Categories: Inside the Queensway

Tale of the Tape Redux: "I, Dona Cadman … make oath and say" …

I finally managed to track down Dona Cadman’s second affidavit, which was sworn last…

by kadyomalley on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 4:33pm - 0 Comments

I finally managed to track down Dona Cadman’s second affidavit, which was sworn last Wednesday. I was going to say that there are no real surprises in it, but actually, that in itself was a bit of a surprise. I’ll admit that I was expecting a little more in the way of context – maybe a more detailed description of how — and where — Zytaruk and Harper met, since that appears to be the most significant disagreement between the two versions of events. Then again, it is billed as a supplementary affidavit. The exhibits might be helpful, though. I’m trying to get hold of them, and will post them if I do.

Anyway, here it is, in all its very, very succinct glory:

SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT OF DONA CADMAN

I, DONA CADMAN of the City of Surrey, British Columbia, MAKE OATH AND SAY:

1. On September 9. 2005, I met with Stephen Harper in my home located in the City of Surrey, British Columbia. Our meeting was private and we were alone the entire time Mr. Harper was in the house. Nobody came inside my house while Mr. Harper was in the house with me.

2. I did not introduce Tom Zytaruk to Mr. Harper on September 9, 2005.

3. I attach as Exhibit “A” photographs of the front of my house.

Sworn before me in the City of Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia on the 2 day of July, 2008.

Tags: Chuck Cadman, dona cadman, Stephen Harper, tale of the tape, that infamous meeting, tom zytaruk, what is 'inside'/'outside' anyway?

More by kadyomalley

Liz

Also, I recall Dona Cadman standing by Zytaruk’s version of the events that day. I’ll have to hope to find the original news article and tape, but you know how sometimes that data appears to become unavailable…

However, the Courts have force behind them and can make sure the newscasts are retrieved.
Liz

Also, didn’t Dona Cadman and her family authorize Zytaruk’s book? One would think the family would make sure all the I’s were dotted and T’s were crossed.

Curiouser and curiouser.

I wonder how Dona Cadman will do when she runs for the Conservatives.
Brad

Liz asked “If the government is prorogued does that mean that the PM and MPs are still ’sitting’?”

The House of Commons website says “The principal effect of ending a session by prorogation is to end business. All government bills that have not received Royal Assent prior to prorogation cease to exist; committee activity also ceases. Thus, no committee can sit after a prorogation.”
Compos Mentis

comment by bigcitylib on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 6:46 pm:”

“If the affidavit concerns what happened inside her house, why are pictures of the front of her house — its outside — germane?”

Who cares what the germanes think? Its enough that you’re always pulling this “I speak French” thing on us. Now you’re showing off your worldliness again? Deflate your head, Paul Wells!”

bigcitylib: you’re such a card! What a brilliant play on words. You must work as a philisophical linguist. Well done indeed, sir.
questions

“I recall Dona Cadman standing by Zytaruk’s version of the events that day. I’ll have to hope to find the original news article and tape, but you know how sometimes that data appears to become unavailable…”
Liz on Wednesday, July 9, 2008 at 2:15 am:

Sure do. I seem to recall very shortly after the story broke seeing news video of Zytaruk and somebody (an interviewer?) on Dona Cadman’s driveway (there was a rather long flight of stairs to the front door, and a driveway that sloped down to the road). Googling for anything at all turned up nothing at all. Has big brother managed to purge anything that might be considered troublesome from the internet?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis (Second Thots)

Yes, “questions”, it’s all a vast conspiracy. Oliver Stone is on the case as we speak.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis (Second Thots)

Not sure why this hasn’t been talked about yet:

Harper’s lawyers want Zytaruk to testify in court.

Not exactly sure how this fits into the theory that the lawsuit is part of the Conservative campaign to intimidate its opponents. Maybe adherents to that theory can provide some insight.
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

Dennis – I actually meant to post on that yesterday, but got waylaid by assorted other events. I’m officially off work today – Friday long weekends for July, not that anyone cares – but let me say that, contrary to what you seem to be implying, this is absolutely in line with the shock and awe strategy that the PM’s lawyers are likely to deploy against the Liberals: They want Zytaruk in deposition – and, eventually, on the stand – so that they can *discredit him completely*. That’s why they’ve been nibbling away at his recollection of the details of the September 2005 encounter: do this for long enough on the stand, and it will undermine both his credibility and his confidence.

Is it irrelevant to the main issue – which is the conversation itself? I’m sure the Liberals’ lawyers will make that argument, but I suspect a judge would ultimately – if grudgingly – allow that line of testimony, since it goes to the provenance and legitimacy of the tape itself, which Harper’s lawyers assume will be central to the Liberal defence.
Anon

“Friday long weekends for July, not that anyone cares”

I’ll bet Giorno does. No GiornoWatch posts today :-)
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

It’s not beyond the realm of the possibility that ITQ would briefly return to regularly scheduled programming should any significant – or even minor, but still worth noting – news trickle out of the Giornosphere. Provided y’all keep me posted of any major developments, that is. Hint, hint.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis (Second Thots)

Kady, I don’t get it. Why would Zytaruk be on the defensive, especially if he has a clean original tape in his back pocket?
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

Being deposed – or cross-examined – is incredibly stressful, even – and in some cases, especially – if you truly believe that you have the truth on your side. There’s a reason why the term “hostile witness” exists; usually, the lawyer doing the questioning is every bit as hostile. Again, that’s why the concerted effort to erode his credibility – the theory being that, when it comes to the tape itself, there will be sufficient doubt over his recollection of events – and his motivation in coming forward, even, if the Harper lawyers decide they want to play hardball – to render it ambiguous, at best, as far as evidence. I’m not saying it’s going to work, necessarily, but that seems to be the strategy. It’s also no coincidence that this latest news comes on the heels of the supplementary affidavit – which, despite being put forward as a categorical denial of his version of events, simply isn’t. It’s all part of the pre-trial gameplan, which is ultimately designed to destabilize the Liberals to the point that the party will be begging to settle the case.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis (Second Thots)

Wait a second. Zytaruk writes a book that includes some sensational accusations against Harper. He says he has an original tape backs up his version. Yet, somehow, he’s now the victim?

In other words, he throws the first punch, but is now surprised that someone would punch back?

It seems as though you’re starting with a premise, and trying to make events fit into that premise.

The RCMP found nothing.

No one has provided any evidence of any wrongdoing.

The Conservatives want to clear their name, based on the actual evidence, and they’re still depicted as the bad guys.

At some point, critics of Harper in the Cadman affair have to come up with something. Anything.
Anon

Not as exciting as GiornObsession, but still: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080710/cadman_tape_080710/20080710?hub=Canada.

Harper’s team gets ready to nail Zytaruk. This has liveblogging written all over it.
boudica

Kady, discrediting Zytaruk is one thing but what about the window, dauther and son-in-law?

Even if they can show that the tape was indeed doctoted, how do you get around three different testimonies which support what the taped conversation relates?

Maybe all the Tories really want is the ability to stop the LPC from using the tape during an election.
Pingback: ITQDayOffWatch: Last post before I flee, I promise … : Inside the Queensway : Macleans.ca Blog Central
Catherine

“sensational accusations against Harper” Seems a little ‘cart before the horse.’ Harper seems to be deflecting and muddying the water. It remains that his voice is on tape….
Caper

To many lawyers….to many games. The Prime Minister is trying to Bully the author.. bully.. intimidate..same thing.. What a guy.. no wonder Canada has lost it’s international respect.
dan in van

Dennis, i’ve got an idea – an innocent man would proclaim such to all and sundry, most likely at the quickest convenience, whot? You’d offer up your version and explanation, too, typically, right?
Please tell when your leader has done exactly that. Instead of hiding behind a lawsuit.
Oh, did i mention he’s already looked uncredible/discredited in a court of law when former CON candidate sued the party.