Perry has now spent 85 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children. This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.
Hearings resumed at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Tuesday, 13 May 2008. S/Sgt. Brian Snyder’s testimony continues. (I have to get a page up for Snyder)
None if this gets any easier to stomach. A number of observations re yesterday’s testimony:
(1) Justice Normand Glaude gave a short speech before hearings resumed yesterday.
According to Glaude:
“As Commissioner of a Public Inquiry, I am beholding to no interest.”
[Comment: Justice Glaude stated long before he had heard a word of evidence or testimony from victims that he had concluded the “rumour”and “innudendo” swirling around Cornwall on his arrival were false.
How did Glaude reach that conclusion? In whose interest is it to dismiss the allegations of a ring/clan and cover-up?]
“We are here to get to the bottom of a divisive and heart-wrenching issue that has troubled this community. Doing this right does take time and money.”
[Comment: Doing what right costs time and money?
The divisive and gut wrenching issue which has troubled the community is the persistent allegations of a paedophile ring/clan and cover-up. The mandate omits any reference to either. ]
We are here to make progressive recommendations that I hope may change public policy. We are here to find the good ideas that can make a difference.
[Comment: All the changes in public policy and “good ideas”in the world will be of little or no merit if those executing them are or were part of a paedophile ring/clan and /or party to a cover-up.]
“And we are here because at the end of this Inquiry, I hope those following our work fully will be able to say, ‘I understand what happened. I understand the changes that are needed to reduce abuse and respond well when it happens. I feel prepared to move forward as an individual and as a part of a community. I know the lessons learned and how they can help others.’”
[Comment: Perry Dunlop is in jail. The “alleged” paedophiles and those who covered up on their behalf aren’t.
I understand what happened. And I know the lessons learned: (1) don’t blow the whistle on prominent men who “allegedly” molested young boys – you’ll land in jail, and (2) the cover-up continues.
(2) Ian Paul ( the Coalition) asked S/Sgt Garry Derochie about the complaint against Constable Heidi Sebalj. I’m not sure that the response enlightens us one way or the other as to how a complaint which was launched by David Silmser against Constable Heidi Sebalj morphed into charges under the Police Service Act against Constable Perry Dunlop. See if you can decipher anything of merit or make heads or tails in that regard from the following:
MR. PAUL: I just wanted to ask you one point to clarify that process. My understand of the process is in terms of the public complaint process, initially, for example, in the Silmser case, the public complaint focused on Ms. Sebalj?
MR. DEROCHIE: I didn’t have anything to do with that, but by reviewing documents I saw that the — Constable Sebalj was the original subject officer of that complaint, yes.
MR. DEROCHIE: I can’t comment on the PCC process — that was the Public Complaints Commission.
There was a whole different system than that, that I worked under in Part 6 of the Act, which was a revision, which is what we went from the old Part 5, which was the PCC legislation, and I’m not sure if there is a requirement one
way or the other.
MR. PAUL: All right. So you are not sure whether a permission is sought to add a new officer on from the original complaint to the public complaint?
MR. DEROCHIE: I’m not sure if it would have applied then. I certainly would have done it under the Part 6.
(3) Derochie came back yesterday to correct errors in his previous testimony which indicated there were no disciplinary files found on anyone. Seems Derochie forgot about a banker’s box of incriminating documents on CPS officer Bob Trottier which were sitting in Derochie’s office. Seems he had forgotten both the box and the fact that Trottier had been demoted to the rank of 4th Constable through disciplinary proceedings!
Derochie had apparently originally been tasked to pour through files looking for those which met certain criteria regarding discipline. He testified that during the testimony of Alain Seguin he had dug out Trottier’s files and had an entire banker’s box of same in his office. The box remained in his office.
Derochie became ill. Sgt. Burnie was tasked with picking up the task of seeking these discipline-related files. Burnie did not find the banker’s box of Trottier files. He did however recall that Trottier had been disciplined in 1997 or ’98 and was therefore surprised that he had uncovered no Trottier files.
Burnie apparently made mention of this to Deputy Chief Danny Aikman.
The lost had now been found. Contrary to Derochie’s previous testimony officer Trottier was the recipient of serious discipline.
(4) Now we have yet another CPS officer who doesn’t believe he has duty to report children at risk to the Children’s Aid Society. And word of yet another victim whose sex abuse allegations sat on the back burner for over a year.
S/Sgt Brian Snyder took the stand yesterday afternoon.
A number of disturbing points from Snyder’s testimony:
(1) Snyder handled sex abuse allegations against local Roman Catholic School teacher Marcel Lalonde. The first Lalonde victim to come forward to Snyder in, I believe, 1997, alleged he was molested by Lalonde on a school trip in the early 70s.
The school trip took the sex abuse outside the boundaries of the CPS jurisdiction. Snyder handed the case over to the jurisdiction of the OPP.
Snyder did not notify CAS of the allegations against Lalonde. He, witness the following, believed it was the OPPs job!
So they would put it in their ballpark. We wouldn’t get involved in their investigation.
Remember, this was several years after the 1993/1994 ruckus over Perry Dunlop going to the CAS – and as a result of the Board of Inquiry clear knowledge that police officers have a legal duty to report!
(2) A Lalonde victim disclosed to Snyder that he, C-66, had also been molested by Bernard Sauve, a local entrepreneur. The victim understood that Snyder would follow up on the allegations. Nothing was done until more than a year later when Project Truth officers became involved.
According to Snyder C-66 did not want to pursue the allegations. That is nowhere to found in Snyder’s notes. Snyder thinks the only reason that it is not in his notes is that he probably ran into C-66 downtown somewhere and at that time C-66 said he wasn’t ready to pursue the allegations!
At no time apparently did C-66 ever tell Project Truth officers that he ever told Snyder he did not want to pursue the allegations against Sauve. In fact, my understanding of the testimony is that C-66 indicated he understood Snyder was to contact him.
( 3) When Project Truth officers indicated they were about to contact C-66 chaos erupted. Snyder and CPS Inspector Trew were on the phones to Project Truth officers and on the phones to C-66 and the word was out from the CPS end that C-66 was “fragile.”
Commission counsel Mrs. Karen Jones noted:
JONES: It just appears just on the face of it here that we have got Officer Desrosiers, yourself and Officer Trew trying to stop Officer Genier from talking to C-66 —
I am hard pressed to believe that they were not trying to interfere.
I am equally hard pressed to understand why Project Truth officer were liaising with CPS officers at all and keeping them in the loop. The CPS itself was, as noted below, the subject of the Project Truth probe:
“… it is alleged the suspects were able to terminate investigations and prosecutions against them by abusing their positions of trust within the community. It is alleged the Crown Attorney, the Diocese of Cornwall, and the Cornwall Police Service conspired to obstruct justice in these matters.”
Read the Project Truth mandate again. I can not fathom how such an investigation could be conducted with any degree of impartiality and credibility when CPS officers were constantly liaising with and getting information from CPS officers.
(4) Snyder conducted an analysis of David Silmser’s victim statement. Contrary to public perception this was NOT in any way shape or form an official part of the investigation. The fact is Snyder took what seems to amount to a one day course in statement analysis. He utilised this in his own investigations and sometimes in conjunction with performing polygraphs. That was it.
For some strange reason Constable Heidi Sebalj asked Snyder to conduct an analysis of Dave’s victim statement. She did not ask Snyder while the pair were on duty at the station. For whatever reason Sebalj allegedly approached Snyder at his home when he was off duty. Whether or not Sebalj was off duty at the time is unclear.
Snyder agreed to conduct the analysis. That it seems also and strangely was conducted on his own time.
Of further interest here, Sebalj was apparently the first officer to ask Snyder to analyze a statement!
(5) Snyder had David Silmser’s statement in his possession for about one week. Asked by commission counsel Jones about the length of time he had the statement in his possess the following exchange:
MS. JONES: And in this particular document, it says that you had the statement approximately one week.
MR. SNYDER: That’s correct.
MS. JONES: That seems like a long time but how long does it take you to determine that?
MR. SNYDER: Well, again, I think it’s important to know that I wasn’t doing — I did it for myself mostly. I didn’t do it for a lot of officers. I didn’t — I haven’t — the time here, I hadn’t done a statement analysis for some time. So I had to go back to my books and I had to look at it and I really had to understand the statement and what I was doing with the statement.
So it took a little bit longer. I did it on my own time as well. I didn’t do it at work. So a week wouldn’t be, in my mind, too long if you really want to try and get something done reasonably.
Again, why was Snyder doing this police business on his own time?
Why did Sebalj approach him when he was off duty?
Where are Snyder’s notes of his interactions with Sebalj on this dimension of the David Silmser sex abuse “allegations.”
Why, during the “investigation” into David Silmser’s Citizen’s Complaint against Constable Dunlop were no questions raised regarding Sebalj decision to get an analysis of his victim statment?
(6) There was no formal report on the Snyder analysis (conducted 03 or 04 March 1993). None. Snyder gave Sebalj a verbal report. The following is the best he can do in recalling what he might have told Sebalj
MR. SNYDER: Basically, in a nutshell, without even looking at it, it was advising her that you’ve got situations here where I believe he’s telling the truth.
There’s ways of corroborating that by speaking to individuals who are within the statement.
There’s areas of the statement here where I feel that he may not — he may know more than he’s telling you. I suggest you speak to him and get that out or try and find out why he’s not telling you more. There’s different — because of the words he’s used.
I think that’s in a nutshell what I would have done and kind of directed her as to where to go with the statement.
Where did Sebalj get the notion that David Silmser was not credible? Did Snyder’s “analysis” have any bearing?
What exactly did Snyder tell Sebalj? He has no notes. It’s all too complex for him to recall now.
And, Sebalj isn’t testifying.
(7) A Kevin Liden at the Catholic School Board apparently advised a CPS officer that no action would be taken by the school board (re the allegations against Lalonde) until they had reason to take action from the OPP. Lalonde apparently carried right on teaching!
(8) According to Snyder’s 12 February 1997 notes:
“Detective Inspector Tim Smith then said, ‘don’t worry about Father Charlie. We’ll take care of that. You are going to take care of the Lalonde investigation.'”
Inspector Tim Smith was initially with the Project Truth probe. Why was the Lalonde investigation left in the hands of the CPS? Who made that decision? and why?
(9) Snyder started trying to get in touch with David Silmser regarding Dave’s sex abuse allegations against Marcel Lalonde. Dave apparently did not want to talk to him so Snyder conveyed a message for Dave through Pam Silmser (Dave’s wife)
“Take as much time as you want to feel comfortable, but remember it will be unfair to Marcel Lalonde if it comes over later.”
Note: It would be unfair to Marcel Lalonde! Not it might help to convict Lalonde if Dave came forward! Not it might help to protect children if Dave came forward. No. According to Snyder it would be unfair to Marcel Lalonde if Dave didn’t come forward. That I beleive because it might mean another trial for Lalonde at a later date!!!!
I keep thinking this all can’t get any more disgusting than it is. But, it does. It just does. I’m listening as I type. Unbelievable. Tap dancing. Excuses.
It’s becoming more of the same old same old.
And who’s in jail?
Enough for now,