by Richard Nesbitt in 1996 to the Attorney General's office did not cover what is known as "the ownership issue". This finding followed a private meeting of tribunal counsel in October 2002 recalled by Denis McFadden BL and attended by, amongst others, John Gormley BL and Richard Nesbitt SC, Jerry Healy SC for the tribunal described Nesbitt's advice to the government as "shite". Following the addition of new evidence, Judge Moriarty conceded that the advice of Richard Nesbitt did cover the acquisition of a 25% shareholding by IIU and that he would reappraise his interim findings that it did not. Judge Moriarty admitted to making "not insignificant mistakes" in regards to the license issue which would have to be "taken on the chin and acknowledged". Statements by key participants A media war broke out in early 2010 over the preliminary findings of the tribunal with Denis O'Brien, Michael Lowry TD and Judge Moriarty each making statements about the process. O'Brien Statement Denis O'Brien sent a letter to the chairman of the tribunal Judge Moriarty alleging that the tribunal's "activities really reaches a new low in Irish judicial history" and was "totally biased" O'Brien has claimed that the tribunal had set out to "get his scalp", but "must now admit they were wrong" Denis O'Brien established the website MoriartyTribunal.com on 16 October 2009. The site was created by the O'Brien team to present his perspective on the work of the Moriarty Tribunal Lowry statement In January 2010 Michael Lowry TD issued a 3,400-word statement (available here) outlining his perspective on the tribunal. Lowry's claims relate principally to the involvement of financier Dermot Desmond as a 20 per cent shareholder in the Esat Digifone consortium and outlining that it was not possible for him to meddle in the process or direct a result without the collusion of civil servants. Lowry has also criticised the tribunal in the Dáil, pointing out the high costs and delay involved. Moriarty Statement Judge Moriarty has said his report will be "founded unequivocally on evidence" and not on speculation and working hypotheses and that he was not "trying to cobble together a report that will unjustly condemn" people on "flimsy evidence". He was mystified as to why this "unthinkable suggestion" should be made concerning someone who had been appointed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. He had learned as a judge to be "big enough and humble