If, as is generally believed, the Flood tribunal is all about money, the mysteries surrounding the north Dublin lands at the centre of the tribunal are difficult to explain.
The 700 or so acres belonging to the Murphy group were valued at £3.002 million in March 1989, the tribunal heard yesterday. Yet in November of that year they were sold to the developer, Mr Michael Bailey, for only £2.3 million.
Mr James Gogarty's explanation for this is contained in a letter he wrote to the auctioneers handling the sale in June 1989. In this, he explains that Mr Joseph Murphy snr was anxious for an early sale and was prepared to discount the development potential of the lands to achieve this.
In evidence, Mr Gogarty has given his version of why Mr Murphy, a multi-millionaire, was willing to forgo so much profit on agricultural lands he bought as investments in the 1960s and 1970s. Mr Murphy was fearful of the tax implications of allegations being made against him by a former chief executive of his companies, Mr Liam Conroy, in legal proceedings at the time, he (Mr Gogarty) claimed. For this reason, he wanted to liquidate all his Irish assets.
However, this cannot explain why the lands were sold for £2.3 million when Mr Bailey made an earlier bid of £2.868 million.
On the very day Mr Gogarty wrote his letter to the auctioneers, Mr Bailey wrote to him offering to buy the lands outright or develop them jointly with JMSE. In the same week, both men travelled to Mr Ray Burke's house to make a payment of at least £30,000.
The answer to these mysteries might have been found from Mr Fred Duffy, the auctioneer who dealt with the sale. But Mr Duffy is dead, and his nephew, Mr Kevin Duffy, was unable to answer all the questions put to him in the witness-box yesterday.
Mr Duffy said he was unaware of the higher bid that was received for the lands. His examination by Mr Dan Herbert SC, for JMSE, continues today.
The first witness of the day was Mr Brendan Devine, an accountant with Ernst & Whinney who counted the Murphy group as one of his clients in the 1970s and 1980s. Mr Devine was a close observer of and sometimes a participant in the boardroom battles that afflicted the company in the late 1980s.
He worked on good terms with Mr Gogarty for 20 years, but when he came down on the side of the then chief executive, Mr Liam Conroy, and his management team in their struggles with Mr Gogarty, relations between the two men soured.
Nevertheless, there was much in Mr Devine's evidence yesterday from which Mr Gogarty could take succour. The witness recalled that while Mr Gogarty was responsible for physically maintaining the Murphy lands in north county Dublin, he always regarded Mr Murphy snr as the owner.
The relationship between Mr Murphy and Mr Gogarty was very close, the witness said. Mr Devine said it wasn't Mr Gogarty's practice to take action without first obtaining the assent of Mr Murphy, then resident in Guernsey.
Mr Murphy's style was to direct policy and management by phone from Guernsey, or from his home in Dublin on his rare visits to Ireland. "Mr Murphy didn't often convey his wishes by letters."
According to Mr Devine, Mr Gogarty began expressing concerns that control of the Murphy group was passing to Mr Conroy as early as 1985. On foot of complaints by Mr Gogarty (about the valuation of stock and contracts), an auditor was called in from Ernst & Whinney. His report expressed satisfaction with the accounting bases in operation, but Mr Gogarty dismissed it, claiming Ernst & Whinney had a conflict of interest. A subsequent report prepared by English accountants found there were serious questions to be asked regarding the costing system.
By 1988, things had really gone downhill. Mr Gogarty was arguing, with some reason, that Mr Conroy was establishing control over the trusts set up for Mr Murphy and his family.
Mr Devine and the trustees of Mr Murphy's interests reached a conclusion: either Mr Gogarty would have to go, or Mr Conroy and his team would go.
Mr Devine said that on balance the answer to the problem was that the three executive directors should be allowed to remain on and Mr Gogarty should be "asked" to resign.
This view was conveyed to Mr Murphy, who asked Mr Gogarty to resign. Mr Gogarty refused, and within months had turned the situation around.