Let’s level the playing field

Share Button

Day 8 of the Ban

A nervous Jody Burgess took the stand this morning. 

Jody testified that he first met Jean Luc Leblanc while he was running errands at a gas station.  Leblanc arrived on his motorbike – offered the lad $20 to cut his grass.  And it began.

The child was molested and sodomized for about four years.  Every weekend. “He’d do things to us” – the voice of the boy who was so horrifically abused.

Leblanc bought gifts for the boy and took him on trips.  The boy considered him a friend.  He had no idea at the time if what was happening was right or wrong and in fact was angry when his brother Scott reported the abuse. 

Jody testified that he felt he would be tattling on a friend if he told anyone what Jean Luc Leblanc did to him – and he had been told by Leblanc he wouldn’t get anything if he told.

After Scott reported Leblanc Jody did admit he had been abused.  However, it was only after Leblanc was charged that he realized what Leblanc had done to  him was wrong.

Interesting that in as much as Jody saw his molester as a friend he was happy that his brother Scott reported Leblanc.  The child was trapped, almost stereotypical for victims of man/boy sex who have been groomed seduced and “bought” with gifts and showered with acts which are mistakenly taken as those of kindness.

At the present time Jody is unemployed.  He has been through countless jobs. 

He is on his own, but does have a little boy who is obviously the light of his life (“That’s my life. That’s what keeps me going.”)

Asked by Justice Glaude if he’s feeling a little better these days, Jody simply responded “No.”

He has been seeing a Dr. Kayley (sp?) but testified that isn’t helping.  Glaude asked if he would agree to see someone else, Jody agreed he would.In thanking Jody for testifying Glaude assured him that he wants make life safe “for our little ones and your little boy.” 

***

And, at the tail end of Jody’s examination in chief, a new question – tacked on with the others to The Perry Question.  Poor Dick – God rest his soul – has been thrown into the mix.  Now it’s do you know or have you had any contact with: Perry Dunlop, Helen Dunlop, Carson Chisholm, Ron Leroux, Charles Bourgeois, or Richard Nadeau? 

I don’t know of a soul who knew Dick as Richard, but, so be it.  The groundwork is being methodically laid for the lynching.  I hope I’m proven wrong.  But…

That brings me to a final note for now.Yesterday Justice Glaude said:

“Openness is particularly important in the context of this inquiry which is expected to dispel rumours and innuendos and ascertain allegations of cover-up and conspiracy theories.”

This is truly a revelation.

But I am puzzled by the commissioner’s choice of words.  “Conspiracy theories.” 

Does he mean the allegations of a paedophile ring/clan which the courts seem to categorize as conspiracy?

Or does he mean the theory successfully put forth by various “alleged” paedophiles that Perry Dunlop with the aid of family, friends and a number of “alleged” victims conspired to falsely accuse select pillars of the community of sexually abusing children, particularly little boys?

I suppose he could mean either, or, or both, couldn’t he?

I am inclined to think, however, the conspiracy theory in the back of the commissioner’s mind is the latter.  I would love to be proven wrong, but I see no evidence of the former and much of the latter.

For example, IF Justice Glaude was truly interested in ascertaining the veracity of allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up he might, as Myomy blogged, have brought or consider bringing in an expert witnesses such as Senator DeCampto to help him frame the inquiry. 

Should he choose, he could do so.  Hope springs eternal :).

But to date there is nothing which would indicate the commissioner is remotely interested in inquiring into or understanding conspiracies which entail a pack of paedophiles who cover-up for themselves and/or their friends.

And so I think that in the Weave Shed where level playing fields seem few and far between and one conspiracy theory or the other or both are now coming into play the field could and should be levelled.

There are countless questions which should be posed to each witness who takes the stand, but I’d be happy to see the following:

(1) Who did your molester [or the molester in question] socialize with?

(2) Did your molester [or the molester in question] ever travel to Fort Lauderdale? and if yes, with whom and when?

(3) Is/was your molester [or the molester in question] Roman Catholic? and if yes, what church did he attend?

(4) Do you know any members of Justice Glaude’s family?

(4) To your knowledge did your molester [or the molester in question] know any of the following  

(i) Ken Seguin

(ii) Father Charles MacDonald

(iii) Jacques Leduc

(iv) former bishop Eugene Larocque

(v) former bishop Adolphe Proulx

(vi) former Chief of Police Claude Shaver

(vii) Malcolm MacDonald

(viii) Colin McKinnon

(x) any of the men who were charged or accused through Project Truth probe?

And, I do believe that to get the pulse of the community two more questions should be tacked on:

(5) Do you believe there was or is a paedophile ring or clan in Cornwall?

(6) Do you believe there is a cover-up? 

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)  

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Let’s level the playing field

  1. Myomy says:

    You have great insight Sylvia. It is the questions not the answers that tell the story of the Cornwall inquiry. The answers are predictable when you understand sexual abuse but the questions are predictable when you understand institutional corruption!

Leave a Reply