PETERBOROUGH, Ont. — All the evidence presented in MP Dean Del Mastro’s election fraud trial backs up the story told by key witness Frank Hall, while Del Mastro’s story doesn’t match the facts, a prosecutor told a judge in Peterborough on Thursday.
“The evidence of guilt in this case is overwhelming,” Tom Lemon told Judge Lisa Cameron as the Crown presented its final arguments.
Del Mastro and Richard McCarthy, his official agent in the 2008 election, each face three charges of exceeding the $92,566.79 spending limit and filing a false return. Del Mastro is also charged with exceeding his donation limit, because it’s alleged he paid for the calls with a $21,000 personal cheque.
The Crown’s case rests on evidence from Hall, the CEO of Holinshed Research Group, a now-defunct voter-contact firm that, it’s alleged, carried out the work for Del Mastro’s campaign.
On Tuesday, Del Mastro’s lawyer, Jeff Ayotte, repeatedly called Hall a liar, telling the judge that Hall went to Elections Canada because “had an axe to grind with Dean” because of a business dispute.
On Thursday, the prosecutor Lemon said Del Mastro’s testimony was not credible, and that the volumes of evidence that have been presented all back up Hall’s story.
“All this evidence is consistent with the Hall narrative of events, as opposed to Del Mastro’s narrative,” he said.
Del Mastro’s defence relies on “fantastic” stories, “exaggerated or tortured interpretations” of evidence, Lemon said.
“The defence submissions are based on misunderstanding of the law, misunderstanding of the evidence or mischaracterization of the evidence,” Lemon said.
The prosecutor spent most of the morning methodically countering the defence’s description of the evidence, pointing out instances where documents appeared to back up Hall’s story and contradict Del Mastro’s.
The defence has said that campaign manager Richard McNutt was not authorized to hire Holinshed, but the prosecutor pointed out that McCarthy’s signature appears on the quote giving the go-ahead for the work.
Del Mastro and McCarthy “took steps to conceal the expense from the campaign budget” because they had spent too much money, he said.
After the election, the prosecutor said, Del Mastro “strung Frank Hall along” until he refused to pay for an unrelated software project in an effort to recover $9,000 of personal expenses.
The prosecutor said the minutes of the Peterborough Conservative riding association, for instance, show that McNutt had spending authority and that the campaign overspent in the early stages. The defence has argued that the minutes are inaccurate.
The most important evidence is a series of email exchanges between Hall and Del Mastro, in which Del Mastro seeks details about the calls Holinshed was making.
The defence has suggested that Hall may have altered those emails, a suggestion that Lemon derided.
“There’s no basis to suggest he tailored his evidence,” said Lemon. “It smacks of desperation, to make that kind of submission.”
There is no evidence that Hall had the technical expertise to change the metadata associated with the emails, said Lemon.
“There’s no evidence to support that argument,” he said. “There has to be a reasonable doubt. It’s not a fanciful doubt.”
Lemon said it would be an understatement to call Del Mastro’s evidence evasive, saying he contradicted evidence but didn’t provide credible explanations.
“Mr. Del Mastro took the position that anything that implicated him didn’t happen,” he said. “Mr. Del Mastro has no other recourse because otherwise he has no other answer.”
Banking records appear to back up Hall’s story, which is that Del Mastro paid him $21,000 during the campaign with a back-dated cheque. Del Mastro’s story about the cheque — that he wrote it months earlier as a deposit on the basis of a verbal agreement — doesn’t add up, said Lemon.
“Mr. Del Mastro’s explanation makes absolutely no sense,” he said. “That is very damning with respect to Mr. Del Mastro’s credibility.”
Del Mastro, the former parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, withdrew from the Conservative caucus when he was charged.
He was previously his party’s representative on the Commons ethics committee. He is a longtime critic of Elections Canada, the agency that investigated his alleged electoral fraud for this case.
As he left the courtroom, a grim-looking Del Mastro again criticized the agency.
“I think the evidence speaks,” he said. “We have always indicated there was a very important counter-narrative. That counter-narrative is established by the dates on the contracts, which were put in place by Mr. Hall. All the contracts in this case were put in place by Mr. Hall. They support my narrative and I think it’s a stretch to say otherwise. I stand by everything that Jeff said. I think Elections Canada had to say those things. I think it may speak a little bit to desperation on their part.”
Lemon, leaving the courtroom soon after, declined to comment on Del Mastro’s assertion.
“I can’t comment on that,” he said. “You heard the Crown submissions in court. We focused our submission on the evidence the judge heard. We don’t focus on extraneous matters.”
If convicted, he and McCarthy face up to a year in jail and a fine of as much as $1,000. Del Mastro would also be prevented from standing for office for five years.
Cameron said Thursday that she intends to release her verdict Oct. 31.
Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com/
Author: Stephen Maher
“The evidence of guilt in this case is overwhelming,” Tom Lemon told Judge Lisa Cameron as the Crown presented its final arguments.
Del Mastro and Richard McCarthy, his official agent in the 2008 election, each face three charges of exceeding the $92,566.79 spending limit and filing a false return. Del Mastro is also charged with exceeding his donation limit, because it’s alleged he paid for the calls with a $21,000 personal cheque.
The Crown’s case rests on evidence from Hall, the CEO of Holinshed Research Group, a now-defunct voter-contact firm that, it’s alleged, carried out the work for Del Mastro’s campaign.
On Tuesday, Del Mastro’s lawyer, Jeff Ayotte, repeatedly called Hall a liar, telling the judge that Hall went to Elections Canada because “had an axe to grind with Dean” because of a business dispute.
On Thursday, the prosecutor Lemon said Del Mastro’s testimony was not credible, and that the volumes of evidence that have been presented all back up Hall’s story.
“All this evidence is consistent with the Hall narrative of events, as opposed to Del Mastro’s narrative,” he said.
Del Mastro’s defence relies on “fantastic” stories, “exaggerated or tortured interpretations” of evidence, Lemon said.
“The defence submissions are based on misunderstanding of the law, misunderstanding of the evidence or mischaracterization of the evidence,” Lemon said.
The prosecutor spent most of the morning methodically countering the defence’s description of the evidence, pointing out instances where documents appeared to back up Hall’s story and contradict Del Mastro’s.
The defence has said that campaign manager Richard McNutt was not authorized to hire Holinshed, but the prosecutor pointed out that McCarthy’s signature appears on the quote giving the go-ahead for the work.
Del Mastro and McCarthy “took steps to conceal the expense from the campaign budget” because they had spent too much money, he said.
After the election, the prosecutor said, Del Mastro “strung Frank Hall along” until he refused to pay for an unrelated software project in an effort to recover $9,000 of personal expenses.
The prosecutor said the minutes of the Peterborough Conservative riding association, for instance, show that McNutt had spending authority and that the campaign overspent in the early stages. The defence has argued that the minutes are inaccurate.
The most important evidence is a series of email exchanges between Hall and Del Mastro, in which Del Mastro seeks details about the calls Holinshed was making.
The defence has suggested that Hall may have altered those emails, a suggestion that Lemon derided.
“There’s no basis to suggest he tailored his evidence,” said Lemon. “It smacks of desperation, to make that kind of submission.”
There is no evidence that Hall had the technical expertise to change the metadata associated with the emails, said Lemon.
“There’s no evidence to support that argument,” he said. “There has to be a reasonable doubt. It’s not a fanciful doubt.”
Lemon said it would be an understatement to call Del Mastro’s evidence evasive, saying he contradicted evidence but didn’t provide credible explanations.
“Mr. Del Mastro took the position that anything that implicated him didn’t happen,” he said. “Mr. Del Mastro has no other recourse because otherwise he has no other answer.”
Banking records appear to back up Hall’s story, which is that Del Mastro paid him $21,000 during the campaign with a back-dated cheque. Del Mastro’s story about the cheque — that he wrote it months earlier as a deposit on the basis of a verbal agreement — doesn’t add up, said Lemon.
“Mr. Del Mastro’s explanation makes absolutely no sense,” he said. “That is very damning with respect to Mr. Del Mastro’s credibility.”
Del Mastro, the former parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, withdrew from the Conservative caucus when he was charged.
He was previously his party’s representative on the Commons ethics committee. He is a longtime critic of Elections Canada, the agency that investigated his alleged electoral fraud for this case.
As he left the courtroom, a grim-looking Del Mastro again criticized the agency.
“I think the evidence speaks,” he said. “We have always indicated there was a very important counter-narrative. That counter-narrative is established by the dates on the contracts, which were put in place by Mr. Hall. All the contracts in this case were put in place by Mr. Hall. They support my narrative and I think it’s a stretch to say otherwise. I stand by everything that Jeff said. I think Elections Canada had to say those things. I think it may speak a little bit to desperation on their part.”
Lemon, leaving the courtroom soon after, declined to comment on Del Mastro’s assertion.
“I can’t comment on that,” he said. “You heard the Crown submissions in court. We focused our submission on the evidence the judge heard. We don’t focus on extraneous matters.”
If convicted, he and McCarthy face up to a year in jail and a fine of as much as $1,000. Del Mastro would also be prevented from standing for office for five years.
Cameron said Thursday that she intends to release her verdict Oct. 31.
Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com/
Author: Stephen Maher
No comments:
Post a Comment