Mr James Gogarty admitted at the Flood tribunal yesterday that he had "drip-fed" information in relation to alleged planning corruption to a journalist from the Sunday Business Post in order to further his own aim of exposing the Murphy group to prosecution for fraud and intimidation.
Under cross-examination from Mr Garrett Cooney SC, representing JMSE, Mr Gogarty also revealed that he had "written to Bertie Ahern asking him to set up the tribunal" when he did not get satisfaction on his complaints.
Mr Gogarty also acknowledged that there were differences between the version of events he gave to the journalist and the version he now claimed was true.
He further acknowledged that consecutive reports written by the journalist Frank Connolly on March 31st and April 7th, 1996, which were based on information provided by him, contained differing versions of the handover of cash to Mr Ray Burke.
Responding to questions from Mr Cooney, Mr Gogarty said that he first had conversations with Mr Connolly in early 1996. However, although Mr Connolly had begun to write on the affair in March 1996, Mr Gogarty acknowledged that the journalist did not see "one of the most critical documents" until later.
This led Mr Cooney to put it to Mr Gogarty: "The less satisfaction you got in your pursuit of Mr Joseph Murphy jnr, the more information you revealed, isn't that so?"
Mr Gogarty replied that he felt that he "had unquestionable evidence of fraud, conspiracy to defraud, threats and intimidation" in relation to the Murphy group, but he added that he "hadn't the same evidence about the corruption with politicians . . . "
Mr Cooney than asked if it was Mr Gogarty's position that the more he became frustrated at the lack of Garda action against Mr Murphy jnr, arising out of the telephone call (a reference to an allegedly intimidating telephone call), "the more you drip-fed information to selected members of the media. Is that correct?"
Mr Gogarty replied that that summation "would be fair enough, yes, yes".
Referring to the first article which had appeared in the Sunday Business Post, Mr Cooney said that the article contained a reference to an individual personally giving £40,000 to a politician. Following questioning, Mr Gog arty agreed that the politician was Mr Ray Burke, and the individual who "personally" gave the £40,000 was in fact himself.
Mr Cooney asked if that was what Mr Gogarty told Mr Connolly at the time, and Mr Gogarty replied: "Yes, that's right."
However, Mr Cooney went on to point out that the article never mentioned the presence of Mr Joseph Murphy jnr at Mr Burke's house, and Mr Connolly - a journalist whom Mr Gogarty had earlier agreed was honest and truthful - had used the words "personally gave the politician" in relation to Mr Gogarty himself.
Mr Cooney argued: "If you had told Mr Connolly in the various meetings you had with him before this article was published, if you had told him that Mr Murphy jnr was present when this money was paid, he would have reported that fact."
Mr Cooney repeated: "He would have reported that fact even without identifying Mr Murphy, isn't that right?"
Following a protracted debate, in which Mr Gogarty first said he did not accept Mr Cooney's assertion, Mr Gogarty eventually said that he could not swear that he had told Mr Connolly of Mr Murphy jnr's involvement in the payment to Mr Burke at that stage. However, he argued that he did later "correct" Mr Connolly's understanding.
Mr Gogarty said he had told Mr Connolly of alleged attacks on his cars and of a pellet attack on his home, but said it was "not necessarily correct" that he had told him these things in expectation of them being published.
"I was under extreme pressure and there is no doubt about it, once I had started talking to the media, the media were after me to give them more details, even if it was on a drip-feed basis, because it was the corruption - and planning corruption was more sensational than the equally criminal conduct of fraud or conspiracy to defraud and threats and intimidation."
Mr Cooney said that Mr Gogarty had deliberately furnished information to Mr Connolly "which was seriously misleading" and he drew Mr Gogarty's attention to a second article published one week later in the Sunday Business Post on April 7th, 1996.
Mr Cooney said that in this article the account of the handing over of cash to Mr Burke had changed. "In the first version, the person who is being quoted - and that was you - said that he personally gave the money to the politician. In this version you have now told Mr Connolly that you were present when £40,000 was handed over to the politician by a director of this company, isn't that right?"
Mr Cooney also pointed out that the article claimed that there were three directors of the Murphy group present when the money was handed over, and Mr Gogarty agreed that that was the information he had given to Mr Connolly at that time.
However, Mr Cooney said - and Mr Gogarty agreed - that that was not what Mr Gogarty had told the tribunal. Mr Gogarty agreed that the different accounts referred to the allegation that Mr Frank Reynolds, a Murphy group director, was present when the money was handed over.
In his submission to the tribunal Mr Gogarty accepted that this was not true.
Mr Cooney continued: "It was no mistake on your part that you deliberately, and with malice of forethought, put Mr Reynolds in Mr Burke's house on that day."
Mr Gogarty replied that he had corrected his first version as soon as he could and added that he never did anything like that deliberately. "I tell you I corrected it and I am on oath now."
Pressed by Mr Cooney, Mr Gogarty said that he could not say if he had corrected it on the day of publication.
When Mr Gogarty said that he could not say when, because throughout that period he was "going through a traumatic time", Mr Cooney responded: "You were putting other people through a traumatic time as well."
