The afternoon hearings are cancelled. I don’t what’s happened. They went on lunch break until 2 pm. At 2 pm there was no feed – just the green screen. Around 2:25 pm the feed was on and they were in the midst of adjourning until tomorrow morning at 09:30.
Ron Leroux’ examination in chief continued this morning (Wednesday 27 June 2007). I won’t cover much of his testimony until I see where and how it falls into place. Much of what he had to testify to today is already covered in his statements which are posted on the Ron Leroux page. There are however some things which he said this morning which puzzle me. In particular I am puzzled that he testified that he doesn’t really know what was on the tapes of Ken Seguin which were seized/confiscated by police from his, Ron’s, home. Ron has always said that he knew the tapes were Ken’s personal porn. Today he doesn’t seem to know with any degree of certainty what they were.
That aside I must say that I am fascinated by Justice Glaude’ and Peter Engelmann’s intense interest and focus on anything which might cast Perry Dunlop in a bad light. It didn’t always pan out, but I’d say it wasn’t for lack of trying on their part. There was one instance where they thought they had Perry giving Ron Leroux the names of men in the photo line-up, but that fell apart when they tried to cinch it in. Then there is the alcohol issue. According to Ron while Perry and Perry’s lawyer Charles Bourgeois spent time in Maine talking to him over a number of days they would have a few drinks. When asked Ron said he was “possibly” drunk on a few occasions. Asked about the others, he said they were “feeling good.” At another time in testimony he said he had to load Bourgeois into a taxi on a couple of occasions. I have the uncanny sense here that the operative assumption will be that everyone was drunk 24/7 while they identified suspects and so on. I believe common sense says that sometimes people take a breather from this filth, but there was no apparent desire or attempt by either Glaude or Engelmann to clarify when the drinking transpired in relation to “business.” (I can’t help but wonder now if any of the legal throng have a drink or two while they’re on business in Cornwall? And could someone use that to throw the inquiry into a tail spin?)
On the same vein as this acute interest in digging up aspersions on Perry Dunlop I couldn’t help but notice that was no spark of stereotypical commission interest in Perry when Ron got off an a tangent which started with his explanation of why Perry said he wanted to speak to Ron. Ron testified that Perry told him he was doing what he was doing because he, Perry, was in trouble over a document he’d taken from the Cornwall police and how he had no back up when he was on the job. Then Ron went on to relate that he remembers once Perry was at his, Ron’s, house and Perry “could hardly walk because he got beat up” so badly. There was not a whiff of interest in that. No one asked what happened to Perry. No one wanted to know who beat Perry up. Not one shred of interest. Ron was simply and promptly re-directed and that was the end of that.
A final note here. I must say that as documents are entered into evidence and I hear how diligently Perry pursued leads and information I keep thinking that he certainly did his homework: he was meticulous in getting his facts down pat, and he was obviously far more adept at getting information about what was going on in Cornwall, connecting dots and asking the right questions than a host of others.
As for Perry’s lawyer Charles Bourgeois, well, drunk or sober, I don’t know. He wouldn’t be the first lawyer, or for that matter judge, to have one too many. But there seems to be some big move afoot to tar and feather him with the same brush they’ve used to tar Perry, and Carson and Helen. Is he a scoundrel? I don’t know. I seem to recall that he left Perry stranded at the courthouse at the 11th hour. But what’s new there? Perry was and is in the same boat as the rest of we unwashed laymen when it comes to finding a lawyer – we are more or less stuck with what we get, aren’t we? We take our chances on a lawyer, foot the bill and find out as we go along, sort of “on the job.” If a lawyer doesn’t work out and isn’t representing our best interests well, too bad for us: he gets paid, we’re out of pocket, and we’re back to square one hunting for another “damn good” lawyer.
But all of that aside, does Bourgeois warrant having the commission canons pointed in his direction? Are the affidavits such a problem that he too must be pulverized? It’s beginning to look that way. They’re after his files, and there’s talk of subpoena. Who knows what lies around the corner?
****
As we move along and this thing gets messier and messier and stranger and stranger those of you who have read the Franklin Cover-Up may want to re-read it. Those who have never heard of the book should invest in a copy. I blogged briefly on this some time ago but several people have made mention of it in the past few days so perhaps it’s time to raise it again? I will link you to the blog. Follow the links, but first take a look at a very brief and comprehensive account of the banned documentary here. Note the reference to victims recanting their testimony in court. Keep that in mind as we move along.
****
NOTE: I’ve just heard that Ron Leroux was feeling worn out and in need of a rest. He has been given the afternoon off.
****
I want to make a comment on the “Hi profile healing needed” article. Will do so later.
Enough for now….
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)