SQLFusion - Priest admitted to gay incident not sex assault: Ex Chief disuptes interpretation of his notes

Bishop 'flustered' when he said priest confessed to abuse: Shaver

Then LaRocque told Shaver priest was only referring to being gay, not committing abuse

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

12 June 2008

Posted By BY TREVOR PRITCHARD

The one-time bishop of the local Roman Catholic diocese blurted out to former top cop Claude Shaver that a priest suspected of sexual abuse admitted to an "assault," the Cornwall Public Inquiry heard Wednesday.

But Eugene LaRocque immediately backtracked, said Shaver, and explained that Rev. Charles MacDonald was only referring to being homosexual -- not sexually abusing David Silmser.

"He was flustered when he phoned me," said Shaver, who ran the Cornwall Police Service from 1984 to 1994.

"He was absolutely flustered. I could hear it in his voice."

On Oct. 7, 1993, Shaver and another officer paid visits to both LaRocque and Archbishop Carlo Curis, the pope's representative in Canada, to discuss what should happen with MacDonald, a former city priest.

Silmser had gone to police in 1992 alleging that MacDonald abused him while he was an altar boy decades earlier.

The case was closed in September 1993 after Silmser and the diocese agreed to a $32,000 settlement.

Shaver testified Wednesday he first went to Curis because the force had found LaRocque difficult during an earlier sexual abuse investigation involving a diocesan priest.

But this time, LaRocque was "extremely friendly," said Shaver.

The two spoke for about an hour, said Shaver. While LaRocque had known about the settlement, Shaver said he was taken aback to learn police had interviewed two other potential victims of MacDonald during the Silmser investigation.

"That literally shook the bishop," said Shaver.

"He was very concerned at that stage of the game."

LaRocque seemed sympathetic towards Silmser, and pledged to speak with MacDonald later that day, Shaver said.

When the two talked again that evening, Shaver said LaRocque told him MacDonald had admitted to an "isolated homosexual relationship" and would be sent to the Southdown Institute, a Toronto-area rehabilitation centre for Christian priests.

But Shaver's version of the call seemed to contradict his own notes and a letter he later sent to his lawyer, said lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann.

Shaver had scrawled "Charlie admits" in a personal calendar the day of his conversation with LaRocque. In the undated letter, Shaver wrote: "The Bishop contacted me later and advised that the Priest had committed the assault and that it was an isolated incident."

That could only be taken one way, suggested Engelmann: that MacDonald had told the bishop he abused Silmser.

Shaver was adamant that LaRocque had simply misspoke, and said he would give the same version of events when he testified at the inquiry, which is probing how institutions like the CPS handled historical sexual abuse investigaitons.

"If there had been an admission, if the bishop had told me that (MacDonald abused Silmser) that evening, we would have reopened the file that night," Shaver said.

MacDonald was later charged by the OPP with sexually abusing a number of young boys. The charges were stayed in 2002 after a judge found they'd taken too long to come to trial, and MacDonald has always maintained his innocence.

At least five previous inquiry witnesses had testified they saw Shaver at the homes of two other alleged abusers, Ken Seguin and Malcolm MacDonald (no relation to Charles MacDonald).

Malcolm MacDonald, a former lawyer, had been charged in the OPP's four-year Project Truth probe into rumours a pedophile ring was operating in the area. Neither man was ever convicted:

Seguin committed suicide in 1993 and was never charged, while Malcolm MacDonald died of a heart attack in 1999.

The claims against Shaver appeared at projecttruth.com, a now-defunct website that posted the affidavits of a number of proven and alleged abuse victims.

Appearing on the verge of tears, Shaver wiped his eyes and at one point muttered "God damn!" as he told inquiry Comm. Normand Glaude how difficult it was to have those allegations follow him online.

In a prepared statement, Shaver said he "categorically" denied the accusations made by Ron Leroux, one of the five men who said they saw him in MacDonald and Seguin's company.

He also testified that anyone who said he associated with pedophiles either mistook him for someone else or was coerced into making the statements.

"I have lost personal friends, who told me they don't believe the information," said Shaver, before pausing.

Then, his voice rising an octave: "But they have children and they say it's better to be safe than sorry."

Shaver urged the commissioner -- who will likely be issuing his final report sometime in 2009 -- to recommend it be illegal to post false allegations about others on the Internet.

He said a quick Internet search of his name would reveal he was mentioned in Leroux's affidavit.

"Sadly, in today's society, the Internet has become the breeding ground for false information and unsubstantiated accusations," Shaver said.

"And there is no effective legal protection that an individual has against such lies except to commence a civil action."

Leroux recanted a number of allegations in his affidavit when he was on the stand last year.

Shaver is set to continue testifying this morning.

- - -

Claude ShaverCORNWALL

"Sadly, in today's society, the Internet has become the breeding ground for false information."

Article ID# 1070018

Comments on this Article.

...and the courts have become the breading ground for down and outright lies.

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

Why were none of the people that recanted their stories charged with Perjury.

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

and he makes excuses for the Bishop will this farce never end

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

His sense of boundries is very confused. He "joked" about selling software to the inquiry....like thats a good thing to suggest or joke about. His inability to seperate professional from personal stuff is very very very poor. His led to see Laundry Sr about his son being taken in for question,

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

is a perfect example of how he oversteps these professional boundries

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #5 By JungleLord

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #6 By JungleLord

His accusation that regular people need to have parental education (lower class people) flies in the face of why Earl Laundry Jr became a pedophile under the care of his parents. This is in reference to his comments for the commission yesterday. Anybody understand what I mean?

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

I understand completely what you mean how the hell would did guy respond if one of the lower class filed a complaint against one of the higher class. We all know how they did.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #8 By dodger,

how the hell would this guy respoind to a lower class person complaining about a higher class person would he automatically assume that they were lying

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #9 By dodger

DodgerCareful, the lawyer seem to be using a misdirection tactic and you appear to be getting caught up in it.

I don't know how you assume he meant lower class of people. That appears to be your assumption.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #10 By itinerant,

Claude Shaver yesterday made an impact statement and a statement to correct wrongs. He said that number ONE, low income families, trapped in a viscious cycle, often create child abuse in the home in some form or other and this was a major problem. He said that number one these children be removed until the parents had passed a qualifying reeducation course. Amazing how he points out low income families and fails to first address institutions instead which by stats is the number one perpertrator of child abuse in all forms. Take for example of the aplogie by PM Martin today over aboriginal children taken from good Low Income home to be abused by the institutions set up by the government.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #11 By JungleLord,

He is being asked about hands being tied by the church settlement, and how his hands were tied in any way? EXACTALY.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #12 By JungleLord,

Also considering they never interviewed the suspect, then how could they have decided they did not have reasonable and probable grounds against Father McDonald? Another good point. So his hands were not tied, and to have him even think or say so, shows an incredible problem, since settlements do not stop or prevent investigations. At least thats what I have learned, but knew this anyway, and I am no cop or lawyer.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #13 By JungleLord

His total trust in all the force, yet it had internal rot, again, total opposites of the same truth. By that I mean, if you have internal rot, how can you be confident about anything?It the same as the statement about his hands being tied, which they are not tied in anyway, but he runs around thinking and saying this. Totally opposite to the actual leagal truth. I fail to see how he is so comfortable with these total opposites like its sensible or intelligent to think in this manner, either in private or public like he is now. The same with Childrens Aid and Mandatory Reporting, then he also opened up more problems with his visit of Laundry Sr....yeah he is a man of complete contridictions, considering he is supposedly so well trained.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #14 By JungleLord,

Judge asks him about "thinking with his head vs his heart" concerning the Project File instead of an open file on the case of Father McDonald. He is showing bad judgement in many areas. Very bad judgement.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #15 By JungleLord,

Considering that Cops, at least in his mind, are so much more superior over determining what is "garbage" compared to you or I, the average joe, and considering all the thinking he does with his head or heart, I see no cop.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #16 By JungleLord,

Jnngle LordThe statement is true regarding low-income families. It is Sad but true. Family issues are more predominant in said families. Having friends and family members once working for and some still employed by CAS as well as a few very good friends on the system I can base that statement on proof and experience. You seem to have taken the statement it out of context. It is my understanding you think it is only low-income families. I did not read that statement any place. It is predominant in yes.Sure he believed in the force but seen the issues that infected like a cancerous rot. Do you believe in the human race? Or do you like sports...same idea you can still believe in it even though it is in bad shape. The belief part is usually what can start the improvement and change it for the betterIt was Harper that apologized. We are still waiting on Martin’s apology l

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #17 By itinerant,

Right, sorry, Harper.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #18 By JungleLord,

Thank-you James however, this will be the last you or anyone will be hearing from me as I thought I might be able to help in this situation but, if that armegedon tried to help and he was bullied and threatened even though he tried to help in professional and medical ways and gets banned from this site well, that tells me all I need to know about both this town and this so-called paper. I feel sorry for those adults who have been left hanging for some help for their child-hood sexual abuse and I hope that the young people in Cornwall are paying attention as to how the abused people are either being treated or shall we say not getting treated and ask themselves why they should have any respect or for that matter any reason that the city will take care of them any better than they have these poor souls. I do hope that each and every one of them takes the chance to get out of town as soon as they can and I do mean all of them and leave it as they don't want the "legacy" that the adults have left for them. I further hope that this Inquiry goes on forever (as it seems they aren't interested in anything but covering their butts) and that the cost will be astronimical and that it puts the city of Cornwall behind the eight ball and in debt forever. You've all earned that right, haven't you and hopefully that city will become a ghost town as the "ghosts" of the poor souls who have been abused and ended their lives will be finally smiling from above. For those that did the abusing, I could only wish that someone or many someones do something to you all that is so horrific that you might get the idea of how those poor souls felt, not that I'm advocating that but just "wishful thinking". I hope that those of you who remain in Cornwall and were involved in this cover-up and closing your eyes to it will feel the non-respect and looks of derision from your own children forever. For those of you good people in Cornwall and I'm sure there must be quite a few of you, I pity you for having to go through what you've been put through by these people and I do feel sorry for you that YOUR good names have been lumped together because of those who only cared about their "precious reputation" (to borrow a quote). The factories are closing, there are few jobs there and because of that, I think that in order for your young people to survive economically they will have to move away and for that, it's going to be quite a site to see a city die bit by bit and all that will be left will be the older folks who will eventually die and then maybe the "ghosts of the past" will be finally set free. Good luck and I do hope the city gets bankrupted because of the cost of the Inquiry so adious and good-bye and good riddance to the whole lot of you both good and bad. Boogs
Reply | Report | Page Top Post #27 By booga-booga, 20 secs ago | 0 Votes | Vote:

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #19 By booga-booga,

Itinerant I think the lawyers are doing a good job of showing this man for what he is and I have no need for you to tell me how to think thanks.I have enough intellect to decide for myself what to think of what is said at the inquiry. Don't need someone tearing apart my words for faults. And yes I can tell you have family that work with the CAS since you seem to have a superiority complex that is prevalent with the people that work in that industry.Anyways from now on I will make my comments with no regard to your opinions about my thoughts on any particular subject.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #20 By dodger,

First and foremost we in the city of Cornwall do not need the help of out of town Bashers..We have been around for over 200 years and will be here for a other 200 years..Perhaps look in your own backyards..If you have one.My seaway city has overcome many problems and will overcome this one,we are strong and committed..Slander from out of towners will only drive us stonger.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #21 By 2 sides 2 a story,

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #22 By 2 sides 2 a story,

I thought my Blog was good enough to repeat...LOL

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #23 By 2 sides 2 a story,

It's not a blog, it's a comment.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #24 By paperscratcher,

I'd really like to know how comments posted to this site by various pseudo-names are without a doubt alluded to being from "out-of-towners"Do you have the inside scoop for the URL's 2sides???

How do you know with certainty where they are from???

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #25 By RealityChecker,

I am from Cornwall folks if i was not afraid of retaliation for my comments i would post my full name.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #26 By dodger

These people are watching every move we make and want to shut everyone of us up that see what is quite visible if you want to see it. Sound like a crazy person right but I am not. I choose to see what is reality in our community and make sure all my family is aware of what is going on.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #27 By dodger

Believe me "dodger", I know you are not crazy. Hang in there.

The more you "speak out", the more others will join in. Believe me, many "insiders" and "outsiders" are watching closely and not just laymen, such as myself.

A healthy "open" system allows and invites "outsiders" "in". A "healthy open system" welcomes "outsiders". A "healthy open system" prospers and is unafraid to "speak out" about any issue it is facing or must face.

An "unhealthy closed system" demands secrecy, non-disclosure and punishes opposing viewpoints or non-conformists, through intimidation, threats or by ostracizing them. "Outsiders" who "come to town", quickly identify that they are unwanted; they are scorned and ridiculed into leaving.

Eventually, an "unhealthy, closed system" is unable to recognize its own shortcomings and "how to change", consequently wilting into obscurity, unless intervention is successful.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #28 By JAMES "SPEAK OUT",

Dodger And James

Sorry guys I am not trying to be a @ss, though I am the only one commenting on what is said, that does not mean others do not agree. Some just opt to stay out of the discussion.

James your speak scenario is a good idea provided it is not a soapbox speech. Here in Canada the squeakiest wheel always gets the grease. No matter the facts.

Dodger
Why is it if people do have experience and insight people cannot accept that fact and have to become defensive? I only ask questions and make observations. I apologies for claiming you misunderstood. However, You never explained how you formulated you opinion based on the information. Not that you have to but it is a blog for discussion and if there are things I am missing let me know. I am not beyond apologies

Dodger this post seems to bring forward a piece of previously unmentioned evidence. A lie detector test taken by Shaver. It has been disallowed by. Glaude and Engelman at the inquiry.

What the hec does this mean??

"Lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann told reporters afterwards that such tests aren't admissible because they usurp the role of a judge or commissioner to weigh the evidence."

It appears to use all forms of evidence is not allowed. Especially if it may shorten the inquiry and reduce the amount cash wasted on the legal system. This instance seems to fit into the article

Cornwall court on trial

Stats show court third slowest in region

Posted By BY DAVID NESSETH AND MEGAN HARRISON, STANDARD-FREEHOLDER

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #29 By itinerant,

These threads are NOT a BLOG never have been and never will be but there sure are posters who are attempting to use it as a BLOG!!!

This is a COMMENTS THREAD for discussion on the published articles. IT IS NOT A BLOG!!! Read the heading where you posted "COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE"

Look up the definition of a Blog in the dictionary!

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #30 By RealityChecker,