by Debbi Christinck
The Leader
Pembroke — A Deep River businessman, now in his 50s, testified he was sexually assaulted repeatedly when he was a pre-teen by Father Dan Miller, who was the priest at Our Lady of Good Counsel Parish in the 1970s when the assaults occurred.
Describing three separate incidents, he said the priest fondled him sexually at the parish office, in the parking lot of the parish and during a week-end camping outing. The incidents occurred during a time when the then 12-year-old was active at his church as a lay reader, occasional altar boy and youth representative on the parish council.
“I had no idea what had just occurred,” the man, whose identity is protected under a court ordered publication ban, said Tuesday. “I had no basis of understanding. It was my first sexual experience. I was not angry or upset. It was numbness. I did not know what to feel.”
However, defence attorney Robert Carew began his defence by attacking the reliability of the alleged victim, stating his motive for coming forward after Father Miller’s trial last year was simply revenge. He said the man was unhappy over the nine-month sentence the priest received for assaulting five boys.
“You are not here for justice,” he challenged during his cross examination. “You are here for revenge.”
“No,” the witness replied. It was a terse exchange following a morning of testimony in which the witness spoke of his criticism of Mr. Carew’s treatment of the victims in the previous case against Father Miller. In fact, he said he was partly motivated to come forward following Mr. Carew’s cross-examination of the victims as they presented their victim impact statements.
“I felt what Mr. Carew did was wrong; they were victims and he was diminishing the effect on their lives,” he said. “I thought Mr. Carew’s questioning was both callous and irresponsible.”
In his turn Mr. Carew spared no punches with the alleged victim on the stand. He said the alleged victim came to court for the proceedings against Father Miller last year, but did not come forward then.
“You never let on when you were sitting here,” he said, pointing out he was just “lying there” in the courtroom watching.
The alleged victim said it was a process and a decision he did not come to lightly.
“It is difficult to talk about,” he said. “You feel some sense of responsibility for what happened.”
Watching the court proceedings he knew it would be difficult, he added. “I did not want to put myself or my family through the trauma of those proceedings,” he said.
Growing up in Deep River, the church was an important part of his life, the alleged victim said. When Father Miller arrived on the scene there was a great deal of enthusiasm to have a young priest in the parish. “He made himself available at the school,” he recalled. “He was a very charismatic priest.”
The young boy, then a student at St. Mary’s, enjoyed talking with the priest and would often visit with him at the parish office.
“I appreciated the time he spent with the youth and the time he spent with me personally to answer questions I had on Catholicism,” he said. “He was a leader in our community, certainly a man much respected.”
The first incident occurred after a parish council meeting when the then 12-year-old visited the parish office with Father Miller.
“We were having a conversation, like we would normally,” he said. “Father Dan pulled his chair close again, which was not unusual, but this time he touched me on the groin.”
The witness testified the priest touched his penis and when the boy became aroused told him to take off his pants.
“I lowered both my pants and underwear,” he said. “He reached out with his hand and manipulated my genitals.”
There was no discussion after the event, but the priest did “suggest this be our little secret,” he testified.
The witness said he continued to see Father Miller around and did not feel threatened by him.
“I was unconcerned because I considered Father Dan a friend,” he said.
“He did not hurt me or threaten me. I liked him and liked his company.”
The second incident was a few months later when the priest offered him a ride home after a school dance. Instead of taking him home he took him out for pizza and then drove to the parish parking lot.
“Father Miller slides to the right to be close to me and places his hand on my genitals,” he said.
The priest told him to take off his pants again.
“Then he masturbates me,” he said.
There was no discussion until he reached home, at which time the priest reiterated this was something “special” just between the two of them.
The final incident occurred in the spring of the following year after the boy turned 13. He testified he went to a camp outing sponsored by the Knights of Columbus and when he became cold at night the priest offered to share his sleeping bag with the young teen.
“Father Dan then manipulated his hand from my shoulder to my groin area,” he said. “He manipulates me to the point of ejaculation.”
After this the priest told him to go back to his own bunk, he testified.
The witness said after he began high school in Deep River he understood this was abuse.
“I grew more knowledgeable about sexuality and came to the opinion what happened was wrong,” he said. “This was a gradual realization.”
However, he spoke of the incidents to no one. The man said he went to university, married, had children and ran several businesses, but suppressed what happened.
“I was just too embarrassed to talk about it,” he said.
When Father Miller was charged in 2012 with abusing several boys, the reality came back to him, but he still did not come forward. Although this triggered a major depression, he did not go to police to say he too had been victimized. When he met another victim he decided to lend his support by attending court and was dismayed to see the victims treated harshly by Mr. Carew, he testified.
“As I attended the victim impact statement hearing I became very upset,” he said. “Mr. Carew interrupted on several occasions and crossexamined the victims; I felt that was inappropriate.”
Through one of the victims he contacted the Crown attorney and was directed to the OPP.
In his cross-examination Mr. Carew said the motivation was to seek revenge for his friend who was a victim at the first trial.
“Is your sidekick here today?” he asked. “It is none of his business to be here today.”
However, the witness replied it is an open courtroom and anyone can attend.
As the defence cross-examination continued it became a war of words between the witness and the defence attorney, with acting Crown attorney Brian Holowka intervening on more than one occasion.
“It is not appropriate for Mr. Carew to make comments about people’s testimony,” the Crown noted.
Mr. Carew pointed out through his cross-examination the witness was never asked by the priest for sexual gratification, and continued to question his credibility.
“Does your mind play tricks on you that you think something happened and then you believe it is true?” he asked.
“No,” the witness replied.
Throughout the proceedings Father Miller, who was released earlier this year after serving his previous sentence, sat impassably next to his lawyer. Wearing a suit, he did not have a clerical collar.
Father Miller is charged with indecent assault and gross indecency in these incidents. The trial resumes Friday.