Expert says Cadman tape not altered: court record

[kengs333]

An excerpt from your link stated:

"In the report Koenig concluded that the first part of Zytaruk’s interview with Harper, which contains the key portions that the prime minister has contested, was intact.

The second part, beginning roughly one minute and 41 seconds into the tape, was a new recording that was made over the final part of the original recording, he said. But the first crucial minute and 41 seconds had not been altered."

Now I'm curious what was that original recording in the second part? Why was a new recording made over the final part?

As I stated before, the hearing is still going on. Let the court decide.

Is the issue not over whether the first part was altered or not? And it's been determined it wasn't.

I guess you've never taped an interview before. Rewinding and taping over things is done regularly. But the issue is if the first part was altered, and it was not.

[normanchateau]

OK. Have fun following this non-story.

Meanwhile, while Donna Cadman wins her seat for the CPC, formerly held by her husband supposedly bribed by a life insurance policy that would have been effective impossible to have underwritten, and everyone else focuses on what's important this time around...

I doubt that this "non-story" will go away. Cadman is projected to win this seat for CPC tomorrow. Harper will not be able to muzzle Cadman indefinitely and eventually the media will once again ask her about her public statement in which she maintained that Chuck Cadman told her about the Conservative bribe. Was Dona Cadman lying when she made this statements? And whether she was lying or not, why would Harper want Dona Cadman as a CPC MP?

Art Hangar's Justice Committee failed to pass Harper's omnibus crime bill because the Committee wanted to investigate Harper's alleged involvement in the Cadman affair and Hanger shut down the meetings each time the Cadman affair was mentioned. Assuming Harper is reelected, the Justice Committee will remain paralyzed thanks to Conservative attempts to delay and obstruct the truth from coming out.

Until a decision is made as to whether Harper should face criminal charges for acknowledging that he was aware of Conservative bribes, this issue is not going away. Harper supporters may view this as a "non-story" but the media, opposition and eventually the Canadian public will care if charges are laid. The fact that the critical part of the tape was not altered means Harper supporters will need to fabricate another rationale for why Harper's potential criminal behaviour should not be investigated.

[betsy]

So is this basically a slur of all French-speakers in this country? Seems like it to me.

What, do you think Dion is slurring French people everytime he speaks English? You think the French accent is shameful?

And here I am thinking how sexy Hollywood French movie stars sound with their accent.

Edited October 13, 2008 by betsy

[capricorn]

The fact that the critical part of the tape was not altered means Harper supporters will need to fabricate another rationale for why Harper's potential criminal behaviour should not be investigated.

Not so fast. A report has just been released by experts commissioned by the Liberal Party, which concludes the tape has been edited. This was first reported at 6 pm on CTV. So one report says the tape was edited and the other says the tape was intact.

With this standoff in contradictory expert opinion, it's a bit premature to call for charges against Harper. Meanwhile, Harper's defamation suit against the Liberals will proceed to the courts. The damages the Liberals will have to pay should further eat into Liberal Party cash.

[capricorn]

CTV now has the story on their website.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

[betsy]

CTV now has the story on their website.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Oh boy, quite an interesting turn. And equally ironic too since this time, the report's by the expert hired by the Liberals!

[independent]

Oh boy, quite an interesting turn. And equally ironic too since this time, the report's by the expert hired by the Liberals!

I am missing something. I read that the report is inconclusive. It cannot be proved whether the tape was intact or not. IF the tape was tampered with it would have too have been in a sophisticated laboratory.

[JaysFan]

I am missing something. I read that the report is inconclusive. It cannot be proved whether the tape was intact or not. IF the tape was tampered with it would have too have been in a sophisticated laboratory.

That's the way I read it too independent. Essentially what that says is, it backs up what the Conservative's expert has already said and which contradicts Harper's testimony.

That the crucial part of the tape had not been altered.

Edited October 14, 2008 by JaysFan

[guyser]

...husband supposedly bribed by a life insurance policy that would have been effective impossible to have underwritten,

Piece of cake. Want a policy just like it?

No life company in Canada would turn it down.

[Mr.Canada]

This thread really is a non starter. Nothing will come from it.

[Alta4ever]

I doubt that this "non-story" will go away. Cadman is projected to win this seat for CPC tomorrow. Harper will not be able to muzzle Cadman indefinitely and eventually the media will once again ask her about her public statement in which she maintained that Chuck Cadman told her about the Conservative bribe. Was Dona Cadman lying when she made this statements? And whether she was lying or not, why would Harper want Dona Cadman as a CPC MP?

Art Hangar's Justice Committee failed to pass Harper's omnibus crime bill because the Committee wanted to investigate Harper's alleged involvement in the Cadman affair and Hanger shut down the meetings each time the Cadman affair was mentioned. Assuming Harper is reelected, the Justice Committee will remain paralyzed thanks to Conservative attempts to delay and obstruct the truth from coming out.

Until a decision is made as to whether Harper should face criminal charges for acknowledging that he was aware of Conservative bribes, this issue is not going away. Harper supporters may view this as a "non-story" but the media, opposition and eventually the Canadian public will care if charges are laid. The fact that the critical part of the tape was not altered means Harper supporters will need to fabricate another rationale for why Harper's potential criminal behaviour should not be investigated.

It is not the Job of a commitee to act as a court of law. Even the speaker of the house (a liberal) sided with Art. They are there to act as lawmakers, not judge and jury.

The Cadman affair is for the RCMP and courts. Get over it!

[jdobbin]

Oh boy, quite an interesting turn. And equally ironic too since this time, the report's by the expert hired by the Liberals!

The irony is the Tory expert says the tape was intact at the key exchange that Harper disputes.

[jdobbin]

With this standoff in contradictory expert opinion, it's a bit premature to call for charges against Harper. Meanwhile, Harper's defamation suit against the Liberals will proceed to the courts. The damages the Liberals will have to pay should further eat into Liberal Party cash.

Which is the objective of the Harper plan along. To bankrupt the Liberal party so that it no loner exists as an entity.

I wonder if the court will reverse damages if the suit fails.

[guyser]

This thread really is a non starter. Nothing will come from it.

Bet that isnt what Harper thought when he filed in the court.

[betsy]

Here's an excerpt of the latest report:

New report casts doubt on Cadman affair tape

Updated Mon. Oct. 13 2008 8:10 PM ET

A new report has cast doubt on the authenticity of a taped conversation which the Liberals say implicates Conservative Leader Stephen Harper in a bribery scandal involving the late MP Chuck Cadman.

CTV News reported Monday that two audio experts, hired by the Liberal Party of Canada to analyze the tape, found that "the recording cannot be shown to be complete."

The latest, Liberal-funded report states "it can be postulated that the original ... tape recording was digitized, edited digitally and the electronically placed on the evidence tape associated with this dispute."

However, the report also states that it would be impossible to determine if such an alteration was even made, and that the journalist who recorded the tape -- Tom Zytaruk -- likely did not have the tools or knowledge necessary to alter the tape in such a fashion.

"While the process would be relatively simple to carry out in a laboratory such as ours, its realization ... would have demanded more sophisticated technical knowledge and equipment than is apparent in the examination of Mr. Zytaruk," the report says.

The experts also found that the tape "cannot be shown to be complete" because of apparent missing sections and an interruption. Zytaruk has said he stopped his tape recorder and started it again during his interview with Harper.

Key words: cast doubt on the authenticity.

Tom Zytaruk likely may not have the tools or knowledge...but perhaps somebody else does. Perhaps Tom Zytaruk has an accomplice who has the technical knowledge and had access to sophisticated tools.

The missing sections are also crucial. What's in that missing section? Having that section in that tape may be evidence that negates their allegation about Harper. Perhaps by taking that section out, it changed the context of the interview.

Who knows? That's the thing about this. A lot of questions that need answers.

I find it hard to believe that if you have an important interview with a Prime Minister....an interview that you would include in a book.....why would you tape over some parts of it?

[jdobbin]

The experts also found that the tape "cannot be shown to be complete" because of apparent missing sections and an interruption. Zytaruk has said he stopped his tape recorder and started it again during his interview with Harper. [/i]

Key words: cast doubt on the authenticity.

But the portion of the most interest is the one that the Tory expert says is intact.

Tom Zytaruk likely may not have the tools or knowledge...but perhaps somebody else does. Perhaps Tom Zytaruk has an accomplice who has the technical knowledge and had access to sophisticated tools.

The Tories will have to show the author had access to those with the tools.

I find it hard to believe that if you have an important interview with a Prime Minister....an interview that you would include in a book.....why would you tape over some parts of it?

Stopping and starting a tape? Please. It doesn't indicate anything sinister but Conservative supporters here seem to think the author went to a high tech lab to forge something. I find that hard to believe.

[betsy]

But the portion of the most interest is the one that the Tory expert says is intact.

Yes it may be intact....but the missing part could very well become a portion of interest as well.

Stopping and starting a tape? Please. It doesn't indicate anything sinister but Conservative supporters here seem to think the author went to a high tech lab to forge something. I find that hard to believe.

That tape is crucial evidence. Of course there'll be questions. I am not making any judgement.

You and I cannot really say for a fact that the author did not have access to any sophisticated tools...or that he did not have any help from anyone who could.

Edited October 14, 2008 by betsy

[jdobbin]

Yes it may be intact....but the missing part could very well become a portion of interest as well.

Guess that will be for the judge to decide.

That tape is crucial evidence. Of course there'll be questions. I am not making any judgement.

You and I cannot really say for a fact that the author did not have access to any sophisticated tools...or that he did not have any help from anyone who could.

The part of the tape that Harper said was important was the part his own expert said was intact.

If Harper hopes to make $3.5 million from this, I expect the judge will want some evidence that indicates that the author had altered the tape using equipment in a studio.

[kengs333]

look's like Dona's gonna win Surrey North...

[TCCK]

look's like Dona's gonna win Surrey North...

Let me ADD for the CONSERVATIVES!!!

She sure wasn't so mad about the whole deal with Chuck if she is running Conservative. (Actually I know for a fact personally she isn't mad and is glad to be running Conservative under Harper.)

[normanchateau]

Let me ADD for the CONSERVATIVES!!!

She sure wasn't so mad about the whole deal with Chuck if she is running Conservative. (Actually I know for a fact personally she isn't mad and is glad to be running Conservative under Harper.)

I saw the interview with Cadman a few minutes ago after she was declared the winner. She refused to comment in response to a reporter's question about her allegations about the bribe to Chuck. All she would say is "I support Stephen Harper." I expect we'll be seeing more interviews unless Harper muzzles her. She seemed incredibly inarticulate and unintelligent. Not even Harper would appoint her to Cabinet.

[jdobbin]

Let me ADD for the CONSERVATIVES!!!

She sure wasn't so mad about the whole deal with Chuck if she is running Conservative. (Actually I know for a fact personally she isn't mad and is glad to be running Conservative under Harper.)

She still says her husband thought it was a bribe that we was offered and that it was an insurance policy.

[normanchateau]

She still says her husband thought it was a bribe that we was offered and that it was an insurance policy.

I wonder if she will testify for or against Harper in court. My guess is that Harper will simply muzzle her. Then again, he might bribe her.

[kengs333]

Let me ADD for the CONSERVATIVES!!!

She sure wasn't so mad about the whole deal with Chuck if she is running Conservative. (Actually I know for a fact personally she isn't mad and is glad to be running Conservative under Harper.)

All things considered, who knows what her motivation really is... aside from a $155,000+ salary & perks...