Truth and justice don’t stand a chance
Uncategorized June 22nd. 2007, 10:22pmRe the Cornwall Standard Freeholder article and the attempts by the office the Attorney General to extricate itself by interfering directly with the course of this inquiry. A few comments:.
(1) The article erroneously implies that Gerald Renshaw testified that he saw persons at various locales in the 80s. The fact is that Gerry Renshaw testified about who he saw and what he heard when he was around those areas period – at no time were his observations restricted to the 80s. Thus, when he testified in his December 1996 statement about a conversation where, during a visit to Ken Seguin’s “Malcolm was saying ‘I’ve been talking to Shaver about Dunlop and you’re worrying about nothing’” he was obviously referencing a conversation which transpired after late September 1993. Perry Dunlop was not involved before that so it was impossible that he heard discussion of Perry Dunlop’s involvement before that.
In the same statement Gerry says:
Ken also talked about Perry Dunlop, the Police Officer, after Perry went to C.A.S. Ken was terrified of being investigated. He said “fucking Dunlop I’m going to lose my career.” It was approximately at this time Ken advised me about having to get rid of video tapes and probation records.
Again, that had to be after late September 1993. And Murray MacDonald was certainly Crown.
How old was Murray MacDonald then? Offhand I have no idea. But how old he looked is rather subjective isn’t it? Did he look his age? Did he look older? Most of us aren’t very adept at guessing ages.
Age guessing aside, let’s get the important facts straight here. Gerry Renshaw was around Ken Seguins when Murray MacDonald was Crown.
(2) The AG’s office has jumped into this “independent” and “impartial” inquiry with it’s other two feet. Despite being awash in allegations of cover-up it crafted the toothless mandate, chose a commissioner who is a provincial judge on its payroll and who has deep Cornwall connections and is engulfed with Red Flags, told the victims and people of Cornwall the commissioner has no Cornwall connections, sought and received standing to defend its own interests and now its media spokesman Brendan Crawley jumps in to its Crown attorney Murray MacDonald’s defense with this:
“This allegation was thoroughly investigated by the Ontario Provincial Police on a number of occasions and was found to be baseless…The allegation will be vigorously denied by Mr. (Murray) MacDonald when he testifies at the inquiry.
“The ministry maintains that he has consistently demonstrated the highest standards of professionalism and integrity in that position,”"
Forget, if you can, the blatant and pre-existing conflict of interest. I think this AG intervention boils down to obstruction of justice or an outright attempt at it, don’t you? This, after all, is a mouthpiece for the Attorney General speaking!!!
Can there be a shred of doubt that the AG’s office is undermining Gerry’s testimony and calling him a liar?
How this can continue is beyond me. Just the sheer fact that the Ministry of the office of the AG has standing at an inquiry which it commissioned is beyond the pale. And now this!
(3) Murray MacDonald, the Crown attorney when the Cornwall sex abuse scandal first erupted, seems to have a lot of people looking out for his ‘best’ interests. Today it’s his boss and our Attorney General. There have been others….
Some years ago Dick Nadeau posted Ron Leroux’s affidavit on his website. What most people don’t know is that one name was removed from the affidavit – Murray MacDonald’s. The removal came at the request of Dick’s lawyer, Howard Yeggendorf. Dick told me about this some time after the fact. At the time I understood from Dick only that Howard Yeggendorf said he would not represent Dick unless he removed Murray MacDonald’s name. There was, I have since learned, an “arrangement” worked out between Dick and Yeggendorf which Dick thought would suit. I will leave it at that for now. The bottom line is that for I don’t know how long an Affidavit minus Murray MacDonald’s name was on Dick’s site.
Only after Dick was found guilty of contempt and Dick felt strongly that he had been sold out by Yeggendorf (I concurred) did Murray MacDonald’s name go back into Ron Leroux’s affidavit where it belongs: (1) #5 in the list of those whom Ron Leroux listed as a person he saw at “parties at Ken Seguin’s house, Malcolm’s summer residence and St. Andrew’s Parish house” and (2) in paragraph #28.
I have reproduced below para #28 which has Murray MacDonald’s name and, to put it into context, have included the preceeding para and two paras after:
27. On or about a Friday evening in late August, 1993-early September, 1993, I was told by Ken Seguin that there is going to be a gathering a Malcolm’s summer home on Sunday. He stated that Bishop Larocque, Claude Shaver, Ron Wilson, Malcolm, Father Charlie, and others would be in attendance. He said they were having a get together on the Island.
28. On the Sunday morning at approximately 8:30 a.m., myself and Ken are having a coffee in Ken backyard. Malcolm arrives and states that he has steaks, beer and booze for an army. Malcolm states that a lot of important people are showing up for dinner today. Malcolm stated that Ron Wilson, Claude Shaver, Bishop Larocque, Stuart McDonald, Brunet, a Judge from his drinking days, and Father Charlie would be in attendance. At approximately 11:30 or so, I observed Malcolm turn into Ken Seguin’s driveway. I then observed Murray MacDonald exit Ken’s back door. I clearly observed Murray in the back yard. Afterwards, Shaver arrived with two (2) other males. They exited the car and I observed the two (2) other males to be Stuart McDonald and another cop. They go to Ken’s wharf and get into Malcolm’s boat. They, Malcolm, Claude, Stuart and the other cop, head towards the Island and wave at me as they are leaving. A second vehicle arrives with two (2) males in it. They exit the car and I observe Bishop Larocque and another priest. Both of them go to Ken’s wharf and Malcolm had returned. Just before they were to leave, Malcolm, Bishop Larocque and the priest, Father Charles MacDonald arrived in his car with another priest, Rory MacDonald.They immediately went to join the others in the boat. I remember that Ken went and got a red milkbox from his boathouse as Malcolm’s boat only had four (4) seating capacity. I was in Ken’s backyard, approximately 15 to 20 feet from the boat as the five (5) of them pulled away for the Island. I told Ken I would put his phone away as I thought he was going to join them. Ken advised me he was going to go in his own boat and they proceeded to leave. A fourth car pulled up along the front of Ken’s house, stopped for a few seconds and left towards the marina. I observed Ron Wilson and waved to him. He waved back. I observed two (2) other males in the car with Ron Wilson. I then observed Ken Seguin leave alone for the Island. On or about 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Ken returns alone and pulls up to my wharf. Ken advises me that he has a new lease on life and seems elated. He advises me that the allegations against him are settled and the he can get on with his life.
29. Ken Seguin advised me that a bunch of “V.I.P.’’s” were on the Island.
30. After the Sunday meeting on the Island, Ken seemed revived for a few weeks. Then something happened and he started to get nervous again. He advised me that calls were starting again and that a cop was not going to let it go. Ken mentioned the name Dunlop, in fact, he said “fucking Dunlop”. I started to observe in late September, October and November, 1993, a great deal of traffic at Ken’s house. Father Charlie and Malcolm attended very frequently in the evenings. I observed Ken getting more and more nervous; and more and more depressed. He was suicidal.
(4) “This allegation was thoroughly investigated by the Ontario Provincial Police on a number of occasions and was found to be baseless.” That says it all, doesn’t it? Remember yet again who crafted the inquiry mandate which conveniently but inexcusably omits reference to getting to the bottom of the persistent allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up? And never forget who chose the commissioner and signs his paycheque.
All I can say is God help Gerry Renshaw when he returns to the stand.
(5) Note the Media Advisory. Timely. While victims are labelled liars by the Attorney General and male prostitutes by David Sheriff-Scott the social engineers will focus on community “renewal” and “healing.” Where oh where are people’s heads?
Oh yes, the phone number on the Media Advisory: that’s the phone number for G-4 communications. I can’t help but wonder if Marie Josee is nestled in Ottawa giving Justice Glaude a helping hand? Tucked out of sight but not out of mind?
****
That’s it. I have lots more to say but, for the moment, I’ll just say that when it comes to Cornwall, and paedophile rings and cover-ups, truth and justice don’t stand a chance.
And that’s more than enough for now,
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 am
Sickening, isn’t it. In my opinion, this is a very clear and unambiguous display of, “abuses”, of “power” and of “discretion”, by the Attorney General’s Office.
In my opinion, to release “such” a statement to the news media for publication in the middle of interviewing a witness and therefore, “during” an “ongoing testimony” of “a” witness, to me, is a blatant, overt abuse of power, miscarriage of justice and dare I say, “obstruction”, besides other criminal offences.
In my opinion, the newspaper article basically implies the witness, Gerry Renshaw must be a liar and any of his testimony is henceforth, discredited. This “press release” totally “obstructs” with the witnesses testimony.
Anyone else see a real or perceived “conflict of interest” here?
Clearly, the “powers that be” must feel cornered to take such a “desperate leap”.
Do/did any other witness have the opportunity to publicly amend or modify testimony, or, to comment publicly on the testimony of other “parties” granted Standing at this public inquiry, while the witness is “still on the stand”, so to say? (contemplate that one theorists, i.e “still on the stand”).
The elitist’s are permitted to play by their own rules, which is, no rules, for them.
Dare we speak out? Dare anyone speak out?
Transcript manipulations, abuse of power, etc., etc., and we wonder why so many people have always “sensed” cover-up. (…”if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, guess what….it’s a duck”.)
In my opinion, if “anyone” else was fortunate enough to have unmitigated access to the news media, such as the “AG” appears to have and “they” merely utterred a statement with equivalent weight, “they” would be jailed immediately.
Does anyone else think the witness may now be a little intimidated?…and the wolverine waits, to cross-examine Gerry. Oh yes, scales of justice.
Under this type of circumstance, I would probably take the same route David Silmser took, but for different reasons. Q: Would I return to the witness stand? A: No.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 am
Hi Sylvia,
You sound disgusted and I don’t blame you. It is all very depressing. Again I say the victims of this cover up are outstanding and courageous people.
Perhaps a reminder is in order here. FWIW, over the years the one thing I’ve realized concerning cover-ups is, like the abusers themselves, they stem from the misconception that abusers feel they have power to control “truth”. They have disdain for the intelligence of others around them. They use their ‘authority’ and arrogance to intimidate and this works well until victims realize that it’s their voice that has importance and power. Secrets are only powerful while they remain secret. These victims have spoken with dignity and courage and that is something NO ONE can take from them. It’s out there and the door cannot be shut. It is far too late for that. The victims have the courage to say ‘the emperor has no clothes’ and it doesn’t take much to realize that there are some at ‘Project Truth’ that are running a circus.
Panther
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:30 am
Do you suppose that maybe the unwashed public could have ‘another’ jurisdiction make arrests because Cornwall can’t due to a conflict of interest ????