After almost a week, proceedings picked up in courtroom 36.
The first item of business was the question of whether an expert would be allowed to give evidence on the political and social context to the charges O'Brien faces. Paciocco agreed that calling an expert would complicate things but insisted David Mitchell would be crucial in providing the Judge with all the information he would need to make a decision. The Judge didn't think so, saying he didn't see the point of calling an expert who would come in and give examples from books he has already read himself.
The rest of the day was dedicated to Paciocco's arguments for a directed verdict. Though he gave ample examples, the arguments came down to those that he introduced last week:
* Section 125(b): O'Brien had no influence to get Kilrea an appointment. Paciocco argued that in Reynold's testimony, he said the most he could do was pass on a resume of somebody to the appropriate minister, but that he had no influence in doing more than that. In this case, Reynolds said he never received Kilrea's resume and he never did anything to further an alleged appointment... thus no one with influence did anything to exert it.
* Section 121(1)(d)(ii): Any benefit or advantage must be financial/material/tangible/economic. Paciocco argued political advantage is not caught in this charge. "There has not been a single prosecution for political advantage", Paciocco said. "What is alleged is not criminal... this is not the stuff of crimes, it's the stuff of politics." This was a major focus of the argument; essentially a question of whether it is the place of the court to regulate this type of behaviour. "It's not about whether it's acceptable, it's about whether it's criminal", Paciocco said.
The Crown will present its arguments tomorrow and the Defence will have a chance to reply. After that it will be up to the Judge to decide if he grants the directed verdict.
This is the last week that has been scheduled. After Thursday, there will be a three week break with proceedings picking up the week of July 6 if need be. What happens next will largely depend on how much time the Judge will take to make a decision on this motion. If it is allowed, the case will be over and O'Brien will be acquitted. If it is not allowed, the Defence can still make a motion for a traditional directed verdict on the basis that the Crown has not met its burden of proof (that there's a lack of evidence).
We're back at it tomorrow morning.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Short and sweet... picking up next week
Penner took the stand for only a short time. The Crown (questioning happened under Brennagh Smith for the first time instead of Hutchison) took Penner through the elaborate process to qualify and get appointed to the NPB. Penner told the court that in July 2006 there was 1 vacancy on the 45-seat NPB, but it wasn't filled until October of the next year. He testified he was never contacted in any way about an appointment for Kilrea to the NPB. He said that though he's been forwarded CV's from John Reynolds in the past, he never received one about Kilrea. Under cross examination, Penner said it would be impossible for someone to make a phone call and within a few hours be appointed to the Board.
Reynolds takes the stand on Tuesday. On Monday, Pantazopolous is expected to testify on Monday. The Crown said that next week "it's conceivable" it will be finished with witnesses.
The Crown has decided it will not re-examine any witnesses from the Trilogy.
Funny moment of the day: Bennett was asked about when his involvement in politics began and he started his answer with "when I was 8 years old...." The Crown interrupted, clarifying that perhaps it wasn't necessary to go THAT far back... the Judge quipped "it's going to be a long day."
We're done for the week. Tomorrow's proceedings were put on hold so O'Brien could attend his son's graduation from McGill.
AND... seems next week will be short as well. The Judge has committments in Winnipeg on Thursday, and when Hutchison joked that we all join him there, Cunningham said we REALLY wouldn't want to do that.
Reynolds takes the stand on Tuesday. On Monday, Pantazopolous is expected to testify on Monday. The Crown said that next week "it's conceivable" it will be finished with witnesses.
The Crown has decided it will not re-examine any witnesses from the Trilogy.
Funny moment of the day: Bennett was asked about when his involvement in politics began and he started his answer with "when I was 8 years old...." The Crown interrupted, clarifying that perhaps it wasn't necessary to go THAT far back... the Judge quipped "it's going to be a long day."
We're done for the week. Tomorrow's proceedings were put on hold so O'Brien could attend his son's graduation from McGill.
AND... seems next week will be short as well. The Judge has committments in Winnipeg on Thursday, and when Hutchison joked that we all join him there, Cunningham said we REALLY wouldn't want to do that.
Quick and dirty
We're on a lunch break, so here's the quick and dirty of a very busy morning.
* The Judge has deemed the testimony of the "trilogy" admissible. Judge Cunningham ruled their testimony wasn't hearsay and that the content of their testimonies will be for him to determine. He said their evidence has relevance and some probative value,though he agreed with the Defence that none of the 3 men ever discussed the NPB issue with O'Brien.
* MacLeod was on the stand for about an hour. She testified that she met with O'Brien on July 31 2006 at her old constituency office and that David Gibbons was present. She told the court their interaction was casual and that O'Brien said "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment. It wasn't clear who that was." She said she didn't probe this statement when it was made said to her. Asked again about her recollection, she told the court O'Brien said, "we're talking to Terry about an appointment... I believe it was the National Parole Board. It came up casually, maybe once or twice through the conversation."
* Bennett's time of the stand lasted about half an hour. He told the court the call he made to Light was made from his kitchen and that O'Brien wasn't present. He testified that when Light said he was committed to Kilrea, Bennett checked with Strong (who was in the kitchen) and then said to Light "Kilrea would be gone." He later explained Kilrea was "done" because he had a lack of momentum and money. He also told the court he was having memory issues and that while it was possible that that the NPB was mentioned, he couldn't remember whether that was first hand information or whether he had read that in the newspaper.
David Penner is up next. The Crown is deciding over lunch whether to recall any of the trilogy testimonies... Edelson has said he doesn't intend to cross examine any of them further.
* The Judge has deemed the testimony of the "trilogy" admissible. Judge Cunningham ruled their testimony wasn't hearsay and that the content of their testimonies will be for him to determine. He said their evidence has relevance and some probative value,though he agreed with the Defence that none of the 3 men ever discussed the NPB issue with O'Brien.
* MacLeod was on the stand for about an hour. She testified that she met with O'Brien on July 31 2006 at her old constituency office and that David Gibbons was present. She told the court their interaction was casual and that O'Brien said "somebody was talking to Terry about an appointment. It wasn't clear who that was." She said she didn't probe this statement when it was made said to her. Asked again about her recollection, she told the court O'Brien said, "we're talking to Terry about an appointment... I believe it was the National Parole Board. It came up casually, maybe once or twice through the conversation."
* Bennett's time of the stand lasted about half an hour. He told the court the call he made to Light was made from his kitchen and that O'Brien wasn't present. He testified that when Light said he was committed to Kilrea, Bennett checked with Strong (who was in the kitchen) and then said to Light "Kilrea would be gone." He later explained Kilrea was "done" because he had a lack of momentum and money. He also told the court he was having memory issues and that while it was possible that that the NPB was mentioned, he couldn't remember whether that was first hand information or whether he had read that in the newspaper.
David Penner is up next. The Crown is deciding over lunch whether to recall any of the trilogy testimonies... Edelson has said he doesn't intend to cross examine any of them further.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The fellows of the trilogy
I realize it sounds like an adventure-fantasy movie... but it's the best I can do tonight.
Proceedings wrapped up pretty early today. After dealing with the hearsay issue, we heard testimony from John Light and Greg Strong, although it only lasted about an hour. Thom Bennett is unavailable until tomorrow, so the "trilogy" as they've been referred to, won't be complete until then.
The Crown seemed to bolster and then deflate its case with the two witnesses.
Light testimony in a nutshell:
*He got a call from Bennett in August 2006. Bennett said he was calling from his office and that Strong and O'Brien were present. He asked him to come over to the O'Brien campaign, but Light said he was committed to the Kilrea campaign. Bennett then covered the phone for a few seconds (30 to be exact), came back and said, "don't worry about Terry. He’s going to be dropping out of the race soon, he’s been offered something.” Later, he got a call from Strong and when he again expressed his commitment to Kilrea, Strong said,"between you and me, Terry won’t be in the race much longer, he's being offered something through the party. Dimitri Pantazopoulos is working on an offer that I think Terry is going to accept.” He clarified it was a federal appointment of some sort.
Strong testimony in a nutshell:
*Bennett called Light from Bennett's kitchen and O'Brien was not present. He says no discussions were ever held within the campaign about an offer to Kilrea other than talk about his website. He says the only time the NPB was brought up was in casual conversations with others about what Kilrea would do after he withdrew from the race. He testifies those conversations never occurred with O'Brien or Bennett. He says at the time Kilrea "was shopping himself around" and everyone had an opinion about what he would do.
The examination and cross-examination was quite brief... the whole affair took only an hour for both witnesses.
It's critical for the Crown's case that this evidence be admissible. If the testimony is permitted, both Hutchison and Edelson will be able to re-examine the witnesses.
Lisa MacLeod and David Penner take the stand tomorrow after Bennett.
Funny moment of the day: When Hutchison referred to an exhibit that was labeled YYY he said it sounded more like a love song than an exhibit.
Proceedings wrapped up pretty early today. After dealing with the hearsay issue, we heard testimony from John Light and Greg Strong, although it only lasted about an hour. Thom Bennett is unavailable until tomorrow, so the "trilogy" as they've been referred to, won't be complete until then.
The Crown seemed to bolster and then deflate its case with the two witnesses.
Light testimony in a nutshell:
*He got a call from Bennett in August 2006. Bennett said he was calling from his office and that Strong and O'Brien were present. He asked him to come over to the O'Brien campaign, but Light said he was committed to the Kilrea campaign. Bennett then covered the phone for a few seconds (30 to be exact), came back and said, "don't worry about Terry. He’s going to be dropping out of the race soon, he’s been offered something.” Later, he got a call from Strong and when he again expressed his commitment to Kilrea, Strong said,"between you and me, Terry won’t be in the race much longer, he's being offered something through the party. Dimitri Pantazopoulos is working on an offer that I think Terry is going to accept.” He clarified it was a federal appointment of some sort.
Strong testimony in a nutshell:
*Bennett called Light from Bennett's kitchen and O'Brien was not present. He says no discussions were ever held within the campaign about an offer to Kilrea other than talk about his website. He says the only time the NPB was brought up was in casual conversations with others about what Kilrea would do after he withdrew from the race. He testifies those conversations never occurred with O'Brien or Bennett. He says at the time Kilrea "was shopping himself around" and everyone had an opinion about what he would do.
The examination and cross-examination was quite brief... the whole affair took only an hour for both witnesses.
It's critical for the Crown's case that this evidence be admissible. If the testimony is permitted, both Hutchison and Edelson will be able to re-examine the witnesses.
Lisa MacLeod and David Penner take the stand tomorrow after Bennett.
Funny moment of the day: When Hutchison referred to an exhibit that was labeled YYY he said it sounded more like a love song than an exhibit.
You say, I say, Hearsay
Sorry for the delay.
It's been a very interesting morning in courtroom 36. On heels of evidence expected from John Light, the Crown and Defence argued over the admissibility of his evidence, along with evidence to come from Greg Strong and Thom Bennett. The Crown had argued that their evidence wouldn't be hearsay. Hutchison said he expected that their testimony would likely claim the following:
1) Light: that he was approached by Bennett to be part of O'Brien's campaign and that they were "working on something for Terry [Kilrea]", and in a subsequent phone call that "something was in the works" for getting Kilrea an appointment on the Hill, and that he'd be out of the election.
2) Strong: that there were ongoing discussions about what could be done to get Kilrea out of the race- that there was talk of buying his website, or talk of the NPB
3) Bennett: similar testimony to Strong.
Hutchison said if Strong's testimony wouldn't be admissible, neither would Bennett's.
He acknowledged that most of the above conversations weren't directly linked to O'Brien, but because they were taking place around August 6 (two weeks after the alleged conversation occurred between Kilrea and O'Brien on July 12) they showed that the offer hadn't been dropped on July 12 as O'Brien had told police.
(*NOTE* Yesterday in a video taped interview between the OPP's lead investigator Brian Mason and O'Brien, O'Brien told police he told Kilrea on July 12- after their first meeting- that he could do nothing for Kilrea and that if he wanted a NPB appointment, he'd have to submit an application).
Hutchison went on to argue that the testimony would demonstrate that the statements were made; would show the timing of them; and the subject matter would lead to the overall truthfulness in the end. Further, it would bolster Kilrea's credibility in his testimony that when he and O'Brien met during the second meeting, the NPB appointment was again discussed... again, that it hadn't been taken off the table back on July 12.
The Defence argued that the testimony would indeed by hearsay. Edelson argued that if the witnesses heard the information from any source except for O'Brien himself than it would be hearsay and irrelevant. He drew on several past cases to make his point. He argued that Hutchison had to prove the origin on the statements, that he couldn't just use the evidence for the purpose of statements.
The Judge ruled that the evidence will be presented within a voir dire. Essentially, the witnesses will give their testimony and at the end the Judge will decide if it's admissible. If it is, they will give their testimony again but within the actual trial. Edelson has said he'll focus his line of testimony on whether their evidence is directly linked to O'Brien.
Light is expected to tesify this afternoon, followed by Strong and then Bennett.
It's been a very interesting morning in courtroom 36. On heels of evidence expected from John Light, the Crown and Defence argued over the admissibility of his evidence, along with evidence to come from Greg Strong and Thom Bennett. The Crown had argued that their evidence wouldn't be hearsay. Hutchison said he expected that their testimony would likely claim the following:
1) Light: that he was approached by Bennett to be part of O'Brien's campaign and that they were "working on something for Terry [Kilrea]", and in a subsequent phone call that "something was in the works" for getting Kilrea an appointment on the Hill, and that he'd be out of the election.
2) Strong: that there were ongoing discussions about what could be done to get Kilrea out of the race- that there was talk of buying his website, or talk of the NPB
3) Bennett: similar testimony to Strong.
Hutchison said if Strong's testimony wouldn't be admissible, neither would Bennett's.
He acknowledged that most of the above conversations weren't directly linked to O'Brien, but because they were taking place around August 6 (two weeks after the alleged conversation occurred between Kilrea and O'Brien on July 12) they showed that the offer hadn't been dropped on July 12 as O'Brien had told police.
(*NOTE* Yesterday in a video taped interview between the OPP's lead investigator Brian Mason and O'Brien, O'Brien told police he told Kilrea on July 12- after their first meeting- that he could do nothing for Kilrea and that if he wanted a NPB appointment, he'd have to submit an application).
Hutchison went on to argue that the testimony would demonstrate that the statements were made; would show the timing of them; and the subject matter would lead to the overall truthfulness in the end. Further, it would bolster Kilrea's credibility in his testimony that when he and O'Brien met during the second meeting, the NPB appointment was again discussed... again, that it hadn't been taken off the table back on July 12.
The Defence argued that the testimony would indeed by hearsay. Edelson argued that if the witnesses heard the information from any source except for O'Brien himself than it would be hearsay and irrelevant. He drew on several past cases to make his point. He argued that Hutchison had to prove the origin on the statements, that he couldn't just use the evidence for the purpose of statements.
The Judge ruled that the evidence will be presented within a voir dire. Essentially, the witnesses will give their testimony and at the end the Judge will decide if it's admissible. If it is, they will give their testimony again but within the actual trial. Edelson has said he'll focus his line of testimony on whether their evidence is directly linked to O'Brien.
Light is expected to tesify this afternoon, followed by Strong and then Bennett.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
It's a wrap
Baird took the stand for 2 hours today and after 7 days on the witness stand, Kilrea has stepped down.
For all the build up, Baird's testimony was anti-climatic; nothing new was revealed, and the Crown and Defence didn't push too hard. Despite some speculation that a meeting at Hy's Steakhouse would be on the agenda, it wasn't mentioned in any way.
As a funny aside, with all the national media present today, the courtroom was full to the brim. After Baird left the courtroom and the media followed - virtually emptying the courtroom - Hutchison joked, "I'll try not to take it personally", and the Judge followed with, "Was it something I said?"
Kilrea's testimony finished with a few comments by Edelson. He told Kilrea:
1) O'Brien told Kilrea that he [O'Brien] could do nothing for the NPB appointment, and told him he should pursue it with Baird because Kilrea knew him better than O'Brien did.
2) O'Brien said Kilrea would have a better shot at getting on city council than becoming a mayor.
3) O'Brien never offered to pay Kilrea's expenses and reimburse him.
Edelson tells Kilrea he's told a story that bears little resemblance to the real events. He says Kilrea was the one who brought up the NPB issue before O'Brien.
Edelson cites the many times Kilrea consulted his lawyer for smaller issues throughout his political career, yet when this alleged offer came his way, he didn't contact his lawyer.
Edelson tells Kilrea he had a "nuclear bomb" that he could've fired at O'Brien during the mayoral race, but he chose not to use it as a political weapon.
Kilrea testifies (under Crown examination) that the reason he never went public with the alleged offer before the election was because he didn't know it was illegal, and that he felt it would torpedo O'Brien's campaign.
In regards to the different versions of his affidavit, Kilrea says he never referenced the emails at his disposal; that he expressed concern to the polygraph examiner that he could be a week off on the dates; and that he never intended to mislead anyone with the affidavit.
When asked why he entered politics, Kilrea said he felt that things could be a little different if he entered - a change from Chiarelli politics.
Outside the courtroom, Kilrea said he was glad to have his life back. He said he wouldn't be following the trial and that he just wanted to get back to his job and enjoy a nice dinner tonight. As for returning to politics, Kilrea said he wouldn't close any door... he said he would consider returning for a run at city council.
Court resumes Monday. The next witness hasn't been confirmed, although it is expected to be the lead investigator in the case.
For all the build up, Baird's testimony was anti-climatic; nothing new was revealed, and the Crown and Defence didn't push too hard. Despite some speculation that a meeting at Hy's Steakhouse would be on the agenda, it wasn't mentioned in any way.
As a funny aside, with all the national media present today, the courtroom was full to the brim. After Baird left the courtroom and the media followed - virtually emptying the courtroom - Hutchison joked, "I'll try not to take it personally", and the Judge followed with, "Was it something I said?"
Kilrea's testimony finished with a few comments by Edelson. He told Kilrea:
1) O'Brien told Kilrea that he [O'Brien] could do nothing for the NPB appointment, and told him he should pursue it with Baird because Kilrea knew him better than O'Brien did.
2) O'Brien said Kilrea would have a better shot at getting on city council than becoming a mayor.
3) O'Brien never offered to pay Kilrea's expenses and reimburse him.
Edelson tells Kilrea he's told a story that bears little resemblance to the real events. He says Kilrea was the one who brought up the NPB issue before O'Brien.
Edelson cites the many times Kilrea consulted his lawyer for smaller issues throughout his political career, yet when this alleged offer came his way, he didn't contact his lawyer.
Edelson tells Kilrea he had a "nuclear bomb" that he could've fired at O'Brien during the mayoral race, but he chose not to use it as a political weapon.
Kilrea testifies (under Crown examination) that the reason he never went public with the alleged offer before the election was because he didn't know it was illegal, and that he felt it would torpedo O'Brien's campaign.
In regards to the different versions of his affidavit, Kilrea says he never referenced the emails at his disposal; that he expressed concern to the polygraph examiner that he could be a week off on the dates; and that he never intended to mislead anyone with the affidavit.
When asked why he entered politics, Kilrea said he felt that things could be a little different if he entered - a change from Chiarelli politics.
Outside the courtroom, Kilrea said he was glad to have his life back. He said he wouldn't be following the trial and that he just wanted to get back to his job and enjoy a nice dinner tonight. As for returning to politics, Kilrea said he wouldn't close any door... he said he would consider returning for a run at city council.
Court resumes Monday. The next witness hasn't been confirmed, although it is expected to be the lead investigator in the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
