Why the silence?

Share Button

Hearings resumed at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Thursday, 22 January 2009.  Shelley Hallett is back on the stand.  Michael Neville has resumed cross-examination.

Neville was in full attack mode when we left off yesterday.  His defence of Charlie at all costs continues.

****

Note in the Freeholder article of today a reference to Perry delivering documents to Shelley Hallett with the comment and that “Dunlop wanted to make sure the ‘top cop and top Crown attorney’ in Ontario knew about the ‘games’ that had been going on since 1993…”

To allay possible confusion mote that on 05 July 2000 27 June 2000Perry was attempting to deliver his Will Say (Will State) and other materials to the Ontario Attorney General and Solicitor General, that is who he is referencing with the terms “top cop” (solicitor General)  and “top Crown” (Attorney general).

Also note the transcript is posted.

****

Three things I want to post before the day begins:  (i)  Some stats; (ii)  Hallett’s impact statement; (iii)  Hallett’s recommendations; and (iv) McKinnon’s conflicts.
(1)  Stats

According to Kozloff, since February 2006:

– The inquiry has sat for 314 days;

– 170 witnesses have testified;

– there are over 3,200 exhibits’;

– there are more than 60,000 pages of transcript;

– over 70,000 documents have been disclosed and are in the data bank; and

– there are in excess of 350,000 pages of documents.

(2)  Shelley Hallett impact statement

“…the finding by Mr. Justice Chadwick that I had wilfully failed to disclose to the defence in the Leduc case, and the subsequent criminal investigation of me, did have a great impact on my life, both personal and professional

“……What I most regret at this point is the impact of Justice Chadwick’s finding on the complainants in the Leduc trial, whose testimony was obtained under the harshest circumstances.

“And I further regret the collateral impact that the Chadwick finding had on the Charles MacDonald prosecution and on the complainants in that case.

“And to those complainants on both of these prosecutions in which I was involved, I would like to say I am sincerely sorry about the outcome of both of those prosecutions.”

(3)  Shelley Hallett Recommendations:

“I would simply ask you to consider an idea of mine which is not in any way fully developed. I have been too busy, frankly, with trying to read the documents in preparation for my testimony here to refine a raw idea that I’ve had for some time now.

“But I would like to read a few lines from the LeSage-Code report, which are the jumping-off points for my recommendation. And that is of course the report entitled, “Report of the Review of Large and Complex Criminal Case Procedures, authored by the Honourable Patrick J. Lesage and Professor Michael Code,” and the report is dated November of 2008.

“And I would refer to chapter 1 of the report, and in that chapter there is a discussion of the developments of the law that have had a huge impact on the smooth running of the criminal justice system. And these include the Charter and the seeking of remedies for breaches of Charter rights, reforms in the Law of Evidence, such as CON applications, and statutory reforms designed to protect the privacy of victims and witnesses and an example is given of the third-party record provisions in the Criminal Code.

“And the author suggests that the criminal justice system has not quite kept apace with these reforms, and I would like to read from pages 16 and 17 of the Report at this time, and I quote:

“‘The avalanche of new and complex legal procedures, whether from the Charter, from the evidence law revolution or from continuous statutory amendments,has created a system with too many difficult and nuanced decision points. It is hardly surprising that errors are made in this new legal environment.’

“And I go on to page 17, and I pick up on that page, and I quote:

 “‘However, the significant reforms to the system summarised above have created many new opportunities for conflict. As already noted, the way in which certain rights and remedies have been defined in the case law seems calculated to increase the potential for personal attacks as between counsel.

“‘In other words, instead of calming down the inherently combative nature of the adversary system by fostering respect and collegiality and cohesion among the parties, the reforms of the modern era have contributed to an environment of greater animosity.

“‘This is a very serious development that must be stopped. When counsel attack each other on a personal level, the adversary system breaks down because nothing gets settled out of court. Every petty dispute is fought out in the courtroom in a hostile and provocative way, and the trial ceases to focus efficiently on the real issues in the case.”

“And I do underline that last clause; that ‘the trial ceases to focus efficiently on the real issues in the case,’ and I feel that this was the fallout and that the failure to continue to concentrate on the real issues in the case, in Leduc, was the result of an unfortunate attempt to resolve what was perceived as a Charter breach. I believe that as the Leduc case illustrates, there are high stakes involved in the allegations and determination of whether there has been a breach of the Charter right to disclosure in a criminal case. In turn, there is huge pressure on individual Crown counsel in these cases to make the right decision in terms of what is disclosed and the timing of the disclosure, and there are huge consequences when the wrong decision is made by that Crown counsel.

“I believe that this has resulted in the need for an overhaul of the disclosure mechanism in Ontario, and I have thought for some time that a single-window system for disclosure of criminal briefs to both counsel for the defence and the Crown is what should be developed. This would be a single window that both trial counsel — both, the Crown and defence counsel would go to, to receive the same set of materials and to lead evidence as they sit fit in their respective trials.

“On the other side of that window would be a multidisciplinary team, consisting of representatives from the police, the defence and the Crown, which would be responsible, particularly in complex cases, for going through the boxes of — containing the briefs and other materials in relation to the case and deciding upon disclosure and both at the beginning of the case and on an ongoing basis. And I believe that this kind of a system would create more of an even playing field for both of the trial counsel involved and would free up the individual Crown counsel in complex cases to concentrate on the issues in their cases, particularly the evidence of the complainants and how to introduce that evidence.

“I also believe that such a system would create less incentive for allegations of failing to disclose which have such high stakes in complex cases; in all criminal cases, in fact.

“So those are my respectful submissions to the tribunal at this time. As I say, it’s not a particularly refined recommendation in terms of how this would be implemented and what would be involved, but all I would say, I would call it the one-window — the single window system.”

(4)  McKinnon’s conflicts

Under cross examination by Frank Horn (Coalition) asked Hallett when she first became aware of Justice Colin McKinnon’s conflict.  Hallett stated that was on 19 February 2001 through Dick Nadeau.  Hallett further stated she wished Nadeau had brought that to her attention earlier as it may have made a difference in the case.

MS. HALLETT: Well, it would have been on February the 19th. Excuse me, when Mr. Nadeau was called as the witness, the first witness for the Defence on the stay application, that would be February 19th of 2001, before he even testified, he made an assertion in court and produced some letters—

MR. HORN: M’hm.

MS. HALLETT: — to demonstrate that Justice McKinnon was in a conflict.

MR. HORN: That was the first time you knew about it?

MS. HALLETT: Yes, that was; and I’d wished that Mr. Nadeau had perhaps brought those to my attention at an earlier point in time. It might have made a difference in this case.

My recollection is that at the time Dick wrote “ The right to know is the bedrock of democracy” he knew only that McKinnon had previously provided legal counsel for the Cornwall Police Service and hence to its former Chief Claude Shaver.  Here is the relevant section:

Judge Colin McKinnon is relatively new to the bench, some four years I think. He is said to be a good judge. But prior to becoming a judge, he had a successful law practice. He was in fact the lawyer for our former Chief of Police Claude Shaver. He knows all about the cover-ups over the Father Charlie/Ken Seguin affair. He knows about Cornwall’s troubles. He knows that Shaver is a pedophile and yet, had him as client. Did he check his biases and prejudices at the door?

I believe that at the Dick put this together he either did not yet know or had just received proof of the McKinnon connection to Perry. I know that the letters of proof were unearthed some time after the Leduc “trial” was off the ground.  My thought is that they came onto the scene after Dick’s “Bedrock of Democracy” comments..

No matter, some thoughts….

Why did no one from the Cornwall Police Service step up to the plate with this information?  When the word went out that McKinnon was taking the bench at the Leduc trial why, for example, did S/Sgt. Gary Derochie not alert Hallett that McKinnon had previously been involved with the Chief and Perry Dunlop?

Derochie knew.  Why the silence?

Other CPS officers knew.  Why the silence?

For that matter, why did those scrutinizing Dick’s website not did a little deeper?  If they didn’t already know, why, when thet red that comment, did they not dig?  Dick, after all,  said McKinnon “was in fact the lawyer for our former Chief of Police Claude Shaver.”  Why did not a scrutinizing soul pursue that allegation?

As for McKinnon, I believe it goes without saying that had he never put his bottom on the bench at the Leduc trial things would probably have been very different in Cornwall, not only at the Leduc “trial,” but at Charlie’s “trial.” It also goes without saying that things would have been different for Perry Dunlop, and Shelley Hallett, and the “alleged” victims of both Leduc and Charlie.

I recall the buzz in the courtroom at the Leduc “trial”  was that if C-23 took the stand it was game over for Leduc.

C-23 never got to the stand.

My recollection is that C-23 is the son of someone of significance.

****

Neville is finished.   Danielle Robitaille (Leduc)  has started cross.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

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

6 Responses to Why the silence?

  1. Sylvia says:

    I’m pretty sure that’s Marie Henein sharing a computer screen and thoughts with Danielle Robitaille (Leduc).

    Henien has been in the Weave Shed there on the rare occasion in the past to do cross of a witness for Leduc.

    Was she late arriving today? Was she supposed to do the cross and didn’t make it on time? Or, is she there for Lidia Narozniak? Narozniak is on deck as the next witness.

    Memory tells me Henein and Neorzniak seemed to be pretty paly during the Leduc ” trial” #2. That, compounded by Henein’s abysmal failure to set the record straight,ensure Perry was treated like a human being or in general look as though she was there to prosecute Leduc, prompted the question from some: ‘ Who’s Narozniak working for? Leduc?’

  2. Sylvia says:

    Three backgrounders for those who don’t know Marie Henein:

    (1) Profile on Osgoode website:

      MARIE HENEIN, of Henein & Associates, practices in the area of trial and appellate criminal law and administrative law. She has appeared at all levels of court including the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. Ms. Henein graduated Osgoode Hall Law School in 1989. She obtained her L.L.M from Columbia University Law School in 1991. From 1991, Ms. Henein articled and was an associate with Edward L. Greenspan Q.C. From 1998 to 2002, Ms. Henein was a partner in the firm of Greenspan, Henein & White. Since 1992, Ms. Henein has been an adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School in Evidence and Advanced Evidence and has lectured at numerous professional conferences. Ms. Henein assists the Honourable Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg and Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C. in editing Martin’s Criminal Code, Martin’s Annual Criminal Practice, and Martin’s Related Criminal Statutes. Ms. Henein is the Treasurer of the Advocate Society and a member of the Board of Directors of the Law Commission of Ontario.

    (2) Advocates Society

    Henein has served with Peter Wardle (Citizens for Community Renewal) on the Advocates Society Board of Directors between 2004 and 2008.

    Also on the board in 2007-2008 while Henein was treasurer was John Callaghan(Cornwall Police Service).

    (3) Leduc lawyer

    After Leduc’s charges were stayed in trial # 2 a 19 October 2004 article in the Toronto Globe & Mail read in part:

      “Mr. Leduc was subjected to the most enormous prejudice I’ve seen in my career,” defence counsel Marie Henein said in an interview last night. “There was vandalism — really obscene stuff painted on his walls — and threats that came through the mail.”

      Ms. Henein and co-counsel Steven Skurka called the decision particularly courageous in light of the fact that the sensational allegations have convulsed the Eastern Ontario city since 1992.

      A “small, vocal minority” of the community will always insist that a massive conspiracy existed among a well-connected elite to keep the purported pedophiles from being exposed and brought to justice, Ms. Henein said.
      There was an almost-fictional quality to the lynch-mob mentality Mr. Leduc’s accusers exhibited, she added.
      “I hope this is the end of it all, and that this community can move forward now.”

  3. Sylvia says:

    1655 (4:45 pm): Bill Carroll (OPPA) is losing it completley in there. He is bickering and pushing and panting and shrieking to try to get Hallett to agree with Pat Hall’s version of events.

    There have been several objections in the past few hours, most recently from Kloeze (AG)who noted that it’s getting late and emotions are running high.

    Indeed they are!

    Narozniak is scheduled to take the stand at 6pm. At the rate things are going the gathered throng will be without supper tonight.

    Glaude just asked how much longer. Carroll said 45 minutes. Glaude said enough. He’s had it. Carroll and Hallet will be separated for a cool down. They are to be back in the morning to carry on this showdown.

    Narozniak will on the stand at 6:15.

    Next week will be a disaster!!! Theyr are wrung right out in there.

  4. Sylvia says:

    I want to up vomit! Narozniak was ideed working hand in glove with Henien. There’s no other way to describe it. This is all more than I can stomach right now. A Crown and Leduc’s defence going after Perry together. How sick can it get?

  5. Sylvia says:

    1953 hours (7:53 pm): Mercifully adjourned for the day. Back in the am at 9:30 with Shelley Hallett on the stand The thought is one hour to wrap up Hallett’s testimony.

    Narozniak scheduled back on the stand at 10:30 am

    What a royal mess!!!

  6. Sherlock says:

    I read there in your local paper a Shelley Hallett quote:
    “It was clear to me that the police in this case were colluding with the defence to set the Crown up for the fall.”

    That certainly sounds to this distant observer as if there was an obvious criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice. How else can it be interpreted?

    Why then does Mr. Horn get such a short leash that he’s not allowed to even imply that something “unlawful” or “immoral” occurred? (p. 211/249) The double standard is spectacularly apparent. Real weasels and kangaroos have more shame than these characters.

    I came across this quote from a psychotherapist, Gail Fisher-Taylor, who worked with victims from Prescott:

    “…And in terms of the way they get away with it – the structures of power are such that if there are members of the cult who are both leaders in business, leaders in terms of let’s say members of the police department, members of the criminal justice system – judges or lawyers – it becomes often – in these kinds of contexts – an old boys’ network. You’ve got people protecting other people so if there is any kind of revelation that this kind of activity is going on, their members in the media are going to participate in the cover-up, or in [charging] the blasphemy, outrageousness of such allegations. If the police department is involved – and there are often reports of police being involved. In Saskatchewan, for instance, the Martensville case. It is very easy for police to conduct an investigation that will throw their whole case out of court for instance. If you have a lot of people in many different positions of power, and there is collusion among them, it is much more difficult especially when the public doesn’t know about the principles of dissociation and the way that trauma works, the way that the human psyche works around trauma. It is very easy for the media, police and criminal justice system to play on the public’s disbelief.”

    Of course the word “cult” can be replaced by “clan”, “ring”, “conspiracy”, “secret society” etc. without affecting the general pattern also evident in Cornwall.

Leave a Reply

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