Antonio Accurso’s lawyer called the credibility of several Crown witnesses into question while making his closing arguments in the jury trial where the construction entrepreneur is alleged to have taken part in a system of collusion involving contracts awarded by the city of Laval.
“(Almost all of them) have skeletons in their closets,” Marc Labelle said early on in his arguments at the Laval courthouse on Thursday.
He reminded the jury that some of those witnesses had to arrange for immunity from being charged if something incriminating about themselves emerged while they gave evidence against Accurso, 66, who faces five charges in all. He is alleged to have benefitted from a system of collusion organized by former Laval mayor Gilles Vaillancourt between 1996 and 2010. Construction companies would kick back two per cent of the contracts they were awarded to Vaillancourt and other city officials.
Labelle argued that some of the Crown’s own evidence indicates Accurso was considered an outsider to the owners and executives of the companies who formed part of the colluding group. He referred to the testimony of Gaétan Turbide, a former director general for the city of Laval who told the jury that at one point he wanted to fire Claude Deguise, the head of engineering for the city and a key player in the collusion scheme.
“(Turbide said) all the entrepreneurs (involved in the scheme) wanted to keep him except for Accurso,” Labelle said. “Not only did Mr. Accurso want to get rid of the guy who ran the system, his opinion went against all of the others.
“You have no witnesses who said (Accurso) was part of the system.”
Perhaps the most damaging witness presented by the prosecution was Gilles Théberge, an executive with two different companies while the system ran, between 1996 and 2010. He testified that, in 2005, Accurso intervened when Louisbourg Construction (a company owned by Accurso and run by his cousin, Giuseppe Molluso) and Valmont Nadon Excavation (a company Théberge ran) were mistakenly awarded the same $4-million contract by Vaillancourt.
Labelle reminded the jury that Théberge suddenly recalled the meeting – held at the headquarters of several companies Accurso owned at the time – on the day Théberge was scheduled to testify before the jury. Labelle said Théberge failed to mention the meeting previously, when he was questioned several times by the police, including six days before he was called as a witness.
“Is that reliable – that he remembers this only on the day of his testimony” Labelle said.
Related
