Good chance?

Share Button

Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Thursday, 18 December 2008.  Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald will return to continue his testimony.

Yesterday’s transcript is posted.  There is much in there which is worthy of note, both from Murray MacDonald’s testimony to date and from OPP Deputy Commissioner Chris Lewis.  Regarding the latter, there is much to address regarding the OPP’s desire to improve its image by essentially trying to silence Garry Guzzo with accusations that he was spreading nothing but misinformation far and wide.

Note that Murray MacDonald spent about 18 months as Assistant Crown in Sudbury Ontario (1987-1988).  Another Sudbury connection!  Although his family roots go deep into the Cornwall area, Justice Normand Glaude was born and raised in Sudbury. Glaude practised law in the area.  Good chance at the very least the pair crossed paths?

Of interest on that note is the fact that Normand Glaude, Paul Andre Durocher (Bishop of Alexandria-Cornwall) and Murray MacDonald attended Ottawa U at the same time.  Glaude received his L.L.B. in 1980,  Durocher his B.Ed. in 1980, and Murray M his B.A. in 1981.

A big university, but, who knows who knew whom?

They’ve started.  MacDonald is rather painfully trying to recall how he directed Heidi Sebalj to investigate David Silmser’s sex abuse allegations.

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Cornwall, Cornwall Public Inquiry and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Good chance?

  1. Sylvia says:

    Bizarre! Murray MacDonald raised the issue yesterday of a judge. He said David Silmser’s allegations included reference to a judge being involved in some fashion. The strange thing about it was that he offered that info of his own volition. He claimed he couldn’t recall where he got it – thought Heidi Sebalj told him.

    They’re back on this today. Englemann trying to get details. MacDonald said he told Heidi to get details and Dave had none. According to MacDonald Dave couldn’t describe the judge. MacDonald said that he therefore concluded there was no judge!

    Why MacDonald felt compelled to raise the judge issue in the first place is a puzzler. That aside, I do recall a written reference by Dave somewhere to a judge. I think it was to the effect that he could bring a judge down – something like that. I took a quick look and can’t find it.

    However, a thought here. Any chance this is reference to Judge Fitzpatrick? Fitzpatrick’s name has been raised by other “alleged” victims. Note this blog re the chaos that erupted in the Weave Shed over the presence of Fitpatrick’s name in Bobby Renshaw’s affidavit. Scroll down to “The Judge”

  2. Sylvia says:

    Never mind promoted up the AG’s ladder of success, this man should be disbarred!

  3. prima facie says:

    December 18, 2008.
    1115hrs Eastern Time:

    Break Time: I suspected a break was coming: Watch, Murray will be composed and everyone may just start talking about Christmas. Again, in this “Glaude Inquiry”, a pivotal moment, ended by a break or overnight. I suspect Murray will be “advised” during the break and come back to clarify previous testimony, “for the record”.

    SHAMEFUL!! Commissioner Glaude, Engelmann and the Ontario Attorney General’s Office will attempt to “rescue him”.


    Horrid, just brutally horrid. Anyone who has a remote ability to judge character, deviant behaviours and similar i.e. mother, father, teacher, doctor, everyone, including untrained and ignorant, uneducated police officers located in Cornwall and Area “in-the-time”, can see Murray is having great difficulty. WHY? ….obvious, isn’t it!!

    Imagine, how the “trained and experienced” professionals are viewing this cross-examination. IS THERE ANY DOUBT?

    Let me vigorously assert. People telling the truth do not have problems like this.

    Many professional witnesses with authority and power, who have recently testified, have had similar problems as former local Crown Attorney/Prosecutor Murray MacDonald is currently having.

    This Murray MacDonald has recently been promoted to “Acting Regional Director of Crown Attorneys”. In my opinion, Murray is absolutely NOT the sharpest knife in the neighbourhood, let alone the nearest drawer.

    Dear God, Give Me The Strength!

    How did he “climb the ladder”?

    Murray said he never saw briefs or occurrence reports until he was completely ready to “go to trial”. Strange, but am I wrong, because, I hope I am. Didn’t various witnesses state they were in touch with Crown Prosecutor Murray MacDonald and that they sent him various briefs and reports, updating him and asking for advice on different issues involving “reasonable and probable grounds” among other things? Am I wrong?
    (see transcripts of past witnesses).

    Also, Murray is trying to “escape” on timelines. Read the transcripts on communication he received “on the eve”, so-to-speak, which he now attempts to translate into a period of taking five to eight months. HELLO!!

    He said he did not receive briefs that were “non-confirmatory”… get real. Blind to all information. This could be analogous to a degree with, “innocent until proven guilty” i.e.) not much chance. TERRIBLE and you know what? NOTHING WILL be done and we can do NOTHING!


  4. prima facie says:

    As further evidenced today, the “Glaude Inquiry” is a “quasi civil and criminal defence proceeding”. There is NO cross-examination from the perspective of the existence of a cover-up or from the perspective that there was a group of people who knew each other and met at regular times and locations, for the purpose of sexually assaulting young people in Cornwall and Area.

  5. RealityChecker says:

    Are you by any chance having a snow storm up in the Cornwall area.

    I keep getting bounced off the live stream!

  6. prima facie says:

    Exactly Commissioner Glaude. You just stated to Murray MacDonald, (1150hrs)to avoid bias “why did you get involved at all”; it would have been cleared up then, nothing more.

    Murray replies to Commissioner Glaude with a lengthy, convoluted and nebulous reply, saying not much. Shame!!
    Of course, that’s probably “the way they did it” way back in 2000. Today, they probably have new and improved technology….sickening!!

    Again, way back in 1978-1979, when I was trained as a police officer in another Province, I knew what a “conflict” was!! In fact, I learned as part of my cognitive development, what a “conflict” was/is.

    Murray is mixed-up about everything. He says, “I thought..”, “I can’t recall”, and he engages in “presuming”, “assuming” “surmising”, “guessing”, “blaming”, etc.

    DON’T WORRY Murray, before the day is out, the “CCR” and Helen Daley and other lawyers, will make the headlines for tomorrow, declaring you a hero!!

    The point is, in my opinion, Murray should have stayed away from “sitting” on any controversial (real or perceived) committee, etc.!! (power!!! above the law!!!job security!!!untouchable!!promotion!!!, etc)

    And this guy is NOW, the newly appointed “Acting Regional Director of Crown Attorneys” in the Province of Ontario?

    My God, give me the strength. I think there must be other issues disturbing Murray. This would be a good time.

  7. Sylvia says:

    So Murray M thought he might be in conflict, or might be perceived to have a bias, and because of this he had a lttle chitty chat with his friend Bob Pelletier to give him a heads up that the Charlie file and it might go to Pelletier if charges were laid.

    And although MacDonald was spearheading Heidi’s investigation he didn’t seem to see that his background work on the CPS “investigation” put him in a position to know if charges would be laid.

    And the conlict issue related to his work over two years earlier on Ecclesia Dei where he and his wife presumably ended up at odds with Catholic clergy over something about their desire to ensure that police and Crowns could proceed with investigations despite civil actions regarding clerical molesters. The MacDonalds apparently stormed out of an Ecclesia Dei meeting because their suggestion wasn’t recorded on a ballot. It’s a little confusing but seems their concerns presumably related to something to do with the church parachuting priests around.

    MacDonald claims he felt the Church would think he was on a withc hunt if he prosected Charlie. That’s presumably the only reason he thought he might ask Pelletier to take over should the need arise. We are now told this had nothing to do with conflict of interest, it was only MacDonald’s concerns he would been seen as on a witch hunt!

    According to MacDonald, any notes saying he said he had a conflcit of interest are all wrong, and Heidi’s notes saying Murray told her he would call in an outside Crown if the need arose are all wrong. Wrong!

    Anyway, despite MacDonald’s concerns about the perception of him on a witch hunt if he prosecuted, he carried right on, merrily and busily steering Heidi in the background.

    Make an ounce of sense? Does that make one single ounce of sense?

    Not only that, IF indeed, as he tells us, MacDonald was as concerned about the Church’s handling of clerical sex absue allegations, why did his antennae not go up when he got word of some sort of diocesan “settlement” in the offing with David Silmser?

    And why was he not at least a tad suspicious of the diocese’s involvement when the thoroughly gagged David no longer wanted to puruse criminal charges?

    None of this adds up. None of it.

    This man is contradicting himself and contradicting everyone else at every turn.

    Now he tells us Perry’s Will State regarding their meeting is all wrong – everything Perry said is either “an eggregious error or a bold faced lie.”

    I hope and pray people are tuned in to this. How could I ever ever begin to recap it?

    I hope Heidi is watching too.

  8. Sylvia says:

    RealityChecker: I’m not in Cornwall and my reception is fine. A few short breaks, but very short and back in a flash.

  9. prima facie says:

    So Sylvia…any bets on what the “Standard-Freeholder” headline for tomorrow will be? I bet, out of all of this evasive b.s., the headline will be the three words “bold faced liar.” See the story tomorrow about “Murray should get a medal, he says Perry Dunlop is a “bold faced liar.”

  10. Sylvia says:

    Let’s see what the afternoon brings. Murray has at least three more hours ahead of him today. At the rate he’s going there may well be the makings of a far better headliner in the offing :).

  11. Sylvia says:

    SO sometime in 1994, earlier than later, Peter Griffiths made himself available to give legal advice to Crowns?

    Did I hear that right?

  12. Sylvia says:

    And Project Truth presumably gave Murray a heads up that he was implicated in conspiracy allegations. The agreement was that he would not handle any PT prosecutions or give any legal advice.

    Murray told them to invetigate him fully. He tells us for some reason he said he forgot to ask for a lawyer!

    Then , presumably because there was no assigned Crown, Murray and/or the Cornwall Crown office became a bit of a go-between with the handling of some dislcosures.

    Some conspiracy investigation!!!!

    Now we’re on to Dick’s website. Either “Pat,” or one of the other PT officers Murray says he knew a little better than “Pat,” apparently gave him a “sympathetic” tip off on the website.

  13. Sylvia says:

    Murray MacDonald said with great vehemence and gusto: “I know Perry Dunlop to be a liar.”

    Moments later Murray was asked about the following para in Perry’s 2000 Will State:

    ” 30th May 1997 – I attended a restaurant in town and observed Senior Crown Murray MacDonald having lunch with Jacques Leduc( currently charged by Project Truth), Guy Simard and Andre White.”

    According to Murray, it should be a lie, shouldn’t it? After all, Perry is a liar. But, no, turns out that for some strange reason this time Perry told the absolute honest-to-godness truth!

    An ensuing convoluted explantion to justify the lunch meet with the diocesan lawyer who was involved in some fashion the illegal pay-off, but, yes indeed, Perry got that one right – Murray MacDonald did indeed lunch with Jacques Leduc on 30 May 1997.

  14. Sylvia says:

    4:35 – swish bang. Exam-in-chief is finished. That rihg on the heelsof Murray’s tirade on “conspiracy theorists” and differce of opinion as to why the Crown’s office was set to subpoena a relucatant victim (C-54) in one case and not in another ( David Silmser) and finally tersely telling Engelemann and/or Glaude ” I’m right and you’re wrong.”

    Murray gave his recommendations. First he asked the gathered throng to acknowledge his wife and the rough time she has had over the past few years. Then he talked about popping into the Media room at the Weave Shed to see who was there!!!!!!

    Then it was on to denouncing the main stream media for giving “conspiracy theorists” a platform for “one sided grandstanding” of, yes, the “conspiracy theorists.” He wants Glaude to do something, but he doesn’t know what.

Leave a Reply