Lunch break at the Weave Shed. Cross examination droned along throughout the morning. I expect it will be more of the same this aft. Damage control by all parties. Perry this and Perry that. A spin here. An extrapolation there. A few sophism the other place.
It all gets tiring. Impossible to get to the truth when at least 10 parties have no more on their mind than protecting their clients at all costs, and if that means lynching Perry, so be it. By whatever means. It worked at the “trial” of Jacques Leduc. It worked at the “trial” of Father Charles MacDonald. It will work for those who want it to work in the Weave Shed.
As I have said so often in the past, it is far from a level playing field in there. And so it goes on, and on, and on.
Nasty dirty stuff.
A few comments I didn’t get up earlier:
(1) Won’t give an inch
Seems Detective Inspector Pat hall might turn into a pumpkin if he stays a minute past 4:30 pm.
Bad weather conditions meant that yesterday was a late start – 1030 am.
As the afternoon wore on the commissioner posed the question to Hall: “Are you prepared to sit till 5:00 or so, sir,today?”
Negative. Pat Hall will not give an inch.
Perhaps wise? Perhaps every witness should have done likewise?
Would anyone else have gotten away with it?
(2) Any connections between Peter and David Griffiths?
Who is the retired judge, Justice W. David Griffiths, who helped the Crown (McConnery) review briefs on the conspiracy allegations and several sex abuse allegations against prominent Cornwall men? Any relation to Justice Peter Griffiths? The former regional Crown who was involved in Cornwall almost if not from the get go?
I looked up a Canadian Who’s Who and W. David does not appear to be Peter’s father. Are they Uncle and nephew? Or brothers? Or cousins? Or no relation? Anyone have background?
Here’s how that little piece of information slipped into the record yesterday. Note that as soon as reference is made to a retired judge up pops Darrell Kloeze (AG) claiming solicitor-client privilege on the name, and in a twinkle of an eye Callaghan (CPS) spits out the name of Justice David Griffiths of the Court of Appeal:
MR. CALLAGHAN: All right. That’s enough.
So was it your understanding that Mr. McConnery, the Crown attorney, and Mr. Phillips, the Crown attorney, were consulting with the judge regarding your material you provided them?
MR. HALL: That’s correct.
MR. CALLAGHAN: All right.
So when we get to the opinion, by the time you get Mr. McConnery’s opinion on August 15th of 2001, which is Exhibit 1140, it’s your understanding that your material has been extensively reviewed not only by yourself, not only by your team but also by Mr. McConnery, Mr. Phillips, and I believe this is a retired judge; correct?
MR. HALL: Yes.
MR. CALLAGHAN: All right.
And that was your understanding?
MR. HALL: Yes, Mr. McConnery spoke to us and the investigators personally about it.
MR. CALLAGHAN: Did you know the name of that judge?
MR. HALL: I was never given a name.
MR. CALLAGHAN: Okay.
MR. KLOEZE: Excuse me, Mr. Commissioner.
Mr. Callaghan is getting into an area now on a document or an area which the Attorney General claims solicitor-client privilege. There is — I understand there had been a review of Mr. McConnery’s opinion. We are aware of that and we’ve claimed privilege over that review by the person who reviewed the brief.
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.
MR. CALLAGHAN: Well, just so we’re clear, there are disclosed documents that refer to the retainer of Mr. Justice David Griffiths of the Court of Appeal. I just want to be clear that that’s who we’re talking about because that’s who I believe reviewed this. If that’s who we’re talking about claiming privilege, I guess we’ll deal with it when Mr. McConnery comes up, but I think we should have clarification if that is the retired judge, there would be no privilege to his name, and I believe it’s retired Judge David Griffiths of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Kloeze, do you confirm that?
MR. KLOEZE: I can confirm that, yes.
MR. CALLAGHAN: So I will leave that for now, Mr. Commissioner. We’ll deal with that with another witness.
Because as I understand it, Mr. Hall, you don’t really have any idea about that. You just know, in your mind, that when you got Mr. McConnery’s opinion, he had actually been speaking to a retired judge; correct?
MR. HALL: Yes.
MR. CALLAGHAN: All right.
MR. HALL: He told me that.
Why the AG’s desire for solicitor client privilege here? Why did they want that kept hush hush?
(3) Run around
Note the Price documents. Look at the run-around these poor souls endured over Shelley Price’s allegations of childhood ritual sex abuse:
(i) Project Truth wouldn’t touch Shelley Price’s allegations – they deaked out with the claim Project Truth dealt with boys and men only.
(iii)Shelly wanted nothing to do with CPS. There was no other option available to her.
(iv) The Prices asked that CPS Constable Perry Dunlop be assigned to the investigation. Request denied.
(v) David Price wrote to the Ontario Solicitor GeneralRobert Runciman.
(vi) Runciman couldn’t get involved! A deputy advised the Prices to continue discussions with CPS Chief Repa, and suggested they may want to file a complaint with OCCPS in Toronto!
And John Callaghan had the audacity to say that Shelley Price “wouldn’t even come forward to make the allegation in a more formal way”?
Do you suppose John Callaghan knows why Shelley Price didn’t want to deal with CPS? I would guess he does. In fact, I would be shocked if he doesn’t. But, he slips that demeaning comment in to skewer the facts, and it stands?
Amazing and disgusting what these lawyers get away with.
Anyway, I am going to post the entire exchange of testimony on this matter on the Shelley Price page.
(4) The “ sanctity of prosecutorial independence.”
Note too what’s happening out in British Columbia re compelling Crown’s attorney to testify at inquiries and in court. It’s all tied into what they call “the sanctity of prosecutorial independence.”
I bet the AGs office is waiting on the ruling of this appeal with baited breath. If things go their way why, maybe there won’t be soul from the Ontario AG’s office to hit the stand?!
One way or the other I have a hunch there will be a bit of a battle mounted to keep one Ontario Crown after the other off the stand. The “sanctity of prosecutorial independence” you know!.
We shall see 🙂
I have another article to post on this. Will get it up later
Since at least 11 November 2008 the Cornwall Public Inquiry transcripts have listed Michael Neville as legal counsel for a “Father Charles MacDougald.”
A reader with a sharp eye brought this to my attention. I checked each transcript back to 11 November 2008 and, yes, indeed, day after day there is Michael Neville representing a “Father Charles MacDougald.”
A few corrections due 🙂
They’re back. David Sheriff Scott (Diocese and Bishop Larocque) is starting his cross-examination.
Enough for now,