Possible Motives to Lie
The following observations about the Liberal Government's sponsorship scandal were written by David Asper, Executive Vice President of CanWest Global Communications Corporation and Executive Chairman of the National Post. Asper represented Milgaard in the 1990's and took his case right up to the Supreme Court.
"The jury is still out" National Post Mon 11 Apr 2005 Page: A16 Section: Editorials Byline: David Asper Column: David Asper Source: National Post
Jean Brault's testimony to the Gomery inquiry sure hit with a thud, didn't it? If his allegations are true, there is no question we are witnessing one of the great scandals in our nation's history.
But before we rush to judgment, I think a cautionary note is in order.
I recall meeting Joyce Milgaard in 1986, when she provided me with the trial transcripts and a good deal of associated material in connection with her son's 1970 murder conviction. She claimed David was innocent, and urged me to do something about it.
In order for Mrs. Milgaard to have been correct, virtually every material witness in her son's trial had to have lied. I wondered how that could be possible. Everyone?
As we now know, that is in fact what happened, and David Milgaard was indeed innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. But at the time of his trial, it sure looked like he had done it, and it sure sounded like the witnesses were telling the truth. Certainly, that was the message we got from the media.
All of which is to say that while the Gomery evidence looks damning, it is not necessarily the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
People have a variety of motives to lie. Maybe Jean Brault is telling the truth. Then again, maybe he is getting revenge against the Liberals by exaggerating what happened. Or maybe he is interpreting people's words in a way that was not intended.
Does he have a deal with authorities that will allow him to receive favourable consideration in his criminal proceedings if he provides information about others? In other words, does he have a motive to embellish or lie?
Moreover, if he is found guilty of criminal fraud, does that not, by definition, make him a potentially unreliable witness? Can the same be said of the other rats as they jump from the ship?
It is going to take some time to sort out all of the testimony and link it, where possible, with independent corroborative facts. Forensic accountants, auditors, lawyers and police are all neck deep in that process and one hopes it will lead to a clean package that describes what really happened. If and when that happens, Canadians will have a result on which they can rely.
Until then, I cannot help but cringe as so many observers uncritically accept the most lurid details of Mr. Brault's testimony. Unproven snippets of information are being magnified beyond their significance. Worse, denials can get lost in the clamour of the moment. And people who might not actually be involved get an undeserved tarring merely because they were mentioned in passing by Mr. Brault or another Gomery witness.
The melodrama of Question Period is only exacerbating all of this: Many opposition MPs want an election, which would have Canadians essentially put the government on trial on the integrity issue without even having all the evidence at hand. To hell with the evidence, let's throw the bums out!
It all makes for interesting political theatre -- but it's not very edifying. Remember that the mandate of the Gomery inquiry also includes providing recommendations as to how this might all be prevented in the future. Yet the pundits don't seem interested in talking about that. "Throw the bums out" is a campaign slogan, not public policy; and the latter is what is really needed here.
At the time the Prime Minister created the Gomery inquiry, he knew a feeding frenzy like this might result. And so you have to give him a good deal of credit for ignoring the politics and doing the right thing. The least Canadians owe in return is a little patience. When the whole story is known, we can properly retire to consider our verdict.
Edition: National Story Type: Business; Column Length: 634 words PRODUCTION FIELDSNDATE: 20050411 POSITION: 5
Reprinted with permission of David Asper, April 13, 2005.
"The jury is still out" National Post Mon 11 Apr 2005 Page: A16 Section: Editorials Byline: David Asper Column: David Asper Source: National Post
Jean Brault's testimony to the Gomery inquiry sure hit with a thud, didn't it? If his allegations are true, there is no question we are witnessing one of the great scandals in our nation's history.
But before we rush to judgment, I think a cautionary note is in order.
I recall meeting Joyce Milgaard in 1986, when she provided me with the trial transcripts and a good deal of associated material in connection with her son's 1970 murder conviction. She claimed David was innocent, and urged me to do something about it.
In order for Mrs. Milgaard to have been correct, virtually every material witness in her son's trial had to have lied. I wondered how that could be possible. Everyone?
As we now know, that is in fact what happened, and David Milgaard was indeed innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. But at the time of his trial, it sure looked like he had done it, and it sure sounded like the witnesses were telling the truth. Certainly, that was the message we got from the media.
All of which is to say that while the Gomery evidence looks damning, it is not necessarily the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
People have a variety of motives to lie. Maybe Jean Brault is telling the truth. Then again, maybe he is getting revenge against the Liberals by exaggerating what happened. Or maybe he is interpreting people's words in a way that was not intended.
Does he have a deal with authorities that will allow him to receive favourable consideration in his criminal proceedings if he provides information about others? In other words, does he have a motive to embellish or lie?
Moreover, if he is found guilty of criminal fraud, does that not, by definition, make him a potentially unreliable witness? Can the same be said of the other rats as they jump from the ship?
It is going to take some time to sort out all of the testimony and link it, where possible, with independent corroborative facts. Forensic accountants, auditors, lawyers and police are all neck deep in that process and one hopes it will lead to a clean package that describes what really happened. If and when that happens, Canadians will have a result on which they can rely.
Until then, I cannot help but cringe as so many observers uncritically accept the most lurid details of Mr. Brault's testimony. Unproven snippets of information are being magnified beyond their significance. Worse, denials can get lost in the clamour of the moment. And people who might not actually be involved get an undeserved tarring merely because they were mentioned in passing by Mr. Brault or another Gomery witness.
The melodrama of Question Period is only exacerbating all of this: Many opposition MPs want an election, which would have Canadians essentially put the government on trial on the integrity issue without even having all the evidence at hand. To hell with the evidence, let's throw the bums out!
It all makes for interesting political theatre -- but it's not very edifying. Remember that the mandate of the Gomery inquiry also includes providing recommendations as to how this might all be prevented in the future. Yet the pundits don't seem interested in talking about that. "Throw the bums out" is a campaign slogan, not public policy; and the latter is what is really needed here.
At the time the Prime Minister created the Gomery inquiry, he knew a feeding frenzy like this might result. And so you have to give him a good deal of credit for ignoring the politics and doing the right thing. The least Canadians owe in return is a little patience. When the whole story is known, we can properly retire to consider our verdict.
Edition: National Story Type: Business; Column Length: 634 words PRODUCTION FIELDSNDATE: 20050411 POSITION: 5
Reprinted with permission of David Asper, April 13, 2005.
posted by Sigrid Macdonald @ 7:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home