Did Mr Joseph Murphy jnr really know as little about the north Dublin lands owned by JMSE as he has claimed in the witness-box this week?
Mr Murphy's case is that he knew nothing about the payment to the Fianna Fail minister, Mr Ray Burke, which Mr James Gogarty alleges was a bribe for planning permission. He says he was not at the meeting in Mr Burke's house in June 1989 at which the money was paid over.
Mr Murphy also says he did not know for most of 1989 that the lands were being sold, and that if he had been told he would have had no opinion. "I would have said `fine'," he told the tribunal yesterday. "I had no dealings with the land-owning companies [of the Murphy group]."
He never discussed the lands with his father, Mr Joseph Murphy snr, at that time.
This wasn't the impression gained by the Fianna Fail Minister, Mr Dermot Ahern, when he talked to Mr Murphy in 1997. "Junior stated that when he came into control he opposed, he thought that the sale of these lands at £2,500 [an acre] agricultural value was wrong. The inference was that there was obviously more potential in the lands, and that he tried to rescind this deal but didn't succeed," Mr Ahern told the tribunal last May.
Mr Ahern's evidence has value because, on the face of it, he would have no interest in the internal affairs of the Murphy companies. In addition, he had detailed notes of his two meetings with Mr Murphy in June/July 1997. Mr Murphy said yesterday that it wasn't until the end of 1997 - November at the earliest - that he learned about the sale of the lands. So how then could he have had the conversation related by Mr Ahern?
The contradiction cuts to the core of Mr Murphy's role in this affair. He has portrayed himself as the easygoing young son of Mr Murphy snr who was suddenly "torpedoed" into senior management because of the turmoil in the boardroom. But he had, he claims, little involvement in the Irish end of the business empire and no involvement in the lands.
Mr Murphy, of course, denies he attended the meeting in Mr Burke's house in June 1989, let alone paid the politician money. No one has nailed the meeting down to a particular day, but the alibi Mr Murphy delivered yesterday for the entire period is strong, though not watertight.
The meeting certainly took place in the first two weeks of June, with the 8th or 13th being the most likely day. Mr Murphy's case is that he was in England for most of that time, except for two trips to Ireland for a wedding and a funeral.
In his favour, there are witnesses who can testify to his comings and goings. He has provided the tribunal with a number of documents, including car-hire and ticket invoices. He has statements or evidence to show he was in England on the 8th and 13th.
On the other hand, most of the witnesses are either relatives of Mr Murphy or employees of his company. Mr Murphy's anger towards Mr Gogarty is controlled but relentless. Again yesterday, he repeatedly accused the octogenarian former employee as a liar who attempted to defraud the company of £700,000 due from the ESB.
It was in October 1989 that Mr Murphy said he learned of Mr Gogarty's "stroke" in diverting the ESB cheque to a holding account pending the resolution of his pension dispute.
So why did the company continue to rely so heavily on a man Mr Murphy regarded as a "fraudster"? As has been pointed out, JMSE not only didn't sack Mr Gogarty, it charged him with finding a new managing director for the company.
In addition, the man Mr Murphy is accusing of defrauding the company of hundreds of thousands of pounds was left to complete negotiations on the sale of the north Dublin lands. Mr Murphy's explanation was that JMSE, having gone through so much management turmoil the previous year, was "totally dependent" on Mr Gogarty for its survival.