For the greater good

Share Button

Hearings resume at 09:30 am, Tuesday 18 September 2007. Perry and/or Helen Dunlop will be on the stand. It truly is hard to speculate how things will proceed in vein since the afternoon concluded yesterday (17 September) with both Perry and Helen on the stand together!

Very different.

Indeed the day in the Weave Shed coliseum courtroom was very different period.

(1) The court was packed. (Yes. It truly is a court. Justice Lederer ruled it is a court. Had Leder not ruled that the commission is a court Justice Glaude would have been unable to issue an Interprovincial subpoena.)

(2) There were 23 lawyers lined up at their respective stations. Yes. 23. Of the 23 no less than 19 are definitively there to defend the vested interests of “alleged” paedophiles and/or the interests of those who covered up on their behalf.

(3) There was media ++

(4) Michael Neville, lawyer for Father Charles MacDonald, made his first public appearance in the Weave Shed courtroom for nigh on two years. I believe the last time Neville was in there with the gathered throng was when he was arguing for standing and funding.

(5) There was applause. A very hearty round of applause for Perry and Helen when they walked into the coliseum courtroom.

(6) There was a standing ovation. A standing ovation for Perry and Helen Dunlop.

(7) Approximately 15 people were granted standing. (Actually, as you will see in a moment, a special kind of standing. No funding. And the standing was of the literal kind)

As for the rest. Well, not much time here but I’ll pass on what I can. My husband and I have to be up and underway at 06:00 hours this morning to get down to Cornwall. There is the possibility of contempt of court charges. Things could get nasty. We feel we must go down there to lend out support.

So, I have sifted quickly through the transcripts looking for several exchanges which stuck in my mind. I have pulled out a few. However, if you want a feel what transpired yesterday take the time to read the transcript from start to finish. It’s not too long and is a fascinating read.

A weary-looking Perry took the stand first. He read a statement (below) and then declined to answer further questions.

Then it was Helen’s turn. Helen Dunlop has had enough. She didn’t mince words. Articulate, witty, quick on her feet, and at time fighting back tears – she had her say and then some.

What can’t be captured in the transcript is the mood. The air was charged.

There was one scenario which played itself out which I really must try to describe. It was the strangest thing I have ever seen.

When Perry was put on the stand Helen walked over and posted herself behind lead commission counsel Engelmann. She was facing Justice Glaude and in sight of her husband.

THE COMMISSIONER: I see there is a person standing. I’m wondering if we could find a seat. No, that person and the person right there. Yes.

Helen replied

MRS. DUNLOP: I would like to stand in honour and support my husband if that is okay with you, Your Honour.

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm, I don’t see any problem with that. It’s going to be a long time. So if at any time you feel that you want to sit, just find a chair anywhere at all. That will be fine.

And this is when it happened. First one, then another, then another in the stands stood. I don’t know how many stood to show their support for Perry. There were a lot. It was a ripple effect – like a wave rippling through the crowd. Silently. One after the other. Standing to show Perry we were with him.

Engelmann stands facing the judge with his back to the crowd. He had no idea what was happening. But, Justice Glaude could see:


No, no, no, no, no, no, no. There we go. Mr. Engelmann, there are a number of people who have chosen to stand behind you. It just is not proper decorum.

Mr. Dunlop, do you wish them to continue standing or would you rather them just sit down?

MR. DUNLOP: Of their own free will, I would say.

Justice Glaude was not amused, but tolerant:


All right. So I’m going to take a five minute break and afterwards I’m going to come back in and those people who really want to stand will move over to the side, over there, so the people who are sitting will be able to see.

So I will accommodate your — but I will tell you one thing, ladies and gentlemen. Throughout this Inquiry, if I’ve made any mistakes, there’s one I have not made and that is being respectful to people. And out of respect for this process and for the questions that we’re going to be putting to this witness, I ask you for the same respect back.

So you will be able to stand over there. I do not want any outbreaks of applause or dismay or anything like that. Is that very clear? Have I made myself very clear?

Upon return about 15 people moved to the right-hand of the coliseum court room. All stood for the duration of the afternoon hearing.

Helen was directed to the other side of the room where she could see Perry without obstructing anyone’s view.

All had standing. No funding

Perry Makes a statement

Mr. Engelmann was set to proceed.

Perry said there was something he’d like to read.

The O.K.was given:

MR. DUNLOP: Number one, I have been lied to and forced here against my will today. I want that to be on the record. I’ve been forced to leave my children, my business and my community in British Columbia to come here.

I live in fear for my health and my safety of my family, including my three girls who I had to leave. I have no faith in the Ontario criminal justice system or the mandate of this Inquiry. I am the scapegoat.

This has been a cover-up since 1993 and it continues to be a cover-up to this day. Over the past 14 years, I have cooperated, given all my evidence and testimony over and over again. There is nothing more I can add. The victims and their families are the heroes and the truth-sayers here.

I have nothing more to say at this time.

That was basically it:

THE COMMISSIONER: Will you answer questions for Mr. Engelmann?

MR. DUNLOP: I have nothing more to say.

There was a brief elaboration on the lies. Perry said he and Helen had been lied to – they were told would not be compelled to testify. Then they were summarily summonsed.

Now, listen to this….

Engelmann said he didn’t intend to lie – he just didn’t know the commission had the power to compel them to attend! Whether or not that was because Glaude and Engelmann didn’t know they could find a judge willing to rule that the commission is a court I don’t now. Whatever the case, the fact that for months on end they presumably didn’t know they had the power, and then mysteriously, silently and/or suddenly discovered that they did was supposed to make the broken promises alright!

Mr. ENGELMANN: I certainly didn’t in any way intend to lie to you, sir, but when I wrote to you some time ago I didn’t think we had the power to compel you to be here.

A little later when Helen raised the matter Justice Glaude shouldered part of the blame for broken promises. He essentially explained that after he had promised that people wouldn’t be forced to testify against their will he had changed his mind and forced someone to testify against their will.

And Glaude’s rationale for breaking promises to victims? Here it is:

I have to look at the greater good and the greater good is to see what we can do to make things better in Cornwall.

In other words, it’s fine for judges and lawyers to promise one thing and do another – for “the greater good”? The end justified the means?

Whether it is that old Marxist maxim or not I suppose is immaterial – the bottom line is that the commission court makes things better in Cornwall by promising the victims one thing and doing another.

And this will promote “healing”? In a community whose faith in the administration of justice has been gutted over the past 14 years?

Some quick quotable exchanges


MRS. DUNLOP: Why are you staring at me, sir?

THE COMMISSIONER: Because I have a right to look at everyone in this community.

MRS. DUNLOP: I find it very intimidating.

THE COMMISSIONER: Let’s carry on.

It stops here this week

MRS. DUNLOP: — we don’t have faith in this Inquiry or this mandate. We have been jerked around, threatened, bullied, lied to, harassed for 14 years —


MRS. DUNLOP: — and the victims and their families have gone through the same thing.


MRS. DUNLOP: We are tired of it. It stops here today or tomorrow or this week for the Dunlop family.

The system is out of control

MRS. DUNLOP: I personally don’t have faith in this Inquiry or this mandate, sir.

THE COMMISSIONER: Whether or not you have faith in it — we understand your position. I think you’ve made that very clear.

Would you not want to tell me where the institutions went wrong and what they did to you and your husband?

MRS. DUNLOP: You mean starting with the cover-up in 1993 at the Cornwall Police Station by senior members there?


MRS. DUNLOP: Well, I don’t want to do it in this kind of a setting because this isn’t supposed to be a trial.

THE COMMISSIONER: No, it is not.

MRS. DUNLOP: But I’ve seen people, victims, who have been sent to find a damned good lawyer after they gave testimony.


MRS. DUNLOP: I have listened to a Commissioner say, “No one is going to be compelled here to speak. Everything is going to be voluntary”.


MRS. DUNLOP: We have been lied to. I expect we’ll be lied to some more.


MRS. DUNLOP: So the answer is, no, I don’t have any faith. No, I don’t think this is going to go well for the Dunlops. It hasn’t gone well for the Dunlops or my children in 14 years thanks to the great institutions being represented here today.


MRS. DUNLOP: And we have been bullied, harassed, threatened and we are tired of it. We want to put an end to it for our children’s health, for our health, and to get some peace for the rest of this country. Our system is out of control.

Look what happened to Steven Truscott

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you see, what I am interested in is hearing what you have to say. Don’t you want to be able to tell somebody about all that has gone

MRS. DUNLOP: Well, we’ll tell the victims and the public and I guess maybe someday, somebody will write a book. Because I don’t believe there will be justice served in this proceeding or in any criminal proceeding coming out of this proceeding.

THE COMMISSIONER: But, but, but, but, but – – you had the opportunity of being on the website and being on Cogeco, which would mean that you would have your chance
in front of the public to tell your story.

MR. DUNLOP: So did Steven Truscott and he spent 34 years in jail.

THE COMMISSIONER: Actually, that was after a trial and —

MRS. DUNLOP: Well, this is a trial.

THE COMMISSIONER: No, it’s not, it’s not.

MRS. DUNLOP: No, it’s not? Well, it sure feels and looks and sounds like one.

The fox guarding the chicken house

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, we’ve been at this for a couple of years and I know that the mandate is an issue because as an Inquiry, we cannot go into and find somebody guilty. My job —

MRS. DUNLOP: That’s not the problem with the mandate, sir.

THE COMMISSIONER: What’s the problem with the mandate?

MRS. DUNLOP: The problem with the mandate, sir, is that you are a sitting judge in Ontario.


MRS. DUNLOP: You’re being paid by the Attorney General’s office, who is one of the institutions that we’re investigating.


MRS. DUNLOP: And sir, are you Catholic?

THE COMMISSIONER: Does it matter?

MRS. DUNLOP: It matters to a lot of people.


MRS. DUNLOP: Because it goes to bias.


Well, you see, then we go to — in Ontario –

MRS. DUNLOP: It’s akin to the fox guarding the chicken house door, sir, with all due respect.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, then if we’re going to talk about respect, all right, I’ve been giving two-and a-half years of my life —

MRS. DUNLOP: We’ve been giving 14.

THE COMMISSIONER: — to come here.


So I thought maybe we could have some common ground.

MRS. DUNLOP: But we don’t have common friends.


MRS. DUNLOP: You’re wrong, sir.


MRS. DUNLOP: That we trust, sitting in suits here today.


MRS. DUNLOP: You think this is funny, Mr. Glaude?


MRS. DUNLOP: This is our life. This is not funny for us.

THE COMMISSIONER: Careful. Careful. You understand the smile as a smirk and what it is is a sense of frustration on my part when someone tells me that I am putting in two-and-half-years of my time — right – when you’ve put in your fourteen. Fourteen isn’t equal to two and-a-half. I’ll agree.

MRS. DUNLOP: And you are getting paid and we weren’t.

Two kinds of lawyers in the world

MRS. DUNLOP: The justice system needs to get cleaned up. There are only two kinds of lawyers in the world, architects and parasites. Decide for yourselves which one you are. Because we have had enough of harassment. And I am here to protect my husband and my children and every other child that’s had the poor choice to be put in places where they have been molested and have grown up damaged and have been given deals and money and pay-offs so they could all go away and we could just sweep this under the carpet again.

It’s done. You have no more chance – I mean, what are the chances of the truth coming out of the Cornwall Inquiry? About the same as raising the Titanic
and finding the band still playing.

Full pockets

MRS. DUNLOP: We want the truth out and it will come out. It will come out long after you’ve left Cornwall with your pockets full. It will come out long after you’ve head up the 401. It will all come out.

You can’t hide the truth.

In prayer

THE COMMISSIONER: So when I was looking at you over there, I saw your lips moving.

MRS. DUNLOP: I was praying.

THE COMMISSIONER: And — you see, I could assume one of two things, there are many, and I assumed that you were praying as opposed —

MRS. DUNLOP: Well, that’s good. We need lots of that here.

Quite I day! As I said, do take time to read the transcript.

What will happen this morning? I have no idea.

There have been threats of contempt of court charges. Perry is ready.

Will it happen? That I suppose rests on what Justice Glaude deems to be for “the greater good” of Cornwall.

It was apparently for the “greater good” to ship Albert Roy off to find a “damn good” lawyer. That after Albert voluntarily took the stand and was about to be forced to testify about matters he believed were personal and private.

And it was apparently for “the greater good” to have Steve Parisien charged with obstruction of justice.

When it comes to Perry and Helen, what will be for “the greater good” of Cornwall?

Pray for Perry and Helen, the girls, and Perry’s mother.

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to For the greater good

  1. prima facie says:

    Cornwall, Ontario, CANADA. On Tuesday, I,”Prima Facie” watched the “Inquiry” and “the System” grind to a halt In Cornwall, Ontario, CANADA, as Perry and Helen refused to testify. The “copious” lawyers looked bewildered and confused. It felt like they were scattering….at least in their thoughts….it showed in their eyes and on their faces….it was like what an army of ants do, when you take away their “victim”. For a few short minutes, I felt the “Inquiry” engine stalled. “The Inquiry” had NO control, other than to cart Perry and Helen away to jail and claim victory over them.
    Perry and Helen had not been “prepared” prior to attending as “compelled” and now disclosed “coerced” to do.

    Have any of you “reader’s” experienced a feeling that your lawyer isn’t listening or doesn’t understand, or, doesn’t WANT to understand? Have you ever felt “your lawyer” has “other plans” for you? One’s which really don’t meet your wishes, intentions or needs?
    Well, I believe there is a reason “they don’t understand”. If “you/me” do not follow the “prepared” plan and let’s say assert your “rights” in “pro per” (self-representation), well, it becomes a mess for “the system”.
    There are more “high profile” lawyers at this Public Inquiry than the “Gomery Commission” (recent Canadian Government scandal) and all of them must get their “blue suits” from the same “Tijuana wholesaler”…I mean, really kids, three rows of dark, navy blue…yes, a few skirts.

    I suggest you research the Lawyers and other personalities present and “historical/current” issues they have.
    ex) simply “google” their names. See what they faced or are facing and will face. In addition, see their “status” and current responsibilities with the Canadian Bar Association, The Law Society of Upper Canada and other associations. See if the lawyers faced any disciplinary action or received other awards, sanctions or Honours

    All these people, for “concerns” that they represent never really happened and allegations of SEXUAL ABUSE were/are false…HELLO!!! wakey!! wakey!!!

    NOW, take the seriousness of this “Inquiry” as it is well documented in “Sylvia’s” website. I think you can see the concerns being felt by “the system” and why the “Dunlop’s” MAY have chosen to refuse to testify.
    In fact, I believe it was only after “behind closed door meetings” that Helen agreed to “HELP” the “Inquick” kick-start the engine…..and ONLY because of Helen’s decision to cooperate. If it were me in Helen’s spot, knowing where they want to lead me, well I would have stayed silent.
    SOME day Helen will tell us why she came agreed

    I believe Perry and Helen were accurate when they asserted their distrust in the Ontario Justice System. I’m certain there are others of us who feel the same.

    Other points: Various alliances being forged and broken. A lot going on. Personnel, “preparing” future witnesses…you know what I mean. It makes me PUKE!!

    AND, a new victim and/or witness came to me crying for help and she wanted to “apply” for standing but “REMAIN SILENT” because she was afraid. She said, “it is still happening. The alleged abuser is being “moved out of the area” by employers. I talked with her, introduced her to “survivors” and they directed her to other “Inquiry” personnel.
    Very emotional days but, I believe, Perry and Helen have done more for the Rights of the “little guy” in Canada, than I have seen in a long time.

Leave a Reply