Mr. Michael Finn:

It is hard to explain that. There was consultation and the analysts were raising issues. They gave us the knowledge they had gained from their engagement with the State Pathologist's office. They said they did not think we had put the correct classification on those incidents. The people who looked at the incidents at the time said they had consulted the operational people and believed they were properly classified and investigated. I do not think a meeting took place where they sat down and went through it all in detail, in the way Ms McPartlin is doing now by going through every case from A to Z and taking on board all the information from the State Pathologist. We did not show them the full investigation files and explain that there was a logical explanation for what happened, and that probably led to much of the confusion and the suspicion that we did not do this properly.