Unlike CNN's Nancy Grace who, in my opinion, has to be the most irritating personality on television, I have no clue and therefore do not prejudge Mr. Mulroney's guilt or innocence. Having said that and unfortunately for Mr. Mulroney - and everyone else - we live in a society where mere allegation and just a hint of impropriety, is enough to deem a person guilty until proven innocent.

Prior to Mr. Harper's bold move - the move I erred in thinking he would not make - the ball was in Mr. Mulroney's court. It still is. Just deeper, a lot deeper.

Prior to Mr. Harper's move, if Mr. Mulroney did not act soon, he would would experience the “OJ effect.”  That is, on the day, weeks, even months after OJ was acquitted a significant percentage of people concluded “I guess he didn’t do it.” Today, those same people, nearly all of them, believe he did. That is what ones behaviour and the passage of time can do to a person. 

Mr. Mulroney may have benefited from a certain degree of “benefit of the doubt.” But it's only a matter of time before the way he is dealing with this situation leads more people to conclude the very impression Mr. Mulroney was, presumably, guarding against.

Last week I wrote that in the week ahead we would get to see what reach Mr. Harper had outside his immediate caucus circle. Implied or otherwise, Mr. Mulroney was given a chance to do something other have his lawyers write open letters to the press while at the same time Mr. Schreiber was submitting additional sworn affidavits further implicating the former PM.     

By not acting first, Mr. Mulroney forced Mr. Harper's reaching hand. And in so doing, Mr. Mulroney allows Mr. Harper to add speculative fuel to the direction in which public opinion is heading.  

Until Mr. Harper's surprise move late on Friday - as much meant to disarm the opposition upon today's resumption of parliament as it was the right thing to do - there was a danger Mr. Harper would take a bigger hit than he will now. The danger was not so much in the closeness of his dealings with Mr. Mulroney, but for the perception that Mr. Harper was not pressing the issue the way he would if it was a former Liberal PM under the microscope. Mr. Harper has ensured that criticism has less chance of sticking.

If few in the public were paying attention to this matter, even fewer will now. But public opinion has formed and it's likely only a few percentage points more people who believe OJ did it, as think Mr. Mulroney has something to hide.

Is Mr. Schreiber embellishing his story as a means of staving off extradition? Likely. And we can be sure Mr. Mulroney will be successful, in a court of law, building a case around those arguments. But will that be enough to change what public opinion conjures-up at the thought of $300K in cash?

On that score Mr. Mulroney still has a road to plow.

As I reread my own blog of November 5, it occurs to me some might conclude  I think Mr. Mulroney did it. Whatever "it" is. Not at all.

One things is clear, media reports of court wins  and losses isn't the same thing as witnessing a case first hand. It's also more-and-more apparent not everything pertinent to a case is given proper consideration, and in some instances, none. How then is the public expected to perfectly judge the judging of an imperfect system?

Enter public opinion.