Nothing in the public domain at the Weave Shed until Thursday 26 April 2007. Whether witnesses have backed out at the 11th hour or what exactly has happened I don’t know, but, according to lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann hearings Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week have been cancelled because of “some witness availability and scheduling difficulties.” Hearings therefore resume at 09:30, Thursday 26 April 2007.
I don’t know what happened at the Weave Shed, but it’s been a busy, rewarding and invigorating couple of days for me. A very encouraging visit with the doctor for my husband – all is proceeding as it should and he is definitely well on the mend. Then overnight guests and stimulating conversation with good friends – I didn’t get near the webcam! In fact I just now took a quick look at yesterday’s transcript to find out why the cancellations next week. I’ll take a closer at everyting tomorrow.
Funny thing is that in as much as much as I missed two days of hearings I didn’t feel like I was missing too much – it was simply the cumination of the Let’s Pretend David Silmser is on the Stand business. That means that if there’s discontent with the outcome of that little legal exercise “they” may well decide to redo the process with a yet more unique approach, or the friendly legal throng may simply move to expunge Dave from the record completely! Between that and the play acting I find it hard to take the whole thing seriously. But, I’ll still take a boo at the transcripts for both days and see if there was anything out of the ordinary and worthy of note in this novel legal attempt to cross examine a witness in absentia for the sole purpose of absolving this institution that institution and the other (and those in their employ) by discrediting the witness.
Keep an eye on New to the Site on the Home page.
I’ll close with a reminder to pass on word about the Steve Parisien Legal Defence Fund.
And that’s enough for now,
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)
Hi Sylvia,
I’m glad you had such good news 🙂
I’ll say a few things regarding my feelings watching the latest Lets Pretend. I mentioned I found it very disturbing.
I was quite upset at the Cornwall Police attorney going into such graphic description of David’s abuse. Was that meant to go directly against his wishes that graphic descriptions might embarass both he and his family?? It should have been stopped.
It was so clear to me that the Let’s Pretend was a sham. My mind was taken to the possibility of the validity of further Let’s Pretend situations using the same guidelines. Was this fair??? Let’s assume it was for a second and consider the door that has been opened as a result.
If the Inquiry has the mandate to explore institutional responses than the institutional responses would not be complete or valid unless the institutions responses to the offenders is also explored. It has been mentioned that named offenders were to also respond which it appears that now that the Inquiry is up and running, they have changed their minds. In view of the fact that Victims have been willing to come forward and open up to the Inquiry there is now a gapping hole where institutional response is void of offender responses. Don’t the victims attorney’s have a right to now question alleged Offenders??? Didn’t the questioning of David in absentia open the door to quid pro quo?
Ahhhhhh, if only that were the case!!!
I also do not like that it feels to me that victims attorney’s are too apologetic to the opposition regarding their victim clients. Who ARE they representing?? I don’t see the offender or institutional clients attorney’s apologizing for their clients.
Panther
Good points.
And yes. Who are the lawyer’s representing?
I have yet to get through the transcripts 🙁 My time has been taken with other rather serious but relevant issues. I am still anxious to get to the transcripts and will 🙂
Sylvia