You know, it really depends on what the allegation is and what you do with it. That's exactly what we don't do, a pro forma “These are the questions we ask.” We look to see what the issue is. What are the allegations? What are the rules that apply? Then we will question, obviously, the person who makes the allegation. We will question the person who is the subject of an allegation, and any other witnesses who have something relevant to say. On the basis of that, we will then make a decision. The decision will be well explained as to exactly whom we talked to, what we asked them, what they said or what we heard, what conclusion we drew and whether we found something credible or not credible.
To do what you just suggested looks logical at first glance, but actually it does exactly the thing I don't want to do. These are individual cases for people who have a particular problem, etc., and we want to make sure we deal with the problem in a fair and honest way, in accordance with the code.
I don't want to come in with a pro forma approach or with a line of questions that drive you towards a certain solution, because that's serving neither the person nor the public. What I want to know is that somebody made an allegation about this. This is for the allegation. Here are the rules. Here is what we did. Therefore, the result is yes or no. That's the only way you can deal with it. You should not proceed with pre-set questions because, to a very large extent, that drives your investigation in a certain direction, which is exactly what you don't want to do. You want to be able to judge it on the basis of the person who is subject to the allegations.