weird problem with an old interview of Nina

While going through Ethics Commissioner Shapiro's reports I noticed something odd. Consider this:

Mr. Grewal and Mrs. Grewal both testified that while on their way to Question Period on Monday, May 16, 2005, he informed her for the first time that he had been contacted by Mr. Kalia. Mrs. Grewal’s response was “you’re wasting your time since, you know, we’re not going to be joining the Liberals.”

When did they give this testimony? During the period July 18-22, when Shapiro was in Vancouver. Within a few days of this, Nina gave an interview with the Now newspaper (here, archived here.) The story resulting from was published Monday, July 25:

Both MPs appeared Thursday before ethics commissioner Dr. Bernard Shapiro in New Westminster to testify about the tape recordings.

In an exclusive interview at her constituency office Thursday, Nina Grewal complained of media bias and Liberal spin-doctoring.

So she was interviewed by the Now the same day as she had appeared before Shapiro: Thursday, July 21st.

In the Now story about her interview, one finds this:

The couple is unique in Canadian political history in that they are married MPs representing side-by-side ridings. She realizes she's a "pioneer," still, she wants people to know she's her own woman and resents being treated like Gurnina.

Grewal said she wasn't at the meetings between her husband and the Liberals and had nothing to do with the tapes.

"I didn't participate in the conversations," she said. "I wasn't there at all." In fact, she added, she was in Ottawa at a training session when Gurmant met the Liberals in Vancouver.

This is clearly wrong. The meetings with Dosanjh and Murphy took place in the parliamentary offices of Dosanjh and Grewal, respectively.

When I read this the first time last summer, I had assumed that somehow this had gotten mixed up and that she was in Vancouver and he was in Ottawa (see my comments here, obviously wrong since Nina asked a question during question period: here).

But look at what she had said to Shapiro only a few hours before being interviewed by the Now. She told Shapiro that Gurmant and she, both in Ottawa, had discussed the possible defection to the Liberals; what can only be a few hours later she told the Now that they could not have discussed it because they were in different cities.

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation for the confusion: remembrances about specific times and places can grow dim over time. But to have different recollections within a few hours? She could be lying in one case or the other. But for what possible gain? It's baffling.