Just to let you know I am indeed here.
I took the week-end off. Think and rest time
I am currently working at blogging parts of John MacDonald’s testimony which I think must get out into the public domain. Alas not easy because, as with all things Cornwall, nothing is straightforward. I find myself attempting to do what was not done in the Weave Shed, put parts of his evidence into much needed context.
Meanwhile you might want to think this over and see if you think there’s some sort of disconnect in the upper echelons when it comes to what this inquiry is all about…..
You recall that Justice Glaude concluded long ago that the “rumour” and “innuendo” swirling around Cornwall upon his arrival were “false”?
And you recall assurances that this inquiry has nothing to do with Project Truth, the OPP probe which denounced the allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up it was struck to investigate?
Well, look at this: Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall v.
Cornwall Public Inquiry, 2007 ONCA 20 . In the midst of Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Robert J Sharpe’s welcome ruling (unanimous) that one of Claude Marleau’s “alleged” abusers, an “employee” (read priest) of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall can be identified, come these words:
(1) “The background to the establishment of the Commission included widespread rumours, innuendos, and allegations of cover-up and conspiracy that had plagued the Cornwall community for several years” and
(2) “we are dealing with a public inquiry called to clear the air of allegations of conspiracy and cover-up…”
Where oh where did this come from?
Questions:
(1) Where did Justice Robert J Sharpe get the notion that Justice Glaude is mandated to “clear the air of allegations of conspiracy and cover-up”?
(2) Does Justice Sharpe know that before a word of testimony was heard or one single document was entered into evidence Justice Glaude had unilaterally and behind closed doors dismissed the “rumour” and “innuendo” swirling in Cornwall upon his arrival as false and had mapped his inquiry agenda accordingly?
(3) If indeed, as Justice Sharpe believes, the inquiry is mandated to “clear the air of allegations of conspiracy and cover-up” why is it not mandatory that the “alleged” molesters take the stand?
(4) How can an inquiry presume to “clear the air of allegations of conspiracy and cover-up” without first determining the veracity of the very sexual abuse allegations which were minimized, scoffed at or dismissed by authorities who were themselves said to be connected to a paedophile ring and/or cover-up?
But, this inquiry will “clear the air of allegations of conspiracy and cover-up?
I think not.
I don’t know. Something about this just isn’t making sense doesn’t add up.
Why do I think I smell another rat?!!
(Note that the Diocese/Bishop Paul Andr Durocher has 10 days to appeal the ruling. That means the ban remains in effect until at least 26 January 2007. If the ruling is not appealed by that date the publication ban will be lifted.)
Anyway, on with other things, and
Enough for now,
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)