Not enough to lay charge: cop

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

24 April 2008

Posted By Trevor Pritchard

A Cornwall cop was "anxious" to lay abuse charges against a Cornwall teacher nearly two decades ago but couldn't prove an alleged drunken liaison with a teen wasn't consensual, the Cornwall Public Inquiry heard Wednesday.

"I was very anxious to charge (Marcel Lalonde)," said Const. Kevin Malloy, a former officer with the Cornwall Community Police Service's youth bureau. "But I had nothing to go with."

Malloy joined the youth bureau - the unit responsible for investigating historical sexual abuse allegations - in 1989.

two cases

Within a year, he was assigned two cases that have since come under close scrutiny at the inquiry: the allegations against Lalonde, and those made by Jeanette Antoine, a former ward of the Children's Aid Society.

Malloy testified Wednesday that five days after starting his new position, he took a statement from a young man known only as C-57.

In the statement, C-57 told Malloy that when he was 16, Lalonde sexually abused him one night after a party involving members of a local drama group.

C-57 said he and Lalonde had been drinking when the teacher asked him to take off his clothes.

C-57 protested but agreed, after which Lalonde allegedly performed oral sex on him.

Malloy said C-57 also told him about a number of other young men who had suspicions about Lalonde, and that Lalonde allegedly kept pictures of naked young men in his home.

He testified he went to Crown Attorney Don Johnson to see if he could get a search warrant to look for the photos, but was told there wasn't enough evidence to justify the request.

Malloy told commission counsel Karen Jones that he "would have charged the guy in a second" but couldn't prove the alleged sex wasn't consensual.

He said he put the file into "abeyance" and let it sit until other victims came forward.

Nearly a decade later, police would charge Lalonde with sexually abusing seven children. He was found guilty in 2000.

Dallas Lee, an attorney for The Victims Group, said it seemed unlikely that a search warrant would have been refused given the amount of evidence Malloy had collected.

Malloy had also taken a statement from C-58, another alleged victim of Lalonde's, who was unwilling to press charges.

"It is inconceivable that you could have provided all that information we've talked about . . . to an experienced crown attorney and be told that there was nowhere else to go," Lee said.

Malloy maintained the meeting took place and that Johnson said he didn't have the grounds to grant the warrant.

Malloy also investigated Antoine's claims that she was physically and sexually abused in the 1960s and 1970s while a ward of the CAS. Antoine testified at the inquiry last June that she went to police in 1989 with her allegations against Brian Keough, her caseworker, but was told her stories were "too far-fetched" and wouldn't result in any charges.

On Wednesday, Malloy offered a slightly different interpretation. He said he had tried to get a statement from Antoine for weeks before Antoine showed up unannounced in February 1990.

Malloy testified he found Antoine's story "helter-skelter" and was confused by the fact that she only wanted to pursue the allegations of physical abuse, not the sexual abuse.

He said he had problems with Antoine's "credibility."

Citizens for Community Renwal lawyer Helen Daley asked Malloy if he was ever shown notes by Suzie Robinson, a CAS caseworker that worked at the Second Street group home where Antoine was allegedly abused. Daley entered into evidence a statement by the CAS's former executive director, Thomas O'Brien, that suggested he turned over Robinson's notes to police in September 1989.

Malloy told Daley he couldn't recall ever setting eyes upon the notes.

"Would that have affected your investigation if you'd (seen them)?" asked Daley.

"It would depend on the content of the notes," Malloy said.

Cornwall police attorney Peter Manderville tried to jog Malloy's memory by bringing him back to an interview he gave during the force's 1994 internal investigation into the Antoine case.

In that interview, Malloy said he did receive CAS files from another officer.

"I'm sorry," Malloy told Manderville. "I still don't remember getting anything."

Cornwall police never laid any charges in connection with Antoine's allegations.

The 1994 review found systemic flaws with how the case was investigated, and Malloy was informally disciplined for his note-taking.

Malloy was adamant that, despite the outcomes of the two cases, he was never influenced by the fact he was investigating two well-known members of the community.

"Absolutely not," he told Jones. "We don't base investigations on who the suspect was or what position he holds." The inquiry resumes at 9:30 a.m.this morning.

New lawyers making appearances

Inquiry junkies shouldn't be surprised if they see a few new legal minds at the Weave Shed in the coming weeks. One commission lawyer has returned to his previous position while another two are set to go in the coming weeks, said lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann. Simon Ruel and Christine Morris were both on a leave of absence from the federal Ministry of Justice.

Ruel has already gone back, while Morris is set to return at the end of June, said Engelmann.A third lawyer, Raija Pulkkinen, will soon be going on maternity leave, he added. Karen Jones, the lawyer who conducted Tuesday and Wednesday's examinationin-chief of Const. Kevin Malloy, is the newest member of the inquiry's team.

Article ID# 999238  

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #1 By itinerant,

Again more crap from the BS Factory.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By JungleLord,

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #3 By armagedon,

Does anyone remember this? Not guilty enough: judge: Justice acquits man he believes molested youth

Standard-Freeholder
By Ann Harvey
June 28, 2000

CORNWALL - Despite saying he was ``pretty sure'' Harvey Joseph Latour molested a boy 35 years ago, Justice Richard Byers acquitted the 70-year-old of indecent assault.
The judge said the Crown case, which resulted from the Project Truth investigation, had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The two-day trial concluded Tuesday after testimony from the last two witnesses for the defence and closing arguments from both the crown and the defense.

The judge said he was particularly disturbed because the complainant had said he believed Latour might have had a tattoo, probably an anchor, on one of his forearms. During his testimony Latour had rolled up his sleeves, showing no tattoo and no indication of tattoo removal.

Crown counsel Alain Godin argued the complainant, who cannot be named, had testified honestly, frequently stating he simply couldn't remember. He said the courts allow more discrepancies in the testimony of children and that should extend to testimony about events that occurred during childhood.

The evidence of Latour corroborated the evidence of the complainant on many points, Godin said.

In his summation, Byers said he did not expect the complainant, now 48, to remember the specifics of events that occurred 35 years ago when he was 13.

``I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. (the complainant) was an honest and a truthful witness.

``I was not impressed with Mr. Latour.'' The defendant showed ``selective memory,'' the judge said.

Witness credibility and reliability is important, but it is not the only requirement, he added. Identity must be clearly established too.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required standard, he said. ``Probably guilty is not good enough,'' said Byers.

``In my view the tattoo raises that doubt. Mr. (the complainant) just may have got the identity wrong. I don't think he did, but he might have.''

In an emotional interview following the trial, the complainant said he is not satisfied with the judgment. ``I just can't find words for it.''

Godin had no comment.

Johnson said the verdict was right ``if you believe in the criminal justice system, that the Crown has got to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

``Reasonable doubt doesn't mean you didn't do it. Reasonable doubt means they didn't prove it.''

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #4 By LocalReader,

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #5 By LocalReader,

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #6 By RealityChecker,

No, no RealityChecker, don't waste your time or the pain doing something like that yet, listen to what happened to me and it involves me as a sexually & physically abused child (6 yr) in a foster home back in the 50's when I went to the police they only went to my abuser family who said "nothing happened" and the cops closed the case. Only problem was that they never asked my witnesses whose info I gave them, my baby brother (4 yr)who was abused for over 12 years and didn't ask either my Mom or my Sister. Where they really failed though was when I got a 2 page inter-office e-mail from within the CAS and it's between several senior supervisors, the assistant director and the director. The opening paragraph of that e-mail states and I'll use my own words "It would appear that the allegations that I went to the police about in 1995 were true and supported in their (CAS) records of me of "cruel punishment and or abuse". I gave it to the police and they didn't want to get a warrant to even bother checking it out. I mean the Children's Aid Society even said in their own "letter-head" that the damn abuse happened and this is in 2004 and I've had the police before the IPC for almost 3 years now to find out just why things weren't done the proper way, to be subtle! This is happening to me now even in 2008, it's a b*tch but hey, a guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do, eh?

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #7 By armagedon,