TOWARDS the end of his testimony, an emotional Mr Reynolds spoke of the effect the Sunday Times article has had on him and his family. "I know how it has distressed . . . how it has affected my wife. Her hurt and anger is my hurt and anger, and my hurt and anger is her hurt and anger.
He said he had not wanted to come to court because he knew the stress it would subject her to, a stress which had brought about her illness in the past.he had tried to persuade him to be patient after the article - that it would be corrected, that the truth would come out, that it would get better. But things "didn't get any better".
He valued his reputation and his good name. He had reared his family to tell the truth at all times, because truth will out. He knew the effect the article had had and was having on his family.
"To be called a liar by one of the world's leading newspapers, and then they refuse ... and doubly refuse . . .", he broke off.
His own sense of hurt had not eased since the article was published. He had hoped he might be able to set the matter aside through an early response from the Sunday Times. But it had not happened.
"To this day they maintain I am a liar. I do not understand that." Lifting both articles to the court, he said: "I simply can't understand how the same paper can print the truth there (he gestured to the Irish edition) and lies there (he gestured to the UK edition). I thought my reputation would be restored to me and it hasn't. That's the only reason I am here today."
He pointed to a sentence where Mr Dick Spring was described as Mr Clean and he was referred to as Mr Fixit, and also remarked on the contemptuous tone. He could not forget such an attack on his reputation and integrity.
Earlier he had told the court he was satisfied "by and large" with the account of his fall from office given in the Irish edition of the Sunday Times the same day. He had some reservations but "nothing fundamental or serious".
Taken through the article by his counsel, he disagreed with one suggestion that the manner in which the first draft of his Dail speech for November 15th, 1994 which was drawn up in his absence, was a blunder.
He disagreed also with sentences in the piece which claimed he presented his speeches without first reading them. That was "too broad a brush", he felt, as "by and large I would read my scripts". He corroborated that he and his colleagues were "tired and weary" over November 15th and 16th. He spoke again of his reaction on discovering the Fitzsimons note on his return to the Taoiseach's office at 9 p.m. on the evening of the 15th.
He repeated that he would have been happy had the Labour Ministers of Government agreed to a round table conference with Mr Fitzsimons on the afternoon of the 16th. It was "the sensible, practical approach" but they were not interested.
It was his belief that "they wanted rid of me". Some of their actions did not add up if they had been serious about continuing in government.
And he had heard rumours about Fianna Fail and Labour continuing in government.
"`We're coming for a head, they said'," he recalled, "either yours or Harry's'. It was fairly plain what they meant." But "nobody, nobody, asked me to resign", he emphasised, "either as Taoiseach or as leader of the Fianna Fail party".
He remarked "famous last words" on the lines concluding the Sunday Times Irish article. They read, quoting Mr Reynolds, "It's amazing. You cross the big hurdles and when you get to the small ones you get tripped."
... not the last words, Mr Reynolds," interjected Lord Williams.
Earlier, the morning's proceedings were taken up by legal argument in the absence of the jury. The hearing was adjourned until today when Mr Reynolds will be cross examined by Mr James Price QC, counsel for the Sunday Times.
The cross examination is expected to last several days.
