Hearings resume at 0930 hours this morning, Monday, 18 January 2009. Shelley Hallett will take the stand.
Today will be a long day. Cosette Chafe (Victim Witness Assistance Program) who started testifying Friday afternoon is scheduled to resume her testimony at 6 pm. I believe the plan is to have Hallet on the stand until 5 pm, take a one hour supper break, and return to carry on with Chafe. They will sit until 9 pm. I am sure the hope there is that that will be sufficient time to complete Chafe’s testimony.
I can’t imagine that Shelley Hallett will be finished in one day so would guess she will be back on Tuesday morning. And there’s a good chance she will be back on Wednesday. But, I could be wrong. I don’t quite know any more whose testimony commission counsel believes warrants a little more in depth than an on and off the stand in one day. And, only 10 days to go!
After Hallett it will be Lidia Narozniak. Narozniak was the Crown at what I call the second Leduc “trial.” Mark my words there will be lots of excoriation of Perry from Norozniak. It was hard to tell who Norozniak was working for: Leduc? or the Crown? The transcripts are rife with errors. Perry was torn limb from limb. She did nothing. Nothing to try to clarify or set the record straight. Nothing to ensure Perry’s rights were protected. Nothing!
That one I will never ever forget. Four horrific days of it.
I believe it was after that round that Helen vowed: “Never again!”
People are wondering what to expect of Hallett’s testimony. I don’t know. When it comes to Perry I don’t anticipate anything other than the institutional status quo. I know that Hallett had bought into the ‘Perry is a rogue cop manipulating the victims’ spin. That’s what she would have been fed by other Crowns and AG staffers when she took over from Robert Pelletier, and that’s what she would have been told by CPS and OPP officers. That was the going line. I believe Hallett unfortunately fell for it. Why would she not?
Now that she knows first-hand how vicious things can get in Cornwall Hallett may have had pause to think and re-assess. That would be refreshing, but, ….she’s still an employee of the AG’s office. I won’t count on it.
That aside I do hope Hallett tells all about the OPP Project Truth officers throwing her to the wolves to spare their own hides. She didn’t deserve that. No one does. At least in that she knows a small measure of what Perry has endured.
I added a new page on Father Gary Ostler. I came across some information which I wanted to post and realized I never did add his name to the list of Priests charged, sued or accused. Since compiling that list my software changed and I can no longer add to the blue drop-down menu. I have therefore posted the link to Father Gary Ostler down a little on the right-hand-side of The Diocese page.
Added to the Father Gary Ostler information is an external link to an audio of Father Rudy Villineuve’s homily after Father Gary Ostler’s death. It’s not too long and is worth a listen to.
While adding the Father Gary Ostler page I decided that since his brother Father David Oslter is named as someone who was seen at Ken Seguin’s home and/or Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage I had best also start a page for him and relocate the information I had posted about his travails in Arizona to a new page. That has been done.
I would like to add more information about both the Ostlers, i.e., which parishes they served in and when but don’t have the time to go through books to do that right now. I will leave things as they are for now.
We have heard that Brockville Crown attorney Curt Flanagan used Malcolm MacDonald’s “exemplary” background as grounds to champion an absolute discharge for a lawyer and former Crown attorney who pled guilty to a charge of attempt to obstruct justice.
I am hard pressed to understand how Flanagan could have concluded that Malcolm had an “exemplary” background when the man’s drinking was definitely the talk of the town and, in addition, there were at the very least, whispers about his sexual proclivity for young boys.
In regard to the former there is something I have been meaning to ask….
Does anyone have information about Malcolm MacDonald’s run-ins with the law while under the influence?
I have long heard of Malcolm’s affinity for the bottle. Over the years I heard many a tale from many a soul of Malcolm staggering out of the Cornwallis Hotel, or a tipsy Malcolm conducting business in the pub.
More recently I heard of two incidents involving Malcolm allegedly under the influence while behind the wheel.
The first incident was perhaps in the late 60s or early 70s while Malcolm was still Cornwall Crown attorney. The story goes that a tipsy Malcolm was pulled over by police on 13 th Street. He was told to head straight home. Malcolm did as told and, tipsy as ever, took the wheel and headed for home. Minutes later he rear-ended a car.
Police were involved but I don’t believe charges were laid.
The second is more serious.
Malcolm was allegedly involved in an accident, late 70s early 80s. His car was totalled. People were injured. It is said there was media coverage. Malcolm was allegedly sent for rehab.
If indeed there were charges in the latter incident both Malcolm’s lawyer and Crown Curt Flanagan would have or should have known.
Does anyone have any more information on these or any of Malcolm’s other escapades while under the influence?
I got my Christmas decorations down – hate to see them go but good to get it done. As I was working I was thinking: How many millions of dollars has it cost to get Father Charles MacDonald and Jacques Leduc off the hook by portraying Perry Dunlop as the devil incarnate and David Silmser as a money-grubbing liar? How many millions?
And that’s the bottom line of it all.
That’s what we’re witnessing.
A multi-million dollar cover-up.
Enough for now,
I can only hope to be wromg, but, I don’t think so.
For various reasons, it is my opinion, Shelley Hallett is now, firmly accepted as, “one of the pack”. I believe she has been clearly explained “the facts of life”, so-to-speak and how bright her future “could” be. I believe her inexperience with “such matters” or perhaps her naivite, has now been replaced with her keen desire to succeed, be accepted by her peers, superiors and preserve her place in society, at any cost to anyone.
Over the past few years since her earlier involvement, I believe she has learned beyond a shadow of a doubt, the potential ramifications to many “prominent and influential personalities and characters”. Am I wrong Ms. Hallett?
For example, many readers may remember, in relation to the Jacques Leduc trial(s)when she “supposedly” invited specific alleged victim(s) to attend an appeal hearing in Toronto to witness first-hand, what she supposedly stated would be a reversal of the original judgement. Well, didn’t go too well did it and my, my,…hasn’t Ms. Hallett basically disappeared for the past few years.
I believe it is also alleged that, relating to her “prosecution, representations” in these matters, she has experienced some kind of “pain, suffering” or perhaps intimidation from some of her peers and/or superiors? Why?
No, I think not. The “ball is rolling”, the “momentum”, “the current”, totally blaming and destroying the likes of Perry Dunlop and David Silmser and others, while at the same time, rationalizing and justifying the actions or inactions of Justice et al, is strong, swift and propelled by “the powers”.
I believe, beyond a shadow of a daubt, that, forty, fifty, sixty million dollars or more, to accomplish “their goal” means little to them. I mean this does include “unlimited dollars”….a deep, deep well.
There is a lot at stake here for “the system” to lose. “The system” cannot lose or look bad!!
Interesting you would comment on Malcolm MacDonald’s “elbow exercises” – WHO was the Police Chief during these incidents??? Cause I thought Claude Shaver was also accused of being in an impaired state – running over someone’s front lawn and ending up with his car smashed into a veranda – of course he dared anyone to talk about it and if I remember right from his testimony said “bring it on” denying it even happened.
Hmmm….how much coverup was going on with the Upper echelons in Cornwall and their “elbow exercises” that caused damage and/or injury???
Gather it boils down to WHO you know and WHO you do those “elbow exercises” with.
LET’S FOLLOW THE HALLETT TESTIMONY-VERY IMPORTANT!!
So, by 1016hrs, we have learned about legislature in “C-15” (1988). In addition Ms. Hallett participated in the developing of and presentation of seminars, specifically focussed on a “coherent and standard approach”, policy, procedure, protocol, for managing the “detection of”, the “investigation of” and the “prosecution of”, sexual abuse cases.
At this time of her examination, Ms. Hallett states that she and her team provided this training to “Children’s Aid” personel in Ontario, “police” personel and “Crown Prosecutor’s” in the Province of Ontario.
Ms. Hallett also stated her training and experience in “special prosecutions”, against administration of justice personel; i.e.) police, justices, etc.
So, at this point of her examination with Mr. Engelmann and in comparison to my first post, would it be fair to suggest that, despite my original post, Ms. Hallett was both informed, experienced and not naive.
Would it also be fair to suggest, perceptions such as my original “post” above, could have been formed as a result of how some “justice officials, i.e. lawyers, etc.” have talked about her in the past and how local news media depicted her as being, incompetent, inept or otherwise.
I wonder if Pat Hall and his friends at the local daily newspaper, helped construct this “mis-perception”.
HOWEVER, at the time of this writing, does it now appear that even in the 1980’s, but definitely in the 1990’s, copious, very valuable resources existed in the Province of Ontario, that could have been utilized to “detect”, “investigate” and “prosecute” allegations of sexual abuse, both recent and alleged, relating to children and adults…..wow!!…at the time of this writing, Ms. Hallett certainly seemed to heve been very, very informed….contrary to my opening perceptions.
Gee, was this “ignorance and ineptness” only a “local” and/or “regional/district” problem in Cornwall and Area; i.e.) not utilizing the valuable resources? WHY?
Don’t forget, many witnesses from various “institutions”, testified at this inquiry that, they were ignorant and uninformed about “how to proceed”, including they had no technology. Some witnesses even stated this ignorance and lack of resources, education, policy-procedure and protocols, i.e.)ineptness existed into the 2000’s.
Let’s see how her examination and cross-examination proceeds. Any wagers?
So again, the province had a lot of information on how to detect, investigate and prosecute cases, related to sexual abuse allegations.
Don’t forget, Ms. Hallett “had” an impeccable resume “at-the-time”.
But, to close here, Ms. Hallett has also stated here today, “she is a good soldier” and “she follows her marching orders”.
I’m watching and I certainly think Ms. Hallet comes across as a well educated, well trained, knowledgeable, experienced etc. etc. in areas of sexual abuse.
I’m of the opinion all the hearsay, innuendo etc originating out of Cornwall about Ms. Hallet was because she was a FEMALE WITH A BRAIN!!!
We shall see!
I just looked up tp see who was Chief – Sahver took over from Earl Landry Jr in 1983. It all depends on timing who was the boss. But, – re the rear ender – also depends on who the officer responding to the call was?
prima facie, you are right, Shelley Hallett is well trianed. I think however that we will eventually hear that she like everyone elese had very little experience with adult victims, more specifically male adult victims. But I can say she came to Cornwall with a reputation as a pit bull in the courtroom.
How very comfroting to hear her explain gross indecency charges. That’s long overdue.
I don’t understand how anyone can say Ms. Hallet was incompetent and inept. She had her articling students do one hell of a lot of RESEARCH in the cases she was prosecuting or giving opinions on!!! She certainly by all appearances had her case law down pat anticipating certain defences.
Did anyone else do that much research???
Yes. She did extensive research on all the legal hoops. Very impressive. She anticipated possible defence arguments and was going in prepared for any and all scenarios. No idiot by a long shot. And certainly not sounding like any emotional wreck.
Naother matter. Not too long ago today Engelmann was set to give the complete moniker list to Hallett. Glaude interjected: ‘No. We don’t do that.’
Does anyone recall which witness was given and sat with a full moniker list at hand throughout his testimony? With Glaude’s consent? It was someone recent, therefore probably an OPP officer.
I am puzzled as to why it was okayed in that instance but not for Hallett.
January 19, 2009.
2330hrs Eastern Time:
For People Who Have heard of Shelley Hallett Before Today January 19, 2009:
Based on some feedback I have received today from telephone calls and e-mails, I believe some people may, for whatever reason of “their own making” or as a result of ignorance, misconstrue, what I attempted to convey in my “comments” #1 and #3 above.
To clarify. My comment #1 was sent to Sylvia’s site for posting before the hearings began today (Monday, January 19, 2009). Therefore, comment #1 was before Ms. Hallett said one-word. I was simply stating how I believed most of the public would perceive Ms. Hallett and how that public perception-opinion, may have been formed and/or influenced and by whom.
In comment #1, I was attempting to convey what I believed the general public’s perception or prejudgment of Shelley Hallett, might be today, before examination by Mr. Engelmann. I believe the perception, prejudgment and opinions people hold relating to Ms. Hallett, have been formed by the local news media and Det. Insp. Pat Hall, other police officers and “administrators of justice” in the Province of Ontario and elsewhere.
I believe each of the above had/have their own motives for disclosing to the press and to other people, their personal and professional opinions of Ms. Hallett.
As we know, in the past few years and recently in testimony, there has not been a lot of positive things said about Ms. Hallett’s personal or professional “being”.
In my comment #3, which I wrote approximately one hour into Ms. Hallett’s testimony, I explain that I developed a completely different perspective of and appreciation for Ms. Hallett. I wonder if others did also. In fact, my perception of Ms. Hallett’s knowledge and professionalism was completely opposite to what I had been led to believe previously. Furthermore, as you see in my comment#3 and comments other contributors wrote on Sylvia’s website, Ms. Hallett articulated extremely well about the experiences, education, knowledge, insight and professionalism she had acquired and possessed as far back as the mid-1980’s surrounding a “coherent and standard approach” relating to, the “detection of”, “investigation of” and “prosecution of” allegations of sexual abuse.
In addition, Ms. Hallett testified, that “in-the-time”, she was available to provide seminars to “Children’s Aid, Police and Crown Prosecutors”, relating to the implementation of the same.
My, my…what a difference.
All this knowledge and professionalism. Yet, witness after witness has testified they didn’t have access to information, education or resources that would assist them in managing allegations of sexual abuse. Really! I mean really!
So let’s stop here…we don’t have to go any further!!
The point is, AT THE TIME and even before “the time”, Ms. Hallett was an excellent resource and very well equipped to manage allegations of sexual abuse, including “special prosecutions” against so-called “clergy” and “administrators of justice”. Yes,…well equipped. BUT again, WE NEED NOT GO FURTHER!! SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING AT THE TIME!!
So, what happened people”? Are we conspiracy theorists? Ha!
Would it be fair to suggest that she was “attacked” or her investigations and prosecutions sabotaged or dare I suggest the administration of justice was compromised?
Despite what has happened to Ms. Hallett personally or professionally “since her initial involvement”, investigations and attempts to prosecute the “accused”, she was initially, well equipped!!
Everything afterwards, like what happened to Perry Dunlop, is a charade…an attempt by some to play out the “smoke and mirrors” illusion.
I saw everything I have to see between 0945hrs and 1200hrs today.
I suspect henceforth, Ms. Hallett will either “cave in” to the pressure she has experienced and will continue to experience from “the system” or she will be brutally attacked in cross-examination by lawyers for the accused..45 million, 50, 55, 60, 65 $$$$ and on and on and on.
Make no mistake about it, Ms. Hallett was the person for the job “at the time” and for whatever reason, she was derailed. Any suspicions?
And one other related point brought to my attention on three different contacts today.
That is, the fact that Ms. Hallett “supposedly” did not interact specifically with male or adult male victims of sexual abuse as much as she did with children or females. I believe this claim is miniscule, in the whole scheme of things.
This really requires further discussion and reference to resources but, in my years of interacting with victims and survivors of sexual abuse, in a personal and professional capacity, I believe the “dynamics, signs, symptoms, etc.” identified in cases of sexual abuse are “universal”, whether male, female, child, adult, etc.
I believe the significant difference is the greater concentration on helping children and females of sexual abuse, as a historical cultural norm; i.e) “protect the women and children first”, line of thinking, for one thing.
In addition, the stigma or stereotyping of boys and men being stronger and able to deal with all adversity has incorrectly perpetuated the misconception that boys/men were never sexually abused, or at least “we never talked about it”.
To further explain, I believe the same predatory, coercive, deceitful, manipulative, intimidating, forceful, power-seeking, etc., characteristics, styles and techniques, are utilized by “perpetrators/offenders” to abuse their victims.
The “perpetrators/offenders” may have a “preference” or preferred “victim profile”, but the “styles and techniques” utilized to “entrap, victimize and re-victimize” their victim(s) is/are basically the same.
In addition, the styles and techniques utilized by “perpetrators/offenders” to deny, justify or rationalize “their acts” are typical and similar, in most cases. And, I believe, in most cases, most victims of sexual abuse will utilize the same survival skills and innate defense mechanisms.
And, to dispel some people’s beliefs to the contrary, “sexual abuse” crosses all socio-economic boundaries. Sexual abuse is not something that only occurs in, so-called, “slum” areas that are inhabited by an illiterate, uneducated, deprived minority. Sexual abuse enters “the homes” of all “backgrounds” including the wealthy, the elite and the privileged.
I submit that many studies will suggest that the wealthy and privileged are simply able to “hide” the instances and effects of sexual abuse better than the “underprivileged”.
IN CONCLUSION: So, where will this inquiry carry Ms. Hallett and what will our perceptions be tomorrow or the next day?
But don’t forget, when all else fails, go back to “the beginning”. Assess the, “who, what, where, when, why and how”, of it all, at “the beginning”. Everything since, is perception? interpretation? illusion? Smoke and mirrors? Etc., etc.