The defence of the developer Mr Michael Bailey against allegations of bribery and corruption is gradually becoming clear, notwithstanding the continuing testy exchanges between his lawyer and Mr James Gogarty,
Mr Bailey and his brother, Thomas, revealed virtually nothing of their story to the tribunal in advance, but in his cross-examination, their senior counsel, Mr Colm Allen, is now beginning to show their hand.
The Baileys' defence against Mr Gogarty's allegation that they bribed politicians to get lands rezoned can be summarised as: we did not, and why would we, when most of the lands we bought have not been rezoned?
Compare this to the Murphy group's response to the claim that they paid the former minister, Mr Ray Burke, a bribe of at least £30,000 in 1989. This can be summarised as: we weren't there, and we knew nothing about it.
Just 74 acres of the 700 or so acres of north Dublin land at the centre of the tribunal investigations have been rezoned for the Baileys since 1989, Mr Allen told the tribunal yesterday. And a total of only nine acres have received planning permissions.
Mr Allen said 316 acres were under corn, and a further 63 were being used as grazing for horses. Some 15 acres in Finglas are being developed as a technology park.
It seems that a further 225 acres in Donabate, including the site of the former Turvey House, were sold on by the Baileys at agricultural rates. Some of this land has been developed as a golf course and for apartments. Finally, 40 acres were used for road development in the area.
Mr Allen pointed out that Mr Bailey's proposal, made in his famous letter of June 1989, that he get a 50 per cent interest in the lands in return for "procuring" planning permission was never proceeded with. It was, Mr Allen declared, "a dead duck. It never flew". Instead, he bought the lands outright.
Yesterday's proceedings were marked by constant barracking and shouting between the Mr Gogarty and Mr Allen.
After Mr Gogarty called Mr Allen "a second-rate barrister", Mr Justice Flood reprimanded the witness, saying he was becoming "more and more rude". But he also engaged in sharp exchanges with Mr Allen, who he said was "chasing rainbows".
"There was a crock of gold at the end of it for them," Mr Gogarty couldn't help interjecting.
Extraordinarily, it seems the original copy of the Bailey letter has gone missing. Mr Allen sought to obtain it yesterday, though he declined to reveal why. Mr Gogarty, to whom it was addressed, said he didn't have a copy. But the chairman also found it "difficult to believe" that Mr Allen's solicitor did not have a carbon copy of the letter for a transaction involving millions of pounds.
The tone for a bitter day's cross-examination was set at the start, when Mr Allen angrily complained about Mr Gogarty's parting words of the previous day. On Tuesday Mr Gogarty, pointing at the lawyers for the Bailey brothers and the Murphy group, had referred to their solicitors as "worse than any criminals in the country".
Mr Allen said this was an "unprecedented" and "outrageous" attack on his colleague, solicitor Mr Kevin Smith.
Mr Gogarty's outburst derives from a statement by a former Murphy group employee about events during an industrial dispute in 1981. The man's allegation that Mr Gogarty wanted some of the strikers "shot" caused the witness so much upset the tribunal was adjourned for a week.
However, the man also claims two solicitors representing parties before the tribunal - not Mr Smith - visited him before he made his statement to the tribunal. Mr Gogarty claimed yesterday that allegations of criminal conduct had been made against the solicitors.
However, Mr Justice Flood said the remarks did not refer to Mr Smith or to Mr Michael Fitzsimons, solicitor to the Murphy group, whose conduct before the tribunal had been "completely vindicated".
With neither Mr Allen nor Mr Gogarty prepared to concede, a break was called for. On the return, Mr Frank Callanan SC, for Mr Gogarty, said his client would be making a complaint about the matter to the disciplinary committee of the Law Society.
The witness was then questioned about a hand-written list of contact details for the Murphys that he says he prepared after mid-1995. Mr Michael Bailey says the witness gave him this at a meeting in Mr Gogarty's home in July 1996. Mr Bailey is to tell the tribunal that his brother, Thomas witnessed the meeting, at which Mr Gogarty was very upset about the Murphys and wanted Mr Bailey to effect a rapprochement.
"You said to them that all you wanted was an apology, for Joseph Murphy snr to shake your hand," Mr Allen said. Mr Gogarty also showed the two men some pellet-holes in his window and blamed this on the Murphys.
Mr Gogarty denies this meeting took place or that he ever gave the document to Mr Bailey. Asked how the list came into the hands of Mr Bailey, he said he didn't know. As for the pellet-holes, he said this was "gobbledy-gook"; that happened in 1991, and the window was repaired.
Just when it seemed an ambush was about to happen - and the witness, by his excitable state, certainly seemed to think so - Mr Allen revealed his more modest intention. The list was proof of his contention that Mr Bailey did not know Mr Murphy snr, he claimed. Otherwise, he would have had the phone numbers already.