“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.
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.
But, that’s a problem. None of the “alleged” molesters want to take the stand!
And they don’t have to!!!
And that’s truly enough for now,
P.S. Don’t forget the Steve Parisien Legal Defence Fund