Carson Chisholm Testifies

at the Cornwall Public Inquiry (10 – 12 October 2007)

 The Citizens for Community Renewal 

Until September 2007 the Citizens for Community Renewal (CCR) was considered the one and only voice of the community with standing at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.  

The majority of Cornwallites who lobbied for an inquiry were of the belief there is a cover-up in Cornwall, and most, if not all were supporters of Perry Dunlop and over many years rallied around his brother-in-law Carson Chisholm. 

The Coalition for Action, a group headed by Carson, was the only group turned down in its application for standing. Many viewed the initial rejection as a sign of things to come. An application for standing was resubmitted in September 2007, that after Carson Chisholm, who told inquiry staff he had no desire to testify, was subpoenaed. 

Over the past few months the CCR has been strangely adversarial with some victim witnesses.  Further to that the nature of its surprisingly limited cross-examination of Helen Dunlop certainly left many observers convinced that the CCR was no friend of the Dunlops, and many others questioning why the group had no interest in pursuing the facts and therefore what side of the Conrwall sex abuse scandal it was on. 

As of 11 October 2007 the CCR’s adversarial cross-examination of Carson Chisholm leaves little doubt in the minds of many that the CCR can not claim to be and does not represent the voice of the Cornwall community . 

Here are a few ‘highlights’.....  

On Ron Leroux’ Claims He Had Been Manipulated 

Ms. Daley seems to assume that Ron was more or less telling the truth when he testified and that he recanted his allegations.  I believe it is a bit of a stretch to say that Ron’s muddled and ever-changing testimony on the stand could be construed as recanting. 

MS. DALEY: Essentially what Mr. Leroux told us is that he felt pressured and manipulated --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: So I’ve heard. 

MS. DALEY: ---well by you and Perry into saying these things and it’s his swearing in affidavit. And you’re aware that that’s what he’s told the Inquiry? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Apparently, I don’t know. 

MS. DALEY: All right. 

MR. CHISHOLM: That’s El Torro pooh pooh. 

MS. DALEY: I’m sorry? 

MR. CHISHOLM: It is absolutely false --- 

MS. DALEY: Okay. 

MR. CHISHOLM: --- that we would say that. You’d have to be brain-dead to say that. 

MS. DALEY: All right. Now, do you have any information or explanation to offer as to why Mr. Leroux would have come to this Inquiry and said things that were false? In other words, he recanted what he said earlier. You say that the recantation is false. Why, in your mind, would that have happened? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Good question. Have you ever read the Franklin cover-up? 

MS. DALEY: Cant’ say I have. How does --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: You should. 

MS. DALEY: --- How does it answer the question though --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: Because it’s basically a story that happened in Franklin, Nebraska. It’s happening here. And the book is out and the movie’s out. You can Google it. It’s a great book and it leads right up to the White House. It is incredible. 

MS. DALEY: But, in your words, what happened to make Mr. Leroux testify falsely? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, when the heat is on and it comes -- and if it ever gets to court, how is the other side of the issue going to deal with it? Discredit the whistle blower. That’s the way to do it. Get a couple of vulnerable witness and turn them. Like I mentioned to her the other day when they had his buddy --- 

MS. DALEY: C-8. 

MR. CHISHOLM: --- C-8, Mr. Anonymous. He changed his story, obviously. At the Marcel Lalonde trial, he said that Dunlop told him to change his story so that some of this tuff happened in Toronto. And then a year or so later, a year and a half, now he is saying that I also said that. Like I mean --- 

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, but --- 

MS. DALEY: But here is where I’d like you to focus --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: --- this is how, if you can get the victim to twist their story, and it isn’t hard, and I did speak to him, as I mentioned the other day, after that. I said “What in hell is going on here? Why would you say that?” He said “They twisted what I told them”. 

MS. DALEY: Who’s they? 

MR. CHISHOLM: The police. 

Who might have influenced Ron Leroux to change his story. 

Daley presses on.  Who would pressure Ron Leroux to give false testimony? 

Justice Glaude jumps in to say that Ron didn’t change absolutely everything, but the commissioner failed to note that by the time Ron was finished his examination in chief he  had moved from blaming Perry for doctoring his statements and holding a gun to his head to stick with them, to backtracking by saying he, Ron, had told Perry things which weren’t true, to a point where he essentially said he wasn’t sure what or who he saw where or when.  Not exactly a recantation.  A mess. 

Carson carries on, testifying about how C-8 - who the gathered throng claim has recanted his sex abuse allegations against Charlie - had broken down in tears when he disclosed that he had been sexually abused by Charlie, and how now, according to a media account,  C-8 apparently can’t remember if he was abused by Charlie!

Then Carson goes on to tell about running into C-8 after the first time C-8 allegedly told authorities that Perry made him change his testimony, and how during that encounter C-8 seemed “ashamed” and told Carson that things he, C-8, had said had been twisted. And note where Glaude takes exception to Carson’s use of the word “ashamed”: 

MS. DALEY: Okay. Now, do you believe someone also twisted Mr. Leroux to give false --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: Absolutely. Absolutely. 

MS. DALEY: Who did that? 

MR. CHISHOLM: I don’t know. 

MS. DALEY: Do you have --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: Who would have any reason to do such a thing? Who? Who do you think might have a reason? 

MS. DALEY: I’m not here. I have no idea. 

MR. CHISHOLM: You are here. 

MS. DALEY: No, sir. I don’t live here; I didn’t --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: No, but you’re here now and I am asking you now. 

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no. Well, you don’t ask --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: Excuse me. 

THE COMMISSIONER: --- she won’t have to answer questions. 

MR. CHISHOLM: That’s the problem. Nobody has to answer the questions except us guys. 

MS. DALEY: Well, but sir, that’s your role at the moment. Can you help us at all as to who you believe got to Mr. Leroux and made him give false testimony here? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Hard to say. Hard to say. Who would benefit from it? The church? The police? 

THE COMMISSIONER: Well sir, he does maintain, other than for the meeting he does maintain that some people went to the island and some people went to Mr. Seguin’s home. So it’s not like he’s saying that everything that he told you and Mr. Dunlop is wrong. And he is not saying that everybody’s cleared. So I would see that if he was going to do something; if he’d cleared everybody – so can you help me on that? There is a --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: Yeah. It wouldn’t make any sense at all then, would it? But if he can just twist it enough to throw it out and on the whistle blower or on myself that will serve the purpose. 

I think basically he was telling the truth the first time for the most part. We grilled him fairly hard on that and he never seemed to change his story. C-8 told me about Charlie abusing him the day of his father’s funeral. He broke down crying when he was telling me.

I don’t think he was faking it. I don’t think Stephen King could write this novel. It was true as far as I’m concerned, and I’ve never had any reason to discontinue thinking that way--- 

MS. DALEY: Was --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: I’m not quite finished, if you don’t mind. 

MS. DALEY: Sorry. 

MR. CHISHOLM: And he admitted it when I did confront him with his change in testimony. I am talking about C-8 again, he just -- he just was so ashamed of himself. That’s why he was avoiding me. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, just a second, just a second, just a second. Let’s be clear here. You interpret the fact that he bowed his head as an admission? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, plus he backed it up verbally, he said “They twisted everything I said”. And he just -- I know, well, that’s how it works. If you can get him to twist it and change it, discredit Dunlop and company, you know, works for them. 

And why would he, like, why didn’t he mention to me a year and a half before?

And then after he is saying now, just recently, that he couldn’t remember for sure. He couldn’t recall if Father Charlie had abused him. You think that’s something that rings true. If somebody is  abusing you at your father’s funeral, do you think you might forget that. I don’t think so. You know, it’s just -- it was so obvious.

The poor fellow and I have no animosity towards C-8. He is a hardworking fellow, shake hands with him, you’ll know.His hands are calloused. He is a hardworking guy. He is incredibly hurt. 

Who’s running the program to protect paedophiles  

Note the rather sarcastic question posed by Daley: “Who’s running the program” to protect paedophiles?  This from a lawyer presumably representing the interests of the people of Cornwall!  It’s amazing Carson managed to keep his cool as well as he did: 

MS. DALEY: In your dealings with Mr. Leroux, did you ever observe that he seemed to be a suggestible person? 

MR. CHISHOLM: I don’t know. He is another one that is very damaged. 

MS. DALEY: Is part of that damage that perhaps he is suggestible or his memory is --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: No, the damage comes from being sodomized as a child. That’s where it comes from. Hello, you’re here now. That’s what’s happening. Get with the program. 

MS. DALEY: What program? 

MR. CHISHOLM: The program to hide these pedophiles. 

MS. DALEY: Who’s running the program? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Who’s running the program? The church, the police, they have a pretty big hand in it, wouldn’t you say?  

MS. DALEY: Anybody else running the program? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, let’s work with those pair. 

MS. DALEY: Just like your complete evidence if I can get it. 

MR. CHISHOLM: Go for it. 

MS. DALEY: Is there anyone else who is behind the program? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, we’ll find out, won’t we? Let’s have some more questions. 

 If Mr. Leroux’ statements were false... 

Ms. Daley launched into a series of questions about Ron Leroux’ statement being on Dick Nadeau’s website, and Ron testifying he didn’t give Dick permission to put them up, and then she actually asked Carson Chisholm if he knew if Dick got permission! And then Carson said he personally wouldn’t put the affidavit up without permission, and then, look what follows.  Can there be any doubt that Daley and the CCR have somehow deduced that a whole lot of Ron’s affidavit was a lie and some component of his muddled testimony was the truth – the part before he said he wasn’t sure anymore who he saw doing what? 

Who, I wonder, does Daley have in mind when she references the “innocent people” whose names were posted on Dick’s website?   

And note particularly that Daley actually seems miffed that Carson suggested in his recommendations that an apology to the Dunlops is in order. 

Finally, note there is not a whiff of concern from Daley regarding the damage done to the Dunlops and a multitude of others IF Ron Leroux was lying from 1996 through to the Spring of 2007.  Seems to me The Dunlops are one the ones who have been publicly dragged through the legal gutter.  But, no concern from Daley about them; she’s looking steadily through one end of the telescope -  not at the Dunlops but straight at some unidentified “alleged” paedophiles.  Who might they be?  No idea.  But, here’s the way this one unfolded: 

MS. DALEY: ... Did you consider it to be good thing that these statements by Mr. Leroux were on Mr. Nadeau’s website? 

MR. CHISHOLM: I never thought about it. I can’t recall what I thought. 

MS. DALEY: If Mr. Leroux’ statements were in fact false and they were posted on the website, does it follow that innocent people were wrongfully labelled as pedophiles? Does that follow? 

MR. CHISHOLM: I don’t know. You tell me, you’re the lawyer. This is conjecture, I don’t know. 

MS. DALEY: Are you --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: This is supposition, I don’t know. 

MS. DALEY: Are you not able to answer that question? 

MR. CHISHOLM: I don’t know. If everything is false and it’s on the website, is it a bad thing? Yes, of course. 

MS. DALEY: All right. 

MR. CHISHOLM: Is that what you’re saying, if everything’s false? 

MS. DALEY: And --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: Of course it’s wrong. 

MS. DALEY: And would you acknowledge that if people were falsely identified as a pedophile on a public website in Cornwall, that would be very detrimental for their reputation? 

MS. DALEY: Do you agree with that? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Yes. Yes, for sure. 

MS. DALEY: And would you agree -- you spoke in your statement about an apology to the Dunlop family. If people were falsely accused in this town of being pedophiles, would you not think that they’re also owed an apology? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Absolutely. 

MS. DALEY: Do you believe that people have been falsely accused of being pedophiles in this community? 

MR. CHISHOLM: That could be........

MS. DALEY: And would you agree -- you spoke in your statement about an apology to the Dunlop family. If people were falsely accused in this town of being pedophiles, would you not think that they’re also owed an apology?  

The “H” word

This is quite fascinating. Daley claims she wants to know if Carson believes there is a connection between paedophilia and the sort of thing “you” (read Carson) was “looking at” when he was ‘investigating’ allegations of sexual abuse.  

Now, the truth of the matter is that homosexual paedophilia was precisely the sort of thing involved in the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up. Most if not all “alleged” abusers, whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual or whatever, had, it seems, a decided sexual preference for boys, and all the “alleged” male victims were definitively homosexually molested.   Furthermore, according to the average person on  the street and any number of ‘experts’ those molesters would be classified as homosexual paedophiles. Some might say they are ephebophiles.  Others might say pederasts.  But most would say and understand that a homosexual paedophile is a man who sexually abuses boys.  

Now, bearing in mind that in its application for standing the CCR claimed that events in Corwnall had generated a "homophobic virus" which has resulted in "discrimination against some gay indivduals," look at the hoops Daley puts Carson through. 

I got the distinct impression from the adversarial nature of her cross-examination that at this juncture Daley set out to try to put words in Carson’s mouth, i.e., that she would get him to say that homosexuals are paedophiles.  He didn’t.  He talked about homosexual paedophiles, a completely different thing.  However I have the terrible sense that that was the object of this Daley/CCR exercise – try to denigrate Carson, a practicing Roman Catholic, by misrepresenting his beliefs and thereby denigrate him as a “homophobe.”  I believe Ms. Daley’s scarce veiled animosity toward Carson and his Catholic beliefs was exemplified when she later told me that this is what you get from the Christian right.  

So, here’s how this particlar exchange went:  

MS. DALEY: Do you have a view -- in your view, is there a relationship between pedophilia of the sort you were looking at and homosexuality? 

MR. CHISHOLM: There seems to be. 

MS. DALEY: What's the relationship as you've come to understand it? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, most of these lads are homosexual pedophiles. I mean it's almost all boys and almost all guys. In fact, I believe it's exclusively guys as perpetrators and victims, 90 plus-plus percent. So there is a correlation there, it seems pretty high. 

MS. DALEY: All right. So in your view, are the two things equivalent; homosexuality and pedophilia? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, hardly. 

MS. DALEY: I'm asking for your --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: No, no, no, they're not equivalent. 

MS. DALEY: All right. Are they -- how do you see them being connected? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, they seem to have been connected in this community pretty closely. Like I said, most of these guys, these pedophiles, are homosexual pedophiles, but I think there are actually more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual pedophiles, but it's just like there's more heterosexuals.

It’s like why do white sheep eat more than black sheep; because there's more white sheep. 

MS. DALEY: But in this town, your observation told you that the pedophiles were homosexuals? 

MR. CHISHOLM: The ones we've come across varied, well, yes, it's off the scale almost; almost all homosexual pedophiles.   

Other Portions of Carson’s testimony

More focus on the “H”word 

Bill Carroll (Ontario Provincial Police Association), who once defended Ottawa clerical homosexual-paedophile Father Ken Keeler, virtually screamed his confrontational cross-examination of Carson.. 

Carroll seemed anxious to get Carson to say that the oft’ referenced Ken Seguin tapes simply depicted homosexual pornography and not paedophilia.  That’s another issue.  However, in working to that end he tagged onto Daley’s line of questioning and Carson was back to talking about white sheep and black sheep:  

MR. CARROLL: ... And you made it very clear yesterday that you understood the difference between homosexual -- the term “homosexual” and the term “pedophile”; right? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Yes, I guess so. 

MR. CARROLL: Right. No, not guess so. You said that yesterday. 

MR. CHISHOLM: Okay, fine. 

MR. CARROLL: And you accepted there is a significant difference between “homosexual” and “pedophile”in their definitions? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Yes, yes. 

MR. CARROLL: Right? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Often they’re the same person, but, yes, there’s certainly a difference. 

MR. CARROLL: I understood you to say, sir, that your information was yesterday that there were in factmany more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexuals? That was your understanding? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Is there any more – are there more homosexual --- 

MR. CARROLL: No, no. 

MR. CHISHOLM: --- pedophiles -- what? 

MR. CARROLL: You said yesterday that your understanding of paedophilia --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: Yes. 

MR. CARROLL: --- that in fact there were many more heterosexual paedophiles that there were homosexual pedophiles? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Yes, because there are more heterosexuals --- 

MR. CARROLL: Regardless of the reason, that was your understanding; right? 

MR. CHISHOLM: That’s why I give the analogy of the sheep. 

MR. CARROLL: Well, we’ll leave the sheep for another day; okay? I’d like to stick to the facts --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: White sheep eat more than black sheep because there’s more white sheep. 

MR. CARROLL: This is not amusing to me. 

MR. CHISHOLM: No, it’s not amusing to me either. 

MR. CARROLL: Well, then, stick to the questions if you will.  

A Matter of Conscience

Carson testified that he had supported Perry Dunlop’s decision to go to the Children’s Aid Society when he learned the criminal investigation into sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin had been called off. 

On 11 October 2007, under cross-examination by Dallas Lee (Victims Group), Carson said that whether Perry went to CAS or not there was a price to pay. 

MR. LEE: ... so Mr. Dunlop tells you about what's going on with Silmser and the police and the church and you told us yesterday I think that you supported his decision to go to the CAS. Is that right? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Yes. 

MR. LEE: And you gave him that opinion before he had gone. He asked you before he went what you thought. Is that right? 

MR. CHISHOLM: I believe so, yes. 

MR. LEE: And you told him it was the right decision he was making to go to the CAS? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Yes, absolutely. 

MR. LEE: And I think you'll agree with me in the end that didn't make his life any easier, did it? 

MR. CHISHOLM: It didn’t make his life -- well, if he hadn’t had went, then he’d have his conscience to deal with and that might make it a lot worse, which would be considerable. 

MR. LEE: There was a price to pay either way? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Absolutely. 

Interfering with the Cover-up

Dallas Lee questioned Carson about inferences that his actions had compromised prosecutions.  Carson replied that to his mind the actions taken by himself and Perry interfered with the cover-up: 

MR. LEE: Are you aware that the suggestion has been made that your role in this whole thing compromised prosecutions? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Yes. 

MR. LEE: Was that ever your intention, sir? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Never. 

MR. LEE: That wasn't why you were conducting this investigation? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Absolutely not. 

MR. LEE: I am going to give you the opportunity, if you wish, to respond to those suggestions. Do you wish to respond to them? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Sure, absolutely. 

MR. LEE: Please go ahead. 

MR. CHISHOLM: I need specific -- well, what's --- 

MR. LEE: What do you say to the suggestion? What do you say to the suggestion that you're part of the reason why these institutions failed as they did? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, I'd have to watch what I said there.

What immediately jumps to mind is BS, which it is, but bear in mind that the -- back to the original pay-off, that was 11 months old. When I learned about it, that deal had been made, settled, buried. They told Dunlop, "Don't go there. You have a family. You have a job."

Not so veiled threats. The implication was very clear; dummy up, leave it alone. So how was that interfering with their investigation when we tried to get it exposed?

I don't follow their reasoning. That's interfering with their investigation? I don't think so. That's interfering with their cover-up.  

The Hotel Owner

On 06 December 1996, during a trip to Fort Lauderdale, Florida to attempt to verify certain allegations made by Ron Leroux, Carson talked to Mr. Bill Cvetkovski, the manager of the Fort Lauderdale Saltaire Hotel.

According to Ron Leroux the Saltaire was one of the Florida locales frequented by prominent men in the Cornwall community said to be part of a paedophile clan. 

As a result of the conversation with Cvetkovski Carson hand-wrote a statement which Cvetkovski in turn signed.  The statement, which was witnessed by Carson and Ron Leroux, reads in whole or in part: 

“Malcolm MacDonald (lawyer from Ontario) over a period of approximately eight years has stayed here at the motel and often brought young men with him to his room. Some of them may have been under the legal age of consent.” 

During his examination-in-chief Carson commission counsel Stouffer directed Carson to a 16 July 1999 statement signed by Mr. Cvetkovski.  Therein the hotel manager denies in broken English ever witnessing any sexual misconduct and, witness the following, seems to perhaps imply that what was read to him by Carson was not what he signed, and at the same time seems to minimize the number of Malcolm MacDonald’s stays at the Saltaire: 

“No, it was readed [sic] to me before signing diferently (with one f) and the true [sic] is we saw [those two words underlined] MacDonald a few times in a short period with a young man around the pool which apeared (with one p)like a short visit to us.” 

Carson in turn pointed to the final paragraph of Cvetkovski’s 1999 statement which Stauffer had failed to address:  “I hope my information is useful to you and have great hope of clearing my name.” 

As Carson said:  

“What’s that got to do with this statement?.... it kind of looks like he’s defending himself and his establishment. ....And that would kind of indicate to me maybe he was getting a little pressure, you know what I mean? 

Who procured the 1999 statement from Cvetkovski and why is unknown.  Carson asked.  He, along with the rest of us, will have to wait for answers and clarification if and when Mr. Cvetkovski is called to testify . 

Meanwhile Carson says he can’t understand how Cvetkovski could say he didn’t understand what he was signing:  

MR. CHISHOLM: ... I just wrote it out in front of him. Read it to him. He signed it. I don't know how he can say he didn't understand it or anything. I never went three feet from him. 

Expenses

Carson was asked by one of his lawyers from the Coalition if he ever received any money for expenses incurred while he was trying to sort out what was going on in Cornwall.   With his ready wit Carson replied: 

MR. CHISHOLM: No, no. Maybe the cheque is in the mail. I don't know. I haven't got it yet. 

Most people are unaware of the personal financial costs incurred by the Dunlops and Carson while doing what no one was else seemed prepared to do to protect children from sexual predators.  I have been told that over the years his efforts in that vein have cost Carson in excess of $200,000!   

When are we going to get down to the nitty-ditty?

When Carson finished testifying on 12 October 2007 Justice Gaude thanked him and reminded him that the Coalition for Action now has standing at the inquiry and Carson will be able to channel the many questions he has through his lawyers. 

After 19 months of testimony and with thousands of documents to review the chances of any lawyer managing to wrap his head around the intricacies and complexities of the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up suffice to be truly effective are, I would say are minuscule.

No offence to the Coalition lawyers, but, that’s impossible.  No matter how bright, no one can wrap their heads around Cornwall in a matter of weeks, and certainly not suffice to be thoroughly versed on at least some of the key names, connections and legal calamites.  Further to that, Carson has to work to put bread on the table.  He can not be in the Weave Shed to advise his legal counsel on the spot how a witness’ testimony fits into the scandal or what names link to what. 

That aside it seems clear that Carson and the commissioner have diverging opinions as to what the inquiry has been up to for the past 20 months.  Glaude thinks the commission has been getting on with the business at hand. Carson, like so many others,  is waiting to some of the “alleged” paedophiles to take the hot seat. 

That, dare I say and sad to say, is not part of the master plan:

 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Chisholm, thank you very much. I know that you’ve been involved in this a long time. I understand that -- I understand just a little bit of the frustration that you feel. You have -- you and your group have standing here and a lot of the questions that you have, hopefully, will be channelled through your lawyers --- 

MR. CHISHOLM: Hopefully, yes. 

THE COMMISSIONER: --- whom you will be giving instructions to.  

MR. CHISHOLM: I can hope and pray, yes. That is what we would hope, yes. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Well -- oh, boy. Okay. 

MR. CHISHOLM: No, no. I’m anticipating that -- but it’s been along time and we’re just -- we’d like to get at her. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, contrary to what you may believe, we have been getting at it for along time now. 

MR. CHISHOLM: Well, I’ve been watching it. I haven’t seen any of them up here yet. But I’ll take your word for it that they’re coming.