Too, too much

This is all just too, too much.

Two matters on my mind today: (1) conflict of interest, and (2) investigating the victims

(1) Conflict of interest
The more I think on it the more I realize what an egregious conflict of interest we have with Staff Sgt. Garry Derochie of the Cornwall Police Service (CPS) seconded to and working for and with the inquiry.

It’s bizarre enough that the inquiry seems to have immersed itself in CPS business by investigating the matter of the CPIC report turned scrap paper which fell into the hands of a private citizen, John MacDonald. (No. Correction. Never mind ‘fell into the hands of.” Was handed to John MacDonald. )

And bad enough that John MacDonald thought that he should deal with Derochie – not Spice – because it was a CPS – not inquiry – matter.

And then bad enough that when he met with Derochie at the police station John was told that Derochie had been seconded to the inquiry.

And interesting that John was puzzled because Derochie seemed to be very “nervous.”

Bizarre. Truly bizarre.

That’s one issue.

But, Derochie seconded to the inquiry?

That is not only bizarre, it is an outrage.

An officer from the CPS working hand in glove with the inquiry to get to the truth? The CPS which is knee deep in allegations cover-up which the inquiry should be but may or not be investigating?

In and of itself that is conflict enough. But this is Staff Sgt. G. Derochie. Staff Sgt, Derochie…

(1) who was on duty in 1995 when John MacDonald, accompanied by Carson Chisholm, arrived at the police station with a written account of his sexual abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald;

(2) who literally refused to touch John’s statement;

(3) the CPS officer tasked to investigate “Perry Dunlop’s involvement in making a copy or copies of Mr. David Silmser’s statement” and giving a copy to the Children’s Aid Society (CAS);

(4) the CPS officer who reported that Dunlop’s intentions in going to CAS may have been “less than honourable” and that “Dunlop had either exercised incredibly bad judgement or that his actions had been more calculated and sinister than originally thought”; and

(5) a CPS officer who will, or at least should, be called to testify as a key witness for the CPS

Unbelievable!!!

Impartiality?!!!

Is this for real?

If it’s not for real, why was John MacDonald told Derochie has been seconded by the inquiry?

If it is for real, well, what can I say? First we have the office of the Attorney General which is up to it’s eyeballs in allegations of cover-up crafting the mandate and choosing the commissioner. Then an Ontario judge with a series of real and perceived conflicts who has decided behind closed doors that the “rumour” and “innuendo” swirling around Cornwall are false. And, now officers from the CPS working hand-in-glove with the commission.

And we’re to believe this ruse of an inquiry is impartial and independent?

(2) Investigating the victims

I have a little story to tell you. There is a little wry humour in this which may just warm the cockles of your heart.

First, to put my little story into context, you may or may not know that Bishop Eugene Larocque dispatched detectives to try to dig up a little dirt on several of the “alleged” victims of clerical sexual abuse.

The King-Reed report was the finished product.

It seems the sole purpose of the investigation was to dispatch undercover detectives in Cornwall to dig for anything which might be useful to besmirch and denigrate the “alleged” victims. That included but was not limited to undercover ‘agents’ knocking on doors of ex-wives, sitting in bars, striking up conversations with patrons, throwing out names and hoping for a just a little bit of dirt.

Now, listen to this …

I won’t use names.

Another “alleged” victim of clerical sexual abuse. Another diocese. Another attempt to dig up dirt.

In this instance, it backfired. Big time.

Mr. X, the “alleged” victim in question is teacher.

A lawyer for the diocese in question was set to do some digging. He struck up an informal conversation at a social gathering with a teacher, Mrs. Y.

Did Mrs. Y perchance know X?

Yes. She did.

Did she know of any thing wrong with him? Any dirt on him? How could he have been abused since he was married with two children? He must be a bad character and so on.

X, replied Mrs. Y, had suffered a lot, especially around Easter and Christmas when he visited his hometown and attend Mass. In fact she knew that X had fled one Christmas Mass in despair. It was only recently she said that she understood why he was suffering.

Well, she was told, a lot of people are faking it. She was told about a woman who pretended that she was abused.

Mrs. Y apparently replied that X had suffered all his life and she never knew why until he went public with his abuse.

Why? asked the lawyer.

Because, said Mrs. Y, “he is my brother!”

Caught with hand the cookie jar or what?!!

But there you go.

Investigate the victims.

Never mind the allegations. Never mind that a man of God may well be a sexual predator leading souls to perdition.

Investigate the victim. Dig for some dirt. Give the dirt a spin. Destroy the victim’s credibility.

The allegations will take care of themselves. Lies.

When it comes to allegations of Roman Catholic clerical sexual abuse, looks like that’s the name of the episcopal game.

But, oh my, doesn’t it just warm the cockles of your heart to see these fellows get caught flat footed with their hand firmly planted in the cookie jar?

Anyway, I think that’s about enough for now,

Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)