Square pegs in round holes

The day worked its way into a crescendo. To make things easier to follow, I've recounted them chronologically.

The last two witnesses took the stand... first it was Dimitri Pantazopoulos then John Reynolds.

Highlights from Pantazopoulos:

* He was asked by O'Brien to do some polling for him around July 10/July 11. The polls were conducted between July 13-15. They essentially showed that Kilrea was receiving a negative vote; people were going to vote for him for lack of an alternative. After a discussion with O'Brien, they decided to show Kilrea the results. When pressed by the Crown, Pantazopoulos couldn't remember exactly what was discussed during that conversation.

* He met with Kilrea on July 18 in the main dining room of the Sheraton at 12:00pm. He sat in the same chair at the same table that he had seen Jean Chretien at a week earlier. This statement prompted Hutchison to say "you must have felt special."

* He said he didn't come to the meeting with a briefcase full of polling data; that he doesn't even own a briefcase. This was in response to Kilrea's previous testimony. Hutchison didn't ask about this detail- Pantazopoulos volunteered it.

* Pantazopoulos says Kilrea told him he was $30,000 in debt, and that he indicated his real calling wasn't as mayor, but rather he mused about his desire for a position on the NPB.

* He told Kilrea any federal appointment as a "quid pro quo" would be illegal

* He says some of Kilrea's language and tone was odd... that sometimes it felt really official and not conversational

* He says after the meeting, when he spoke to O'Brien, O'Brien told him "we don't need him anyway and we probably shouldn't talk to him again."

* He says he never said the appointment was "too hot to handle" as Kilrea has testified. "Those words are not in my lexicon", he said.

* He says he told Kilrea to go speak to people he trusted about his decision to drop out of the race. He mentioned Baird's name because Kilrea had said earlier in the meeting that he had Baird's support.

* He said he was offended by Kilrea's allegations. He said he would've never risked his reputation on a "bullshit appointment for Terry Kilrea". Asked to clarify a statement he made to police, Pantazopoulos says, "I had no role in this and this was damaging to my reputation."

* When asked about Kilrea's affidavit, Pantazopoulos says, "either he misconstrued what I said or he deliberately twisted my words to something they were not."

John Reynolds took the stand for only a short time after. He testified that he didn't recall discussing a NPB appointment with O'Brien, that no one ever asked him about an appointment for Kilrea, that Kilrea's resume had never been sent to him, and that he never spoke to Baird about an appointment for anyone.

And then the legal fireworks.

It was expected the Defence would ask for a directed verdict- essentially asking the Judge to dismiss the charges due to a lack of evidence. And while this motion was made, it had a "twist". The Defence- led in this matter by David Paciocco- said it would be arguing that the charges against O'Brien should never have been made. He said even if the Crown was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, it would be legally impossible to convict O'Brien. He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that the terms "advantage" or "benefit" that are alluded to in both Section 121 and 125 mean an economical gain, not a political one as in O'Brien's case. He suggested if negotiating with someone was a criminal offence, many elected officials would be criminals because it happens all the time. As an example, he pointed to MPs who've crossed the floor for a cabinet positions. He argued "you can't argue one thing for O'Brien, and another for a member of Parliament."

Paciocco also argued the charges don't fit the situation; that it would be like putting square pegs into round holes.

The Defence plans to call an expert witness- believed to be David Mitchell, head of the Public Policy Forum. He is expected to give social and political context to these two sections of law.

Hutchison said he was concerned about this motion. He said he doesn't like the defence calling evidence on a directed verdict. When the Judge said he had never heard of it happening before, Hutchison suggested it was because it wasn't allowed. He also suggested the possibility of calling his own witness, mentioning John Baird's name.

Hutchison told the court he was glad to see the defence's submissions only date back to the beginning of European settlements in North America. He quipped he'd bring his tractor-trailer to take all the material home... in fact, the Defence has said the readings reach about a foot in height.

Proceedings pick up on Monday when arguments over the directed verdict will begin.