Blogs & Comment

Drabinsky Final Argument - 26: Webster Planted the Documents

I’m going to skip the legal arguments regarding how much weight the judge should give to the evidence of admitted accomplices and other technical arguments. Instead, lets dive into what the defence says about the documents in this case.
There were days of testimony about the continuity of documents at the trial, the circumstances in which KPMG investigators found many seemingly incriminating documents and what those documents actually meant.
Ultimately the judge will have to decide whether she believes the prosecution allegation that Drabinsky and Gottlieb saw the documents, had the documents in their possession – and sometimes even wrote instructions on those documents.
But those documents have been tampered with, the defence contends. It would have been a simple matter for Robert Webster, the audit partner on the botched due diligence and Livent executive vice president who took the confessions of the accounting five to plant inciminating documents, the defence says. “By this time, [Webster] would have been familiar with Livent’s peculiar acocunting issues… He would have known what documents would have been relevant in the investigation,” the defence says.
The fact that KPMG investigators found a treasure trove of incriminating documents in Drabinsky’s office just days after the revelations of the accounting five doesn’t mean that they weren’t planted either before or after the search. Investigators initialled the back page of each document, but someone could have taken that signed back page and substituted the rest of the package with more incriminating documents, the defence argues.