Can’t get a handle on it

Share Button

Hearings resume Monday morning.  The cross examination of Detective Inspector Fred Hamelink was wrapped up shortly after 12:30 pm.  Swish bang! 

I am still going through the transcripts.  This whole extortion “investigation” is puzzling me beyond measure.  I can’t get a handle on it yet – can’t make sense out of it all.  No matter what way I look at it it’s not making sense.

Yesterday I thought I heard that Malcolm MacDonald – lawyer for Father Charlie and Ken Seguin and who was at that time (1994) being looked at for obstructing of justice in the $32,000 pay-off – might have been  the source of the extortion allegation against David Silmser.  I just checked the transcript.  Here it is.  Ian Paul (Coalition) is conducting the cross-examine:

MR. PAUL: I wanted to ask you about going back to the beginning about the source of the extortion and complaint. You never became aware of who actually made the complaint, who first initiated the extortion complaint?

MR. HAMELINK: I can’t say that at this time. In preparation for this interview — sorry — for my presence here at the Inquiry, I subsequently became aware of that information as to who initiated the complaint and who initiated the investigation dispatching me.

MR. PAUL: All right. So you’re aware at this point?

 MR. HAMELINK: I’m aware now, yes.

 MR. PAUL: All right.

Would that have been relevant back at the time — I’ll just give you an example in terms of, would it be relevant if the source or the person that made the complaint is also a material witness against Mr. Silmser.

Would that make it relevant?

MR. HAMELINK: My information, sir, received on the 1st of February ’94, was to go to Long Sault to start conducting an extortion investigation. The following day,February the 2nd, I met with Staff Sergeant Duhamel who made me aware of the basis for the investigation. That’s my only contact as to how I got involved with it.

MR. PAUL: Just for an example then, you were referred by other counsel, I believe, to interaction of Malcolm MacDonald receiving information or some conversation between Malcolm MacDonald and Silmser about what was said. If Malcolm MacDonald was a potential witness would it be relevant, for example, if he was the one that made the initial contact? Would that be a situation where it would become relevant to credibility?

 MR. HAMELINK: Credibility of whom?

MR PAUL: Of a potential witness. For example, Mr. MacDonald, if, for example, just as an example, if he was the one that initiated the contact and is also a primary or material witness.

MR. HAMELINK: As I said before, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald’s credibility was never an issue for me.

Was it “alleged” paedophile Malcolm MacDonald who was behind this “investigation”?  Does anyone know?  I may have to check elsewhere to find out, but, if anyone has proof it was indeed Malcolm please let me know.

I will carry on going through the transcripts and trying to get a handle on this over the weekend.  Have a busy weekend but will do the best I can 🙂

Enough for now



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply