A journalist’s notes

The Miller affair, as recently reported in lengthy article the New York Times, the reference to interview notes was highlighted.
During my time as a newspaper reporter, interview notes were expected to be treated much like tax records. That is, they were filed and kept for a suitable period.
In my case, and it seems with Miller, these notes don’t hold much value as a reference. The real reason for holding them is the potential of future complaints to the newspaper in question.
With no real training, my note taking consisted of an almost illegible scrawl interspersed with my own version of shorthand. The notes were intended, after all, as a short term memory prompt.
In the short time available for most interviews grammar, spelling and full sentences are not an option for some of. Short phrases and key words were the norm for me.
Instances when editors called on my notes to settle a dispute were faced with doubt and a touch of humour. Said notes made most doctors prescriptions look like crafted calligraphy.
Still, to my surprise, the notes satisfied all parties each time. Perhaps it was a case of reading what you will into the mess.
Miller’s showed some of referring back to these notes. Once the story is written, the journalist moves on to the next, and then quickly, to the next. The prompts, useful in the short term are forever lost in the mists of time.
So Miller couldn’t really explain why the words Valerie Flame appeared in those notes. Neither could she explain if this should have read ‘Plame’.
According to the Time article, when the prosecutor in the case asked her to explain how "Valerie Flame" appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Mr. Libby, Ms. Miller said she "didn't think" she heard it from him. "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall."
Maybe, in fact probably, Millers notes are far more accessible than mine ever were. However, given the importance of this case, are they really good enough to rely on as evidence of anything?
It’s one thing pulling the wool over the eyes of ‘yeoman farmers’ and other yokels in local government. Expecting them to stand up to the scrutiny of teams of Washington lawyers is a bit much to ask.