Mr Roger Copsey's dispassionate summary of Mr James Gogarty's world view was appropriately Freudian in tone at times during yesterday's Flood tribunal hearing: "If you're emotionally involved, you can genuinely believe whatever you want."
It was the former JMSE financial director's second day in the witness box and he appeared to be slightly more self-conscious in his responses; intent on carefully qualifying virtually every suggestion being put to him by Mr Des O'Neill SC, counsel for the tribunal.
Did he believe that Mr Gogarty was perhaps "manufacturing allegations" of cash payments to the staff? Was the former JMSE chairman "genuine" or just making trouble?
"Jim is a rather complex person," Mr Copsey responded, in reference to Mr Gogarty's concerns over cash disbursements to staff that led to the matter being reviewed at board level. There were two motives behind his actions at this time, mid-1998. One was his loyalty to the company, the former financial director conceded. The other was "misguided", to do with over-riding considerations affecting his pension and the fact that "he felt people had slighted him".
And there were his "wild allegations" of slush funds that the financial director felt could harm the company. There was no proof, he said. The fact that Mr Conroy, the former chief executive was paid £20,000 to £30,000 per annum cash on foot of an invoice from Pro Eng, an offshore company, was above board and devoid of tax ramifications; a special arrangement between Mr Murphy snr and Mr Conroy, he assured the tribunal.
A key consideration at this time was the continued presence of Mr Marcus Sweeney as managing director. This was summed up by Mr Copsey in a letter to Mr Murphy snr dated July 29th, in which he indicated that Mr Gogarty had "not forgiven" Mr Sweeney, the only survivor of the putsch that had replaced the Conroy faction and allowed the Murphys to regain control of their companies.
"His presentation of past and present facts are coloured by this view. He won't be happy until Marcus Sweeney is dismissed."
The difficulty was that while Mr Sweeney might be effectively circumscribed under new management arrangements agreed at board level, his presence was seen as desirable in the light of his expertise, not least because of the valuable contract for the Sizewell nuclear installation. Mr Gogarty had undertaken not to interfere with Mr Sweeney and this had worked well for a time.
Mr Copsey felt that one or other would have to stand aside. Mr Gogarty would be happy to work in a non-executive capacity, he said. In the event of this he would not be happy to sit on the board: however, "his undoubted expertise would be sadly missed". Mr Gogarty remained on the board.
A sense of pathos entered the proceedings as Mr Copsey recounted the efforts of two old men to plot their respective routes into retirement. One, Mr Murphy snr, was forced out of retirement. The other, Mr Gogarty, wanted a decent pension based as closely as possible on his own assessment of his real worth. A recurring phrase yesterday was: "Jim was being awkward".
Awkward or not, when a gap of £200,000 appeared between Mr Copsey's best offer based on prudential considerations and Mr Gogarty's own estimate, it was the former JMSE chairman who himself came up with the suggestion to include 50 per cent of the mammoth ESB commission as part of his pension severance package. Interestingly, Mr Murphy snr did not balk at this, but would not wear the Gogarty demand for £70,000 in respect of "un-drawn bonuses".
Mr Copsey saw no contradiction in being both an accountant and the director, he told the tribunal. But he had not acted for the Murphy Group as a financial controller in a day-to-day capacity, he hastened to add.
He threw some useful light on the distribution of monies from the sale of lands, between the particular Murphy companies to effect the elimination of overdrafts and an improvement in cash flow. His evidence continues today.