There's a story out this morning that says Dona Cadman has submitted yet another affidavit in an effort to discredit the author of her late husband's biography.In a sworn affidavit submitted in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice yesterday, Dona Cadman says the journalist did not meet Mr. Harper in the Cadmans' house and was not introduced to him by her.
Huh? In all I've read on this story I don't recall Zytaruk ever saying he met Harper in her home. In fact, it's been made clear from the start that the interview took place on the driveway.
What prompted this I wonder? I haven't read anything about this case since the Con's called their lame 'the tape is doctored' press conference. I wonder if the party is putting pressure on her, or maybe she's meeting resistance at the door?
Furthermore, none of this speaks to the obvious flaw in the lawsuit, that is, Harper's own words.
If anyone reading this is from Surrey or knows some more detail, I'd be interested.
In an interview later, Mr. Zytaruk said he does not care what Mr. Harper says about him, but is disappointed and distressed by Mrs. Cadman's affidavit.
What I find sad is the way this man is being used given just how much he apparently admired Chuck Cadman.
10 comments:
I could not believe my eyes when I saw this on newswatch....is she not the one who told the story in the first place....I guess she DOES belong in the conservative party...they are all LIars...now sue me cons....signed granny
The whole thing is an attempt to damage his credibility. The problem is that on the relevant points he has support for his position. It was the Cadman family who told him about the financial considerations, and Harper's words on the tape speak for themselves. The rest of this is a collateral attack on Zytaruk's credibility, but when you ask for her evidence to be accepted, you cannot ignore her other evidence, which is that her husband told her the CPC tried to bribe him.
Swearing a false affidavit is a pretty serious offence, so I will not assume she is making this up, though it could all come down to her faulty memory. If there is going to be a credibility contest between her and Zytaruk, the fact that she waited this long to say anything will not go in her favour.
I maintain this is all posturing by Harper to try to force the LPC to settle before he has to be cross examined.
What strikes me is just how precise a circumstance the wording describes . . .
"Nobody came inside my house while Mr Harper was in the house with me."
Does that discount anyone who was already in the house? I mean that is clearly NOT saying, "Only Mr Harper and I were in the house when he and I met."
If you have a small gathering of friends at your place and invite 5 people, all of whom arrive but Sally gets there late, is it an accurate portrayal of the gathering to state (accurately), "No one entered my house while Sally was there."
Nobody uses such very precise language in describing a common situation . . . unless you're trying to be sly with the unpopular neighbor who wasn't invited ; ). Or, unless a lawyer helps you state or pen the language for a specific intent. I suspect the latter in this case.
"I did not introduce Tom Zytaruk to Mr Harper on Sep 9 2005."
Ok, so did Mr Harper arrive while you were discussing your husband's book with his authorized autobiographer, and you stepped out of the den to speak with Mr Harper in the living room?
Or does it mean they already knew each other so no "introductions" were necessary. After all, he may well have already spoken with Mr Harper about the book. Mr Harper doesn't exactly seem to act like the author is a stranger when he speaks to him outside.
It's just bizarrely narrow wording to the point of sounding like a narrative to suggest a serious of events but not state them unequivocally so as to not perjure yourself.
My sense is the conservatives figure by optics alone the liberals will not want to "assault a grieving widow about her sworn affidavit" no matter how many holes could / should be poked in it. Apparently, Dona has signed on to that strategy.
Perhaps she doesn't have anything to do with the reporting of this, but did agree to tailor with legalistic cushioning her affidavit testimony on the matter.
Will be interesting to see if any media contact her in an attempt to clarify her statement or ask specific questions. And, if so, does she bite, or simply refer them to the sworn testimony.
I'm guessing the latter, based on this.
The whole thing is an attempt to damage his credibility.
I agree Gayle, that much is clear, but I'm still not following why she is claiming that something did not happen, when I haven't seen anyone claim it did.
granny, I agree with Gayle and don't presume that she is lying, but I take your point about the party in general.
Other than to discredit Zytaruk, I just don't see the point of this affidavit.
Something must have spurred this.
Joseph, good points.
Mr Harper doesn't exactly seem to act like the author is a stranger when he speaks to him outside.
You're right. If memory serves, Harper asks or rather states, something perlike, 'this isn't for publication' to which Zytaruk replies 'no, it's for the book not the newspaper'. (paraphrased)
Harper didn't say 'what book?' In fact he just carried speaking, which suggests that he knew about the book and he knew Zytaruk worked for a newspaper.
There is one more thing.
I actually believe this has little to do with the actual lawsuit . . . a bit perhaps but a trifle only in the larger context.
This is about public opinion of the conservatives on this whole issue.
Just having the headline is all they really wanted from this submittal.
And in the long haul, the conservatives would be pleased if they get any reading of a judgment that even remotely favors them - even if the case is thrown out or lost (for example, if the judge scolds the liberals while throwing out the lawsuit on any number of grounds). Then the conservatives have the best ending they could imagine.
They'll gladly take that over ever having to admit their leader stood on the steps (oh, sorry, affidavit writers would walk all over me, that should have been "on the drive outside the home of" - not sidewalk, but drive ; ) of a dying MP and was recorded on tape suggesting questionable financial dealings of any type with that MP.
This has been about spin from day one, and they hope that frittering away with it a little bit at a time will lessen any impact. And if they can somehow manage to get a punch in at the liberals, well, that's just gravy.
Time tested approach.
Still waiting for you lieberal dimwhits to tell me where one could buy a $1 Million Dollar Insurance Policy on a terminally ill man????
This is the craziest story since GoreBull Warming!!!
I am wondering when Mr. Zytaruk is going to say enough and hire a lawyer of his own?
And oldschool, I am wondering when Stephen Harper is going to explain why his voice is on that tape and what he meant by "financial considerations"?
I would think the "chess master" would realize that putting this issue to bed is better than letting it hang until it is brought back to the front-burner in an election campaign.
One question an astute reporter may ask the Cadman family is:
Did you authorize and approve the biography of Chuck Cadman before it was sent to publish?
Post a Comment