Hearings resume at 0930 hours (09:30) this morning (Thursday 15 November 2007) . Sean Adams, the lawyer who explained and read David Silmser’s settlement agreement to him without noticing the illegal clause, will take the stand. And on top of that didn’t know it was illegal after agreeing to hold the $32,000 cheque in escrow until Dave did his duty and told the Cornwall Police to cease its criminal investigation of Father Charlie.
The absolution of Sean Adams should prove an interesting feat. But, somehow, someway, I have no doubt it will be accomplished.
Garry Guzzo is finished for now. Yesterday morning was spent in camera. His testimony has scarce begun. He will return on Tuesday morning to continue his examination in chief.
I’m still scratching my head trying to make sense of yesterday. Disturbing.
I must say that from all I have seen and heard at this inquiry I will be hard pressed to trust any lawyer in the future who assures confidentiality on anything.
Yes, for all of his stalwart talk about confidentiality on Tuesday Garry Guzzo ended up backpeddling and disclosed all the names to commission counsel.
All I can say is that I pray that our Roman Catholics priests aren’t so quick to buckle under legal pressure and violate what is supposed to be the inviolable seal of confession.
No matter. No trip to Divisional Court for Garry Guzzo, and the redacted names of “whistleblowers” are now known to every one of the legal throng. Whether or not that proves problematic for the whistleblowers I have no idea. I would think so but that seems to be a non-issue. The truth of the matter is I no longer have certitude on a lot of things which I once held sure. Sometimes things aren’t quite what they seem.
Meanwhile there is some confusion over what name fits in which redaction on Guzzo’s notes. An expert is being retained to see what can be done about that.
All of that aside, I found myself a bit befuddled when Guzzo’s testimony wrapped up for the day. It seemed to me there was some strange disconnect. I can’t put my finger on it. For now I’ll touch briefly on a few points from yesterday, fully aware that Guzzo’s examination in chief is barely off the ground and hopeful there will some clarification when he returns to the stand on Tuesday.
First and foremost, those who watched will recall that Guzzo was vague on his contacts with victims but was very precise when he said that a lawyer friend in Cornwall, Peter McDerby (?), told him somewhere around 1995 or 1996 that there was ‘an interesting chap’ Garry Guzzo should contact and speak to. The interesting chap, according to Guzzo was John MacDonald. Guzzo says he followed through on the advice and recalls quite clearly meeting John in a Cornwall restaurant.
Well, I was watching and listening I was thinking that I learn something new every day. I was not aware that John had had any contact with Garry Guzzo.
Barely however had Guzzo finished his reference to John than the phone rang. It was a thoroughly astounded John MacDonald: “I’ve never met Garry Guzzo in my life!”
I quizzed John. Was he certain he hadn’t forgotten? No. Was it remotely possible it had slipped his mind? No. There was not a shred of doubt in John’s mind. He has never met Guzzo in his life. Nor does he have any recollection of knowing or meeting a Peter McDerby.
John thinks he may have spoken to Guzzo briefly by phone when one bill or the other was trying to work it’s way through parliament. He has a vague recollection of a brief phone contact. But that was it. He swears he never met Garry Guzzo. He is adamant that he would never forget such an encounter because, after all, Garry Guzzo was a lawyer, a former judge and a sitting MPP. That would stick in his mind. Furthermore, John told me he has no reference in his notes to Garry Guzzo, and I must say John kept fairly thorough and meticulous notes. And finally, John tells me that he stopped by the Weave Shed for a few moments on Tuesday just as the day was at end. He was in the hallway talking to friends when Garry Guzzo walked by. According to John if Guzzo knew him he showed no sign of recognition.
I have no idea what happened here. But, it’s bothering John and there’s not much he can do about it, is there?
What difference it makes or could make in the long run I have no idea. But, according to John, it’s just not true.
Other points:
(1) Guzzo first became involved through two lawyer friends/acquaintances (Duncan MacDonald and Peter McDerby) in Cornwall. Both men, now deceased, were then affiliated with Laurencrest home, a sort of group home for troubled youth.
Guzzo, a Progressive Conservative, had just recently been elected to the Ontario legislature.
(2) Like Guzzo, MacDonald and McDerby were Roman Catholic. Duncan MacDonald made the initial contact with Guzzo about Cornwall and sex abuse. This was 1995 and by then word was out about the $32,000 out of court settlement and the gag order.
It seems the two men(McDerby and MacDonald) had deep concerns about the Church dimension to the talk of sexual abuse. They thought ‘we as Roman Catholics’ should be involved, and that the Conservative government should look into it.
(3) Garry Guzzo described his first contact with two “alleged” Cornwall victims. One he described as “rambling and incoherent” and rambling on about “Father Charlie.” Guzzo considered both men had had a little too much “Christmas cheer.” I got the distinct impression that the allegations of one, if not both, were dismissed or not taken seriously by Guzzo because of the way they presented.
I don’t believe there was follow up with either of these men, but there may be more on that next week. I found I was bothered by the way men who sound like such stereotypical man/boy sexual abuse victims were judged. Again, ther may be more on this next week. I hope so.
(4) During a routine vacation in Fort Lauderdale Guzzo was introduced to a former police officer. The police officer told him about two motels (Marlin and Saltaire) in a paedophile district which were frequented by powerful people from Ohio and the Mid West – high ranking Republicans and Democrats. Guzzo was told there was a tribe from Cornwall who frequented the facilities as well.
Those who arrived apparently often brought “youngsters” with them, some as young as eleven. The boys would be passed around.
This former policeman apparently told Guzzo that Fort Lauderdale police conducted regular clean ups of the female prostitutes but the males prostitutes were never touched.
Lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann wondered if the policeman was angry about the failure to clean up the male prostitutes, Guzzo seemed to concur with “In retrospect I think he was a little over the top.”I wonder what that means?
(5) The former policeman took Guzzo to meet the former night clerk of, I believe, the Saltaire hotel. The night clerk gave him registration slips bearing the names Ron Leroux, C-8 and former Crown attorney Malcolm MacDonald.
As yet there has been no testimony regarding what the night clerk had to say about the men who visited from Cornwall, ie. the numbers who would visit, the frequency of the visits, and if they were or were not accompanied by “youngsters?
I will leave it at that. Meanwhile I will go through the transcripts to see if I can get a handle in what it is, aside from the obvious naming names, that’s bothering me here. I know that over the years a lot of victims and people in Cornwall had for various reasons come to view Garry Guzzo with a degree of suspiction, particularly after he renegged on his highly publicized plan to names in the legislature. I hope and pray their suspicions were ill-founded.
so, a puzzling day. What it all has to do with the mandate and the institutional response beats me. David Sheriff-Scott (diocese and Bishop Larocque) hopped up to protest that very point and I must say I reluctantly but no doubt for very different reasons agree.)
No word on Steve Parisien. He was in court yesterday for day one of the sex abuse trial of one of his molesters. He’s back in this morning. Keep him in your prayers.
Enough for now,
I had heard from a lawyer friend that Gary Guzzo would not be protected from lawsuits by any parliamentary privilege if he got up and named names in the legislature that time. This is another case of the law saying one thing for the unwashed public and another thing entirely for the lawyers. It is possible that some lawyers explained this fine point of law to Guzzo when he backed off the threat to name names in the legislature as a means to get things moving.
“All I can say is that I pray that our Roman Catholics priests aren’t so quick to buckle under legal pressure and violate what is supposed to be the inviolable seal of confession……”
With the cavalier attitude to confidentiality in effect at the weave shed the priest could disclose all the confessions he heard after he was transferred to a different parish. Actually this is a church law not a civil law and it should be recognized and protected by the state which loudly proclaims the separation of Church and State. The hypocrisy of civil law is that the independence of the Church law from the State law is not always recognized. When people talk of the separation of Church and State they mean only the separation of the State from the jurisdiction of the Church – not the other way around and so priests could be pressured to break the seal of confession.
“No matter. No trip to Divisional Court for Garry Guzzo, and the redacted names of “whistleblowers” are now known to every one of the legal throng. Whether or not that proves problematic for the whistleblowers I have no idea. …..”
In the upside down legal world at the weave shed culture trumps the law and so when Perry Dunlop reported child abuse to the CAS he should have enjoyed the protection from prosecution for this action but the protection from prosecution went to the perpetrators. In this case the whistleblowers have not committed any crime so they should not be worried if their name gets out and hence they have only provisional confidentiality. In fact when their name is revealed as it may already have been through the many lawyers who now know the names they can be punished in many subtile but real ways in their employment, promotion and opportunities that they enjoy which are too varied to be ever regulated or protected by the law. Sadly it is the non crimes that are punishable while the real criminals can sleep tight as you said so often.
Yes. That is entirely possible. And at the end of the day we all learned through CBC radio that at least one of the files collecting dust in the office of the AG at the time was that of the Bishop of Alexandria-Cornwall, Eugene Larocque.
I don’t the legalities of it all, but rightly or wrongly the 11th hour reversal was seen by many as yet another broken promise by someone in authority in whom they had tentatively placed their trust. As they saw it, he broke his word. He gave it and he broke it. I’m not convinced that was the case, but it was the perception.
Now the naming of names of whistle blowers. Perhaps we will eventually learn that the whistle blowers agreed to disclosure to spare Guzzo a contempt of court charge? That may yet come out in next week’s testimony. I hope that is the case.
As you can tell, I personally am having great difficulty with this one and, as I said in another blog, I fear for the safety and well being of those who may have blown the whistle from within. We have seen and heard what happened to Perry Dunlop and his family. I don’t wish that on anyone.
Perhaps there’s another angle to this which I don’t see at this time. And hopefully next week’s testimony will bring some clarity which I find missing. But, for now, that’s where I’m at. I am disappointed beyond measure.
There is an old saying which runs through my mind: “A man is as good as his word.”
Sylvia