Is this ethical?

Share Button

Hearings resume at 09:30 am this morning (Wednesday 18 April 2007).  Mr. Kozloff for the Ontario Provincial Police will pick up where he left off yesterday. More Let’s Pretend David Silmser is on the Stand, and more attempts to discredit Silmser. 

Mr. Kozloff says he has about another hour.  He will be followed by Mr. Wallace (Ontario Provincial Police Association) and last but not least will be Mr. Callaghan (Cornwall Police Service).  I dount that we will se Mr. Callghan at the podium before tomorrow.

A few quick comments:

(1) Kozloff had his way.  The video was played.  He and a few of his comrades have been hankering to get that video played and they succeeded.  His take on it had me wondering exactly what happened – I got the impression that the video showed that Dave had erupted and caused chaos.  But, thanks to the Freeholder we now know that he was simply upset that the officers were so intent on getting their video shot in one session that they weren’t pleased when he said he had to go to pick up his wife and be home when his children came home from school.  So he walked out of the taping.  And in a flash, after a chat with his lawyer, he was back in.

Why that should be construed or presented as irrational behaviour on the part of a husband, father and victim of sexual abuse I have no idea. 

(2) Were you watching when Justice Glaude mimicked Dave?  Did you hear him?  “They never did anything.”  This from a judge in an inquiry! Mimicking and mocking a victim.  And yes, I’ll say victim.  Dave is a victim in far more ways than one.

Perhaps this is what happens when play acting Let’s Pretend David Silmser is on the Stand moves into role playing?

(3) Ontario Provincial Police officer Tim Smith and Dave apparently crossed swords.  As of that day Smith apparently decided he no longer wanted to deal with Dave one on one – he would deal with him through Dave’s lawyer, then Bryce Geoffrey.  Smith, according to Kozloff, felt he had “no alternative.”

This is an officer with the Ontario Provincial Police?!

No matter, do you realize what that decision cost Dave?  I mean literally?  It meant that every time Tim Smith picked up the phone to Bryce Geoffrey it was costing Dave money.  Dave was picking up the tab.  Every minute of a lawyer’s time costs money and is tallied up.  That means a fifteen minute call from Tim Smith to Geoffrey might have cost Dave in the order of (in today’s dollars) at least $50.  Dave had to pay for that. 

And then Geoffrey would have to pick up the phone and relay the message to Dave.  More $$$$.

And Geoffrey would have to report back to Smith.  More $$$$$

Interesting too that then Crown Attorney Robert Pelletier did exactly the same thing.  That’s what we heard in previous testimony.  And now we learn that both the Crown attorney and the police officer were driving up Dave’s legal fees.

Is this an ethical approach to dealing with “alleged” victims?  Is there no better way than literally forcing a victim to pay for his own prosecution?

And, a question?  What would Pelletier or Smith have done if Dave hadn’t had a lawyer?

(4) Kozloff seems to be aghast that Dave was anxious for the OPP to get the ball to get rolling.  He wanted to see Father Charles MacDonald charged.

My question is, what’s wrong with that?  If he knows a crime has been committed is it not natural that he would expect charges to be laid?

And why should any victim have to sit around waiting for officers to find more victims?

Would this happen to a female victim? 

And, more questions:

(i) How many victims is enough? ie., in this instance how many victims are suffice to charge a man who sexually abuses young boys? 

(ii) Is buggery, or gross indecency or indecent assault any less a crime with one victim?

(5) If perchance there was a paedophile ring involving a police chief, other police officers, lawyers, probation officers, clergy and Crown attorneys, and if perchance a man reported to the police that he had been sexually abused by two members of the ring what do you suppose would happen?

(6) Steve Parisien needs your help

(7) I will be gone most of the day today so may miss the hearings “live.”  I will try to take a look at the transcript in the evening but that may not be possible until tomorrow evening.  I invite comments and observations from those of you who have opportunity to watch.

And that’s enough for now,

Sylvia

([email protected])
 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Is this ethical?

  1. prima facie says:

    Interesting yesterday; As Counsel Kozlof attempted to enter his own, special assertions/interpretations of history into the record, so he could forever refer to them in the future, “as fact”. JUST DISGUSTING!!! Issues and assertions regarding notes that didn’t exist or were never entered properly into the record.
    Commissioner Glaude intervened periodically, but how much has slipped by, how much can Glaude do or wants to do.

    Let’s put the point of being fair to victims or alleged victims to the side…..:how about being fair to “JUSTICE” and to procedure? The black eye this “Inquiry” has given to the justice system is far greater than anything any witness could do.

    In addition, in the 1990’s and shortly after Project Truth was started, the Project Truth offices on Second Street, across the street from the Law Offices of, Adams, Sherwood, Swabey & Follon (Sean Adams), were,…”burglarized”. Even the local “daily” wrote about it……once! OPP Officer Tim Smith was interviewed and besides trying to minimize the significance of Project Truth allegations, Smith mentioned the break in.

    The local daily newspaper also discussed how nothing was broken to indicate a break in, no alarms were tripped, so a key must have been used and the “burglar” must have known what he/she was doing. However, all data bases, computers, files, records, witness statements, etc., etc., surrounding Project Truth investigations were taken.
    STRANGE, would the aforementioned affect “notes and assertions” “people” like Kozloff are utiling today? And, what happened regarding the “break in”, what is its status? I guarantee you, the chances of finding a police reporty about the break in in 2007, is pretty slim.

  2. Panther says:

    I agree with you prima facie.

    I was very disturbed by what I saw today. I wish Sylvia had been able to view the webcam today as I am not that familiar with the “players” as she is. I tend to look at things based on my knowledge of victims and offenders in my past experiences with them. And I do trust her judgement as it is very consistent with what survivors report in other events when it comes to disclosure and it’s adverse effects on victims in society.

    So much disturbed me today I need time to sort it all out in regard to my own views of victimology and offenders and societies responses. One thing I do know as a result of todays inquiry was it was a sad, sad day for survivors.

    Best,

    Panther

  3. Sylvia says:

    I just posted my blog and then read your comments Panther. I will get at the transcripts this evening. It’s never the same mind you – tone, inflection, pauses etc convey so much.

    Your concern concerns me 🙁

    Sylvia

Leave a Reply

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