• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,911
Points
1,040
Two different eyewitnesses have come forward to corroborate one of the allegations of sexual assault.
You see, that's what I'm not sure of. Fowler said this from reviewing the redacted police report:

Nevertheless, the heavily redacted information that was provided confirmed that, of 38 witnesses interviewed by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS), not one corroborated the complaint against Admiral McDonald that he pushed the head or face of a third person into the chest of the complainant.
I know Rory and he doesn't pull crap out of his hat. I'll be the first to admit though that a "heavily redacted" police report is worth - crap. IMHO the evidence is conflicted and until it's clear I won't go throwing stones.

Look back earlier in this thread - the MP's basically squashed two witnesses.
One of them came out to a media outlet.
That doesn't make the report true - it just raises a question in my mind of how valuable this witness actually is. I'm one of them folks from Missouri.

I have to admit that that I've found one or more screwed up police reports in my limited travels on both the prosecution and defence side. The one thing that I've learned is that you never take an investigator's report at face value. I always interviewed the witnesses personally before trial to see if what was on paper was there in fact and how the witness appeared to me while saying it. There's been more than one occasion where I flat out wouldn't believe a witness. (and one occasion where I was convinced my client was flat out lying to me because his story sounded so implausible but on further investigation found corroborative witnesses and paperwork to confirm his cock and bull story was absolutely true - go figure) - end result - I refuse to make snap judgements based on news reports and even police reports.

Neither do I - so I'd rather a NON DND entity take it over - and re-interview a bunch of people -- because quite frankly MP's have shown they know how to use a shredder a little too well.

If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have - and did - argue against it. This case in particular has made me change my mind. The extent of the redaction in this case to McDonald's counsel is IMHO, highly suspicious as I can't think that any of the normal exclusions on disclosure would apply. Then again this isn't a Stinchcombe disclosure but a piece of crap run through the Privacy Act so the usual government obscuration was applied. Bloody sad, IMHO when dealing with someone who has give his life to the service and a few short months ago was trusted with its highest office.

I've always said: "The Forces are a 'what have you done for us today?' organization." The moment you leave you are forgotten about. Class A's are forgotten about until they are Class Bs or Cs. The moment you can't be used, you are a nothing. McDonald stopped being a something the moment he stepped aside.

I no longer trust them to look after anyone's interest and, in the case of criminal matters, it would be better if an outside agency that doesn't even pretend to care took over. That way at least you know where you stand.

🍻
 
Last edited:

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,608
Points
1,110
I know Rory and he doesn't pull crap out of his hat. I'll be the first to admit though that a "heavily redacted" police report is worth - crap. IMHO the evidence is conflicted and until it's clear I won't go throwing stones.
I like Rory - I tend to heavily disagree with him, but he is intelligent and honest - which I value.

That doesn't make the report true - it just raises a question in my mind of how valuable this witness actually is. I'm one of them folks from Missouri.
Agreed - which again makes me want to get outside looks.
I have to admit that that I've found one or more screwed up police reports in my limited travels on both the prosecution and defence side. The one thing that I've learned is that you never take an investigator's report at face value. I always interviewed the witnesses personally before trial to see if what was on paper was there in fact and how the witness appeared to me while saying it. There's been more than one occasion where I flat out wouldn't believe a witness. (and one occasion where I was convinced my client was flat out lying to me because his story sounded so implausible but on further investigation found corroborative witnesses and paperwork to confirm his cock and bull story was absolutely true - go figure) - end result - I refuse to make snap judgements based on news reports and even police reports.
Agreed - my motto these days is Distrust and Verify.

If you'd asked me a year ago, I would have - and did - argue against it. This case in particular has made me change my mind. The extent of the redaction in this case to McDonald's counsel is IMHO, highly suspicious as I can't think that any of the normal exclusions on disclosure would apply. Then again this isn't a Stinchcombe disclosure but a piece of crap run through the Privacy Act so the usual government obscuration was applied. Bloody sad, IMHO when dealing with someone who has give his life to the service and a few short months ago was trusted with its highest office.
I found it really odd that Rory mentioned heavily redacted - given he was the defense counsel.

I've always said: "The Forces are a 'what have you done for us today?' organization." The moment you leave you are forgotten about. Class A's are forgotten about until they are Class Bs or Cs. The moment you can't be used, you are a nothing. McDonald stopped being a something the moment he stepped aside.

I no longer trust them to look after anyone's interest and, in the case of criminal matters, it would be better if an outside agency that doesn't even pretend to care took over. That way at least you know where you stand.

🍻
Usually I believe tie go to the runner - based on what we have seen from the CAF recently in Sexual Assault cases etc, I tend to think tie means something stinks and needs much deeper digging.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,911
Points
1,040
I found it really odd that Rory mentioned heavily redacted - given he was the defense counsel.
Yeah. Here in Canada defence counsel get disclosure respecting charges from the prosecutors under a doctrine from the SCC Stinchcombe decision. Since no charges were laid Stinchcombe is not applicable and there is no obligation for the police to release investigative reports. That left it to Rory to get an access to information release from DND. DND likes using its various redaction tools.

🍻
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,608
Points
1,110
Yeah. Here in Canada defence counsel get disclosure respecting charges from the prosecutors under a doctrine from the SCC Stinchcombe decision. Since no charges were laid Stinchcombe is not applicable and there is no obligation for the police to release investigative reports. That left it to Rory to get an access to information release from DND. DND likes using its various redaction tools.

🍻
Ah yes I keep forgetting he wasn't actually charged.
Which makes this even more messy -
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,263
Points
1,090
Yeah. Here in Canada defence counsel get disclosure respecting charges from the prosecutors under a doctrine from the SCC Stinchcombe decision. Since no charges were laid Stinchcombe is not applicable and there is no obligation for the police to release investigative reports. That left it to Rory to get an access to information release from DND. DND likes using its various redaction tools.

🍻
Redaction tools like code names so ATI requests turn up a blank?
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
9,154
Points
1,160

ironic irony GIF
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,336
Points
1,010
Based on other social media, I can understand the "they're guilty" Immediate Action though.
In my experience people gleefully love to see the powerful and the wealthy fall, but forget that there is due process for all, not just us peasants. ;)
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,217
Points
1,040
Aggressive use of exemptions under the Access To Information Act and Privacy Act.

Although I commend DND for actually getting the package out in something resembling their statutory obligatory timeframe to do so. That's a rare event.
Not sure what everyone else's experience is, but I've been on the receiving end of a few ATIs and they've all gotten to me at the point where it's already at/past the reply date. Sometimes it's because it takes a while to figure out who to route it to, which is fair I think, but other times it should be obvious (especially when the organization is named specifically in the request), but still takes 30+ days to get to the people with the info.

Pretty skeptical of the ATI office though; they have released multiple files with things marked up for redaction that never get done, or blatantly secret documents (like the CAF emergency response plan a few years ago).

Overall it's a pretty frustrating process when you get nailed at the last minute (especially with a fishing expedition ATI that goes back to longer than we are required to keep records for) and have to drop everything to comb through a pile of stuff because 98% of the timeline was eaten up by the routing, and generally you don't get BGH support to push back against an unreasonable turnaround time.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
3,933
Points
1,240
Especially when we get 2 guys in a row who held the same job title and got charged with roughly the same thing. And I think there’s even more than one of those.

My buddies and I were talking about this and one of them remarked:

"Statistically it's so unlikely that we managed to fill so many of our senior leadership with sexual deviants, yet here we are"
 
Top