Yes, ITQ is headed back to the Ottawa courthouse this morning for what could turn out to be the first of several days devoted to the defence of Larry O’Brien after the judge rejected the argument that Ottawa’s mayor-in-limbo can’t possibly have broken the law because even if he had offered an appointment to a rival candidate — not that he’s admitting he did any such thing, mind you — well, that’s just politics, and not a potentially criminal offence. Yeah, the judge didn’t think much of that line of reasoning either, as it turned out.
Meanwhile, there’s much speculation over whether O’Brien himself will take the stand, but there’s also the distinct possibility that Team Larry will elect — no pun intended — to go straight to closing arguments, and take a pass on that whole witness-calling evidence-presenting stage of the proceedings. We won’t know until today’s hearing gets underway at around 10am, so be sure to check back for complete coverage, ITQ-style.
Good morning, fans of desperation-inspired summertime liveblogging, and welcome to today’s installment of Law and Order: City Politics Unit, and most profound and sincere apologies for being so late with the first update of the day — I was all set to post a cute little scenesetter when I accidentally clicked on a link in an email, and — well, anyone who has ever tried to use WordPress on a BlackBerry is now shaking their head in silent sympathy. (Dear RIM. Any chance you guys can do something about that? Love, ITQ.)
Anyway, as it turns out we may not even get around to hearing the witness(es) for the defence, if any — apparently undaunted by their lack of success last time around, the rumour is that Team Larry lead counsel Michael Edelson may have *another* directed verdict motion up his sleeve, which means we’ll have to hear arguments on that before getting down to mayor-defending business.
Right now, though, we’re all sort of wondering what’s taking so long, since proceedings were supposed to get underway fifteen minutes ago. I’ll keep you all posted. Oh, and the mayor is here, in a dashingly summery suit. He looks entirely non-nonplussed, but then, he always does.
And — here we go. All rise!
Hutchinson is up first with a bit of housekeeping business — the proposed recall of Detective Sgt. Mason, on which the two sides have apparently come to an agreement, which means they don’t have to bring him back after all.
The second issue is on an outstanding ruling on the admissibility and use of statements made by Kilrea and Pollster Dimitri during that now infamous lunch meeting.
Apparently, the judge never got around to deciding whether or not that portion of the testimony should be allowed in as evidence, so it’s a bit of a loose end. It’s not clear whether the two sides are really in disagreement — the defence thinks it should be admissible as far as it shows Kilrea contradicting his own previous statements, but no further, and the Crown thinks it should *all* be let in, since it forms part of the overall narrative.
The judge takes it under advisement, and promises to rule after the morning break.
Okay, so it seems that Team Larry *will* be taking another run at getting a directed verdict.
Which means that we’re going to spend the next few hours listening to first Hutchinson, then Edelson make their respective cases to the court. It’ll be like a preview of closing arguments, without the sense of drawing ever nearer to the end! Or, alternately, a recap of everything that has happened since the trial got underway. Oh boy.
NOTE: It turns out ITQ may have gotten horribly confused at this point, because at that point, the court actually moved onto final arguments, which she — neophyte to the court reporting gig that she is — mistook for the directed verdict debate.
Okay, so Hutchinson wants the judge — and presumably the rest of us as well –to understand that his entire case does *not* hinge on the testimony and credibility of Terry Kilrea. He points to what he claims is corroborating testimony from Lisa MacLeod, and insists that his case was actually *bolstered* by the testimony from John Baird and John Reynolds — who, ITQ must point out, were *his witnesses*, so one would *hope* their testimony helped out.
Terry Kilrea was *not* a “joke candidate”, Hutchinson stresses — he ran in 2003 with little support, financial or otherwise, but still managed to get just over 30% support. It wasn’t quite a “machine”, but he had a base. He was a longshot, but not a “fringe candidate”, and that’s why he made it onto O’Brien’s radar.
Hutchinson continues with his narrative, reminding us that during the summer of 2006, O’Brien’s easy victory over his rivals was hardly a foregone conclusion, especially if he and Kilrea were competing for the right-wing small-c conservative vote. It was *O’Brien* who approached Kilrea for a meeting, and it is “perfectly consistent” with Kilrea’s claims, since the goal – as per Hutchinson – was to get him to voluntarily leave the race, and that would take more than being sweet-talked over coffee at 700 Sussex. Yes, I did accidentally type 24 Sussex — what can I say; I suddenly flashed back to a little Cape Breton enterprise-in-waiting called Bear Head.
Hutchinson, by the way, thinks that the minor “discrepencies” that have “crept up” in Kilrea’s version of events — dates, times, that sort of thing — are the sorts of minor inconsistencies that you’d expect in an honest recollection of events.
As such, he really doesn’t think the judge should hold it against the witness, at least as far as his credibility goes — even O’Brien didn’t pick up on the erroneous date when he was first asked about it, he points out.
O’Brien, Hutchinson notes, claimed to have the backing of powerful local C/conservatives who would be miffed if Kilrea and O’Brien were both in the race, since, in that case, neither of them would be “viable candidates”. It wasn’t like he was talking about “aliens on Mars” who would support Kilrea if he agreed to drop out — he had, as per Kilrea, a “team” that could find Kilrea “other employment”. There is nothing “inherently improbable or unrealistic” about any of that taking place at the meeting, Hutchinson notes.
Also, I know Hutchinson is just trying to weave the most coherent, internally consistent narrative possible, and he’s an out-of-towner besides, but does *anyone* buy his argument that the fact that O’Brien “worked on the Manning campaign” would have automatically make it seem as though he was in tight with the current Conservative clique? Because — no. Just no. Which isn’t to say he didn’t/doesn’t/didn’t *think* he did, of course.
After his initial squeamishness over the unseemliness of the term, Hutchinson now appears to be attempting to work the phrase “big swinging dick contest” into every sentence.
Remember, O’Brien *did* call John Reynolds, Hutchinson notes — although Reynolds doesn’t seem to remember any of it, even though he — Reynolds, that is — allegedly read him the riot act, as far as the legalities of handing out federal appointments like campaign buttons and thundersticks.
The email entered into evidence in support of the Crown’s case – from O’Brien to Kilrea, from Kilrea to Baird; all of it, really – backs up the “objective narrative”, according to Hutchinson — it is “incontrovertible evidence” that belies O’Brien’s initial explanation when questioned about the allegations. “I will get hold of him next week,” O’Brien promised Kilrea after confessing that Baird hadn’t called him back — what else could that possibly mean, but that he was continuing to help Kilrea out with his efforts to land in the queue for the parole board job?
Update! Apparently, these *are* closing arguments! At least, according to CBC. My apologies to all — but at least we don’t have to listen to this whole summation again, right? I’ve added a note earlier in the liveblog, so hopefully you’ll all forgive me.
Hutchinson notes that Kilrea was told, during cross-examination, in *no uncertain terms* that a minister of the crown — John Baird, to be precise — was prepared to come to court and contradict his testimony, yet he didn’t back down. He was polite, and acknowledged that perhaps he might be mistaken, but doesn’t collapse in a heap of self-doubt — and, as it turned out, Baird didn’t even do so. He *confirmed* Kilrea’s account of the meeting.
On that dramatic note, and just as Hutchinson, who is *finally* getting into the spirit of things, is asking the court to just imagine what it must have been like for poor Terry Kilrea to be told that his “political mentor” was prepared to throw him to the wolves when he took the stand, the judge decides we’ve had enough fun for one morning, and calls for a break. See you in twenty minutes!
Okay, so the prediction is that Hutchinson will probably go for most of the rest of today, and Edelson will be up for at least two days after that with *his* closing arguments. There’s still one outstanding motion that I know of — the one about Sgt. Mason — but depending on how long the judge mulls things over, we could have a verdict by next week.
There is, I must report, a crisis of sorts on the interweb front — the courthouse wifi seems to be suffering from a touch of ennui, causing much consternation amongst the laptopped contingent. ITQ is a bit better off, as she’s relying on pure berrycurrent, but even that is proving tenuous today, so if the updates suddenly stop, it’s not due to the liveblogger having been lulled to sleep by the sophirific tones of Scott Hutchinson. I promise.
And we’re back – back at that fateful meeting between Baird and Kilrea, that is – and Hutchinson is once again pointing out that it is Larry O’Brien who confirms much of Kilrea’s account, including a subsequent phone call between the two. In his statement to police, O’Brien claimed that by that point, Kilrea’s value as an “asset” was diminishing, since he – O’Brien – was starting to build up his own team, and was less in need of Kilrea’s lists and contacts. Kilrea, though, was still talking about the parole board, despite the fact that O’Brien had “moved on”, as per his own account. The problem with *that*, Hutchinson argues, is that it is impossible to reconcile that version of events with the contemporaneous emails, in which the issue of “John” – Baird, presumably – keeps coming up. If all they had were those emails, and those inconsistencies, he’d have a good case, Hutchinson tells the judge with becoming modesty — but that’s not all he had, as it turns out: He has the testimony of an elected member of the Ontario legislature, Lisa MacLeod, who remembers O’Brien saying that “we’re talking to Kilrea about an appointment”. If the appointment gambit was “dead” by that point, why would it come up?
Lisa MacLeod, Hutchinson stresses, had absolutely nothing to gain from coming forward with her testimony — but she did so, and despite his “slip” during initial questioning, when he mentioned the parole board before she brought it up, she had independently recalled that detail during her initial interview — a fact that the defence, he can’t resist pointing out, was helpful enough to establish during cross-examination.
On to Greg Strong and John Light, and more conversations that, when viewed through the competing prisms of Kilrea’s version of events versus that of the mayor, seem to back up the former, as far as Hutchinson is concerned, although he notes that Strong did take “a different view” from Light as far as *his* recollection of the conversation(s) with John Bennett. Strong, of course, has a “long history” with O’Brien, and benefited from a sizeable financial contribution from O’Brien to a charity related to an illness suffered by one of his children. As such, Hutchinson suggest that his testimony should be taken with that in mind.
If there was no offer, and if Pollster Dimitri is right when he says that they cut off communication with Kilrea in mid-July — what was the reason for that later meeting? It could only be to discuss the appointment.
Also, ITQ would like to send out her heartiest totally off-topic congratulations to Ryan Sparrow, who will be winging his way back to the Hill as the new spokesperson for Human Resources Minister — and blue-ribboned panelist — Diane Finley. Gosh, with both Sparrow *and* Pierre Poilievre on the job, bipartisan cooperation and harmony is surely but a conference call away.
Meanwhile, back in the courtroom, Hutchinson is advising the judge not to put too much weight on the fact that Kilrea’s affidavit for the Ottawa Citizen went through a “modest evolution” before it was finalized. That actually doesn’t sound like a terribly significant issue – I mean, aren’t most legal documents the product of at least a couple of revisions?
On to “reasonable doubt”, and whether the crown has proved its case — yes, we’re there already, apparently — and Hutchinson wants us to just *think*, for a moment, about what kind of Machiavellian schemer Kilrea would have to be to have come up with such an elaborate – outlandish, even – plot — without even knowing about the seemingly corroboratory email and phone records. He gets a laugh from Team Larry’s side of the court when he notes that there are “a lot of adjectives” one can use to describe Kilrea, but evil genius? Not one of them. As for Lisa MacLeod, if you don’t believe Kilrea, she’d have to be either “a fool or a liar”. Or possibly both, I guess.
According to Hutchinson, Kilrea is an “inherently credible” witness — he served the province as a peace officer, even. Even if you may not have voted for him, you can still believe that he’s telling the truth.
Kilrea may be “a bit of a blunderer” – and an inexperienced politician – but he gave the kind of evidence an “honest person” would provide — with the occasional inconsistency, because hey, it’s not like he learned it “by rote.”
Again, of all the words that come to mind when you think of Terry Kilrea, “criminal mastermind”, Hutchinson reminds us, are not among them.
O’Brien has been “quite candid” in admitting that this was all about puffing himself up — he was the guy who phoned John Reynolds – who, Hutchinson points out, had an “important job” within the Conservative Party at that point.
Finally – yes, “finally” – he just practically *promised* the judge that he’ll be done within the next ten minutes or so — Hutchinson addresses the law under which O’Brien has been charged, which requires only that the accused *purports* to have influence, not that he actually *has* the influence in question — and yes, pretending to have it counts, unless he was genuinely unaware that he was sending that message. After calling up ‘his friend and houseguest’ John Reynolds, he told Kilrea that his name was “in the queue”. Whether or not it was or not is irrelevant.
When Hutchinson points out to the judge that even if it had been *Kilrea* who first brought up the possibility of the parole board, it would make no difference under the law, the person sitting in front of me can no longer restrain himself: “Yes it does,” he hisses.
Apparently not – at least, not according to the crown’s reading of the law. All that matters is whether or not he purported to be able to make that happen. Somehow, I suspect we’ll hear a different interpretation from Edelson when *he* gets the floor later today.
True to his word, after making one last gambol through the narrative – at least, as he sees it – Hutchinson brings his argument to a gentle, but firm close as the clock strikes 1:05pm, at which point the judge – who, interestingly, has no questions for the crown — adjourns the court til 2:15pm. See you then!
We’re back! Well, nearly. Anyway, just to catch everyone up, the Crown’s preemptive response to the defence argument that they didn’t make their case is that *even if you have doubts* about the credibility of their star witness, the emails and phone logs back up his version of events far more than that offered by Larry O’Brien, who – ITQ can point out, but Hutchinson can’t – has apparently chosen not to testify, thus making his statement to police the definitive version of his story, as far as this case. Kilrea’s account was also corroborated, at least in part, by the testimony of John Baird, John Light and, most noteably, Lisa MacLeod, all of whom confirmed at least some of what he told the court. Even under the full weight of a classic Edelman marathon interrogation, Kilrea’s story — well, mostly held up, as per the Crown. There were a few inconsistencies, to be sure, but nothing critical — and that’s what you’d *expect* from a witness who is, at his core, an honest, candid person.
As I type this, by the way, Mayor-in-limbo Larry is holding court with a gaggle of spectators — one of whom sounds eerily like, oh shoot – what’s her name; Ruth something, she was in Rosemary’s Baby and Harold and Maude — who announces to all and sundry that Larry is “the best mayor we’ve ever had.” Gordon, that’s it: Ruth Gordon.
And – we’re back, with an opening — explanation, as it transpires, courtesy of Michael Edelso, who tells the judge that Hutchinson actually wrapped up his closing argument a wee bit sooner than Team Larry had expected based on discussions between the two sides last week, which is why the closing brief isn’t quite ready, and, as a result, why most of his team is currently missing from the courtroom as they feverishly assemble the last bits and pieces. He does have a few introductory remarks, though. That’s fortunate, because it would be just plain embarrassing if he had to ask for an adjournment so they could get their final act together.
Edelson is a pro — he may not have his notes, but he’s not going to let that break his stride; he begins by pointing out that, as far as he can tell, there has been no evidence proferred of any influence being peddled. Case closed. Wait, no, not closed: He has more. More! Hutchinson, he tells us, had a particular “anticipation” of how the case was going to unfold, based on what he assumed Kilrea would say on the stand; specifically, that Kilrea would confirm that O’Brien had offered to buy his website – good old runawaytrain.com/ca – which he didn’t. Kilrea’s evidence is a “sinking quicksand”, Edelson suggests — his story “constantly changes”, even leading up to the trial.
“Quicksand is right,” the Ghost of Ruth Gordon whispers, theatrically, to her companion; she’s sitting right in front of the Hot Room Memorial Media Annex — otherwise known as me and Glen, who have been relegated to the other side of the courtroom from the rest of our colleagues.
Edelson makes a big deal over the conspicuous absence of Tim Tierney from the witness list — he was, after all, Kilrea’s webmaster at the time, and was in constant conversation with his client about the fate of the site, and was “in control of the email”, which is why his house was searched by the police. Trivia note: He is — or, at least, was — also the webmaster for the Liberal Party of Canada, and unless I’m mixing him up with some other alliteratively-named Liberal webmaster, he once threatened a parody site with a lawsuit over alleged copyright infringment. Bad form, probably Tim Tierney; bad form. Anyway, none of that is remotely relevant to this case, but if I were a Team Larry strategist, I’m not sure if I’d want to draw attention to witnesses not called, what with not calling *any witnesses at all*.
“There was *no offer* made at any time by Mr. O’Brien,” Edelson contends — Kilrea was the only one who brought up the parole board, and he had ‘a number of motives’ to do so. The only “offers” of which O’Brien was aware were those related to his “assets” – the mailing list, and the website.
Edelson has finally hit the (purported) credibility gap – Kilrea’s credibility, that is; he describes his testimony as both unreliable *and* not credible. He has made statements under oath that are not true, Edelson maintains, and directs the judge to turn to a particular page in MacMillan’s book on evidence — of which, he slyly points out, his friend (read: rival) Hutchinson is, in fact, a co-editor, which states that, when a principal witness gives testimony that contradicts earlier statements made under oath, the judge must “caution” the jury as to the danger of acting on that evidence. I have to think the judge is well aware of that convention, but Edelson is going to explain it in detail anyway.
Okay, the “mmmm-hmmming” from Team Larry-supporting spectators is getting a bit unsettling. It’s not like there’s anyone on the other side — literally and figuratively — decked out in a pro-Hutchinson t-shirt and waving a giant foam finger.
When someone gives “contradictory” versions of an event, that is the first sign that one is dealing with an inconsistent witness, Edelson insists — and that is one of the Crown’s major problems in this case.
(Note: I’m having *horrible* trouble connecting to the server – apologies for seemingly lackadaisical updates.)
Oh, good: Edelson is going to put forward a scenario, based on what Parliament would have intended when it passed the laws against purported-influence-peddling: His client, after all, wasn’t even in the race in July 2006, when he first made contact with Kilrea. “Exactly,” mutters Ghost of Ruth Gordon. (Seriously, Edelson’s Amen corner is starting to freak me out. I don’t know if they’re doing this for our — the media’s — benefit, or each other, or maybe to make O’Brien feel even more like a rockstar.)
Kilrea, meanwhile, had “exactly the same conversation” with Brian McGarry — hey, i remember him — last time around; McGarry told him the same thing, which was that, as small-c conservatives, either would have problems winning if both stayed in the race. The two arrived at a “mirror image” arrangement, even — whichever of the two was lower in the polls by that fall would drop out and support the other.
For some reason — I’m not *completely* sure why — the fact that O’Brien mentioned that Kilrea had said that he might qualify to become a Justice of the Peace before mentioning the parole board– a revelation, Edelson stresses, that came out in response to his perfectly innocent question on what Kilrea planned to do after the election if he lost. It was Kilrea who raised the issue of the parole board — not O’Brien — and O’Brien told him he should put in a resume and an application — which Kilrea would have known, because *he had already applied* for the Justice of the Peace job. Case closed! Wait, no, still not closed.
Parliament, however, would never have meant to criminalize this sort of discussion, Edelson maintains. Isn’t that awfully close to the argument that the judge fairly resoundingly rejected last month? I guess not, because the judge doesn’t seem to mind him plunging onwards: It was Terry Kilrea who first brought up the appointment, and who talked about the JotP gig. You can’t allow Kilrea to throw that option on the table in front of *his* client — who goes off to check the legality of such a suggestion, and comes back with a firm “no” — and call that an offence – not an offence committed by Larry O’Brien, at least
Okay, Edelson goes off on this elaborate extended film metaphor, comparing the Crown’s version of events to The Sting — a movie that I’ve never actually stayed awake to the end of, incidentally, but I know the gist, and I can see where he’s going with this. Although I’m not sure if it entirely dismisses the possibility that O’Brien himself was sufficiently deluded with self-invented grandeur that he actually believed he had sufficient influence in local Conservative circles to be able to get Kilrea a federal job.
But Edelson makes a decent point – why would O’Brien send Kilrea to *Baird* – who, he notes, Kilrea knew better than did O’Brien, and would “explode” the “sting” as soon as he was brought into the loop. Unless, of course, O’Brien thought that he might help Kilrea out.
Also, in response to a query from a reader: No, Edelson’s phone hasn’t rung since that unfortunate incident earlier this afternoon. Way to risk ticking off the judge and having all our BlackBerries confiscated, counsellor.
Kilrea was actually *dropping* in the polls before the meeting with Pollster Dimitri, Edelson points out. He’d also like to remind the judge that they — the defence — have “no onus” to establish Kilrea’s motives — “we’re not detectives; we’re not here to solve the case.
Oh, and his brief is finally here — slightly delayed but doubtless all the better for it. Edelson gives a quick overview of the delights it contains — so many arguments addressed, particularly the offer itself — and the — “maig” issue? I don’t think I heard that properly.
And with that, it’s time for the last break of the day. See you back here in fifteen minutes. Yeah, I know — I miss Oliphant hours too.
I have to say that the courthouse does have one advantage over both the Hill and
Old City Hall — the opportunities for peoplewatching are pretty much unbeatable, mostly because you don’t know anyone, so the possibilities are endless. So much scope for the imagination. The elevators, on the other hand, are malevolently mercurial. I don’t think I’ve made it from A to B yet without at least one unnecessary trip to the bowels or the attic.
And we’re back — I actually managed to miss the official all-rise back-getting because I was out in the hall gossiping with Boffo Globe Bureau Blogger Bill Curry (and try saying that five times fast). Don’t worry, I’m pretty sure Edelson didn’t win the case while I was lollygagging, because he hasn’t moved onto rating the superhunks.
He is, in fact, preparing for what I assume will be the centrepiece of his closing argument: the evisceration of Terry Kilrea, from stem to stern. He begins with the dates — and Kilrea’s original claim that he stood by every detail of the affidavit.
He *knew* that he had to be factual, and careful, and told the press and police this at every opportunity — and yet. Yes, we’re getting to That Date.
This affidavit, Edelson reminds us, was prepared “at the bidding of the Ottawa Citizen” – let’s all not look at Colleague McGregor. Everyone forgets the odd date, yes — but this affidavit went through several preliminary drafts, and Kilrea had access to all the email that was on Tierney’s hard drive. He also had his own phonebills, which should have allowed him to accurately record the dates linked to events — and in the affidavit, he doesn’t state that something happened on an approximate date, he even gives the day of the week. Yet he claimed to have met Pollster Dimitri on the 11th — it was actually on the 19th — and Baird the next day; he actually met Baird “less than twenty hours later” — not a week, which was his original claim. To be off by eight days — that’s more than a glancing detail.
Edelson is still going full barrel on Kilrea’s dating problems; even when he was confronted with the possibility that he was wrong — by both the cops *and* the Crown — he refused to back down. Kilrea also misunderstood – or misinterpreted – O’Brien’s claim to have small-c conservative support as *big* C Conservative support, which created a whole different context, as far as his discussions with O’Brien — and never came up during his earlier statements and affidavits.
Ahh, this is what we stuck around for: “And now, Edelson announces, “the ratfuck allegation”. Thanks for singlehandedly ensuring that this post is doomed to be blocked by profanity filters everywhere, counsellor. Anyway, this was the alleged comment from O’Brien, which Kilrea — according to Edelson — characterized as a *direct threat* from O’Brien — not that some nebulous theoretical “we” would ratfuck him, but he, the mayor-to-be, would do so.
Colleague McGregor thinks that “ratfuck” is two words. ITQ disagrees.
I swearn, if Edelson says he’s “not going to belabour a point” before doing just that one more time, there will be — consequences. We’re on to the Kilrean contradictions and inconsistencies on the state of his campaign, his finances, the amount he’d be out of pocket if he dropped out and that sort of thing; the upshot, as per Team Larry, is that his affidavit contradicts his subsequent statements in several key areas; there was a gradual tying of expenses and reimbursement for such with leaving the race — not, Edelson points out for those of us who may have lost the thread of the plot, along with our will to live.
Ooh — apparently, the “heart of darkness” can be found on page 29 of the affidavit – that’s where that fateful initial discussion on Kilrea’s post-mayoral-campaign employment plans. Ruth Gordon and company are *very* pleased by this development — they’re chuckling along with Edelson, like a giggly Greek chorus. Anyway, onward — this, Edelson says, is the crux of the matter: Kilrea told O’Brien that the only appointment in which he would be interested would be the National Parole Board. How, pray tell, would O’Brien have *known* that Kilrea was “fishing around” for a specific appointment, Edelson wonders.
There are also several versions of what O’Brien said – including the frustratingly oblique, “what if something could be done for you?” Which could, of course, apply to virtually *any* offer, including many that are entirely on the up and up, as far as the Criminal Code.
Three different versions of the same conversation — all under oath. From the nebulous to the clumsy to the specific: “What if our team could find you other employment?” It was *Kilrea* who raised the issue of the appointment, and the parole board — not O’Brien.
Okay, I think we’ve got it. Case closed? No? Sigh.
I forgot to mention this earlier, but Edelson also chided Hutchinson for relying solely on the examination in chief when laying out his final arguments — and “cherrypicking” even that. (In fairness, isn’t that what Crowns are expected to do?)
The Ruths (that’s how I think of them now) just can’t contain their mirth whenever Edelson makes reference to “the credible Terry Kilrea”.
Two days before he met O’Brien at the Tim Horton’s, Edelson Jack McCoys, he told the Ottawa Sun that *no one* had tried to persuade him to drop out of the race — he also told “the television” the same thing; all part of the “cult of celebrity”, prolonging his ‘fifteen minutes of fame’. With A-Channel and CFRA? Wow, dare to dream. Anyway, during all these interviews, he never once mentioned the offer — and what about his claim that he “didn’t understand the appointment process”, and how “no one in authority contacted him”.
And — hey, turns out we *are* going to get out of here before midnight. Edelson offers to break for the day, since he’s about to move to a new area, and the judge agrees. Court adjourned until tomorrow at 9:30. See y’all back here then – bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.
Looking for more?
Get the best of Maclean's sent straight to your inbox. Sign up for news, commentary and analysis.