What are they doing?

Share Button

Hearings resumed at 0930 hours (09:30 am)this morning, Wednesday 09 April 2008. S/Sgt. Luc Brunet is back on the stand undergoing cross-examination.

I have no more than half an ear to what’s going on in the Weave Shed right now. I started the morning looking for a file on Justice Glaude’s genealogy which I had worked on three years ago. That because yesterday there was reference to an officer by the name of Tyo with the Cornwall Police Services. There has also been a victim by the name of Jason Tyo who testified early in the inquiry. I recall that Tyo is a name which is referenced in Justice Glaude’s family tree so wanted to check that out. I found the file in my old computer in an old format. I think I will get it transferred and posted. Whether or not these Tyos are related to the commissioner I have no idea. Cornwall is Cornwall where, as we have all noticed, such names as MacDonald are a dime a dozen, often with no apparent genealogical connection. But, there were and are issues with Glaude’s family roots in Cornwall. I had intended to post the document two years ago but obviously it slipped my mind. I will do so today.

Then, while I was hunting I heard Michael Neville conducting his cross-examination of Brunet. In the process the issue of age and consent of Charlie’s other two “alleged” was raised. Neville began to talk about one of the “alleged” victims with the moniker C-3. Neville was saying or implying the incidents were “consensual.” According to Neville C-3 was 18 at the time. The incidents allegedly transpired in or around 1975.

The exchange which followed is what caught my ear and set me off on another hunt.

Justice Glaude intervened. He asked Neville about the age of consent in those years. (1975) Neville responded that C-3 would have been an adult.

Glaude paused, then asked when were the laws on homosexuality repealed. Neville replied that it was in the late 60s. He added a comment about “bedrooms of the nation.”

That was it. Glaude seemed to accept Neville’s take as fact. No one, but no one, interjected. Neville moved on.

Yes, it’s true that “the laws on homosexuality were repealed” in 1969 when Trudeau pushed for decriminalization with the oft repeated refrain ‘the the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.’ However, the fact of the matter is that after Trudeau’s omnibus bill was pushed through parliament “buggery” was decriminalized and all acts of buggery and gross indecency were legalized between consenting adults – and consenting adults were those age 21 or over.

That’s the way things stayed until, I believe, 1987 when the age of consent for such acts was lowered to 18. Then through various means it was lowered to 16. Then again to 14.

I am truly getting fed up with these constant attempts to ‘legalize’ criminal acts. I can not for the life of me believe that no one in that Weave Shed knows that before the late 80s, with or without consent, sodomy and acts of gross indecency were illegal when one of the two “parties” was under age 21. After the late 80s and through to 1995 the age was 18.

This after two tortuous years and countless “stories” of sexual abuse of boys in the 60s, 70s and 80s?s! Are we to believe that after all this Glaude truly still doesn’t know the law of land of those days? That Neville doesn’t know? No one knows?

What are they doing? What have they been doing? What kind of an inquiry is this when “they” are presumably looking at institutional responses to sex abuse allegations over the years and no one seems to know the law of the land governing the alleged crime at hand at the particular time at hand? Crucial information to have at hand. What was the law of the land?

They don’t know!!! Unbelievable!!!!!

Anyway, way back when I had started a break down of the laws of the day. It remains unfinished. I wanted to get back down to the National Library to do more research, and wanted to spend more time putting the whole thing together. I have decided now I must post it, unfinished though it is. I will post it in conjunction with other articles which help to shed light on what has happened with the ever evolving law as it relates to man/boy sexual abuse.

That’s the problem with this inquiry. It is getting nigh to impossible to refute spin and half-truths and disinformation simply. Alas spin, half-truth and disinformation abound.

Enough for now



This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Canada, Clerical sexual predators, Cornwall, homosexual, Scandal and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to What are they doing?

  1. Myomy says:

    BIngo! Glaude ended the session with a plea to the lawyers that he could not keep up with checking all the facts put to witnesses and warned them that if they put forward errors as facts it will be bad for their clients in the end. Perhaps Justice Glaude should fund you Sylvia for your invaluable assistance in fact checking the information put forward at the Cornwall Inquiry. You could use a techie to keep your computers running a secretary and several research assistants Including some with legal expertise. Hey Glaude how about it. With this torrent of bad information being put to witnesses you need help.

  2. prima facie says:

    In Re: Your blog today Sylvia, “What Are They Doing” and surrounding the cross-examination of S/Sgt. Luc Brunet by Lawyer Michael Neville.

    I draw you to a quotation that would certainly be held to Perry Dunlop, if he were being cross-examined. A noted American trial lawyer, “Louis Nizer,” 1902-1994, said, “In cross-examination, as in fishing, nothing is more ungainly than a fisherman pulled into the water by his catch.”

    In my opinion, and, ON THE OTHER HAND; as this “Cornwall Public Inquiry” is loaded to the rafters with, mal-practice, liability insurance carrier lawyers, mutually involved in “saving their clients” from potential, current and future criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation, witnesses such as S/Sgt. Luc Brunet, other “CPS” witnesses and other “institutional response witnesses” will be treated with “kid-gloves” so to speak, for reasons each of us can only imagine. Can anyone one say, “reasonable doubt?”
    I have counted numerous occasions where witnesses could have and should have been challenged with follow-up questioning.

    No, S/Sgt. Brunet and his colleagues will be “high-fiving” in the friendly corridors of the “weave shed.”

  3. Sherlock says:

    I would have asked Brunet if he had seen the “Crimine Solicitationies” on his trip with Shaver to Ottawa. As far as ‘institutional response’ to sex abuse allegations, it is the Vatican’s official top-down instruction to cover it up or be excommunicated. For a priest I suppose that means no more room, board, pension, wheels etc. The document should be in the evidence but it is available online at

  4. Sylvia says:

    Crimine Solicitationies is also on “The Diocese” page (http://www.theinquiry.ca/The_Diocese.php) on theinquiry.ca. Link is http://www.theinquiry.ca/Crimen%20Solicitationis%20English.pdf

    I think this is the same copy you reference Sherlock. Not a particularly easy read but it is readable. However the link you offer Sherlock is highlighted to draw attention to pertinent paras. That helps 🙂

Leave a Reply