Hearings resume at 09:00 hours (9 am) this morning, Friday 26 October 2007. Note the time. It;s an early start.
A long tiring day yesterday. Things wrapped up just before 5:30 pm. The early start tomorrow allows an extra half hour. Justice Glaude has made clear the day will wrap up at 3 pm. Period.
Will the grilling of Charles Bourgeois be finished by 3 pm? We’ll have to wait…
As for yesterday, well, it would be foolhardy to try to recap and futile to try to put things into context. The transcripts are up.
The long and short is that Charles Bourgeois, Perry Dunlop’s former lawyer, doesn’t stand a chance. I’d say the gathered throng had predetermined that his word will play second fiddle to the word of Ron Leroux or C-8.
If Bourgeois says Ron Leroux told him about a ritual at Cameron’s Point one of the gathered throng says Ron recanted. If Bourgeois says C-8 told him he was sexually abused by Charlie, one of the gathered throng says C-8 recanted. If Bourgeois says there was no pressure exerted on Ron or C-8, one of the gathered throng says C-8 and Ron felt pressured. If Bourgeois says it was Ron Leroux who used the phrase “clan of paedophiles” one of the gathered throng says Ron said he didn’t. If Bourgeois says Perry Dunlop is decent soul, the gathered throng rolls its collective eyes.
On and on and on it went.
Hour upon tortuous hour. All day long.
For what?
To beguile we the unwashed public?
To get to the bottom of the allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up?
Or to follow the letter of the mandate law and figure out how this institution, that institution or the other responded to this historic allegation of physical abuse, that historic allegation of emotional abuse or the other historic allegation of sexual abuse?
What is this ruse of an inquiry really about?
How to explain what’s going on?
Do you remember way back when Justice Glaude said he wanted the “alleged” victims to take the stand to have a chance to tell their “story.”
Do you remember when Justice Glaude said it was irrelevant whether sex abuse allegations are true or false and he didn’t want to hear them, the issue is how did the institutions respond to them?
And then, do you remember that Justice Glaude decided it was kosher to test the credibility of an “alleged” victim but not the credibility of his allegations?
Do remember too that it became imperative to know what Perry Dunlop was wearing, and who he rubbed shoulders with, ….how, why, when and where?
And then, do you remember it was important to know how many horses Carson owns?
So, here we are. After one full year of “alleged” victim testimony,with the commission constantly changing horses mid stream, in the midst of “community” witness testimony, and with the grand total of eight months or less left over to hear from all the institutional witnesses who should but may not take the stand, here we are….
Perry’s former lawyer Charles Bourgeois is getting the fourth degree.
How many years did he practice criminal law? What kind of cases did he handle? Was this the biggest thing he ever handled in his life? Was he excited? Why didn’t he do this and why did he do that? What were his impressions of Perry?
What pray tell does this have to do with anything?
As prima facie so aptly blogged:
The Lawyers will try to discover, for certain, who sat on what stool, in which restaurant or bar or court room at which trial, at what time of day, on what side of the street, in 1997 or was it 1999 or maybe 1993….and what colour their socks were, before they slept in Perry Dunlop’s house, for one or two nights?? ah!! ha!!!..my dear Watson!!!
Yes. Stuff and nonsense.
At the end of the day the only for sure is there’ll be no grand inquisition – or even gentle interrogation – for the “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall. None of this for them. No being forced to testify against their will. No inquisition. And certainly no violation of their sacrosanct solicitor-client privilege.
They’re wrapped snug as bug in the Charter.
They can sleep tight.
Enough for now,