Closing Arguments- Day 1

The Defence has decided not to call any witnesses so closing arguments have started.

Hutchison took about three hours to present his statements. Edelson began his today but we're off to an early start tomorrow to ensure that the Defence is able to finish in one day.

Highlights from the Crown's closing arguments:

* Kilrea's evidence is surrounded by a "matrix of corroborative evidence" that overcome any questions about his credibility

* O'Brien has admitted that the sole reason he met with Kilrea on July 12 was to give him a reason to quit the race

* Kilrea pegs the time of the July 12 meeting sometime between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. but can't give an exact time. Hutchison questions whether this kind of detail is that of someone making up a story. He says it's common for simple details to creep in and out of events a person is recalling honestly

* Though the dates were a week off in Kilrea's affidavit, when O'Brien was questioned about the meetings and calls during his police interview he also didn't dispute the dates even though he had seen the affidavit

* O'Brien says after July 12 the offer was off the table because he realized it was offside, but evidence from Lisa MacLeod and John Light show that weeks later the appointment was still being discussed

* O'Brien tells police at the beginning of his interview that his memory from the summer of 2006 is hazy because there was a lot going on and doesn't deny that several events happen, rather he says he doesn't remember them

* After Pantazopolous meets with Kilrea about polling numbers that show O'Brien has growth potential and Kilrea asks about the NPB: Pantazopolous testifies that O'Brien says to forget about Kilrea; they don't need him. Hutchison argues that if the NPB was dropped on July 12, O'Brien would have displayed surprise that Kilrea was still talking about it

* Under cross-examination Edelson tells Kilrea that when John Baird takes the stand he will testify that they spoke about the NPB at their meeting. Rather than yield, Kilrea stands by his evidence that it was never discussed, and later Baird corroborates that testimony

* Kilrea may not be the most sophisticated politician but he is not a Machiavellian schemer. He may be a blunderer, but he is not a criminal mastermind

* If Kilrea's testimony changed in some of the details it's because it is a true story. It is suspicious when a person is able to recount a story the exact same way each time; it indicates that it has been rehearsed

* The Crown hasn't shown that O'Brien could follow through with getting Kilrea a NPB appointment, rather it has shown O'Brien "clearly and undoubtedly" pretended to have influence in order to get Kilrea to drop out of the race; this is a quid pro quo

* From July 12 to August 7, all interactions between O'Brien and Kilrea amount to ongoing negotiations (as mentioned in the Sec. 125 charge)


The Defence introduced some of its final statements although the bulk will be presented tomorrow. So far Edelson has focused on the credibility of Kilrea, telling the court the witness has to be credible/reasonable beyond a reasonable doubt for the testimony to be completely accepted. Further, Edelson has argued:

* Kilrea's testimony shows that O'Brien never offered to get him a NPB appointment, rather Kilrea presented the option to O'Brien as something that he would be interested in. He says Kilrea was "fishing; pursuing; looking for an out." Kilrea raised the quid pro quo (aka "I'll drop out if you get me the NPB appointment")

* Kilrea had the ability to check his email and Tim Tierney's hard drive for accuracy in dates when writing his affidavit but never did. He was also asked several times by the police if he was sure he had the dates right, but he always said though he could be off, he would stick to those dates

* There are three or four different versions from Kilrea about the statement O'Brien allegedly made when he offered him the NPB (ex. "what if I can make that happen/ what if THAT can happen/ what would happen if I got you an appointment")