A proud moment

Share Button

Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am EST) this morning, Monday 17 November 2008.   

The witnesses scheduled to testify this week are as follows:

Detective Constable William Zebruck (Retired) – Ontario Provincial Police

Standing Application – Ken MacLennan

Detective Inspector Randy Millar – Ontario Provincial Police

Detective Constable Joseph Dupuis – Ontario Provincial Police

****

I finally worked my way through the Fred Hamelink testimony of 13 November 2008.  In my effort to sort things out I made copious notes.  Will post as they are and then round out with testimony from his cross-examination of the 14th.

Some things which I will make quick comment on:

(1)  It seems that the David Silmser extortion re-investigation by the OPP was called for by Acting Chief  Carl Johnston.  That is quite intriguing.  I just happened on that this morning as I was finishing up.  I really have to meditate on that 🙂 I got the impression that perhaps Malcolm was behind it.

Johnston was brought in by the Police Board to replace Claude Shaver in early 1994 after Shaver took his early retirement. Johnston had previously worked as a Deputy Minister in the Bob Rae NDP government.  Chair of the Police Service Board at the time was Leo Courville.

It was under Johnston’s watch that David Silmser’s complaint against Heidi Sebalj morphed into charges under the Police Service Act against Perry Dunlop.

I wonder what and/or who prompted Johnston to ask the OPP to re-investigate the extortion allegation against David Silmser? Is there a possibility that perchance Colin McKinnon played a hand in this?  And, in truth, I suppose Malcolm could still have been in the background pulling the strings?

Anyway, somewhere along the line I think it would be worthwhile pursuing time-lines here. 

(2)   I fail to understand the merit of re-investigating an allegation using the same investigative personnel.

In this instance  OPP officer Chris McDonnell conducted the first extortion investigation in late 1993 after Seguin’s death.  He concluded there was no extortion.  Why re-investigate with McDonnell as the lead investigator. Is it not a given that he comes in with a foregone conclusion?

This type of scenario unfortunately played itself out time and time again in Cornwall – officers who concluded there was no ring or coverup in one investigation were pulled in to re-investigate similar allegations in another investigation. 

And the same CPS officers were always on hand to assist those officers conducting external investigations.

Seems to me this is fertile ground for character assassination and/or bias to worm its way along from one investigation to another.  Fertile ground for one investigation after the other conclude “no ring: no cover-up,”  David Silmser is a good-for-nothing-money-grubbing liar, and Perry Dunlop is nothing shy of a rogue cop.

(3)  Hamelink was asked about his prior dealings with Cornwall Police Service.  He replied that he had associations with management – he once was a polygraph examiner and did several polygraphs for CPS. 

To my knowledge no one, alas, asked what seemed to me an obvious follow-up question, specifically if he knew CPS officer Brian Snyder

****

I see that Roman Catholic school teacher Marcel Lalonde has been charged again.  I trust that investigators will contact David Silmser.  It is well known that he has sex abuse allegations against Lalonde.  They have never been investigated.  Perhaps this is the time?  I don’t know if Dave would be ready to step back into the legal quagmire again, but, I would hope so.  Justice should be done.

****

Note the article which ran in the 29 October 2008 Toronto Globe and Mail article which ran while I was away “Abusers who breach trust get shorter sentences, study shows.” There are 42 comments posted.  Interesting read. 

****

A number of people have told me about testimony regarding the porn tapes seized at Ron Leroux’ home.  I must find time to read the transcripts.  

Apparently the word is that police officers concluded the tapes were commercially made homosexual porn.  Can anyone tell me what defines porn as commercially made porn?

****

Perry was back helping his mother go through Nan’s possessions.  On Saturday morning he attended the POGG breakfast and had the honour of being presented the Golden Whistle award in person.  I have some pictures.  Will download and post them today.

Perry’s Mom Heather was there, as was his sister Rosalie and her husband Rick. 

A very proud moment for the family. 

Perry spoke a few words.  An excellent few words.  He spoke well, with passion and conviction.

Well done Perry. 

Perry looks good, but tired.  He still has a lot on his plate – many loose ends to be taken care of.

A reminder here that the fact that Perry is now out of jail does not mean that the Dunlop financial ‘crisis’ is over.  The fact remains that Perry has had no income for a year, Helen is on disability, and there is still a home to maintain, mortgage to pay and three teenage girls to support. 

I am sure that any contributions, no matter how small, would be a help.  At this time I think the simplest route would be to send contributions by cheque or money order directly to their home:

1895 Alma Road
Duncan, B.C.
V9L 5M7

And, yes, of course, how could I forget, Christmas is coming 🙂

****

Hearings have resumed.  Must run….
Enough for now,

Sylvia

([email protected])

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to A proud moment

  1. prima facie says:

    MY OPINION:

    I submit that every police constable in Canada should be seriously offended by the testimony of Det. Constable William Zebruck, who is testifying at the Cornwall Public Inquiry today, 17 November 2008.

    I believe “Zebruck’s” little charade, like others before him, is the result of coaching by high paid, mal-practice, liability insurance carrier, defence lawyers. This is yet another “disgrace” to the law enforcement community. A total, unmitigated disgrace, to law enforcement and to Canadian society. In my opinion, “Zebruck” looks like a complete arrogant, idiot, trying to rely on the, “that’s not the way we did it then”, “we didn’t know any better way”, escape route, exploited by many before him.

    Has this inquiry considered how citizens, including professionals and laymen, may be interpreting this ongoing “façade”? What about young people considering entering the “profession” of law enforcement? What do they think when they observe this obvious attempt to manipulate testimony, or, when they observe, what they may perceive to be, “the obvious idiots”, who preceded them in the profession?

    Let me make it perfectly clear. What people are hearing and seeing is NOT a representation of the “whole”, where law enforcement in Canada is concerned.

    “I can’t recall”, “It’s not the way we did it then..”, “We didn’t have the training you have today….”. “I didn’t keep notes”…etc., etc., I mean, “get real”…anyone got brains?

    This inquiry must recommend a judicial inquiry or other, to investigate all the facts, which resulted in Cornwall and Area police officers (municipal-provincial-federal) being so obviously inept and ignorant, compared to the rest Canada. Based on my observations to date, it is my opinion, the “whole line” of police witnesses so far, disclose nothing more than they were/are a group of ignorant morons, working blindly without knowledge, training, policy, procedures, operational manuals or otherwise, that would have enabled them to be competent, professional and efficient. I believe the aforementioned is what they are trying to have us all believe.

    These witnesses are trying to convince the world that they didn’t have enough training, resources or knowledge and that there were not adequate laws or public policy legislated in matters relating to sexual abuse allegations or the management thereof.

    “Zebruck” and I say “Zebruck” is a disgrace and a joke. However, believe me, this “crap” is not a representation of how police departments across Canada behave or behaved…THAT IS why the Cornwall and Area, behaviours MUST be dissected and analyzed.

    In 1978 and 1979, yes 1978-1979, NOT 1994 as “Zebruck’s” testimony refers to, when I attended Police Academy in another part of Canada, note taking was essential, required, reviewed. Note taking was essential and our note books were considered “our Bible”, so-to-speak. We referred to our notes while giving testimony in courts. In 1978 and 1979, we spent hours and hours, learning about effective note taking/recording…1978-1979.

    We were trained on how to interview, record evidence, observe, investigate, follow-up and to take notes in “copious quantities”, relating to every dispatch, interaction, observation, opinion, thought, intention, follow-up, etc., etc. Much of this training, I utilized throughout my various working careers, to this date.

    My criminal law professor at the college, would “quake” in his shoes, watching and listening to this “bull” at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

    The point is, because the public have never been trained, they have no idea if people like “Zebruck” are idiots or actually disclosing the truth about “policies, procedures and practices” of the day. In fact, as a private citizen, I’m going to contact training institutes and recommend this testimony at the “inquiry” be utilized at training institutes, emphasizing on how NOT to be a police constable and how NOT to record evidence.

    FINALLY: An alleged victim is referenced in testimony today.

    I know, he once had a website of his own, before or at about the same time as, http://www.projecttruth2.com and http://www.projecttruth.com. I downloaded his postings, skeletons and all. On it, he criticized the system and cried out, about a “clan” of sexual predators operating in Cornwall and Area. To the best of my knowledge, this alleged victim has not as yet testified in public at the Inquiry proceedings. He is not scheduled to testify.

    His website was modified several times, and then eventually erased, as he went from complaining to, acknowledging that the Ontario Victims Compensation Board had agreed to all the allegations he made and awarded him money. Then this “alleged victim”, who claims the “Board” agreed with him and awarded him money, subsequently and suddenly, praised “the system”, thereafter erasing it.

    1) Has this “alleged victim” testified about his knowledge of a clan?

    2) Should the “Ontario Victims Compensation Board et al” be summonsed to testify and explain what they know about the referenced award and any other awards?

Leave a Reply

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