S WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS PROVIDED NO CAUSE WHATEVER FOR DOUBTING THOSE REASONS , WHICH RELATE ESSENTIALLY TO THE DIFFICULTIES PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT ' S ABSENCE FROM HIS WORK OWING TO A STAY IN HOSPITAL AND THEN TO PERIODS OF HOLIDAY .
90 IT EMERGES FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES BENCO , DOMINICI AND MALVICINI THAT , CONTRARY TO THE APPLICANT ' S STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT NO EXPERIMENT HAD BEEN PERFORMED ON 26 AND 27 APRIL 1971 , SUCH EXPERIMENTS HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT BY MR MALVICINI AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN AWARE OF THEM .
91 THE APPLICANT ADMITTED THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE ' TESTS ' CARRIED OUT BY MR MALVICINI .
92 IN THE COURSE OF THE ORAL INQUIRY THE APPLICANT ASSERTED THAT HE HAD PREPARED THE XENON-131 GAS AND HAD THEN MIXED IT WITH THE XENON-133 FROM THE STUDY CENTRE AT MOL .
93 ON THE OTHER HAND , IN HIS AFOREMENTIONED TECHNICAL APPENDIX HE HAD STATED THAT THE PREVIOUSLY PREPARED MIXTURE HAD BEEN SUPPLIED TO HIM BY THE STUDY CENTRE AT MOL .
94 THAT STATEMENT IS CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES COLLARD AND DOMINICI .
95 THE APPLICANT STATED ORALLY THAT DURING THE MORNING OF THURSDAY 29 APRIL HE HAD ' BUBBLED ' THE GASES THROUGH THE WATER FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR , WHEREAS IN HIS WRITTEN REPORT HE HAD STATED THAT THAT OPERATION HAD LASTED FROM 10 TO 15 MINUTES .
96 WHEN ASKED ABOUT THIS POINT , HE EXPLAINED THAT THE LATTER STATEMENT WAS ONLY APPROXIMATE AND WAS IMMATERIAL .
97 HOWEVER , THAT EXPLANATION IS UNACCEPTABLE , SINCE IT HAD TO BE KNOWN EXACTLY HOW LONG THAT OPERATION HAD LASTED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CALCULATE THE VALUE OF THE ' BACKGROUND NOISE ' .
98 IN HIS HANDWRITTEN REPORT TO MR MALVICINI , THE APPLICANT STATED THAT , IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DISTURBING EFFECT OF THE ACCIDENTAL DISPLACEMENT OF A BOTTLE , HE HAD APPLIED A CORRECTION FACTOR TO THE RESULTS FOR THE XENON-131 , BUT NOT TO THOSE FOR THE XENON-133 .
99 HOWEVER , IN HIS SUBSEQUENT REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE CENTRE AT ISPRA , HE WROTE THAT HE HAD APPLIED THE CORRECTION FACTOR TO BOTH GASES , WHICH , AS THE APPLICANT HAD TO ADMIT IN THE COURSE OF HIS TESTIMONY , WOULD HAVE MADE THE OPERATION IN QUESTION MEANINGLESS .
100 AS REGARDS THE MEASUREMENTS WHICH HE TOOK , THE APPLICANT STATED THAT IN ORDER TO OBVIATE THE MECHANICAL DEFECTS OF THE PRINTER RELATING TO THE UNITS COLUMN HE HAD , IN CALCULATING THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENTS , REPLACED THE ILLEGIBLE FIGURE SOMETIMES WITH A 1 AND AT OTHER TIMES WITH A 9 , BUT HE DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY HE CHOSE SOMETIMES ONE METHOD AND SOMETIMES THE OTHER .
101 HOWEVER , IT EMERGES FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE UNDISPUTED STRIPS AND FROM THE FIGURES USED BY THE APPLICANT IN HIS REPORT THAT