"There is a moment in time when the recital should end and the pianist should go solo."
The Flood tribunal chairman directed his remarks at Mr Garret Cooney SC, who was cross-examining his client, Mr Joseph Murphy jnr.
Mr Cooney had been taking Mr Murphy through his substantive evidence to the tribunal over the previous seven days and his efforts to fill in the gaps.
He suggested to Mr Murphy that Mr James Gogarty had found he could draw the £30,000 he needed from the JMSE account, on June 8th, 1989, the day the money was paid as a political contribution to Mr Ray Burke.
Earlier that day, Mr Gogarty had asked the financial controller of JMSE, Mr Roger Copsey, to arrange to have £20,000 in cash and a cheque for £10,000 made out to cash drawn against the Murphy land companies, through a solicitor, Mr Denis McArdle.
Mr McArdle said he could arrange for bank drafts but not cash. Later that day Mr Copsey instructed him to forget about his earlier phone call.
"It would seem that something radical happened between the morning and afternoon to prompt this course of action," Mr Cooney suggested.
Ms Patricia Dillon SC, for the tribunal, interjected that this was "comment" by counsel and did not relate to facts put to Mr Murphy as a witness. "It's a premise that has no function in his evidence," said the chairman. "You're saying to him something that did not happen."
Ms Dillon said Mr Cooney was seeking a conclusion from the witness from documents that should have been put to Mr Gogarty - and had not. The chairman said it would be more helpful if Mr Murphy gave this evidence himself. Mr Murphy in the witness box was merely accepting Mr Cooney's deductions of what had taken place.
No other conclusion could be "reasonably drawn from the documentation and all the evidence", Mr Cooney said.
Mr Justice Flood said he had no objection to Mr Cooney giving the "PR version" but any conclusions would be up to him as chairman of the tribunal of inquiry.
"I am very conscious that you have the final world, chairman. I'll be submitting in my final submission that there can be no other deduction."
Earlier there was another exchange between the tribunal chairman and Mr Cooney, when Mr Murphy submitted evidence based on a memorandum he had of his phone conversations with Mr Dermot Ahern; this had not been submitted to the tribunal as documentary evidence.
He was being cross-examined at the time by Mr Hugh Mohan BL, for Mr Ahern, who put it to him that it had not been submitted to the tribunal as evidence. "I'm not talking about furnishing evidence, I'm talking about ambushing," said Mr Mohan.
Mr Cooney said there was no obligation on his client to supply evidence from which a "prejudicial conclusion" might be drawn.
"It's reasonable to ask whether it was part of an ambush," said the chairman.
"Instead of having regard to substance, you're dismissing it for what you regard as an ambush," Mr Cooney retorted.
The chairman said that while he did not want to interfere with lawyer/client privilege, he felt it was reasonable for Mr Mohan to examine whether Mr Murphy was part of an ambush towards his client, nothing more.
Earlier, evidence on the sequence and content of phone calls between Mr Murphy and Mr Dermot Ahern was heard.
Mr Murphy denied the accusation by Mr Mohan that he was "lying through his teeth" when he met Mr Ahern on two occasions. Mr Mohan said Mr Murphy knew £30,000 was paid to Mr Ray Burke, "and secondly, you never told him on those phone calls".
The tribunal heard that telephone calls on September 10th, 1997 between the two are subject to a defamation action taken by Mr Murphy against Mr Ahern, arising out of statements made by Mr Ahern on a television programme.
"Your client went on television on September 15th, five days after these phone calls," Mr Murphy said, "and regardless of what sequence they were in, it is proved there was a series of three phone calls. And he denied ever speaking to me. This is five days after the calls," he added.
Mr Mohan asked Mr Murphy what possible interest had Mr Ahern to protect by denying the calls.
Mr Murphy replied that Mr Ahern was protecting his personal interest by lying to the tribunal against the defamation writ he issued in 1998.