Notes on Fred Hamelink testimony

at the Cornwall Public Inquiry

re the OPP extortion investigation  

Detective Inspector Fred Hamelink testified at the Cornwall Public Inquiry 13 and 14 November re his investigation into allegations of extortion by David Silmser.  

Silmser is an “alleged” sex abuse victim of local priest Father Charles MacDonald, local probation officer Ken Seguin who had recently committed suicide, and local Roman Catholic school teacher Marcel Lalonde. 

By way of background, in early January 1994, after word of the $32,000 David Silmser pay-off had leaked into the media, local media reported that the Ottawa Carleton police was conducting a review of the Cornwall Police Service handling of an investigation into an alleged sexual assault involving a former Cornwall priest and a former probation officer.  

Some interesting timelines…

On 11 January 1994 Silmser’s lawyer Bryce Geoffrey, hand-delivered a letter threatening legal action against the CPS, the Cornwall Police Service Board and Constable Heidi Sebalj. 

A 12 January 1994 a media report indicated that Acting Cornwall Police Chief Carl Johnston told a news conference the previous day that he and the Cornwall Police Services Board requested the outside review of CPS handling of the Silmser allegations (Silmser at the time was referred to only as D.S.). That was the Ottawa Carleton police "investigation."

In short order the investigation was over.  By 02 February 1994 the local media reported that the Ottawa Carleton police had issued a report which concluded there was no evidence of a cover-up. In the same report CPS A/Chief Carl Johnston stated that he recommended a full-blown investigation be opened in an attempt to locate other alleged victims of sexual abuse.

Johnston indicated at the time he was also going to examine allegations regarding a conspiracy between police and the Church to effect a settlement.  He also said the Cornwall police had contacted David Silmser’s lawyer the previous week inviting Silmser to come forward.It seems therefore that barely was the very brief Ottawa Carleton police investigation finished and before its findings were made public than plans were afoot for a second OPP investigation. 

Indeed, on 01 February 1994 OPP Detective Inspector Fred Hamelink was dispatched to Cornwall to commence his arm of the OPP investigation.  Hamelink was assigned to re-investigate David Silmser for extortion.  Parallel to that OPP Detective Inspector Tim Smith was to re-investigate David Silmser’s sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald.

The public was never advised that an extortion investigation was underway.  David Silmser was never told that he was under investigation for extortion. He found out only recently.

The following are my notes and observations regarding Fred Hamelink’s 13 and 14 November 2008 testimony at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.  

(1)  01 February 1994 Detective Inspector Fred Hamelink was dispatched from Orillia, Ontario to the Long Sault OPP detachment to investigate allegations of extortion by David Silmser against the recently deceased Ken Seguin. 

Hamelink’s notes incorrectly identify Dave as the complainant. 

(2) Chris McDonell, whom he had known when the two were constables, was Hamelink’s lead investigator. Constable Don Genier rounded out the team. 

Hamelink was aware that McDonell had conducted the previous extortion investigation. At that time McDonell and officer Randy Millar had concluded after one week that there was no extortion.  Hamelink was also aware of that fact.  

Hamelink, who at one time conducted polygraph examinations,  had had previous contact with “management” at the Cornwall Police Service when he administered polygraphs.

No one asked if he knew Brian Snyder. 

(3) The extortion investigation was conducted at the same time Tim Smith was re-investigating Dave Silmser’s sex abuse allegations.

It seems that initially Hamelink was unaware of the parallel Smith investigation.  

Hamelink understood the two investigations were serious enough to merit assigning to Detective Inspectors. He understood Smith’s investigation to be broader than the allegations against Father Charles MacDonald and to include, in his words: 

a series of allegations concerning young people -- and by young people I mean people between - not yet classified as adults -- having been involved with sexual improprieties by adult male persons that included members of the Diocese, the Roman Catholic Diocese 

(4) Malcolm MacDonald, who had served as lawyer for Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin, brokered the illegal $32,000 pay-off, was lawyer for the Seguin family, specifically Ken Seguin’s brothers Doug and Keith.

 (5) OPP Inspector Fougere had been told by the Seguin family that they were not happy with the investigation conducted into Ken Seguin’s death by Randy Millar and Chris McDonell and the ruling that Ken Seguin’s death was a suicide. Apparently the family also told Fougere they were unhappy with McDonell’s conclusion that Ken Seguin was homosexual. 

According to Hamelink none of those concerns were conveyed to him by Fougere. 

Fougere testified that he would like to have re-investigated the cause of Ken Seguin’s death. According to Hamelink that sentiment was never conveyed to him.  

(6) Hamelink’s first contact regarding the extortion allegations was the Seguin family, specifically Nancy Seguin, Doug Seguin’s wife.   

Surprisingly it is evident that Hamelink related information regarding the investigating to the Seguin family.  He did do because, according to him, they were a grieving family and he felt that sharing information might ease their grief.  

It was also noted that Hamelink conducted a lengthy three-hour-meeting with the Seguin family but took no statements. 

(7)  According to a 02 February 1994 letter by an Officer Duhamel:   

“The suspect [Silmser] wanted money, $10,000 a year for 10 to 20 years, and if he didn’t get the money he was going to the Ministry of Correctional Services.” 

Hamelink denies being apprised of that information, but eventually came across similar information in the course of his investigation.   

(8) One of the greatest concerns expressed frequently to Hamelink by the Seguin family was the fact that Ken Seguin was being described as homosexual. 

The Seguin family was not involved in any way with the extortion allegations.  Despite that Hamelink discussed the extortion investigation with them. 

(9)  On 08 February 1994, at Nancy Seguin’s request, Hamelink made arrangements with the coroner for her to see the post mortem/death scene photos of Ken Seguin. Apparently there was no objection by the coroner:  

“Unless there is a criminal proceeding, the coroner has no objection to sharing the photos.” 

According to Hamelink, Nancy Seguin made the request because 

…she had attended the death scene and she was concerned with the amount of blood that was on the banister that was leading up to the spot or the bathroom where Mr. Seguin had committed suicide. 

Apparently Nancy Seguin also had concerns that Ken Seguin’s body had been moved. 

Hamelink denies that he ever thought or got the impression that the Seguin family thought he was re-investigating the suicide. He also testified he accepted Ken Seguin’s death as a suicide. 

(10) Hamelink did not talk to Randy Millar, the lead investigator of the Ken Seguin death.  He did not see that as part of his investigation: 

“I was there for the extortion. Ms. Jones.  I wasn’t there for the death scene.” 

(11)  The day after Ken Seguin’s death Randy Millar made a note:  

"Extortion does not exist against Silmser as per section 346 of Section 13 of the Criminal Code of Canada." 

Asked by Commission Counsel Jones if he thought that might have been relevant to his extortion investigation Hamelink replied: 

First of all, Ms. Jones, let's put it in perspective. Millar is there investigating a suicide. I'm investigating an extortion. I'm going to go by what I find, not what I'm told by somebody else. That's why I'm independent of Millar to do the extortion investigation. I'm not going to rely on what Millar says. My superintendent sent me down there to do a job. That's what I'm going to do. 

(12) According to Officer notes, at 9 pm on 24 November, 1993 David Silmser called and, according to Jones, 

 identified himself as David Silmser, who said that if there was anything that happened to him that Ken Seguin or Charlie MacDonald were to be considered suspects.  

(13) Hamelink’s notes make frequent reference to his contact with the Seguin family.  It seems there is rare if any mention of other matters, i.e., awareness of the 9 pm David Silmser call, or any contact made with Randy Millar. Hamelink variously explained these peculiarities thus: 

- What’s important is to put in evidence in my notes. The Seguin family, I kept apprised, and I decided to make notes as to when I met with them.  

- Again, Ms. Jones, your -- my investigation was on the extortion. Millar’s investigation was on a suicide. Millar’s investigation was completed. 

- I’m there on a fresh -- a fresh investigation, so to speak, dealing with a totally different matter, the consistency or the common thread in that being the deceased, Ken Seguin, related to Nancy by marriage. So when I spoke with the Seguin family I made a record of it. 

(15) A 13 April 1994 entry in Hamelink’s notes indicates a 14:40 meeting with Nancy Seguin:   

“We spoke of the extortion portion of the investigation. I explained that because the sexual assault investigation was intertwined, the extortion part had not been proceeded with full time because I didn’t want the other portion of the investigation jeopardized.” 

When asked about keeping the Seguin family up-to-date on “the intricacies” of the investigation this exchange ensued: 

MR. HAMELINK: I’m not clear on what you mean by “the intricacies”.  

MS. JONES: Well, it appears from what you told them in April that your investigation is actually on hold because there is another investigation intertwined with it. 

MR. HAMELINK: And I’d like to clarify that for the Inquiry at this point. “On hold” is a poor choice of words on my part. Our investigation was continuing as is quite evident from the interviews that were conducted between or in concert with McDonell and Fagan. So it was ongoing. “On hold” is a poor choice. 

(16) Hamelink has no recollection that Tim Smith asked him to pass along any information he came across regarding Father Charles MacDonald  

(17) Smith and Hamelink were conducting parallel investigations, Smith into David Silmser’s sex abuse allegations against Father Charlie in which Dave was the victim and Charlie the suspect, and Hamelink into the extortion allegations in which Dave was the suspect and Ken Seguin the victim.

 There was concern on how to handle the investigations with Dave as suspect and Dave as victim.  There was a discussion in this regard with Peter Griffiths, particularly regarding a proposed interview with Dave and whether or not to caution Dave regarding the extortion allegation: 

"Discussed method of interview with Silmser and whether he should be cautioned on possible extortion. Don’t know if what he's alleged to do with Seguin is extortion per Criminal Code. Peter Griffiths to research and advise." 

There was an agreement between Smith and Hamelink that David Silmser would not be interviewed on the extortion allegation until Smith had wrapped up the sex abuse investigation. 

Smith was firm on this, Hamelink a little hazy, but it seems there was some sort of agreement between the pair that when their respective investigations were concluded they would compare notes and then jointly present their Crown briefs.  

That latter did not happen.  Hamelink wrapped up – before Smith was finished and without interviewing Dave! – and presented his brief to the Crown, Peter Griffiths.  Smith was upset by this.  Hamelink had no rationale explanation. 

Re the issue of caution, Hamelink testified that there are two types of interviews conducted by police, one information gathering, and the other trying to get a confession “under caution”: 

MR. HAMELINK: Well, here’s from a policeman’s point-of-view. There are witness interviews and there are accused interviews. One is information gathering the other one is to try to get a confession, a confession under caution. Is there a difference between the two? I would say yes.” 

(18)  On 14 February 1994 officers Genier and McDonell interviewed probation officer Jos Van Diepen.  The following information, quotes or paraphrase, were apparenltyt contained in his statement: 

-   "I always felt Ken and Nelson Barque had a little thing going on. I always felt left out. I don't know if they were gay but they acted different."  

 -  A probationer “ said that Father Charlie was a queer, he liked little boys but never specified.” 

 - Ken Seguin had a lot of probationers staying with him in the late 70s 

- “I heard once at a dinner party Silmser was there and Father Charlie sodomized Silmser and then Ken didn’t do anything.” 

- There are names of a few possible victims of sexual assault 

When asked by Jones if there was follow up on any of the allegations in the van Diepen statement, Hamelink wanted to know what allegations she was referring to. 

When Jones referred to the allegation that Charlie is queer and likes little boys, Hamelink replied: 

“ What was the allegation though? He liked little boys, I mean, I didn’t draw a nexus there.” 

When referred to the statement re the dinner party he replied: 

“I didn’t have an age of Silmser at that time; hearsay at best. Could it have been followed up on? Yes.”  

The Jos van Diepen statement was not shared with Inspector Smith.  It went into the Crown with Hamelink’s brief.  Smith never saw it and was not privy to the information, information which without doubt would have been a great asset to his investigation. 

Hamelink saw no need to look at the possible relationship between Barque and Seguin.  He seemed to insist that his investigation was into extortion and details or person’s which might shed light on Seguin’s suicide were extraneous. He acknowledged that he talked to the Seguin family with a mind to possibly finding out about Seguin’s state of mind in the days leading up to the suicide, but seemed to see no need to talk to persons who may have been friends of Seguin for the same purpose. 

Hamelink saw no need to delve into the possibility of sexual improprieties on Ken Seguin’s part because, as he said: I was there for the extortion. Smith was there for the sexual assault. That was his stream of the investigation. 

(19)  In a 17 February 1994 report (“Hamelink CIB initial report re: Extortion of Ken Seguin”) Hamelink wrote: 

"The suspect [Dave Silmser] was attempting to extort money from the victim [Ken Seguin], who had allegedly sexually assaulted the suspect a number of years ago." 

Hamelink denied this reflects a forgone conclusion of guilt on the extortion allegation.   

In cross-examination Helen Daley referenced documents which indicate that in the early days of the second extortion investigation – Hamelink’s – he had concluded there was no extortion. Hamelinki does not recall if McDonell confided this to him.  As far as Hamelink was concerned the investigation was a “fresh start.”  

In the 17 February 1994 report Hamelink wrote: 

"In August 1993 Ken Seguin was contacted by Silmser and made a further demand for money or he would go to Seguin's boss and the media with his story. Negotiations were ongoing between Silmser and Mr. M. MacDonald, a lawyer representing Seguin, to come to a monetary agreement to again withdraw his complaint."

 Hamelink admits he had not talked to or interviewed David Silmser at the time - the information in the report came from other sources. 

In the same 17 February 1994 report Hamelink wrote: 

"Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, the lawyer involved in negotiation for a monetary payout to Silmser, is of the opinion that his client was being extorted by David Silmser to remain mute about the sexual assault allegations." 

Hamelink admits that at that time neither he nor his investigators had spoken to Malcolm MacDonald. He also agrees it is possible he got the information from report of officers Randy Millar and Chris McDonell from a December 1993 the two officers conducted in the first extortion “investigation.” The latter concluded there were no grounds to lay charges for extortion. 

(20)  On 21 February 1994 Hamelink, Smith and others met with the regional Crown attorney Peter Griffiths.  According to Genier’s notes: 

 "Extortion on hold for time being until Smith completed obstruct investigation. Need Silmser as witness against Father MacDonald."  

Hamelink denies the extortion investigation was put on hold, and said that was a poor choice of words.  According to Hamelink the idea was to

 “Avoid David Silmser until Smith had what he needed for his sexual assault investigation; correct.” 

(21) On 22 February 1994 David Silmser was interviewed for the sexual assault portion of the investigation, ie., Smith’s investigation in which Dave was victim and Ken Seguin was suspect.

 Present at the interview were officers Tim Smith, Fagan, Dave Silmser and Dave’s lawyer Bryce Geoffrey.  Hamelink was observing behind the glass. 

Smith and Hamelink had apparently agreed in advance of the interview that Dave would not be cautioned that he was under investigation for extortion.  There were however a couple of questions put to Silmser which were related to the extortion allegation, i.e., whether or not he planned to go to police. 

Dave apparently said he planned to sue. 

Neither Silmser nor his lawyer was told or aware that there was an extortion component to the interview.

Hamelink denied there was any deception or trickery involved in conducting the interview in this fashion. 

(22) On 26 March 1994 Ron Leroux was interviewed. In that interview Ron stated that Ken Seguin and Father Charles MacDonald knew each other and socialized. 

Ron apparently also brought up the names of Gerry Renshaw and his girlfriend Cara Lee Berry.  It seems that Gerry Renshaw was perhaps interviewed but not Cara Lee Berry. 

(23) On 13 April 1994 Hamelink met with Nancy Seguin.  In his notes he apparently stated:

“Extortion not being proceeded with full-time”? 

Again Hamelink denied that the extortion investigation had been put on hold in any fashion: 

- “I could have used better language in my notes. Our investigation into the extortion was never put on hold or delayed. It continued. The portion that was delayed was the interview with David Silmser.” 

 - “It’s incorrect. The extortion was being proceeded with full-time.”  

The strange thing here is that the David Silmser interview for the sex assault investigation had by then been conducted! 

Hamelink’s notes of that meet also stated he had told Nancy Seguin that the “sexual assault investigation was intertwined...” and “I didn’t want the other portion of the investigation jeopardized.” 

Asked why he related police information regarding the investigation to Seguin Hamelink replied:  

“ I decided as the case manager to keep the Seguin family included; not to share specific details as to who was interviewed and when or why, but to keep them advised as to how we were progressing on the extortion portion. That was my decision.”  

Hamelink also denied that he would have given Nancy Seguin details of the sexual assault investigation: 

“I would not have disclosed to them who the victim of this sexual assault investigation was and I may have shared that information that there was a sexual assault investigation going on, yes.” 

When asked what he meant by telling Seguin the investigations were intertwined Hamelink replied: 

“ Again, a very poor choice of words on my -- in my notebook. What I meant by it, ma’am, is that there was two separate investigations going on at4 the time.” 

At this point Commissioner Glaude wanted top hear no more:  

THE COMMISSIONER: Let’s move on, please. 

(24) During the 21 April meet Hamelink apparently asked Nancy Seguin for, according to Jones, any “strange” photos, videos or letters which she came across.  He received nothing at the time, but some time later Seguin showed him two letters. 

According to his notes: 

"She showed me two letters written by Father MacDonald and Woods [?] to Mrs. Seguin after Ken's death. She said Father MacDonald lied in that letter when he said he had surgery and therefore couldn't attend Ken's funeral. Nancy said MacDonald didn't have surgery." 

Hamelink read the letters. 

At one point he said he does not believe he took the letters and can not recall if he photocopied them. At another he seemed to agree that he did not ask for them. 

He agreed the letters would have been useful to Smith. 

I got the impression Smith never laid eyes on them. 

It seems it was perhaps on this same date that Hamelink brought officer Rusten in to talk to Nancy Seguin regarding Ken Seguin’s death. 

Rusten had been the identification officer at the death scene. 

Nancy Seguin apparently had been having some sort of trouble with the placement of Ken Seguin’s body at the death scene and the fact he had committed suicide.  

Hamelink explained that he brought Rusten in to speak to Nancy S to alleviate he her concerns.   Rusten apparently spent about an hour speaking with Nancy Seguin.

Hamelink described Nanct Seguin as a victim: 

“ I was being compassionate in my own way towards a victim.” 

Jones questioned Hamelink’s sharing of information regarding the investigations and the time dedicated to a woman who not next of kin. At that, OPP lawyer Saccoccio Brannan objected and questioned what relevance this had to the inquiry mandate.   

Glaude stepped in: 

“…it is clear that we're looking at institutional response. It is clear that there is some question as to the interchange of information between the two investigative teams and what effect that would have had on the progression -- advancing of the investigation by either team. 

“So I think it is clearly within the mandate but I think we've overdone -- we've done with the Seguins up to here.” 

At the same meet with Nancy Seguin Hamelink made arrangement with coroner Dr. Conway to see the post mortem pictures of Ken Seguin. Conway apparently was initially concerned that Nancy Seguin was next of kin, but then obliged. 

(25)  Doug Seguin’s brother (Nancy’s husband) apparently felt that, because of comments Tim Smith had made about Ken Seguin’s homosexual lifestyle, Smith had a slanted view of the sexual assault investigation.  Hamalink was aware of Doug Seguin’s sentiments in this regard but did not advise Tim Smith. 

Hamelink had earlier admitted that he told the Seguin family there was a parallel sex assault investigation being conducted by Smith, but denied that he ever told them that the Smith sex assault investigation related to David Silmser’s allegations against Father Charles MacDoanld. Glaude stepped and this exchange ensued: 

THE COMMISSIONER: Help me out here. He felt that Officer Smith may have a slanted view regarding the sexual assault investigation. So what sexual assault investigation are we talking about here? 

MR. HAMELINK: The sexual assault investigation that Tim Smith was conducting now involving David Silmser as a victim of an alleged sexual assault. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Of who -- by whom? 

MR. HAMELINK: That I didn't know, but the overall context of that statement, Mr. Commissioner, was that the sexual assault on our victim, or the victim David Silmser, was by another male person.

 THE COMMISSIONER: Right, okay, and what I'm getting at is that -- in your mind there was no -- the Seguins weren't thinking that the sexual assault investigation was Silmser versus Seguin? 

MR. HAMELINK: No, they weren’t -- that’s clear that --- 

(26) On 09 May 1994 Hamelink met with Tim Smith. At that time Smith was apparently preparing a brief for the Crown. At that time it was still understood that the pair would present joint briefs. 

(27)  At some point Hamelink met with Keith Seguin and his wife Helena Wheeeler.  They asked if it was proven that Ken Seguin was homosexual. Hamelink said it was hearsay: “I explained it was hearsay at this point but it didn’t matter in any event except if children were involved.” 

(28)  Keith Seguin wanted to know what kind of car David Silmser drove and wanted his license plate number.  Hamelink, as you will see, directed Seguin:  

“Keith Seguin told me his mother will be 90 years this May -- May the 26th and she had heard things that Silmser was spreading about Ken -- around about Ken. She didn’t even want an ad in the paper celebrating her 90th birthday because she didn’t want Silmser to find out where she lived. Keith wanted to know the vehicle Silmser drove and his licence number. I explained I wouldn’t supply him with that kind of information but that he could try MTO and see if they would supply the information.” 

 Hamelink testified that the mother was concerned David Silmsert was going to track her down and that:   

“ If Mr. Silmser had a vehicle and he’s seen around the mother’s house and they had this information, he could call up and notify the local police office or whoever.” 

That does not appear anywhere in Hamelink’s notes. 

(29)  On 10 May 1994 Helena Wheeler called and told Hamelink that her daughter  Barbara Bouvier told her that a John McIntosh from Johnny Mac’s Motel, Martintown, told Barbara that he had overheard a conversation a month or so earlier that David Silmser had bragged to a cell mate in jail how he would extort money. 

(30)  At some point Hamelink met with Keith Seguin who told him that he, Keith Seguin, had been to see Father Charlie at Southdown a few weeks earlier. 

Hamelink agreed that would have been important information to share with Tim Smith.  There is no indication in Hamelink’s notes that this was done.  Hamelink believes it was. 

(31)  On 12 May 1994 Hamelink and officer McDonell met with Malcolm MacDonald and obtained a statement re the death of Ken Seguin.  The statement was signed by Malcolm 13 May ’94. 

Malcolm said he was the go-between between the Church and Silmser and that the other lawyers involved were Sean Adams for Silmser and Jacques Leduc for the Church. 

Hamelink acknowledged that this interview would have been of interest to Tim Smith and testified that as with the Tim Smith/David Silmser interview, this one had been co-ordinated between he and Smith.  When it was noted there was no reference to such arrangements in his notes Hamelink testified that he expected Fagan (lead with Smith investigation) and McDonell (lead with his investigation) to share information:  

MR. HAMELINK: Well, as I previously stated, there was a sharing of lead investigators; Fagan and McDonell. And naturally there would be an expectation on my part that information that these officers gathered during their interviews of the various witnesses would be shared amongst one another and it would be Fagan's responsibility to make sure that his inspector -- in this case Tim Smith -- would be advised as to what was happening in the investigation. When pressed again this exchange ensued: 

MR. HAMELINK: I guess you and I walk on different sides of the street in that regard, Ms. Jones.There would be no coordination that I would require in order to go and interview someone. I would just do it as a natural course from my past experience. I mean, I had to interview this gentleman and that's exactly what I did. At the time when I interviewed him he chose not to give a statement. He said he would provide his own, which he did the following day, and that's your document that you refer to here. 

MS. JONES: So then there wasn't any sort of coordination with Mr. Smith or dialogue about it? 

MR. HAMELINK: Of course there was. There was dialogue with Mr. Smith through his investigator, Fagan, who was involved with my investigator, McDonell, and there is an expectation that those two officers would share information. On this particular date, during the interview with Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, I would naturally assume that McDonell, the next time he met up with Fagan, would share that information with him. Finally, when Jones noted that her interest was before and not after the interview was conducted, Hamelink replied: 

MR. HAMELINK: I didn't keep Inspector Smith advised each time that I did something, no. It seems there was no interview per se. 

Malcolm MacDonald declined, but apparently said he would provide a statement which he did the following day.  The following paragraphs were part of Malcolm MacDonald’s statement:  

"From what I can remember from the conversation, he [Silmser] was demanding money or he would go to the police concerning Ken's behaviour. I asked him for details of his claim and asked him to get to me later." 

"He indicated at that time that he had an appointment with City Police on Friday and he was prepared to cancel it and wait for my reply next week." 

David Silmser had, as Jones then noted out, already been to the police.   

When asked if he had followed up to see if in fact Silmser had had an appointment with Sebalj which had been cancelled, Hamelink replied that he had and that it was noted in Sebalj notes. 

This matter was touched on a few times.  Finally during cross-examination it was discovered there was no such reference anywhere in Sebalj’ notes. 

When asked if the Malcolm MacDonald statement was shared with Tim Smith Hamelink replied in the negative, but added that it had been submitted to the Regional Crown as part of his, Hamelink’s, brief. 

(32) Some notes from someone indicate that Malcolm MacDonald was keeping the Seguin family abreast of what was going on. 

(33) Malcolm MacDonald gave two separate accounts of what David Silmser had said to him, the one to Hamelink (May 1994) in which he said Silmser threatened to go to police, and the other in the first investigation (December 1993) in which he said Silmser threatened to go to the Ministry (probation). 

Hamelink saw the former as criminal, and the latter probably not.  He did not seek a further interview with Malcom to clarify the matter. 

(34)  Malcolm MacDonald apparently was trying to get Ken Seguin to charge Silmser with extortion.  According to a transcript entered into evidence: 

 “I was trying to convince Ken to lay charges against Silmser for extortion and if he didn’t want to, to go that far, to tell his boss at work.” 

(35)  In July 1994 Hamelink asked Chief Johnston for an interview with Heidi Sebalj to find out what David Silmser may have told her regarding pursuing his sexual assault charges against Ken Seguin.  Johnston said he would have to seek a legal opinion and apparently explained that was because there was a lawsuit pending against Cornwall Police Service.   According to Jones it was Johnston who initiated the request for the two OPP investigations: 

MS. JONES: Were you aware that it was Chief Johnston that actually had initiated the request that OPP do these investigations? 

Hamelink was not aware.   

With the above information I am inclined to wonder if perchance Colin McKinnon played a role in initiating the re-investigation?  

Anyway, the OK to interview Sebalj was eventually granted and conducted 20 July 1994. It seems that there was no discussion with Smith prior to this interview. 

As a point of further interest and perhaps confusion regarding who initiated the extortion allegation and investigation, this exchange between Ian Paul (Coalition) and Hamelink 

MR. PAUL: I wanted to ask you about going back to the beginning about the source of the extortion and complaint. You never became aware of who actually made the complaint, who first initiated the extortion complaint?

MR. HAMELINK: I can’t say that at this time. In preparation for this interview — sorry — for my presence here at the Inquiry, I subsequently became aware of that information as to who initiated the complaint and who initiated the investigation dispatching me.

MR. PAUL: All right. So you’re aware at this point? 

MR. HAMELINK: I’m aware now, yes. 

MR. PAUL: All right.Would that have been relevant back at the time — I’ll just give you an example in terms of, would it be relevant if the source or the person that made the complaint is also a material witness against Mr. Silmser.Would that make it relevant?

MR. HAMELINK: My information, sir, received on the 1st of February ’94, was to go to Long Sault to start conducting an extortion investigation. The following day, February the 2nd, I met with Staff Sergeant Duhamel who made me aware of the basis for the investigation. That’s my only contact as to how I got involved with it.

MR. PAUL: Just for an example then, you were referred by other counsel, I believe, to interaction of Malcolm MacDonald receiving information or some conversation between Malcolm MacDonald and Silmser about what was said. If Malcolm MacDonald was a potential witness would it be relevant, for example, if he was the one that made the initial contact? Would that be a situation where it would become relevant to credibility? 

MR. HAMELINK: Credibility of whom?

MR PAUL: Of a potential witness. For example, Mr. MacDonald, if, for example, just as an example, if he was the one that initiated the contact and is also a primary or material witness.

MR. HAMELINK: As I said before, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald’s credibility was never an issue for me.

What’s that all about?  As noted, the need for Johnston to pursue a legal opinion might indicate Colin McKinnon was involved.  But what is all this hypothesising about Malcolm?  Malcolm would obviously have been a witness because he presumably urged Seguin to consider charging Silmser with extortion, but where does that fit in to the above?  It seems there is an implication here that it was perhaps Malcolm who initiated the complaint? Did former Chief Shaver perhaps have anything to do with this? Or the Seguin family?

(36)  On 22 July 1994 Hamelink spoke to and updated Regional Crown Peter Griffiths .  Hamelink told Griffiths he had two more interviews to conduct and his investigation would be finished, on with officer Luc Brunet, and the other with Ron Lefebvre. 

The Brunet 'interview' was conducted 18 August 1994, the Lefebvre interview 07 September 1994. I get the impression that in both cases no actual interviews per se were conducted, but that rather Hamelink received statements or Will States which had previously been prepared by both men. 

(37)  On 29 September 1994 Hamelink presented his Crown brief to Peter Griffiths.  Hamelink informed Doug Seguin. He did not advise Tim Smith. 

Asked why he proceeded without fulfilling the agreement to share and discuss their information and present the briefs jointly, Hamelink replied: 

MR. HAMELINK: There was no specific reason. There was no intent for me to mislead Inspector Smith. My brief was ready. I had made a previous phone call to Mr.Griffiths, made arrangements to meet and presented my brief. And, when further pressed by the commissioner: 

MR. HAMELINK: I went ahead of him. There’s really no explanation as to why I did. I was finished. 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

MR. HAMELINK: Resources being what they were, my investigation was finished; I now have two other officers or at least Genier at that time that can go on to another investigation. I was being fiscally responsible as far as I was concerned. The matter was raised again by Glaude the following day: 

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you answer, is there a reason why Silmser was not interviewed with respect to the extortion? 

MR. HAMELINK: No, I don’t, sir. I can’t answer that question.  

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, would it have been -- is it something that should have been done? I don’t know exactly how to put that. 

MR. HAMELINK: There’s a lot of things that in hindsight should have been done --- 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

MR. HAMELINK: --- that weren’t done at the time. I had information at the time that Silmser had cancelled prescheduled meetings with other officers. That’s about the best I can do, Mr. Commissioner. I didn’t -- we didn’t interview him. In short, there seemed to be no explanation that made any sense at all as to why Hamelink proceeded with the Crown brief without notifying Smith, ditto none that made sense as to why Silmser was not interviewed, as suspect, by Hamelink on the extortion investigation after Smith concluded the Silmser, as victim, interview in the sex abuse investigation. 

(38)  On 12 October 1994 Griffiths wrote to Hamelink: 

“The only witness statement that I can find that provides any evidence of an extortion threat comes from Malcolm MacDonald. Mr. MacDonald related inadmissible hearsay evidence from Ken Seguin and relates the following about a conversation he had with Mr. Silmser:  

‘From what I can remember from the conversation, he was demanding money or he would go to the police concerning Ken’s behaviour. I asked him for details in his claim and asked him to get to me later.’  

In my opinion, that is a very thin statement on which to rest a criminal charge.” 

Griffiths also noted: 

“Mr. MacDonald starts by indicating his memory may be faulty and concludes by referring to Mr. Seguin’s claim, a word which has civil connotations to a lawyer.  Malcolm MacDonald has been a defence counsel in Cornwall for 20 years and before that was the Crown attorney for Cornwall. If Malcolm MacDonald believed that Mr. Seguin was committing a criminal extortion against his client then I would expect him to report the offence to the police or warn off Mr. Silmser. He did neither.” 

(39) There is evidence, denied by Hamelink, of some sort of falling out or friction between he and Smith.  In one instance a note from Pat Hall to a Len Atchison: 

“I am told Tim Smith and Fred Hamelink had a big blow up and Fred concluded his investigation without Tim’s knowledge.” 

In another, a 27 July 2005 Will State, a Chris Lewis stated: 

“There was some alleged conflict between Smith and Detective Inspector Fred Hamelink who’d been working in the Cornwall area on an investigation that I believe related to the suicide of a male who’d been a suspect in the Project Truth matter. Edgar was concerned about the potential implications of these two CIB members not cooperating with one another and asked me to go down and speak to them to ensure the conflict wasn’t serious.” 

Lewis stated he went to see the pair, and, it seems, concluded there was no more than a personality conflict 

“I did not feel the matter was a serious conflict or a threat to the quality of their investigations but it was merely a case of differing personalities.”  

As noted, Hamelink flatly denied any such meeting with Lewis. 

(40) Helen Daley drew attention to the wording of the Criminal Code related to extortion, specifically Sub (2) which reads  

“A threat to institute civil proceedings is not a threat for the purpose of the offence.” 

She then read in the following from a transcript and asked if Hamelink agreed that it could constitute extortion: 

"On November 24th, 1993, evening prior to death of Seguin, Staff Sergeant Dupuis of Cornwall Police received a call from Silmser who stated that if anything happened to him, Charlie MacDonald and Ken could be considered suspects. Silmser stated if they don't pay in the next 48 hours he will be going to the press with his story. There is a lot of money at stake." 

Hamelink agreed that it could be extortion.  

He then stated that

” tying that in to my extortion investigation, this is in the jurisdiction of Cornwall Police Service that this allegation came, if you can call it that. [Dupuis] is a Cornwall Police Service officer.” 

Then he stated it would be relevant to his investigation.  He also testified that he would seek advice from the Crown as to whether or not that constituted grounds for an extortion charge.  

Hamelink agreed that he could have gleaned further information on the extortion allegation by interviewing David Silmser.  Initially Hamelink said that Silmser had been interviewed in the Smith interview.  He said there had been some probative questions put to Silmser in that interview regarding extortion.  Then he testified that at the time of the Smith interview Silsmer was being interviewed as a victim and that were would have had to be a caution given him to interview him as a suspect in the extortion allegation and that that the extortion compontent really wasn’t dealt with and that “we stayed away from Silmser until Smith’s sexual assault investigation was completed.”  

There was no reference made to Section (1) of section 346 of the Criminal Code which reads  

(1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done. (emphasis added) 

Under cross-examination Ian Paul (Coalition) noted there was nothing indicating that Silsmer made the comment about going to the press to Ken Seguin – they were apparently made by Silmser to Dupuis. Paul also pointed out that Silmser could have been talking of going to the press as a means of self-protection. 

One more quote on this.... 

The transcript of an interview with David Silmser regarding extortion was entered into evidence. Since no such interview was conducted by Hamelink or his team this must have been from the first Millar-McDonell investigation.  The two portions read into evidence is the following:  

“I didn’t tell him till the next day I wanted $100,000. Malcolm said that that was a lot of money. I said that if he didn’t have the money I was going to sue the Ministry of Probation and Parole and that was it for that conversation.” 

“I said you have until Friday to get a settlement or I will be getting a lawyer and suing.” (38) Jos van Diepen apparently testified that that his interview was conducted while he stood at the door at the door and notes were written during the interview.