The Persecution, Prosecution and Incarceration of former Constable Perry Dunlop

“It is essential for the success of this Inquiry that people come forward, free from any undue influence, promise or threat.”

(Justice Normand Glaude, 12 December 2006)

This page essentially relates to the events which transpired after Justice Glaude reneged on his promise and tried to force Perry Dunlop to testify at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

It is an attempt to bring the public up to date on the Perry Dunlop/Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up /Cornwall Public Inquiry saga. I have compiled a chronology of information scattered throughout the website and blog related to Justice Glaude’s success at putting Perry behind bars. 

A new page was added with links regarding Perry's incarceration,

For further information and documents on Perry Dunlop click here.   For other Perry-related media coverage click here  

 Perry was arrested in Duncan BC 17 February 2008.  On 05 March 2008 he was sentenced on the civil contempt conviction.  On 10 March 2008 he was transferred from the Toronto East Detention Centre to the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre in Ottawa on Monday.  Cards and letters will reach him at the following address. Get them in the mail.  He so enjoys every single letter, card and word: 

Perry Dunlop c/o OCDC 

Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre
2244 Innes Road
Ottawa ON
K1B 4C4    

  Justice Normand Glaude, Ontario judge and Commissioner of Ontario’s multi-million-dollar Cornwall Public Inquiry, wanted Perry Dunlop, incarcerated.   

Perry is in jail. The man who stepped up the plate to protect children is behind bars.  This is clearly the institutional response to allegations of sex abuse in Cornwall. 

According to David M. Humphrey - lawyer for the Attorney General who, along with Justice Glaude and his lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann pushed for incarceration -  the object of the six month jail sentence is to "coerce" Perry to testify.

Incarcerate Perry!

Justice Glaude had told the public that no one would be forced to testify at the inquiry against his/her will.   Peter Engelmann, lead commission counsel at the Cornwall Public Inquiry, told the Dunlops they could not be compelled to return to Cornwall to testify.  Witness the following:

21 September 2006: Peter Engelmann letter to Perry Dunlop re testifying

05 January 2007: Engelmann letter to Perry and Helen Dunlop re testifying at the Inquiry

It seems that after it had become clear the Dunlops did not want to participate in this particular inquiry and had believed Engelmann's assurances they would not be compelled to attend, Glaude had a sudden change of heart.  He decided to force the Dunlops.  He issued a summons. 

29 June 2007: Justice Normand Glaude "Summons to Witness" issued to Perry Dunlop 

The Dunlops reside in British Columbia.  The summons has no authority over out-of-province residents.

30 July 2007: Lacking the legal authority to summons the Dunlops from British Columbia Justice Glaude and his counsel appeal to and convince the Ontario Superior Court that the Dunlops’ evidence at a public inquiry is essential to the administration of justice in Ontario!  By accident or design the arguments used to convince the Superior Court justices are fraught with misrepresentations, distortions and omission of relevant facts.  

The judicial wheels roll into motion to compel the Dunlops to testify. This is all done quietly and behind closed doors. There was never an indication from anyone during public sessions that a move was afoot to force the Dunlops into the Weave Shed.

30 July 2007: Application Record and Application to Ontario Superior Court of Justice for Interprovincial summons 

Justice Glaude’s Toronto-based law from now gives the Dunlops a heads up that the wheels are in motion to attain an interprovincial summons.  This heads up is presumably not a requirement but a “courtesy.”:

08 August 2007: a confidential "courtesy" to Perry Dunlop from Patricia Latimer, Toronto-based counsel for Justice Glaude, (A copy of the same went to Helen. This "courtesy" was a sort of 'heads up' that the commission was about to flex its judicial muscle - and in so doing renege on past promises that the Dunlops would not be forced to testify!)

Since Justice Glaude does not have authority to issue an out of province subpoena he must convince the Ontario Superior Court that the Dunlops evidence is essential to the administration of justice in Ontario.  If the court concurred with the arguments presented then arrangements would be made with the Supreme Court of BC to issue a summons.

09  August 2007: Affidavit of Maya Hamou, legal counsel with the Cornwall Inquiry, for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice 

21 August 2007:  Justice Lederer accepts the commission’s arguments at face value.  Lederer authorizes the issuance of a summons under the Interprovincial Summonses Act.  In so doing, and it seems of necessity to grant Glaude’s request, he rules that the Commission – a public inquiry - is a COURT!  (I now frequently refer to the Weave Shed courtroom.) 

21 August 2007:  Patricia Latimer for Justice Glaude - Ontario Superior Court -  Handwritten Factum of the Applicant  (the text of this hand-written factum is replicated in Justice Lederer's Endorsement below)

21 August 2007: Justice Lederer Endorsement

Justice Lederer was seriously misled.  The above Endorsement misrepresents, distorts, and omits relevant facts.  See page 2 para 2. Note: (1) Perry Dunlop was never involved in the criminal investigations conducted by Cornwall police, (2) Perry was "disciplined" for giving a document to the CAS and was charged under the Police Services Act.  Perry Dunlop was exonerated -  completely -  twice!  A Board of inquiry concluded he had done the right thing! There is no mention of that. (3) to my knowledge the Dunlops did not continue to investigate after Perry resigned. Perry resigned:  they sold their house, packed their bags and got as far away from Cornwall as they could - Vancouver Island.   

This deception was used as the basis for Justice Lederer to issue a Certificate securing an interprovincial summons forcing the Dunlops to attend at the Weave Shed.

21 August 2007:  Justice Thomas R. Lederer, Ontario Superior Court of Justic, Certificate (note that the Dunlops are exempted from immunity for "those proceedings grounded on events occurring during or after the required attendance of the person in Ontario." That means they could be charged with something or other and thrown in jail while they're in Ontario)

21 August 2007: Stockwoods law firm to Helen Dunlop: Summons to a witness outside Ontario

22 August 2007: Peter Engelmann to Helen Dunlop re Witness fees and travel expenses

Justice Smart accepts the information in Ex Parte application at face value.  The Dunlops have no say.  

27 August 2007:  Justice Smart Supreme Court of British Columbia, Order to issue Summons against Perry and Helen Dunlop

01 September 2007:  The Dunlops are summonsed. They are ordered to appear at the Weave Shed in Cornwall 17 September 2007.

The Dunlops question the validity and legality of the summons.  They seek and receive legal advice. They are advised to obey the summons.

By now the about face at the inquiry is occupying their every waking hour and thought.   Their teenage daughters, whose childhoods had been engulfed in death threats, are  upset, confused and afraid.  With the exception of a few minor jobs here and there Perry has essentially been obliged to close shop on his home renovations business.  He has no idea when he will be available to take on or continue a project. 

Perry &Helen at the Weave Shed 

11 September 2007:  Ledroit Beckett, the law firm representing the Victims Group at the inquiry, declares a conflict of interest.  The law firm alleges the Dunlops had retained the firm in the past and it would therefore be unable to represent the interests of the victims by taking any part in the examination and testimony of Perry and/or Helen Dunlop.  I However, the bottom line is that this time during the inquiry the Victims Group was the only party of the fourteen or so (at that time) with standing which could be remotely deemed “friendly” to the Dunlops and their interests. 

The notice below was received by some victims Wednesday 12 September, others probably later.  Either way there was no time for Victims who had been assisted by Perry in the past to first find and then prepare a lawyer to be their voice in the Weave Shed at that moment in time.

11 September 2007. Dallas Lee letter to victims - 11th hour declaration of conflict of interest re Perry and Helen Dunlop  

I am uncertain of the accuracy of the claim that the Dunlops had been retained by Ledroit Beckett.  That’s for another day.   The bottom line is the Dunlops arrived without a lawyer.  With the ‘ withdrawal’  of the Victims Group there was not one party of the fourteen or so with standing at the time which was “ friendly” to the Dunlops.

Perry refuses to testify 

17 September 2007: Perry and Helen have receive a hero’s welcome upon their return to Cornwall. The Weave Shed courtroom, normally empty, is packed with supporters. Perry takes the stand.  He has no lawyer. For various reasons best described by them the Dunlops decided they were better served if left to their own devices.   Perry refuses to testify and candidly gives his reasons. He says there has been a cover-up in Cornwall since 1993 and it continues to this day.  

17 September 2007:  CBC TV coverage: Perry refuses to testify - says it's been a cover-up since 1993 and continues to this day (Quicktime)

18 September 2007: Ex-officer's refusal to testify shocks Cornwall sex abuse hearing 'I have no faith in the Ontario justice system'

17 September 2007: Key witness at Cornwall inquiry could be charged with contempt  

17 September 2007: "Dunlop Refuses To Testify (Script)" and "Former city cop refuses to testify" 

18 September 2007: 'Doing the right thing' cost officer his career: Sex abuse inquiry hears from tearful wife of ex-policeman

18 September 2007: Key witness stonewalls again at Cornwall sex-abuse inquiry  

18 September 2007: Ex-Cornwall cop snubs sex abuse inquiry 

18 September 2007: Helen Dunlop takes the stand. (This after it has become clear Perry will not testify) Helen agrees to testify. .  She goes toe to toe with Justice Normand Glaude  and lead counsel Peter Engelmann.  She tells the commissioner that finding the truth at the inquiry is akin to raising the Titanic and finding the band is still playing! Those in the Weave Shed keen to hear Perry’s “story” and/or pursue facts now have ample opportunity to do so in cross-examination.  Helen is intimately familiar with virtually every twist, bend, and threat along the road since this nightmare began to unfold for Perry 1993.  She has been by his side all the way.   There is ample opportunity for one and all to interrogate Helen.  There is little interest.  Few questions.  Several passes. 

They apparently don’t want details.  They want Perry! 

18 September 2007: CBC Radio - Kathleen Petty report with extracts from Helen Dunlop/Justice Glaude confrontation and interview with Peter Engelmann (RealMedia Player)

19 September 2007:  CBC Ottawa Morning report (radio) on Helen Dunlop testimony and interview with Dallas Lee (Victims Group re Helens’ "compelling" testimony (RealMedia Player)  

19 September 2007:  The Pride (Blog) 

20 September 2007: Helen Dunlop on the witness stand - concerns regarding the process and recommendations

 Link to pictures from the Dunlops' gruelling but victorious week in the coliseum (read Weave Shed) 

20 September 2007: CBC Morning Show interviews with people on the street in Cornwall and with Paul Scott (Citizens for Community Renewal) who promotes Phase 2 and talks "inclusiveness" and "exclusiveness" and the commission talk of "healing" and "reconciliation"  (RealMedia Player)

21 September 2008:  Perry is  put on the stand again.  He declines to testify.  He tells commission he would like to seek if he could find “a damn good lawyer” in British Columbia to seek advice and counsel. (It was Justice Glaude who coined the now oft’ repeated phrase of  “ damn good” lawyer) 

Link to pictures from the Dunlops' gruelling but victorious week in the coliseum (read Weave Shed)   

The Dunlops return to Duncan and their three worried girls. Perry’s mother has been staying with the family and keeping the home fires burning.Perry is to return 09 October 2007.

08 October:  Setting the record straight (Blog) 

Back to the Weave Shed

09 October 2007:  Perry is to be back at the Weave Shed  .

09 October 2007:  CBC radio - early-morning interview with lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann before Perry Dunlop takes the stand

While in British Columbia they sought legal advice regarding the legality of the inter-provincial summons which was attained by misrepresentations and half-truths, and, as Helen has said, “outright lies.”

They were told that Justice Smart (British Columbia) agreed there were problems with the summons, however, it’s too late.  Nothing can be done.  Presumably the moment they submitted to the summons any challenge was rendered null and void.

Perry takes the stand.  He asks to read his Will State into the record stating that it represents “my best recollection of events” between 1993 and 200 when the Will State was prepared and events were fresher in his mind. 

Permission denied.

He continues to refuse to answer questions.  He acknowledges there will be consequences.  He is ready to go to jail.

 Contempt of Court?  The Cornwall Public Inquiries response to Perry Dunlop 

10 October 2007: Smacks of Third World Dictatorship

       

14 October 2007: The World is Watching

 

Contempt of Court 

18 November 2007:  Perry has been ordered to appear before the Divisional Court in Toronto to defend himself against the contempt of court charge.

The inquiry does not cover the costs of travel, or accommodation or legal fees for this.  The Dunlops are on their own for everything: airfare to and from Victoria to Toronto, as well as accommodations and meals, - and, should they happen to find a lawyer, legal fees. 

Helen intends to mount her husband’s defence. 

She is told that will not be permitted.

 She asks for a remand to give the couple some time.  She is turned down.  She is told the hearing is an “emergency” session and will take place as scheduled.

She asks for financial assistance to go to Divisional Court as was granted others at the Inquiry. 

Denied.

The couple decide to forego attendance. 

 GUILTY! 

18 November 2007:  The eve of his scheduled appearance Perry emails the justices and tells them in part: “Since September 1993, I have been treated/called a villain, pariah, rogue, self serving zealot, anti-christ, egotist, derelict cop and worse. …I have paid a heavy price for protecting children under my care as both a police office, a father and a member of the community.” 

18 November 2007 Perry emails the justices

It is around this time that emails of outrage of what is happening (hence the Sound Off! Page) and support for Perry (hence Support for Perry page) begin to flow. 

19 November 2007:  The Ontario Divisional Court finds Perry guilty of contempt of court.

Perry’s email to the court is read aloud and into the record. Peter Engelmann is present. He and all those present hear the following words: 

“I have no intention of testifying at the Cornwall Inquiry now or ever. I have told the truth, I will tell the truth and nothing will dissuade me from the truth.”

“I have been lied to, deceived, coerced, bullied and threatened by the Cornwall Inquiry and those who work for them….. Sirs, I have no intention of testifying at the Cornwall Inquiry now or ever.”

The judges order Perry to take the stand at the Cornwall Public Inquiry 14 January 2008 to answer questions put to him by commission counsel and all parties with standing.   

 According to the justices a witness may refuse to answer a question before a commission only if he or she has, ”a lawful excuse” for the refusal, and according to them Mr. Dunlop has given no legal reason for his refusal to answer questions. They noted that the reasons given by him were that he has no faith in the Ontario justice system or the mandate of the inquiry, he is a “scapegoat,” the process is a cover-up, he was forced to appear against his will, and he could add nothing to his will-state.  None apparently, including the allegation of cover-up, is lawful. According to the justices Justice Glaude had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Perry was guilty of contempt.

 In our view he has provided no lawful excuse for his refusal to answer relevant questions, therefore, we find the commissioner has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Dunlop is guilty of contempt. He is ordered to appear before the commissioner on January 14^th, 2008 to answer questions asked by commission counsel, and counsel for parties with standing. Mr. Dunlop is also to attend before this court on a date to be fixed in order that this court may deal with the appropriate punishment” 

In addition the justices rule that if Perry obliges the order to testify he will purge his contempt in part. 

 Should he testify Perry is ordered to return to Ontario Divisional Court for sentencing for what I assume amounts to the unpurged portion of the charge.  Additionally, and at Justice Glaude’s behest, the justices rule that should Perry fail to obey he is to be found guilty of an additional charge of contempt.  

19 November 2007: Guilty (Blog)  

Barely was the word of the conviction out than Kay Goonow, a 71-year-old American Grandmother, offered to serve Perry’s time in jail.  Others joined.   (Kay and her American colleagues had every intention of travelling to Canada to fulfill the promise.  However Kay’s husband required major surgery.  Kay was the leader of movement. Unfortunately without Kay at the helm it was not to be.)

  No Show 

09 January 2008: Perry has told the press he will not be at the Weave 14 January 2008. Despite Perry’s repeated assertions that he will not testify, Peter Engelmann expresses surprise: he says he has not been told what the media has been told!  He tells the press the commission will not “be held hostage” to Perry’s testimony.

09 January 2008: No (Blog)

10 January 2008: No means No (Blog)

14 January 2008: Perry is not in Cornwall.  He does not show up at the Weave Shed.  He does not answer questions put to him by commission counsel and all parties with standing.

14 January 2008: A Fairy Tale   

The judicial gloves are off 

23 January 2008:  The judicial gloves are really off.

Justice Glaude calls for Perry’s incarceration for a “significant period.”

In a 23 January factum Justice Glaude alleges that “Mr. Dunlop’s blatant disregard for the work of the inquiry and refusal to participate diminishes public confidence in the work of the commission and should be punished accordingly.”  He further alleges that Perry “has ‘thumbed his nose’” at both the Court and Commission” and that his  disobedience has been “open, continuous and flagrant” with “the intent and knowledge that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”  

The commissioner pushes to have Perry “incarcerated.”  This, according to Glaude, would serve as a deterrence  “Our legal system is wounded when court orders are ignored” says Glaude.  “The sentence must be one which will “repair the wound and denounce the conduct.” 

23 January 2008: Brian Gover (Stockwoods’ lawyer representing Justice Normand Glaude) to John T Martin with Justice Glaude's Factum attached

23 January 2008:  Justice Normand Glaude’s Factum

(The referenced Mr. Martin is a Duncan, B.C, lawyer who has kindly agreed to act for the Dunlops in receiving the volumes of paperwork directed their way by the inquiry and Ontario courts.  The Dunlops do not want any more papers served on their doorstep without notice.  In the past it has caused much turmoil and emotional stress for their daughters who can not comprehend why this happening.  Mr. Martin is offering this service for the Dunlops pro bono.)

25 January 2008:  Incarcerate! (Blog)

For a multitude of reasons, not the least of which was financial, I had my druthers that Perry would appear.   

27 January 2008:  Whither the success? (Blog)   

Warrant for the arrest of former Constable Dunlop 

28 January 2008:  Perry was scheduled to appear before the justices at Divisional Court.  He fails to appear. 

It is only now that we the public understood that Justice Glaude had quietly upped the ante and now wants Perry charged with criminal contempt.  The previous charge and conviction was for civil contempt.  The additional charge requested by Glaude is for criminal contempt.

The justices seem slightly perplexed to learn that Perry has not been specifically advised of the change. 

A warrant is issued for Perry’s arrest.  Perry is to appear before the justices at a date to be determined. At that time the court will decide whether the second contempt charge should be civil or criminal, or if perhaps there are mitigating factors and/or legal reasons to negate a charge at all.  The justices will also pass sentence on (1) the present conviction of civil contempt (2) any conviction arising from the second allegations of criminal contempt.

Also of note Justice Hoilett will be retiring.  It is unknown if he will be replaced.  And the move is on to have the office of the Attorney General give Glaude assistance with the prosecution of Perry Dunlop. 

28 January 2008:  Disconcerting (Blog) 

People across the country are upset. Young Shawn Deroy is one of many who are distraught by news that Perry is to be arrested.

  01 February 2008:  "They should put the BAD people in Jail. Perry Dunlop is not a BAD PERSON!" - 11-year-old Shawna Deroy's simple and heart-felt plea to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty.

12 February 2008:  A letter is dispatched to Perry advising that the warrant has been issued.  He is to appear before the justices 20 February 2008. Enclosures include the Order to appear to “deal with sentencing for the finding of contempt made against Mr. Dunlop by this Court in its December 7, 2007 Order” and a copy of the warrant  issued to “TO ALL POLICE OFFICERS in Ontario and across Canada AND TO the officers of all correctional institutions in Ontario.”  Strangely there is no mention or reference whatever to the second charge.

 Paperwork, including copy of the warrant for Perry's arrest, for 20 February 2008 hearing at  Ontario Divisional Court, Toronto

 Despite the fact the warrant clearly orders that Perry is to be arrested because it is not likely that he will appear at the court voluntarily the officers of the Duncan RCMP detachment try to coax and cajole Perry into turning himself in.  In one such encounter an officer tells Helen he is not getting warm fuzzy feelings from her!!!  

15 February 2008:  (Blog) Warm fuzzy feelings   

An 11^th hour rally to support the Dunlops and allow people to have their say is planned and to be held at the Dunlops home

Rally In Duncan. B.C. 1pm Sunday 17 February 2008   

17 February 2008:  The rally.  Over 200 people attend.  Some come and go throughout the event, but in  total over 200 people attend.

The RCMP are called and asked to come and arrest Perry.   The Dunlops want to get it over with.  And, they want witnesses. After learning after the fact that they probably should not have obeyed the first interprovincial summons they are understandably leery of the validity and legality of the warrant.

Perry is eventually arrested.  The officers had first arrived without the warrant.  They return with a copy of the warrant.  They are asked to see the original warrant.  Perry is told it is in the cruiser.  It was not.  Perry has yet to see it. 

17 February 2008:      The first attempt to arrest Perry Dunlop (the mounties arrived without a warrant - video clip)   

17 Feb. '08: THE ARREST OF PERRY DUNLOP (Video clip)  17 Feb. '08:  Slide show of the rally and subsequent arrest of Perry Dunlop  

 17 Feb. '08:  Pictures from the rally and subsequent arrest of Perry Dunlop  

The rally and Perry’s arrest brought young Katie Howie to tears.   

17 February 2008: "I was crying my eyes out because an innocent man is being put to shame!" - 11-year old Katie Howe is "fighting for a friend who cares." Also, Katie's poem:  My Hero

And stirred deep emotions in all who attended: 

17 February 2008: Eyewitness accounts and thoughts from Perry's supporters who attended the 17 February 2008 rally and witnessed his arrest   

18 February 2008:  Blessed are those who mourn.   (Blog) 

Handcuffed and waist-shackled

19 February 2008:  Perry is whisked out of Duncan.  A court hearing on the 18^th  regarding the validity of the warrant was supposed to carry on this morning.  The presiding judge wanted to see the original of the warrant.   It seems the original was not in Duncan.   That apparently is a bit out of the ordinary and caused the judge a degree of concern.  The discussions/arguments regarding the matter seem to indicate that this particular interprovincial warrant and arrest on a conviction of civil contempt is quite unique.  

The judge planned to continue the hearings this morning.   No hearings.  At least not with Perry.  Whether the warrant and arrest were/are legal and/or valid or not, Perry, escorted by two Toronto police officers, is on his way to Ontario. (Perry has yet to see the original warrant.) 

Perry is handcuffed and waist-shackled for the duration of the trip – from the time he leaves Duncan until he arrives at a jail in Toronto late in the evening. The cuffs are not removed.  Not for meals.  Not for trips to the washroom.

19 February 2008:  Handcuffed and shackled (Blog – the date shows on the blog as the 20th. It is actually the 19th)

Perry spends the night on the floor. 

A Trial? 

20 February 2008: A packed courtroom greets Perry in Toronto’s historic Osgoode Hall.  A standing and prolonged ovation. 

Justice Hoilet, now retiree, has not been replaced.  Two judges, Swinton and Ferrier, are at the bench.  If they are not unanimous, then what? Perry is self-represented. He speaks.  (see 23 February 2008: Tired of the spin below)  It seems after the fact and in hindsight that this must have been a trial.  Not only, as stated in the Order, was Perry there to be sentenced for a conviction of civil contempt, he was also there to be tried on what the court decided was a charge of criminal contempt of court.   Perhaps a trial at Divisional Court is different than a trial in any other court?  There was no jury.  If a jury trial was a possibility it wasn’t offered or given.   

In the end the justices reserved their decision on everything for two weeks.  The sentencing for the civil contempt conviction was withheld.  The decision as to whether the second charge was one of civil or criminal contempt was withheld.  And the decision as to whether or not he was guilty of whichever manner of contempt was withheld.   Off to jail. Perry was off to the Toronto East Detention Centre for another two weeks.  No bail hearing.  Jail! 

21 February 2008:  Cruel and unusual (Blog)   

The media is taking potshots at Perry.  People are furious. 

22 February 2008:  Nasty piece of work (Blog)  

And on and on goes the spin

23 February 2008: Tired of the spin (Blog)

25 February 2008:  How low can they go? (Blog)  

Conditions at the detention centre are less then humane 

01 March 2008:  Never rule out the impossible (Blog)

03 March 2008: Is there an applicable rule of law? (Blog) 

05 March 2008:  Perry is escorted from the Toronto East Detention Centre to Divisional Court at Osgoode Hall. He appears before Justices Ferrier and Swinton.  He is sentenced to six months for the civil contempt conviction. He is found guilty of criminal contempt of court.   Sentencing is reserved until he serves or purges his civil contempt. Not once – not once! – do I see either Justice Swinton or Ferrier so much as glance at Perry as Ferrier intones the duo’s “unanimous” decision. 

05 March 2008:  Cornwall Public Inquiry v. Dunlop Ontario Divisional Court decision on contempt charges against Perry Dunlop WITH COMMENTARY

05 March 2008:  Cornwall Public Inquiry v. Dunlop (Ontario Divisional Court decision sentencing Perry to six months jail for civil contempt as coercion with sentencing for criminal contempt pending after the six months has been purged or expired. (without commentary)

06 March 2008:  Judicial torture (Blog)

The public responds

05 March 2008:  Perry gets six months behind bars (and related comments)    

07 March 2008: In their own words: The public sounds off   

 Perry’s anticipated transfer to the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre takes several days to execute.  His is virtually in solitary confinement at the TEDC – showers rare, clean cloths rarer, and outdoors never. 

09 March 2008:  Speak up (Blog – dated 10 March but actually the 9th)     10 March 2008:  

Perry is transferred to the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.  Closer to home. 

10 March 2008: He’s here! (Blog)

  ….Perry's Home Away from Home  

Judicial Vindictiveness?

Perry did not receive time served (generally doubled – for Perry that would I believe be 18 days x 2 = 36). 

Furthermore he is denied the right afforded all Canadian inmates of early release for good behaviour.  And he spends his days in virtual solitary confinement, not because he is a threat to anyone but because he must be protected, both from inmates who hate policemen (most) and those who are paedophiles.  

No TV.  No radio.  No computer.  Ever! 

Outdoors in the fresh air if and when staff have or find the time to get him out alone.

In a 12’ x 7’ cell.

Because way back in 1993 he stepped up to the plate for children, and because he fulfilled his legal and moral duty to report children at risk. 

And now to round out this saga….

Ron Leroux and C-8, two of the many real/”alleged” victims who had contact with the Dunlops, have since recanted or semi-recanted portions of their allegations.

There are inferences and accusations that Perry next to forced the pair at gun point to lie and drum up false allegations.   “Officials” are happy to and gleefully run with that version of events. 

The official story making the rounds in legal and judicial circles is that the two victims lied in their affidavits and are now telling the gospel truth, and that Perry is the liar who, for want of a better hobby, forced the two to drum up false allegations against pillars of the community!  It goes without saying that such an accusation belies common sense .

Both C-8  and  Ron Leroux have themselves been charged or accused of sexual abuse.  C-8 molested his niece. Guilty. No jail time.

C-8 alleges he was sexually abused as a 15-year-old boy by Ron Leroux.  The authorities have known about these allegations against Ron for perhaps ten years.  Charges have never been laid.

Over the years many Cornwallites have heard Ron Leroux repeat the allegations in his affidavit -  unprompted, and with consistency, and long after the Dunlops were gone and capable of exerting pressure of any kind on him. His demeanour and confusion on the stand at the inquiry, along with his suddenly and totally muddled, ever-evolving testimony, raised eyebrows and questions.  Stories are beginning to circulate about the week Ron spent holed up at the Ramada Inn prior to testifying.   There are questions which need to and must be asked about what happened there. 

Who’s going to ask?  Were there threats?  Was there coercion?  What was that all about?

As for C-8, I have no idea what happened there.  For some reason his identity and testimony are top secret.  People know who he is so it makes little sense, particularly in light of the number of times one lawyer or the other in the Weave has let his name slip.

But, that’s the way it is.

C-8 and Ron Leroux are now telling the gospel truth.   One a convicted and the other an “alleged” paedophile. 

Perry has never been accused of laying a wayward hand on a child.   Never!   As a police officer he fulfilled his moral and legal obligation to protect children from suspect paedophiles.  Did anyone else?

Perry’s in jail.

Thanks to Justice Normand Glaude, Peter Engelmann and the office of the AG, Perry’s in jail.

Make sense?

Protecting children from sexual predators is on the back burner.  It’s been on the back burner for years.  Shoot the messenger is on the front.

Will the real and “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall be, like Perry, subpoenaed and forced to take the stand under threat of jail?  If not, why not?

Really!  Will one single “alleged”paedophile be subpoenaed and forced to take the stand?  If he refuses, will he – like Perry – be bound for jail? If not, why not?

What of Father Charles MacDonald?  Where is he?  Why has he not been forced to testify? What gives him special inquiry privilege, protection, sympathies and status denied Perry?

What of Jacques Leduc?  Where is he?

Father Paul Lapierre?  Father Kenneth Martin?

Jean Luc Leblanc?  He’s already in jail.  He has nothing to lose.  Put him on the stand so we can hear his “story” and find out what he knows about clans, and rings and cover-ups.

The list is endless. 

Robert Sabourin?  Father Lucien Lussier?

James Lewis? Gilf Gregain? Earl Landry Jr.?

Where are they?  Why no judicial bullying for the real and “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall? 

And then there’s the judges.

What about Justice Colin McKinnon?  Will he testify?  Will there a be summons for him?  If he’s beyond the scope of the mandate because he’s a federally appointed judge why did no one insist that this inquiry be a joint federal-provincial inquiry?

What about Justice Chilcott? 

For that matter, where’s Justice Lennox?  Will we hear from him?  He’s provincially appointed.  He graciously gave Malcolm MacDonald an absolute discharge.  What judicial policies practices and procedures guided him to that decision?  Should we not hear?

What about Justice Robert Pelletier?  Or Justice Peter Griffiths?  Do former Crowns attorney turned judges get a bye too?

Is judicial bullying for judicial colleagues a “No. No”?   If yes, why?

 Meanwhile in a Cornwall courtroom Justice Bruce McPhee gives a paedophile who abducted and molested a young boy gets a three month conditional sentence and 12 months probation. And the defence lawyer tries to mitigate the abuse by saying:  "There was no torturing, no hitting, no choking. You heard of a hugging, a humping, and a kiss to the neck area,"

16 April 2008: Boy still feels pain of attack

Perry's in jail.  Six months now.  Fifteen in the offing. 

What's wrong with this whole picture?   What's wrong?