Note that the documents are not arranged in a chronological order since many documents have become available to me quite later than when it actually happened. The college was compelled by court order years later to disclose those documents .Note that all the documents mentioned and displayed here are stated in the affidavit sworn in court by the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland see the appendix)
I) In Document I the Director of the exam tells a story of me leaving early before the end of the exam in June 1995, it is clear that this story was pure fabrication by the director of the exam. (See below)
II) In Document 2 the director of the exam fabricates another contradictory story for the same incident mentioned above claiming that I Left at the end of the exam and returned back to collect belongings contradicting the internal invigilator report shown in Document 3(disclosed by a court order), which states that no body has seen me returning back.
III) The Director of the exam also fabricated the number of the
answer papers found,he claims that only one answer paper was
found while the invigilator asserts that there were two answer
papers found (see chapter 7)
IV) The director of the exam continued to fabricate facts when he claims in Document 2 that he received reports from each of the invigilators contradicting document 3(disclosed by a court order) which clearly states that the only report he received was from Ms. Marjorie Marshal (Robinson) who signed at the bottom while the other invigilator Ms.Adele was on holidays!!
V) The same discredited director of the exam Dr. Buckley has been left in charge again of the exam in the next exam occasion to fabricate the candidates’ exam marks (See chapter 3, 4)
VI) Document 3 states that the invigilator Ms.Adele Meredith was in charge but since she is on holidays another invigilator (Marjorie Marshal (Robinson) as signed at the bottom) tells the story second hand months after the incident!!
VII) In Document 3, the invigilator report didn’t display the examinee’s identity (the name or the exam number), this raises the question of whether this report was regarding another candidate.
VIII)This whole affair of fabricating stories and the casual untimely investigation of a very serious incident is consistent with the running theme of negligence, incompetence and dishonesty that started with dropping answer papers along the way (See chapter 7) and ended with fabricating marks to cover for the mislaying of the written answer papers and the clinical exam reports once again in the subsequent exam occasion (see Chapter 3, 4)
IX) The royal college censors who approved the exam corruption (see chapter 8, and 10), are currently in charge of the exam (See chapter 13) i.e. corrupt practices prevailed, proving that all the above is an embedded culture rather than being occasional errors.
X) I only discovered exam improprieties in two occasions but one would expect the same in other exam occasions and certainly for other examinees, but none were brought to light.
It’s obvious that the college has fundamental structural flaws in the personnel selection (till now see IX above), the design of the process itself and the “checks and balances “, all are well below standard but amazingly the college and this very system places itself well above suspicion!!!