20

Tale of the Tape: Unspooling the Timeline


 

UPDATE: Courtesy of Une femme verte: The Cadman scrum/QP highlights reel

Note: All dates taken from the Notice of Motion submitted by the Conservative Party of Canada.

April 1, 2008

Liberal Justice Critic Dominic Leblanc holds press conference calling on the Prime Minister to “testify on the Cadman affair, and without [his] consent or authorization, played the doctored audiotape.” (Affidavit of Prime Minister Stephen Harper dated June 2)

April 17, 2008

  • The first appearance of the Cadman “Explain the Tape” Van: “Several Young Liberals played the audiotape while driving around downtown Ottawa in a van with my photograph painted on the side of the van.” (Harper affidavit)
  • Gowling Lafleur Henderson lawyer Wendy Wagner asks forensic audio expert R. Alan Gough if he can determine “what caused” the “interruption of the recording” at the 1:45 second mark. Note: This is a new, unplayed wire-to-wire audio tape of the interview. In her letter to Gough, Wagner notes that author Tom Zytaruk had “previously” provided the firm with a duplicate audiotape of the interview “that has an interruption of the recording at about the one minute-45 second mark.” (Affidavit of Alan Gough)

April 18, 2008

Gough begins his analysis of the tape received from Gowlings.

April 28, 2008

Gowlings Lafleur Henderson associate Richard Dearden, Harper’s lawyer for his defamation lawsuit against the Liberal Party of Canada, asks forensic audio expert Thomas J. Owen of Owl Investigations to “provide [his] opinion” on whether the wire-to-wire copy of the tape provided to Gowlings by Zytaruk “records the entire interview by Mr. Zytaruk of Prime Minister Harper?” (Affidavit of Thomas J. Owen)

April 30, 2008

Owen begins his analysis of the tape received from Gowlings.

May 3, 2008

Owen ships the tape back to Gowlings via FedEx.

May 12, 2008

Owen receives “a GE-Model 3-5377-3622CG” – a cassette recorder – for “examination and analysis”.

May 15, 2008

Gough prepares a report of his findings.

May 19, 2008

Owen transcribes the conversation from the Memorex tape.

May 22, 2008

Gough receives an email from Dearden asking if he can “identify the source of the loud burst of noise that is heard at the very beginning of the wire-to-wire copy of the audiotape provided to [him]?”

May 23, 2008

Affidavit sworn by Dona Cadman

May 26, 2008

Affidavit sworn by Dan Wallace, former legislative assistant to Chuck Cadman

May 29, 2008

Affidavit sworn by forensic audio analyst Tom Owen

June 2, 2008

  • Gough files a supplementary report in response to the May 22 request from Dearden, in which he concludes that “the burst of white noise or static at the beginning of the recording is not an acoustic event” but an “electrical event”; and, that “the source of the loud burst of static or ‘white noise’ at the beginning of the copy provided is unknown.”
  • Affidavits sworn by: Prime Minister Stephen Harper; Executive Assistant Ray Novak; Press Secretary Carolyn Stewart-Olsen; Conservative Research Group video specialist Jeffrey Ballingall; Forensic audio analyst Alan Gough

June 3, 2008

Affidavit sworn by Gowlings articling student Vicky Edgecombe

June 4, 2008

Conservative Party of Canada files notice of motion (Injunction Restraining the Use of An Audiotape) with Ontario Superior Court

September 16, 2008

Motion for injunction to be argued before Ontario Superior Court (projected)


 

Tale of the Tape: Unspooling the Timeline

  1. Gough has stated in his affadavit that he analysed a copy. He even hedges his conclusions based on this fact.

  2. I am intrigued as to why Owen was brought in ten days after Gough was first contacted. Why not have the analysis done simultaneously?

  3. First analysis (Gough’s) wasn’t going how they wanted?

  4. Hmmm… and Owen – a Republican donator and operative – interesting.

    Do the RCMP not have experts in this field?

  5. I watched a couple of interviews yesterday. One question that was *not* asked of any Conservative (that I saw) was whether gough and Owen were the *only* ones hired to analyse the tape. Would, for example, the Cons have cherry- picked their most convenient responses from an array of analyses?
    This may have opened up an unpalatable can of worms: if we are to beleive the Conservatives, they really have no choice now but to sue Zytaruk for publicising an false interview.
    Otherwise, Zytaruk will have to sue the Conservatives for essentially calling him a liar.

  6. You mean.. you mean.. the editing-and-doctoring analysis may have been edited and doctored? Wheels within wheels!

    It’s odd the Tories didn’t go in-house with their analysis. Surely Gurmant Grewal has free time and keen expertise to offer.

  7. Ah! now we have the slow and sure decay of a once mighty pseudo-scandal now being unravelled before our very eyes. The next sound you hear will be defense council pleading no contest and attempting to settle out of court on the Libel Charges.

  8. How I wish people would stop calling the Harper Conservatives “Tories”.

    So many honourable Canadians must be thrashing and howling in their graves.

    Owens may have been recommended to them by Frank Lutz or someone of that ilk. “He’ll get you what you need.”

  9. Can you please ban Wayne?
    I would like to see his tedious trolling comments show up under a fresh name…

  10. Maybe Wayne is getting paid on how many Cons talking point comments he can leave on here. ;)

    I do wish, Wayne, you would at least vary your Cons. talking points a bit – they’re almost word-for-word the same in every thread. It looks to me like you’ve got them written down in front of you and you’re re-typing them every time you see this subject come up.

  11. Having spent a large part of my professional life dealing with evidence, often similar to the two reports by the experts, I would suggest that the evidence that the tapes have been tampered with is very strong.
    But let us step back and look at this. The prime minister of this county is accused of criminal behaviour based on a doctored tape – where is the outrage? At the very least I would expect a withdrawal of the accusations and an apology. Why are the media not demanding an explanation from the accusers? Instead we get suggestions that “my expert” will say whatever I pay him to say.
    Is this what Canadian politics has sunk to?

  12. Have you ever noticed how frustrated left wing nuts just love to insult and put down other people who post things – like where do you get this talking points exactly what do you mean … never mind I lost my head for a moment and have to consider that it must really suck to be a Liberal or fascimile these days. Barry W above states in clearly.

  13. As an aside, maybe rates in New Jersey are a little different than they are here in LA, but I thought Owen was a little expensive.

    But aren’t there such analysts in Canada? And I agree–if this is something so vaguely important, why did not the RCMP do the analysis?

    And finally–I’ve hired enough “experts” in my law career to know that you can ALWAYS find one to say what you want him to.

  14. Having spent a large part of my professional life as a dog, I would suggest that your assertions as to your professional life on an anonymous forum are meaningless, and that the experts unwillingness to suggest that the authenticity of the conversation is in doubt has far more strength than your suggestion.

    But let us step back and look at this. The Prime Minister is accused of criminal behavior based on a supposedly doctored tape – where is the outrage? At the very least I would expect a legal suit against the purveyor of the tape and a denial of the tapes’ contents. Why are the conservative apologists not demanding rational thought from themselves? Instead we get suggestions that the party which lied about their position on unelected senators, floor-crossing ministers, softwood lumber, income trusts, and health care wait-times guarantees will say something honest? Is this what conservative gullibility has risen to?

  15. “Hmmm… and Owen – a Republican donator and operative – interesting.”

    I bet he’s in the pocket of BigOil, too….. maybe this whole thing is all George Bush’s fault?

  16. This story should by all rights be getting far more attention than it is. Leftists rule the media in Canada.

  17. We can hardly expect unbiased coverage from Kady on this. Afterall, she actually suggested that had the Conservatives *come clean and admit* they offered a bribe to a dying man, they’d be better off in the long run.

    The suggestion that the story might be bogus and that maybe the Prime Minister isn’t a criminal doesn’t even register for partial consideration with her.

    Its also interesting to watch the liberal idiots on here – proud defenders of the sponsorship racket where the LPC funneled $40 million of our money to line their pockets – now demanding the arrest of the current PM despite the fact that the only crime committed was the Liberals libelling him.

  18. I find the Liberal Party very hypocritical, that rail on the Conservative Party about how corrupt the Conservatives are or how the Conservatives had embarassed Canada on the International & National scene yet the Libs do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up in Parliament and vote against the Conservatives, at least the NDP has taken on the roll of official opposition. The Libs are the ones in deep trouble in Canada, they have no plan for Canada either domestically or Internationally; all that the Libs can come up with is pseudo scandals that go nowhere. Every Lib MP should be fired.

  19. In order to discredit his self incriminating statements on a video tape, Harper launched legal action against the Liberal party of Canada. “Restraining the Use of an Audiotape”; Not against Zytaruk for publicising a false interview. Not once did he deny it was his voice, or explain the meaning of his statements. This is a move to confuse an issue that could be extremely damaging to Harper. A strategy of intimidation and deception that is worthy of Robert Mugabe.

Sign in to comment.