Don’t tantalize the public!

Share Button

Since those who missed what happened before the gathered throng headed off in camera again a quick update.

They are back in camera! Once again the public are excluded.
The latest and current in camera session is scheduled until 15:50 (3:30 pm Wednesday 15 August ’07).  Arguments are being made as to whether Ron Leroux is fit to resume his cross-examination.  To my knowledge the only one arguing to keep Ron from returning is Pradeen Shand, Ron’s recently assigned Ottawa-based lawyer.  I don’t beleive there is a soul who concurs.

And yes, Justice Glaude did read the Nadler letters. He tried to minimize the “explosive” nature of their content by urging “caution” on “language and rhetoric” of one and al and suggested they err on the side of caution rather than “tantalize the public.”  With that he said he had decided to go in camera.

There was not one boo of opposition from the ranks of the gathered throng at this “public”inquiry – most if not all well-paid from the public purse! – to be heard.

And away they went.

We will get some kind of recap on the proceedings from Justice Glaude when they return.

I do believe those letters should be put into the public domain.  The public has been and is well “tantalized.”  The look on the faces of the gathered throng and the tenor of their voices was suffice to tantalize.  Some I know like to grandstand.  But, this seemed a wee bit different than the usual grandstanding.  If, as Glaude implies, there is nothing too profound in the letters then all the more reason to alleviate their concerns and lift the seal of confidentiality – let the public who foot the bills at this “public” inquiry in on the secrets so they can deduce what’s going on in there for themselves.

For now, it’s back on air around 15:50 hours.

Enough,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Clerical sexual predators. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Don’t tantalize the public!

  1. Myomy says:

    Thanks for the excellent summaries of what the lawyers said about the letters. I noted one tantalizing element one of them said re Ron Leroux’s medical condition that he had already testified about that and that this made secrecy on this point largely moot. The transcript of his testimony mentions Post Traumatic Stress Disorder PTSD which Mr Leroux agreed was the diagnosis. He also spoke of his lack of trust in the Church or anyone in authority. Could it be that this medical info is a pretext to shut the public out of the rest of the reasoning on these letters? This could leave us with Ron Leroux’s recantation but with no cross examination to examine his new testimony in the light of his previous statements. Another lawyer warned Glaude that his explanation of any decision of this must be a good one or the inquiry will be drawn into further disrepute, a good piece of advice I would say. Ron Leroux will not be the only one who has no trust in anyone with authority!

  2. Sylvia says:

    Yes. You’re right. Ron has made no secret of his PTSD. Nor did he ever make a secret of the years he spent seeing Dr. Nadler, and,if I recall correctly, being interviewed on videotape by him for a book or research or something which Nadler was working on.

    So, yes, I now wonder why no one let Ron make the choice here. Why did no one ask Ron himself if he would agree to the release of those letters containing information about his mental health. “They” had no problem believing he was fit enough to put on the stand and leave on the stand. And “they” sat and watched as he ran himself into ever decreasing circles – not knowing what he was saying from one minute to the next – and all were so happy to hear his quasi recantations and see Murray MacDonald struck off the list that not a soul could see or think that he might be over-medicated? or warding off threats? or that something was sorely amiss with Ron Leroux. So why not allow Ron the liberty of deciding to disclose or not to disclose? Why not ask Ron if he would agree to publicly disclose the personal information in the letters?

    Ron was right there and to my knowledge not a soul thought to ask him if he was adverse to the information going public. Why not? Were they afraid Ron might say: do whatever you want? And then what? The unwashed and thoroughly tantalized public would – heaven forbid – have access to the “explosive” information which certain people are so anxiously working to keep under lock and key?

    Ron might have said no. But,then again, he might have said yes.

    No matter, I do believe those letters should be made public. Redact if they must anything which is truly an invasion of pribacy, but make the rest public

    Sylvia

Leave a Reply

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