Tune in again

Share Button

I believe I have now caught up and posted most of the media coverage of the last few days. Check New to the Site on the Home page for the listing of articles.

I will direct you specifically to the audio and video clips:

(1) 17 September 2007: CBC TV coverage: Perry refuses to testify – says it’s been a cover-up since 1993 and continues to this day (This clip requires Quicktime media player. Next week I will also post it accessible with Real Time player.)

(2) 18 September 2007: CBC Radio – Kathleen Petty report with extracts from Helen Dunlop/Justuce Glaude confrontation and interview with Peter Engelmann (RealMedia Player)

If you tried the radio clip earlier, try it again. I didn’t have it linked properly. I have discovered and corrected the problem. It should now be functional.

I think you will appreciate both clips. Both give a sense of the air at the Weave Shed courtroom early in the week – the packed house, the applause, the confrontations, and the attempts by lead commission counsel to explain the inexplainable. If you saw or heard the before, tune in again. There is always a little more the second time around.
Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Tune in again

  1. prima facie says:

    “The Dunlop Testimony” September 17 to September 21, 2007.

    “Observations and Interpretations”

    Firstly, the venue and the environment was not simply, adversarial. It was blatantly and loudly, autocratic, authoritative and power-coercive. Body guards, other guards, police, plain clothed police, more police, “ghost cars”, cameras, etc. I mean, who in the right mind would feel comfortable there, other than those who live in it daily. Certainly not the “working class”, certainly not “frightened victims”. There was a very visible and tense “gap” between the perceived “powers” and the “working class”.
    I have tried several times to write about this experience. There is far too much to comment on in a blog. JUST an incredible week!

    Point Form:
    a-I was banished to the side of the “courtroom” with Sylvia and others, for standing up in support of Helen and Perry Dunlop. Advantage for me, as I was NOW front-right of the “pack”, all 25-30 of them, three rows of high priced blue suits; lawyers, rolling in and out of town in a daily caravan of “sweet dreams”. I was between “them” and Judge Glaude. This was an excellent vantage point for any behavioural scientist or other researcher, interested in observing and assessing verbal and non-verbal communication, among other things. Counsellor Neville was most interesting and most active. At one point, when Helen was discussing Perry’s character, Mr. Neville, the only one to do so, turned completely around, his back facing directly towards Perry. He remained this way until Helen finished.

    b-Astonished that victims were left without a voice, at the eleventh hour, only to re-surface at the end of the week and declare success when intimidating criminal charges against Steve Parisien were dismissed. The lawyers implied their representations were the cause of the success. Make NO mistake about it, Steve represented himself!!

    Oh, the victim’s lawyers were there all week, but were utterly useless and in my opinion, should have been chastised by Judge Glaude. “The Judge” said nothing, nor did he address a submission by a victim to represent himself. Do I hear “Prima Facie”?

    I believe out of court settlements, judgements and settlements of other kinds are catalysts for disarray in and out of the hearings.

    c) I experiencedd dismay and felt deceived, lied to and cheated by the Ontario Justice System for, possibly, unlawfully coercing the Dunlop’s attendance and entrapping British Columbia as a co-conspirator. I felt all this. So how do you think Helen and Perry feel?

    Judge Glaude accepted responsibility and admitted deception when he proclaimed, “how else would we have gotten you here?”…..I believe Judge Glaude also said, they did what they did, “for the better good”. So, I guess Perry, Helen, Marlee, Heather and Monica were/are the intended, “collateral damage”….Do I hear “Prima Facie”? Not just Judge Glaude but Judge Glaude et al.

    Helen thoroughly and expertly, entered into the record, evidence which clearly shows that Mr. Engelmann-Chief Counsel, appeared to attempt to hide significant PUBLIC DOCUMENTS from the public. “Unchecked Power leads to corruption.”

    d) In my opinion, Helen thoroughly, competently and professionally, submitted and read into the record, forever, compelling evidence of potential criminal conspiracy among other issues, against the Cornwall Police Services, The Cornwall Police Association, The Cornwall City Police Deputy Police Chief, The Ontario Provincial Police, et al. (Read the transcripts, listen to the tapes, read the newspapers, watch TV……finally!!)

    e) I cried until my body shook, when Helen told of her families experiences.

    f) I was impressed with Judge Glaude, when he correctly intervened when the Cornwall Police Services lawyer or Police Association lawyer “hypothesized” and suggested various scenarios to Helen implying as a “reporter” of sexual deviants, why wasn’t she following Mr. Leroux and reprorting him to police, wherever he was and that the Dunlop’s were interviewing alleged victims, to build their own civil litigation. The aforementioned behaviour by this lawyer, was disgusting…..a desperate act by a desperate police service.

    g) To his credit, I observed Judge Glaude intervening appropriately on several other occasions with this lawyer and also with Mr. Engelmann.

    h) On the street, “old trusting friends” told me, they had no confidence in the Inquiry. They said, no one with a bit of sense has confidence. Another friend met a lawyer at the inquiry and told the lawyer they knew me. My friend said I use to live there. The lawyer replied, “I can’t talk about that guy.”

    i) I watched the fragmentation of different victim’s groups and other community groups. (lies, untrustworthy behaviours, promises of millions $$$$$, exploiting the vulnerable, notoriety, public funding for new programs $$$$ and longevity-job security)….sad, very sad.

    j) Why: Because today, “topic specific ignorance is rampant. Professionally credentialled intellectuals or elitists are the policy makers and “change catalysts”, pushing their own agendas. Cornwall and Trinity Anglican Church have been trying to “find a hole” for Gail Kaneb for years. Favouritism, cronyism and sometimes nepotism is good for building a team of obedient, “blind followers”, but no good for intervening in a problematic social system, similar to the one in Cornwall, Ontario.
    The Inquiry and the “principles” are clearly STILL IGNORANT and NAIVE of the existing problems. Judge Glaude can only work with what he knows and has to his avail…ditto for “the pack”. They are in the WRONG arena; you need other expertise to “manage” this problem…ex) truck drivers haven’t been trained to be lawyers type of thing…get it? Therefore, unfortunately, this Inquiry will have accomplished little.

    k) Finally, I learned an old acquaintance, who I met in Cornwall in 1998, has gained prominence and position in Cornwall, claiming to have gone to Cornwall in 2000, because of the Dunlop “situation”.

    I have also heard, there is significant funding available for community renewal programs.

    It is my opinion, many people, including victims will learn, who is here “for the victims” and who is here for “job security $$$$ power, prominence, control and notoriety”…..DISGUSTING!;

    Conclusion: You know, “God Bless The Inquiry People”, but if I were Perry and Helen, I would stay home in B.C. and get a lawyer to advise the Inquiry, that the Inquiry admitted to the intent, collusion, conspiracy, coercion and commission, etc., of, unlawful acts of commission and unlawful acts of ommission.

    In closing statements, I interpret Judge Glaude’s remarks to imply, whereas, even though the acts which brought the Dunlops to Ontario were unlawful, Perry and Helen came, therefore they are now in the lawful jurisdiction of Ontario. It is my opinion, this is an assertion which can be successfully argued, in that, in part, the Dunlops would not have come to Ontario unless they were coerced.

    I believe Helen said everything and Perry can only reiterate what has been said. ALL THE EVIDENCE is in. Stay home Perry and Helen.

Leave a Reply