How Much Potential Can One List Have?

TheMoreYouListen,TheMoreYouHear
AudioVille

So, despite the fact that we still stand behind our conclusion that Kim Bolan did not find out that Darshan Singh Saini was Navdeep Bains father-in-law via a leak from either the Police or the Pols, there is one thing that is still troubling us about her Feb 21st story in the Vancouver Sun.

And that is the following following sentence:

The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.

So, why is this troubling us?

Well, it seems to be one of the reasons that Ms. Bolan decided that the story was relevant in the first place. Specifically, because the fact that Mr. Saini is on such a list would put Mr. Bains in a conflict of interest if he were to participate in the upcoming vote on the future of the anti-terrorism act that is scheduled to take place later today in the House (unless a compromise is reached before then).

How do we know that Ms. Bolan feels that way?

Well, we could try and argue that it is because of the following statement that she apparently left at the Dan Report:

The sad reality is that everyone is missing the key point - is it right for an MP - however well-liked, regardless of political parites - to vote on legislation that MAY impact a close relative of his.

Unfortunately, it would be difficult to base any argument on that statement because Dan has not yet heard back from Ms. Bolan directly to confirm that she actually left that comment at his place.

However, we are certain that Ms. Bolan did say the following:
(qualifiers in brackets and emphases are mine)

"Remember, police have a long list of people that they would like to talk to in those investigative hearings. He's (Saini) already been interviewed by police. He was linked to a young man who tried to assassinate a witnes in the Air India case in 1988. So, ya, he is somebody who has information, ummm, who could, potentially be brought in. Did that influence the Liberals' decision? I certainly don't know that. That's for them to say. However, I did think, given the relevance of what is taking place in Ottawa regarding the Anti-Terrorism Act, that this was something that needed to be reported."

And how do we know that Ms Bolan said that?

Well because someone who shall go unnamed (ie. a source who approached us, not the other way around, just for the record) pointed us towards the audio of an interview that Ms. Bolan gave to Rob Snow of CFRA Radio, the CHUM affiliate in Ottawa, on the afternoon of Feb 21st - the same day that her story was published. It was also the same day that Mr. Harper tried to refer to the story in the House before he was shouted down by the Liberals.

All of which is fair enough, kinda/sorta, I suppose.

Except that we would think that in order for there to be a conflict there would actually have to be a list.

And is there one?

Well, at other points in the CFRA interview its existence is certainly inferred a number times.

But never as definitively as in the original newspaper story where, again, it was stated that:

The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.

So, if the Sun really did learn that Mr Saini is on this potential RCMP list...... how, and from whom, did they learn about it?

I mean, wouldn't there have to be a source, one that some might categorize as a 'leak', to confirm the list's existence.

But what if it turned out that there wasn't such a source/leak?

I mean, that would just be plain crazy talk, right?

Maybe.

Except that Ms. Bolan herself also said the following in the CRFA interview, right up front:

"As these police investigators try, desperately still, to get to the bottom of what happened back in 1985 and the subsequent years, he (Saini) is potentially one of the people who they potentially want to talk to."

Now, it is important remember that this statement of 'double potential' was made by Ms. Bolan after her story had already been published.

It is also important to recall that Ms. Bolan also made the following statement in the comment she left on our blog a full day later:

"I wrote the story and there was no leak. It was very apparent from sitting through 19 months of the Air India trial who would be the obvious choices for investigative hearings - all the names came out during the evidence at the trial. After the trial, I wrote my book on Air India, called "Loss of Faith: How the Air India Bombers Got Away With Murder" and reviewed documents related to the one Supreme Court challenge of the investigative hearing provision, launched and lost by Satnam Reyat - the wife of the only man convicted."

So, if there was no leak, does that mean that there was no confirmatory source?

And if there was no confirmatory source, does that mean that, perhaps, the Sun actually didn't 'learn' that there was a list, potential or otherwise?

And if that's the case, does such a list, one that actually has people's names on it, actually exist?

Or was there just a lot of potential for such a list to exist?

And if it's all just a lot of potential, where, dare we suggest it, is the actual conflict?

_____
And, for the record, BCL was asking many of the same questions, sans the audio, last weekend.
Oh, ya, just about forgot, some folks, especially those that don't live in Ottawa, might actually want to hear the CRFA audio for themselves. Here it is, but be forewarned, it's an MP3 file.

.