The pending slaughter of the innocents
Six days. Perry and Helen Dunlop take the stand at the Cornwall Public Inquiry 17 September 2007, Helen’s birthday.
Much more to come on this. All very distrurbing…
Meanwhile, don’t for a moment forget to put the mysterious escalation of Perry Dunlop activity at the Weave Shed into context: the Ontario election is just around the corner. Dalton McGuinty is going to the polls 10 October 2007. Things have to be in ship shape at the Weave Shed. The tax payers must be assured that the millions upon millions of dollars funneled into the Weave Shed have been well spent, i.e., The vicitims are liars. Perry Dunlop is a criminal. The “alleged” paedophiles have been persecuted and suffered more than words can tell. – Let the healing begin.
Yes, that’s Premier Dalton McGuinty, the man who, along with his attorney general (Michael Bryant) assured the “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall that they can sleep tight. That’s the man who commissioned this inquiry, ‘armed’ it with its toothless mandate crafted to deftly side-step the Project Truth mandate and specific allegations of cover-up and of homosexual abuse of young boys by pillars of the community which promoted call s for an inquiry, and then placed the resultant ruse firmly in hands of an Ontario judge awash in red flags.
And don’t for a moment forget that McGuinty’s chosen commissioner very publicly declared his bias over a year ago: the “rumour” and “innuendo” swirling around Cornwall are false!
Hearings have wrapped up for the day. Marc Carriere, who alleges he was sexually assaulted at age 21 by former Justice of Peace Keith Jodoin and sexually abused by a George Laviere (sp?) Armand Lavigne, has completed his testimony.
If I understood correctly it seems Marc went to Project Truth officers in 1999 to suggest they look at Keith Jodoin. That evolved into disclosing his own allegations of assault and, from there, here’s how it went:
(1) Marc was assured by the PT officers and Belleville Crown attorney Claudette Wilhelm that charges would be laid
(2) Marc changed his mind. He decided he didn’t want to proceed because there were things he didn’t want to talk to the officers about, namely the sexual abuse he suffered at age 14 at the hands of Laviere and dealings with Cornwall police regarding possession of hashish.
(3) Marc talked to Dick Nadeau. Dick encouraged him to go back and tell it all
(4) One week after he asked police not to pursue his allegations Marc went back to say he wanted to proceed. This time he was told there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. He was essentially told that this had been hard on Keith Jodoin, and there was mention made of his contact with Dick Nadeau. He got the distinct impression the Crown and/or police thought he had been coached by Dick. He insists that was not the case at all. Dick simply encouraged him to go back and tell everything, which he did.
Two questions related to the above:
(1) Can anyone tell me how allegations which were sufficient to take an “alleged” sexual predator out of circulation one day were insufficient the next?
(2) Can anyone tell me why a victim seeking support from anyone should become grounds to negate a man’s allegations of sexual assault against a ‘pillar’ of the Cornwall community?
Now, listen to this. Marc’s other allegations, those against George Laviere Armand Lavigne
Marc testified that when he 14 Lavigne picked him up on the pretext of giving the boy a ride home. Lavigne drove Marc to the dam and molested the boy.
Upon his return home his father realized something was seriously amiss with his son and questioned the child. Marc told his father what had happened.
Off they went to the police station.
No charges. Police allegedly claimed they contacted the 68-year-old man who claimed that it was Marc, a 14-year-old boy, who wanted to have “sexual intercourse”!
That was the end of that. The denials of the 68-year-old apparently prevailed over the word of a boy and the corroborating evidence which his father could have offered.
That was 1978. Was Marc sodomized? I don’t know. He gave his testimony in French –the interpreter translated his words as “sexual intercourse.” That was illegal in 1978. Any acts of sodomy with anyone under age 21 were illegal.
But, the bottom line is the man wasn’t charged. He was left to prowl to the streets.
As I mentioned earlier, Ron Leroux has been excused. He will not return to resume his cross-examination. His application for standing and funding has also been denied. It seems his legal costs surrounding getting a second medical opinion may be covered, as will a portion of the costs incurred when he left the Victims Group and London-based law firm Ledroit Becket to seek legal counsel from another London-based law firm Harrison Pensa 17 March 2007.
How Ron’s muddled testimony to date will be dealt with now remains to be seen. Will it be expunged from the record entirely? Or will we have a Let’s Pretend Ron is on the Stand session? Akin to the Let’s Pretend David Silmser is on the Stand? But rather, as in the Silmser exercise which was out to discredit the absent witness ( Dave), with the intent of discrediting Perry Dunlop?
No idea. The matter will addressed tomorrow afternoon.
My guess is there won’t be a clamor to expunge – as contradictory and waffling as Ron’s testimony was, it took a few swipes at Perry Dunlop. Those are manna for the commission. Though the swipes were alternately thrown out and withdrawn by Ron, and in some instances what he at one point implied were Perry’s lies turned into claims he lied to Perry, they are manna. So,no, I don’t think they’ll be keen to expunge those morsels. They should. Under the circumstances and with the shape Ron was in when he took the stand, they should. It should be a no-brainer. But, …I don’t think that’s about to happen.
And of course, never forget that if nothing else Ron’s testimony plucked Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald right off Stanley Island and right out of Ken Seguin’s waterfront property! Rest assured there are any number of people who want that to stay on the record.
It will be most interesting to see how the commission – and commissioner – plans to deal with this one.
Carson Chisholm’s application for standing and funding at the Cornwall Public Inquiry was heard yesterday (Monday 10 September 2007). Justice Glaude has reserved his decision until 14:00 hours (2 pm) Wednesday, 12 September 2007.
It was, to put it mildly, a rather passionate plea on Carson’s behalf (for the Coalition for Action) by local Cornwall lawyer Frank Horn.
Horn argued that Carson and the Coalition should be granted standing because Carson, with support from Coalition members, was the one who forced the various institutions to respond to allegations of sexual abuse in the first place. It was, according to Horn, Carson who travelled to Fort Lauderdale, Florida to investigate and get information which would force the institutions to act, and did so out of his own pocket.
According to Horn, Carson did what he did over the years and persisted because, as a practicing Roman Catholic, he believed that it was the right thing to do and what God wanted him to do.
Justice Glaude was less than amused with Horn’s arguments. And, as you shall see, had a rather intriguing interest in Carson’s horses and, in that regard I would say, sunk to a new low in interrogating Carson about his finances.
I have plucked out three of Horn’s arguments to list in point format, then will take a few exchanges between he and Glaude and list them separately. I think some of these will stir the hearts of those who are close enough to the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up to know what’s been going on down there in the name of justice and the pursuit of truth.
Some Horn arguments:
(1) “Mr. Carson Chisholm became kind of an expert on how to deal with institutions that don’t want to cooperate and do what should be done in investigating these things and laying criminal charges. And so he was basically in some ways doing the job of the police departments. He was doing the job of the investigation and these institutions should have done it, but he did it out of his own pocket”
(2) “He [Carson] has become the expert on how to deal with institutions that do not want to do their job and he did it and he forced them to do it; one individual with a group of people behind him.”
(3) He [Carson] is the one that knows better than anyone else that when you come face-to-face with bureaucrats and people that work in the institutions and they tell you, “No, we’re not going to do it” or “You’re in trouble”, and they try to put the pressure on him and the other individuals, he’s the one that faced it, overcame it, and forced this Inquiry. Nobody else did it.”
“You can’t make those kind of accusations”
Justice Glaude was not amused with this one:
MR. HORN: …because of the fact that he was a leader, [Carson] has gotten a lot of the heat aimed at him and, as a result, what happens in this Inquiry, there’s going to be a lot of people here that are going to try to twist things around and have everything turned around so that he is the person who is the perpetrator of something wrong, and he’s faced that; he’s seen it already. This is the sort of thing. They’ve turned things around and made him go on the defensive.
THE COMMISSIONER: Whoa, whoa.
MR. HORN: And that’s why he had to be on —
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?
MR. HORN: Yes?
THE COMMISSIONER: Stop.
MR. HORN: Okay.
THE COMMISSIONER: No one is twisting anything around. People have come and testified and said things about him. He has been subpoenaed to come here and to tell his side of the story; right? So easy now on the rhetoric.
MR. HORN: No. I understand what you are saying, but here is the situation. The individuals who have changed their story made one story that he obtained and they’ve changed their story afterwards.
THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm.
MR. HORN: And he believes that the reason why was because pressure was put on them by the institutions to change their story because these are vulnerable people that could not defend themselves. That’s why they can be turned around against him and he has to be here to defend himself.
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Yes, I understand that he wants to be here. I understand that it is important for him to be here, but you can’t just — you, as an advocate, you can’t come in here and make those kinds of accusations until — that has nothing to do with the application for standing.
Never mind public perception.
And Justice Glaude was not amused with this one:
MR. HORN: …I think that if he is not given standing
and if he’s not funded, then I think that what will happen,
and this is what he believes and we discussed this to some
extent — then all the things he has said over the years is
that this is just a cover-up, an attempted cover-up — is
true. That’s what gave rise to this —
THE COMMISSIONER: So, okay, just a minute.
MR. HORN: — Inquiry. That’s all he feels.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I know that’s what he might feel.
So what you’re telling me, it’s almost like a blackmail thing, that if I don’t let him in then this is all a cover-up?
MR. HORN: No, I’m saying that he — that’s how the — that’s how the public will perceive it.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Horn.
MR. HORN: Not only —
THE COMMISSIONER: N, no, stop. Let’s make it very clear here the public, all right, is on the webcasts, on T.V., are welcome here to see.
MR. HORN: M’hm.
THE COMMISSIONER: I don’t want to hear about what “the public” generally thinks because the public can see for themselves and they can make their own decisions. So if you’re going to tell me that the public is going to — I don’t cater to the public. The public is smart enough to look at what’s going on here and come up with their own decisions.
And then,of course, the horses…
At an early exchange Glaude asked out of the blue how many horses Carson Chisholm owns. As out of context as it seemed at the time, this seemed to relate to Carson’s application for funding and Glaude’s desire to know exactly how many horses and much they’re worth.
The initial comment passed. But, it wasn’t put to rest.
A little later, the following exchange:
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. And Mr. Chisholm, how many horses does he have?
MR. HORN: How many horses?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
MR. HORN: I don’t know.
MR. CARSON CHISHOLM: Probably 15 and a dog and a cat.
THE COMMISSIONER: Easy.
MR. HORN: Yeah, well he doesn’t have horses
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, how do you know?
MR. HORN: They’re nice looking horses. I know that.
THE COMMISSIONER: Are you giving me evidence?
MR. HORN: No, I just —
THE COMMISSIONER: No, but seriously, How am I going to decide if I don’t have all the facts in front of me? You, as a taxpayer, would probably be devastated if people started giving money to people without doing their homework. Would you not?
MR. HORN: Yes, if I was a taxpayer, but I’m a Mohawk.
THE COMMISSIONER: As I said, if you were a taxpayer.
MR. HORN: Yeah, if I was, yes. The —
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Chisholm, can you give me an average price or how much your horses are worth all in?
MR. CHISHOLM: Fifteen hundred $1,500 to two $2,000 maybe a piece.
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: I can’t hear you, sir.
MR. HORN: I think that the main thrust of his financial application to get funding is that he doesn’t know why he would have to liquidate assets to get part of – – he doesn’t want to do that.
Indeed. The diocese wasn’t compelled to liquidate. I don’t know about horses, but I would guess the diocese has far more in assets than Carson Chisholm. What assets Paul Scott who head the Citizens for Community Renewal does or does not own I have no idea, and could care less, but there was none of this public inquisition for him.
Quite disgusting. Really quite disgusting.
I suppose that’s the way it goes at this “impartial” and “independent” inquiry.
So, Glaude will rule tomorrow afternoon. Whether or not the horses, and, as Carson pointed out from the bleachers, one cat and one dog ,factor into his decision remains to be seen.
Will Carson get full standing? Bishop Durocher/the diocese certainly doesn’t want him there. That was made clear. Ditto the Cornwall Police Service. And, by the sound of it, and from past experience, neither does the commission.
It would look pretty bad to deny him outright, wouldn’t it. A second time?
Perhaps Glaude will give him limited standing – enough for Carson to defend himself, but not enough for him to call witnesses, and not enough for him to challenge other witnesses on testimony which doesn’t relate to him but which he knows to be false or falling shy of the truth? Enough to give a public perception of fairness but not enough to rock and tip the boat?
And, if Glaude comes back saying Horn didn’t make his argument? Well, that’s just the way it is for we laymen, isn’t it? All we the unwashed can do is retain the lawyer. Where it goes from there is totally out of our hands.
And that’s enough for now,