Dawg weighs in; so does Jaeger
Dr. Dawg attended the Warman v. Lemire hearing today and has a decent summary of what was, pretty inevitably something of a non-event.
He brooked no nonsense, in his understated way. No, he didn’t discuss any cases with Warman. Yes, his manager knew about his postings. No, he didn’t work on any file with Warman. dr. dawg
“Barbara K reads a long testimony by Richard Warman in a previous hearing into the record. I wasn’t sure where she was going with this at first and we will have to examine the transcript to be sure I have the details right, but it seemed to chronicle a series of events like this:
1.Warman enters a document into evidence that he claims he printed out Friday, December 8. The document is a printout of a posting that starts with “Welcome, Jadewarr”, indicating the user signed on using that account. (Note that Steacy has claimed he never gave Warman the password for that account).
2.Warman “revises” his testimony that the document “originates from the commission”.
3.Pressed further, Warman says he doesn’t know the origin of the document.
Finally, she asks Steacy if he knows where the document came from. He replies that Warman came over to the Commission, searched for the post in question and couldn’t find it, then signed on using the Jadewarr account, found the post and printed it. This was one of a series of incidents that displayed a remarkably cozy dance between Warman registering a complaint and the commission prosecuting it, all the while not being very transparent about how close they work with Warman and later, other police forces. Jaeger at sda
Now for those of us following the Warman antics and the weird relationship between Warman and the CHRC this is interesting. Being the complainant and a staffer (or an ex-staffer) presents more than a few challenges management should have been dealing with. And it poses a bit of a contradiction to Dawg’s, I think correct, summary of Stacey’s evidence as being that he did not work with Warman on any file.
It is these small inconsistencies which add up to the capacity, in argument, to discredit both the complainant and the Commission investigation.
March 26th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I love Dawg describing Steyn as “oozing self-importance”.
Of course, it helps if you’ve got actual “importance” to ooze, eh Mr. Anonymous Nobody?
March 26th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Jaeger’s account in this respect doesn’t jibe with my memory of events, but it was late in the day, and I’d be interested in the transcripts too—only there won’t be any.
Instead, as the Chair explained, there will be an audio version of the proceedings available. This new approach not only saves the taxpayers “thousands of dollars,” in the Chair’s words, but will convey the tone of the testimony. How to access that? Dunno as yet.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I’ve said that from the beginning: the Commission doesn’t seem to be operating under any sort of structure for keeping track of evidence.
Looking at just the names used to log on, one would hope that there is evidence of:
1) when the name was used
2) by whom
3) on what board
4) what was written
March 26th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Reading all the available accounts 3 things are evident:
1)There is sufficient evidence of conflict of interest in staff as well as unethical collusion and procedural prejudice based in personal bias.
2) Testimony was conflicting, contradictory, biased, prone to selective memory loss and too guarded to be taken at face value….there was more damning testimony being suppressed.
3) the process was a complete farce and the procedures used by CHRC assembling a case were an abomination of lawful conduct.
It’s Royal Commission time!
March 27th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Just because a senior investigator can’t remember anything of what he has investigated, or who he has spoken to, over the last five or so years …......
Well, a Royal Commission inquiry should come up with some recommendations about investigators should receive memory training and learn techniques and procedures of documentation.
Thank you all for your interest in the CHRC. We appreciate your comments and inputs. Now back to our regular programming…......
March 27th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Good grief, Canadian Cynic was right. Shaidle does have a crush on Mark Steyn. And just what does her new husband think of all this? Hmmm?
March 27th, 2008 at 1:36 am
I think they did a good job of showing any uninvolved observer just why they are referred to as Kangaroo Courts.
March 27th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Dr Dawg methinks MS is the one with the crush and they’ve actually met…one whole time!
The HRCs in Canada obviously need a massive top to bottom overhaul. What would your reaction be if you found out through the newspaper the guvment had been illegally using your wireless access for their underhanded dealings? hmmmm?
March 27th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Jaeger’s account in this respect doesn’t jibe with my memory of events, but it was late in the day,
I look forward to verifying the official record on this point as well. If someone has the audio record it happened between 12:15 and 12:40. It is a long transcript being read by Barbara K and followed by a question to Steacy to explain where the document really came from. He then described how he and Warman produced it at the CHRC office.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Whoops. You’re right. It wasn’t late in the day, just lunchtime. Anyway, no excuses. I recall (but my sketchy notes do not confirm) that Kulaszka read the transcript into the record. The issue seemed to turn on whether the “Welcome Jadewarr” heading was a quote or whether it was an original.
Again, I have nothing but questions at this point. If Warman had the “Jadewarr” password as alleged, he had no need to show up at the CHRC asking for a copy. If he didn’t have the password, how did he know what he was looking for?
As for the propriety of dealing with Warman at all, I can’t comment. Such documentation was relevant to the proceedings before the Tribunal, and both sides had a right to access it. There was some talk about a “dirty” and a “clean” copy, and Steacy did indeed recall running off a document. That exhausts my recollection, I’m afraid.