There's something about Terry- Closing Arguments Day 2

It's hard to believe, but after over two months of proceedings, all that's left in the trial is the verdict. That's expected Wednesday August 12.

Edelson wrapped up his closing statements while the Crown gave a quick and brief rebuttal.

As the title suggests, most of Edelson's attention was directed at Kilrea.

Edelson carefully went through testimony that emerged from Kilea's cross examination, and testimony given by several other witnesses, including Reynolds, MacLeod, Light, and O'Brien.

Edelson's description of Kilrea is starkly different from Hutchison's characterization. Edleson called Kilrea devious, disingenuous, profane, deceitful, mean-spirited, and hypocritical. He called him "dumb like a fox and street smart", and said "you don't have to be a genius to do what Kilrea did".

Highlights from the Defence's closing arguments:

* Kilrea has a spotty memory. There are several phone calls that are unaccounted for by Kilrea- some taking place only minutes after the ones that Kilrea can recall

* Whenever Kilrea isn't able to explain evidence that contradicts his testimony he says he "can't recall". Edelson calls this the "refuge of a liar"

* Edelson gives several examples of times Kilrea misinterprets conversations and communications and then uses them to gain media attention. He says whenever Kilrea uses the phrase "that's the impression I got" it's a "Kilrea-ism" and it means he's lying

* Kilrea created the "perfect storm" that led him to fish for a new position: he was plunging in the polls; he was out of money; and he was unhappy about returning to his job

* Light's testimony was highly partisan. He was a Kilrea campaign worker who was in the "dirty tricks department" and nowhere near a genuine witness

* MacLeod gave different variations of what she heard O'Brien say and she didn't testify to hearing about the NPB until the Crown slipped and inserted it into questioning. Edelson says she didn't know the context of the comment and that it was vague. If O'Brien was working on an appointment, where's the evidence? If O'Brien wasn't working on an appointment what was the point of telling MacLeod?

* O'Brien's statement to police does not align with Kilrea's testimony. Kilrea brings up the NPB first and O'Brien says he feels there was some "baiting" going on. O'Brien tells police to contact Reynolds and Pantazopolous- why would he direct the police to them if he was worried?

Hutchison responded to several of Edelson's points. He says it is irrelevant who brought up the NPB appointment first; what matters is what happened afterward. Edelson spent some time analyzing different versions of Kilrea's affidavit but Hutchison says its common for there to be several versions when a third party (a lawyer) is penning the statement- it's not unusual for there to be "broken telephone" between the two parties. As for MacLeod's testimony, Hutchison said he did not insert the NPB into her memory because in her police statement months earlier, she had told police about the NPB by her own volition.

Finally, Edleson had mentioned it was possible there was a compromise of integrity in the emails gathered from Tierney's hard drive (these are all the emails between O'Brien, Kilrea and Baird). He says that Tierney was given a "heads up" that emails would be seized and therefore could have tampered with the evidence. Hutchison dismisses this saying there is no evidence to prove that, and that if Edelson wanted to explore this possibility he could have called Tierney to the stand himself.

Judge Cunningham said he had a "great deal to think about" and that he wanted to be "done as quickly as I can, but I want to give it a lot of thought and consideration."

Outside the courtroom, O'Brien appeared confident. He gave reporters the thumbs up and said "we're feeling pretty good."

Throughout the trial the Crown and the Defence have had very different approaches. While the Crown has kept its case narrow and simple, the Defence has expanded its case and focused on details. The Defence tried to cast enough doubt on the Crown's case to leave reasonable doubt in the Judge's mind that would prevent him from convicting O'Brien. We'll see on August 12 which side was successful.