No hearings today (Friday, 24 August 2007)
Carson Chisholm, Helen Dunlop’s brother, has been subpoenaed!
You may recall that Justice Normand Glaude denied Chisholm’s application for standing and funding nigh on two years ago. Chisholm applied on behalf of the Coalition for Action. Of the many applications submitted for standing the Coalition was the only one rejected.
The Coalition was invited to re-apply. It did not. (See Press Release: Coalition Cites Judicial BiasWill not Re-apply for Standing – scroll down page)
A good twenty months downstream Carson and the commission has apparently decided it wants and needs Carson’s input.
When he was approached by commission investigators in recent months and asked to testify Carson said he was ready and willing to comply, but only if he is called after former Chief Claude Shaver and Bishop Eugene Larocque take the stand.
It seems the commission could not or would not accommodate the request.
Carson is scheduled to appear 18 September 2007. He has retained the services of local Cornwall lawyer Frank Horn.
Horn will apply for standing and funding on Carson’s behalf at 1400 hours (2 pm), Monday, 27 August 2007.
Is C-8’s testimony wrapped up? I have no idea. The public has been excluded from his testimony. There is nothing on the Cornwall Public Inquiry website to tell us one way or the other.
What we do know is that C-8 has allegedly testified that he lied to Perry Dunlop and he lied to prosecutors.
It’s all a little strange in that on one hand it seems he has recanted his sexual abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald and said he lied to Perry to make Perry feel good, and on the other, according to the Freeholder, it seems C-8 testified he can’t “recall” being abused by the priest.
He can’t recall? Doesn’t that sound just a little strange? C-8 doesn’t recall if he was sexually abused by Charlie? Wow!! Is that not a far cry from testifying that Charlie never laid a hand on him? Seems to me it is.
C-8 doesn’t remember if he was molested by a Roman Catholic priest? Years after he said that he was?
Seems to me that in and of itself that’s problematic for the inquiry, i.e., is it perhaps fact. and perhaps in the intervening years for a variety of medical and psychological reasons C-8 has “forgotten”?
That could be, could it not? But, it also seems to me that the burning question here and now is: which is it? Is it that C-8 lied that he was molested by Father Charles MacDonald? Or is it that he doesn’t remember if he was molested by MacDonald?
I really need to see the transcripts to sort this out.
Another thought here: Doesn’t C-8’s lack of recall sound uncannily like that of Ron Leroux’? Ron on one hand initially adamantly denied he ever saw a ritual at Cameron’s Point and equally adamantly denied he saw Fathers Bernard Cameron and McDougald at the ritual, and on the other eventually testified he doesn’t remember what or who he saw?
Interesting, I see no indication that C-8 was questioned about the “alleged” rape of his niece. Is that still to come? Or was there some sort of agreement hammered out on the part of all to shy clear? If so, why? And, for that matter, why no conviction on the charges? Lack of evidence? Or, …what?
And still no indication that C-8 has or has not like Ron extricated Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald from the Island.
Enough for now,