The Incident

at the Weave Shed

The following is the Cornwall Public Inquiry transcript of the very brief 01 February 2007 cross-examination of David Silmser by Dominic Lamb, lawyer for Father Charles Donald whom Dave says molested him as a boy.

Dave’s cross-examination concluded abruptly and prematurely when the quibbling started about the legalities of taking a break.  Dave decided he had had enough. He said he was taking a break, donned his jacket and away he went.

I must say that I personally believe that after all Dave has been through he conducted himself admirably. He was quick on his feet – perhaps literally and figuratively?! - and no one, but no one, was going to pull the wool over his eyes – not even an inch.  He stood up for himself.  A difficult job well done.  Not all will agree, particularly those who consider he is unwell or in need of anger management because he didn’t roll over and play pike, but for the few who find fault there are hundreds who are cheering him on.  

Dominic Lamb, by the way, is new to the Weave Shed, the most recent in a series lawyers representing Father MacDonald to surface at the hearings. (Michael Neville has not been seen since the fall of 2005 when he argued to get standing and funding for “Charlie.”)

Clint Culic is lawyer for David Silmser.  John Callaghan is lawyer for Cornwall Police Service.  Dominic Lamb is lawyer for Father Charles MacDonald. Peter Engelmann is Lead Commission Counsel.

[I have interjected my own comments and/or observations ilike this, in brackets and in red type.] 

Thursday 01 February 2007

 Cornwall Public Inquiry

MR. LAMB: Mr. Silmser, before –– the first thing I wanted to address were some comments that you made yesterday towards the end of your examination in-chief. 

The first comment I would like to ask you about is you stated in your evidence that a lot of the delays in the trial of Father MacDonald were as a result of Michael Neville, and you noted that it was in his character to try and stretch out the case as long as he could be appealing situations and so forth. 

MR. SILMSER: That's correct. 

MR. LAMB: For the record, that's found at page 95 of the transcript of yesterday's proceedings. 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

MR. LAMB: Now, Mr. Engelmann did discuss things with you, Mr. Silmser, and you stated that you never did read the reasons why the proceedings against Father MacDonald were stayed. 

Correct? 

MR. SILMSER: That's correct. 

MR. LAMB: So it's fair, and I think it's fair for me, to say that you were wrong to even suggest that your understanding for the delays was because of counsel for Father MacDonald.

MR. SILMSER: No. I think you're wrong by saying that. I was sitting in the courtroom all the way in Ottawa, and Mike Neville was talking to his client, Charles MacDonald, and Mike Neville said right in front of me -- he didn't realize I was sitting in a chair -- that he said with the actions, with my hands, he said, "In cases like this, we have to extend it as far as we can."  So I don't think I was wrong.

 MR. LAMB: Did you -- you never read the decision of Justice Chilcott though from the Superior Court of Justice dated May 13, 2002, did you? 

MR. CULIC: That's been answered, if I recall correctly.

THE COMMISSIONER: Cross-examination though.

MR. CULIC: Okay. 

MR. LAMB: Thank you. 

You never read that? 

MR. SILMSER: I repeated that -- I already said I didn't. 

MR. LAMB: Yes. In his written decision, he stats that: 

"The court found that the actions of the accused did not affect his right to trial within a reasonable time." 

MR. SILMSER: Okay. 

MR. LAMB: So none of the actions of the accused or of his counsel were found to be of any significance in the fact that a stay of proceedings was ordered. 

MR. SILMSER: I don't understand. Can you repeat? 

MR. LAMB: None of the actions of the accused were found to have any effect on the fact that a stay was ordered in the proceedings before the court. 

MR. SILMSER: That's his decision. I'm just saying what I heard by Mike Neville in the courtroom --- 

MR. LAMB: But what you heard from Mr. Neville has nothing to do with the reasons of the court.

MR. SILMSER: The court makes a decision. I hear what I hear too.

MR. LAMB: Okay. But when you say your understanding was that the reason for the stay of proceedings was because -- most of the delay was because of Mr. Neville. You're wrong, sir. 

MR. SILMSER: I say I'm right, sir. 

MR. LAMB: Now, so you maintain that the reason the court stayed the criminal proceedings, in May of 2002, against Father Charles MacDonald, was because of the actions of his counsel?

MR. SILMSER: That's correct. 

MR. LAMB: Okay. And there's nothing I can say -- there's no -- even though you haven't read the reasons of the court, that would convince you otherwise? 

MR. SILMSER: I would like to say there's maybe some other reasons, but I say the biggest one is Mike Neville. 

MR. LAMB: It was found that Perry Dunlop caused the largest part of the delay in that case.

MR. SILMSER: I have no idea about Perry Dunlop. 

MR. LAMB: It was also found that delays in disclosure before the original trial date, in 2000, were one of the causes of delay. 

MR. SILMSER: I don't understand what you are saying. I'm not a lawyer, sir. You are going to have to explain, break it down in detail.

MR. LAMB: Well, sir, what I'm doing is I'm simply laying out the fact that ---

MR. SILMSER: No, I know what you're doing. Just your last comments there ---

MR. LAMB: Yeah?

MR. SILMSER: --- can you break it down and tell me exactly what it means?

MR. LAMB: As you know in a criminal case, disclosure is required to be produced to the person who is accused of offences. 

MR. SILMSER: Okay. 

MR. LAMB: Okay? 

MR. SILMSER: Okay. 

MR. LAMB: And what –– the court, in staying the charges against Father MacDonald, states that there were delays in disclosure with regard to five new charges that were laid in 1998.

MR. SILMSER: Delays in disclosure on the -- - 

MR. LAMB: There was delayed disclosure until just before the trial in 2000.

 MR. SILMSER: On whose part? 

MR. LAMB: The Crown. 

MR. SILMSER: Oh! The Crown.

The Crown always advised me that none of the delays were his fault (Mr. Pelletier) through the whole system. 

MR. LAMB: Okay. But Mr. Pelletier wasn't on the case at that time.

MR. SILMSER: Who was on the case? 

MR. LAMB: Well, it wasn't Mr. Pelletier. 

[Robert Pelletier was involved with the prosecution of Father MacDonald until the Fall of 1999.] 

MR. SILMSER: Who was on the case then? What time period are you talking about? 

MR. LAMB: This was Miss Hannan, I believe. 

[To my knowledge there was no Hannan connected to the case, ever. Crown attorney Shelly HALLETT replaced Robert Pelletier] 

MR. SILMSER: I have no idea who you are talking about. There was never a Crown Attorney by that name. 

MR. LAMB: Maybe I'm misspelling the name.

MR. SILMSER: Well, then you'll have to show me the spelling and show me the person you are talking about because I can't comment if I don't know the person. 

MR. LAMB: Okay. I will come back to it then. 

The other reasons that the court, when that decision was made, Mr. Silmser, was that there was a finding of irrebuttable prejudice against the accused that was found because of the 73 months delay going back to 1996, 50 court appearances by Father MacDonald, massive publicity locally, nationally and internationally. 

MR. SILMSER: Are you trying to make me feel sorry for him?  That also went on my side too, right? 

MR. LAMB: I'm not trying to make you feel sorry for anyone, Mr. Simlser.

MR. SILMSER: Okay. 

MR. LAMB: All I'm stating to you is that you stated in your evidence yesterday that a lot of the delays were because of Michael Neville.

MR. SILMSER: And I commented on that already, and you're not going to change my mind on that. 

MR. LAMB: Okay. But the court certainly disagrees with you. 

MR. SILMSER: Maybe -- what court disagrees with me? This court disagrees with me?

MR. LAMB: Well, this is a public inquiry for the Superior Court of Justice that made the decision -- -

 MR. SILMSER: Can you tell me the Judge that disagreed with me? His name?

MR. LAMB: Justice Chilcott ---

MR. SILMSER: Okay.

MR. LAMB: --- the Superior Court Justice.

MR. SILMSER: Okay. That's one judge that disagreed.

MR. LAMB: Okay.

MR. SILMSER: That's why we are having an inquiry today. Right?

MR. LAMB: I don't know.

MR. SILMSER: I believe so. 

MR. LAMB: You think it's because of the fact that the matters were stayed?

MR. SILMSER: I would hope so.

MR. LAMB: You stated also that none of the delay was your fault. Correct?

MR. SILMSER: Personally my fault?

MR. LAMB: Yes. 

MR. SILMSER: Absolutely! Never of my fault. I was always a half-an-hour early in the courtroom. Always there even while I was sick and, again, I can't comment so much on the Crown Attorney, which was Pelletier, and Pelletier was the only Crown Attorney at the time. So your homework hasn't been done properly. 

MR. LAMB: Thank you for that.

MR. SILMSER: You're welcome. He advised me that it was none of the Crown's fault. Period!

MR. LAMB: Your original allegation was made in late 1992.

MR. SILMSER: That's correct. 

MR. LAMB: And in September 1993, you received the settlement funds, in Cornwall, correct, the $32,000? 

MR. SILMSER: That's correct.

MR. LAMB: Now, at that point, you refused to cooperate with police. Isn't that correct also?

MR. SILMSER: Absolutely not! I cooperated with the police all the way through the investigation with Heidi Sebalj. I went to every meeting she had, she called me for. I sat there for hours upon hours discussing things with her. We -- I was patient through the whole process, even when there were delays, like three months delays, with Heidi Sebalj coming back to me. And I was 100 per cent cooperative with the Cornwall Police. They are the ones who didn't want to lay charges. They are the ones who said the case was finished. Not myself. 

MR. LAMB: So you never got upset from the calls coming from Constable Sebalj?

MR. SILMSER: Pardon me. 

MR. LAMB: When she called and left messages with you, that never upset you?

MR. SILMSER: Oh! Definitely! Sometimes it upset me. 

MR. LAMB: And you never stated that you didn't want to deal with the matters anymore, criminally?

MR. SILMSER: When the police said that they were not going to go further with the charges, they were dropping the case, the only option I had was to take the settlement, the $32,000, because nothing else was being done. That was my only option, to keep trying to find some justice in this situation, and the agreements that were put in front of me. I did not read some of them. That's ignorance, I believe, my ignorance. I should have read them. But, at the time, I was very frustrated, wanted this thing to end because I was so mad at the Cornwall Police for not doing a proper investigation and not following through with it. And so these -- that's when it ended for me; I thought it had ended for me. 

 MR. LAMB: Okay. 

MR. SILMSER: Because it had ended for the Cornwall Police.

[There was a prolonged silence here while Mr. Lamb looked through his notes]

Do you have another question or ---

MR. LAMB: Yes, I do.

Another area that you addressed late yesterday during the examination in-chief, Mr. Silmser, was going back to the preliminary inquiry. You were talking about the fact that the Crown, Mr. Pelletier at the time -- 

MR. SILMSER: Now, you agree it was Mr. Pelletier?

MR. LAMB: This is in 1997 at the preliminary inquiry.

MR. SILMSER: And now you know the dates of the Crown Attorneys? I'm just asking because you were mixed up before about dates and Crown Attorneys at the time. So I'm just asking and now you know the dates and the Crown Attorneys who did it. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Hold on now! 

You are quite correct in the sense that first of all, he doesn't recall who the Crown Attorney was that replaced Mr. Pelletier. Okay? 

So now, he's going back and he's talking about in the Pelletier era.

[He was talking about the Pelletier area before too.  1998 was the Pelletier era. So was a good part of 1999.

Is it any wonder victims get confused? It’s difficult enough for a victim to undergo cross-examination by his “alleged” abuser’s lawyer – more difficult by a long shot when the lawyer doesn’t know the facts of a very complex case, has important dates mixed up and doesn’t know the key names] 

MR. SILMSER: But he didn't give me a date when the Crown replaced Mr. Pelletier. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, well --- 

MR. SILMSER: And I asked him for that time period, and he didn't know what time period. So how am I supposed to know what Crown Attorney took place at the time? 

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, first of all, we are going to go back to basics. Okay?

This gentleman is asking you questions. All right.

And you have a lawyer here, and I'm here. Mr. Engelmann is here to make sure that he asks proper questions. All right. 

And, so far, other than the fact that he may have repeated a question a couple of times, and I'm giving him a little bit of leeway, he has been fair. Okay?

In asking you questions. 

So what I am going to ask you is just sit back and answer the questions the best you can. So I --- 

[Mr. Lamb, unfortunately and obviously, did not have his facts down pat before he walked into the Weave Shed.  How pray tell is a witness supposed to deal with this?].   

MR. SILMSER: I disagree with that. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Why is that? 

MR. SILMSER: Because if I don’t answer the questions exactly, the truthful of the questions --- 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

MR. SILMSER: --- and precisely the questions, people put a spin on it. 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

MR. SILMSER: The newspaper puts a spin on it. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. 

MR. SILMSER: The media puts a spin on it. And that’s what I don’t want to happen. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, there’s one problem with that. 

MR. SILMSER: Okay. 

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

I don’t care what the media says. 

MR. SILMSER: I do care. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Ah! Except that there’ one thing. This is on the web cast. Right? It’s on COGECO. People can see what you’re saying. And what I told people was that if people want to come to this Inquiry to listen to facts. So all I’m interested in is what you’re telling me here today. All right? Not what spin is going to be put on it, because I’m the one who is writing the report. 

[All so easy to say.  The average man is out working for a living.  He can’t go to the Weave Shed.  He can’t watch the web cast.  And he won’t read the report. But he will read the headlines.  And he will catch the news.  And right or wrong he will believe what he hears and reads about victims, be it true or false.  

Speaking of spin, I can’t help but wonder how much and whose spin led Justice Glaude to prematurely conclude that the “rumour” and “innuendo” swirling around Cornwall are false? ]  

MR. SILMSER: But, again, I do care. I’m a victim here --- 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

MR. SILMSER: --- sitting here on my –– supposedly on my own free will, giving testimony. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. 

MR. SILMSER: And I do care --- 

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. 

MR. SILMSER: --- the spin that these lawyers are trying to put on things. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, first of all, the spin -- he’s asking questions and so far your lawyer and Mr. Engelmann have not objected. So that should be an indication to you that --- 

MR. SILMSER: But I have objected to a few things. 

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. 

MR. SILMSER: Number one was when Mike Neville -- when you try to tell me that Mike Neville made no delays on this thing --- 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

MR. SILMSER: --- and I knew for a fact he did. He was trying to put a spin on a few things and I’m just trying to tell him exactly what went wrong. 

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. And what he’s done is he stopped asking those questions.

MR. SILMSER: But he will ask more like that. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Well --- 

MR. SILMSER: I guarantee you. 

THE COMMISSIONER: I am the gatekeeper here. All right? And I will determine what questions are relevant or not, with the assistance of the lawyers that are here. 

MR. SILMSER: And I will answer where I think the truth will come out the best. 

THE COMMISSIONER: And I will direct you to answer the questions that I think are important for me to hear the answers to.

MR. SILMSER: Okay. 

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

So good! 

So now we’re back to the preliminary inquiry. All right? Mr. Silmser? We’re back -- he’s going back to the preliminary inquiry.

MR. SILMSER: Okay. 

THE COMMISSIONER: And we know for a fact that Mr. Pelletier was the prosecutor or the Crown Attorney at that time. Right?

MR. SILMSER: That’s correct. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. 

What’s your question? 

MR. LAMB: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

When you were giving your evidence, Mr. Silmser, with regard to the preliminary inquiry yesterday, you stated that: “The only objection was when I caught Neville in a lie and I made him go back to another document and he turned beet red and he asked if he could have a recess and the judge said ‘You don’t get a recess. The victim gets a recess’.” 

MR. SILMSER: That’s correct.

MR. LAMB: Okay.  

Now, I’m going to ask you to look at a document, and it’s one of the transcripts from the preliminary inquiry. It’s –– 738202 is the document number that ---

THE COMMISSIONER: What’s the exhibit number? 

MR. LAMB: Sorry, Mr. Commissioner. 

THE REGISTRAR: Seven three eight two zero two (738202)?

MR. LAMB: Yes. 

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 291.

THE COMMISSIONER: Two-ninety-one (291).

MR. LAMB: Exhibit 291. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. What page?

MR. LAMB: I’m sorry, Mr. Commissioner. 

THE COMMISSIONER: What page of the transcript?

MR. LAMB: Yes, it’s page 33. And is that the -- forgive me, Mr. Commissioner. Is it the Bates number? 

THE REGISTRAR: Bates number.

MR. LAMB: Is that the number carried in the top left-hand corner of these documents?

So it’s Bates number 7164541 -- no, sorry, 7164542.

THE COMMISSIONER: So 32 and 33, Mr. Silmser.

MR. SILMSER: Pardon me. 

THE COMMISSIONER: I think he’s at page 32 and 33 ---

MR. SILMSER: Okay. 

THE COMMISSIONER: --- of the preliminary inquiry.

THE REGISTRAR: Just 33. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Just 33. All right. 

MR. LAMB: I just wanted to direct you here, Mr. Silmser. This is a break in the proceedings. At line 22 Mr. Neville states: “Can we take five minutes, please, Your Honour?”  And the Court says: “Mr. Neville, perhaps we could continue until the normal lunch recess at 12:30.”

Mr. Neville states: “I can’t. I’d like five minutes.” And, of course, this is a personal request. 

Mr. Neville answers: “Yes. Of course, it’s all right. We’ll take five minutes.” And there’s a five minute recess. 

But in reviewing that transcript, Mr. Silmser, I see nothing of lies.

MR. SILMSER: You haven’t read the whole transcript then. And that’s not the recess that I was talking about. 

MR. LAMB: Can you tell me which recess it was so that --- 

MR. SILMSER: I’d have to go through the whole file and that would probably take me approximately a day. 

MR. LAMB: Well, I’ve gone through all those transcripts, Mr. Silmser.

MR. SILMSER: Yes, but I’m not going to take your word for it. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Just a minute! Just a  minute!  Wait until he asks the question and then you can answer. 

Mr. Lamb. 

MR. LAMB: I’ve gone through the transcripts and I find nothing. 

MR. SILMSER: Then you’re not a very good lawyer. 

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no. No, no, sir. 

MR. SILMSER: No. No, no. 

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no. In fairness ---

MR. SILMSER: It was there and if he hasn’t found nothing, he hasn’t done his job properly.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, the answer to that is instead of saying inflammatory things like that is say “Then you’re in error.” 

All right? You know? 

MR. SILMSER: I say it the way I see it and I say it the way I feel it. I’m sorry.

I’m not going to be told what to say and what not to say in this courtroom. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I’ll tell you one thing, sir, I have made it a rule here that we treat everybody with dignity and respect. 

[Allowing victims to be sandbagged and have words put in their mouth may be legal, but I think it falls shy of treating them with dignity and respect]

MR. SILMSER: And as far as I’m concerned that was as dignified as I could be with that man.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, then for the record, I’m going to tell you that while Mr. Lamb is acting for Father MacDonald, and there is obviously a difficulty there, Mr. Lamb is presenting himself in a calm fashion and he’s asking polite questions. And so I would ask you simply to be as polite as you can when you’re answering your questions. 

[Mr. Lamb is trained and paid to be calm.  He is also, I would suggest, paid to confuse the witness and spin the facts to exonerate his client, Father Charles MacDonald. For Mr. Lamb, it’s simply a job.  For Dave, on the other hand, it’s very personal, extremely emotional, and excruciatingly painful. He copes and defends himself as best he can.  I believe he did an admirable job.]  

MR. SILMSER: I’ll try as hard as I can. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Okay. 

MR. CULIC: I would like a five minute break to speak to my client.

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. 

Mr. Callaghan. 

[In the twinkle of an eye Mr. Callaghan (Cornwall police) is on his feet objecting]

MR. CALLAGHAN: I thought the rule was --well, I’d like to know the grounds as to why he needs to speak to his client. 

[I don’t recall any of this geat consternation when Albert Roy was sent off to spend time with his lawyer. ] 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm.

MR. CALLAGHAN: But I thought the ground -- there weren’t ---

MR. SILMSER: I’m taking a break now.

[And now Dave has had enough. They’ve pushed him over the edge.] 

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no ---

MR. SILMSER: They can put me in jail. I’m taking a break now.

[No, no? What?  Let the man go, for goodness sake.  Let him have a break – legally, with your consent.   

Dave dons his jacket and he’s gone.]

MR. CULIC: Well, I should think it’s readily obvious why I’ve asked for a five minute break, Mr. Commissioner. 

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

And that is to speak to your client with respect to how to give evidence and then --- 

MR. CULIC: Correct. Not ---

THE COMMISSIONER: Not to discuss any ---

MR. CULIC: Of course not!

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

Let’s take 15 minutes and then we’ll see where it goes. 

MR. CULIC: Thank you. 

THE REGISTRAR: Order; all rise. À l'ordre; veuillez vous lever.

The hearing will resume at 10:30 p.m. 

 --- Upon recessing at 10:16 a.m./  L'audience est suspendue à 10h16 --- Upon resuming at 11:10 a.m./ 

L'audience est reprise à 11h10 

THE REGISTRAR: This hearing of the Cornwall Public Inquiry is now in session. Please be seated. Veuillez vous asseoir. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 

Mr. Engelmann.

MR. ENGELMANN: Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Silmser is in our witness support room right now. His counsel wishes to address you. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Culic.

MR. CULIC: Thank you. 

First of all, Mr. Commissioner, I want to get clear on the record that Mr. Lamb did nothing wrong ---

[True.  Very true.  As I see it defence courtroom ethics dictate that the end justifies the means. For starters Lamb wanted to somehow get Dave on the record agreeing with Justice Chilcott’s ruling and and also to rescind or negate his comments about Neville. The system throws the ball into his court to achieve that end. - all sit back to watch the play of the game.] 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

MR. CULIC: --- and that this has nothing to do with him, his demeanor, or the nature of the questions he asked. It’s everything to do with who he represents and who Mr. Silmser really sees standing here. 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

MR. CULIC: I’m asking for an adjournment until Monday –– Monday afternoon. I’m going to attempt my best, with the resources available to us, to get him some very quick and effective, hopefully, anger management. 

[Anger management?  For standing up for himself? Too too much.] 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

MR. CULIC: Otherwise, in frank sincerity,Mr. Commissioner, I don’t think he can survive any more cross-examination without it. 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

All right.Thank you. 

So there’s a request for an adjournment. 

Any comments from any of the parties? 

All right. What I’d like to say at this point is that when I started out with this Inquiry, and knowing that we would be asking some alleged victims and victims to come and testify, that one of the situations we might run into is something that we’ve run into today.

I think if we’ve learned something is, if we go back to the context evidence of Dr. Jaffe and Dr. Wolfe, is that we have to be very much alive to situations such as this and to respect peoples’ needs for some time. 

And also we are all in a very difficult inquiry and we’ll have to be sensitive to the needs of all parties, all the while understanding that there is work to be done and, hopefully, that Mr. Silmser will be well enough to come on Monday. 

[Well enough?  Where does this come from?  He wasn’t sick.  He was standing up for himself.  That makes him sick?  This is a scary stuff!]   

I would hope that he would attend on Monday either to testify or to talk about how we’re going to handle this thing. So you might want to extend my invitation for him to come here at 2:00 o’clock. 

 MR. CULIC: I will do so. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

So in the meantime, I don’t know that anything untoward should be taken by what occurred either by Mr. Silmser’s demeanor or his comments. I think it’s a question of, again, being sensitive and understanding the needs of all the parties here in this Inquiry. 

[What sensitivity?  What understanding? I saw neither.] 

So that having been said, I think it’s wise that we adjourn. I don’t know that there are any other items that we can fill the day with. 

MR. ENGELMANN: There are not, sir. Obviously, this was unexpected. 

[It should have been expected and it could have been allayed.]