Sound vaguely familiar?

Share Button

I posted a new page on Joseph Neuberger, one of the lawyers representing the Ontario Correctional Services at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.  Neuberger’s task at the Weave Shed is to defend/justify/rationalize the “response” of his client, Correctional Services, to allegations of “historic” sexual abuse against those in his client’s employ, including, amongst others, probation officers Nelson Barque and Ken Seguin.

I put the word “historic” – or as Mr. Neuberger would say “so old” – in quotes because I must say I have difficulty with the prevailing notion that children are somehow safer and less at risk around a paedophile who molested ten or twenty years ago than they are around one who molested more recently.  The bottom line is that paedophiles do what paedophiles do, and barring legal intervention as long as they’re out and about they tend to keep right on doing it.  Does it matter when a victim was molested? If his molester is out and about children are at risk. They are not historically at risk.  They are at risk. Period.

Are murderers charged for murders they committed ten or twenty or thirty years ago?  Are those murders minimized by dubbing them “historic”?  Why then the criminal double standard when it comes to dealing with the crimes committed by paedophiles?

That said, despite the fact that Correctional Services (Ontario Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services and Adult Community Corrections) has settled out of court with an untold number of victims, Mr. Neuberger has been retained to vindicate his client while no doubt simultaneously assuring the world that not one Correctional Service employee is or was ever connected to a paedophile ring, and/or that not one employee in general or the institution in particular had or has anything to do with executing a cover-up.

How vindication ensues after a raft of out of court settlement is beyond me.  I know the line goes that the settlements are no acknowledgement of guilt or wrong-doing, but I just have difficulty accepting the fact that the government would endorse and justify squandering thousands upon thousands of dollars to silence victims who just really and truly aren’t victims.

Perhaps what it all boils down to is that settling out of court on allegations of sexual abuse by employees is one thing, facing potential legal action for obstruction of justice and/or conspiracy is another?

Whatever the plan, Mr. Neuberger has been retained by Correctional Services to do whatever job it is the institution believes needs to be done, and by whatever means a seasoned and creative defence lawyer has at his disposal. 

It is to that end I posted Global Morning News, October 7, 2004 Neuberger’s Commentary on R.V. Brown, the 2004 sex abuse (“historic”) trial of one of a number of male teachers from the prestigious Upper Canada College, all charged with sexually molesting young boys at the college.

Watch the video.  It’s quite amazing.  Neuberger goes on about the allegations being “so old” and how what actually happened is replaced by what the victim “thought” happened.  And he implies, as he did in the Let’s Pretend David Silmser is on the stand scenario, that memories will have failed. And he discusses mounting a defence by attacking the reliability of each witness.  And he addresses the difficulty of a defence when, as with Brown, there are  multiple victims, and he suggests that in such cases defence can look at “collusion.”

Amazing, isn’t it?  Defence lawyers literally go in with a mind to discredit a witness.  Not because the witness warrants it, but because in legal circles that’s seen as an ethical and acceptable defence to get a defendant off the hook.  And not only that, it seems that they, the defence lawyers, literally determine willy nilly that when faced with multiple victims ready to testify it may be time to start looking at and howling “collusion” (read conspiracy) – not because there was pre-existing evidence of collusion among the victims, but just because in a “difficult” situation it might be a means to the end of exonerating their client …so, away they go to find it –  spinning, fabricating, extrapolating, suggesting, theorizing, hypothesizing and parsing as they go.  If perchance they happen upon two or more victims who happen to know each other, even if they are merely acqaintances, away goes the defence with its collusion theory.   

Sound vaguely familiar?  Those who endured the agony of the Jacques Leduc “trials” are well versed in this legal exercise. A victim’s emotionally distraught mother picked up the phone and called Perry Dunlop.  That was enough.  That was it.  Collusion!   CONSPIRACY!!!

Conspiracy.  Collusion.  It’s the trademark of the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up.  Not collusion between lawyers, and judges, and bishops, and priests, and probation officers and paedohiles.  No. The theoretic collusion between Perry Dunlop and everyone he ever met – victims, “alleged” victims, family, friends alike. 

Do you realize we’ve been watching this little exercise play out again in the Weave Shed?  Actually, truth be told  we’ve been privy to watching both primary defence ploys play out: (1) discredit the witness and (2) imply collusion between victims, the Dunlops, and anyone who ever bumped into or rubbed shoulders with the Dunlops, their family or friends. 

Do you see it?  Can you see the tactics at play?

That’s why I found the Neuberger interview so fascinating.  It’s not so much what he said, it’s simply that he said it!  

Play the video. 

Your thoughts?

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwqall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Sound vaguely familiar?

  1. Byron Prior says:

    IN NEWFOUNDLAND and LABRADOR,CANADA

    WE HAVE A LEGAL SYSTEM WITH NO JUSTICE.
    WHEN T. ALEX HICKMAN WAS ELECTED JUSTICE MINISTER IN SEPTEMBER 1966, IT STARTED A LEGAL SYSTEM WITHOUT JUSTICE, WHICH REMAINS IN PLACE IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABADOR TO THIS DAY.

    Politicians names and faces change in Ottawa, Ont. and St. John’s, Nl. but the Corruption continues to rule our country. I spent from April to October, 7 months, in Ottawa, on Parliament Hill, with permits, handing out 12,000 information sheets, and 7000 more in Newfoundland, about what happened to my family, and a sheet with each, on a Book about my family, PLAYING WITH THE DEVIL, by Martha Jetta, of Paranormal Books, and still no-one has resolved this INJUSTICE. A simple DNA test would see Justice served. The system protects itself, not the public.

    If T. Alex Hickman, the Justice Minister and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, from 1966 to 2000, rapes and impregnates your 12 year old child, how do you get justice in this Province when the reports go back to the criminal who did the crime? I’ve reported this crime and other incest and abuse in my family, for more than 40 years, to all authorities and RCMP who ignored us as children, but they admit they still have 3 of my reports but won’t release them. Many other reports of abuse were made by 3 sisters and one brother. We are left in Canada without even basic human rights or protection under Canadain Laws. No lawyer will represent us and the last lawyer I asked told me if any lawyer in this province tried to represent you it would be the last job they ever do as a lawyer in this province. The Legal System has done nothing to help, it’s been completely controlled here by T. Alex Hickman, for 34 years and he still, in retirement, has control.

    Please ask our Prime Minister, Mr. Stephen Harper, at pm@pm.gc.ca and ask our Premier, Mr. Danny Williams, at premier@gov.nl.ca to give our family justice. Visit our information website at http://maxpages.com/sexualabuse for seven more pages about abuse of our family, letters from family members and police statements, and no justice to this day.

    Mr. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, you said during the election you would put families as a priority on your Government Agenda, please help mine, in your letters to me you said you would. Visit our website and sign our guest book with your support.

    These are the people on the committee who approved my right to protest on Parliament Hill with my signs and handouts with all this content for 7 months:

    1. Mr. K. Macleod (Ceremonial & Protocol) Tel #994-3647
    2. Mr. Raymond M. Lambe )PCO) Tel #957-5363
    3. Mr. Serge Gourgiue (Senate) Tel #943-0183
    4. Ms. Audrey O’Brien (House of Commons) Tel #992-2637
    5. Mr. Charles Maier (Public Works) Tel #990-6769
    6. Mr. Roger Brown, Chief Supt. (RCMP) Tel #993-8839
    7. Mr. Marc Graveline (National Capital Commission) Tel #239-5510

    Newfoundland & Labrador MHA’s who came to see me and took my handout:

    1. Mr. Tom Marshall – Justice Minister
    2. Mr. John Ottenheimer – Inter-Government Affairs
    3. Mr. Jack Harris – NPD Leader
    4. MHA – Tom Oaborne came by but didn’t speak or take a handout
    5. NL Liberal Senator Bill Rompkey tried several times to have the RCMP remove me and my signs from Parliament Hill
    6. NL. Liberal Senator George Baker and his wife, he said he would speak with me the following day, the following day never came.
    7. Conservative M.P. Mr. Norman Doyle did his job and I thank him. My member came out to see me and delivered my full information package to the Justice Minister, Mr. Vic Towes, himself in person and came to see how I was doing several times. Thank you Mr. Norman Doyle for your concern and your help.

    Byron Prior
    Tele# 709-834-9822
    66 Readers Hill Cres.
    Conception Bay South, NL.
    A1W 5B4
    alltrue@nl.rogers.com
    http://maxpages.com/sexualabuse
    http://justicehickman.com

    ——————————————————————————–

Leave a Reply

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