Share Button

Murray MacDonald is testifying.

Turns out he and the bunch who were presumably “investigating” and/or discussing David Silmser’s allegations against Father Charles MacDonald had more or less concluded that Dave had a consensual homosexual encounter with Father Charles MacDonald.



Where did they drum up that one?

Well, …presumably that’s what Shaver told him Bishop Larocque said Charlie said.  Charlie admitted to an homosexual encounter with Dave.  And that it seems fit right into their theory and they ran with it!!!

Then objections and howls from the diocese on Murray saying Shaver told him that’s what Larocque said Charlie said.  That evidence has all been re-jiggered to say that Charlie admitted to homosexual encounters with parishioners – NOT with Dave.

But, can you believe it?  Charlie said it was consensual so, well, why would Charlie lie?  If Charlie, a Roman Catholic priest, said it was consensual then obviously it was consensual. 

What a vile disgusting lot.

And note, not one of these witnesses is being asked:  (i) “Are you Roman Catholic?”  and if yes, (ii) What parish do you attend?” (iii) Are you a member of the Knights of Columbus?” or, for lawyers (iv)  “Do you have any affiliation with the St. Thomas More Lawyer’s Guild?”

Anyway, Murray M stammers and stutters along.  Institutional lawyers are doing their bouncing up and down with objections in defence of the “good” repute of their clients.

The same old same old.

And not one word of apology out of this man’s mouth to David Silmser.  Not one word of apology.

And looks like they’ll be out of there by early afternoon.  Fancy that!
Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Consensual?!

  1. Sylvia says:

    A little while back Murray acknowledged he knew Malcolm MacDonld well – professionally it seems. There was talk of Malcolm being a senior member of the bar having been called to the bar back in the 50s.

    My point..

    Interesting comment by Murray: “He had Judge Fitzpatrick’s ear.” Said with a chuckle.

    In that light look at Bobby Renshaw’s affidavit: (para 32)

    Also note this blog – scroll down to the header “The judge”

  2. prima facie says:

    Very good Sylvia. You see, this is what “counsel” should be challenging people like Murray MacDonald with….the many contradictions and misrepresentations.

    HOWEVER, in the case you cite, the “deponent” (i.e. “in a written statement,and swears to its veracity…”) is a client of the cross-examiner Dallas Lee and the “deponent” and his “co-plaintiff”, agreed to a large “settlement”, the night before he/they testified at the “Glaude Inquiry”, a.k.a. “The Cornwall Public Inquiry”.

    In my opinion; considering the potential “stipulations” relating to the timely “settlement”, I don’t expect Mr. Lee to conduct much exploration; in fact all “informed and competent” counsel at the “Glaude Inquiry” are in conflict.

  3. prima facie says:

    Murray MacDonald testifies, in cross-examination conducted by Dallas Lee, that “Justice” in general, has learned so much over the years, as a result of the “issues” relating to sexual abuse allegations in “Cornwall and Area”.

    IN my opinion and based on the “record”; up to 2000, nothing was really “done” in Cornwall and Area….no one knew anything, no one had thorough notes/files and similar, no one did anything of consequence, testimony by one contradicts testimony by another. The only real accomplishment by the “powers that be” was “creating” a real or perceived belief by citizens and alleged victims, that conspiracy and cover-up was rampant in the community.

    So what did he/they learn? Jail the “dissenting voices”?

    Everyone who had a “duty” were supposedly ignorant, uneducated, uninformed or can’t recall. So, I ask, what did they learn…from whom…about what?

    As typical with “deviance” by anyone; is “justice in general” not “sorry” now and did they not decide they better “act” in a more responsible fashion, only when they “were caught” and not because they decided to accept responsibility for their “negligence”?

  4. Sylvia says:

    So true prima facie.

    It’s a little like the molester who gets caught, enters the guilty plea because he hasn’t a hope of beating the charges, and then gets a pat on the shoulder and significantly reduced sentence because he’s somehow proven he’s “sorry” and ammended his ways.

  5. Sylvia says:

    Oh yes, how could I forget, Murray has acknowledged his close friendship with L’Orignal Crown attorney Robert Pelletier. No mention that Pelleiter was his best man, but, yes, they were very good friends from way back.

    And Pelletier was the Crown chosen to prosecute Charlie after he was finally charged? and to deal with the death threats against Perry Dunlop.

    Yes indeed, just one big happy family doing the “investigating” and keeping a close eye on the Cornwall scandal at every bend in the road.

  6. Sylvia says:

    Where is the Coalition? Right after lunch it was on to Michael Neville. No sign of Fran Horn or Ian Paul.

    So, for now away goes Neville, as always defending his priest-client at all costs.

  7. prima facie says:

    1450hrs Eastern Time:
    I’ve missed the “show” so far. Shovelling snow…what a load has fallen here in the Kitchener/Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA, region today.

    Coincidence?….about the close friends and connections you mention in this blog Sylvia. I think not…..oh, oh, am I a conspiracy theorist?

    Finally: We continuously hear that, even in 2000, but specifically in the 1990’s and before, local police and “Justice” lacked “state-of-the-art” policies, standard-operational-procedures, practices, protocol, education, information, “hardware-software”, networking, etc., etc., etc., on how to manage allegations of sexual abuse and/or the related issues being addressed in part, at the “Glaude Inquiry”.
    Big but simple and basic question: Did “they” know how to manage criminal allegations/offences?

    We hear that “mistakes” were made, but now in 2008 “they” know how to manage “things”, because of the extensive “eduaction” and “training” available.
    COMMENT: The above does not excuse, rationalize, justify or exonerate the “accused” and/or “guilty” and their surrogates, from being investigated and prosecuted for any criminal acts and/or criminal acts of ommission.
    COMMENT: If anyone genuinely believes that the real or perceived incompetence or mismanagement by “Justice” in general, including but not limited to the various police departments, judges, mayors, J.P’s, chiefs of police, probation/parole, C.A.S., “Church”, lawyers, accused, etc., relating to this whole affair, from 1992 or before, is a result of lack of the above-mentioned education, resources and similar, then I submit, you are apathetic, complacent, naive, fools…..among other things.

Leave a Reply