Analysis: Frank Dunlop is an impressive witness, but it is too soon to reach a verdict on his credibility, writes Paul Cullen
Frank Dunlop dealt with his first day of cross-examination by hostile legal teams with the relative ease you might expect from a public relations guru and former TV chat-show host.
Lawyers attempting to sow seeds of doubt about Mr Dunlop's credibility had a barren time of it yesterday, as he carefully steered clear of the traps and pitfalls thrown across his path.
It is early days yet, but Mr Dunlop on his present form is clearly a formidable protagonist for any barrister.
Precise and prissy in his language and quick to interrupt and correct, he is difficult to like but hard to dismiss.
Mr Dunlop has said he had nothing to gain by telling anything other than the truth about his involvement in bribing county councillors in Dublin in the 1990s. This is true, but it ignores the fact that he has everything to lose if caught out again - what is left of his credibility, his freedom outside prison and his remaining wealth.
This is a credibility war, and his opponents only have to make one more strike to force him out. Having lied to the tribunal in April 2000, only to be caught out, he cannot afford to make another mistake.
With no business left to speak of - he said yesterday his clients deserted him within three months of his revelations - he has used his free time to prepare meticulously for his appearance at the tribunal.
Yesterday, Mr Séamus Ó Tuathail SC, for Senator Don Lydon, tried to explore some of the contradictions in his story. Why, for example, did he tell the tribunal in 2000 he paid a particular \ councillor £750 when today he says he didn't give this man anything? Why did he pay money to councillors to secure certain rezonings, but didn't have to do this in respect of others? Now, compared to the contradictions in, say, James Gogarty's evidence to an earlier phase of the tribunal, these apparent inconsistencies were minor. Mr Dunlop waved away the first query, pointing out that he had placed a question-mark beside the man's name when he first gave it to the tribunal. It was his first time in a witness box for anything other than a speeding offence, and he wasn't used to the experience.
As for the second query, he appeared to say that certain rezonings were so overwhelmingly popular they could be passed without resorting to the services of the crooked councillors.
Mr Ó Tuathail had raised the case of Citywest [without specifically naming it], which was rezoned by 50 votes to one after an intensive lobbying campaign marshalled by Mr Dunlop.
For his services, Mr Dunlop was paid professional fees of £75,000, he told the tribunal yesterday. What he didn't mention, however, is that he also got a stake in the project, which has proved immensely successful. This, presumably, is his main source of income today and could be under threat from the Revenue Commissioners, depending on the outcome of the tribunal.
Some commentators have decided they will not believe a word Mr Dunlop says, while others accept his entire tale of bribery and corruption in full, perhaps because they want to believe it. The truth at this stage is that his account is characterised mainly by the cohesiveness of its argument and a near-complete lack of documentary evidence or supporting witnesses.