I understand that the meeting was very raucous and vitriolic. There was a lot of contentiousness at the meeting. It seems to be inconsistent with the other understanding, which is that at that meeting he chose to repudiate his own decision to pay out the contentious grants. I wonder if you could help to clarify this, because it goes to something that is rolling around--I think very irresponsibly, considering that this was the death of an individual--which is the idea that this meeting led to his demise. I think it's important to have that clarification.
On April 1st, 2010. See this statement in context.