After three days of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern's testimony to the Mahon tribunal, Elaine Edwardsfinds the whole scenario as clear as mud.
So that's all clear then? We know after a third day of evidence to the Mahon tribunal exactly why Bertie Ahern bought £30,000 in sterling to give back to his landlord Michael Wall in 1995, even though he never actually gave it to him in the end.
We can trace in painstaking detail the full "money trail" of the £50,000 withdrawn in cash from an account in January through to the point where it was used to buy that £30,000 sterling and to where the remaining balance, not spent on the refurbishment of Mr Ahern's rented house, was re-lodged.
Well, maybe some people could, but some of us were finding it hard to follow.
At one point Mr Ahern told us that he and tribunal counsel Des O'Neill were "here contemplating what might have happened", talking to a "large gallery" about something that actually never happened.
The Taoiseach's verbal exchanges with Mr O'Neill reached a point in late afternoon where the tiny sound of several dozen journalists' last remaining brain cells exploding could clearly be heard in a sort of popcorn domino effect through the room.
Mr Ahern said at one point he would try to be "succinct" in his answer to Mr O'Neill. It couldn't be clearer, as far as he could see.
He took out £50,000 of his own money in January 1995, put it in his safe, later bought £30,000 in sterling, which he intended to give back to Michael Wall but didn't, spent some of that money on soft furnishings and a conservatory and lodged the remainder back to the bank. Simple.
The £30,000 was bought to give back to Michael Wall after Mr Ahern changed his mind about proceeding with the agreement to rent and refurbish the house Mr Wall was buying in Drumcondra.
But he agreed he hadn't mentioned the £30,000 sterling in his interview with the tribunal earlier this year, nor in documentation previously furnished to the tribunal.
He had to give the money back, he said, because he had changed his mind after he wasn't elected Taoiseach in December 1994. But then he never "implemented" that change of mind because Mr Wall had a serious accident and Mr Ahern felt "duty bound" to proceed.
The Taoiseach told the tribunal he couldn't say for certain when he got out of bed on the morning of January 19 th1995 why he decided to take out the £50,000 in cash. But it was his money, he said.
Mr O'Neill asked him why there was any obligation to give back the £30,000 to Mr Wall since it hadn't been given to him as a contribution, it had been put "in trust" into an account for Mr Wall in Celia Larkin's name. She could have gone on administering the money, Mr O'Neill said.
"If he never made a contribution to you then there's no reason for you to give him the money back," suggested Mr O'Neill.
Mr Ahern said that if he had "pulled out" of the house arrangement, for Celia Larkin to keep the £30,000 previously handed over by Mr Wall would have been "robbing the money".
But Mr O'Neill wondered why Ms Larkin hadn't simply transferred the money that had been specifically lodged in an account in her name for Mr Wall, rather than take the £50,000 out of his own account.
Mr Ahern, clearly wearying of the exchanges, said Ms Larkin was not a stranger. "She was not an unknown person to me. She was my life partner," he said.
The fact that the money came out of his account or her account didn't matter, he said. "The fact that it came out of one of the accounts that was in her name rather than the other, makes no difference Mr O'Neill. She was not a stranger."
He said Mr O'Neill was attributing a "formality" to the relationships between himself and Ms Larkin and Mr Wall that did not exist.
Tribunal chair judge Alan Mahon suggested that "surely the obvious thing" would have been to go back to the account where the money had been lodged for Mr Wall when withdrawing the £30,000.
"There was no level of Chinese walls between our two accounts," Mr Ahern insisted.
"Celia Larkin was my partner, Michael Wall was my friend. We were not some legal entity watching every tap," he said. There was nothing irregular about it and all the money spent had later been reconciled when Mr Wall came over to Ireland again after his crash.
"We were just trying to do up a house that was 1,200 square foot, no great deal. I was trying to do nothing else."
And as the exchanges continued, Mr Ahern at one point remarked that "all this never happened so it's totally hypothetical anyway". He meant the money that was never given back to Mr Wall after he changed his mind about changing his mind about the Beresford house.
"The conclusion is I did neither - I didn't give Michael Wall back his money and I didn't break the deal [on the house]," he said.
Outside in the yard of Dublin Castle, the mob had gathered, as it had on Thursday and Friday last.
As the Taoiseach emerged with his customary big wave and a smile, approximately half of the large group clapped and cheered him. There were plenty of "good man, Berties". But they were about equally matched by a loud chorus of booing and some heckling.
One bearded man carrying a folder shouted loudly as the Taoiseach briefly stood for photos just before he got into his waiting State car. "Good man, Bertie. Laugh it off. It's all a big joke, isn't it?"
Two older men stood stock still behind placards bearing biblical messages and bearing crucifixes on top. "Repent before it is too late," read one line. "Only Jesus can bring true peace."
If only someone could bring true clarity.