" Acrimonious"
Katherine Harding of the Globe and Mail reported today that Justice McCallum made this comment at the inquiry yesterday: "Demanding and receiving a public inquiry and then refusing to be a part of it -- even as a witness -- is in my view an abuse of the privileges of standing." Apparently, the judge said that if he had known from the get-go that David had not planned on being a part of the proceedings, he might have conducted the hearings differently and not permitted certain questions to be asked of various witnesses.
Harding quoted Lorne Sossin, the Associate Dean of law at the University of Toronto and an expert on public inquiries, who said that the "acrimony" and "sense of adversarial posturing" between the commission and the Milgaard camp may undermine the "moral authority and credibility" of the inquiry and its recommendations. This is definitely the sense that I get from talking to insiders and I'm sure that it's the feeling that all of us have by reading current newspaper reports.
It seems as though MacCallum misunderstood David's intentions during his press conference. When I spoke to Win Waher at AIDWYC about 10 days ago, she told me that David had received permission to use the inquiry room to hold his press conference -- he got that permission from MacCallum's people but apparently, it wasn't passed on to MacCallum himself, who seems to think that David was deliberately trying to undermine his authority.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It was a bold move for Dave to speak out and he did it MAINLY to urge the governments to compensate two other wrongly convicted men -- Ronald Dalton and Michele Dumont. Dave did not barge into the inquiry room in order to announce that he wanted nothing to do with the inquiry. That would have been ridiculous. However, it was probably not prudent of him to make a public announcement about his desire not to testify before he had privately conveyed this information to his own lawyers and Justice MacCallum.
It is hard to see where things are going at this point. We'll have to wait until after the 19th to see what's been resolved regarding the demand for David to testify.
Sigrid Mac
Harding quoted Lorne Sossin, the Associate Dean of law at the University of Toronto and an expert on public inquiries, who said that the "acrimony" and "sense of adversarial posturing" between the commission and the Milgaard camp may undermine the "moral authority and credibility" of the inquiry and its recommendations. This is definitely the sense that I get from talking to insiders and I'm sure that it's the feeling that all of us have by reading current newspaper reports.
It seems as though MacCallum misunderstood David's intentions during his press conference. When I spoke to Win Waher at AIDWYC about 10 days ago, she told me that David had received permission to use the inquiry room to hold his press conference -- he got that permission from MacCallum's people but apparently, it wasn't passed on to MacCallum himself, who seems to think that David was deliberately trying to undermine his authority.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It was a bold move for Dave to speak out and he did it MAINLY to urge the governments to compensate two other wrongly convicted men -- Ronald Dalton and Michele Dumont. Dave did not barge into the inquiry room in order to announce that he wanted nothing to do with the inquiry. That would have been ridiculous. However, it was probably not prudent of him to make a public announcement about his desire not to testify before he had privately conveyed this information to his own lawyers and Justice MacCallum.
It is hard to see where things are going at this point. We'll have to wait until after the 19th to see what's been resolved regarding the demand for David to testify.
Sigrid Mac
posted by Sigrid Macdonald @ 3:46 PM
5 Comments:
At 4:56 PM,
Anonymous said…
Hello Sigrid
I know many people are aware of
this inquiry and what has, happend
in the past.
Now lets just back up a bit.A few posts previous the right questions were being asked, of the right people. We know David was abused
by the system and that is the main
issue. Not making demands of Davids camp.
The supreme court said it all
back in 1991-92.Its a simple thing
Average comment
Dan Wood
At 9:21 AM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Dan,
I just wrote a long response but the blogger ate it. I understand what you're saying but I must disagree. David's innocence is not the only issue here -- that was established back in 1997. We all agree on that.
The issue at hand is whether or not his presence is relevant or required at the inquiry that he and his family requested. A psychiatrist has already indicated that testifying would damage David's mental state. That says it all for me but not for MacCallum.
It is not a simple issue.
Best, Sigrid
At 11:37 AM,
Anonymous said…
Without jumping on Milgaard, his decision to hold a press conference, although possibly to help gain funding for two other wrongful conviction victims, was noble. However, he himself undermined his own inquiry, in what was an attempt pick a fight with the inquiry.
His tone was confrontational when he said he would not testify.
I suggest that Milgaard will get a reputation of being a complainer if he does not stop the adversarial approach. No one at the inquiry is there to hurt David any more.
Why does he not have enough respect for the reccomendations to allow them to unfold without distraction.
I am disappointed with the negative, and erronous media coverage on this and other events at the inquiry.
At 1:14 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Hello Anon -
Yeah, I can see how it might seem that way to you. I guess that you would have to know David in order to understand his motives. He may not always use the best judgment. And hindsight is always 20/20.
It's easy for us to look back now and see that it wasn't such a great idea for him to call that press conference. But I was told explicitly by AIDWYC that David did have the permission of the Inquiry people to use that specific room.
Certainly, it would never have been his intention to undermine the proceedings. That would be insane. All he wants from the proceedings is to find out what went wrong for himself and more importantly, to help others from having to endure the same fate.
I do know David personally, although we haven't spoken in many years. I can assure you that he never meant to be confrontational and he is the last person in the world to be called a whiner! He's not bitter or even angry; his way of dealing with his incarceration was always to get depressed instead of getting mad. I don't think that that the public will see him as a complainer but they may feel that the way many of us do right now, including you and me -- that is, that the end result of the Inquiry and the entire process is now in question.
Thanks so much for your thoughts.
Sigrid
At 1:40 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Yo - Anon. I forgot to say: please post again. I welcome thoughts that are different from my own.
When I expressed some different opinions to other people last week, I was strongly criticized. It's a free country! You're entitled to your opinion and I respect it. Moreover, it adds variety to my blog.
Sigrid
Post a Comment
<< Home