Yes, there WAS a ring

Share Button

Well, not quite finished at 2:30 pm this afternoon, but finished for the day regardless.   The commissioner was not amused!

All headed off for the planes, trains and automobiles.   When Dupuis will wrap up is a question mark.  He has been told by Justice Glaude to report to the Weave Shed at 0900 hours (9 am) Monday, 24 November 2008.  Det. Insp. Tim Smith is scheduled to resume his testimony at 9 am.  Glaude thought perhaps commission counsel can work something out.

I have a gaggle of little people coming tomorrow.  As soon as the webcast shut down I set to work clearing the deck for wee ones – the mind going a mile a minute I must say.

Yet again I wish there were about 40 hours in a day 🙂  So much today which needs to covered, and leftovers from yesterday.  And a busy week-end ahead.

I’ll do what I can in fits and starts – a bit at a time.

The first news flash from today’s testimony is that, well, believe it or not, seems that Project Truth officers were advised by none other than former police officer Ron Wilson that he knew there was a paedophile ring in Cornwall back around 1967-  but there isn’t one now.

Well done Dallas Lee for getting that information on the record.

According to today’s evidence Wilson advised that there was a big investigation at the time, and that it involved Fathers Paul Lapierre and Don Scott, and that there was no doubt there was a ring running out of the Cornwall Classical College and it was under surveillance, and that Killer Gagnon who used to hang around with Lapierre was the only one charged and he was sent out of town for a time.

Wilson even provided the names of two police officers involved with the investigation.

No follow up by Project Truth on this.  None!

And Wilson has a sick slip.  He won’t be testifying.

God rest your soul Dick you were bang on the money. Bang on the money!

But then of course Dick tended to do his homework.  He spent hours and hours going through newspapers to find out what he could about Killer Gagnon.  He did the same with Real Estate transactions, tracking where the estates of  Cornwall’s deceased paedophiles went.

Anyway, step one.  There was a ring.  In 1967.

No all rumour and innuendo after all.

Claude Marleau could and did attest to that one. Passed around like a used toy.

And Project Truth said no ring!

What oh what will the commissioner do with that little piece of bad news?

Perhaps Wilson was fibbing?  But, what difference?   True or false.  That’s not the issue.  The issue is how did Project Truth officers respond to the information be it true or false?

True or false, they did nothing.

Now what?

This is a fascinating piece of news.  I always wondered what had been going on in Cornwall in the late 60s.  It just all looked a bit strange.  That’s when Father Paul Lapierre disappeared and took up his abode in Montreal.  And right on his heels away went Father Ken Martin.  And somewhere in the midst of it all the Classical College closed its doors forever.  And on the heels of that Father Paul Desiletsa Viatiorian priest from the Classical College was shipped off to the States and other Viatorians dispersed elsewhere across the country.

And who was at St. John Bosco from 1957 to 1963 but Father Carl Stone?  He was shipped off temporarily after “the Cornwall Police threatened to intervene after his misdemeanour.”  He probably got shipped off before the big ax fell.  But how gracious of the police way back then – let him run off to molest young lads somewhere else – just get out of here or we’ll have to do something.

Father Paul Lapierre was all set to sing like a canary about the Classical College at his own trial.  Not that he  was about to admit that he did anything untoward himself, just that he was proudly primed to share what he knew others were up to. And yes, he was proud to spit it out.

I always said Lapierre should have been subpoened.

He certainly should have been.

And what about Jacques Leduc?  He was a student at the Classical College.  That’s a picture of him from the yearbook.

Leduc was on the stand.  Why no questions about what was going on at the College? I think he might know.

Anyway, there it is.

A ring!  Only one charged, Killer Gagnon.  A little slap on the wrist there and shipped out of town.

Cover-up?

Too bad isn’t it that so many  “investigations” since 1994  negated gleaning information from those who knew a little bit of “rumour” and “innuendo” based on fact.

Perry and Dick were the bad guys.  A little character assassination has been hurled in their direction I’d say – from one investigator to the next to the next.  Ditto anyone associated with them.

I’m thinking this inquiry may well have kicked off on the same foot.

Sort of like history repeating itself.

What is it:  Those who can’t remember the past are doomed to repeat it?

Anyway, a multi-million dollar boondoggle this one is.

So where are we now?

There was a ring:  There’s no ring now.

There might have been a cover-up in the late 60s.  No cover-up since and certainly not since the early 90s.

It’s getting a wee bit complicated.

No matter.  Truth is irrelevant.

Must get back to housewifely things for a spell.  More to come.

Unbelievable what’s been going on.  Un-be-lieve-able!!!

Enough for now

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Canada, Clerical sexual predators, Cornwall, Cornwall Public Inquiry, Non clerical RC sexual predators, Project Truth, Scandal and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Yes, there WAS a ring

  1. prima facie says:

    Additional Thoughts and Opinion for “the pearheads”:

    What a couple of days of explosive disclosures, and, no mainstream news media to tell the world. Ha!!…what a joke!!

    When this “Cornwall Public Inquiry” races down the “final stretch”, so-to-speak, it is my opinion, Commissioner Glaude, after careful reflection, will have one of two choices to consider, when preparing to write, his “final report”; i.e.) reviewing the record, contemplating the facts and rendering his findings, conclusions and recommendations, as per the “mandate”.

    #1) Whether there are provisions in the “Cornwall Public Inquiry” “mandate, or other,” that could facilitate a recommendation for further inquiry. Based in part, on the “discoveries” the “Cornwall Public Inquiry” has made to date, I believe, Commissioner Glaude could rely on “inter-alia”, “estoppel”, among other legal references and rules of law, to appeal for a “judicial review”, formal investigation and/or similar. I believe that within the “Public Inquiries Act”, lies “authority” to make such an appeal. (My comparison is a family/guardian (the “Act”) has rules, regulations, morals, values and recourse that they respect and are obligated to follow. The family/guardian (the “Act”) may “assign” a duty to a minor, son or daughter (the “Public Inquiry Mandate”), outlining their, “constrained” roles, rules and responsibilities. However, based on the “social/legal norms” and “practice”, it could be argued that, the ultimate responsibility, recourse and/or other, lies with the family/guardian. i.e.) (the “Act”).

    Therein lies the avenue for recourse; i.e.) the “Act”.

    I believe the aforementioned, could potentially lead to future criminal indictments, disciplinary hearings relating to professional misconduct, criminal prosecutions of various individuals, organizations and/or similar.

    However, this “choice” has NOT been overtly afforded to Commissioner Glaude as interpreted in paragraph #7 of “the mandate”, i.e.)Commissioner Glaude cannot “express any conclusion or recommendation regarding civil or criminal liability of any person or organization.”

    I suggest, to do as discussed in #1 would be considered and interpreted as an act of a “rebellious, rogue” Commissioner and shorten Judge Glaudes active career:

    ”MY QUESTIONS: A) Can Commissioner Glaude “imply” the same or can he request, investigation into the professional conduct of “parties”?

    B) As this is a “public inquiry”, can the public “write” an “appeal”, for the same?

    The other choice I believe Commissioner Glaude will have is; #2) in that, “for the “greater good”, as interpreted by the current “system”, Commissioner Glaude will submit a relatively, uncontroversial “report”, including an explanation why no further “inquiry, review or otherwise” will be pursued and imploring the “community” to “move on”, while still acknowledging that, for various reasons, the “healing and reconciliation” may be incomplete. Additionally, Commissioner Glaude will recommend various “socio-economic” strategies be researched to address perceived “shortcomings or needs”, he and the “Advisory Committee” have collectively identified, combined with recommendations submitted by some witnesses during testimony. . Thereafter, funding will be “downloaded”, so-to-speak, to pre-determined and pre-existing “service providers-caregivers-educators, etc.” in the community. These “service providers-caregivers, educators” etc., will learn about and develop, policies, protocol, practices and procedures, to be implemented in Cornwall and Area, by “public servants” and other “caregivers”, etc., for use while interacting with the public, i.e.) “consumers”.

    Regarding choice #1, above.

    Is there not “reasonable and probable cause” or other “cause”, to support an appeal for inquiry and investigation of individuals, organizations and/or other? Based on related testimony, evidence, supporting documents/submissions, “on the record”, is it not fair to suggest, there exists reasonable and probable cause or other, to justify an application or “appeal” for an inquiry into among other things, the professional conduct of various “parties” including some legal counsel? What about the “professional conduct” of various “principles”, participating directly or indirectly, in one manner or another, at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”? After all, Perry Dunlop was jailed. Steve Parisien was arrested and restrained.

    Commissioner Glaude relied upon some “authority” to exercise those actions against Dunlop, Parisien and others. There must be some “window” for disciplinary proceedings or follow-up as mentioned above. Because the public at large are ignorant of legal procedure, who can the public trust and rely on to guarantee “public inquiries” such as this one, are conducted, equitably and in good faith?

    BACK TO VOIR DIRE: In all or most situations, “voir dire” “argument” is not disclosed publicly or in the “main trial, hearing or other proceeding”. Generally, many people, including myself believe, the ultimate “testimony” is “tailored” during the “voir dire” hearing, so-to-speak, for delivery in the “main” trial. Often, the original testimony is “cut” and “altered”, during a “voir dire”, leaving the “real substance” on the “cutting floor”, so-to-speak.

    Interesting though; in the case of Commissioner Glaude, who, perhaps was obediently relying on paragraph 7 of the “Mandate” for guidance. He appeared to minimize the facts disclosed in the “voir dire” testimony, when he publicly announced that, he did not intend to interpret or determine the truth or otherwise, about the facts contained in the “voir dire” testimony. This is despite the fact that a “voir dire” is designed, “to speak the truth”. In that sense, shouldn’t the Commissioner when “hearing” the truth, accept it as the truth, even though he does not publicly state it?

    It is my opinion, the real intent of Commissioner Glaude’s non-disclosure is, for various reasons, to simply, not publicize the disclosures or provide his assessment. I believe he is attempting to deflect any perceived credibility to allegations of “cover-up”, claims of “misconduct”, “collusion”, etc.

    Take into consideration the following: As defined, I believe a “voir dire” is designed, “to speak the truth”. I believe a “voir dire” is an “examination of a witness which requires him or her “to speak the truth”,….”

    Remarkably, the sense of urgency, upset and desperation, evident the previous day, regarding Mr. Dupuis’ intentions, certainly appeared to me to have been dispelled and dramatically, “toned down”, after the “voir dire” and when the witness finally testified at the inquiry? (Was medication handed out to the throng?).ha! joke!

    As the record shows, (see transcripts Wednesday-Thursday-Friday, November 21-22, 2008) lawyer Michael Neville was being considered as a possible witness, in relation to testimony supposedly disclosed in the “voir dire” and with particularity to Mr. Neville’s interactions with Crown Prosecutor Pelletier and their alleged agreements, attached to issues of “procedure” and Father Charles MacDonald.

    Two days subsequent to the “voir dire” ruling and directly relating to Michael Neville, another lawyer vigorously attempted to enter into the record, documents and submissions on Mr. Neville’s behalf.

    Mr. Neville had been called by Commissioner Glaude to engage in cross-examination of the witness, however, this other lawyer approached the podium and engaged the Commissioner. It appears to me this lawyer attempted to enter documents and oral submissions into the record on Mr. Neville’s behalf. I suspect, this was an attempt to record at least oral submissions into the record, which could, at a later date, be argued by Mr. Neville and/or his representatives, in an attempt to exonerate Mr. Neville of any real or perceived improprieties.

    In my opinion, this is reminiscent to former Cornwall Police Chief Claude Shaver’s successful, but perceived unlawful, submission of a personal affidavit into the “public inquiry” record.

    Abuse of procedure?

    In the case of lawyer Michael Neville and the representative; Commissioner Glaude attempted and eventually succeeded in silencing “the lawyer”. In addition to other points, Commissioner Glaude stated Mr. Neville had not been granted “standing” at the inquiry and implied there may be some incongruities in the manner and fashion “standing and funding” was granted to Mr. Neville’s client, Father Charles MacDonald and Mr. Neville’s status therewith. Interesting?

    In my opinion; a lawyer must withdraw as Counsel when, among other things, the Lawyer becomes a witness or it is determined, could or should be called as a witness and/or could be perceived to be in a “conflict of interest”, when representing a client, when they previously represented “the same” client in a substantially related matter.

    I believe, for various reasons, that if after or even before, being retained in anticipated or pending litigation, public hearings or any legal representation, a lawyer knows, should know, learns about or it is obvious, that he/she or another lawyer in his/her association, may or should be called as a witness in an issue relating to the “matter” in question or on behalf of his/her client, then, in an attempt to avoid or dispel any real or perceived conflict of interest, he/she must immediately withdraw from representation. If she or he does not voluntarily withdraw representation immediately, then I believe, in this case, it is incumbent upon Commissioner Glaude to immediately “Order” the lawyer in question, be replaced as lawyer on record for those clients and an inquiry into the facts of the “voir dire”, as well as the change in legal representation, be convened.

    FURTHERMORE, I believe there are other lawyers, representing various clients in this “Cornwall Public Inquiry”, who are in a real and/or perceived, “conflict of interest”, similar to Mr. Neville and/or otherwise and they too, should withdraw or be compelled to withdraw as legal counsel immediately.

    In a public interview with the mainstream news media, I believe co-counsel for the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”, Mr. Peter Engelmann, appeared to be implying that the inquiry is perceived to have “a poor image”, because, in part, it has been unjustly criticized and also that a website has overly criticized him, Commissioner Glaude and the inquiry generally. Mr. Engelmann stated he never anticipated such criticism.

    In response, I say, my goodness, how dare anyone criticize. How dare one website, in comparison to the mainstream news media, actually provide facts, research and provide the space for debate and analysis.

    I believe, as a result of the many parties granted “standing and public funding”, including but not limited to the many lawyers involved, several of whom I believe had, pre-set, pre-determined agendas from the onset, to be the cause this inquiry was “doomed” for difficulty.

    I believe many pre-set agendas were formulated and implemented as a result of these very same individuals and organizations being involved in a multitude of “proceedings”, specifically related to these very same issues. Since in or before 1995, many of these very same lawyers, represented the very same clients in a multitude of related litigations, hearings, settlements, etc., etc., etc.,. I believe the “history” has seriously influenced the conduct and behaviours of the lawyers at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”, and tainted the whole process.

    Taking the aforementioned into consideration, I see this “Cornwall Public Inquiry” as having been completely taken over by the lawyers and transformed into a one-sided, “quasi, criminal defense” proceedings, with no one examining or cross-examining from an objective or “concerned citizens” perspective. No, not even “CCR”.

    “Healing and reconciliation”? I think not!

Leave a Reply

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