"No one ever tells the truth about fornication or cash," remarked Mr Justice Smyth during the fourth and last day of Mr Liam Lawlor's contempt hearing.
The quip was not an original by the judge, nor was it intended to sum up the general legal attitude to such matters. However, it did capture the popular view on the believability of people in matters of the heart and the wallet.
At the time Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the Flood tribunal, was attempting to justify the tribunal's continuing "appropriate and healthy scepticism" about Mr Lawlor's desire to co-operate.
He said the tribunal had a duty to test whether a witness was giving it "the complete picture". There was always the possibility that someone would only tell an inquirer what the inquirer already knew.
Lawyers for Mr Lawlor have argued that he "totally misinterpreted" the High Court order to co-operate with the tribunal but was now making strenuous efforts to comply.
However, as far as Mr Clarke was concerned, this was a refrain the tribunal has heard many times from the deputy.
He accused Mr Lawlor of "hiding behind" promises to go off and prepare financial documentation when asked questions in the witness box.
"Anyone can go off and produce a neat set of figures that can hide what he doesn't want to show."
The most telling point made by Mr Clarke came when he revealed that of 2,120 pages of documentation sent by Mr Lawlor with his first affidavit in December, 2,000 were "simply reproduced" from documents supplied by financial institutions.
Mr Lawlor already knew that the tribunal possessed these documents. There was little enough new information.
As for the TD's argument that he misinterpreted the order, Mr Clarke said on the one hand Mr Lawlor argued that he didn't have time to comply and on the other that he didn't understand what he had to do. He couldn't rely on both of these reasons.
Mr Lawlor's fate now rests with Mr Justice Smyth, who will deliver judgment on Monday.
Both sides in the case agree the issue at stake is whether the West Dublin TD deliberately disobeyed the court order to co-operate with the tribunal.
If he is found to be in contempt of court, Mr Justice Smyth has a range of options. Jailing Mr Lawlor for a definite period or until he purges his contempt is a possibility.
However, an imprisoned TD is of little use to the tribunal, which wants Mr Lawlor to give further evidence.
Indeed, Mr Clarke again said nothing yesterday about the option of jailing the TD, adding that Mr Lawlor's excuses and his "firm purpose of amendment" were matters the court might take into account.
One option, therefore, might be to give the TD more time to comply with the order, given that he has already claimed to be ready to provide much of the information the tribunal is seeking.
But whatever happens, given Mr Lawlor's record up to now, he is likely to appeal any adverse judgment.