Tut tut

Share Button

Hearings resume at 0:930 am today (26 June 2007).  Ron Leroux will take the stand and is scheduled for the remainder of the week.

Gerry Renshaw is finished. I believe it was around 7:30 pm last night that things finally wrapped up.  It was a long long afternoon – tensions ran high and sparks flew between Justice Glaude and David Sheriff-Scott.  But Gerry hung in there and, I must say,  handled himself extremely well.  His testimony didn’t change; .  He held his ground on who he saw at Ken Seguin’s waterfront home and Malcolm MacDonald’s gay-porn ridden cottage.  He was on top of repeated efforts to put words in his mouth and persistent attempts to manoeuvre him to agree that he was not abused by Ken Seguin in 1983 when he, Gerry, was 17 and serving his first probation but in fact the first time was when he was serving his second probation and would have been age 20 or 21. On several occasions Justice Glaude came to his aid to force one lawyer or another to clarify questions which seemed geared to confuse the record or sand bag the witness.

For whatever reason David Sherriff Scott et al had their horns tucked in yesterday. True enough it seemed that the diocese, Correctional Services and the Cornwall Police Service tagged-teamed their efforts and they collectively harangued Gerry on the same points and individually inferred any number of times that Gerry is a liar, but the whole business of being a male prostitute was kept under wraps.  There were certainly Q & As which they will no doubt attempt to pull out of the hat at the appropriate hour to buttress that particular theory, but there was no frontal attack calling him a prostitute and from what I heard certainly nothing which comes remotely close to substantiating it.

And, all in all, at the end of the day, despite attempts by various parties to extricate certain personages from Ken Seguin’s and Malcolm MacDonald’s premises we still had Gerald Renshaw’s eye-witness account of a number of prominent Cornwall men at Ken Seguin’s and Malcolm MacDonald’s.

And so, for example, David Sheriff Scott put it to Gerry that Bishop Eugene Larocque and Fathers Kevin Maloney and Gary Ostler deny ever being at Ken Seguin’s or Malcolm’s. Gerry replied:  “Did you expect them to say they were there?”

Next Sheriff-Scott said Father David Ostler has also denied similar “allegations” and “I suggest that he was telling the truth and you were not.” Gerry replied “That’s your belief.”

Finally, Sheriff-Scott said that Father Rory MacDonald has denied the “allegations” and “I suggest your allegations about him are false.”  Strangely enough, perhaps anticipating the response, Sheriff-Scott did not give Gerry opportunity to respond to this one.  With that the cross-examination fizzled to its end.  And, interesting, at this point Gerry turned to Justice Glaude and asked : “Can I ask what his point was with that?”  Glaude said “No” and advised that Dallas Lee could explain it to him later.

Then it was on to Peter Manderville (Cornwall Police Service).  Manderville attempted to extricate first Stuart MacDonald and then Claude Shaver from Seguin’s home and MacDoanld cottage on Stanley Island :

 MR. MANDERVILLE: Now, Mr. Renshaw, Stuart McDonald advises that while he knew who Ken Seguin was, he did not know where Mr. Seguin lived, and he denies ever being at Mr. Seguin’s house on any occasion. And he will testify that you are lying in saying that he was in attendance there. Do you accept that?

MR. RENSHAW: I would accept that he’s saying that, yes.

MR. MANDERVILLE: And Mr. Shaver has stated that he does not –- never did know Mr. Seguin, has never been to Mr. Seguin’s house at any time, nor to Mr. MacDonald’s cottage at any time, and he will testify that your statements about him are malicious and that you are a liar.

MR. RENSHAW: That’s about what I’d expect to hear.

Manderville also unsuccessfully attempted to buttress the pathetically familiar line that Perry Dunlop misrepresented himself to victims as an on duty police officer conducting a police investigation

MR. MANDERVILLE: We heard from your brother, Robert, that he was advised by Mr. Dunlop, when he met with Mr. Dunlop, that Mr. Dunlop was conducting a police investigation. Did Mr. Dunlop advise you he was conducting a police investigation?

MR. RENSHAW: He wasn’t a cop at the time.

MR. MANDERVILLE: Well, in fact, sir, he was. He was an officer—

MR. RENSHAW: Not an active cop.

MR. MANDERVILLE: He was on disability, yes.

The Attorney General’s Intereference

Murray MacDonald’s defence was played out last week in the media and right from the upper echelons.  I blogged on that – seems to me if this isn’t overt interference by the AG I don’t what is.

Well, turns out that the AG’s office actually had the audacity to send out a press release defending Murray MacDonald!

Dallas Lee raised the issue of the newspaper article with Justice Glaude and, in truth, got nowhere. Glaude was “saddened” and essentially said ‘tut, tut – bad boys’ and that was the end of it!!! 

Some questions:

(1)  Who in the AG’s office ordered the press release?

(2) Who in the AG’s office agreed that a press release was appropriate?

(3) Who drafted the AG press release?

(4) Who approved the final draft?

A final necessary comment on this overt attempt by the AGs office to intimidate a witness in the midst of his testimony.

We all know what happened to poor Steve Parisien.  A witness testified that Steve tried to influence his testimony.  Justice Glaude instantly presumed wrong-doing and turned Steve, a sexual abuse victim, over to “the proper authorities.”  And the “proper authorities” as you well know, charged Steve with obstruction of justice.  Since this moment Steve has been scrambling to try to find a lawyer to defend his best interests and to come up with the thousands of dollars required to finance his defence.

My question is: Is there a double standard at play here?  I don’t know where this fits in the grand legal scheme of things but I do know that something is seriously amiss and it warrants a little more than an idle judicial ‘tut tut.’

Steve, by the way, has a court ‘appearance’ tomorrow.  I don’t know that it’s an appearance per se but there is a pre-trial conference in chambers scheduled for tomorrow. A reminder here that if you haven’t already done so please give what you can to help Steve defray his legal expenses

Enough for now,

Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *