Troublesome if not always accurate

The list of people with whom James Gogarty fell out is formidable. In 1989, Mr Gogarty tells us, he had fallen out with his employers because, at 72 years of age he was still working and had not received a pension for his 20 years of loyal service with Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering.

Mr Gogarty also fell out with the other Murphy group directors, the Bailey brothers of Bovale Developments, his local gardai, two firms of solicitors and the then minister for justice, Nora Owen, and the media.

To fall out with Mr Gogarty, as Garrett Cooney claimed last week, was to risk "extreme malice" and blackening of one's good name. The accusations ranged from conspiracy to defraud the Revenue to corruption, malpractice, inaccuracy and complicity in not prosecuting Joe Murphy jnr for intimidation.

Mr Cooney sought to fix Mr Gogarty to a date in June 1989 when Mr Gogarty says that Joe Murphy jnr and Michael Bailey had, with him, handed money to Ray Burke.

Mr Gogarty was unable to provide a firm date, allowing Mr Cooney to make a case that on the balance of probability from bank statements, notes of cash withdrawals, Mr Burke's television appearances that month, and a Murphy family funeral that it was June 8th. This allowed Mr Cooney to play a trump card - Mr Murphy jnr left the State on Monday, June 5th, and returned for the funeral on June 9th. Not watertight, but again relying on the balance of probability a case was made that Mr Murphy jnr was not present at the handover of cash.

One of the most spectacular allegations was the remark that Mr Murphy jnr had a conviction for assault on a woman. Mr Cooney produced the court judgment and, getting Mr Gogarty to read it aloud, pointed out that Mr Murphy jnr was not convicted of assault and, indeed, was not convicted at all. Mr Murphy jnr had let off a fire extinguisher and some it its contents had sprayed on to a woman's coat.

On being invited to apologise by Mr Cooney, Mr Gogarty declined, leading to Mr Cooney remarking that he "had concocted an entirely false charge, fabricated to embarrass and defame my client."

Mr Cooney pointed out that Mr Gogarty could not remember the name of the garage that repaired his family cars after they were damaged and later said he had repaired them himself with a friend. Mr Gogarty was also unable to recall the name of the friend.

Another allegation that shots were fired through Mr Gogarty's window was explained by Mr Cooney in terms of Garda reports which suggested that a stone, not bullets, could have been involved. The proximity of the date to Hallowe'en was also mentioned.

Mr Cooney then painted a picture of Mr Gogarty as a man who was disillusioned with his pension benefits of more than £700,000, saying that Mr Gogarty had demanded a further £400,000 and warning that he would "destroy" the company if he did not get it.

Mr Cooney also pointed out that Mr Gogarty had made much of his fight for a pension, insisting that he had been very badly treated by his employers, but had, in fact, cancelled a JMSE pension fund when he was managing director.

Much was made of Mr Gogarty's effective control over Murphy lands in north Dublin and that notes in Mr Gogarty's own notebook appeared to indicate that he was wondering if the auctioneers Duffy Mangan Butler would give him £10,000 commission.

Mr Cooney also accused Mr Gogarty of being deceitful over his claim for commission on monies recouped from the ESB. Mr Gogarty knew that the ESB would pay £560,000 plus VAT before he signed a deal to get 50 per cent commission on any amount recouped over £130,000.

Mr Gogarty remained able for his cross-examination throughout, however. Even at his low point, when he refused to apologise over the false allegation of assault by Mr Murphy jnr on a woman, he was able to get in a damaging remark.

He said that the Evening Press carried a story that Mr Murphy jnr had described himself as an emigrant labourer who could not afford to remain in this country. Mr Gogarty said that Mr Murphy jnr had lied to the court in not acknowledging he was wealthy or the son of a millionaire.

An examination of the Evening Press court report reveals no mention of any such suggestion by Mr Murphy jnr.

Mr Cooney's cross-examination, if it revealed anything, made it abundantly clear that Mr Gogarty can be a troublesome adversary, if not always an accurate one.

Ultimately we may have Mr Burke to thank for his admittance of a payment.