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

Pingback: UPDATED: Tale of the tape redux: How do you deny what was never said? : Inside the Queensway : Macleans.ca Blog Central
Anon

This is Sparrow or somebody else freelancing. This can’t be Harper.
Paul Wells

Goodness. So the goal of this was the headline. Mission accomplished.
http://scottdiatribe.gluemeat.com Scott Tribe

So I guess I have to ask Kady, are the pundits and press gallery on Parliament Hill actually buying this latest attempt that there’s really nothing there to see, other then the Ottawa Citizen’s headline writer?
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

Yeah, but: one headline in a Canwest paper nobody reads (plus Kadey’s debunking piece). I hope the CPoC isn’t trying to spin the news by paying too much attention what we that agonize over this stuff on the blogs are thinking. Cuz we’re the only ones on the planet that read the story.

Someone once wrote: The blog is not the world! Someone should tell that to the Tory braintrust.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis (Second Thots)

Question: If there is something there to see, why would the Conservatives tempt people into looking for it again, despite the fact that the RCMP exonerated them? Unless, of course, they actually think they did nothing wrong.
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

To be totally honest, I’ve been so focused on the story, I’ve not had time to think about how other people of the journalistic persuasion are responding to the story. Other than Colleague Wells, of course. I’ll report back when I have a better answer.
http://mikeanddean.blogspot.com Dean P

Whenever I’m writing a declaration that says nothing while sounding like it does, it sounds a lot like this.
Just Visiting

Dennis speaks of the RCMP “exonerating” Harper and the CPC.

Interesting word “exonerate”.

I assume that choosing to discontinue an investigation does not actually mean that the party under investigation has been “exonerated” of wrongdoing as would be the case, say, if a matter went to trial and someone was, well, exonerated of the charges.

Discontinuing an investigation, I presume, simply means that the investigation did not turn up actual evidence of wrongdoing that, in the judgement of the investgators, merited further pursuit and possible prosecution.

Given the cozy relationship between the RCMP and CPC, this reluctance to pursue the matter was hardly a big surprise to me.

Nor was it surprising that the RCMP felt obliged, once again, against standard policy, to announce the status of an investigation.

I’m trying to think when else the RCMP broke with its policy of not commenting ont he status of investigations. Hmmmmm…

Oh yeah, it was during the last election. And the political benficary was, once again, the CPC.

Right.

- JV
Paul Wells

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

Dennis, “you can’t prove it” is not the same as “I didn’t do it”. Harper is pretty comfortable at the former, which is why the RCMP gave up since they’re saddled with that whole “burden of proof” thing. “Exonerated” seems generous.
Db

If I purchases shares of Canwest’s robust stock, do I have to report it to the Chief Electoral Officer as a political donation?
Liz

Dona Cadman in a phone interview with CTV on the day the story broke said that she considered the offer was a bribe. Her words. Heard all over British Columbia. Will she have an affidavit for that now? What offer? All Harper has to do is say what the offer was, and why Dona Cadman would say on air that she considered it a bribe.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis (Second Thots)

a) Gee, I recall that, not too long ago, the Harper controlled RCMP raided Conservative party headquarters and humiliated the government in the process — with the media and Liberals watching.

b) I see that some people believe it’s the duty of Canadians citizens to prove they didn’t do something. Did Canada become some bizarro legal jurisdiction while I wasn’t watching?

Hey, I think you’re guilty! Prove me wrong, Harper!

In fact, one could argue that it’s what he’s trying to do now, and he still gets heat for it.
Gayle

Dennis – I hope you understand that one way the LPC will be able to defend themselves is by proving something did happen.

In a civil suit the LPC will have more tools than the RCMP during an investigation, including the ability to compel Harper to give evidence, under oath. They will also be able to question the two individuals who are suspected of having these discussions with Mr. Cadman (something else the RCMP could not compel).

I would suggest to you that what Harper is doing now is trying to strong-arm the LPC into settling the lawsuit before he has to present himself for cross examination. That is the most reasonable explanation for the increase in the demand, which happened after mandatory mediation and does not appear to be connected to any new evidence.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

“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!
T. Thwim

Innocent before being guilty doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t get to be presented against you. If you can’t refute that evidence you’re guilty. All we need is for Stephen Harper to explain what he meant when he said he was aware of financial considerations being offered to Chuck Cadman in exchange for his vote.
Chris R

Sitting Prime Minister’s can duck cross-examination, can’t they? If this sucker goes to court, I don’t expect to see Stephen Harper testifying!
Cara

The only reason I can think of to explain why Dona Cadman included photos of the front of the house might have something to do with the driveway. Could it have something to do with the length of it? And could this have something to do with how close someone might be to the sidewalk or front door? Might this be leading us towards what a third party overheard?

Just my two cents worth.
Gord G.

Kady, did you read the book?
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

Actually, yes, I did – although admittedly, I skimmed a lot of the earlier stuff, as I was mostly focused on — well, you know.
http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

Cara: I have to assume you’re right — my guess is that it shows the stairs in question as being outside the house, and not, like, interior steps leading up to the second floor, but honestly, at this point, I don’t know. I’m waiting patiently for the Conservative Party to send me the images — or even a pdf file of the entire filing, including the pictures. Well, “patiently” might be stretching it, but still.
Anon

Can someone explain why the Conservative party website features pictures of Dion prominently while relegating Harper – even his G8 photos – to a small corner? Are they not proud of their leader?
Gord G.

Read the end again, there’s something in there near the end about heaven and the vote that strikes me odd. I think it’ll clear up soon enough though,
Liz

If the government is prorogued does that mean that the PM and MPs are still ‘sitting’?