First, something I must relay from Thursday’s hearings.
The OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) is in desperate straights over an Access to Information request and asked Justice Glaude to step into the fray to use whatever judicial clout he might have to buy time so some obviously top secret documents don’t have to be released.
The OPP absolutely does not want these documents to see the light of day. The documents, all I believe Correctional Services material which was in possession of the OPP and turned over on subpoena to the inquiry, have at this time been gathered and, barring appropriate intervention, will be released.
It seems that the OPP has been buying time to fight release of the documents for some time. The clock was finally about to run out.
They turned to Glaude.
Justice Glaude issued a directive. No one is quite sure if he has the authority to intervene or not but it was agreed he would give it a try. The issue will be discussed when hearings resume 07 May 2007.
More on ODEs…
Things seem to be reaching a point of sheer desperation at the Weave Shed. First we had a victim cross-examined in absentia (David Silmser). Now we have ODEs.
An ODE is an “Overview of Documentary Evidence,” a novel approach introduced by commission counsel to get evidence they obviously want on the record on the record when it wouldn’t get there otherwise.
So, for example, if a victim chooses not to testify and commission counsel considers his particular evidence essential to show how various institutions responded to historic allegations of abuse, out comes an ODE.
Ditto if a witness the commission would love to put on the stand is dead. That I suppose means that if commission counsel deem it impossible for Justice Glaude to adequately assess any or all institutional responses without Dick Nadeau’s testimony (God rest his soul) they can sift through their Dick-database, choose what they deem tells his “story” the way they believe it needs to be told and then throw in a selection of excerpts from institutional documents which make comment on Dick Nadeau (they apparently can and will do that). There it is. A commission counsel ODE to Dick, …or for Dick?
I got the impression that an ODE might also be a life saver if a witness whose testimony is deemed essential is out of province or out of country. And so for example, in much the same manner as Dick they could compile an ODE to Perry Dunlop with selective and explicit documentary reference to who he might know, might have met, might have talked to, might have entertained in his home, and what he might have said, in or out of uniform and in or out of the presence of his wife Helen and/or his brother-in-law Carson Chisholm and so on.
Those are ODEs. I see them as a novel way to fill in the gaps when key witnesses are either deceased or have taken to heart the repeated assurances that no one will be compelled to testify.
According to lead counsel Peter Engelmann, ODEs “can maximize fairness and efficiency and ensure we’re conducting a thorough Inquiry.”
An added bonus to the ODE is that, according to Engelmann, they “will allow the public to better follow along the information and the stories that you are hearing.”
Stories?! Not testimony. Stories!!
Anyway, that’s what ODEs are all about. Who is or is not chosen for an ODE remains to be seen and should prove interesting.
The first ODE
ODE #1 was apparently compiled because a victim (moniker C-3) whom commission counsel wanted to take the stand declined – he apparently said he had been following the proceedings at the inquiry and did not want to be re-victimized. He apparently also said he had health issues and in addition expressed concern that testifying might impact his small business.
C-3 happens to be one of two men Cornwall Police Service interviewed in March 1993 – during its investigation into David Silmser’s
allegations against Father Charles MacDonald. Both men alleged sexual abuse and/or sexual improprieties against Father Charlie. Both were reluctant to proceed with criminal charges.
C-3 later co-operated when contacted by Project Truth officers.
Despite the fact that Cornwall police had received sex abuse allegations against Father Charlie from David Silmser, and interviewed two men who said the priest had abused and/or made inappropriate sexual advances toward them when they were young lads, and two other men who said Father Charlie kept a stash of pornographic magazines, no charges were laid.
There is not a whiff of evidence that the Chief of police or Crown attorney were concerned that a clerical paedophile was on the loose and in the sanctuaries of the diocese with easy and ready access to young boys!!!.
And David Silmser was allegedly nothing but a money-grubbing liar with a criminal record and absurd allegations?
And the Chief of police and Crown attorney were allegedly friends with Charlie, and with the bishop, and with Charlie’s lawyer who happened to be the Crown attorney’s uncle, and with the lawyer for the diocese who helped hammer out the $32,000 pay-off for Charlie and the diocese?
So we now have ODE #1.
ODE to C-3.
More on that over the weekend….
It’s late, so enough for now,