EAMON Dunphy told the High Court that he never thought of contacting Mr De Rossa or an Irish Times journalist, Mr John Armstrong, before he wrote his article in the Sunday Independent.
He had told the court he wrote his article following the publication of an interview in The Irish Times with Mr De Rossa by Mr Armstrong five days earlier.
Mr Dunphy said the article was not about Mr De Rossa, it was about the government and the betrayal of the electorate.
Mr Hardiman put it to him that the interpretation he (Mr Dunphy) was giving of his article was different from what he had said in evidence previously, when he had said he was not commenting on the "Moscow letter".
Mr Dunphy said he was commenting on the week's controversy which originated in the Irish Times interview, in which Mr De Rossa had raised the subject of "special activities".
He knew of the letter's existence, but it could not be written about. He was writing about Mr De Rossa's reference to the "Moscow letter" in the Irish Times interview.
He denied the article said anything about the "Moscow letter". He agreed it did communicate a statement about it.
In the Armstrong interview, Mr De Rossa did not say unequivocally that people close to him were not involved in serious matters such as forgery of his signature.
Mr Hardiman asked if he believed Mr De Rossa was aware of what was going on.
Mr Dunphy said he thought he should be given the benefit of the doubt. He did not know if Mr De Rossa knew. But Mr De Rossa was not able to satisfactorily clear up matters which were very relevant.
Mr Hardiman asked him what it meant when he referred to "Prionsias De Rossa's reference to special activities" in his article.
Mr Dunphy said it meant that four or five days previously Mr De Rossa had addressed the issue of special activities in an interview with The Irish Times. He referred repeatedly in the interview to matters relating to special activities and other irregular behaviour which might or might not have concerned senior people in the WP.