| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
weight of statements |
contradictory |
|
Summary:
The Board made an error of law in treating the normal preference for earlier statements as a rule of law rather than as a rule of thumb. While normally they may be regarded as more reliable, in the context here they were made where the central issue wassomething else.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
burden of proof |
|
Summary:
The Board made an error of law in treating the normal preference for earlier statements as a rule of law rather than as a rule of thumb. While normally they may be regarded as more reliable, in the context here they were made where the central issue wassomething else.
