God help us!

Share Button

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.

The character assassination of David Silmser by this Crown is beyond belief.  Look at this letter MacDonald dispatched to CPS S/Sgt Luc BrunetJust take a look at it.

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,



This entry was posted in Alexandria-Cornwall Diocese, Bishops, Cornwall, Cornwall Public Inquiry, Project Truth and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to God help us!

  1. prima facie says:


    “LaRocque exonerated: church”, is the title of a “piece” so brazenly posted by an undisclosed writer/reporter with the “Cornwall Standard-Freeholder” dated on December 17, 2008 (online edition).

    “Exonerated”? I ask, who has declared that Bishop LaRocque has been “exonerated”? Was it the alleged victim, the church or a “party”, “tribunal”, “judge” or “similar”, who is licensed to practice law or preside as a Judge or similar, in the Province of Ontario?

    Furthermore, in the article, it is written, “The victim, his lawyer, Durocher and LaRocque could not be reached for comment.”
    Does the local Bishop have direct and immediate access to the local newspaper, which then facilitates the publication of his memos, thoughts, church bulletins or other biased propaganda?

    How does an “ignorant”-law wise, naïve or frightened populous interpret this “memo”. Does the “bishop” interpret it for them?
    DOES anyone see a problem here? Hello? No, clarification, NO confirmation, NO validation of facts, NO corroborating comments, nothing; yet the “Cornwall Standard-Freeholder” sticks this little “tid-bit” into its daily publication, relying totally on the representations and supposed interpretations of local Bishop Paul-Andre Durocher.

    Gee, any possible real or perceived bias here, you “boneheads” or is this another “for the greater good, let’s move on”, despite the truth or the facts, initiative?

    REALLY! In my opinion, so blatantly corrupt.

    However, I believe the above has been “status quo” for the “Cornwall Standard-Freeholder” since in or before 1992.
    The “Glaude Inquiry”, a.k.a. “The Cornwall Public Inquiry” will be over very soon. Lawyers at the “Glaude Inquiry” and local newspaper stories have attempted to glorify witnesses like Det. Inspector Pat Hall and others.

    “Last dash to the finish line”, so-to-speak, and I believe everyone is trying to get publications exonerating themselves, despite the historical truths and the facts. Witnesses then take these publications to their United States (and other global venues) vacation spots or residencies, passing them around the neighbourhood, trying to influence local and uninformed neighbours. Really!!, how accommodating by the local news media.

    Additionally, at the “Glaude Inquiry”, Commissioner Glaude is allowing supposition, conjecture, presumptions, speculation, guessing, surmising, leading cross-examination, factual errors, misrepresentation, etc., to “run wildly” during cross-examination of witnesses, all of which is being recorded “into the record”. In fact, in my opinion, “the facts” are being ignored (too long to secure) and the above, supposition, assumptions, speculation, etc. are being entered instead and will hereafter be relied upon, “to be the facts” in future cases of different kinds.

    This last month is “cover your butt” month…oh, “for the greater good” of course.


Leave a Reply