01-06-19          I had a chance to speak with Supt. Lee FRASER and the February meeting came up.  We had quite a lengthy discussion in which I explained some of my side of the matter, but basically, he stands by what he has been told, and questioned my accuracy regarding the notes, including comments attributed to now D/Commr. DUNCAN.  When I told him that the notes had been made immediately after and accurately reflected what had been said, and that others have the same details in their notes, he just shrugged.  He won’t change, and I guess neither will I.  It is interesting to note that on first encountering Lee, his comment included the term ‘Criminal Investigation’ to refer to the file, and what I was doing.  I made a comment to him that this was an incorrect term, and he merely shrugged and said, “What difference does it make?” and “Whatever!”.  I told him that I had been severely criticized for having used the term, and now here he was using it. 

            I went on to tell him that I had been short listed for a promotional opportunity for the Division Supervisor in Winnipeg.  He basically told me that he would not support me, certainly seeming surprised by the matter. 

            After a number of things were discussed, the question of the magnesium in the wires was raised, and I was informed that six weeks ago the TSB has supplied a copy of Dr. BROWN’s report and all of his data to the Force.  Vic GORMAN has asked the lab (NORMAN and BALLANTYNE) to locate a second opinion somewhere in the world to verify or dispute Dr. BROWN’s findings.  I told Lee that this was good news and asked him what would happen when Dr. BROWN’s findings are verified.  He said we will cross that bridge when we come to it.  But his comment earlier had been how could we conduct an investigation based on such controversial and trivial evidence that only amounts to a bit of high magnesium in one or two beads.  Well, it’s not my job to do that part of an investigation, but merely to deal with the physical evidence.  It also sheds light on Wendy NORMAN’s message of 01-06-15 in which she mentions the meeting on 01MAY03.

            The subject of my notes was raised, and he asked what I thought of the request.  I told him it was an illegal request.  He said I had missed the point, that it was to be a learning exercise for training purposes and that the second set would never go forward.  I suggested that the rules of disclosure demanded that the second file, if it were ever made, would also have to be disclosed.  He disagreed, and then he said he didn’t know, but then felt it would make no difference.  I said it would.  He was of the opinion that this matter will never go to court, and that it won’t matter in the long run.  He didn’t ask if I intend to edit the notes, so I never mentioned that I will never edit them.

            I didn’t mention to him that Insp. LATHEM in Lee’s presence had been explicit in stating that the edited file will be used for disclosure purposes, at least for the Access to Information portion.  I also didn’t say that it is interesting to note that after 31 years of service, 26 years of which have been in Ident, and after being commended for my notes and my court briefs on numerous other investigations by crown counsels and judges as well as supervisors, I am expected to now undertake a training exercise to learn how to take correct notes, and how to ignore details that may or may not have a value for the investigation.  And all this more than two and a half years into one of the biggest files any of us has ever undertaken.  It certainly seems to me to be more than a bit unusual.  I am also advised that note files are not open to public access, but only to the legal system.

            I advised Lee about the message from Wendy NORMAN, and he stated that she would have to supply the reports.  I had already mentioned this yesterday to Neil FRASER, and he had stated the same thing.