Theory is fair game

Share Button

Hearings resume at 1 pm (13:00 EST)this afternoon (25 June 2007) with Gerry Renshaw returning to be cross-examined. Note the time: 1 PM – one hour earlier than unusual.

(1) Theory is fair game

On Wednesday last (20 June 2007), some time before utter chaos erupted at the Weave Shed, David Sheriff-Scott told Justice Glaude:

We are here about facts, as you’ve repeatedly said, not hypothesis and theory.

In short order Sheriff-Scott changed his tune and was postulating his “theory” that (1) Bobby Renshaw was a male prostitute, (2) Gerry Renshaw was a male prostitute who was mentored into the trade by his brother Bobby, and (3) all the victims/”alleged” victims who were molested by any of ‘the clan’ were in fact male prostitutes.

All this ‘blame the victim’ pontificating came into play after Gerry testified that Malcolm MacDonald’s Stanley Island cottage was, by the sound of things, littered with gay porn and that he, Gerry, had been personally introduced to Bishop Eugene Larocque and had seen Larocque, several other diocesan priests and prominent personages such as Crown attorney Murray MacDonald at Malcolm’s and had in fact ferried some of them – the bishop included – there by boat.

With Gerry’s testimony that Larocque and others were actually in that cottage, Gerry was dismissed from the stand and out of earshot of an apparently incensed Sheriff-Scott’s diatribe about his, Sheriff-Scott’s, “theory” of “what was going on at this place,” meaning, I believe, what he would have us believe was going on at both Ken Seguin’s and Malcolm MacDonald’s.

To that end Sheriff-Scott essentially argued that he had a right to re-visit Bobby Renshaw’s testimony in absentia and to now refer to Bobby Renshaw as a male prostitute because “it’s germane to my theory,” the same theory which he claims turns all the victims into male prostitutes.

Sheriff-Scott’s “theory” does not, of course, as he himself acknowledged, “comport” with what Gerry Renshaw or Ron Leroux have to say, the latter now waiting in the wings to testify.

Sheriff-Scott claims he can prove his “theory” by pulling out transcripts and quizzing Gerry on those transcripts. Of that I have no doubt. Not because it’s fact, but simply because with a little spin here, a little extrapolation there and little parsing in the other place a highly skilled lawyer can thoroughly confuse, sand bag and put words in the mouth of any witness, unwitting or not. The average soul doesn’t stand a chance against such a legal attack where the end invariably justifies the means. I will say only that this has the sickening ring of the blame the victim – “he made him do it” – refrain we heard in Roman Catholic circles a few years back.

Anyway, after Sheriff Scott bandied Bobby Renshaw’s name and reputation about with claims that Bobby was a self-admitted male prostitute and he can prove it, Dallas Lee (Victims Group) rose to object. Lee was adamant that the documents show no such thing.

We are told there are transcripts where [Bobby Renshaw] admits to being a prostitute. I can tell you, sir, that’s absurd. I have read the transcripts, and he does no such thing. And even if he did, we can’t put it to him now. He’s gone. He’s done. It wasn’t put to him at the time.

But, witness the following, Justice Glaude was less than sympathetic to the plight of a victim whose name and reputation has now been thoroughly and very publicly sullied in absentia the Weave Shed:

MR. LEE: With respect to Bob Renshaw —

THE COMMISSIONER: I don’t really need to hear you about Bob Renshaw.

MR. LEE: The problem, sir, is I don’t have a remedy here. It’s been said repeatedly that there is a record that — black and white admission on the record that he was a prostitute. And now what? Now, it’s out there.

Now, it’s been said repeatedly, time and time again. And anybody listening who prefers what Mr. Sherriff-Scott has
to say to what I have to say is going to look at him and say, absolutely, there’s an admission on the record.

THE COMMISSIONER: Ah, but they’re forgetting one thing.

MR. LEE: What is that, sir?

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don’t care what you say or Mr. Sherriff-Scott says. I am saying it’s not in evidence.

MR. LEE: And Bob Renshaw very much cares, I can assure you.

THE COMMISSIONER: Ah!

MR. LEE: What people in the community think, he said in the examination for discovery that it’s never going to be in evidence in these proceedings.

THE COMMISSIONER: And people in the Inquiry, people who listen to the Inquiry, will know that they are supposed to keep an open mind, that only things that are accepted as facts count.

And that, kind sir, is not a fact that is before me at this time.

And, as far as Justice Glaude is concerned, too bad Bobby Renshaw, David Sheriff Scott can say what he wants, and, …that’s that!!!

(2) Rumour innuendo and lies

Now that this non-Project Truth inquiry has suddenly and for a moment in time morphed into a full-fledged Project Truth inquiry with a belated interest in who witnesses saw where, Suzanne Costom (Ontario Provincial Police) wants to ensure that, along with David Sheriff Scott, the entire legal throng can go right to a victim’s jugular to, as she put it overturn the “rumours and innuendo and lies” that have been “flying around.”

I was happy to hear you just say that you agree that Mr. Renshaw is here primarily because of what he saw, and who he saw, and where he saw it, and that his purpose at the Inquiry as a witness is going to be to contribute to either confirming or, perhaps, overturning the rumours and innuendo and lies that have been flying around about who was connected to whom, when, and where.

I think that in order for parties, and in particular the public institutions, to test our theory of the case as to whether or not any sort of conspiracy existed or didn’t exist, or any sort of clan existed or didn’t exist, we have to craft very meticulous cross-examinations.

Note the operative words there: “lies” and “meticulous.”

God bless you Gerry. You are in for the legal beating of your life.

So, today the gathered throng will pick up where they left off on Wednesday. They have had ample time to discuss their tactics and tag team their cross-examinations to reduce Gerry to a bleeding mass of flesh and blood. How many parties have a vested interest in destroying Gerry Renshaw and every victim who testifies they saw Claude Shaver, Murray MacDonald, Ron Wilson, Stuart MacDonald, Bishop Eugene Larocque and Fathers Kevin Malone, David Ostler, Ranald (Rory) MacDonald and Charles MacDonald and others at Ken Seguin’s waterfront home or Malcolm MacDonald’s gay-porn strewn Stanley Island cottage?

(3) Friends
Take a look at “One Big Happy Family.” Scroll down the page for the article. Do you see Murray MacDonald’s name down there at the bottom?

(4) Judicial admomition for the AG?

Will Justice Glaude at the very least admonish the Attorney General for interfering direftly with the course of this inquiry and very publicly circling the wagons around Murray MacDonald by inferring that Gerry Renshaw is a liar?

(5) Why the publication ban on the identity of a convicted paedophile? Is that within the inquiry mandate? If not,why not?

I have lots to do on the website so

Enough for now,

Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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