Hearings resume at 1400 hrs (2 pm) Monday 07 May 2007.
****
Out in the morning. Then off to mail parcels in the afternoon. Took another look at the transcript on ODES in between and found myself thinking about the valiant efforts to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I will get on to the Ode to C-3 – it will take a little longer because I need to check a few details. Meanwhile another snatch of information regarding the rather illogical introduction of ODEs, this one as related to Red Lights and credibility.
First off I must tell you that parties representing various institutions at the Cornwall Public Inquiry are not happy with the idea of commission counsel reading ODEs (Overview of Documentary Evidence) into the record and entering the ODE itself into evidence.
As with the Lets Pretend David Silmser is on the Stand exercise, there is no flesh and blood witness on the stand to bite into and draw blood. True enough in the Let’s Pretend exercise they were able to pretend Silmser was on the stand so they could pretend to cross-examine him. Thet weren’t particularly mollified by the game, but, under the circumstances and for the time being it was accepted as better than nothing.
There is no room, at least at this moment in time, for a pretend cross-examination with ODEs. As it now stands commission counsel compile and present the “facts” and extrapolate the material they deem worthy of inclusion or exclusion in an ODE. Barring the inevitable and pending protest regarding the compilation of and inclusions or exclusions in a particular ODE, that’s apparently it until the commission moves into the institutional response phase of the inquiry. Presumably then and only then will there be opportunity to discredit the witness who warrnats compilation of an ODE.
I’m inclined to believe this novel approach to keep the inquiry afloat minus witnesses is essential to ensure Justice Glaude has the ammunition he needs to exonerate those who must be exonerated, rationalize what needs rationalizing, give a gentle judicial tap on the wrist for the odd act of glaring incompetence or outright negligence, and then blame the rest of the collective failures to respond which beset this insititution that institution and the other on Perry Dunlop et al.
The trouble of course is that the more the horses are changed mid-stream the more confusing it all becomes.
For example, why the fluster and bluster over ODEs from parties which have the numerical corner of the market at the inquiry? Why the moaning and groaning when that numerical corner on the market is coupled with a mandate crafted to (a) ensure the paedophiles – in or out of a ring – of Cornwall can sleep tight, and (b) allay the fears of those who have or may have engaged in cover-up, be it by an institution or an individual within that institution?
Perhaps those with a vested interest in what I call defending the indefensible just don’t know when they have a good thing going? Or perhaps no matter how good it gets it’s just never enough? I don’t know.
In truth the bluster makes about as much sense as ODEs, or conducting a cross-examination in absentia, or saying the inquiry has nothing to do with Project Truth, or commissioning an inquiry into persistent allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up and then arming it with a mandate to inquire into the institutional response to allegations of historical abuse and the policies, practices and procedures then in place.
It is in that thoroughly illogical vein that I want to show you this less than enlightening exchange between Peter Manderville (Cornwall Police Services) and Justice Glaude on the matter of ODEs, red lights and credibility
MR. MANDERVILLE: Procedural fairness requires a right to challenge the allegations, to test the allegations of a witness. Here, we have a proposed situation where we have no witness at all, and we think this is a proposed manner of proceeding that could be fraught with danger, and I want to alert you to some of those.
THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm.
MR. MANDERVILLE: It’s our view that a documentary overview cannot be a reliable substitute for testimony, live testimony, and should not or cannot be used to demonstrate the truth of the contents of the documents put forward.
THE COMMISSIONER: The truth of the — so in a complaint, the document could not be used as proof that the complainant was abused —
MR. MANDERVILLE: The content of the document —
THE COMMISSIONER: Right.
MR. MANDERVILLE: — hypothetically, the document says the light was red on the occasion in question.
THE COMMISSIONER: Right.
MR. MANDERVILLE: And rather than have the witness in the box give evidence and be cross-examined on it, we simply file this document that says the light was red.
THE COMMISSIONER: Right.
MR. MANDERVILLE: We say you cannot rely on that document as proof that the light was red.
THE COMMISSIONER: No.
MR. MANDERVILLE: You can rely on the document to the extent that on this date, a document was created, but you cannot rely on the document as proof that the light was red.
THE COMMISSIONER: No, but I think you can — no, but again that’s going back to proof of the statement in it. But from what I can — no, I understand that what’s important is that the complaint was made that the light was red is a fact because the document is there.
Right?
And what goes on from there is what did the institutions do as a result of being given that fact.
Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. Whether the light was red or not is irrelevant. The mandate of this Inquiry is to see what happened afterwards.
****
MR. MANDERVILLE: There may be some individuals down the road for whom credibility is a serious issue…..
THE COMMISSIONER: Again, credibility as to what happened with respect to the institutional response.
Just a note here. Do you see how Justice Glaude takes effort to convey the impression that it is not the credibility of the victim/”alleged” victim which is being tackled, but, it would seem, the credibility of his testimony regarding how the institutions responded to his initial sex abuse allegations?
Confusing? Yes. And a change. And a far cry from the October Divisional court ruling which explicitly affirmed Glaudes’ right to call victims to testify at the inquiry in order to assess their credibility!
Confusion and red lights aside, a few questions:
(1) Is Perry Dunlop an institution? what about Helen Dunlop? or Carson Chisholm? For that matter, what about fellow victims?
(2) If the above persons are not institutions, why the intense focus on what contact the “alleged” victims had with the Dunlops, their family and friends and lawyers, and/or fellow victims?
(3) Justice Glaude says the truth of the sex abuse allegations is irrelevant. Might Glaude and those who drafted the mandate concur that while the veracity of the sex abuse allegations is totally irrlelevant to them, it is extremely relevant to:
(i) the “alleged” victims who have been painted as liars who falsely accused pillars of the community as being child molesters?
(ii) the families of “alleged” victims?
(iii) the safety and future well-being of every child who is put at risk when an alleged paedophile eludes justice?
(iv) the “alleged” paedophiles?
(v) those law enforcement officials, Crown attorneys and/or judges who claimed insufficient evidence, lack of corroboration, a victim’s troubles with the law and/or Perry Dunlop as sufficient grounds to leave an “alleged” paedophile on the loose?
(vi) the veracity of the allegations of a paedophile ring (or clan, or pack or whatever constitutes a group of paedophiles who regularly party, coffee, lunch, vacation and sometimes even have sex together) and the veracity of the allegations of a cover-up?
Anyway, here we are… ODEs are proof positive that one way or the other the inquiry will find a way to limp and hobble its way along until it finally drags itself puffing, panting and bleeding profusely across the finish line.
And Justice Glaude will compile his research project – and “alleged” paedophiles will continue to roam the streets, and those who covered-up for and obstructed justice on their behalf are home free, and millions upon millions of dollars will pour into government funded and government controlled band-aid solutions intent on identifying and consoling and supporting the tortured souls who have been, are and will continue to be sexually abused while “the system” turns a blind eye to known and/or suspect molesters.
Somewhere in midst of Glaude’s massive research project we’ll find a line or two, or perhaps a full paragraph, maybe even a page or two confirming Glaude’s stated and predetermined conclusion that there was/is no ring/clan and there was/is no cover-up – it’s all rumour and innuendo.
I could be mistaken,but I’d hedge my bets he’ll be relying on the odd ODE. And, again, I’d hedge my bets that he won’t be pouring through an ODE to Charlie, or an ODE to Jacques, or an Ode to Eugene and on and on. If the “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall don’t want to step sprightly in to the Weave Shed to take the stand to testify, no matter. Their testimony is as irrelevant to the commission as the veracity of their “alleged” victim’s allegations. So why bother taking the stand? Why even ask them?
I get a headache with all of this nonsense. I truly do:(
Enough for now,
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)