Perry has now spent 106 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children, and then daring to say he has lost faith in the justice system. This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.
Inspector has just started testifying. The cross exam of Cst. Rene Desrosier was whipped through in the twinkle of an eye. All over.
Inspector Brendon Wells is now testifying.
Several obesrevations and/or points on Desrosier’s testimony of yesterday.
(1) Jurisdictional messes and fragmented investigations
Investigations into sex abuse allegations of victims with multiple abusers in the Cornwall area were a mess. There seem to have been a goodly number of cases in which the Cornwall Police Service “investigated” allegations against one or more of the victims’ molesters while the Ontario Provincial Police and/or later the Project Truth probe investigated his allegations against his other molesters. “Cases” were shuttled from CPS to the OPP or PT and vice-versa. As far as Project Truth was concerned sometimes jurisdictional issues seemed to come into play and sometimes they didn’t.
There seems to have been no awareness on the part of CPS what Project Truth was all about and therefore no sense whatever of which cases rightly belonged to and should be forwarded to the probe.
How Project Truth officers determined which cases fit its mandate is well beyond me. I re-iterate yet again that from my perspective the Marcel Lalonde allegations fit the PT mandate like a glove. For some strange reason the Lalonde victims were splintered between the OPP and two CPS officers. Why the probe did not grab control of the fragmented “investigation” is beyond me. Who said ‘no’ to Project Truth taking it over is a mystery.
One given is that it was the Lalonde investigation which became fodder for CPS to accuse Perry of non-disclosure. From there things mushroomed from one lawyer and/or judge and/or Crown and/or police officer to the next. Perry slowly became the devil incarnate.
The other is that the investigative left hand didn’t know from one minute to the next what the investigative right hand was doing.
(2) Trouble finding records of previous CPS investigations
During his testimony of 23 May 2008 Desrosier initially seemed to indicate that in January 1997 when he was approached by C-68 and later by C-45 he, Desrosier, did not conduct a search for records on Lalonde within CPS.
In his 23 May 2008 testimony Desrosier seemed to indicate that after interviewing C-68 he decided not to do any sort of background check on Lalonde:
MS. SIMMS: At the time of this information,7 October of 1996, did you do any background checks on Marcel Lalonde?
MR. DESROSIERS: No, I did not.
MS. SIMMS: So you didn’t run a CPIC search?
MR. DESROSIERS: No I did not because it was no longer an investigation with the Cornwall Police Service.
MS. SIMMS: And you didn’t do any checks of CPS’s — the Cornwall Police Service’s system, in terms of whether there’d been previous contacts?
MR. DESROSIERS: No, I did not.
The same seemed to hold true for his testimony regarding his dealings with C-45 in January 1997:
MS. SIMMS: And at this time, did you do any background checks with respect to Marcel Lalonde?
MR. DESROSIERS: Initially, at this time, this date, no; eventually, yes.
There was some discussion initiated by Justice Glaude regarding the manner in which CPS deals with old files. After this discussion Desrosier indicated that he had personally looked for additional files and found nothing, and that it was at a later date that he sought assistance from the records department and information was found regarding a prior investigation conducted by CPS officer Malloy.
A week later, on 02 June 2008, Desroier testified that he personally looked for information in the contact cards himself “not long after” the file came his way.
MS. SIMMS: So we discussed this somewhat last time, but the — you had not previously asked the records department to do a search of contact cards for Marcel Lalonde?
MR. DESROSIERS: No, I had gone myself, looking.
MS. SIMMS: Do you know when that was?
MR. DESROSIERS: Not too long after the file came in our — our incident came in.
MS. SIMMS: You went to look through the contact cards yourself?
MR. DESROSIERS: Yes.
MS. SIMMS: Is that your normal practice or —
MR. DESROSIERS: It was a practice that I had been told when I came into the branch, to look for the — any extra information of previous contact and that’s where they would be, is in an alphabetical cardex —
There is no reference of this search in Desrosier’s police notes.
The fact is that the information regarding Malloy’s investigation into sex abuse allegations against Lalonde in the late 80s finally came to light in the Fall of 1999, – and that it seems only after Desrosier spoke to a witness who had personally been interviewed in the referenced investigation!
In other words, it took nearly three years from the time a Lalonde victim (c-68) approached CPS in 1996 for Desrosier to discover that Lalonde had been previously investigated by the CPS! And it seems it took contact with a witness from the prior investigation to force a hard look at the cardex or card filing system and thereafter find the records and proof that Lalonde was indeed investigated in the late 80s.
Indeed, testimony shows that it was not until 30 September 1999 that Desrosier spoke to a witness who advised that Lalonde had previously been under investigation
MR. DESROSIERS: He had spoken to me that sometime in ’89 or 1990, he recalled having received a call from a police officer from Cornwall Police Service in relation to a Marcel Lalonde. And that he didn’t hear more about it. He was interviewed. He believed he had come down for an interview or had been interviewed but didn’t hear anything more about it later.
Subsquent to that, on 05 October 1999, as they were finally preparing to go to trial, Desrosier found information re the previous investigation conduced by Malloy. That became a major disclosure issue.
(3) Shift the focus
Commission Counsel Mary Simms was addressing disclosure regarding the prior CPS investigation of Marcel Lalonde. Simms took Desrosier back to what I would call his very belated awareness that Lalonde had been previously investigated by CPS. And look what Desrosier does. He redirects the focus from his own disclosure failings by pointing at Perry Dunlop. Simms let him have his say before redirecting him back to the “precious investigation involving Marcel Lalonde”:
MS. SIMMS: So you’ve just received information that there was potentially a previous investigation by your own Force?
MR. DESROSIERS: Yes.
MS. SIMMS: And I would take it that would raise some flags for you about disclosure issues and your investigation generally?
MR. DESROSIERS: Yes. And there was also information that was received from defence that had come in just a day prior, the 30th I believe it was or even the 29th, that the Crown had received a letter stating that they were — they believed there were certain letters with certain dates on them that were in possession of Constable Dunlop – —
MS. SIMMS: Right.
MR. DESROSIERS: — and that had not been disclosed.
MS. SIMMS: Right.
MR. DESROSIERS: And they were going to make issue at trial to have the trial adjourned —
MS. SIMMS: Right.
MR. DESROSIERS: — so that this information could be brought forward.
MS. SIMMS: Okay.
Let’s get back to this other issue with the previous investigation of Marcel Lalonde.
(4) Left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing
We have heard enough testimony to date to recognize that the CPS seemed out to get Perry with claims that he failed and/or refused to disclose material on the Marcel Lalonde file. Yesterday it became obvious that Perry had indeed previously disclosed to the OPP much if not all of the Lalonde-related documents which the CPS was jumping up and down accusing Perry of withholding!
Cover-up allegations aside, at the very least it is clear that the left hand didn’t know what the right was doing, subsequently no one seemed to have much of a clue which documents had or had not been disclosed by Perry. But, in that same vein, it seems to have been a given that if an officer or Crown or lawyer accused Perry of non disclosure it was to be taken as fact: Perry had not disclosed. No one seemed to entertain a thought that Perry had indeed disclosed the files. He had disclosed to multiple inlfiuential parties, first to Julian Fantino in the Fall of 1996, then to the office of the AG and the Solicitor General via OCCPS in the Spring of 1997. Fantino presumably passed those files on to the OPP. In June 1997 OPP Inspector Tim Smith said he had all the materials which went to Fantino.
Read through yesterday’s transcript. The OPP had at least some of the files.
Why, as we apparently must believe here, the OPP did not or would not, or perhaps could not, share its Lalonde files with CPS is hard to fathom, particularly when the OPP was presumably conducting a joint investigation with CPS, and CPS was directing Lalonde victims to the OPP and the OPP was directing Lalonde victims to the CPS.
Make sense? I think not.
(5) Permission denied!
After the accusations of non disclosure levelled at Perry by CPS Perry was ordered to compile a Will State. In the arduous process he asked Desrosier for the notes which he had previously disclosed, obviously to assist with time lines. Permission denied!
The CPS wanted an accurate account of events from Perry?! And expected him to do so without access to all material?
(6) Perjury and Spin
C-8 presumably lied under oath at a preliminary hearing by falsely saying he was sexually abused by Marcel Lalonde during a school trip to Toronto. He was investigated for perjury but not charged because there was ‘insufficient evidence’ and “because of his emotional state he was going through.”
Amazingly despite the fact C-8 had admitted he lied and embellished his allegations his remaining charges against Lalonde went forward.
The bottom line here is that C-8 perjured himself. He admitted he perjured himself. No charges. And, to boot, his evidence on the other charges was accepted at trial!
That’s really quite amazing.
Also amazing is the fact that there has ever since been much ado in various courtrooms implying or blatantly stating that Perry made C-8 lie. That thread continues in the Weave Shed.
However, according to C-8 Perry apparently said something to the effect that if anything happened during a school trip C-8 could sue the school.
It is a statement along those lines which mysteriously morphed right into implications or outright allegations that C-8 said Perry forced him to lie.
If indeed Perry did say such a thing( re suing) – and here we have the word of C-8 – I personally see nothing sinister in it.
My first point here is what lawyer has ever been adverse to launching a lawsuit against anyone? That aside, such was the clime in Cornwall in those days that such comment could well have been made by virtually anyone.
Finally, an added note on where all of this leads. At the Leduc sex abuse trial Perry was erroneously labelled as telling a victim’s mother she should sue Leduc. It was made to sound like the worst thing in the world that anyone could ever suggest! The thing in this instance is that anyone in the court or reading the transcripts would recognize that the mother had erred and that the person who actually made the statement re suing was a dear friend – best friend – of the mother who was very candid in testifying that she had told the mother to sue Leduc.
But, the “record”stands. Perry told a victims mother to sue.
And, here’s how it works. The incident at the Leduc trial was coupled with the previously referenced C-8/Perry incident to make it appear this was Perry’s modus operandi!! Indeed, my recollection is that at the Leduc trial the C-8 incident was presented with the deceptive implication that Perry forced C-8 to lie.
It works. If there’s no one around, be it Crown, judge or defence, with the will and/or conscience to challenge such spin, it does the trick. Those without conscience intent on putting horns on Perry to protect the known and “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall have successfully used and abused and spun the C-8 incident to their own advantage.
Put the focus on Perry. Dont look at the real and “allged”paedophiles of Cornwall. Dissect and spin and twist and turn and misinterpret and misrepresent Perry’s every word, action, gesture ánd thought.
(7) “I’m not like that”
In relation to the above C-8 is reputed to have said something to the effect that he lied because “I felt it would put the son-of-a-bitch……because the way my niece had lied about me. I’m not like that. The truth is the truth.”
I assume C-8 meant he lied because he wanted to see Lalonde convicted. As for the reference to C-8’s niece, it is a known fact that C-8 molested his niece. He was charged and entered a guilty plea. That was the end of that. No jail time.
What then did C-8 mean that his niece lied? What did C-8 mean he’s not like that? Not like what?
Finally, after lying for months on end himself, what did C-8 mean the truth is the truth?
(7) “It hurt”
Constable Rene Desrosier testified he was “hurt” because people in the community were turning to Perry Dunlop:
MR. DESROSIERS: What had the people at the Police Service that I work with day to day done? They haven’t done anything as far as I’m concerned. We’re — I’m an investigator, have been a policeman for 17 years, 18 years, and there’s nothing that’s in my mind to say why are these people turning that way or people turn that way to go to one specific individual?
Like, you know, we’re all professional people in our jobs and try to be as much as we can be to the best of our abilities, and I couldn’t see; it hurt, yeah. It hurt because, you know, I’ve been a policeman for so many years and I believed what I was doing is the right things, you know, with my training and everything else.
Unbelievable! Absolutely unbelievable! It took police how long to finally lay sex abuse charges against Charlie? How many years?
How long did it take Desrosier to find out that Marcel Lalonde had been investigated by the CPS in the late 80s?
What happened to a victim in court because Desrosier wouldn’t let him, C-45’s brother, talk about sex abuse allegations against Father Charlie and made no mention of it in his notes?
How long did it take Desrosier to track down C-10, a Carl Allen victim, after the OPP/Project Truth turned the case over to CPS in February 1998? How long did it take before Desrosier finally got in touch with the victim after he decided to call Project Truth officer Constable Don Genier and thereafter tracked down the victim?
How many two and three months were there in the Carl Allen “investigation” ?
Who decided not to use the evidence of a mother and son as corroborating evidence in a Crown Brief in order to get a conviction on Carl Allen? (The boy had been lured into a car and molested by Allen. Allen was charged, found guilty and put on probation! There was no evidence of that investigation to be found anywhere at the CPS!!! . Desrosier essentially decided since there had been a conviction there he wouldn’t use that evidence. The charges ended with a resolution for a peace bond. That apparently means Allen has no criminal record on this. )
I could go on and on and on.
And to this day Desrosier can’t figure out why people were turning to and talking to Perry Dunlop?
Desrosier is “hurt”?
Who’s in jail? Whose reputation has been destroyed? Who lost his career as a law enforcement officer? Whose children were the subject of death threats? Who had virtually every of his fellow police officers turn on him?
Desrosier is hurt? He’s hurt?!
How terribly terribly disgustingly pathetic!
From what I hear from Inspector Brendon Wells right now things aren’t going to get any better 🙁
Enough for now,