First, some more thoughts re the start of this dirty mess, and then a few comments on some articles.
(1) The Start of it all
The pay-off was presumably related to hushing Dave re the allegations against Charlie and Charlie only. I often try to sort out the ups and downs and ins and outs of that and wonder if perhaps there is not more to it. I wonder if, for example, the pay-off transpired in part because Dave knew the connection between Ken Seguin and Father Charles MacDonald? Can you imagine the powers that be fretting over that one? wondering what kind of lid would blow if charges were actually laid and word inevitably getting out to the public that Father Charlie and Ken Seguin were an item?
And what of the Marcel Lalonde allegations? Can you imagine the consternation in certain quarters at the thought of the public learning that one man, a former altar boy, was alleging he had endured childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a Roman Catholic priest, a former seminarian turned probation officer, and a Roman Catholic teacher?
That would have been pretty heavy stuff to leak out into the public domain back in the early 90s.
I would think there was indeed a bit of fretting here and there, not just over the allegations against Charlie, but the implications of one young boy being sexually abused by no less than three Roman Catholic pillars of the community
And here’s another thought. I’m not sure where the Lalonde allegations fit into this, but I do know that when Dave was silenced on his allegations against Charlie he was by extension silenced on his allegations against Ken Seguin. Dave has always said that after he was molested by Charlie he, Dave, stole from “the church” to get back at Charlie, and that then Charlie reported him, and that that’s when Ken Seguin entered the scene, and it was after that that the Seguin abuse began. It would, as you can see, be impossible for Dave to recount his allegations against Seguin without mention of those against Charlie – they are inextricably intertwined.
In essence therefore what happened with the $32,000 gag was that, by accident or design, Dave was effectively silenced on his allegations against Charlie and against Ken Seguin.
It seems to me that after the pay-off any hope that Dave may have held to pursue charges against Seguin was gone. Common sense tells me that had Dave told CPS he wanted to pursue criminal charges against Seguin he would have inevitably violated the $32,000 diocesan muzzle. How could he not? How could he explain the theft from the “the Church” without violating the release?
I believe the truth of the matter is that, by accident or design, the diocesan gag was a $32,000 two for one: it protected both Charlie and Ken Seguin.
I suspect those familiar with Dave’s allegations against Charlie and Seguin would have known that.
That’s where I’m at with those thoughts 🙂
For me personally those thoughts inevitably merge in some fashion with the eye-witness accounts of persons said to have shown up at the home of Ken Seguin, including, but not limited to, (i) Father Charlie, (ii) two of the three lawyers who helped broker the gag order (Jacques Leduc and Malcolm MacDonald), (iii) the former Chief of Police (Claude Shaver) and (iv) Cornwall’s former Crown attorney (Murray MacDonald).
And, three final thoughts on this for now: (1) contrary to popular inquiry opinion Ron Leroux is not the only person who said he saw various prominent persons, including the above, at Ken Seguin’s home, (2) since completing his muddled testimony Ron Leroux is re-affirming what he has always said, specifically that there was indeed a “VIP” meeting on Stanley Island, (3) since completing his muddled testimony Ron Leroux is telling people that he did indeed see Murray MacDonald at Ken Seguin’s home.
As I have said before I will come back to this. I have it on tape. Ron says that by the time he took the stand to testify at the inquiry he didn’t know if he was coming or going. I believe that was readily apparent the moment he hit the stand.
I also have tapes of Ron Leroux in 2001. By then Perry Dunlop had been long gone. Ron spoke to me freely as he toured me around Cornwall, showing me Ken Seguin’s home. We even pulled in behind Dr. Peach’s house and sat there and chatted for a while. With Ron’s permission I had the tape recorder running constantly.
I turned the latter set of tapes over to the inquiry ages ago. At that time I told Pierre Dumais and John Spice that I didn’t want to take the stand but if necessary I would. I felt and still feel that the tapes are proof that Ron was not coerced by Perry Dunlop, and that four years after signing his affidavit he was still standing by his allegations. It is also clear from the tapes that Ron knew about Dick Nadeau’s website. I recall that Ron knew his statements were on the website but am unsure if that is apparent on the tapes or not – It think it is. What was said on tape and what was said in conversation is a bit of a muddle in my mind. From the time we met in 2001 I spent many hours talking to Ron, usually over an early morning coffee when I would pull into Cornwall during Project Truth sex abuse “trials.”
Anyway, after much thought I turned copies of those tapes over to the inquiry. That was the end of it. I understood the tapes were to be turned over to all parties. I don’t know if that ever happened. I do know however that in August 2001 Ron was standing by his allegations. There was no talk then of Perry twisting his arm. There was no ‘recanting.’
According to the article, Cornwall Police Chief Dan Parkinson
said it’s time for the city to take the first step together and admit it has a drug problem. He said Cornwall’s been known all over Ontario for other issues, such as child sex abuse, and the city stood up and addressed the problem through a three-year public inquiry.
I am curious. How exactly did “the city” stand up and address “the problem” through a three-year public inquiry?
‘Stood up’? By agreeing that the validity of the allegations of Cornwall’s “alleged” sex abuse victims is irrelevant and inconsequential?
Not much to be proud of there, but, looks like the book has been closed, the word has gone down that the city ‘stood up,’ and the city powers that be have decided it’s time to get back to more pressing, politically-correct and familiar issues such as domestic violence.
The more things change the more they remain the same.
(3) 13 February 2009: Pre trial for alleged abuser set for 06 April
Convicted paedophile Robert Sabourin’s pre trial is scheduled for 06 April 2009. As “dodger” a blogger on the Freeholder website commented:
So he was charged in September 2007 and he is only now getting to trial no freakin wonder they get freed on time requirements. When will the courts take this seriously and get these trials started sooner.
Remember that April is only pre-trial. How long to trial? Sabourin is, after all, 83!
(4) 12 February 2009: A serious misrepresentation of the facts
Ken MacLellan is back 🙂 Good for him! I have no idea what MacLellan is about, but hats off to him for attempting to publicly clarify the record.
Why indeed did Justice Glaude decide to change his mind and grant the diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall funding? And why won’t he tell us?
(5) 13 February 2009: The good guy has been made to look the bad guy
It took a few days. Carson sent his letter 05 February 2009. But, good enough – it finally made it into the Letters to the Editor.
Well done Carson.
I am discovering that I feel much the way I did after Jacques Leduc “walked,” and as I felt again when I saw the mandate for this “public” inquiry and discovered that Justice Normand Glaude has deep family roots in Cornwall.
Where of where does one go to see justice done? Under the circumstances, where does one go?
Enough for now,