SQLFusion - The CSIS Fitzpatrick factor

The CSIS Fitzpatrick factor

Those who followed the Cornwall Public inquiry will recall Geraldine Fitzpatrick’s explosive testimony. Fitzpatrick took the stand in October 2008. Fitzpatrick is a CAS employee.

A cursory overview ….

Geralidine Fitzpatrick testified about her contacts with CPS Constable Heidi Sebalj in the late Fall of 1993.

According to Fitzpatrick Sebalj was extremely upset by the fact that, amongst other things and according to Fitzpartick, Sebalj had said that David Silmser had gone to CAS before he went to police and was rebuffed, she believed Silmser’s allegations, she had wanted Father Charles MacDonald charged and was upset that Crown Murray MacDonald said ‘no victim no charges,’ and that Constable Perry Dunlop “stole” her Silmser files.

Fitzpatrick also testified that in the 80s she had personally encountered allegations of sex abuse against Ken Seguin. She also testified that at Sebalj’ request she interviewed Jeannette Antoine in November 1993.

According to Fitzpatrick Sebalj had talked to Antoine in July 1992 and learned that Antoine alleged she had been physically and sexually abused by CAS staff at a group homecalled the Second Street Group Home.

Antoine alleged she told CAS officials and CPS Constable Kevin Malloy of the abuse in 1989 and nothing was done.

According to Fitzpatrick Sebalj was so upset with her force’s handling of the Silmser and Antoine allegations that she didn’t know what to do with the information gleaned from the pair’s joint interview of Antoine. Sebalj allegedly planned to take the interview tapes to a lawyer to seek legal advice and to approach another police force.

Fitzpatrick testified that she was anxious to tell CAS officials but Sebalj essentially told her to keep it all quiet.

On Boxing Day 1993 an increasingly concerned Fitzpatirck broke her silence and began to confide the details to Wayne Murphy, her visiting step-daughter’s husband. At the time Fitzpatrick thought Murphy was an RCMP officer. She discovered later that he was with CSIS.

There were perhaps three conversations on the matter of the Sebalj and Antoine allegations between Murphy and Fitzpatrick. Murphy allegedly contacted Fitzpatrick on a couple of occasions to seek further details and/or clarification.

Fitzpatrick testified that Murphy told her the matters were in hand – he allegedly told her that three investigations were underway, one into the CAS, another into the Silmser allegations, and yet another into the CPS. There is nothing to indicate which if any investigation proceeded as result of CSIS intervention.

That was it. As far as Fitzpatrick was concerned the matter was in good hands.

Despite the many police investigations which ensued there was no police contact with Fitzpatrick. She was not contacted or interviewed by the Ottawa police during its brief January 1994 review/”investigation. She was not contacted or interviewed by anyone with the CPS during any of its internal investigations. She was not contacted or interviewed by any of the OPP Project Truth officers. Nor was Fitzpatrick ever contacted by CPS.

I personally had wondered what Murphy had done with Fitzpatrick’s concerns. As there were areas of Fitzpatrick’s testimony which I felt needed clarification and/or corroboration I had hoped and assumed Murphy would be called to testify, both to get his perspective on what he was told by and what he had said to Fitzpatrick. No Wayne Murphy.

The Murphy-Blake contact

It was only in reviewing the Skinner transcripts that I realized that I had missed some evidence which I now know relates to Murphy. If I even heard it at the time it meant nothing to me and floated right over my head. (Skinner testified in February 2008: Fitzpatrick in October 2008.)

As I read through the transcripts I was surprised to see that Murphy had in fact contacted Ottawa police S.Sgt. William Blake at least twice in January 1994. That was while Blake and his partner Superintendent Brian Skinner were conducting their brief “external” investigation of the CPS handling of the Silmser allegations – the one which concluded “no cover-up.” The information regarding Murphy’s contact with Blake is contained in Blake’s notes. The notes were entered into evidence during Skinner’s testimony.

It’s rather interesting and disturbing to know that if Skinner had had his way Blake’s notes would have been destroyed and we probably never would have heard of any of the Fitzpatrick allegations let alone the involvement in the Cornwall sex abuse scandal of a CSIS officer. Throughout their mini investigation Skinner took no notes. Skinner understood that when Blake retired his, Blake’s, files and notes relating to the investigation would be destroyed. For whatever reason the files and notes were not destroyed and were in fact in possession of the Ottawa Carleton Regional Police Service.

The files were disclosed by OCRPS to the Cornwall Pubic Inquiry. As mentioned already, when Skinner was put on the stand the files were entered into evidence. I dare say that had Skinner not been called to testify, or had Blake destroyed the files, we would never have heard of Geraldine Fitzpatrick’s meet with Heidi Sebalj and subsequent contact with a CSIS officer. Nor would we have learned that a CSIS officer contacted Blake to relay the troubling information he had gleaned from Fitzpatrick.

As I see it now Fitzpatrick confided her fears and concerns about CPS and CAS to Wayne Murphy whom Fitzpatrick thought was an RCMP officer . Unbeknownst to Fitzpatrick Murphy was in fact a CSIS employee. Murphy assured Fitzpatrick that things were being taken care of.

On 12 January 1994, two days after Blake and Skinner arrived in Cornwall and started their investigation, Murphy phoned Blake and related in whole or in part what Fitzpatrick had told him. What contact if any was made prior to that date is unknown.

Skinner testified he does not recall if Blake told him about the call but felt the information was not relevant to their investigation!.

On 17 January 1994 Murphy called Blake again. Again, Skinner testified that he could not recall if Blake told him about the call. That is the last record of contact between Murphy and Blake. If there were other contacts they are not recorded.

On 18 January 1994 Skinner and Blake met with CAS Executive Director Rick Abell. Although Murphy had apparently talked to Blake about concerns Fitzpatrick had expressed regarding the relationship between CAS and CPS the pair did not address those concerns directly during the interview.

As far as we know, that was the end of it.

We know that David Silmser and Perry Dunlop were not interviewedby the Skinner and Blake..

Heidi Sebalj was interviewed – what if any questions may have been asked regarding the confidences she shared with Fitzpatrick are unknown.

Fourteen years later Fitzpatrick took the stand.

I could almost hear the collective scoff from the bulk of the gathered throng in the Weave Shed. Then, silence. Although Fitzpatrick was a long-time and apparnelty well rgarded CAS employee it was as though both she and her testimony had been summarily dismissed.

As I have said elsewhere Fitzpatrick was a feisty witness. There was no doubt that she believed what she said and was adamant that as outrageous as something may sound what she related was what was told or what she understood had been said.

I’ll admit I had trouble with some portions of Fitzpatrick’s testimony, but I never for a moment thought she was lying or intentionally misleading the commission. She seemed to be absolutely convinced of the veracity of her testimony.

I personally can think of no good reason that Fitzpatrick would have lied or what she might stand to gain personally by doing so.

Who knows with certainty what Sebalj did or did not tell Fitzpatrick, Ditto Murphy. And, for that matter, who knows what was told Fitzpatrick that could have been innocently misconstrued. I personally think the one for sure is that Sebalj definitely confided some fears and/or concerns regarding the Silmser investigation to Fitzpatrick.

As we know, for medical reasons Sebalj did not testify. Murphy and Blake should definitely have been put on the stand.

For whatever reason, S/Sgt Blake was not called to testify at the inquiry. Blake and Blake alone could relate his account as to (i) what Fitzpatrick told him, (ii) what he told Fitzpatrick, (iii) who if anyone directed Murphy to contact him, (iv) why and how often he was contacted by Murphy, (v) what Murphy had to say, (vi) what Murphy thought of Fitzpatrick’s allegations, (vii) what if anything Blake told Skinner and what Skinner in turn had to say, (viii) if Blake ever discussed the call with any members of CPS or the OCRPS, and, (ix) what if any follow up was initiated by Murphy after the OCRPS investigation was finished, and (x) what other action, if any, Murphy said he planned to take or took.

Likewise, for whatever reason Wayne Murphy was not called to testify at the inquiry. Murphy and Murphy alone was in a position to give his account of (i) what Fitzpatrick told and said to him, (ii) what he told and said to Fitzpatrick, (iii) what he told and said to Blake, (iv) what Blake told and said to him, (v) why David Silmser wasn’t interviewed, (vi) what he hoped to gain by contacting Blake, (vii) what the three investigations were, and (viii) what other police officers and/or police investigations if any he contacted or contacted him to discuss the Fitzpatrick’s concerns and allegations.

Blake and Murphy apparently knew each other. Both could have testified as to the extent of their acquaintance. Were they perhaps good friends who might have further discussed the Fitzpatrick allegations off duty?

Anyway, neither testified. As unbeleivable as it is, that's the bottom line.

But, that’s the way it is, and, here we are - more questions now than when this inquiry was commissioned four very long years ago.

I realize this is sparse on what exactly Skinner and Blake were about for those eight or nine days in and out of Cornwall. There will be much more information on the January 1993 Skinner-Blake investigation in Timelines. I was actually working on Skinner’s testimony when I happened on this and decided to digress and create a separate post. This is it. I will now get back to Timelines - once I have finished adding info to the January/February 1994 entries a fair amount of information relevant to the Skinner-Blake investigation will be found interspersed from 08 January 1994 to early February 1994.

Now a few of the details. To put this into perspective I have worked backward, starting with the longest entry (1) The allegations (October 2008); then back to (2) Skinner testifies February 2008, and, then (3) Fitzpatrick contacted February 2008. The latter would then loop back to the beginning with The Allegations which were made public during Fitzpatrick’s testimony.

Here we go…

(1) The Allegations (October 2008)

There were a number of issues raised by Fitzpatrick during her testimony. For those interested in a deeper look click here for the transcripts: 07 October 2008 and 08 October 2008. I will focus more on the allegations related to David Silmser’s sex abuse allegations solely because Skinner and Blake were presumably investigating the CPS Silmser investigation and, from what I can see, paid no heed to whatever Murphy related regarding Fitzpatrick’s allegations.

The following then is testimony as related by Geraldine Fitzpatrick. (The dates under a number of the headers are those of the relevant transcript)

(1) Sebalj confided in Fitzpatrick

Fitzpatrick thought it was around late October or early November 1993 that a rather upset Constable Heidi Sebalj first confided in her. (Perry gave the David Silmser victim statement to CAS 30 September 2008)

(2) Allegations against CAS

Amongst other things Sebalj allegedly told Fitzpatrick that (i) CAS worker Greg Bell had photographed her Silmser file and (ii) Silmser had been rebuffed by a CAS in take worker. (07 October 2008)

MS. FITZPATRICK: Okay. Heidi told me that she had been assigned a case of a priest who had molested a young man many years ago, and she believed the victim, and she wanted to charge the ---
THE COMMISSIONER: So, just a second, just a minute.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Okay.
THE COMMISSIONER: She told you about an allegation of molestation?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes. Yes. Okay, okay,sorry, back up. Excuse me. Well, her first thing, you know, I just -- I'll tell it straight out the way that she did it.
She was very upset and she said to me -- she seemed to think that I knew what she was about to tell me, which I didn't know anything about this.
And she told me that my co-worker, Greg Bell, had just been in the office and that he had been photographing her file.
And so I said to her, "He photographed your file? There's a Xerox machine right out in the hall. Why would he photograph your file?" And so she said that there was -- that he wanted to investigate a case that she had.
She said, "I did this investigation. I had a victim who alleged that he had been abused by a priest as a young boy." She said, "He had been to the Children's Aid before he came to me and he told the Children's Aid Society that he had been abused by a priest”. And that the intake reception worker had basically said, "Well, that's not our mandate. You can go to the police and tell your story, but that's not something that we would address here”. So Heidi said he came forward and, you know, he followed the advice and he went to the police station and he reported the abuse. Heidi believed him. She wanted to charge the priest.
She said she went to the Crown Attorney and told the Crown Attorney that she wanted to charge the priest and that in the meantime, she said, the Diocese had contact with the victim, and they were offering him a deal. And she said she told the Crown Attorney that, and he said, "Well, you don't have a victim; you don't have a case”.
So she said, "Now, Perry Dunlop went and he stole..." -- I’m sorry, I'll back up a little. So she said, "I was upset, so I told Perry Dunlop and another police officer how upset I was because I wanted to charge the priest and the Crown Attorney wouldn't let me”.
And so she said, "Perry Dunlop went and stole my file and he brought it to Richard Abell”. And she said, "And now he's being made the big hero for the work that I did”. And so she felt really upset about that. And then she told me that she thought there was some collusion going on. And I'm saying "Collusion, what are you talking about?"

Fitzpatrick was firm that Sebalj had said Perry “stole” her Silmser files.

(13 October 2008)

MS. DALEY: You learned through Heidi at your first session with her that in fact what’s happened is that a fellow officer of hers, Perry Dunlop, she says has taken her file and given it directly to Mr. Abell.
MS. FITZPATRICK: She said he stole her file ---
MS. DALEY: Right.
MS. FITZPATRICK: --- and gave it to Richard Abell.

(It would have been interesting to hear Seblj’ interpretation and perception of what happened. That unfortunately did not happen. I believe however there is sufficient evidence to confirm that Perry Dunlop asked for a copy of the David Silmser victim statement, photocopied it and eventually gave a copy to Richard Abell. He never tried to hide those facts. There is also sufficient evidence to confirm that Perry was not viewed as a ‘hero’ by his CPS colleagues – neither in November 1993 or later. But possibly that is how Sebalj viewed the mess as it slowly unfolded?)

(3) Sebalj believed David Silmser

Acording to Fitzpatrick Sebalj believed David Silmser and she wanted to have Father Charles MacDonald charged (08 October 2008)

MR. LEE: And something else you told us was that Ms. Sebalj told you that she believed the complainant.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. LEE: Meaning the complainant who had made an allegation against the priest.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. LEE: And you recall her saying that?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. LEE: And another thing you've talked a fair bit about was the fact that the victim -- according to Ms. Sebalj, the alleged victim had gone to the CAS and had been told to report to the police instead.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. LEE: And you've told us that you've since confirmed that with one of your colleagues ---
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. LEE: --- Ms. Leblanc. Now, one of the things you've repeated a number of times is that Ms. Sebalj told you that she believed the complainant and that she wanted to charge the priest.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.

(4) Sebalj indentified the intake worker

According to Fitzpatrick, the intake worker who allegedly dealt with David Silmser as Carol Leblanc

(07 October 2008)

MR. DUMAIS: And did she -- or did she ever advise you of the name of the alleged perpetrator, the priest, here?
MS. FITZPATRICK: No. She just kept calling him “the priest”.
MR. DUMAIS: Okay.
And you indicated that the complainant initially had gone to the Children’s Aid Society. Is that correct?
MS. FITZPATRICK: That’s correct.
MR. DUMAIS: And did she indicate to you whom he would have spoken to there?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes. She said to me that he spoke to Carole Leblanc.
MR. DUMAIS: Okay. And do you know -- did you know Carole Leblanc?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes. M'hm
MR. DUMAIS: And what was her job at the CAS?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Well, at that time she was an intake reception worker.

****

MR. DUMAIS: ….And did you ever speak to Carole Leblanc about this at any point-in-time?
MS. FITZPATRICK: You know what? About a year ago, for some reason she told me that she was the worker who took the report when the victim came in. And I don’t really know why that conversation came up.

(5) Sebalj thought “they” were protecting someone.

(08 October 2008)

MS. DALEY: …Did Officer Sebalj actually suggest to you that she thought that the Crown had turned her down because he was trying to silence her or protect someone, or is that an interpretation that you came to?
MS. FITZPATRICK: No.
MS. DALEY: Is that something she said to you?
MS. FITZPATRICK: No, she thought -- she thought they were protecting someone. That’s what she said, “they”.
MS. DALEY: Who?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Well, she didn’t say who “they” were.
MS. DALEY: All right.
MS. FITZPATRICK: She just said they were protecting -- they ---
MS. DALEY: All right. But that extended to the Crown ---
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MS. DALEY: --- in terms of what she actually said to you?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MS. DALEY: This was her belief?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.

(6) Sebalj thought there was collusion

(08 October 2008)

MS. DALEY: Did she tell you what that collusion was?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Well, her suspicion -- because she didn’t understand the reaction over the priest case. She thought this was a done deal; the man should be charged just like any other alleged offender.

****

MS. FITZPATRICK: And this time the process was different. And she said, you know, the victim came to her, you know, quite discouraged and saying, “I went to CAS, they turned me away”, you know, go to the police. She believed the victim. She wanted to charge the victim. She said she ---
THE COMMISSIONER: She wanted to charge the victim?
MS. FITZPATRICK: I’m sorry. She wanted to charge the accused.
So she said that she went to the Crown Attorney and that her word was, he squashed her case, and so she was quite frustrated. So she said that she told two of her fellow police officers about how upset she was.

(7) Sebalj asked Fitzpatrick for assistance

(07 October 2008)

During their late October 1993 or early November 1994 meeting Sebalj told Fitzpatrick about a meeting she had had the previous year with a Jeannette Antoine. At that time Antoine had allegedly disclosed that she had been physically and sexually abused at the Second Street Group home by CAS workers. Antoine alleged she had she had reported to CAS and CPS and nothing had been done.

Sebalj now wanted to try to find Antoine, and, if successful, interview her about those allegations. She asked Fitzpatrick to conduct the interview because, according to Fitzpatrick, Sebalj, said she wasn’t trained to do it. Fitzpatrick agreed.

MS. FITZPATRICK: … She said if I find this woman again, she said, would you interview this woman for me, because Heidi hadn’t been through the ISOC training yet.

****

(08 October 2008)

MR. HORN: from what I understand you were called in by Heidi to do the investigation because you were trained in that sort of investigation.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes. M’hm.

(8) Sebalj pursued the Antoine allegations after learning the CAS would not investigate Silmser’s allegations against Ken Seguin.

(07 October 2008)

On 13 January 1994 Sebalj filed a supplementary occurrence report in the CPS’ OMPPAC system by Sebalj. Therein, Sebalj, writing in the third person, indicates that she decided to pursue the Antoine allegations in November 1993 because of the CAS refusal to investigate Silmser’s allegations against Ken Seguin. A section of the supplementary report reads as follows:

“Constable Sebalj’s interest in Jeannette Antoine’s history surfaced again in November of 1993. Constable Sebalj had been advised that the Children’s Aid Society would not investigate allegations made against a Cornwall probation officer, suggesting that Probation was not within the Children’s Aid Ministry.”

That is obviously reference to the David Silmser allegations against Seguin. (After receiving Silmser’s victim statement from Perry CAS had mounted a full blown investigation into his allegations against Father Charles MacDonald. Although the statement included sex abuse allegations against probation officer Ken Seguin the same action was not taken in regard to those allegations because, it has reputedly been said, probation was not within the CAS mandate.)

Why that prompted Sebalj to want to look at the Antoine allegations is not totally clear. We do know is that at the end of the November 1993 Antoine interview Sebalj apparently asked Antoine if she knew Ken Seguin:

MS. FITZPATRICK: In the second meeting, when Jeannette was there -- I’m trying to think how he -- his name even came up because at the end of the view -- interview, she asked Jeannette if she knew Ken Seguin and I thought, why is she asking that question? But Jeannette sort of just taking a -- stopping dead in her tracks -- physical appearance changed, her face looked shocked, and she didn’t want to talk about it, so I guess Heidi said we’ll talk about it later. So that’s all I know. I don’t even know if she said he had been her officer. She just stopped dead in her tracks and she -- so it wasn’t time to hear any more stories, you know?

In addition it seems from the transcripts that Ken Seguin was Jeannette Antoine’s probation officer. Fitzpatrick anticipated a follow-up interview to pursue the matter further . That never happened. What then did Sebalj know which caused her to link the Jeannette Antoine allegations to the CAS failure to pursue those against Seguin?

(9) Sebalj planned to seek legal advice

(07 October 2008)

Sebalj allegedly didn’t want the Crown ruining this case the way he had that of Silmser and planned to take the Antoine interview tapes to a lawyer to seek legal advice Jeannette Antoine was interviewed by Antoine and Fitzpatrick 12 November 1993. Asked why she was there, Fitzpatrick testified that she was there to support Sebalj.

MS. FITZPATRICK: For support of Heidi and to help her validate or substantiate or rule out if there was anything to what this woman was telling her.

Fitzpatrick led the interview. Sebalj took notes. The interview was taped. According to Fitzpatrick the pair were upset with what they heard from Antoine, so much so that Sebalj decided to take the tapes to a lawyer to seek legal advice.

MS. FITZPATRICK: … after we finished with Jeannette, I have to say I was more than disappointed to say the least. And I said, “Oh my God, Heidi, what are we going to do?” And she was taking the audiotapes and she was wrapping them up. And she said, “Well, I’m going to take these tapes to a lawyer”.
And I said, “What do you mean a lawyer? You know I have to tell my boss”. And so she said, “No”, she said, “You’ll be obstructing a criminal investigation if you do”. And I said, “Well, aren’t you going to tell your boss, Luc?” And so she said, “Well, I can’t”. And I said, “Why not?” And she said, “Well, he sits on the Board of the Children’s Aid Society”.
And it’s not that she -- the only -- she saw it as a conflict of interest because he sat on the Board; the allegations were made; very serious allegations were made against Children’s Aid.
And so what Heidi wanted to do -- oh, I’m sorry -- she said to me that she was taking this to the lawyers and when I realized that she told me I can’t tell my boss, and that she’s not going to tell her boss, that made me really nervous.
And she was going to take it to a lawyer; put it in his care because she said that she wasn’t going to let the Crown Attorney get a hold of this case the way he ruined the last case on her.
And she said her plan was, she was going within the legal department but to another law enforcement or whoever, to find out what she should do about this. So she told me -- I thought people were going to get arrested right away.
And she told me that she would be back in touch with me in two weeks because by then she will have known what to do and the process will be in place.
MR. DUMAIS: Now, Geraldine, you indicated that she would be taking the tapes to a lawyer. Did she provide you with a name? Did she ---
MS. FITZPATRICK: No, she did not.
MR. DUMAIS: And did you get the impression that by “lawyer” she meant the Crown Attorney or ---
MS. FITZPATRICK: No, she was going to a private lawyer to secure the tapes until she could find out what to do.
MR. DUMAIS: And were you ever made aware of that fact that she would have seen a lawyer to do with the tapes?
MS. FITZPATRICK: After that day, I waited the two weeks for Heidi and I never heard from her.

****

(08 October 2008)

MS. FITZPATRICK: … Heidi told me, "Give me two weeks. I'm taking these tapes to a lawyer to secure them, and then I'm going to get back to you and we'll know what to do," because she will have had a lawyer's advice. And she also planned to go to the police, but in another division, to ask their opinion and their support.

(10) Other allegations against Ken Seguin

(07 October 2008)

In the late 80s Fitzpatrick visited a home on CAS business. As she was leaving Fitzpatrick stopped to talk to a man who had been standing at the corner of the room.

MS. FITZPATRICK: …So I introduced myself and I asked him basically what his story was and he told me that he had been seeing psychiatrists, he had been in 11 different treatment centres, and he was saying nothing was working for him.
And so then I started asking, "Well, what is the root of all this? Like what is this problem? You know, you've been to every psychiatrist, treatment centres, and nothing is being effective".
And so what he said to me was that he used to be a young man -- when he was a young man he was placed in the Alfred group homes, and he said that in the Alfred group homes he was being physically and sexually abused. So he used to run away and when he ran away he used to run away to his probation officer's home, who was Ken Seguin.
And he said that Ken was a great guy and that he would help him a lot. And I said, "Well, did you tell Ken what was going on in Alfred, what they were doing to you?" And he said, "Oh, yeah, he knew what they were doing to me," and he said, "But he said that he was sorry but that he had to take me back there."
And he said -- I said, "Well, then what happened?" And he says, "Well," he said, "we had lunch, he let me have a shower, and then we had sex together." And he said, "And then he drove me back to the Alfred group home."
And so I said, "You're telling me he was a good guy?" And he said, "Yeah." And I said, "Well, you're telling me he sexually abused you." And he said, "Yeah, well, at least he didn't physically -- at least he didn't beat me."

(11) Fitzpatrick agreed that some of her testimony is inconsistent with other evidence

(08 October 2008)

Michael Neville (Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin estate) directed Fitzpatrick to a letter written by Crown Murray MacDonald to CPS s/Sgt. Luc Brunet. Fitzpatrick agreed that MacDonald’s comment re Sebalj is inconsistent with what she was told by Sebalj, but Fitzpatrick testified that’s what she was told by Sebalj.

MR. NEVILLE: Now, what Mr. MacDonald is saying to the Staff Sergeant is that just prior -- or prior to the settlement coming forward, in early September as we’ve seen, Officer Sebalj was tentative as to whether she had grounds to lay a charge. Did you know that?
MS. FITZPATRICK: That isn’t what she told me.
MR. NEVILLE: Exactly. Do you agree with me that that is inconsistent with what she tells you?
MS. FITZPATRICK: It is inconsistent, yes.

(12) Sebalj stood by her testimony

Michael Neville tried unsuccessfully to shake Fitzpatrick re her story about encountering a victim of Ken Seguin in the late 80s

(08 October 2008)

MR. NEVILLE: …And is it possible, Ms. Fitzpatrick, that on any particular details that we see there, many of which you've given here, you could be mistaken?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Such as what one?
MR. NEVILLE: Well, you've said a lot of things about what Officer Sebalj said to you.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. NEVILLE: And is it possible you're mistaken on any of those things?
MS. FITZPATRICK: No.
****
MR. NEVILLE: And you told the Commissioner about an event where you went to a home on a child protection issue and had a conversation with a man who was not in very good health, and he told you certain things.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. NEVILLE: Is it possible you're mistaken about any of those details?
MS. FITZPATRICK: No, I'm not.

(13) Good question

Michael Neville poses a question to Fitzpatrick, she comes back with a good question of her own, and Glaude refuses to allow Neville to answer. 08 October 2008

MR. NEVILLE: Now, just so you again know in context, these are the day-to-day notes of Staff Sergeant Derochie, who was assigned by the administration of the police department to investigate the whole matter of the disclosure of the statement by Mr. Dunlop to Richard Abell and the conduct of the investigation. All right?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Why didn’t they use the outside police force?
MR. NEVILLE: Well, if you don’t mind I’ll ask the questions.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Okay.
MR. NEVILLE: And, just to answer your question, ma’am ---
THE COMMISSIONER: No, you don’t answer questions, Mr. ---

(14) Murder?

Fitzpatrick claims to know the identity of a murderer in a cold case file. Michael Neville wanted to hear no more.

(08 October 2008)

MR. NEVILLE: Have you read any transcripts?
MS. FITZPATRICK: There's a section there of the victims -- who said that they were victims, and one of the names I recognized. I called the Commission because that person committed a murder, which is a cold-case file.
MR. NEVILLE: I don't think it was responsive to the question, Commissioner. I'll move on.

(15) Fitzpatrick C-8’s sister allegedly told Fitzpatrick that C-8 had been molested by Father Charles MacDonald and Marcel Lalonde

(C-8 allegedly recanted his sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald. Lawyers have tried to infer that Perry Dunlop forced C-8 to allege sexual abuse by the priest. C-8, who molested his niece, testified at the inquiry in camera and, obviously, with a moniker. His testimony seems to be top secret.)

(Fitzpatrick transcript 08 October 2008)

MR. NEVILLE: You gave evidence to Mr. Lee about a child abuse case involving a young woman who had been abused by her uncle.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. NEVILLE: And you indicated that at some point in the course of the investigation it became known that the uncle had been abused by Father MacDonald and by a teacher.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. NEVILLE: Is the teacher Marcel Lalonde?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. NEVILLE: Do you know the name of the uncle?
THE COMMISSIONER: Just answer.
MR. NEVILLE: Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Just answer. Do you know the name ---
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes, I do.
MR. NEVILLE: Madam Registrar is going to show you the name of somebody we here are calling C-8.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Okay. That’s correct; that’s him.
MR. NEVILLE: So how did you learn that C-8 had been abused by Father MacDonald?
MS. FITZPATRICK: His sister told us.
MR. NEVILLE: And she told you this as part of your looking into the abuse of the niece?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes, she was trying to defend her brother.
MR. NEVILLE: And she was trying to defend him by saying, look, he’s not that bad; he was abused ---
MS. FITZPATRICK: Correct.
MR. NEVILLE: --- by two people; one of them my client, Father Charles MacDonald?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. NEVILLE: Did you believe that story?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
MR. NEVILLE: Did you know that this gentleman admitted that his entire story against my client was a fabrication?
MS. FITZPATRICK: No.

(16) CAS intake worker identified

Geraldine Testified that about a year ago (2007) CAS employee Carol Leblanc told her that she, Leblanc, was the worker who took the report ( October 2008). Under cross examination Fitzpatrick reiterated that Leblanc was the intake worker who took Silmser’s complaint. (08 October 2008)

MS. DALEY: And can you refresh my mind about the lady who you believe was on intake and took [David Silmser’s] complaint? Was that Carole Leblanc?
MS. FITZPATRICK: That’s correct.
MS. DALEY: And she’s still with the agency?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes, she is.
MS. DALEY: And you’re satisfied, are you, Ms. Fitzpatrick, that fairly recently she acknowledged to you that this in fact occurred, that Silmser had come to her?
MS. FITZPATRICK: That’s correct.

Two addendums here

(a) Carol Leblanc was called to testify. She denied knowing or ever having had any CAS dealings with David Silmser. She also denied ever telling Fitzpatrick that she, Leblanc, was the worker. (Leblanc testimony)
(b) David Silmser has consistently maintained that he went to CAS before Perry Dunlop. Silmser. He puts the time frame as about six months before Perry went. To my knowledge Silmser has never said he was rebuffed by CAS)

(17) Fitzpatrick told three task forces were being set up

On Boxing Day 1993 Fiztpatrick confided in Wayne Murphy. Murphy was married to Fitzpatrick’s step-daughter. Fitzpatrick thought Murphy was an RCMP office, she later learned he was with CSIS. Exactly how much she told Murphy is unknown but she did tell him about the Antoine allegations, the CAS David Silmser allegations and Ken Seguin.

After that initial contact Murphy contacted Fitzpatrick a few times to clarify and/or seek further details. He then told Fitzpatrick this ‘is a lot bigger than you know’ and that three task forces were being set up, one to investigate the group home, one to investigate the Father Charles MacDonald matter, and one to investigate the police:

MS. FITZPATRICK: So a few days pass and he called me and he asked me a few more tidbits of information about Jeannette Antoine’s disclosure, sort of clarifying names, like who was -- the man that dressed in black, the kids used to call him “the black priest”, and that would have been Mr. Tenger, I guess, if I’m saying his name correctly. And so he wanted clarification on that. He wanted clarification on Bryan Keough’s name.
And then he called back another time with one two other questions, and then the third time he called back he said to me, “This is a lot bigger than you know”. He said, “I just want you to know you’ve done a really good job, but now your part is over. We’re taking over. We’re going to keep your name out of this, but we’re setting up three task forces.” And one task force was to investigate the group home, one task force was to investigate the police, and one task force was to -- okay, so what was -- was the priest situation, m’hm.

(18) Fitzpatrick confided in three CAS co-workers

Fitzpatrick testified that some time after Christmas she told other CAS employees about the Antoine interview:

MS. FITZPATRICK: I would have told Carol Beamer, Jennifer Ray, Carleen Cummings, and later Patricia Garrahan.
MR. DUMAIS: Okay. And perhaps I’ll be a little more specific with my question, but do you tell them this shortly after this interview in 1993?
MS. FITZPATRICK: No, no, I waited until after. It would have been after the Christmas break, yeah.

How much Fitzpatrick alleges she told her co-workers is unknown. Also unknown is if Fitzpatrick told her co-workers that according to Sebalj David Silmser had originally been rebuffed by CAS.

(19) Fitzpatrick testifies that CAS co-worker was dating CTV reporter

According to Fitzpatrick CAS worker Patricia Garrahan was dating Charlie Greenwell, the CTV reporter who broke the story on the $32,000 pay-off

(07 October 2008)

MS. FITZPATRICK: See, I’m trying to remember. [Patricia Garrahan} called me in because her news was her husband -- who she was divorced from -- was a sexual abuse victim from one of these people and she had an issue with that, big time.
And then it was like a few days later, she announces to me and two of our other coworkers that she’s dating Charlie Greenwell. So basically I had the impression that she might be a loose cannon.

In another instance during her testimony Fitzpatrick was asked about her discussion with Garrahan in early 1994. (I believe it was around this time that the news of the Antoine allegations, the pay-off and word of sex abuse allegations against Milton MacDonald [father of Crown attorney Murray MacDonald] hit the news almost simultaneously. )

MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes. M’hm. But, Patricia was dating Charlie Greenwell at the time.
MR. DUMAIS: And what’s the significance of that?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Well he was the one who was doing the newscast.
MR. DUMAIS: All right.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Just coincidental, but ---
MR. DUMAIS: All right. And I mean is this something that she may be aware of?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Well she told me she was dating him and I asked her:  “How did that ever happen? How in the world did you ever meet Charlie Greenwell?” And she didn’t answer and then I tried to get a little more information from her like, well what do you do or whatever, and -- they had a few dates and that was it. It was over shortly after. That’s all I know.
****
MR.DUMAIS: Is she telling you that she disclosed anything to Charlie Greenwell?
MS. FITZPATRICK: No, she’s smarter than that. She didn’t tell me that she was telling Charlie Greenwell anything.

(B) Skinner testifies February 2008

Ottawa Carleton Regional Police Service Superintendent Brian Skinner (ret’d.) testified 12,13 and 14 February 2008. Skinner and his partner S/Sgt William Blake are the OCRPS officers who conducted the “external” CPS review which concluded “no cover-up.”

It was during Skinner’s testimony that the Blake notes referencing his contact with a CSIS officer were entered into evidence. It is clear from the transcripts that the CSIS officer was Wayne Murphy.

(1) CSIS contact with S/Sgt. William Blake first referenced at Cornwall Public Inquiry

No mention of CSIS until Peter Chisholm conducted his cross-examination of Blake. As can be seen, Blake was present in the Weave Shed while Skinner testified. This section of the testimony begins as Chisholm referes to the Blake notes which have just been put on the screen:

(Skinner transcript)

MR. CHISHOLM: It’s up on the screen now.  Staff Sergeant Blake has been with – has been in the hearings room the last couple of days. Is that right?
MR. SKINNER: Yes.
MR. CHISHOLM: Okay.
MR. SKINNER: That’s correct.
MR. CHISHOLM: And he made this note, as far as you know, on January the 12th, ’94, right?MR. SKINNER: M’hm
MR. CHISHOLM: And this note relates to an individual who contacted him. If I understand your evidence correctly today, he contacted Staff Sergeant Blake by way of a telephone call to Staff Sergeant Blake. Is that right?
MR. SKINNER: That’s my understanding, yeah.
MR. CHISHOLM: And he identified himself as a CSIS employee. Is that right?
MR. SKINNER: I believe Staff Sergeant Blake knew him, but yes, that’s accurate.
MR. CHISHOLM: Your understanding is Staff Sergeant Blake knew this caller before the call was placed to Staff Sergeant Blake?
MR. SKINNER: I think so. I can’t be certain about that but I think so.
MR. CHISHOLM: And as a partner working with Staff Sergeant Blake in this case, is it fair for me to assume that you would have been advised of this call that Staff Sergeant Blake received?
MR. SKINNER: Not necessarily. I believe that Staff Sergeant Blake didn’t feel that there was any relevance to our investigation in Cornwall.
MR. CHISHOLM: So you were not advised but - --
MR. SKINNER: I can’t say that I wasn’t. I may have been.
MR. CHISHOLM: You have no recollection that you were advised?
MR. SKINNER: No.
MR. CHISHOLM: Okay. And then if I could take you please to the same exhibit, Bates page 1025778, which is three pages further in.
MR. SKINNER: M’hm.
MR. CHISHOLM: This is a notation of January 17th, ’94. And if I understand -- if you look down three lines -- four lines, excuse me, do I understand that -- is it your understanding looking at Staff Sergeant Blake’s note that the CSIS individual called a second time to Staff Sergeant Blake?
MR. SKINNER: Yes.
MR. CHISHOLM: And with respect to your earlier answer, were you advised by Staff Sergeant Blake with respect to this call?
MR. SKINNER: Again, I may have been but I can’t specifically remember.
MR. CHISHOLM: And if I understand your evidence correctly, on January the 18th you and Staff Sergeant Blake attended at the CAS office in Cornwall. Is that right?
MR. SKINNER: Yeah.
MR. CHISHOLM: And you met with ---
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Abell.
MR. CHISHOLM: -- the Executive Director ---
MR. SKINNER: M’hm.
MR. CHISHOLM: --- Rick Abell?
MR. SKINNER: M’hm.
MR. CHISHOLM: And during that meeting you discussed the relationship between the Cornwall Police Service and the CAS. Is that right?
MR. SKINNER: Correct.
MR. CHISHOLM: Do you recall if during that meeting either you or Staff Sergeant Blake would have raised with Mr. Abell any of the issues which were raised by the CSIS caller to Staff Sergeant Blake?
MR. SKINNER: Possibly but I don’t remember.
MR. CHISHOLM: And you’ve reviewed Staff Sergeant Blake’s notes with respect to the meeting involving Rick Abell?
MR. SKINNER: M’hm.
MR. CHISHOLM: And is there any reference in those notes with respect to the concerns raised by the CSIS caller?
MR. SKINNER: No, I don’t see one.
MR. CHISHOLM: You do not see any?
MR. SKINNER: No.
MR. CHISHOLM: And did you, at any point after the January 18th meeting with Mr. Abell, ever raise those concerns with either Mr. Abell or the Board of Directors of the CAS or anyone else?
MR. SKINNER: I don’t think so.
MR. CHISHOLM: And to your ---
MR. SKINNER: But, again, I can’t be absolutely certain.
MR. CHISHOLM: You have no knowledge of doing so. Is that right?
MR. SKINNER: No.
MR. CHISHOLM: And with respect to your understanding of any actions taken by Staff Sergeant Blake, do you know if he raised those concerns with anyone after that meeting of January the 18th?
MR. SKINNER: I don’t know.
MR. CHISHOLM: Thanks, sir. Those are my questions.

(2) A few brief questions from Allan Manson

Citizens for Community lawyer Allan Manson posed a few brief questions regarding the Blakes notes.

(Skinner transcript 13 February 2008)

MR. MANSON: …I have a number of questions to ask you but before I get started you can just satisfy my curiosity about something in Staff Sergeant Blake’s notes, which is Exhibit 1208, and I don’t want to get into any of the names. It’s at page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 -- 12 January ’94.…..I’m just curious what CSIS stands for?
MR. SKINNER: That’s the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
MR. MANSON: That’s what I thought.
MR. SKINNER: M’hm.
MR. MANSON: And so you were in touch with the named person but not in his official capacity. Is that correct?
MR. SKINNER: No it isn’t. I wasn’t.
****
MR. MANSON: You see the name and the phone number at the top?
MR. SKINNER: Yes, I do.
MR. MANSON: Was this someone you were in touch with?
MR. SKINNER: No.
MR. MANSON: Do you know who was in touch with this person?
MR. SKINNER: Staff Sergeant Blake was. This was after we had -- at some point we were back in Ottawa and Staff Sergeant Blake received a telephone call in his office from his person.
MR. MANSON: Who volunteered some information that he had from a local informant?
MR. SKINNER: Yes, that’s my understanding.
MR. MANSON: Thank you. Now, we can leave that aside now. No more was said re CSIS while Skinner was on the stand.

As mentioned previously, neither Wayne Murphy nor S/Sgt. Blake were called to testify.

(C) Fitzpatrick contacted

(1) Fitzpatrick called in for interview

Fitzpatrick testified that her last contact with Wayne Murphy regarding the matter was in January 1994. She was never contacted by Ottawa police, OPP or Project Truth officers. Nor it seems was there ever discussion with CAS officials regarding the Sebalj allegations. Fitzpatrick testified that she understood that things were being taken care of. She also testified that due to a family rift of some sort there has been no contact with Murphy for an unknown period of time.

On 20 February 2008 Fitzpatrick was interviewed by Bill Carriere. Why Carriere was chosen to conduct the interview is unknown. (Carriere was by then retired from CAS. ) Likewise unknown at this point is who asked Carriere to conduct the interview. Was it someone from the Cornwall Public Inquiry? or was it someone from CAS?

It would seem from Fitzpatrick’s response to questions posed by Helen Daley (Citizens for Community Renewal) that before she was interviewed by Carriere she, Fitzpatirck, had been contacted by the inquiry and knew she would be testifying that the CAS .

MS. DALEY: All right. So let me try to determine then what gave rise to your being interviewed by Mr. Carriere and Ms. McKinnon in February of this year? How was that initiated?

MS. FITZPATRICK: Well, I had returned from a week’s holiday and Anne announced me that Bill wanted to meet with me that afternoon. And I asked her what it was about and she was very vague.

And then at one o’clock, when I met with Bill, he introduced that he was here to ask me some questions. I asked if I needed to have a union rep or a lawyer present and they said no. And so I consented and went through the interview with him.

MS. DALEY: Before you sat down with Mr. Carriere and Ms. McKinnon, did you know that the subject matter was your presence at the Antoine interview?
MS. FITZPATRICK: I’m not really sure. I mean, I think he said that my name was on the list for the Inquiry.
MS. DALEY: All right. M’hm.
MS. FITZPATRICK: And he did have like about five pages prepared of questions to ask me and an audiotape.
MS. DALEY: All right. So someone actually audiotaped this interview?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes, Bill did, yes.

(2) Fitzpatrick testifies October 2008

(3) Fitzpatrick allegations discounted as “rumour and innuendo and speculation.”

Thinking he was speaking in camera CPS lawyer Peter Manderville called Fitzpatrick allegations rumour, innuendo and speculation During cross examination Helen Daley (Citizens for Community Renewal) wanted to enter the synopsis of the Carriere-Fitpatrick interview into evidence to pose a questions. Manderville, thinking as mentioned above that he was in camera, objected strenuously. (Fitzpatrick 07 October 2008)

MR. MANDERVILLE: First, I would submit that the document is full of speculation and second-and- third hand hearsay, some of which is scandalous.
We have already heard from this witness about every aspect that she has to tell this Inquiry of what is relevant and of what is first-hand and we’ve heard more than that, and I submit this document adds nothing to what you need to look into and what this Inquiry is charged with looking into and merely serves to foster additional rumour and innuendo and speculation within the community of which this witness has no first-hand knowledge.
She speaks in terms of some of my clients being involved in a conspiracy because of where they live and a conspiracy with the Crown; again, none of which is first-hand.
In addition, she makes allegations against Luc Brunet in this document; again, not first-hand. We have this document. We were provided with this document back in March 2008 prior to Mr. Brunet testifying. None of these matters were raised with Mr. Brunet by counsel.
THE COMMISSIONER: Just a minute. Just a minute. This isn’t Commission counsel. This is Ms. Daley who wants to introduce this as cross-examination, right?
MR. MANDERVILLE: Mr. Commissioner, I am advised we are not in camera at the moment?
THE COMMISSIONER: No, we’re not.
MR. MANDERVILLE: Oh, I was under the impression that we were, so ---
THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, no. Remember the idea was for me to read this ---
MR. MANDERVILLE: Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: --- and you to come back and I thought you had abandoned it, or I don’t know what, but so ---

Off they went in camera.

(4) Fitzpatrick “anguished” over disclosure

Fitzpatrick was concerned the information in the would hurt a lot of people

MS. FITZPATRICK: I really anguished over this disclosure because I’m not here for any character assassinations and I really think that this is going to hurt a lot of people. That’s where I have trouble with this.
MS. DALEY: All right.
MS. FITZPATRICK: A lot of innocent people, too.
MS. DALEY: We’re going to be careful that we don’t do that.

(5) Glaude urged people not to jump to conclusions

(Fitzpatrick 08 October 2008)

The Carriere-Fitzpatrick synopsis was entered into evidence with publication bans on a number of names. There was discussion regarding possibly securing the medical files of an unidentified person. I believe the decision was that there was no need to do so.

Glaude described objections to entering the document into evidence as follows:

The parties objecting have indicated that while -- that there are portions in this document that fueled the fans of innuendo, distrust, lies and non-facts that have plagued this community, and that the prejudicial value far outweighs that of the probative value.

The synopsis was entered into evidence. Justice Glaude said Fitzpatrick’s “slings and arrows” may well be “rubber”

if some of the allegations or conclusions that this witness comes to will have to be aired in the full public light and that the slings and arrows may well be -- and I’m not prejudging -- but may well be rubber ones.

Glaude also urged people not to “jump to conclusion.”

****

A final note… After hearing Fitzpatrick’s testimony one would think a decision would have been made to recall Brian Skinner for further questioning. That did not happen. And, repetitive as it is, nor were Murphy and Blake put on the stand.