Naughty boy

Share Button

Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am) Monday 11 February 2008. 

The schedule for next week is up: 

Monday, 11 February 2008:   Emile Robert (completion of examination in chief and cross-examination) 

Claude Legault – Area Manager, Cornwall Probation and Parole Office

Tuesday 12 February 2008:  Claude Legault 

Wednesday 13 February 2008: Brian Skinner – Superintendent (retired), Ottawa Carleton Regional Police Service 

Thursday 14 February 2008:   To be announced 

I will blog on Emile Robert’s testimony over the weekend.  I rather look forward to his cross-examination – I now believe a good vigorous cross will have Mr. Robert running in ever-decreasing circles.  Too many things don’t add up.

For example, seems there are so many inconsistencies when it came to Robert’s dealing with Ken Seguin’s foibles.  It is astounding.  This man had heard back in 1985 that there was a serious question of inappropriate sexual conduct related to Seguin, but he put that on the back burner.  I believe he chalked it all up to “rumour” because nothing ever came of it!  And there it sat.  In fact, it went so far on the back burner that Robert seemed to view Ken Seguin as the “Mr. Probation” we have heard so much about, – the prefect probation officer with countless years of dedicated service. 

So, Robert heard of the allegations in 1985. That it seems was it.  The matter apparently didn’t gnaw away at the back of his mind.   He seemed to have no thought that where there’s smoke there may well be fire.  To the contrary.  Indeed, it seems that over the next few years each Seguin foible was greeted by Robert with the operative assumption that Seguin had served with the ministry for years, had an impeccable record,  and all that was needed at most in the here and now was just a little one-on-one chitty-chat which amounted to a ‘you naughty naughty boy’ wag of the finger.

With each foible the impeccable record managed to go forth untarnished. 

I truly understood yesterday why several witnesses felt Robert favoured Seguin.  It seems he did.

What is quite bizarre though is that on the heels of his rationalizations and/or justifications for overlooking one Seguin foible or another Robert actually testified that if the Cornwall Police had only told him about the sex abuse allegations against Ken Seguin he would have taken action!!! 

Quite amazing.  We had heard one account after the other of Robert excusing and/or rationalizing Seguin’s indiscretions and/or oversights.  We had heard one instance after the other of Robert giving Seguin glowing evaluations and thereby essentially maintaining the Mr. Probation myth.  Then, seemingly out of the blue we hear that had Robert known about the sex abuse allegations against Seguin sitting with the Cornwall police he would have taken action!  

I wonder…..

Anyway, as I said, I will blog on Robert’s Friday testimony.  Unfortunately webcast problems meant we missed portions of the testimony. The transcripts are in French.  I will have to rely on what I heard and what I have in my notes 🙁  I don’t relish that with testimony such as Emile Robert’s.

****

Those of you who use sympatico and are having email problems should call Ma Bell.  I was having trouble. Tried fixing it up myself.  Finally in utter desperation called Ma Bell.  It turns out that Sympatico is now using hotmail MSN.  All settings and user names have to be reconfigured. 

Three hours and two computers reconfigured later all is working on that front. 

Computers.  A blessing and curse. 

**** 

I have received some legal insight re the warrant on Perry.  More on that too. 

Enough for now

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply