This isn’t sitting right

Share Button

As anticipated, there was no preliminary hearing on Dejeaeger’s Edmonton charges in Edmonton yesterday.  So, here’s the latest on the prolonged scandalous saga of ex-priest, Oblate, convicted clerical molester and former fugitive from justice Eric Dejaeger omi.  :

31 July 2014:  “Nunavut ex-priest heads back to court, this time in Alberta” & related articles

As it stands, this isn’t quite sitting right with me, because, as it stands the date to set a trial date in Edmonton (12 September 2014) happens to be the same date as the tentative date set for the verdict on the Nunavut charges (12 September)

Here are my thoughts:

(1)  True enough, Justice Robert Kilpatrick set the 12 September 2014 date as tentative.  The judge apparently said that he has a lot of material to go through and would issue his decision as quickly as possible.  It’s highly possible therefore that he is prepared to render verdict in a week or two.  However, once the verdict is rendered arrangements will have to be made for Victim Impact Statements to be read, and the sentencing hearing.  If psychological profiles and reports on Dejaeger’s propensity to re-offend and so on are requested by either side arrangements will have to be made for those to be done.

And then there’s the sentencing itself .

Can all of this be accomplished by 12 September?  I suppose it’s possible, depending of course on such things as when Justice Kilpatrick renders his verdict, and how many victims want to give a Victim Impact Statement, and whether or not victims will have opportunity to appear in person in court to read their statements.

I just doubt that there will be anything happening in Edmonton before the Nunavut charges are wrapped up.

Did the Crown in Edmonton discuss the 12 September 2014 date with the Crown handling the Nunavut charges?  I don’t know.  But, even if 12 September is a tentative date it strikes me that it’s odd that the same date was picked for the Edmonton court date.

But, perhaps there is knowledge that by 12 September Dejaeger’s sentencing in Nunavut will be over and done with?  therefore, perhaps things can proceed in Edmonton on that date?

(2)  But, here is my other line of thought…

Is it possible that there is a plan to merge the Edmonton charges with those in Nunavut?

Is it possible that Dejaeger has been offered a sweet deal whereby he will plead guilty to the Edmonton charges and in return has his sentence  lumped in with the Nunavut sentencing?

And is it possible that on 12 September Dejaeger will answer to the Edmonton charges in  Nunavut?  In that case I suppose there would be some legalities entailed in the transfer, but it’s happened elsewhere and can be done, but then it would be on to an agreed statement of facts and his guilty plea.

IF that were to happen the guilty pleas from Edmonton would be lumped in with those in Nunavut (he entered guilty pleas to eight of 80 charges) and with all convictions on the remaining Nunavut charges.

And, IF this is the way it’s going to happen would the Edmonton complainant (s) be flown to Iqaluit for the guilt plea and Victim Impact Statements?  I personally think that every victim should have opportunity to see his/her molester face to face in court, and that every victim should have opportunity to read his/her Victim Impact Statement in the presence of his/her molester.     The victim must surely have some rights?   If decisions are made by the powers that be to merge charges with those of another jurisdiction then surely the victim is not automatically denied this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?

I just don’t know.    These charges pre-date his ordination in 1978.  I just hope and pray that at the 11th hour the Edmonton charges aren’t lumped in with those in Nunavut, and that if unfortunately through a sweet deal they are, that the Edmonton victim (s) will be offered the option of being flown to Iqaluit to see Dejeager plead guilty, and the option of  reading a Victim Impact Statements in person in Dejaeger’s presence.

Please, as always, keep the many many Dejaeger victims and complainants in your prayers.  They need your prayers.

Enough for now,


This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Belgium, Canada, Clerical sexual predators, Scandal, Trials and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to This isn’t sitting right

  1. northernfancy says:

    Modern technology makes it possible for victims to give their impact statements via audio visual means. Settlements such as Igloolik may have good options via their health centre’s telehealth, their school/hamlet office. This may be the means of having victim impact statements being heard. They can have support people with them at this time. Edmonton surely can participate in this manner as well. Camera on Eric Dejaeger maybe is an option so victim/accuser can see him as well as being seen. Having the victims present has advantages but there are also major disadvantages which I observed first hand when I attended the trial in Iqaluit. You are welcome to disagree with my analysis of the matter. There are no easy answers.

    • Sylvia says:

      I was thinking of the the complainant(s) in Edmonton northernfancy. Victims differ – some want to see their molester face to face and some do not. Remember the group of victims who travelled from Iglolik to Iqaluit – they just wanted to see Dejaeger. Without doubt there are others who did not want to lay eyes on him again, but that group did.

      IF, and I repeat If, the Edmonton charges somehow wind up in Iqaluit, and IF it’s a guilty plea to those, will the victims who would like to see him face to face have opportunity to do so? I think they should be given that option. I know that for some victims standing in court and seeing their molester face to face is a turning point in their lives: there is no need to be afraid of him any more, plus the recognition that the shame is totally his to bear, plus seeing the man who turned their lives upside down either in or taken into custody. So, I think that when charges are moved from one jurisdiction to another the option must be made available to all victims to be in court for the guilty plea and/or to present their Victim Impact Statement in person. The victims can not and shuold not be forgotten.

Leave a Reply