Some inquiry!

Share Button

“Now’s the time you want to see the movie?”

 

With those telling comments Justice Glaude called for a recess.  The equipment will be set up to show a two-hour taped interview of David Silmser.  It will be shown in camera.  There will be no live broadcast of proceedings at this “public” inquiry until 3:30 pm.

 

This by the way is the video David Silmser specifically asked not be shown.  Lead counsel Peter Engelmann and Justice Glaude et al seem to have seized on Silmser’s use of the word “public” to justify carrying on with this attempt by Mr. Kozloff (OPP) to discredit Silmser.  Why this was used as a rationale to justify playing the video in such manner beats me – no one has shown a hint of concern for what David Silmser does or does not want or say, witness the response by Justice Glaude, Peter Engelmann and several lawyers to the Silmser letter.

 

But the feeble justification was all smoke and mirrors anyway.  Seems anyone in attendance at the Weave Shed would have been privy to viewing the video were it not that there are individuals identified in the video who prefer to be identified by monikers.  Their request for anonymity and confidentiality will be respected.  Otherwise the video would have been shown and all in attendance at the Weave Shed would have been free to watch.  The only for sure is that it would not be broadcast by webcam, and that only to protect the interests of those with monikers.  For all the smoke and mirrors it has nothing whatever to do with protecting David Silmser’s interests!  The public in attendance could have watched every single moment, and the legal throng and their clients still can and will. 

 

Interesting that this video is apparently replete with explicit details of David Silmser’s sex abuse allegations. That’s one of the main reasons that Dave would prefer everything be expunged from the record than have the video shown at the inquiry.

 

 I had understood there was to be no specific and explicit testimony of sexual abuse allegations by real/”alleged” victims.  Until now, that was verboten.  But, Mr.Kozloff wants and apparently needs to play the video to discredit Silmser.  It’s part of his play acting – the Let’s Pretend David

Silmser is on the Stand game.  And, it seems, that is now fair game.  There can be explicit testimony of David Silmser’s sexual abuse, and every lawyer and his/her contingent of clients who have signed a waiver are free to soak up every gory detail.

 

Why now?  Why allow explicit details of sexual abuse now? 

 

Perhaps explicit details of sexual abuse can be used only when there is an all-out effort to mount a defence by conducting a frontal attack geared to destroy a victim’s credibility?
 
I suppose the only for sure is that the rules at this inquiry are as fluid as the schedule.

 

That aside, all I can say is that this whole David Silmser play acting exercise is an absolute farce.  It’s hard to watch.  There is nothing remotely akin to justice in the process.  Lawyers with a vested interest in protecting their clients at all costs can virtually do and say as they please and conjure up whatever whim or theory they will. 

  

True,  Justice Glaude periodically steps in to clip a wing here and there, but how many wings which needed clipping didn’t get trimmed?  And who in that Weave Shed cares? 

 

The message is that David Silmser is a money-grubbing liar.  And by default the other message is that paedophiles don’t stoop to molest money grubbing liars. 

 

Make sense? 

 

Does it make sense that if David Silmser can be proven to be a money-grubbing liar by default he couldn’t possibly have been molested by Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin?  and that by default no one should expect ot demand any response to his allegations other than the virtual non-response he got?  and that by default we the unwashed public must understand that law enforcement officials, Crown attorneys and/or judges were entititled to uniltaterally deduce that children in the community were not at risk and were therefore not in need of protection.

 

This is insanity!  Sheer insanity.

 

But, the gathered throng in the Weave Shed take it seriously.  In legal circles it works.  No, correct that.  In this instance it may or may not work.  If the

Let’s Pretend David Silmser is on the Stand approach falls short of expectations it was agreed that one and all will hammer out another

game plan.  It’s the ‘If at first you don’t succeed approach’ ..

 

Finally, I must say that it seemed clear from the get-go that with or without explicit details of sexual abuse, and with or without David Silmser’s plea, the video (“movie”?) would be shown.

 

David Silmser’s credibilty doesn’t stand a chance.  On the stand or off the stand. 

 

This is a disgrace. An insult to human intelligence.

 

Put Father Charles MacDonald on the stand.  And Jacques Leduc. And Bishop Eugen Larocque.  And everyone in and out of the diocese who had anything to do with the illegal $32,000 payoff.

 

But, that’s a problem. None of the “alleged” molesters want to take the stand!

And they don’t have to!!!  

 

Some inquiry!!!!

 

And that’s truly enough for now,

 

Sylvia
([email protected])

 

P.S.  Don’t forget the Steve Parisien Legal Defence Fund

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Some inquiry!

  1. Panther says:

    “Now’s the time you want to see the movie?”

    With those telling comments Justice Glaude called for a recess. The equipment will be set up to show a two-hour taped interview of David Silmser. It will be shown in camera. There will be no live broadcast of proceedings at this “public” inquiry until 3:30 pm.

    This by the way is the video David Silmser specifically asked not be shown. Lead counsel Peter Engelmann and Justice Glaude et al seem to have seized on Silmser’s use of the word “public” to justify carrying on with this attempt by Mr. Kozloff (OPP) to discredit Silmser. Why this was used as a rationale to justify playing the video in such manner beats me – no one has shown a hint of concern for what David Silmser does or does not want or say, witness the response by Justice Glaude, Peter Engelmann and several lawyers to the Silmser letter.

    But the feeble justification was all smoke and mirrors anyway. Seems anyone in attendance at the Weave Shed would have been privy to viewing the video were it not that there are individuals identified in the video who prefer to be identified by monikers. Their request for anonymity and confidentiality will be respected. Otherwise the video would have been shown and all in attendance at the Weave Shed would have been free to watch. The only for sure is that it would not be broadcast by webcam, and that only to protect the interests of those with monikers. For all the smoke and mirrors it has nothing whatever to do with protecting David Silmser’s interests! The public in attendance could have watched every single moment, and the legal throng and their clients still can and will.

    Interesting that this video is apparently replete with explicit details of David Silmser’s sex abuse allegations. That’s one of the main reasons that Dave would prefer everything be expunged from the record than have the video shown at the inquiry.

    I had understood there was to be no specific and explicit testimony of sexual abuse allegations by real/”alleged” victims. Until now, that was verboten. But, Mr.Kozloff wants and apparently needs to play the video to discredit Silmser. It’s part of his play acting – the Let’s Pretend David
    Silmser is on the Stand game. And, it seems, that is now fair game. There can be explicit testimony of David Silmser’s sexual abuse, and every lawyer and his/her contingent of clients who have signed a waiver are free to soak up every gory detail.

    Why now? Why allow explicit details of sexual abuse now?

    Perhaps explicit details of sexual abuse can be used only when there is an all-out effort to mount a defence by conducting a frontal attack geared to destroy a victim’s credibility?”

    I find your comments (as usual) interesting and followed that portion pretty closely. While I understand the need or wish for privacy by the victims requesting it reasonable I saw the total lack of regard of David’s wishes as a crude attempt (successful at that) to “punish” him for refusing to continue being questioned under the adverse conditions he was previously in on the stand.

    At this stage I don’t think ignorance of the degree of shame and distress a victim goes through when they know that people who the victim does not feel safe with, are hearing the detailed description of the devious behaviours of their abuse at the hands of offenders (particularly offenders who might still be walking free) can bring upon them. I can see no legitimate reason that this was allowed. Also it could have been avoided easily with preparation. As far as I’m concerned it could have respectfully been handled by only showing portions of the video omitting such sections. It’s not like some of these attorneys aren’t receiving an over abundance of fees that would or could cover such eventualities. And it’s not like someone didn’t have the time lately.

    Isn’t anyone aware, other than victims and their offenders, that to restate the abuse in a graphic public manner only serves to satisfy the sexual and emotional needs of the offenders themselves (and any closet offenders who have not been named in this inquiry)? Offenders live vicariously through such opportunities. Do people have to be reminded that sexual abuse is not about sex or purported ‘love’, but power and control. Power to revictimize a victim, particularly one who has come forward.

    ”I suppose the only for sure is that the rules at this inquiry are as fluid as the schedule.

    That aside, all I can say is that this whole David Silmser play acting exercise is an absolute farce. It’s hard to watch. There is nothing remotely akin to justice in the process. Lawyers with a vested interest in protecting their clients at all costs can virtually do and say as they please and conjure up whatever whim or theory they will.

    True, Justice Glaude periodically steps in to clip a wing here and there, but how many wings which needed clipping didn’t get trimmed? And who in that Weave Shed cares?

    The message is that David Silmser is a money-grubbing liar. And by default the other message is that paedophiles don’t stoop to molest money grubbing liars.

    Make sense? “

    I have to say that in some ways I feel sorry for Justice Glaude. Probably anyone who takes this on in his capacity is in a no win situation. I suspect that if he clipped wings as often as the offenses occurred nothing else could be discussed. :-/ These high priced attorney’s just don’t give in and they are banking on a Justice trying to be measured in his/her responses. I feel they take advantage of that. It appeared to me that Justice Glaude, after the video was viewed, replied to Kozloff in more terse terms that Kozloff was more ready to recognize. I really think he needs to be tougher with them.

    For years sex offenders have been getting away with their activities and it really wasn’t until victims started coming out in courtrooms that any attention was paid. The vultures were not the victims they were the offenders. They (and those who cover up) just don’t like being hit in the pocketbook. As I’ve mentioned, empathy is lacking in sex offenders and they easily know how to act remorseful when it comes to a prison term hanging over their head but if you really want to see a quick honest response let them feel it’s going to hit them in their pocketbook. This is one of the problems I have with the release of more money for the offenders and institution attorney’s to go over the defense cap. Even the playing field and give the victims the same amount so they can go out and get equal high paid lawyers. Or hold the high paid attorney’s to the same monetary cap of the victims and maybe the one-upmenship will be reined in.

    ”Does it make sense that if David Silmser can be proven to be a money-grubbing liar by default he couldn’t possibly have been molested by Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin? and that by default no one should expect to demand any response to his allegations other than the virtual non-response he got? and that by default we the unwashed public must understand that law enforcement officials, Crown attorneys and/or judges were entitled to unilaterally deduce that children in the community were not at risk and were therefore not in need of protection.

    This is insanity! Sheer insanity.

    But, the gathered throng in the Weave Shed take it seriously. In legal circles it works. No, correct that. In this instance it may or may not work. If the
    Let’s Pretend David Silmser is on the Stand approach falls short of expectations it was agreed that one and all will hammer out another
    game plan. It’s the ‘If at first you don’t succeed approach’ ..

    Finally, I must say that it seemed clear from the get-go that with or without explicit details of sexual abuse, and with or without David Silmser’s plea, the video (“movie”?) would be shown.

    David Silmser’s credibilty doesn’t stand a chance. On the stand or off the stand.

    This is a disgrace. An insult to human intelligence.”

    I don’t know if it’s just me or if anyone else watching the webcam and Kozloff either today or during his questions of some of the other victims via webcam but I really don’t see him doing the OPP any favors. (Unless his whole reason for his displays is to attempt to avoid later large lawsuits regarding sexual abuse rings and previous OPP investigations). ß and if that’s the case one might as well toss out any of his brattling.

    I don’t see any need to vilify Silmser, and if anything re-looking, at their past response in dealing with victims can only benefit the average OPP detective or officer dealing with sexual abuse victims in the future. Kozloff seemed bound and determined to portray David as being unreasonable and a troublemaker. In some of his assumptions, lets use as an example David reportedly saying he didn’t care about the other alter boys, I could understand exactly David’s frustration. It is more likely his knowledge that more and more people were coming out with reports of abuse led to extreme frustration in the knowledge that with these offenders walking free there would only be more and newer victims. How long will the investigation go on? The OPP didn’t know and there is no fault in that as far as I can see. Investigations do take time. However, every day that goes by there could be another victim and this knowledge is a horrendous burden on the shoulders of other victims. So I can certainly understand David’s response (and for more than one reason). Back to my original point though, Kozloff’s approach to the questioning of victims only serves to make the OPP look insensitive to what occurs to long-term victims of sexual abuse. I believe that this is even worse when we address male victims of sexual abuse. Society really does need to put aside their previous bias regarding male victims. That it continues in this day and age is incredibly naïve and hurtful and unnecessary. I think most institutions have not dealt with male victims in supportive ways or in understanding manners. One would hope and pray that an Inquiry would seek to change this. The OPP could chose to be an example and I think most officers would be proud of that for their institution. If Kozloff is an example than I pity the OPP. What victim would feel safe? If the OPP were smart they’d cut their losses and fire Kozloff . He’s no credit to the OPP in my opinion.

    Put Father Charles MacDonald on the stand. And Jacques Leduc. And Bishop Eugen Larocque. And everyone in and out of the diocese who had anything to do with the illegal $32,000 payoff.

    But, that’s a problem. None of the “alleged” molesters want to take the stand!
    And they don’t have to!!!

    Some inquiry!!!!

    And that’s truly enough for now,

    Sylvia
    ([email protected])

    P.S. Don’t forget the Steve Parisien Legal Defence Fund

    I don’t know what they’re afraid of. God knows they wouldn’t go through half the pain the victims have. The victim’s can’t afford the really good lawyers.

    Best,

    Panther

Leave a Reply

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