I told you right after Bobby Renshaw testified (28 February & 01 March 2007) that it’s mission accomplished at the Weave Shed.
Finally a chance to follow through on that comment…
Bobby Renshaw’s examination in chief and cross-examination were primarily about Perry Dunlop. The object of the exercise seemed to be two-fold: (1) hone in on Bobby’s interaction with the Dunlops for the sole purpose of discrediting both Bobby’s affidavit and Perry Dunlop, and (2) undo any possible damage done by Bobby’s affidavit and interviews to the reputations and persons of former Chief of Police Claude Shaver, Cornwall policeman Stuart MacDonald, former Cornwall policeman Ron Wilson and Judge Fitzpatrick.
What Ken Seguin and Father Charles MacDonald did or did not do to Bobby is inconsequential to both the mandate and the gathered legal throng at the Weave Shed. Equally inconsequential is what Bobby knew and saw and heard which could or might enlighten one and all at the Weave Shed and beyond about an alleged paedophile ring and cover-up and about Ken Seguin and his confreres, i.e. who Seguin partied and socialized with, where and when he may have vacationed in Fort Lauderdale and with whom, and Seguin’s state of mind when it became known in the Fall of 1993 that, thanks to Perry Dunlop doing the right thing, the cat was out of the bag and word of his and Charlie’s “alleged” sexual perversions had moved beyond the confines of the Cornwall Police Service and over to the Children’s Aid Society.
And, amazing as it may seem there was not to my knowledge a single soul who stepped into the sacred and obviously secret territory of out-of-court settlements – I heard not one soul ask Bobby point blank if he has in fact received an out-of-court settlement from the diocese and/or correctional services (probation) or if such settlement was in the offing. It seems to me that such an acknowledgment of individual and/or institutional wrongdoing should be at least as relevant to the gathered throng as what Perry Dunlop did or did not say or do. But, no. The fact that the diocese and correctional services deemed Bobby’s allegations credible enough to give him an out of court settlement was inconsequential to one and all.
Perhaps no one at the Weave Shed sees the import of such settlements? I don’t know, but as far I’m concerned it’s more relevant to the business of this inquiry and to the pursuit of truth and justice for Cornwall than whether Perry Dunlop crosses his “T”s on the left, the right or through the middle, and whether he dotted his “I”s with a circle or a dot or not at all.
Plus it seems to me that when institutions settle out of court the public has a right to know, particularly when the settlements are fall-out from the Cornwall scandal, and more particularly when they are made on behalf of Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin, and perhaps more particularly when the powers that be tell us time and time again that there is and never was a paedophile ring/clan and there is and never was a cover-up, and perhaps even more particularly again when the government flatly refuses to commission an inquiry mandated specifically to inquire into persistent allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up.
I don’t about you, but I for one am hard pressed to believe the diocese and the Ontario government is throwing money around to silence men who are chronic liars and who were never sexually abused in the first place. Doesn’t make sense, does it?
But, no great interest in the settlements. None.
Perhaps the legal heads concurred that they would collectively leave well enough alone? that we the public who are financing this venture are not entitled to know the big secrets of who settled with whom, and when and for how much?
All passing strange. Not one legal soul broke ranks to ask one burning question which would vindicate Perry Dunlop in any way shape or form, or which might affirm the existence of a paedophile ring and/or cover-up!
Anyway, the bottom line is that once the gang at the Weave Shed had finished with Bobby there was no longer a shred of doubt in my mind that the spin and ‘the fix’ is now well in – this inquiry is out to exonerate the pillars of the community whose names have been tarnished, ….and that exoneration rests and relies primarily upon discrediting, demeaning and lynching Perry Dunlop.
And so the Cornwall Police Service need and want the record to say that Perry Dunlop lied by telling people he was conducting a police investigation. And they got it.
Those who know the Dunlops and what happened in the early days of the scandal know how ridiculous that is. It was common and very public knowledge in Cornwall and well beyond that Perry Dunlop was on stress leave – he would have been insane to try to deceive anyone by saying he was on duty conducting a police investigation.
But those with a vested interest in painting Perry as a liar have been hankering after this for years, and they got it! It matters not that Bobby tried on several occasion to say that he probably assumed Perry was conducting a police investigation because he knew Perry was a police officer. That I would venture to guess is the truth of the matter. What Manderville and the others wanted and what they got was that Perry said he was conducting a police investigation.
Not one single soul in the Weave Shed tried to seek clarification on the matter. Not one!
Bobby Renshaw was, I would say, through no fault of his own, royally and legally used. A pawn.
The ‘Perry Dunlop Is A Villainous Lying Rogue Cop’ defence has worked before. The wheels are now well set in motion to make it work again. And, at the end of the inquiry day Perry Dunlop will be the ultimate defence for every institution which dismissed or failed to pay heed to a victim, for every institution whose members were or are part of a paedophile clan/ring, for every institution which covered-up allegations of sexual abuse, and for every “alleged” paedophile who has eluded justice. The inquiry has been mandated and framed to make it happen.
On that I can say no more but God love and keep you Perry and Helen. You have been living the institutional response to allegations of sexual abuse against sexual predators who are ‘pillars of the community’
Shoot the messenger!
That’s it in a nutshell.
Shoot the messenger aside I don’t think all went as was probably planned.
You will notice in Bobby’s affidavit that he names several people whom he recalls seeing at the home of probation officer Ken Seguin.
A decent examination in chief and cross-examination would have seen questions put to Bobby about the who’s who in that list. With a few select exceptions which I will outline shortly that wasn’t done.
Indeed the questions which were not posed were as telling as those which were. For example, here are a few of the countless questions which could and should have been and were not asked of Bobby:
(1) what do you mean by “I knew this D.S. thing was bothering Ken. Ken had a lot going on in his mind with this Father Charlie thing”;
(2) what do you mean by: “There were a group of pedophiles a click”;
(3) what men were part of the “click”;
(4) what men were paedophiles;
(5) what can you tell us about the relationship between Father MacDonald and Ken Seguin;
(6) what can you tell us about Malcolm MacDonald;
(7) did Ken Seguin vacation in Fort Lauderdale? If yes, when and with whom?
(8) did you reach an out of court settlement with the diocese and correctional services? If yes, when? for how much? and is he gagged by the settlement?
Amazing oversight and I would say astounding omissions!
There were exceptions however when it came to Ron Wilson, Claude Shaver, Stuart MacDonald and Judge Fitzpatrick, all of whom were named in some fashion in the affidavit and elsewhere. The questions related to these men however were as peculiar and telling as those which were omitted.
Ron Wilson spent fifteen years as a policeman with the Cornwall Police Service. He served as Chairman of the Cornwall Police Commission in the mid to late 90s, is a member of the Knights of Columbus and is actively involved in Church activities.
In his affidavit Bobby identifies Wilson as one of the men he used to see at Ken Seguin’s house.
In his examination in chief Bobby testified that Ron Wilson, Ken Seguin and Malcolm MacDonald were “pretty close” and that “Ken, Malcolm, Ron Wilson would all meet up at Tim Horton’s and old man Gunther would show up and that was a daily thing.” Bobby said he had seen them there several times
The “Malcolm” referenced is Malcolm MacDonald, a lawyer, former Cornwall Crown attorney and uncle of Murray MacDonald who was Crown attorney in 1992 when David Silmser first reported that he had been sexually abused by Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin. Malcolm MacDonald was also Charlie’s lawyer. This is the same Angus Malcolm MacDonald who was charged, plead guilty and got an absolute discharge for obstructing justice long after it was known that David Silmser was illegally gagged with the $32,000 pay-off.
Malcolm died before standing trial on charges of sexual abuse of young boys.
There were no further questions about Ron Wilson. By anyone.
That was it.
Claude Shaver, a former member of the RCMP, was Chief of the Cornwall Police Serivce in December 1992 when David Silmser reported that he had been sexually abused as a boy by Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin.
In his affidavit Bobby Renshaw said he used to see Claude Shaver at Ken Seguin’s home.
Peter Manderville (Cornwall Police Service) set out to extricate Shaver from Ken Seguin’s abode.
Manderville spent an inordinate time on this.
First Manderville honed in on a series of numbered pictures which Perry Dunlop apparently showed to Bobby asking that Bobby identify any of the men he recognized.
Bobby was apparently shown the pictures twice, once at Kelsey’s restaurant in Newmarket,Ontario, the second time some days later at a lawyer’s office in Newmarket. In each instance Bobby identified the men he recognized.
The second time around Perry Dunlop had a tape recorder running. There is a transcript of the tape. To my knowledge there is no recording or transcript of the first time Bobby viewed and identified the pictures. At this time I have not had opportunity to see or read that transcript so I am reliant upon Manderville’s extrapolations and interpretations.
According to Manderville Bobby identified two pictures as Father Charles MacDonald – #2 and #20.
Picture #20 is Charlie. Picture #2 however is Claude Shaver.
Add what he is obviously inferring is a case of mistaken identity to the fact that Claude Shaver’s name is apparently not mentioned anywhere in the transcript and Manderville probably thought with a little maneuvering he would have Shaver safely extricated from Seguin’s home.
So, away he went. I’d say Manderville was certain he was going to get Bobby confused – once that was accomplished he would pounce, go for the jugular and in one fell swoop negate Bobby’s ability to identify Claude Shaver period, whether in a picture or at Ken Seguin’s house
On and on and round and round, circling and circling – question upon question upon question laying the groundwork for the kill.
Picture #20 (Father Charles MacDonald) was put to Bobby. Who is it?
Father Charles MacDonald.
Picture #2 (Claude Shaver)was put in front of Bobby:
MR. MANDERVILLE: And this is the photo you identified as Father Charles MacDonald?
[note the phrasing. He doesn’t ask Bobby who it is. He leads him to concur]
MR. RENSHAW: No, I would have identified him as Claude Shaver.
MR. MANDERVILLE: At the time would you have?
MR. RENSHAW: Oh, yes. I know the difference between the two of them. Oh, yes.
MR. MANDERVILLE: So this picture was never shown to you?
[Again, a leading question. Note the phrasing. Not, did you ever see this picture?]
MR. RENSHAW: Yes, it was. This—I don’t know whether it was this picture but a picture of Claude Shaver was shown to me, yes.
MR. MANDERVILLE: And can you tell me where in the transcript of your interview with Mr. Dunlop you identify a picture of Mr. Shaver anywhere?
And on and on some more. But, …Bobby wasn’t bending. He knows Claude Shaver when he sees him. He was adamant. Perry Dunlop showed him a picture of Claude Shaver and he identified it as Claude Shaver. He has no idea why the transcript would say otherwise. He knows the difference between Claude Shaver and Father Charles MacDonald and he wouldn’t mix the two up.
The recourse to mistaken identity was out the window. There was not a doubt in anyone’s mind that Bobby knows Claude Shaver to see him.
A new tactic and frantic last ditch effort to save the day:
MR. MANDERVILLE: Mr. Shaver adamantly denies ever being at Mr. Seguin’s house at any time. Is it fair to say you may have been mistaken in identifying him as having been at Ken Seguin’s house?
MR. RENSHAW: I can remember him being there, yes.
No go. Bobby says he remembers Claude Shaver being at Ken Seguin’s house.
Bobby has seen Claude Shaver at Ken Seguin’s house.
Claude Shaver himself “adamantly denies” ever being at Ken Seguin’s house.
That is extremely important. Claude Shaver was Chief of Police in 1992 when David Silmser reported that he had been sexually abused by Ken Seguin and Father Charles MacDonald.
A number of victims/”alleged” victims and others say that Shaver socialized with Seguin, Charlie, Malcolm MacDonald (the former Crown attorney who was Charlie’s lawyer)and other prominent men who gathered at Seguin’s house and/or various cottages and/or regularly holidayed in Fort Lauderdale. Some, such as Ron Leroux, have specifically named and identified Shaver as part of paedophile clan.
And Shaver is apparently denying he was ever in Ken Seguin’s home?!!
No matter. I do believe the Manderville exercise backfired. Bobby might get confused on legalities and technicalities, but never on who he knows and who he saw at Ken Seguin’s house.
If pluck Claude Shave out of the Ken Seguin abode was the name of the game, it didn’t work.
We will now have to wait for Claude Shaver to take the stand to tell us in person that he never darkened the door of Ken Seguin’s house.
And then we’ll have to decide who to believe. And perhaps find out who else might have seen Claude Shaver at Ken Seguin’s house…..
Stuart MacDonald is a former Staff inspector for the Cornwall Police Service. He was involved in the intake of David Simsler’s sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin, is a personal friend of Father Kevin Maloney (the priest who called the police on David Simser and John MacDonald), is or was actively involved in Church activities, resigned from the police force after he was charged, and as I undersand it, convicted for illegally importing liquor into Canada. He is Perry Dunlop’s brother-in-law.
Bobby Renshaw identifies Stuart MacDonald as one of the men he used to see at Ken Seguin’s house.
As with Shaver, Manderville set out to extricate MacDonald from Ken Seguin’s home.
Manderville turned to the transcript and tried to somehow get the record to show that Bobby did not know Stuart MacDonald’s name, and that he identified MacDonald’s picture only at Dunlop’s prompting, and that Bobby had seen MacDonald around the police station and that therefore and somehow from all that Bobby could have been mistaken about seeing Stuart MacDonald at Ken Seguin’s!!
Then, from Manderville’s mouth, as with Shaver, came the denial:
Stuart McDonald strenuously denies ever being at Mr. Seguin’s house in Summerstown at any time; are you aware of that?
And Bobby’s reply?
First off, Ken told me his name because I did not know his name. I knew he was a police officer. I did not know his name. And the second point is, yes, I did see him at Ken’s. I don’t know what else you want me to say on this matter…
If airlift Stuart MacDonald out of the Ken Seguin abode was the object of the exercise, it didn’t work.
We will now have to wait for Stuart MacDonald to take the stand to tell us in person that he never darkened the door of Ken Seguin’s home.
And again we’ll have to decide who to believe. And perhaps find out who else might have seen Stuart MacDonald at Ken Seguin’s house.
And then there is the issue of Judge Fitzpatrick. For some strange reason Peter Manderville, the Cornwall Police lawyer, felt obliged to leap to Judge Fitzpatrick’s defence. And for some equally strange reason Justice Normand Glaude let him get away with it!
Here’s the way this one went.
One line of Bobby’s 1997 Affidavit reads: “I knew Malcolm was good friends with Judge Fitzpatrick.”
In another transcript, Bobby apparently says that he thinks Judge Fitzpatrick “might be involved.” Manderville wanted to put it to Bobby that Perry Dunlop prompted him to say Judge Fitzpatrick “might be involved.”
What is intriguing about the mini fiasco which ensued is the fact that although there is no ban on Fitzpatrick’s name and although the Cornwall Police Service is presumably not representing the judge, Manderville wanted to go to the judge’s defence, and he wanted to do so in such fashion that you and I and the general public would never know that he was talking about Judge Fitzpatrick!
So, when he did go to Fitzpatrick’s defence Manderville refused to name him and actually ordered the inquiry staff not to put the page which shows Fitzpatrick’s name up on the screen! When Glaude asked why the page was not to be shown Manderville said he didn’t want it up because, as he said “I mean a judge is named on the page”!! What difference that should make and why any judge at any inquiry merits a preferential option of any sort is beyond me.
However, when Glaude pursued the matter further Manderville replied that not projecting the page was “a discretionary thing.” And when Glaude suggested that Manderville should make arguments not to project the page on the screen Manderville responded somewhat testily: “I’m not here to make an argument about it, Mr. Commissioner. I don’t act for the individual”!!!
Acting for him or not, Manderville persisted in Fitzpatrick’s defence and asked that he be allowed to pursue the matter without the page being projected on the screen. And at this “public” tax-payer-funded inquiry Justice Glaude obligingly acquiesced to the whim of the Cornwall Police Service for the good of a fellow judge. “Sure,” said Glaude!!!.
Judge Fitzpatrick was granted anonymity.
In the end Manderville got Bobby to say the judge’s “involvement” was “speculation” on his part and that Bobby had no first hand knowledge of anything. Speculation about what involvement I have no idea. I know only that the Cornwall Police Service deemed it necessary to circle the wagons on the judge’s behalf.
Interesting that there was not a boo about the referenced friendship between Fitzpatrick and Malcolm MacDonald in the affidavit. That seemed to be a non issue with Manderville and, for that matter, everyone else at the Weave Shed.
No one asked Bobby how he knew the two were good friends, or what he knew of the friendship. Not one single question.
Circle the wagons. That was it.
I’ll leave it at that. On one hand the lynching, on the other the crumbs which inevitably fall under the table as they try to tighten the knot.
More charges and the potential of another raft of victims in Cornwall. I will post the article later. Danny Davis, 53 of Brockville and formerly of Cornwall has been charged with indecent assault on a male and gross indecency.
Enough for now,
EXCELLENT and VERY INFORMATIVE BLOGS:
Your last two blogs have been excellent, Sylvia. Also, thanks for updating us on the status of Steve and John.
I believe you have really made very, very, accurate assertions and observations. It didn’t cost the “public” twenty-million dollars plus, to come to the assertions you have written about and you have been representing since “Day One.” The point is, as other bloggers have implied, the further we go into this Public Inquiry, the more, the perception and reality of “cover-up”, will evolve; of course, only for those who are closely following The Inquiry or know the “facts”.
For those people who are not following “The Cornwall Public Inquiry” closely, their perceptions and conclusions will weigh heavily on the misleading press releases they read. These misleading “press releases” are perpetuated by legal counsel’s vigorous assertions, manipulations and consequently, the interpretations, of the “facts”, “the law”, “case law”, etc.
IMAGINE what is going on in Canada in 2007. A multi-million dollar “PUBLIC INQUIRY”, funded totally by “WE” the taxpayers.
Through multiple “publication bans, judgements or “behing closed door meetings”, “WE” are denied access to information and total disclosure of what “WE” are paying for AND for what “the system” is supposed to be protecting us from.
In large part, the local mainstream news media “pinheads”, editorialize that, maybe fifty people are interested in this Public Inquiry. Meanwhile, “they” wait for standard press releases and directions, issued from The Cornwall Public Inquiry Staff, before, naively and blindly publishing the same; in addition to their periodic, arrogant and sarcastic utterances, testifying to their “slant”.
The mainstream news media carefully omits testimony which would easily be “NEWS ALERTS” in a more “open” and “trustworthy” environment; i.e.) Claude Shaver, Ron Wilson, etc.
PUBLIC OPINION FORMING—how very critical!!
You Sylvia, among other things, follow the Inquiry and with particularity, the broadcasted hearings. You have researched, studied and followed-up on the historical facts. You study the transcripts, discuss the testimony in realtion to the facts, produce supporting testimony and provide opinion, which encourages “public debate and input.”
Keep it up!