I want to cry. I want to gag.
This is sickening.
Was anyone out there watching Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald’s testimony?
I can not believe my ears. This man has just been promoted? He’s going to be regional Crown for the Eastern region?
God help us! And dear God above help the poor victims of clerical sexual abuse who have been cajoled or gagged by ruthless church officials whom Murray MacDonald may stumble upon in his new duties.
MacDonald explained today that when he put this masterpiece of character of assassination together he had assumed this, he had assumed that, he had assumed the other thing.
If indeed, as he now says, he was assuming, well, his assumptions were dead wrong! And he admitted it. Not in any contrite fashion mind you. MacDonald just said “I was wrong.” That was it. He then admitted in essence that he was wrong to assume that because David Silmser had received a pay-off from the diocese and no longer wanted to pursue criminal charges that that made Silmser a money grubber. And he didn’t know that Silmser had been illegally gagged. He didn’t even think of it And he just assumed that all the lawyers involved in the pay-off were above board and acting in good faith. And he had never talked to Silmser about his allegations and he had no idea Silmser didn’t want to deal with a female officer. And he thought Silmser initiated the settlement with the diocese.
And this man was directing Heidi Sebalj’s “investigation”? The Crown was actually directing her?
Honestly, he was. That’s what he told us. He, the Crown attorney, was directing Sebalj, and he was telling her what she should do and so on and so forth.
And despite directing Sebalj he tells us that throughout the course of the “investigation” he didn’t see anything but Silmser’s victim statement? Nothing?!
Sebalj was running to him for assistance, and he never once asked her for or saw any other documentation?
And then he pummelled David Silmser into the ground?
Dave, according to Crown MacDonald, was “a very non-credible complainant, saddled with an evident ulterior motive” for making his sex abuse allegations.
This is too much.
How disgusting. How terribly sickeningly disgusting. David Silmser has carried that with him. It has been passed from pillar to post, from Murray MacDonald all the way down and up the line, on to Crown Pelletier, on to Project Truth officers and on to Michael Neville.
Why would a Crown attorney pen such a cruel judgement of a victim – oops, “alleged” victim – with nothing, absolutely nothing but his own subjective whim and fancy to back it up?
Another thing. MacDonald is indicating his initial deep concerns about a judge who was allegedly present while Silmser was being molested. MacDonald doesn’t know where he got that piece of information. He thinks it may be in one of Silmser’s statements. Or it may be that Sebalj told him that Silmser told her. He doesn’t know, but, he heard it.
What became of that? Did MacDonald investigate? Did anyone? Did MacDonald pass the word along to anyone to take a little look at the ‘good’ judge? If not, why not? For that matter, did Project Truth check out the ‘good’ judge? If not, why not?
I urge those who missed watching the proceedings today to tune in the morning. This you need to watch and hear. The transcripts will not do it justice.
And, yes, a reminder. Murray MacDonald was involved in prosecuting the Alfred Christian Brothers training school sex abuse cases. So was his fellow Crown and friend Robert Pelletier. So was OPP Detective Inspector Tim Smith. And so was OPP officer Mike Fagan (Fagan was involved in the pre-Project Truth days. He was in the court of Father Charlie’s preliminary hearings).
And, oh yes, Ben Hoffman on Glaude’s Advisory Panel. Hoffman was busy busy with Alfred as well.
Wonder what other ‘kind’ words Murray MacDonald passed on to his Alfred colleagues about David Silmser? his Alfred colleagues who went on to investigate the sex abuse allegations against Father Charlie? and the one who’s advising the commissioner?
I’m going to get supper together. I’ve had it.
One more thing. Note this. Cornwall Bishop Paul-Andre Durocher claims Bishop Larocque has been “exonerated.”
“I do not hold (Larocque) responsible whatsoever for the abuse I have suffered.”
Where is the exoneration? That doesn’t say “I made a mistake, ” or “He didn’t do it.” The victim simply says he will not hold Larocque responsible.
I am guessing the diocese has run the “alleged” victim in circles and it is unfortunately simpler to bow out.
I also believe this is probably the outcome of an action that was initiated back in 2005 by Adrien St. Louis. I blogged an update on that and posted a few articles last summer. Take a look. Larocque sued St. Louis. And Larocque sued Ledroit Beckett.
I was wondering what became of that mess. I think this is it. The battle is over. A win for Larocque and the diocese. The deep pockets of parishioners come in handy at times like this. They can go on and on forever, just dipping away. It was Larocque himeslf who set the deep-pockets-for-accused-clergy-policy in train. It has served him well :). The diocesan money tree never runs out. It serves its purpose.
But, exoneration? Well, that’s a different matter. If indeed it is Adrien St. Louis I must ask next time I see him. My gut instinct is no. I think he just threw in the towel.
Enough for now,