The planning tribunal's main witness emerged from his second day in the box as an embittered former employee with good reason to be bitter.
In his evidence, Mr James Gogarty painted a picture of himself as a devoted and selfless employee who worked above and beyond the call of duty and well beyond the age when other men's thoughts turn to golf courses.
The former building company executive alerted his boss, Mr Joseph Murphy snr, to the threat from a group of executives who, he claimed, were trying to wrest control of the Murphy companies and trust. He played a large part in helping Mr Murphy to regain control of the group.
Mr Gogarty described himself as "a loyal servant" who did as he was bidden by his millionaire employer. On one occasion Mr Murphy rang him on Christmas Day, instructing him to travel to his home in Guernsey on St Stephen's Day.
When the rival group tried to force his resignation, he resisted. When they offered him a retirement package, he turned it down, on Mr Murphy's advice. When they offered him a better deal, he rejected it, again on Mr Murphy's advice and with his (Mr Murphy's) promise of a better deal.
However, when Mr Murphy regained control of his companies, Mr Gogarty's reward came in the form of a new demand that he resign his directorships. And all the while the pension deal he had been promised failed to materialise. "I said `Why should I resign? I will do it as soon as I see that I have a fair chance that I can go home to my wife and family and say `Well, if I am dead in the morning, you would have something to live for'," he told the tribunal.
Evidence such as this goes a long way towards explaining the motives which have driven this frail 81-year-old to blow the whistle on former colleagues, thereby putting himself in the eye of a media and legal storm.
Mr Gogarty outlined the turmoil which developed in the Murphy group of companies in the 1980s and his role in backing Mr Murphy. But his evidence stopped tantalisingly short of the events of 1989, when he attended a meeting with Mr Murphy and a developer, Mr Michael Bailey, in the home of the former minister for foreign affairs, Mr Ray Burke.
It was Mr Gogarty's allegation of payments by Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering and Mr Bailey to Mr Burke at this meeting which led to the establishment of the tribunal in 1997.
Lawyers for Mr Murphy and Mr Bailey are likely to question Mr Gogarty's version of events when they get the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, probably next week. They will also take issue with Mr Gogarty's perception of himself as a pivotal influence in the company well into the late 1980s.
On his own evidence yesterday, Mr Gogarty ceased to be involved in the day-to-day running of Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering in 1986, though he continued to attend some board meetings thereafter.
Although it provided a fascinating insight into corporate carry-on in one Irish company, the day's proceedings had little to say about the planning corruption the tribunal is investigating.
In contrast to the previous day, lawyers for Mr Murphy and Mr Bailey remained largely silent yesterday. However, Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Mr Murphy, intervened quickly when Mr Gogarty attempted to describe allegations made against Mr Murphy in an affidavit filed by a former executive, Mr Liam Conroy, in an unfair dismissal case filed in the Isle of Man.
Mr Cooney said the contents were not admissible, as the document had been sworn in another jurisdiction by a man who was now dead.
When the tribunal reconvenes in Dublin Castle next Monday Mr Gogarty will address directly the circumstances leading to the Burke meeting and his allegation of planning corruption.