The “review”

Share Button

Well, my husband is off fishing which means I have the car, so today I took advantage of the situation and headed off to Cornwall for lunch with a few of many dear but now far too infrequently seen friends.  An enjoyable day 🙂

Yes, I saw John MacDonald.  As I blogged on the 23rd, John met with RCMP officers regarding the “review.”  I have a general idea of the outcome, however, I think I would prefer if John related the results himself.  Would you do that for me/all of us John?  Would you post what you consider to be the highlights of your meeting and your understanding of the outcome of the “review”?  I believe that  would be much appreciated by all, and particularly by those who have been following your patient pursuit of justice over the last many months.

I will leave it at that for today. 

Looking forward to hearing from you John.  If you need a day or two to get your thoughts together just let us know.  O.K?

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Canada, Cornwall, John MacDonald, Scandal and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to The “review”

  1. John says:

    Of course I will be happy to give an account of the “review” from Paul Thompson and Glenn Trendell. I would like to give them the opportunity to hand in their review to London HQ. Paul headed back up that way on Friday, so I will wait until Monday to do so. During that time it will give me time to go over what was said. It will also give me an opportunity to go over what was not said.

    John Mac Donald

  2. Reality Checker says:

    John …I for one would really like to know what happened and would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the “review”.

    I have nothing against the RCMP but I do want to know HOW they review and investigate complaints such as this that starts within the judiciary and/or system. It’s what I personally call coruption and collusion although I did come to learn – the RCMP ‘perceive’ it differently than what the general populace or victims do.

    In 2004 I went to the RCMP on another very unrelated matter -I had dealings with a number of RCMP officers at that time and as far as I’m aware – the original complaint went NOWHERE – to this day I still have trouble understanding WHY and What happened??? Think anyone will tell me WHAT happened??? NOPE! I was left hanging…

    What you have done I have watched very closely – because it has (I hope) not only answered YOUR questions but it will also answer mine as to how the RCMP operate with these type of judicial/systemic complaints!!!

    Looking forward to your (how should I word it?)Perception and Analysis!!!

    It’s all about “PERCEPTION” John – that’s a BIG word in the RCMP ranks!

    Take care.

  3. Larry Green says:

    Just to let everbody know. There is a special tonight on CNN TV about pope benedict and what he knew about sexual abuse in the church and how he dealt with his knowledge of it.

  4. Larry Green says:

    I followd (tracked) Razinger’s aticvity as it was published within the church website long before he became pope.I knew this person was bad news not only for the catholic church but for the world.

  5. Larry Green says:

    I see a church that is crumbling under its weight. The whole sorry notion that priests must be male ( preferrably child molesters), that gay people if they aint peiests are evil and that the rich are the salt of the earth (darwinism somehow screwed in with creationism) We have sat back for so many years passing jugdegment on those in other parts of the world for fighting bloody battles relentlessly in the name of religion. This POPE is clearly a danger to peace.

  6. Larry Green says:

    Sylvia I am a day late but I have to say that I am so happy to hear that you have caught up with your friends. I hope you have enjoyed your day with them and I hope that you more often Sylvia. THANKS FOR SHARING THAT GOOD STUFF.

  7. Tim says:

    Re: Post #4. I did not know this was a forum for a weak Catholic to spout his venom against the Leader of My Catholic Church. The writer has taken himself out of the Church through his venom, so he no longer needs to concern himself with it. There is free speech, yes, but there is also responsibility, good sense and decency- something NOT displayed in this post. Tim

  8. Sylvia says:

    I will give my thoughts on this, but, not right now – too late in the day, …or early in the morning?

  9. Larry Green says:

    Tim (4) What is it that make people like you believe that you’re of such a higher moral quality than the rest of us? I am not a weak “catholic”, I’m a weak human being. MY leader is also weak ‘ he went freely and in silence to his slaughter like a lamb. But He is the truth and the truth is very powerfull Tim.
    As far as the venom about which you speak, I refuse to drink.The poison YOU drink Tim isn’t coming from here, it flows from the pulpit.

  10. Tim says:

    Life really is worth living ! About 20 minutes after I read Post #9, I was driving to pick someone up from Mass. A truck passed in front of me at a major intersection, pulling what looked like a modified horse-trailer. Emblazened on the side was a message for people who do not like churches, saying if you don’t like going to church, we have a seat for you. Perhaps they were looking for the author of # 9, to let him/her know where they would be welcome. Tim

  11. John says:

    Sylvia and all interested, below is an e-mail that I sent to the RCMP “investigating” officers Paul Thompson (London) and Glenn Trendell (Kingston) on Sunday night. I am sure that all can read into the e-mail just what transpired during the meeting that I had with them on Thursday. For those that have followed this along, you know that I started this process back on Feb. 3rd, 2007 when Cornwall Police Services accepted my complaint. That is three and one half years ago. CPS handed the complaint to the RCMP sometime early 2009, which means that the RCMP have had this for approximately a year and a half. In fairness to Paul and Glenn, they did say that they interviewed some of the OPP Project Truth investigators, and some of the Crown Attorneys that handled the case. The problem that I had was not with who they talked to, but who they did NOT talk to.

    Here is the e-mail………

    Glenn and Paul:

    I know that there is no doubt in any of our minds that I walked away from our meeting on Thursday dissatisfied with the findings of your investigation of my complaint of Obstruction of Justice by Crowns Murray MacDonald, Robert Pelletier and Peter Griffiths. You can correct me if I am wrong, but below are some of the things that were said to me during that meeting. I have added comments to what was said…….

    Glenn said to me………”Cases like this are difficult to prosecute at best.”

    All that I can say to this comment is that I have learned enough to know that it is not a police officer’s job to prosecute a case, that would be the Crown’s responsibility. The Crown’s office is under the direction of The Attorney General and the following is listed under the AG’s office duty…….. “The Attorney General does not, however, direct or cause charges to be laid. While the Attorney General and the Attorney General’s agents may provide legal advice to the police, the ultimate decision whether or not to lay charges is for the police. Once the charge is laid the decision as to whether the prosecution should proceed, and in what manner, is for the Attorney General and the Crown Attorney.”

    My questions to both of you are;
    Did you guys consult a Crown?
    If you did; Was the Crown from out of province?
    Or; Was this just a conclusion that the both of you reached?
    When I asked Paul the following question…”Why was an out of province Crown not brought in as soon as Murray MacDonald’s name was mentioned as an accused?

    Paul’s answer to me was……”That would have been Murray Segal’s call.”

    My question to this comment is;
    Was Murray Segal questioned about this?
    Paul said to me……”Without someone standing up and wilfully admitting that they obstructed justice, there is nobody that we can stand in the box.”

    This comment is going to be dripping with sarcasm but here it goes. How easy would your job be if all you had to do was put out a public announcement saying, whoever is guilty of ANYTHING please report to your nearest police headquarters? Paul and Glenn, I like you guys, I am not questioning your intelligence in any way, all that I ask is that you do not question mine. You admitted to me during the meeting that you did not even question Justices’ Griffiths and Pelletier, and that the ONLY correspondence that you had was through their respective lawyers. That alone to me is both telling and disgusting, that 2 judges would not speak on the advice of their lawyers, and their lawyers advice was to stand by their respective testimony from the Inquiry.
    Things have now come full circle. When I first went and saw the Cornwall Police Service (CPS), Detective Shawn White’s response to me was to sue MacDonald, Pelletier and Griffiths civilly. The second time that I went to CPS their answer to me was that my concerns would be addressed by the Cornwall Public Inquiry. THEY WERE NOT!!! So, back to Cornwall Police Service after MacDonald, Griffiths and Pelletier testified (having given them their opportunity), and this time CPS accepted a complaint. CPS then asked the RCMP to investigate or review, Project OBOOKMARK was born, you guys investigate and are asking that the testimony from the inquiry be accepted.

    Guys, you did not even ask the tough questions. Never mind the tough questions, you did not even ask the questions to Pelletier and Griffiths. Just WHO of the list below did you expect to stand up and wilfully admit to or point the finger at someone who obstructed justice?

    1. Murray MacDonald?….Who worked with (and for) Robert Pelletier and worked for Peter Griffiths. (up until Pelletier and Griffiths became judges). Who now holds the position that Peter Griffiths and Robert Pelletier held.

    2. Robert Pelletier?….Who worked with Murray MacDonald (good friend and best man of Murray’s) and worked for, and took the position of Peter Griffiths, until Pelletier became a federally appointed judge.

    3. Peter Griffiths?….Who worked for Murray Segal. Good friend of Pelletier and MacDonald.

    Now let’s look at where the tough questions should have come from, and where the CPS expected my concerns to be addressed…….

    The Inquiry was called by The Office of The Attorney General, who ALL of these people work for:

    Murray MacDonald, Justice Peter Griffiths, Murray Segal, Commissioner (Justice) Normand Glaude, as a matter of fact Justice Peter Griffiths as Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Ontario is Justice Normand Glaude immediate supervisor.

    The Inquiry was also given a deadline and hastened by The Office of the Attorney General VERY shortly before all of these witnesses were to testify. Some victims spent more time on the stand than Murray MacDonald, Robert Pelletier, Peter Griffiths and Murray Segal combined.

    As I stated earlier in the letter Paul and Glenn, I am not questioning your intelligence, so please do not question mine. IF your “investigation” or “review” is going to stand as it is, that being with no questioning of Pelletier and Griffiths, then I am going to have to take this to another level. So at this time I am asking for the names of your immediate supervisors, and their contact numbers or e-mail addresses.


    John Mac Donald

  12. Sylvia says:

    Thanks John. All I can think of is that somehow this is strangely reminiscent of the Cornwall-related external “review”/”investigation”/non-investigation conducted by former Supt. Brain Skinner and Sgt Blake of the Ottawa-Carleton police force.

    I am astounded by the comment: “Without someone standing up and wilfully admitting that they obstructed justice, there is nobody that we can stand in the box.” It’s so ridiculous it’s laughable!

    What are the dashes in the email John? (—–) Are those page breaks? If that’s what they are I will remove them for easier reading.

    Anyway, good questions John, and good email.

  13. Reality Checker says:

    I find it absolutely eerie John – your comments about “questioning intelligence”. I’ve read your comments and to me they truly are unsettling.

    “I am not questioning your intelligence, so please do not question mine.”

    Curious John – did you walk away last week feeling as if they were playing you for STUPID??? Did you feel they were playing games with you – like a brush off and insulting YOUR intelligence???

    Cause if you did – I’ll tell you right now – there is something terribly terribly WRONG with the RCMP!!!

    I got to think on this one…..hits too close to home!

  14. Reality Checker says:

    Sorry – I don’t know how to edit I didn’t mean for that previous post to all be in Italics.

    [I fixed it Reality Checker. Sylvia]

  15. Reality Checker says:


    You’re stupid – I’m not. (implied and said very subtly)!!!

  16. John says:

    Sylvia and all interested….I am going to share a few emails that have not been out in the public that I sent to the RCMP investigators in 2009 when I was going through documents at the Cornwall Public Inquiry before they were shelved. With these e-mails are the reponses from the RCMP, I am doing this to show that they were aware of documents and pertinent questions to ask to those involved. I have sat patiently for 3 1/2 years, it is now time that others see what was sitting there for these investigators to look at.

    Here is the first correspondence………….

    Good evening John
    I’m currently away from my office and attending a course in London, Ontario. When I get back to Kitchener next week I’ll make a request to the Inquiry to obtain these documents. Looking to interview Mr. McConnery November 5th.

    Paul S. Thompson Sgt.
    Acting NCO i/c Kitchener Det.
    NCO i/c Kitchener CCS
    519-896-3542 ext 254

    >>> john macdonald 2009-10-28 16:07 >>>
    Glenn and Paul:

    As you know, I have been going through the 67,000 pages of documents at the Inquiry for the last few weeks. I do not know what documents that you guys have gathered re: Murray claiming conflict, but I have run across quite a few that you guys may be interested in if you do not have them yet.

    Exhibit #1207….In an interview with Brian Skinner from the Ottawa Police, dated Jan. 24/94.

    Exhibit #1208….Robert Pelltier’s name being mentioned as early as summer of ’93 (Murray).

    Exhibit #1220….Project Silmser (flow chart)..(author unknown)….Murray conflict.

    Exhibit #1229….Crown Brief Synopsis……….Murray conflict of interest.

    Exhibit #1236….Overview of documentary evidence for Hiedi Sebalj (page 37)…Murray
    conflict of interest.

    Exhibit #1242….Heidi’s handwritten notes…..Murray conflict of interest.

    Exhibit #1249….Crown brief (October 6/93)…Murray conflict of interest.

    Exhibit #1299….Notes of Richard Abell (CAS Director)…Murray conflict of interest.

    Exhibit #1332….Gary Derochie (Cornwall Police Service) in an interview with Pat Hall and Joe Dupuis (Project Truth)…(page 20 of 31)….Murray conflict.

    These are just what I have run across so far. I guess what I am trying to put across is, that Murray was informing EVERYONE, and EVERYONE knew that Murray had, and was claiming conflict of interest re: the church. Let me know what you think and get back to me please.

    Anticipating a reply,

    John Mac Donald

  17. John says:

    Reality Checker, you asked me a question in one of your posts…..Do I have a feeling that my intelligence was questioned? The answer is YES!!! I got this sense when the investigators attempted, all be it that I shut it down quickly, to lead me backwards from Ron Leroux’s testimony on the stand. I told them that I could care less about Ron’s testimony and walking backwards. I care about Murray MacDonald and walking forward!!

    Here is the second correspondence….

    Quick update
    I’ve received the documents from Mr. Engelmann that you’ve brought to our attention and will be reviewing them in the coming days. I’ve also interviewed Mr. McConnery who says that he really feels for you and that he connected with you as a victim. He still has the piece of paper that you gave him with your phone # in his wallet, he may call but no guarantees.

    I’ve got some followup to do after that interview with him that I’ll be getting to after court this Wednesday and Thursday.


    >>> john macdonald 2009-11-08 22:52 >>>
    Paul and Glenn:

    Here are some further exhibits and documents that should be looked at regarding Murray MacDonald and his conflict of interest and who knew of that conflict.

    Exhibit #1336…..Ottawa Police report, dated Jan. 24/94 (Murray conflict) composed by Staff Sergant William Blake and Superintendent Brian Skinner

    Document #7080650…..Richard Abell (Director CAS Cornwall) notes, dated Oct./14/93 (Murray conflict) in meeting with Staff Sergant Gary Derochie. Quote from notes quoting Derochie….”Says our Crown declared a conflict of interest, partially. Then gave the position that the Police couldn’t proceed. He questions that.”

    Exhibit #1594…..Don Genier notes (OPP), dated Mar/97. During Marcel Lalonde investigation “Crown MacDonald asked if any of the victims are associated to the Father Mac Donald matter, if so to advise him.”

    Exhibit #1544…..Pat Hall (OPP) notes, dated Apr. 24/97, (**I will tag just these, but should be in multiple notes**)…This is the first meeting of heads re: Dunlop binders (tagged: Fantino brief)…Present at meeting..Peter Griffiths, Robert Pelltier, for OPP..Tim Smith, Pat Hall, Mike Fagan, Don Genier, and of course Murray MacDonald. (**I will question Murray’s presence at this meeting later**)…Out of this meeting came “Project Truth” (see below).

    Exhibit #1531…..Project Truth news conference, dated Sept. 25/97. In a media handout titled Overview of Investigation (Author unknown) is the following quote from the last page….. “Experience in previous large scale abuse investigations involving male victims has shown that it is difficult to accurately estimate the number of potential victims that may ultimatley report abuse. Male victims of sexual abuse struggle with disclosing what may have occured and do not readily come forward. In some cases it can take months if not years to report the abuse. Should an investigation be conducted with haste, charges laid and legal proceedings commenced, experience has shown further victims will come forward causing extreme difficulties with disclosure and problems within the judicial process. Many times the results are piecemeal prosecutions which result in acquittals, stays of prosecution or the withdrawl of charges. It is for these reasons, the investigation will take at least one year to complete and possibly longer.”

    Note the word “experience” in the above mentioned quote. The “experience” that they speak of, are cases like the Alfred Training School investigations and prosecutions. Some of those “experienced” investigators and prosecutors were…Tim Smith, Mike Fagan, Robert Pelltier and Murray MacDonald (All present at the above mentioned meeting). Also note the date of the above mentioned quote being Sept/97. The judicial clock started on Charles Mac Donald at this time, so these “experienced” investigators and prosecutors were all well aware of 11B (Askoff) Charter issues concerning the first set of charges that he had been ordered to stand trial on.

    I would also like to address Murray’s presence at this meeting at this time. As you are aware, and EVERYONE else is aware at this point….Murray HAS claimed a conflict of interest. This point CANNOT be disputed, it is EVERYWHERE in EVERYONES notes. Problem #2 now pops up….Murray’s name is mentioned in “The Fantino Brief” as being involved. My questions as to why he would be present….

    #1….How many times does an accused (Murray) get invited into a meeting involving the setup of an investigation?

    #2….Who set up this meeting?

    #3….If Robert Pelltier did not have a conflict of interest prior to this, would this meeting certainly not prove to be an issue of conflict (with his friend named), and sitting in?

    #4….What was the chain of evidence regarding the Dunlop Files…dubbed The Fantino Brief…(Who did Chief Fantino hand the file to, and who got handed that file from there)? Then see question #2.

    There are MANY other questions and exhibits that I want to address in another follow up e-mail. These exhibits and questions stem from Murray being consulted regarding charges concerning Perry Dunlop on Police Services Act charges. You may ask….What does this have to do with me and my complaint of obstructing justice. My answer is that it has NOTHING to do with me, and EVERYTHING to do with Murray MacDonald. I will send this other e-mail in a couple of days once I have it composed.

    Looking forward to your reply,

    John Mac Donald

  18. Reality Checker says:

    John – your posts intrigue me. I would love someday to sit down with you- share my RCMP correspondence with you related to an investigation I was involved with. We can compare compare notes – because it is oh so similiar – the responses and from the same O division!

    In April 2007 I sent off an e-mail to one of the the investigating officers involved with the Royal Crest bankruptcy telling her ‘Not to play me for stupid’ Telling her that I know what the RCMP mandate is. Telling her I know what is within the RCMP jurisdiction and that I wouldn’t be running to the RCMP over nothing. I asked her outright…”What the hell has happened to you guys – Who’s running the show?”

    I never did get a response to that particular e-mail.

    No doubt I teed some one off with such a direct approach…but WHAT did they expect???

    I have never been witness to such a shoddy investigation before in my life – the left hand never knew what the right hand was doing!!! What became of my original complaint??? NOTHING!!! I want to know what happened to it???

    When I look back in hind sight – I don’t have words – I really don’t. I came out of all that and my interactions with the RCMP feeling as if they thought I was so NAIVE AND STUPID!!!

    I questioned myself so much. However, time heals and with time further insights become available – and I definitely know IT WASN’T ME and I certainly DO NOT lack intelligence!

    I would hazard a guess that certain RCMP officers are availing themselves to this thread – WAKE UP GUYS!!! Attempting to pull the wool over VICTIMS eyes no longer works!!!

    Why weren`t `certain people`interviewed in the investigations – John can name a few that weren`t ever interviewed or with what he has been dealing with and I can tell you of a number of others who were never interviewed or questioned with the investigation I was involved with.

    WHY NOT – what do you base your investigations on and WHO decides who gets questioned or not

    THERE….said my rant!

  19. Larry Green says:

    I don’t know the particular RCMP officers you are talking about but I do happen to know one who is a victim of clerical abuse.

  20. John says:

    WOW what a day. I am afraid to get up and out of my chair for fear of falling flat on my face from feeling so dizzy. There have been e-mails going back and forth all day between the RCMP and myself, I feel that they are self-explainitory. After you read them please re-read Reality Checker (post 19). I will put them in the order that they came in today and my responses to each………

    I’ve been advised that you should contact the;
    OIC “O” Division Criminal Operations
    at 130 Dufferin Ave.,
    London Ontario
    N6A 5R2

    a contact person is S/Sgt. Paul Martell 519-640-7357

    S/Sgt Paul Martell
    OIC “O” Division Criminal Operations
    London, Ontario

    Paul S. Thompson Sgt.
    NCO i/c Kitchener CCS


    Good morning S/Sgt Martell:

    My name is John Mac Donald. I have been dealing with Sgt. Paul Thompson NCO i/c Kitchener CCS and Sgt. Glenn Trendell NCO i/c Kingston (Proceeds of Crime) since they first contacted me back in April/09. My complaint was first addressed by Cornwall Police Services (CPS) (incident #CW07001620-dated Feb. 03/07-taken by Acting Sergeant S. Coulter). My first contact with CPS was with Detective Sgt. S. White (incident #CW07001225 dated Jan. 26/07). From what I understand with meeting Paul and Glenn, the RCMP were contacted in Jan/09 to take over the investigation. Thus project OBOOKMARK was born. My first meeting with Paul and Glenn was on Wed. Apr. 08/09 in Cornwall.

    Sgt.’s Thompson and Trendell recently met with me (Thurs. Sept. 23/10) at Cornwall RCMP HQ, to go over the results of their investigation from Project OBOOKMARK. I have some concerns that arose from that meeting and I e-mailed Paul and Glenn with those concerns. In the e-mail of my concerns I asked for the names of their immediate supervisors. This morning (Sept. 29/09) I recieved a reply from Paul advising me to contact you. I am guessing from his reply that you are his immediate supervisor. Pauls’ reply was attached to the original e-mail with my concerns which I see was forwarded to you. There was one other e-mail that I sent to Paul and Glenn over the weekend with a question that has yet to be answered and I would like to address that at this time. So I have a couple of questions for you:

    Are you Paul and Glenn’s immediate supervisor?

    What was the mandate of Project OBOOKMARK?

    Anticipating your reply,

    John Mac Donald


    Mr. MacDonald,

    Thank you for your email. I have spoken with Sgt. Paul THOMPSON on this matter. He will be pleased to provide answers to the two questions posed in your email dated September 26th, 2010. In addition he will provide you with the mandate of OBOOKMARK.

    In response to your question to me; I am not Sgt. THOMPSON’s immediate supervisor. My role is to review investigations and undertakings such as OBOOKMARK. Should there be dissatisfaction with the actions of the RCMP, it is my responsibility to ensure the appropriate process is observed. I remain available should that become the case.

    I trust that matters germane to the review to may continue to be addressed with Sgt. THOMPSON.


    S/Sgt. Paul MARTELL
    RCMP “O” Division
    Criminal Operations


    S/Sgt Martell:

    Thank you for your quick reply to my e-mail. From reading your e-mail I would just like to clarify your position in OBOOKMARK.

    From what I understood from Paul and Glenn, OBOOKMARK at end of RCMP involvement returns to Cornwall Police Services;
    Did I understand that correctly?

    Upon completion of Paul and Glenn’s role;
    Do they send it to you for review and to sign off on?

    Upon your review and acceptance of OBOOKMARK;
    Do you send it back to CPS?

    Did Paul and Glenn hand OBOOKMARK to you for review?

    Have you now sent OBOOKMARK back to Paul for further review?

    These questions are just to help me understand your role in the process, and where the process is at right now.


    John Mac Donald


    At this point in time John I feel that Glenn and I can best answer your questions. I have drafted a response to your earlier e-mails from this past weekend that you’d sent. But I’m currently waiting for Glenn to read and concur with my response before I forward those to you.

    With regard to questions contained within this e-mail here is and answer that I hope allows you to better understand where our review stands.

    Once we work through these questions our Summary will be reviewed by our Criminal Operations Branch in London. Once they have read the Summary our Commanding Officer will be in contact Cornwall Community Police.

    I will hopefully be able to send you the answers to the weekend questions tomorrow.

    Paul S. Thompson Sgt.
    NCO i/c Kitchener CCS


    Paul and Glenn:

    I am a little perplexed at todays round of e-mails. The first e-mail that I recieved was from Paul Thompson advising me, that the advice to him (Thompson) was for me to contact S/Sgt Paul Martell. I contacted S/Sgt Martell who then advises me that Paul Thompson is who I should be dealing with. Not only that, but my last e-mail that I sent to Paul Martell was NOT answered by Paul Martell, but by Paul Thompson, even then, the questions went unanswered. All of these e-mails were sparked by an e-mail that was sent on the weekend that posed a list of questions to Paul Thompson and Glenn Trendell, that still have yet to be answered.

    I am about to reiterate the easiest question of all. What is the mandate of Project OBOOKMARK? This is the number one question that I would like answered, although I would like all questions to be answered, including the last ones that I sent to S/Sgt Paul Martell, and his role in OBOOKMARK.

    Thank you,

    John Mac Donald

  21. Reality Checker says:


    I got to re-read his a few times!

  22. Sylvia says:

    Someone said this is known as “the tried and true musical ride” and you, John, are being taken on the ride of your life.

    So very descriptive 🙂

  23. Reality Checker says:

    Hey John ask Paul and Glenn…

    “What the hell has happened to you guys – Who’s running the show?”

    See if you get a response 🙂

    There is OBVIOUSLY a problem with the RCMP – IT’S NOT YOU JOHN!!!

  24. Reality Checker says:

    (I obviously have to be very careful with WHAT I post)

    A direct quote in MY correspondence with the RCMP….

    “XXXX – I DON’T FEEL COMFORTABLE. My gut and my head keeps telling me there is something WRONG in this picture…(body of letter with more detail)……The RCMP is an organization I have always had the greatest deal of respect for…I have worked…partied…been in their homes various places I have worked at throughout Canada…some very remote areas too. I get myself tangled up in a situation here in Ontario where I come calling for some help…I know what your mandate is…I know what’s in your jurisdiction…I wouldn’t go to the RCMP for nothing…yet it seems to me I’m being played for stupid…I think not! What the hell has happened to you guys??? Who’s running the show?”

    FEEL THE SAME WAY JOHN??? Some ride – huh???

  25. Larry Green says:

    The RCMP is an agency comprised of many individual men and women.There are some very broad conclusions being formed based on very narrow and some very superficial observation.

  26. Reality Checker says:


  27. Reality Checker says:

    I’m so dizzy – my head is spinning….

  28. John says:

    Hey all…….I did recieve a response from the RCMP today in regards to my weekend e-mail. Some questions have arose out of that response. In the e-mail they have asked me not to post it on the internet (meaning here). I told them that out of respect for them that I would not post their response here, FOR NOW. I have since e-mailed them back and am awaiting their reply.

  29. Reality Checker says:

    Hit a nerve John???

    GOOD!!! 🙂

  30. Reality Checker says:

    John – you know what the sad sad thing is about the RCMP???
    Go to their website and check out WHAT their mission/values and core values are. Then take a look and review WHAT their STRATEGIC PRIORITIES are (look under the index for that info)

    Their strategic priorities do include….


    Hold them ACCOUNTABLE John to their own mission & values and ESPECIALLY their PRIORITIES!!!!

  31. John says:

    Hey all……..Below is an e-mail that I sent to the RCMP on Tuesday Oct 12th. In post #28 above you will see that I told them that I would respect their request and not post correspondence on this site. I have honoured that request over e-mails that have been sent back and forth over the last few weeks. To me though, respect is a two way street. All that I have asked for over the last year and a half is to not be discounted. Again, I sent this e-mail on Tuesday and I have yet to recieve a reply. I feel that the questions that I am asking in the e-mail are not difficult to answer, if as they say their “review” is wrapped up.

    With the e-mail I sent an attachment of the letter that Murray Mac Donald sent to Luc Brunet (CPS) dated Sept. 14/93. This letter can be found on The Inquiry home page under David Silmser (The Pay-off). I also referenced the Pelletier to Griffiths memo that started all of this.

    Paul and Glenn:

    Mandate……”To review whether Robert Pelletier, Peter Griffiths and/or Murray MacDonald obstructed justice in their prosecution of the original seven count information of which I was a part.”

    I have attached a letter that Murray MacDonald sent to Staff Sgt. Luc Brunet of the Cornwall Police Services dated September 14th, 1993. In the letter Murray is questioning David Silmser’s credibility and motives. Part of the duty of a Crown Attorneys’ job is as follows……..”The duty to be fair and appear to be fair.” Under this duty lies these statements……”By never expressing personal opinions on the evidence, including the credibility of witnesses.” and “By never permitting personal interests or partisan political considerations to interfere with the proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

    We all know by now that Murray claimed a conflict of interest, there is absolutely NO doubt, it is in everyone’s notes (Hiedi Sebalj (CPS), Gary Derochie(CPS), Richard Abell (CAS), William Blake (OPS) and numerous Crown Briefs. He was claiming this conflict prior to the attached letter going to S/Sgt Brunet. He was telling Sebalj that an outside Crown would review, prior to the letter being sent. The following is a statement of Murrays’ from his testimony on the stand at the inquiry when asked about this letter…………(Question by Peter Engelmann)…..

    “But in retrospect sir, would you agree it would have been prudent, given your own concerns about perception of bias for the reasons that you indicated, that perhaps it should have been an outside crown looking at this?”

    Murrays’ answer…..

    “Well, I didn’t anticipate that Perry Dunlop would commence a conspiracy allegation that –you know, the clan of pedophiles and all of that.”

    Paul and Glenn, please do not tell me that these are the type of answers that you are willing to let stand as evidence as to them doing nothing wrong in their prosecution or lack thereof.

    During out meeting on Sept. 23/10 you tried to get me to accept that MAYBE whoever had called the meeting in which Project Truth was setup (Apr. 24/97), had not read the Fantino (Dunlop) brief. Gentlemen, Robert Pelletiers’ memo to Peter Griffiths is dated Apr. 02/97, three weeks prior to the meeting being held. It was in this information that I questioned Murray being present at the meeting to setup the investigation. Once again, a part of the Crowns’ duty is “The duty to be fair and to appear to be fair.”….in that lies this statement…….””By not expressing personal opinions on the guilt or innocence of the accused.” In Pelletiers memo Murrays’ name is mentioned no less than 12 times. Why was an out of province Crown not called in by Peter Griffiths immediately? Why was Murray never investigated? Why was Murray instantly disregarded as a potential suspect by both Pelletier and Griffiths and the OPP? Who invited Murray into the setup meeting of the investigation?

    Paul and Glenn, if I have these questions, how can you not have these questions? These questions were not answered by Pelletier, MacDonald or Griffiths during their testimony on the stand, yet you are willing to accept their testimony. You asked me during our first meeting in April/09 if I was able to sit down with Pelletier, and he was able to explain things to me, would I be willing? Gentlemen, here we sit a year and a half from that question you put to me, and nothing has been explained to both of you.

    Anticipating a reply,

    John Mac Donald

  32. Reality Checker says:

    Great letter John!!!

    Direct and to the point….you know as well as I do – Paul and Glenn do have the answers but WHY aren’t they willing to be upfront and truthful to you about those answers and get those answers to you in a timely manner???

    I’m going to go back to…
    1. WHO is directing this “review” (investigation)?
    2. WHO gave the mandate?
    3. WHAT basis was the mandate made?
    4. WHY weren’t certain people interviewed and/or questioned? 5. WHO made the decision as to who would be interviewed and who would not be?
    6. And finally – WHO is more credible – John or the RCMP officers???

  33. Reality Checker says:

    Mandate……”To review whether Robert Pelletier, Peter Griffiths and/or Murray MacDonald obstructed justice in their prosecution of the original seven count information of which I was a part.”


    John is owed that explaination – not a brush off!!!

  34. John says:

    Hey all….I recieved an official letter from the RCMP saying that their “review” is completed. Here is the main body of the letter (recieved on Oct/25/10)…..

    “Please be advised that the RCMP’s review into the above mentioned allegation has now been concluded. We have also informed the Cornwall Commpunity Police Service in writing that we found no evidence to support the allegation that Peter Griffiths, Robert Pelletier and/or Murray MacDonald “Obstructed Justice” while prosecuting Charles MacDonald on the original seven count information which was laid in March of 1996 by D/Cst. Fagan of the Ontario Provincial Police.

    They do go on in the letter to give me Access to Information addresses and e-mail info to apply for a copy of their review, which I will be doing.

    I will keep posted here any other steps taken.

    John Mac Donald

  35. Reality Checker says:

    Did it come as a surprise John?

    ….didn’t think so.

Leave a Reply

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