In his evidence over the past fortnight, Michael Bailey has developed the contradiction into something of an art form.
At various times, he has contradicted the version of events he made public a few years ago, he has contradicted his statement to the tribunal and he has contradicted his own evidence from the witness-box.
Yesterday, he specialised in contradicting the version of events put forward by his own counsel, acting on his instructions, during Mr James Gogarty's cross-examination last March. On at least four occasions, his testimony ran directly counter to that given on his behalf then by Mr Colm Allen SC. With each passing day, Mr Bailey grows more like his accuser, Mr Gogarty. Under questioning, he resorts to exclamations of mock horror, or tackles the barristers head-on.
"Jesus, Mary and Joseph, would you grow up, for Christ's sake. That is totally untrue," he roared at one stage to Mr Brian O'Moore, counsel for Mr Gogarty. It had been suggested to him that with profits of just £56,000 and reserves of £10,000 in 1989, Mr Bailey's company could ill-afford its ambitious proposals to jointly develop the Murphy lands. The only way it could do that, Mr O'Moore suggested, was if it had an absolute guarantee that the lands would be rezoned - and that would be achieved by bribing Mr Ray Burke.
Modesty and family virtues were laid on with a brickie's trowel. Mr O'Moore put it to the witness that he was a "remarkably successful businessman". Mr Bailey replied: "I'm a reasonably successful businessman. I'm doing my best to rear my kids and look after my family. I don't like to be described as a remarkably successful businessman."
"I didn't spend 10 or 12 years getting a degree trying to catch people up," he told Mr O'Moore at another point. "You're not going to make a fool of me, which I thought you were going to do."
He spoke of his affection for Mr Gogarty, even as the former JMSE executive was dragging his name through the newspapers and allegedly blackmailing him for £100,000.
"But I still have admiration for him, because I am not a man that will hold a grudge. If he died in the morning I would be the first man to be at his funeral."
"I'd say you would," said Mr O'Moore.
"And I wouldn't be going with any other intentions but to sympathise with his family for what he's after putting them through," Mr Bailey added.
Mr Bailey made an early attempt to rein in Mr O'Moore. "Your tone of voice now to me is not the tone of voice I was reared with. My parents reared me to treat people with equality and not to start bullying. That's the way I was brought up."
Mr O'Moore promised not to bully and continued undaunted, his voice popping the microphone and his words dripping with disbelief and sarcasm. According to Mr Allen last March, Mr Bailey favoured developing the lands jointly with Murphys because this would ease his borrowings. The proposal was discussed with Mr Gogarty before the July 8th letter was sent.
However in evidence yesterday, Mr Bailey disputed favouring the participation proposal. He denied discussing it, though "I might have mentioned it".
Mr Allen had said his client found the £150,000 "finder's fee" demanded by Mr Gogarty exorbitant. It was an issue from the outset of the negotiations about the lands.
No, it wasn't, said Mr Bailey yesterday. He gave no indication of finding it exorbitant.
Mr Bailey denied making a contribution to Fianna Fail during the 1989 election, at the same time as Mr Gogarty was making the alleged £30,000 contribution to Mr Ray Burke. However, Mr O'Moore revealed that Bovale Developments donated £1,000 to the party after Mr Charles Haughey sent a form request letter to Mr Tom Bailey. Mr Bailey admitted again lying to a journalist when he claimed Mr Gogarty's finder's fee was being paid for assistance in buying a building on Baggot Street. In earlier evidence, he claimed the payment was legitimate but said he didn't want to reveal he was paying a finder's fee to Mr Gogarty.
But, as Mr O'Moore pointed out, why cover up one finder's fee with a lie about another? Indeed, why cover up the payment at all if he believed it was legitimate?
Mr Bailey agreed with counsel that the payment was in fact a "backhander" and "under the counter".
Mr O'Moore tried to rubbish Mr Bailey's account of how he met Mr Gogarty's demand for £150,000 in cash by giving him £50,000 cash and two post-dated cheques as security while he paid the rest in instalments.
Mr Gogarty was "nobody's fool"; if wanted £150,000 in cash he would have got it, counsel surmised. Instead, Mr Bailey "tricked" him into thinking he didn't have the money, which Mr Bailey has admitted he did have. The post-dated cheques were worthless because Mr Bailey could have stopped them at any time. If cashed, they would have left a paper trail which would defeat the original purpose of a cash transaction.
There were further insights into the black economy in the building trade when Mr O'Moore asked the witness where he got the final £32,000 cash instalment for Mr Gogarty in 1996.
Mr Bailey said he didn't know, then suggested that the money for "an extension" might have come in at the time.
Mr Bailey will finish his evidence this morning as the tribunal adjourns for the summer break. However, Mr Justice Flood said he would sit next Wednesday to deliver his ruling in the case in which the tribunal is seeking copies of Mr George Redmond's files from the Criminal Assets Bureau.