“Connections”

I thought today would be an “easy” day.  Not so 🙁

A bundle of media articles today.  I have posted those I found.  Check the list on New to the Site on the Home page.

Busy with many things today, and my software was finicky – just plain not doing what it’s supposed to do properly.  I then added to my problems by putting the coffee maker on without the coffee pot!  Grounds and coffee all over the counter 🙁  It started as a “good” day and went progressively downhill.

Also just discovered that I linked the wrong file to yesterday’s Segal transcript.  It is fixed.  Please please let me know when you happen on a bad link like that.

I think I’m on top of things now.  All I can say is thank goodness I wasn’t try to keep an eye and ear on hearings in the midst of my chaos 🙂

Three comments regarding the media coverage:

(1)  Canadian Press

A Canadian Press article reads that “only one suspect was convicted and he was not connected to an alleged pedophile ring.”

False.

One of Jean-Luc Leblanc’s victims alleged he was molested by Malcolm MacDonald at Leblanc’s family cottage in Quebec.  And Malcolm MacDonald’s name has most certainly always been associated with the allegations of a paedophile ring – and, for that matter, with cover-up.

I’d call that a connection.

(2) Ottawa Citizen….

According to Neco Cockburn the inquiry wrap up date of today was “the date targeted by Judge Glaude.”

Not exactly.  This was all supposed to be wrapped up well over a year ago.

Barring that, if indeed Glaude was all set to wrap up today when Attorney General Cris Bentley dropped the ax and Glaude’s and the AG’s plans simply dove-tailed then things are even worse that I thought.  That would mean that, with key witnesses from the Ontario Provincial Police and the office of the Attorney General yet to testify, Glaude deliberately set a drop-dead which ensured that some of those witnesses would never reach the stand, and those who did would be on and off in the twinkle of an eye – without opportunity for a thorough examination in chief or time for a “rigorous” cross-examination.

Does Cockburn know something we should know?

(3)  Freeholder Editorial

An excerpt from the editorial regarding Jean-Paul Scott’s testimony regarding Robert Sabourin reads:

“Nevertheless, the evidence given Wednesday shows that society’s once out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude allowed pedophiles to run wild and let down a generation of abuse victims.”

I don’t for a moment agree that “society” turned a blind.  I believe that individuals in society turned a blind eye. In this particular instance Roman Catholic school principal Jeannine Seguin and her boss Superintendent Jean-Paul Scott turned a blind eye.  The fact that there were no ‘policies, practices and procedures’ in place to force them to take appropriate action is no excuse.  There was the law of the land.  If these Roman Catholics didn’t know that children were at risk with Robert Sabourin around then I question their ability to hold any responsibility for the education and well-being of children period.

I personally see Seguin and Scott’s failure to protect children on par with that of Bishop Eugene Larocque, former Liberal cabinet minister Ed Lumley, Father Gary Ostler and former Liberal Cabinet Minister  Lloyd Axorthy.  All were party to  taking convicted American clerical paedophile Father Carl Stone in to Canada.  For that matter as far back as 1958 Larocque’s predecessor Bishop Brodeur knew and let Stone run free to molest at leisure..

How can anyone not know that molesting a child is never good for the child’s well-being?  Or that those who molest should not be permitted around children?  Or that those who molest children should be held criminally accountable?

I truly believe that there are some things on which do not require educating.  There are some things which we know in our hearts to be wrong:  Knowing that an adult seeking sexual gratification with/from a child is a perversion is one; knowing that no child is the better for being abused is another.

****

A few interesting bites on Murray Segal:

(1)  Homolka:

Murray Segal is the Crown attorney who gave Karla Homolka her sweetheart deal.  Thanks to Segal and his plea bargaining Homolka eluded maximum sentencing for her role in the murder and rape of her little sister and that of two teen school girls. The plea bargain has been been aptly dubbed  “the deal with the devil.”

Segal’s role in the Homolka deal had slipped my mind completely.  A google search last evening “refreshed “ my memory.

(2)  Leduc lawyers

Interesting “connections”  between Segal and a two of Jacques Leduc’s lawyers.

(i) Segal and Marie Henein sit on the Board of Governors of the recently founded (Sept. ’97) Law Commission of Ontario.

Henein has represented Leduc at “trial” # 2 and at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

(ii)  Marlys Edwardh, Marie Henein and Murray Segal gave a “special” lunch panel presentation at the 29 September 2007 The National Conference on The Charter and Criminal Justice in Canada

Chair of the panel was Henein.  Edwardh and Segal were panellists.

Marlys Edwardh was one of Leduc’s “trials” team.  In fact Edwardh was one of the team which took Leduc’s battle to hang onto his first stay right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Segal certainly “knows” Henein and Edwardh.

How well?  Who knows?  No one asked.

How much did/do the duo or trio talk Cornwall and Jacques Leduc?

Who knows? No one asked.

How much of his take on Cornwall did Segal get from Henein and/or Edwardh?

Who knows?  No one asked.

****

Back to another corner of Jean-Paul Scott’s testimony.

Father Gary Ostler.  His name surfaces again.

Documents were entered into evidence regarding an “alleged” Sabourin victim with the moniker C-112.

C-112 apparently told someone at the school that Sabourin had molested him.  Whoever it was sent Father Gary Ostler to talk to the boy.  The boy told Fr. Ostler what was happening to him.

The following day C-112 was called into the office.  Jeannine Seguinwas there, as was Vice Principal Jules Renaud.

C-112 was asked if he was prepared to testify re his allegations against Sabourin.  The lad said “no.”  He was told that, well, then, that was the end of it.

I don’t get any sense that the adults attempted to assure C-112 that they would support him and that it was the right thing to do, both to bring it to an end and to ensure it didn’t happen to anyone else.

Nor did I get any sense that Father Ostler attempted to have Sabourin removed.  I get the impression he may well have turned a blind eye.  If there is something in the transcript which I have missed could anyone who is bilingual transcribe and send it along.  I unfortunately can not speak or read a word of French.

****

I am still astounded by Scott’s testimony.  It seems that after Mrs. Sabourin alerted school officials that her husband was molesting children Robert Sabourin was spoken to in some apparently evasive fashion and resigned. There was presumably no mention made to him of the allegations that he was sexually abusing children.

Why then did Seguin and Scott think Sabourin resigned?  Seems to me common sense says that if he was ready to resign he must have been ready to admit he had been abusing boys.  And that he must have know that the cards were stacked against him and his wife was willing to do what was necessary to protect children, including turning in her husband.

Why was Sabourin not confronted?  Or, was he? It makes no sense at all.

As an aside, I have heard that following his mid 70s resignation and departure from Cornwall and before he surfaced in a Penetanguishene, Ontario schoolthat Sabourin may have been teaching in Kingston.  Does anyone know any more on this?

****

I haven’t gone through yesterday’s transcripts yet.  Will save that, some more info on Malcolm MacDonald, and the Robins Report for tomorrow.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)