The chairman of the Murphy Group of companies, Mr Joseph Murphy jnr, was asked three specific questions by Mr Dermot Ahern TD at their first meeting in London on June 24th, 1997, he told the Flood tribunal.
Did JMSE "or related companies" pay Mr Ray Burke money in or around June 1989?
If so, were any favours asked?
Were any favours given?
Mr Murphy, questioned by Ms Patricia Dillon SC, for the tribunal, said he was emphatic in his response to Mr Ahern that no money was paid: "I told him it was ridiculous to suggest we would pay a bribe to Ray Burke for planning permission for land that we had sold for agricultural prices." He was equally emphatic that there was no question of a "joint venture" between Murphy interests and Mr Michael Bailey to develop the land. His father had never met Michael Bailey in his life, he said.
He had told Mr Ahern what he knew at the time. He had run a check on the JMSE cheque journal, which gave no indication of any amount for around £40,000 being paid as a "political contribution" to anyone. Later it emerged - after a thorough investigation - that a sum of £30,000 had been paid, through Grafton Construction and Reliable Construction, two Murphy land companies.
Earlier, he had described in some detail a meeting that he had with Mr Bailey and his wife at the Burlington hotel, where the Bovale director was acting in the role of go-between between Mr Murphy jnr and Mr James Gogarty. He wanted them to mend their differences, "shake hands and walk away". It was on that basis that he had agreed to meet Mr Bailey. Mr Gogarty was not at the meeting.
The main purpose of the Burlington meeting was to see what could be done to patch up relations with Mr Gogarty, who was seeking a meeting with Mr Murphy snr, rather than his son. There was also some talk of sport - Mr Bailey, who was keen on horses, sought to enthuse Mr Murphy, but he had no interest, he said.
There was some reference to the state of the economy and business in general and that was all. There had been allegations in the Sunday Business Post in March or April that year concerning the payment of money for planning to a politician. He knew that the company involved was JMSE because the reporter, Frank Connolly, had contacted the firm concerning the alleged fabrication of steel by JMSE for Sellafield. But this had all "died down" by the time he met Mr Bailey and was not mentioned, said Mr Murphy.
The "differences" with Mr Gogarty were serious, he said. He described a meeting he had with the former JMSE chairman at the Berkeley Court in February 1992, ostensibly to deal with Mr Gogarty's P60s, which had begun "amicably enough". They discussed Mr Gogarty's pension settlement. "I want £400,000 or I'll destroy you," Mr Gogarty had said.
"He was in a fury, like a nuclear reactor. It was embarrassing because we were in a public place. I felt threatened, intimidated, even. He was trying to exploit my lack of experience at this level, to intimidate."
He asked Mr Gogarty about the ESB "portion of the settlement" held on to by the former chairman, which Mr Murphy had regarded as a fraudulent act. Mr Gogarty responded that his solicitor had advised him not to say anything. That was "corrupt" of him, Mr Murphy had said.
"Corrupt, corrupt, corrupt; all solicitors are corrupt," was Mr Gogarty's reply. His solicitor, he said, had him "robbed blind" with fees.
The meeting ended with Mr Gogarty explicitly threatening: "I'll destroy you, your father, mother. You're all effing bastards, the whole lot of you."
"You know my mother is dead?" Mr Murphy had said.
"Yes, the dead effing bastard," Mr Gogarty had said. That still rankled, said Mr Murphy.
He came to see the hand of Mr Gogarty behind a number of developments including an investigation by the Revenue Commissioners in relation to the P60 grievance and subsequent Circuit Court proceedings, and the adverse newspaper reports on the bribery allegations. He phoned Mr Gogarty very early one morning, around 1.30 a.m., for which he apologised. There was a heated discussion but he had not threatened him, as alleged. Mr Gogarty complained to the Garda and he had apologised and undertaken to Det Gda Kieran McEneaney never again to contact Mr Gogarty, and he'd kept his word.
So here he was now seeking to patch up his differences with Mr Gogarty, at Mr Bailey's behest, Ms Dillon challenged. How could he reconcile this with the evidence he had just given.
Simple, said Mr Murphy. It was obvious that it would be best for everyone if they could put their differences behind them and avoid further litigation.