News flash!
Perry Dunlop is to appear at Divisional Court in Toronto for sentencing 28 January 2008. That didn’t take long! Looks mighty like it was all in the bag.
Helen tells me the phone has been ringing off the hook. Outrage from those getting first wind of this debacle. Victims offering support. Victims who have never come forward wanting to talk.
That’s life at the Dunlop home. And Perry’s headed for jail.
Keep Perry and his dear worried family in your prayers. And please dip into your pockets to give them a hand financially. Perry can’t take on any jobs until this is over.
****
1540 hours (3:40 pm). It’s all over for today. Hearings resume at 09:30 tomorrow, Tuesday 15 January 2008. Garry Guzzo will take the stand to resume his testimony.
****
My software host seems to be having problems with a server. The links aren’t getting through. I have reported the problem (it truly never rains but it pours)
****
Well, “they” graciously gave Perry every chance in the world to climb down from the rafters, or come out from hiding in some nook or cranny in the Weave Shed, or sail in respectably late after a late arrival at the airport.
No Perry. Surprise!
Justice Glaude and Peter Engelmann both looked more like the canary than the cat that swallowed it. A decidedly uncomfortable looking Glaude tried for all the world to look like he was dutifully tuning in to every word as Engelmann explained what had happened at Ontario Divisional Court, and the contempt charge bestowed upon Perry by that same court, and the order for Perry to appear at precisely 1 pm today, and the court issued threat that if he didn’t show he’ll be slapped with another contempt.
A sorry and pathetic looking sight.
So, now it’s back to Ontario Divisional Court for Perry. 28 January 2008.
God love him. Who’d ever have believed this is the price he’s eventually pay for trying to protect children from sexual predators?
****
I find it increasingly difficult to listen to and stomach what’s going on in that Weave Shed. Selective judicial bullying. Today an ODE (overview of documentary evidence) on another victim. The victim didn’t want to testify. Lead commission counsel Engelmann explained that C-2 wouldn’t be forced because if he was forced he would probably testify in camera and that would mean the public would be excluded!
Whence this new-found concern for we the unwashed public? Not a hint of that when they went into lock-up (in camera) with C-8. We got no more than a tiny sniff of his testimony. It’s all top secret. Of crucial import. But, —top secret, entrusted only to a few high-priced legal ears which presumably are more attuned to deal with such controversial secrets.
But high finances and closely-guarded secrets aside here’s the real problem with all of this. Why one set of rules and regulations for Perry Dunlop and another for everyone else? Perry didn’t want to testify either. He’s headed for jail. C-2 didn’t want to testify, well, that’s different.
Why?
The real and “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall don’t want to testify. No problem there either. They won’t be forced. Perry says “no”is one thing. The “alleged” paedophiles saying “no” is quite another – commission counsel instantly know and understand that when a real or “alleged” paedophile say “no” he means “no.”
Heaven forbid an “alleged” paedophile was subpoenaed. Heaven forbid he be charged with contempt. And Heaven but Heaven forbid he winds up in jail!!!
So, they make up the rules as they go along. And they get away with it. As long as Perry Dunlop is the butt end of the exercise and the “alleged” paedophiles are snug as a bug in rug, they get away with it!!
Keep the paedophiles out of jail. Put Perry in. That’s the name of the latest game.
Another thing….
We heard yet again today that there is no interest whatever in determining if an “alleged”” victim is telling the truth, and if perchance he was indeed molested. That’s not, we were told yet again, part of the inquiry mandate.
Exactly!
Common sense says that a bona fide victim would/will get the royal run-around and be made out to be a liar if he reports his sex abuse allegations to someone hooked into a paedophile ring or clan or whatever you want to call it.
Common sense says someone hooked in to a paedophile ring would and will do whatever it takes to protect his paedophile friends, and indeed himself!
This is Cornwall! This is an inquiry commissioned specifically in response to persistent allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up.
And the Attorney General and Justice Glaude decide it doesn’t matter what the “alleged” paedophiles did or did not do?
And commission counsel decide on a whim who will and who won’t be forced to take the stand? Maybe this one this day and that one the next. But never, never ever ever a real or “alleged”paedopohile. No judicial bullying for those boys. They can sleep tight,
I am disgusted. They’re flying by the seats of their collective pants in there. They make it up as they go along. And they get away with it.
Hang in there Perry. The sleeping giant is about to awake from his slumber…
Enough for now,
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)
P.S. I will add links later. Supper time 🙂
Sylvia:
“BEWARE of DESPERATE PEOPLE, PLACES and THINGS”
Following up your “sleeping giant” reference in your most recent blog, I have four questions for you:
Since “experts” at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry” have clearly identified you as an investigative journalist and since I perceive you as interested in providing the “facts”,
I urge you to consider the following for further discovery and reporting:
1-I urge you to conduct a personal interview with Perry Dunlop and Helen Dunlop; perhaps asking them ten or more simple questions. You would then post the questions and answers for us to read. This must be done before Perry is “sentenced.” (maybe we the reader’s, could even ask a question.) WHAT DO YOU THINK?
2-“Street Talk” today suggests some people, including “alleged victims” who have not come forward, but wish to come forward and other people we already know, are planning to “speak out”. HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THIS or is this only “rumour and innuendo”, as Commissioner Glaude might say?
3-Do you believe witnesses who have already testified or are certain to testify at the Inquiry, might have “complaints” about the “witness process” and may have recently received what they perceive to be threats or intimidation?
4-Do you believe that an association can be organized quickly, to help protect these, potential witnesses, if the claims of intimidation are true; such as providing, trustworthy contact people, “watch-dogs” and phone numbers. These would have to be “contacts” with no, significant “interests” in the Inquiry; such as $$$$$.
1. Yes. If Perry and Helen agree. I think the idea of people submitting questions is an interesting one. Perry will be sentenced 28 January 2008. Time will be will be both scarce and precious for Perry and his family. I will check with them.
2. I haven’t heard anything specific re people speaking out.
3. Yes.
4. Organizing such an association is do-able. I hope and pray someone without a vested interest gets the ball rolling.