Mr James Gogarty's account of how an exceptional payment was made to Mr Ray Burke in June 1989, is at variance with the former Minister's statements to the Dail - in all but one important respect.
The two men agree the money was in two envelopes.
Mr Burke has publicly admitted he received a £30,000 contribution in cash from Mr Gogarty but, on all other points, the evidence that a senior Fianna Fail Minister was paid £40,000, if not £80,000, to help procure land rezonings is hotly contested by Mr Burke, Mr Michael Bailey of Bovale Developments Ltd and Mr Joseph Murphy jnr of JMSE.
They challenge Mr Gogarty's evidence on why and how the money was paid, who attended the meeting and, indeed, the amount of money.
While Mr Burke told the Dail on several occasions during his statement on September 10th, 1997, that he received an unsolicited political contribution of £30,000 in cash from Mr Gogarty, an executive of JMSE, for which no favours were sought or given, the public was given their first opportunity at the Flood tribunal yesterday to hear a critically different version of events.
Mr Gogarty spelt out the circumstances surrounding the decision to make a payment to Mr Burke who, in 1989, was the senior Fianna Fail Minister, next to Mr Charles Haughey, on the northside of Dublin. He was then Minister for Industry, Commerce and Communications.
Having set the scene for the disposal of more than 700 acres of land, Mr Gogarty told the tribunal of a meeting he attended with Mr Frankie Reynolds, Mr Joseph Murphy jnr and Mr Michael Bailey in early June 1989, when Mr Bailey outlined what he could do with the lands.
Mr Bailey has been described by Mr Burke as being "well-known to me as he was a resident of north county Dublin and a long-time supporter of Fianna Fail".
Mr Bailey said he could get the lands rezoned by procuring a majority on Dublin County Council through the help of politicians or councillors "who could be influenced by Mr Ray Burke".
He also went into great detail, according to Mr Gogarty, on the method by which rezoning could be achieved. There were five or six councillors who could maximise the votes on the council. He was also in a position "to cross the political divide".
He could rely on a close liaison with people in the Co Council, including Mr George Redmond, then assistant city and county manager, he said.
This meeting was followed by receipt of the so-called "planning procurement letter", published in Magill, written by Mr Bailey on June 8th, 1989.
Mr Gogarty was called by Mr Reynolds to a meeting in JMSE headquarters in Santry that same day to follow up on the letter. The meeting was attended by Mr Murphy jnr as well.
They said, according to Mr Gogarty, that they arranged for £40,000 to be paid to Mr Burke as "their side of it". There was an envelope on the table. It had £30,000 in cash in bundles of £100 and £50 denominations.
Mr Murphy jnr said they were short £10,000. The agreement with Mr Bailey was that each of them would give £40,000 towards this proposition. Mr Reynolds got a cheque, made it out to cash, and both he and Mr Gogarty signed it. As an aside, Mr Gogarty added that he put the cheque in the envelope and left it on the table before he went out. "I think I closed it," he said.
He also spoke to Mr Murphy snr about "what went on at the meetings" and Mr Murphy asked him to keep an eye on them.
A couple of days later, on a date unspecified yesterday, a meeting took place at Mr Burke's home, Briargate in Swords, "sometime around 4 p.m.". It was attended, according to Mr Gogarty, by Mr Murphy jnr Mr Bailey, who arranged it, and himself. Mr Gogarty had his envelope. Mr Bailey took another envelope from the dashboard of the car in which Mr Gogarty assumed there was another £40,000. He admitted yesterday there could have been feathers in it.
In a room to the left of the hall, a kind of dining room, Mr Gogarty put the envelope on the table between himself and Mr Murphy jnr. Mr Bailey put an envelope on the table also, he said. During the course of the meeting, Mr Gogarty said he took out the letter which Mr Bailey had sent him and Mr Burke said he already knew the contents of it.
Mr Gogarty pushed a schedule of the lands over to Mr Burke who said he had a copy of it. Mr Bailey put over his envelope.
Mr Gogarty said this was a substantial payment towards an open-ended commitment and Mr Burke said Mr Murphy and Mr Bailey were well aware of how he had honoured his commitments in the past. "That's all right, Jim, leave it with me and Ray," said Mr Bailey.
The bulk of Mr Gogarty's evidence has been disputed, however, even before he is subjected to cross-examination.
Mr Burke told the Dail the meeting took place in the morning. It was attended by Mr Gogarty, Mr Bailey and himself. Mr Murphy jnr was not present. The contribution was £30,000, not £40,000 or £80,000. The money was entirely in cash. Any allegation he had done anything wrong was completely untrue. No favours were done for JMSE, Bovale Developments Ltd., Mr Bailey, Mr Murphy jnr or Mr Gogarty.
Furthermore, Mr Burke put statements from Mr Bailey's and Mr Murphy jnr's solicitors on the Dail record. Mr Bailey said three attended the meeting. He (Mr Bailey) was present throughout and witnessed the handing over of the contribution to Mr Burke by Mr Gogarty. He did not make any payment.
Mr Murphy jnr, in his solicitor's letter, said he was not present at the meeting. He had never met Mr Burke.
It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that Mr Gogarty and Mr Burke agree, in the former Minister's words: "My recollection is that the money was in two envelopes which were given to me."
