The bonds grow and grow and grow

Share Button

Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9: 30 am) this morning, Tuesday 13 January 2009.  Assistant Crown attorney Lorne McConnery will take the stand.

Yes.  Justice Peter Griffiths’ testimony is finished.  Swish bang.  On and off in the twinkle of an eye.

Expect the same for McConnery.

Thank you Premier Dalton McGuinty.  Thank you for allowing us this ever so brief bird’s eye view of the judges and Crowns involved in the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up who work in or are paid by your AG’s office.  A few more days a-piece would have been nicer and more in keeping with getting to the truth and lifting the fog, but we will settle with your decision of a few hours a-piece.  What choice do we have?

I am as usual running behind 🙁   I did an all nighter the night before last.  By the time things wrapped up late afternoon I took care of supper, caught up on the latest news on that dear little  Caylee, and then I crashed!!!

So here I am.  I posted the transcript.  Please do read it when you get a moment.  It is just becoming increasingly clear with each passing witness that the allegations of David Silmser and Perry Dunlop and everyone connected to them didn’t have a hope.  Not a hope.  They and their allegations were scoffed at, ridiculed, belittled, mocked, dismissed, and/or minimized from day one.  Perry and Dave and others became the subject of outright character assassination.

After all we have heard how anyone can claim that the allegations of conspiracy and cover-up were ever taken seriously enough to investigate thoroughly is now well beyond the scope of my imagination.

Anyway, a few quick observations on Peter Griffiths and his testimony

(1)  Peter Griffiths is Justice Normand Glaude’s immediate superior.

Although Glaude was appointed to the bench in 1990 and Griffiths in 1998, Griffiths has climbed on up the judicial ladder past Glaude.  Griffiths is now Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.  The second in command.  In as much as any judge seems to answer to anyone, Glaude answers to Griffiths.

In this “independent” and “impartial” inquiry the pay cheques for both men emanate from the office of the Attorney General.  The AGs office of course has standing at the inquiry because it is implicated in the Cornwall scandal and cover-up.  And of course it was the office of the AG which officially commissioned the inquiry, appointed Justice Normand Glaude as commissioner with claims he had no connections to Cornwall, and crafted what I refer to as the flawed mandate.

(2)  There has been much talk of Malcolm MacDonald’s 1995 absolute discharge.  That was granted by Justice Brian W. Lennox

Lennox moved right to the top of the Ontario judicial ladder.  He was made Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice in May 1997.  He left that position in May 2007, the same year that Peter Griffiths was appointed Associate Chief Justice.

(3)  Griffiths started out his examination in chief as ever the gentleman.  Polite.  Gracious.

That changed. 

Look at this.  I nearly fell of my chair when I heard this exchange.

Dallas Lee (Victims Group)  was asking Griffiths about what is being referred to as the Pelletier memo, an 02 April 2007  memo in which  L’Original Crown attorney Robert Pelletier was giving Griffiths an update on Father Charles MacDonald’s case

I will have to dig that out and get it posted.  Quite intriguing it is. A glimpse at the mind set of those responsible for the outcome of the allegations of a ring and cover-up.

Anyway, Lee asked Griffiths about Pelletier’s use of the word “crusade” in relation to Perry Dunlop.  Look at the exchange, and Griffith’s sarcastic and very rude response:

MR. LEE: The next paragraph, we have Mr. Dunlop was exonerated by the Police Services Act court and has since begun a crusade aimed at exposing what he perceived to be a conspiracy in Cornwall. Do you see that, sir?

MR. JUSTICE GRIFFITHS: Yes.

MR. LEE: And crusade is rather strong wording, wouldn’t you say?

MR. JUSTICE GRIFFITHS: I don’t think he was writing this to you.

MR. LEE: To?

MR. JUSTICE GRIFFITHS: You.

Isn’t that disgusting?  Disgusting!  This is our Associate Chief Justice. 

Dallas Lee replied  “No, I don’t think he was.”  True enough.  I would guess that at that time Pelletier’s disparaging dart was for Griffith’s eyes only. 

(4)  Griffiths was aware that Pelletier and Murray MacDonald were close friends and had been for some time. 

(5) That bonds in that One Big Happy Family grow and grow and grow. 

Turns out Griffiths is indeed friends with both Murray MacDonald and Pelletier.

It seems that perhaps his friendship with Murray MacDonald has grown over the years.  When asked by Dallas Lee if he socialized with Murray Griffiths response was, witness the following, slightly cautious and evasive:

MR. LEE: What was your relationship with Mr. MacDonald? Anything other than professional — did you socialize at all?

MR. JUSTICE GRIFFITHS: At this time, I think I’d been to his home once for dinner. I had never met him before coming to Ottawa in 1993 and he was one of nine Crowns that worked for me; Crown Attorneys as opposed to assistants.

I think the “at this time” refers to the 1997 time frame.  I would guess Grifith’s response menas that there were other dinners?

As for Pelletier, they too are friends.  Griffiths obviously holds him in high esteem and the pair became occasional skiing buddies and:

MR. LEE: What about Mr. Pelletier and yourself? Were you friends; did you socialize?

MR. JUSTICE GRIFFITHS: Yes, although I don’t know whether that was before or after this. We went skiing a few times together and socialized to that extent.

Were we friends? Yes, he replaced me on an interim basis on two occasions and that was at my request. I had sufficient confidence in his judgment and his ability that I thought that he would be the one that should replace me.

(6)  The same people who were involved in the initial David Silmser allegations against Father Charles MacDonald and subsequent “investigations” of conspiracy were involved directly or indirectly from one “investigation” to the next.

(7)  Murray MacDonald seems to be ensconced in a bubble.  We have seen it in the past every time his name arose, and we see it now.   Despite the fact that Murray was implicated in some fashion in allegations of cover-up he was, it seems, never treated as a suspect by anyone, be it Crown, judge or police officer.

(8)  Robert Pelletier’s close friendship with Cornwall Crown Murray MacDonald was presented as no big deal.  I get the impression that no one seemed to see it as problematic and that it was Pelletier who eventually decided to step down from Project Truth cases because of it.

Despite that known conflict and Pelletier’s animus toward Perry as shown in his April 1997 memo,  Griffiths allowed Pelletier to carry on with the Perry Dunlop death threats “investigation.”

(9)  A reminder that police have done nothing, absolutley nothing, about John MacDonald’s complaints of obstruction of justice against Griffiths, Pelletier and Murray MacDonald. 

****

I am having some problems with my Real Player.  Will have to address that or I can’t follow the testimony.  Must get at that.  Times like this I wish I were a computer geek 🙂

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Clerical sexual predators. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The bonds grow and grow and grow

  1. prima facie says:

    Upon reflection of the testimony presented by one of Ontario’s top judges Peter Griffiths, I submit, one of the significant problems of not “watching” the “Glaude Inquiry” proceedings via the “www” or being present at the inquiry proceedings is that, we miss the entire “message” of a conversation or a communication, in its complete context.

    I believe that between 65% and 93% of the meaning of a “communication/message” is carried by nonverbal messages; i.e.) gestures, facial expressions, eye behaviour, tone of voice, fight/flight, body orientations, posture, etc.

    Make no mistake about it, “all nonverbal behaviour communicates.” In addition, “nonverbal communication reveals attitudes and feelings.” Furthermore, “nonverbal communication is inherently ambiguous; it can support, enhance, or contradict verbal statements in many different ways.”

    Is Peter Griffiths trying to hide something?

    Again I suggest, recurring at this Inquiry, we see yet another witness, this time, the esteemed Peter Griffiths, display “glimpses” of ambiguous and controversial testimony, from a seemingly, defensive, aggressive, sarcastic and condescending posture.

    I believe the public are missing out on assessing the “whole picture”, because many cannot or decide not to, observe the witnesses “live”.

    The public are missing these “glimpses” of condescending, sarcasm and arrogance, that, may I be so bold to say is, so indicative of “elitists” who I believe are, drunken with power, control, influence, privilege and protection.

    I submit that as with others, Mr. Griffiths is totally out of touch with the needs of his subordinates and “we/us”, the working class. Furthermore, I believe he seriously underestimates us or the need for him to be “open” and “transparent” during cross-examination; despite how “powerful” he is. Remarkable!!

    I see this as being so indicative of how these “elitist, unchallenged, powers” act and react, when being challenged, confronted or simply asked to explain and account for their behaviours. “They” are not accustomed to being held accountable.
    Should we the public blame ourselves for letting “them” run wild; ex) apathy, complacency.

    “How dare anyone question me” is the implication.

    As I see it, when these “powers” are asked to “answer” to the public, people like Peter Griffiths depend on sarcasm, condescending others, arrogance, ambiguities and blame, as one defensive method of operation. Why, why so obviously defensive. Just answer.

    Finally; it is reported Ontario Associate Chief Justice Peter Griffiths says conspiracy allegations surrounding child sex abuse cases in Cornwall are “outrageous”.

    My reply: Regarding any issue against anyone, anywhere, I ask, have we ever heard an accused ever deny allegations against them or call them outrageous? Or, have we ever heard investigators or “the system” deny allegations that they did a lousy job? Typical, wouldn’t you say?

    However, in Peter Griffiths case, we have the Ontario Attorney Generals Office, a.k.a. “Justice” involved here, whereas, justice is cross-examining justice-with Judge (Justice) Glaude presiding. Is there potential for a real or perceived conflict between these parties, brothers, sisters, “institutional family members”, questioning “one of their own” in such sensitive matters?

    Will “these parties” go to any lengths to investigate, discover, charge, prosecute, their own “family members”…again, “real or perceived” conflicts?

    No, I suspect, the “powers” and their subordinates want us all to believe we are “conspiracy theorists”. Ha!! Talk about going to any lengths i.e. time and money, to “present a depiction” of conspiracy theorists as opposed to investigating conspiracy.
    Isn’t it so obvious?

  2. RealityChecker says:

    I’m not aware of too many cases where the POLICE will step into the fray and actually CHARGE a lawyer for criminal activities (whether it be fraud, criminal contempt, breach of trust etc.) My question is – once the police do come into the picture – start a criminal investigation and do lay charges against a lawyer – what becomes of the lawyers status with the Upper Canada Law Society??? Is he still allowed to practice while he is under criminal investigation by the police??? Or is he suspended or should he be suspended while a criminal investigation ensues?

    I came across this this morning and it leads to these type of questions….

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/01/14/8017996-sun.html

  3. RealityChecker says:

    I guess my real question is – in the Cornwall affair a number of lawyers were under criminal investigation by the police. Were we ever told WHAT their status was with the Upper Canada Law Society while they were being investigated and eventual charges laid? (ie. MacDonald, Leduc)

    Why wasn’t the public told?

  4. Sylvia says:

    I think someone has to literally report the individual to the Law Society, and if no one reports, nothing done. Am I right or wrong? I don’t know, but I have had the impression that the Law Society acts only if and when an official complaint is filed. If police or others in the know don’t report a lawyer, and the general public doesn’t know that’s what can and should be donr then it doesn’t get done.

    Perhaos there should be a duty to report there too? For the protection and well-being of the unwitting masses?

  5. RealityChecker says:

    I’m finding this VERY Interesting cause once ANY complaint comes in to the Law Society from ANY source – immediately – that lawyer’s insurance agent comes on board!!!

    The insurance agent is the one who negotiates the deal!!!

    Found that out this morning!!!

  6. Sylvia says:

    Malcolm’s lawyer called the Law Society specifically to give heads up to the insurer. That’s when he found out the society already knew.

    I think Reality Checker much the same thing happens in diocese when an allegation of clerical sex abuse arises. The insuring agent lawyers are in on it from the get go and I do believe have a big if not total say in ‘negotiations’ and the manner in which things move forward.

    Financial considerations, not truth and justice, rule supreme.

  7. RealityChecker says:

    I don’t think it hit me just HOW much the insurance agent is involved – behind the scenes.

    If I remember right – one of these big shots from Ottawa is/was the lawyer for the insurance agent for the Upper Canada Law Society. Can’t recall off hand who.

    ….and btw….what did the law society do about Malcolm???

    …hmph.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *