The day was marked by further remarkable allegations by Mr James Gogarty, a head-on challenge to the tribunal's credibility by Mr Ray Burke's counsel and the start of a determined attempt by opposing lawyers to rubbish Mr Gogarty's story.
All this, and the bizarre discovery of a gun in the toilets.
Mr Gogarty's allegation that the developer, Mr Michael Bailey, tried to buy his silence about Mr Burke and planning corruption gave the tribunal its Exhibit A, a Bank of Ireland cheque made out to Mr Jim Gogarty and dated September 30th, 1990. The witness said that Mr Bailey tucked the cheque into his breast pocket at the end of a meeting in the Skylon Hotel in August or September of that year.
According to Mr Gogarty, Mr Bailey was concerned about the possibility of a court case and said Mr Gogarty should forget about the whole thing and "enjoy" himself. If he didn't, he would "destroy" Mr Burke and Mr Bailey's companies would never get re-zonings again.
Mr Gogarty said he was "shocked". He never lodged the cheque, nor did he try to cash it. It was put in a tin box at home, only to emerge as evidence at the tribunal yesterday.
Mr Bailey's response to this allegation is unclear. In August 1997, Frank Connolly, of the Sun- day Business Post, quoted him as saying the cheque had been given to Mr Gogarty a year earlier and post-dated. The cheque was given for Mr Gogarty's "assistance" in Mr Bailey's efforts to buy a Dublin house, the article claimed. Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering was selling the house on Lower Baggot Street.
Yesterday, however, this version was disputed and not surprisingly. Mr Bailey offered only £250,000 for the house in July 1989, when the reserve price was £350,000. If the house was sold by public auction in October 1989, why would the cheque be dated the following September?
Since Mr Bailey has not furnished a statement to the tribunal on this matter, his version of events is not known. Mr Connolly, who stands by his story, will be called to give evidence.
Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for JMSE, delivered his summary of the meeting at which Mr Gogarty says Mr Burke was given £80,000. Mr Cooney said Mr Gogarty was on a "frolic". He gave £30,000 to Mr Burke without the say-so of his employers, with whom he was in "acrimonious" dispute.
Mr Burke is still nowhere to be seen around the tribunal, but his counsel, Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, played a leading role in the proceedings yesterday. Mr McGonigal expressed doubt that the credibility of the tribunal could survive if it failed to return to the "heart of the matter", as defined by Mr Gogarty, namely, his allegations about planning corruption in Dublin County Council and Mr Burke's role in this.
"This is not an inquiry solely into Mr Burke", said Mr McGonigal, clearly making the case for "outing" the five or six county councillors Mr Gogarty had claimed were corrupt.
"My client is at a distinct disadvantage because the tribunal is focused on Mr Burke in the absence of other people who might be relevant", he suggested.
Mr McGonigal said he wanted a prompt public airing of all aspects of these allegations. "Particularly when the witness is coming here to tell the truth, `warts and all', it is not appropriate to leave some warts until later."
His move could be interpreted as an attempt to deflect the limelight from Mr Burke. But it also challenges the tribunal lawyers to come up with whatever independent evidence they may have uncovered regarding payments to councillors. Not surprisingly, if the tribunal has found there is no supporting evidence, Mr McGonigal is anxious to hear the good news as quickly as possible.
The tribunal may accede to his wishes, but only in the "fullness of time". Apart from the fact that its investigations are not complete, Mr Burke's case is different from that of any other politicians. We know that Mr Gogarty gave Mr Burke money, but his allegations about other politicians come to the tribunal only via Mr Bailey's alleged comments to Mr Gogarty.
It seems that Mr Bailey signed a contract to buy the north Dublin lands at the centre of the tribunal's investigations in December 1989 for £2.3 million. According to Mr Gogarty, almost immediately he fell into dispute with the sellers, JMSE, after fire destroyed a house in Ballymun which formed part of the sale.
Mr Bailey came back to JMSE in July 1990 with a new proposition. At a meeting in the Swiss Cottage, he suggested that JMSE buy back 50 per cent of the lands, as he proposed to develop them for £8 million. Their value, said Mr Gogarty, had jumped from £2.3 million to £16 million.
Mr Justice Flood spent much of the afternoon trying to wean the lawyers away from the traditional adversarial approach and warning them against "trial by ambush".
For the most part, lawyers for Mr Bailey and JMSE have submitted simple denials of the accusations they face. They want to keep to themselves their versions of events, the better to surprise Mr Gogarty during cross-examination. The tribunal is unhappy with this and the chairman has ruled that their cross-examination will be deferred if they do not submit "narrative statements".
But, in truth, the sniping has already begun, and all-out war is forecast when Mr Gogarty's cross-examination begins next week.
As Mr Bailey's counsel, Mr Colm Allen SC, put it when asserting his "absolute right" to challenge Mr Gogarty without giving the witness the opportunity to prepare a defence in advance: "Let there be no doubt about it, Mr Gogarty is in for some big ambush."
Small wonder that Mr Gogarty has asked for a break before the cross-examination begins.
