The truth in the latest report into the hepatitis C scandal seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Brian Cowen is satisfied he has fulfilled his pre-election promise and revealed the legal strategy pursued by his political opponent against a dying woman. Michael Noonan feels vindicated by the report by barrister Fidelma Macken SC, and has accused his successor of political assassination unsupported by the facts.
In the storm of claim and counter-claim, those hoping for answers to the central questions are left feeling disappointed.
The Friday publication of the McCole Report was prefaced with a statement by Mr Cowen. In it, he made two particularly damaging claims about Mr Noonan's handling of the case.
He claimed the Rainbow Cabinet was informed by the Attorney General, Mr Dermot Gleeson, that the BTSB was negligent 17 months before the BTSB admitted negligence, and this information was not relayed to the BTSB. Mr Cowen stressed that this was the most central flaw in the handling of the case. Mr Noonan had not demonstrated any "imagination or initiative" to deliver a solution.
The second charge was that Mr Noonan had been shown, and had not changed, a letter from the BTSB threatening Mrs McCole with costs should she pursue a case for aggravated damages.
Mr Noonan answered the first charge yesterday by quoting directly from Ms Macken's report, saying that it adequately explained the reasons for his hands-off approach to the legal advice on the BTSB's liability.
"I was not permitted to communicate that to the BTSB, who was a separate defendant, because I would be seen to try and influence the manner in which they ran their case. So I didn't have the option of communicating to them . . . unfortunately."
There was much in Ms Macken's report for him to quote in his defence. She stated the legal rules, to which he stuck rigidly, separating the powers of the Government over its State institutions.
Mr Noonan was more blunt about the second claim about the letter. It was "bunkum", he said.
"I didn't see the letter before it was issued. I'd like to know on what evidence he makes that statement. Fidelma Macken makes no such allegation."
Ms Macken's report states: "[The] Department of Health was informed shortly prior to the 20th September 1996 that the letter was to be sent and was given sight of it for observation."
Buried in an unwieldy section of questions and answers, the wording of this paragraph does not make it clear when Mr Noonan saw the letter.
The allegation that he was aware of it appears to be based on a handwritten note dated September 17th, 1996, from a Department official to the Department secretary, Mr Jerry O'Dwyer, and refers to a meeting with BTSB chairman Joe Holloway.
"Mr Holloway mentioned a letter which was discussed at a meeting with you yesterday. BTSB counsel has advised that the letter be issued not later than Thursday next unless the Minister disagrees."
Mr Cowen says in his statement in the report: "The Minister for Health was shown this letter in advance of it being sent to Mrs McCole. There was no alteration made following the Minister's review of the letter."
At this stage the debate descends to a Punch-and-Judy level which obscures other questions that remain unanswered by the handling of the situation by both men.
Positive Action and other victims are angry that they were forced to accept a "no-fault" compensation tribunal when Mr Noonan had unequivocal information that the BTSB was to blame. The report does not reveal any of the legal advice given to the BTSB and raises the question of whether it received advice.
The report makes one thing clear: Mr Noonan pursued a damage-limitation exercise, playing strictly by the legal rules in an effort to minimise the costs to the State and maintain the blood supply.
In his statement yesterday, he claimed that his successor, Mr Cowen, would still be playing by those rules. He said that everything that Mr Cowen planned for the future handling of hepatitis C cases was firmly put in place before he left office.
Mr Cowen will be keen to close this chapter on the uncomfortable legacy of hepatitis C. Mr Noonan is just as keen to distance himself from the image of solicitors acting for a State institution threatening a woman dying of a disease given to her by that institution.
He says he does not view the letter as having been a threat. It was, like the rest of the handling of the situation, merely normal legal practice.