Ottawa soldier alleges he faced reprisals from military

[Humphrey Bogart]

I agree, I only served a short time in the forces, just over 8 years, but have seen both rightfully and wrongfully of someone being black balled and/or 'held back' in multiple examples.

I have seen people not getting a fair shake with one posting, to go to another and exceed the requirements. I have also seen people who really just make more work for everyone around them, and you wonder how they even made it this far.

No matter what, there will always be bias or popularity contests, and people not getting fair shakes.

I agree with the Cpl feeling he wouldn't be able to work with the accused, but that shouldn't come at a consequence for the accused should he be found not guilty. Unfortunatly in this situation, if the accused maintains a professional deportment and the Cpl still refuses to work with, I feel the only options for the Cpl is to either resign or request another posting. It isn't pretty, but these situations rarely are.

One thing is certain, I feel this Cpls career path is all but doomed now. He used the grievance process, and it didn't come back with a suitable response many times, then he made it public. Even if he has a favorable outcome from the public process, I highly doubt he will be offered any great advancement opportunities for the rest of his career. And that is a shame, if he just was a guy trying to do what is right.

This isn't unique to the CAF though is it?  It's called the Court of Co-Worker Opinion.  Piss off enough of the people  you bake your bread with and eventually the knife will come for you. 

Clearly this guy wasn't well liked by many and that in and of itself says something.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

This isn't unique to the CAF though is it?  It's called the Court of Co-Worker Opinion.  Piss off enough of the people  you bake your bread with and eventually the knife will come for you. 

Clearly this guy wasn't well liked by many and that in and of itself says something.

Without going and searching up the article and reading it again, it said (or heavily implied) something along the lines of everything was fine with the mbr until this stuff started...as in he had no issues and there were none with him where performance and such were concerned.

And yes, unfortunately it’s especially prevalent in many public service-related positions. But that’s not, or at least it shouldn’t be, the point. Sadly, popularity does indeed factor into situations where it has no business playing a role. But, yeah, he’s now elevated himself to beyond an administrative burden and that certainly ticks people off.

gryphonv:

...One thing is certain, I feel this Cpls career path is all but doomed now. He used the grievance process, and it didn't come back with a suitable response many times, then he made it public. Even if he has a favorable outcome from the public process, I highly doubt he will be offered any great advancement opportunities for the rest of his career. And that is a shame, if he just was a guy trying to do what is right.

Agreed. And it seems the stance of this Cpl’s principles is extremely concrete...or he’s extremely stubborn, or maybe both...if he’s willing to keep proceeding this strongly. The majority of the times I’ve come across a situation (not all of them, of course) where an individual is willing to risk destroying their entire life (financially, possibly personally AND professionally) based on moral principle alone generally means there’s a crucial underlying cause worth fighting for. I suppose there’s a possibility that this person just has a highly over-inflated sense of pride and ego, but at the lengths he’s gone to now, I have trouble settling on the fact that he’s fighting this hard simply due to some mundane feeling of wanting to be...right? Of course, anything’s a possibility...

I dunno. It certainly appears to be one giant mess though.

 

[garb811]

If anyone is interested in reading the transcript of the CM referenced, it is here:  Lloyd-Trinque M.G.C. (Corporal), R. v.

Here is what the Military Judge said about the subject of the news story's testimony:

...
[91]          Concerning the testimony of Corporal Brunelle, it appears that he had an interest in the way the complainant would be believed by the court.  First, he saw and heard anything concerning both incidents.  He told the court that the accused tried to ensure his dominance over the complainant by grappling with her and tickling her.

[92]          Second, it appears that the complainant told him her story many times in different contexts: alone, with course staff and in writing when he reviewed her complaint.  He was also her confident and they spent the remaining of the course together, practically isolated from other classmates.  He was close to her and did not appear to the court as having the necessary perspective to testify without trying to influence the outcome of the trial.  His testimony gave the court the impression that he had some bias in favour of the complainant’s story.  For these reasons, the court comes to the conclusion that his testimony is not credible and reliable.
...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

If anyone is interested in reading the transcript of the CM referenced, it is here:  Lloyd-Trinque M.G.C. (Corporal), R. v.

Here is what the Military Judge said about the subject of the news story's testimony:

The old honeypot manoeuvre!

 

[Jarnhamar]

Because of the course’s policy, female candidates were located at a different building than the male candidates.

Policy is working like a charm I see.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

<Sigh> So in reading the course of events as laid out in the transcript, I don’t get how Cpl Brunelle was permitted to be involved to any degree beyond accompanying the complainant as a friend (or whatever) during her complaint in the first place. Who okay’d that? Is that strictly an investigating MP call?

I personally don’t think the transcript lends much insight to the situation where the Cpl finds himself now, other than he should’ve just stayed out of it. But that’s moot for him at this point.

To me, there should be clear separation between his involvement in placing a complaint against the accused and everything that’s happened since with respect to the claims issue, PER, etc.

In terms of the complainant, I’m not thrilled with her behaviour as it’s written there, nor am I thrilled with the behaviour of the accused. Period. Personally, none of it adds up. There’s clear inconsistencies on both ends, and multiple plain ole’ “wtf?” questions come to mind.

Moral? How about just staying in your own damn rooms.  :not-again:

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Policy is working like a charm I see.

Meh, the policy’s there but we all know it’s often useless regardless of the course and/or location.

 

[meni0n]

<Sigh> So in reading the course of events as laid out in the transcript, I don’t get how Cpl Brunelle was permitted to be involved to any degree beyond accompanying the complainant as a friend (or whatever) during her complaint in the first place. Who okay’d that? Is that strictly an investigating MP call?

I personally don’t think the transcript lends much insight to the situation where the Cpl finds himself now, other than he should’ve just stayed out of it. But that’s moot for him at this point.

To me, there should be clear separation between his involvement in placing a complaint against the accused and everything that’s happened since with respect to the claims issue, PER, etc.

In terms of the complainant, I’m not thrilled with her behaviour as it’s written there, nor am I thrilled with the behaviour of the accused. Period. Personally, none of it adds up. There’s clear inconsistencies on both ends, and multiple plain ole’ “wtf?” questions come to mind.

Moral? How about just staying in your own damn rooms.  :not-again:

Not sure what's so confusing. He drove complainant to the MPs who decided to take his statement and the prosecutor decided to call him on to the stand. I don't understand how there are people on the site that are slamming what he did. This is what happen during a normal investigation and what a decent human being would do. If someone approaches you and tells you they are a victim of a crime, your first instinct would be to stay out of it? It's not like he can refuse to give a statement or not show up to court.

 

[garb811]

<Sigh> So in reading the course of events as laid out in the transcript, I don’t get how Cpl Brunelle was permitted to be involved to any degree beyond accompanying the complainant as a friend (or whatever) during her complaint in the first place. Who okay’d that? Is that strictly an investigating MP call?
...

I think the judge is referring to her "formal complaint" to course staff.

...
[39]          The next day, the complainant had a discussion with Private Brunelle at the mess where he told her that the accused was talking behind her back.  She told her version of both incidents to him and he told her that she should make a complaint to the chain of command.

[40]          Three days later, she told her story to some members of the course staff.  On 28 June 2013, she made a formal complaint.  Later, she had an argument at the cafeteria with the accused in front of all their classmates where she confronted him because of his derogatory comments about some officer cadet’s demeanour.  He had made violent comments towards the complainant.

[41]          She was interviewed later by police, on 6 and 7 July 2013, and charges were laid accordingly.
...

It's pretty common, unfortunately, for complainants to show up at their first interview with MP after already having been interviewed by at least one of their staff/Chain of Command, and many times with a pre-written statement in hand that their staff/Chain of Command, has asked them to write.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Not sure what's so confusing. He drove complainant to the MPs who decided to take his statement and the prosecutor decided to call him on to the stand. I don't understand how there are people on the site that are slamming what he did. This is what happen during a normal investigation and what a decent human being would do. If someone approaches you and tells you they are a victim of a crime, your first instinct would be to stay out of it? It's not like he can refuse to give a statement or not show up to court.

Because he didn’t witness the main issues first-hand. Be there for support as much as possible? Sure. Absolutely. No issues there. But there have been a few CAF situations I’ve been personally involved in over time where instances relayed to me via a complainant directly ref an incident still weren’t admissible to any degree at any point in an investigation because I didn't see it personally and/or wasn’t involved...much less ever even remotely getting to the point where I’d be called to the stand. That’s why I’m confused.

 

[meni0n]

Because he didn’t witness the main issues first-hand. Be there for support as much as possible? Sure. Absolutely. No issues there. But there have been a few situations I’ve been personally involved in over time where instances relayed to me via a complainant directly still weren’t admissible to any degree at any point in an investigation because I didn't see it personally and/or wasn’t involved. That’s why I’m confused.

Then maybe take it up with the investigator or the prosecutor. It wasn't the member who made these decisions and a regular person would not think twice if a investigator asked them to relay what the complainant told them.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Then maybe take it up with the investigator or the prosecutor. It wasn't the member who made these decisions and a regular person would not think twice if a investigator asked them to relay what the complainant told them.

And that’s why I asked who made the call...who makes the call about whether a statement/report of that nature moves forward to the point/level that the Cpl’s did. Because it clearly appears to be case-by-case and not a strict practice across the board.

And let me be very, very clear—I am an advocate for having all inappropriate behaviour dealt with appropriately and swiftly. But as I mentioned, that transcript called many things into question against the article...which as has also been mentioned, can’t be dissected appropriately on this venue.

 

[garb811]

It can be helpful to have a statement/testimony from someone the victim has disclosed the abuse/assault to, especially in incidents where there is no physical evidence or eyewitnesses. The problem in this case is that the judge decided the Cpl was not simply acting as a witness and describing what he had been told by the victim, he had adopted the role of advocating for her.

 

[Eaglelord17]

You mean helping to railroad another member through a court martial where the victim's credibility and story was found to be untruthful. That sort of help? :dunno:

I just wish NIS would actually charge some of these goofs with public mischief.

What a disgusting comment. The charges were found 'not guilty' because the acts were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because the acts didn't happen. Very distinct difference.

The CAF (and Canadian society in general) has a massive issue with people not reporting when incidents happen to them, and then there is people like you who want them charged when the case fails due to the high standard of proof that is needed to be obtained in court. The VICTIMS are made to repeat and go though these incidents over and over again by the court process. First the initial compliant, then the interview(s), then getting ripped apart on the stand. If you think people do this because they enjoy it, you are wrong and need to give your head a shake.

 

[sidemount]

I'm kind of surprised that no one has mentioned anything about the Capt who absolutely 180ed on the grievance, and then the CDS who basically ignored the external review panel. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'm kind of surprised that no one has mentioned anything about the Capt who absolutely 180ed on the grievance, and then the CDS who basically ignored the external review panel. 

Did they provide the paperwork for our viewing pleasure to support those accusations??  If not then it's not worth commenting on....

 

[BeyondTheNow]

I'm kind of surprised that no one has mentioned anything about the Capt who absolutely 180ed on the grievance, and then the CDS who basically ignored the external review panel.

The beginning of the thread mentioned thoughts towards CDS, and comments of a general nature have been expressed towards the situation as a whole. So those two points have indeed been mentioned, although more indirectly.

Again, many are wading lightly on the subject matter because of site policies regarding the source of the original article mentioned.

 

[sidemount]

Did they provide the paperwork for our viewing pleasure to support those accusations??  If not then it's not worth commenting on....

Nope no paperwork to check but the 180 decision change sends up red flags to me.
I agree there are 3 sides to every story, but I'm curious to know what would cause a complete decision reversal.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

What a disgusting comment. The charges were found 'not guilty' because the acts were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not because the acts didn't happen. Very distinct difference.

The CAF (and Canadian society in general) has a massive issue with people not reporting when incidents happen to them, and then there is people like you who want them charged when the case fails due to the high standard of proof that is needed to be obtained in court. The VICTIMS are made to repeat and go though these incidents over and over again by the court process. First the initial compliant, then the interview(s), then getting ripped apart on the stand. If you think people do this because they enjoy it, you are wrong and need to give your head a shake.

Yes, I'm disgusting for thinking when someone makes a false accusation against you for something you didn't do, they should be held accountable.  :rofl:

You've clearly made up your mind already that they are guilty.  Even with holes wider than the Grand Canyon in the accusers story.  How dare we only accept a high standard of proof, we should really only aim for low standards of proof, like the National Socialist Party and Politburo. 

It's crooked logic like yours that makes me strongly fear for our future. 

Edit:

I'll add that the ONLY reason they don't investigate for false allegations is because of OPTICS.  The old "Not in the public interest" cop out.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

I think it’s crucially important to be aware that these types of issues can be painful triggers for some coming from all sides of the spectrum—assaulted, accused & falsely accused. Perspective and empathy are greatly needed here. We don’t know much, if any, about people’s backgrounds on these boards unless they’ve decided to share experiences which have lead them to feeling the way they do about topics which have the potential to become emotionally charged. And many aren’t comfortable doing that.

As evidenced a bit through my later posts in this thread, I’m frustrated and highly skeptical of all parties involved now, especially after reading the transcript. That being said, I want to explain a few things from my own perspective & experiences (which I’ve decided to do based off a few of the comments made).

The reason I’m frustrated is because when situations like this occur where the complainant and/or accused don’t (appear) to be telling the whole truth—and let’s be clear...while the complainant’s version of facts are questionable, the accused’s are just as much...then it’s harder for every single person coming after them to navigate their own situation. Again, that applies to both the complainant and the accused in any situation.

I’ve mentioned I was sexually assaulted outside CAF in another thread. (Personally, I hate the term “sexually assaulted.” It’s unclear because it now encompasses everything from inappropriate touching/fondling to full-out penetration.) So let’s be clear—I was raped. I was a teenager. I attempted to tell one person who I deeply, deeply trusted. Do you know what happened? That person told me they didn’t believe me. Do you know what happened next? I didn’t tell another individual for well over 20 years.

As I look back now, after maturing, therapy, coming to peace with the event and moving on with my life, I can recall every vivid, scary, painful detail through a calm mind. But then? Being young, as well as being scared, confused, angry, feeling alone, feeling violated and having my worst fear come true on top of it all?—which was not being believed? I absolutely know that details changed and I left things out or put them back in as I tried to recall things through a racing mind and lack of full comprehension of my emotional state. So, my point is that a victim’s story having inconsistencies isn’t necessarily indicative of the incident not having occurred and falsely accusing another. Furthermore, increased trauma is absolutely added to the entire situation when the victim is facing skepticism, coldness and a lack of understanding and/or pressure to recall everything.

On the flip side, while I’ve never been in the situation, I can absolutely empathize with an individual who’s being accused of an assault which never took place. And when the repercussion is the loss of everything the individual has worked hard for, then it’s even more devastating. I don’t to have personally gone through the situation to understand how difficult it could be for another.

I don’t think anyone is “disgusting” (or their comments) for expressing their POV, nor do I think it was necessary to scoff at another person’s equally-as-passionate feelings towards words expressed. As I said, circulation of these types of situations can be triggers for different people for different reasons.