No means No

Share Button

I can’t begin to say all I had hoped to say. A busy day yesterday – didn’t even get a look at the Pelletier-Griffiths memo. Hopefully better luck today 🙂

A series of comments:

(1) The schedule for next week is up. One witness iis scheduled for the entire week: Perry Dunlop.

How many times do they need to hear it from Perry? The last I heard “No” still means “No.”

Perry will not be at the coliseum Weave Shed courtroom at 1 pm on Monday, 14 January 2008. He told the commission that the last time he was in Cornwall. He told Divisional Court “I have been lied to, deceived, coerced, bullied and threatened by the Cornwall Inquiry and those who work for them….. Sirs, I have no intention of testifying at the Cornwall Inquiry now or ever.”

The email to Divisional court was sent the evening before Perry was scheduled to appear in Toronto, days after the court denied Helen the privilege of representing her husband, and after the same court refused to delay the contempt of court hearings to give the Dunlops a chance to sort out what to do.

The hearing was an “emergency” hearing they were told. There are no delays it seems when someone somewhere decides a hearing is an emergency hearing!

Since Helen couldn’t represent Perry the pair had to think in terms of finding a “damn good” lawyer, one capable of going toe to toe with the establishment. They’re hard to hard to come by, particularly when it comes to Cornwall. Not only that, they’re expensive. And, thanks to the time and stress imposed on Perry by the inquiry, the Dunlop pockets were and are empty. The cost of air travel, accommodations and meals alone would have been a serious financial burden for the family. Add the astronomical emotional and financial burden of seeking and securing a “damn good” lawyer – one free of conflict, trustworthy, smart enough to wrap his head around “Cornwall” in a very limited time frame, ready to forgo a career, and ready willing and able to defend Perry’s best interests by going toe to toe with the establishment.

Impossible. The Dunlop’s could not and did not go to Toronto to fight the contempt charge which Justice Glaude and his troops wanted to inflict upon Perry. Glaude’s colleagues obligingly carried on with the emergency hearing. Guilty Contempt charge number one.

“I have no intention of testifying at the Cornwall Inquiry now or ever.” Perry said in his email to the judges.

He meant it. He knew the consequences.

“No” means “no.”

Mr. Engelmann doesn’t seem to understand. “No” means “no.”

How the schedule will be filled in for the weeks ear-marked for Perry remains to be seen.

(2) Much media coverage across the nation re Perry’s affirmation that his “no” meant “no.” I have posted as many of the articles as I could find. Some are included in this posting. Others are posted individually. If you have time, compare. Also, note who’s missing. Which reminds me, one tiny little insert on page 16 in today’s Ottawa Sun. And there they sit with Terri Saunders who knows Cornwall so well. It does not bode well as many had hoped for future in-depth coverage of the inquiry from the Sun. What has changed at the Sun?
(3) Note lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann’s puzzling quote in May be hit with ‘severe penalty’: “We would prefer to proceed with his evidence. If he does not do that we will not be held hostage (to Dunlop’s testimony).”

Does anyone have one sweet clue what that means?

Can a person really be held hostage with words? For that matter, could Perry really hold the commission hostage if he doesn’t merrily pirouette into the coliseum Weave Shed courtroom on Monday?

The truth of the matter is if Perry doesn’t go, he goes to jail – a “severe” penalty.

So, the question is, who’s holding who hostage?

Is this all wordspeak? Legal semantics?

Or would it perhaps be slanderous for the lead counsel to say on the one hand that Perry is holding the commission hostage, and not slanderous on the other if instead he says Perry’s testimony is holding them hostage? Is there a liability issue?

I don’t have a clue. But, strange words indeed. I don;t have a clue what it means.

(4) Note the next batch of articles to emanate from the Canadian Press newswires.

Two topics I want to touch on here: (i) John Swales, and (ii) Peter Engelmann.

(i) John Swales:

John says he wants to hear Perry Dunlop’s words? He could read them, couldn’t he? If John Swales really wants to hear what Perry has to say he could read Perry’s “story.” It’s a good but disturbing read.

And John believes that if Perry doesn’t testify there will be “a void in the inquiry’s work that can only undermine the testimony of alleged victims who have already come before the inquiry.”

All I can say is that John Swales has done a remarkable turn around. Three years ago he was convinced the inquiry could proceed quite nicely without Perry Dunlop and saw no need for Perry to seek standing. Now this.

John has come a long long way. I’ll leave it at that.

(ii) Peter Engelmann

A few quotes and comments:

  • “We’re looking at whether there are deficiencies in the justice system.”

???? What can I say to that?

  • “We’re trying to tell as much as this story as we can and there will be a gap (without Dunlop’s testimony),”

Is this a public inquiry or a story telling session?

Anyway, Mr. Engelemann can tell the gathered throng to read Perry’s “story.” That will fill in the gaps for them in the story line. Perhaps he might also consider posting it on the inquiry website to ensure the general public can read it and they too can fill in the gaps? As I said above, it’s a good but disturbing read.

  • “He and many others called for this inquiry. . . Clearly he was an important witness.”

Perry called for “this” inquiry. If ever called for anything it was for someone to look into the allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up. I believe that if the inquiry had been commissioned with a proper mandate in the hands of an out-of province judge free of any real or perceived conflict of interest Perry would have been anxious to testify.

  • “Everybody has an opinion of Perry Dunlop here.”

So it seems.

  • “I think it’s just disappointing that they’re not going to see him be examined and cross-examined on many of the things that he did and many of the things that he said.”

We weren’t allowed to see C-8 examined and cross-examined on many of the things he did and many of the things he said. That’s all top secret. Mr. Engelmann didn’t seem too terribly disappointed that we were missing that.

Does this mean Perry is no more than a side show for the commission?

(5) Note the comments on Capital Xtra. These were posted last October in response to Claude McIntosh’s run at inciting hatred within the gay and lesbian community against the Dunlops.

If you’re reading this Bord, please get in touch with me. I don’t know who you’re referring to when you mention “one of the wrongfully accused who ended up commiting suicide.” I would genuinely like to know.

(6) Myomy blogged that Claude Shaver’s website can be read by highlighting the text. I had just heard that from someone else and yes, indeed, it does work. What I didn’t realize was that the website is like that because it’s black text on a black background. It could I suppose be white text on a black background. Or black text on white background. But, no. It’s black on black. Interesting choice.

Anyway, for those who want to keep abreast of poor Ron Leroux’ muddled testimony, highlight the page. There it is!

I anticipate changes to the site in the near future. The institutional response of the Cornwall Police Service is just around the corner.

Will Claude Shaver take the stand? I’m guessing he just might.

(7) Will Justice Colin McKinnon be called to testify? He absolutely should. Alas the debacle of his conflict of interest and everything he did as a federally-appointed judge from the moment the Leduc trial was turned over to him is conveniently beyond the scope of the mandate. But he wasn’t a federally appointed judge when he advised the Cornwall Police Service to charge Perry under the Police Services Act. And he wasn’t a federally-appointed judge when he threatened Carson with legal action for saying something or other about Claude Shaver.

What else he did or not do, and who else he did or did not know we have no idea. But, we should know. So should the commission and the gathered throng. Colin McKinnon is a key component of the Cornwall Police Service response to allegations of a sexual abuse. Has he been asked to testify? If not, why not? Has refused to testify? If he has, has he been subpoenaed? And, if not, why not?

(7) Don’t forget to check New to the Site on the Home page. I always note new postings there

And that’s it and it’s all far more than enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to No means No

  1. AbsentObserver says:

    I’m having a hard time trying to determine what I would do if I found myself in Perry’s shoes. On the one hand, the idea of being ripped to shreds inside the Weave Shed makes me shudder. There’s no way any of these lawyers, with the exception of one or two, would be kind. They are out to paint Perry as a vindictive, vengeful and rogue police officer who set out to destroy the reputations of innocent men. They will not laud him for doing his duty as a citizen of the country on the day he gave that file to the CAS, which is nothing more than what’s REQUIRED of all of us when we believe there are children at risk of being harmed. But then I worry about how he and his family would hold up should Perry be handcuffed, shackled and carted off to jail. It would be a very traumatic experience for everyone, in particular his children. Will it be enough for them to keep hearing, “Daddy went to jail for a good cause.” I don’t know. I don’t know. My only hope is that common sense will prevail (although common sense seems to be in short supply in the vicinity of the inquiry) and Perry will received the lightest sentence possible. I know that’s a lot to ask for, but at least we can hope, right?

  2. prima facie says:

    RE: “Former top cop fights back” by “Elizabeth Johns”, Cornwall “Standard-Freeholder”, “January 11, 2008.”

    Well, well…the elusive “top cop”, Claude Shaver “appears”….someone found his “website”….BUT, elusive…to who? Not the “Standard-Freeholder”, not “Elizabeth Johns” and not the “inner-circle”.
    Yes, “Elizabeth Johns”…..for me, I prefer, “Terri Saunders.” By the way, where is Terri. Nunavik????? and she was doing such a “lousy job”….right, I don’t think so….oh ya….she got a “big break”.

    Boy, this “Inquiry” “storyline”, provides one “top cop” after another…lot’s of “top cops”….Fantino, Shaver….. I wonder if they will “duke it out” for “Inquiry” related, “top cop” honours….pat on the back…kissy…kissy….hug, hug, pat on the back.

    It appears, “top cop” Shaver is obviously defensive. Many, many people getting pretty nervous, wouldn’t you agree?? Pretty desperate, even resorting to the “sue” threat again. Don’t worry “top cop”, I suspect MANY people will ultimately have an opportunity to prosecute/defend against future civil litigation and potential criminal charges.

    Oh Sylvia, did you notice…Claude Shaver’s website has now been mentioned more often in the mainstream news media than yours….yours has NEVER been published by the “mainstream” and “top cop Shaver’s” has now been mentioned once, replete with factual errors….and you have been “publishing” with “the facts” for over two years. Ha!!! Ha!!! What a joke. Great “research” Elizabeth; better go to “CM” for your next “story????”

Leave a Reply