In his statement of last night Mr Des O'Malley said he "did not engage . . . in altering anyone's evidence nor did I approve of or condone anyone else doing so". He later confirmed to The Irish Times that he neither had nor has any knowledge of what happened about the alleged alteration of the statement by Col Michael Hefferon before it was included in the book of evidence.
The late Col Hefferon's son, Colm, had said Mr O'Malley had questions to answer, as did the circumstantial evidence. The handwritten notes on the document marking the sections later excised were written by the secretary of the Department of Justice, the late Peter Berry, according to RTE's Prime Time programme. The document also had a note saying it had been seen by the minister. The minister at the time was Mr O'Malley.
In denying all knowledge of the affair, Mr O'Malley says he has no recollection of seeing the document, whatever the note on it says. He does add that this lack of recollection is "not surprising given the passage of 31 years". He points out that none of the writing or marks on the document is his.
Mr O'Malley goes on to offer an explanation as to what might have happened, although this does not appear to stand up to scrutiny. He says: "Where a witness made multiple statements these were synopsised into one statement of evidence for the book of evidence. This was done by those preparing the book of evidence. In this case Col Hefferon and at least two other witnesses made multiple statements."
This practice of synopsising statements, however, seems a very inadequate explanation for the systematic deletion of all suggestions that Mr Jim Gibbons knew about the plans for the arms importation. The evidence detailed on Prime Time indicates a careful exercise in editing with a single purpose in mind - the protection of Mr Jim Gibbons.
Any synopsising that did take place would have been carried out "by those preparing the book of evidence" - the Chief State Solicitor's office, the Attorney General's office, or both. This does not appear consistent with the handwriting of the secretary of the Department of Justice appearing beside the excised parts.
Mr O'Malley asserts that the fact that Col Hefferon said Mr Gibbons knew of the plans to import arms does not appear to be new. He is right - as he says, this part of Col Hefferon's evidence was first voiced in public at the first trial in September 1970 and repeated at the second trial in October 1970.
But what is new is the evidence that an attempt was made by a person or persons unknown to suppress this part of Col Hefferon's statement, which severely undermined the prosecution case that the attempted arms importation was illegal.
The apparent attempt to protect the late Mr Gibbons - the chief State witness in the trial - failed. But the fact that the attempt was made was of considerable political significance.
We still don't know who did it and why.