Must tune in

Share Button

Perry is a political prisoner. He has spent 149 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.

****

Perry will 47 on  22 July 2008.  Those in Eastern Ontario still have time to get a card or note off in the mail:

Perry Dunlop c/o OCDC
Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre
2244 Innes Road
Ottawa ON
K1B 4C4

Monetary gifts can be sent to Helen or deposited at a bank. Perry needs money for his canteen supplies. As we all know only too well Perry can’t work, Helen’s on disability and money doesn’t grow on trees.

****

NOTE:  HEARINGS RESUME AT 0830 HOURS (8:30 AM) this morning, Friday, 18 July 2008. Jacques Leduc will complete his cross-examination.  He will be followed on the stand by Father Bernard Menard.

It’s Friday.  Hearings will run through lunch.  They normally wrap up in early afternoon.

****

I posted the transcript from yesterday.  Haven’t had a chance to read through it yet.  Early this morning started going through the last few days of testimony to try to clarify a few things – time passed me by 🙁

A number of comments to make on yesterday’s revelations but for now must tune in.

I will get at media coverage for the day – keep an eye on New to the Site on the Home page.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Clerical sexual predators. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Must tune in

  1. Myomy says:

    Well my feed is down so I guess I will blog about what happened yesterday when others had their feed down. If this Insinc company which produces the webcast cant handle the connections and bandwidth they should produce a podcast so people can keep up with the events at the Weave Shed. THis is a public Inquiry and so the feed should be reliable.

    Yesterday there was an interesting exchange between Leduc and Dallas Lee who had in hand information about a dispute between Leduc and Revenue Canada. It seems that Leduc wanted to deduct his legal bills. Well I can have sympathy for this in one way because it is hard to hire a lawyer on after tax income. What would it be like if you had a damn good lawyer or even better a dream team like Leduc has? On the other hand if this deduction was in place the situation would not improve because the greedy lawyers would just raise their rates and they would remain just as unaffordable for ordinary people as before.

    This is a problem for many people and it is well illustrated by the plight of David Silmser as Mr Horn was trying to illustrate. The two lawyers presented him with an agreement that was not in his best interests. Leduc insisted that Silmser have independent legal advice which was just window dressing because the lawyer did not support the interests of David Silmser or even find the illegal clause in the agreement that was signed. Three lawyers and a glaring illegality is included even with Leduc claiming that he warned the other lawyer not to include a criminal release in the agreement. David Silmser was railroaded into this agreement and I don’t feel any sympathy for Leduc if it backfired disasterously on him. If he has been paying through the nose for lawyers ever since I say good. I hope all the money gets taxed and he is paying all the lawyers with after tax dollars. It will help pay the enormous costs of the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

    How can anyone blame Perry Dunlop for this fiasco when the illegal pay off done by Leduc stinks to high heaven. It is this illegal pay off that attracts all the attention to the case. The explanations of Leduc do not make it look any better. My advice to Leduc – save a bundle – fire the “dream team” and tell the truth. The truth shall make you free.

  2. Sylvia says:

    Sorry Myomy – missed catching and posting this blog yesterday.

    Good point – Leduc claims he was insisting that Silmser have independent legal advice when in fact Leduc did not support Silmser’s best interests and allegedly couldn’t happen on the illegal clause. Yes, sounds like window dressing 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *