At the end of a confusing and often bizarre day's evidence at the Flood tribunal, the account given by a former JMSE director, Mr Gay Grehan, stands in contradiction to those of two tribunal lawyers, the Tanaiste, Ms Harney, and, on several points, himself.
Mr Grehan, whose wife is a Progressive Democrats election candidate, rang Ms Harney about rumours circulating about a senior Fianna Fail politician immediately prior to the formation of the Government in June 1997. She took the call seriously and asked Mr Bertie Ahern to check them out.
It seems from his evidence yesterday that Mr Grehan rang one of the State's most senior politicians, whom he barely knew, not because of information he gleaned from within the company, but because of what he read in the newspapers at the time. Mr Grehan went on to claim that he did not identify the "unnamed politician" to Ms Harney, though he later changed his mind and said he probably did say it was Mr Ray Burke.
His evidence is crucial to the tribunal in more ways than one. Two tribunal lawyers interviewed Mr Grehan at the end of last year, and prepared a draft statement on the basis of their meeting. This statement appears to buttress the version put forward by Mr James Gogarty (who celebrated his 82nd birthday yesterday).
However, the witness has rejected this statement and submitted a different one through his solicitor. At stake therefore are not only the Gogarty version of events, but also the credibility of the two tribunal lawyers who interviewed Mr Grehan.
Mr Grehan said yesterday the draft statement was "totally incorrect", and spoke of being amazed and shocked when he received it. However, when it was read to him, he proceeded to agree with large parts of it and then admitted he may have "inadvertently" told the lawyers other matters that were included in the statement.
The difference between the two statement boils down to this: in the draft statement prepared by the lawyers, Mr Grehan says he was told details of the Burke payment by the JMSE accountant Mr John Maher, in 1989-90, just months after it happened. In his sworn statement, however, he dates his knowledge to late 1996 and attributes it to "rumour and hearsay" and "general conversations" in the company.
In evidence, however, he said he probably got his information from JMSE's chief executive, Mr Frank Reynolds.
It was Mr Grehan's evidence that on hearing of the rumours in the media, he asked Mr Reynolds and Mr Joseph Murphy jnr about them. Both men assured him they were without substance, and Mr Grehan left it at that, feeling he had "put the rumour to bed".
But he was asked then why he contacted Ms Harney, why he didn't tell her about the assurances from Mr Reynolds and Mr Murphy, and why he related to her allegations which he believed to be unfounded.
Ms Harney's evidence earlier this month is that Mr Grehan told her it was his understanding that JMSE had paid £30,000 to Mr Burke. This had been matched by £30,000 from the developer Mr Michael Bailey, and the money was paid to secure planning permission on the Murphy lands in north Dublin.
Mr Grehan had no clear recollection of providing this information. The Tanaiste could have misunderstood him, he suggested.
The first time he learned that JMSE had actually paid money to Mr Burke was when Mr Burke admitted it in the Dail in September 1997, he claimed. Mr Grehan said he made no further inquiries on the matter.
However, in later evidence, he said he talked to Mr Reynolds about the payment of £30,000 from the JMSE account. This, too, appeared contradictory; the witness had earlier said Mr Reynolds denied there was a payment. The contradiction may be explained by a difference in dates, but it doesn't appear that Mr Grehan tried to reconcile the two versions he says he was given by Mr Reynolds.
Nervous and restive in the witness-box, Mr Grehan had difficulty recollecting many of the details of his involvement with JMSE. But he was categoric in contradicting aspects of the accounts given by the tribunal lawyers of their dealings with him.
The JMSE legal team has already referred the conflict in evidence between the witness and the two tribunal lawyers to the Bar Council. Mr Grehan did not complete giving evidence yesterday and will have to return in late June. His wife, Dr Mary Grehan, will also give evidence. The tribunal will attend to procedural matters today before adjourning for one to two weeks because of the elections.