OPP Detective Inspector Tim Smith took the stand around 12 noon. In no time, another dandy tid bit. It implies Larocque knew that the 32,000 obliged David Silmser not to bring charges against Father Charles MacDonald.
According to Smith’s notes, he met with Nancy Seguin. The meet as at her request.
Nancy Seguin is the wife of Doug Seguin, brother of probation officer Ken Seguin who committed suicide 25 November 1993.
Detective Inspecotr OPP officer Fred Hamelink apparently introduced Smith to Nancy Seguin and was present for part if not all of the lengthy conversation which ensued between Seguin and Smith. (Hamelink was conducting the parallel extortion investigation while Smith was conducting the sex abuse investigation.)
According to Smith’s notes of the meeting Nancy Seguin said that she had gone to see Bishop Larocque on 10 January 2008. She asked Larocque why he had settled out of court – it made everything look suspicious.
Again according to Smith’s notes, Nancy Seguin said that Larocque told her that the lawyer had advised him to do that because it would avert scandal, protect Charlie’s reputation, and would be quicker and cheaper. Seguin also alleged that Larocque told her that in return David Silmser was to stay quiet and not bring charges against Father Charlie.
In the twinkle of a defence lawyer’s eye Danielle Robitaille, lawyer for Leduc, was up objecting: This had not been put to Leduc when he was on the stand, nor had Nancy Seguin been called as a witness.
And in the twinkle of the commissioner’s eye Robitaille was re-assured by Justice Normand Glaude that no one was looking at Leduc, and no one was going to convict her client, that he, the commissioner, was not there to convict Leduc or declare Leduc him innocent.
And isn’t that just the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Who cares if there may be evidence that Larocque did know about a clause obliging David Silmser not to pursue charges against Charlie?
So what if Larocque knew and let it slip to Nancy Seguin?
So what if perhaps Larocque lied under oath?
We now know all to well that getting to the truth of anything in Cornwall is not in the commissioner’s mandate. His stated intent is to focus on how various institutions responded to whatever came their way, be it lies, truth, conjuncture.
Truth is irrelevant.
So much for sunshine, and for Premier Dalton McGuinty who, as leader of the opposition, was all cudos for Bill 103, and in a November 2000 letter referred to it as the “sunshine bill”
since I believe it will burn off the fog of innuendos and allegations that has been shrouding the Cornwall area and shed light on the truth. The inquiry will enable us to see justice served and will also clear the names of people who may have nothing to do with sexual abuse.
Shed light on the truth?
When truth is irrelevant?!!!!!
What a lark!!!
And another tid bit from Smith’s testimony…
Smith apparently decided that Leduc didn’t have the wherewithal to write in the illegal clause in the Full Release and Undertaking not to Disclose! Because Leduc wasn’t a criminal lawyer. Smith concluded that it was Malcolm MacDonald who wrote it.
That, by the sound of it, was before any investigation had been conducted!
Note that Smith took the stand at noon.
Retired OPP Detective Constable Joe Dupuis was on the stand from 9 am.
Another interesting little tid bit in the Dupuis testimony.
I believe the testimony was that Charlie was scheduled for trial in the Spring of 2001. At that time Neville requested an adjournment to carry on with a murder trial.
The new Crown, by then Crown attorney McConnery who had replaced Shelly Hallet, asked if Charlie would waive his 11 b Charter rights. Seems there was no answer on that, and I must say that, and at this point I am uncertain if McConnery knew then that, according to Dupuis, Charlie had presumably waived his 11 (b) rights back in 1997 or early ’98.
The long and short of this latest testimony is that in 2001 the judge ordered an adjournment without conditions. It seems that means the judge didn’t force Neville to commit on the 11 (b) issue? With five years under his belt since he was charged the judge adjourned – at Neville’s request! – without asking an 11 (b) commitment from Charlie?
And, the trial was rescheduled for 18 March 2002.
Charlie ‘walked’ in May 2002. He wrapped himself in his Section 11 (b) Charter rights and ‘walked.’
Rather than face his accusers in a court of law Charlie ran cover under the Charter.
How many delays were wrought by Michael Neville? I’m not sure, but it always seemed to me it was a lot.
It took three hours to wrap up Joe Dupuis’s cross examination.
That puts the whole inquiry running one-half-a-day behind schedule.
Key OPP witnesses yet to testify.
Christmas around the corner.
17 days of hearings before the Christmas recess.
The office of the Attorney General witnesses on the wings. The AG and a raft of key witnesses biting their nails. Will they make it to the stand? All of them?
19 days of hearings after Christmas.
The ax drops end January. It’s all over then. For everyone. Finished or not, it’s finished.
Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
Back to the agony 🙁
Smith just testified that Bishop Larocque came across as very honest (or truthful? ) and forthright in his interview.
Enough for now,