The criminal trial was a disaster for them! I think it's fair to say that I humiliated one witness after another, trapping them in half-truths, evasions, and outright lies. I've been raking Professor Bush and his wife over the coals for the last few weeks, but I think it's only fair for some of the others to have their turn. So let's start with the first witness I examined: Neil Besner, University VP of Something or Other.
My strategy was to show that the so-called home invasion was a cock-and-bull story from the get-go, that the University knew it, and they therefore had no legitimate reason to bar me from the campus. So the first order of business was to establish the reason for the trespassing order. Simple enough. So I asked Besner outright: Why was I banned from the campus on Jan 11 2013?
To which he gave the following peculiar answer:
“I believe it was because of some conflict you had with a professor in the Faculty of Education....The incidents had already taken place when I took this job in Nov 2012, so I'm not aware of their exact nature…”
Just took the job? It's not like he dropped in from Timbuktu...he's been a vice-president of something at the U of W for years. But let's get this straight: the barring notice was issued in 2013…and he really didn’t know the nature of the incident which led to the barring notice?
That's when I showed him the email that he had sent to Martin Granger on the evening of the "home invasion":
I just spoke with George Bush. Marty Green tried to force his way into George's house minutes ago. The police are there taking a statement. Don Metz is aware of this (Bush called him, and Metz emailed me.) Bush is upset ande agitated. He'll call back when he is through with the police. We should discuss next steps.
Besner still professed to be confused as to what this letter had to do with the barring notice! Finally the judge had to put the question to him directly: So do you know why Mr. Green was barred in January of 2013?
As though a thick fog was gradually clearing, Besner's memory started to improve. "Yes. Okay. So I do recall these incidents. This refers to a, an incident that took place with, at George Bush's house, which I heard about, and so I assume that this precipitated the barring notice, this incident precipitated the barring notice."
What was especially baffling to me was the pointlessness of the lie. I wasn't expecting any difficulties in establishing the fact that I was barred because of the home invasion. The real challenge was going to be to prove that I was innocent of the home invasion. The University had an arguable case there...it would be my word against theirs. Why were they starting off by destroying their own credibility with pointless and easy-to-expose lies?
We'll start to understand their strategy when we return to the cross-examination. But that's enough for today.