this, there are repeated inconsistencies that don’t appear to be rational. Essential point: A report that looked like a final report did not contain important data. It’s not a fair assumption to say he would never have done this because he would have been caught down the road.
His last point: It’s important to consider, when looking at intent, all the evidence. The circumstantial evidence is clear and cogent that this was not just a mistake. Asks that they find in the affirmative on all the charges.
