I didn’t dare came near the website over the past few days. I really had to get things done and if I dared sit down at the keyboard I could be hours. So I exercised restraint. Off I went to get a Christmas tree, gifts and turkey.
Decorations are nearly done. The list of last minute shipping is penned and a dash through the stores tomorrow. All that must be done will be done 🙂
And as much as I kept myself clear of the keyboard the mind was busy. Cornwall is never far away from my mind and heart. I think of Perry and Helen, and Carson, and the victims, and Garry Guzzo, and all their families. It’s can’t be easy heading into Christmas after the testimony we’ve heard over the past few weeks. So many have been drawn and quartered in broad daylight. Were we to believe the spin and outright accusations they’re all nothing but outright liars and conspiracy theorists who concocted stories accusing innocent pillars of the community of horrific crimes – just for the fun of it .
Some time back I penned a bit of parody on just that. I called it Acts of Perfect Charity. But, my goodness there on the stand last week was the soon to be elevated Cornwall Crown attorney actually saying that Perry threw him into a conspiracy theory because the conspiracy theory wouldn’t wash unless there was a Crown involved!
How terribly and ridiculously pathetic. All the more so coming from the lips of a senior Crown attorney.
And then there was the nasty business Murray MacDonald had to say about David Silmser’s allegations against Father Charles MacDonald.
That has been bothering me a lot. It’s this business of Dave going to police alleging he had been sexually abused by Charlie, and months downstream – after the cat was out of the bag on the illegal church gagging – Charlie telling Bishop Eugene Larocque that he, Charlie, had consensual homosexual activity with Dave, and from that the notion -espoused by Murray and his confreres – that, essentially, if that’s what this Roman Catholic priest said that to the bishop then that’s all there was to it and that was the truth, and besides that, that’s what they all thought of Dave’s allegations anyway: consensual homosexual acts between consenting adults.
I keep wondering: Would it have made a difference if Dave was a Donna? Would Father Charlie still have told his bishop no cause for alarm – just plain old heterosexual acts between consenting heterosexuals?
And, I wonder would that have been the end of it? If Father Charles MacDonald told the bishop, yes , there was a thing with Donna, but it was no more than consensual sex between consenting adults, would the Roman Catholic Crown have said that. well, actually that’s exactly what they had all been thinking all along?
And would that have meant that Donna was ipso facto a money grubbing liar too?
That whole thing is niggling away at me. I don’t know the answer, but it just isn’t sitting right with me.
One more thought. Milton, Murray MacDonald’s father is, as we know, a convicted paedophile.
Presumably Murray knew nothing about his father’s perverted sexual proclivities for years.
How then did Murray come up with the notion his father “acted” alone? What did he mean by that? “Alone.” Is that what his father told him?
Certainly I feel badly for the family of Milton MacDonald. It must be extremely stressful to find out the man you know and love has been living a lie while inflicting a lifetime of pain and anguish on a number of boys, but really, how does Murray know for a fact that his father acted alone? Aside from his father telling him, how could he know? And if indeed Milton told Murray, what did he say: ‘Oh, by the way, it’s not as bad as you thing – I acted alone’? Or, did Murray actually put the question to him: ‘Did you act alone Dad?’ and Milton said: “Absolutely!’
I just really wonder how that all came about. Was it perhaps simply another case of Murray assuming, and letting his assumptions become his reality? Just as, for example, he assumedDavid Silmser had a lawyer, and he assumed Dave initiated negotiations for a civil settlement with the diocese?
Final thought. I spoke to Ron Leroux this past summer. It was the first time I had spoken to Ron for ages – since months before he testified.
Contrary to what Murray said and to what we heard when Ron was on the stand at the at the Weave Shed, Ron told me, as he has said for years, that he saw Murray MacDonald at Ken Seguin’s waterfront home.
Ron also told that there was a VIP meeting on Stanley Island in the late summer or early September 1993. I asked him. There was not a moment’s hesitation in his answer.
I blogged when Ron testified. I wondered what had happened to him. I think I wondered what they had put in his water because that was not the Ron Leroux I knew who took the stand. That Ron that I saw didn’t know whether he was coming or going – he should never have been allowed to testify in that condition. But, he took the stand and all sat and watched as he floundered his way along before calling it a premature quits.
Justice Glaude still hasn’t ruled on the admissibility of Ron’s evidence. Glaude lets the gathered throng talk ad nauseam about Ron’s “recantation.” There’s never a word from the commissioner that he hasn’t ruled on the admissibility of that evidence and that no one is at liberty to make those conclusions. I guess that means ruling or no Glaude is letting it float, and I guess that suits the purposes of many with a vested interest in a recanting Ron Leroux forced at gun point by that ogre Perry Dunlop to tells lies about pillars of the community.
When I talked to Ron his “story” about Stanley Island and the VIP meeting hadn’t changed. He also said he saw Murray MacDonald at Ken Seguin’s house. I have it on tape. With his concurrence. For the record.
More on all of this in the new year. Right now I’m going to go and string some lights on the tree :).
I will blog before Christmas Day.
Enough for now,