Good letter

Share Button

An early day! Hearings were wrapped up at 1130 hours (11:30 am EST) this morning, Tuesday 26 February 2008.

Sean Adams who has been battling for the right to return to the stand to testify after evidence was entered that Roman Catholic lawers Adams (himself), Malcolm MacDonald (Charlie’s lawyer) and Jacques Leduc (diocesan lawyer) arrived announced in 1993 at the office of another Roman Catholic lawyer Duncan MacDonald. Duncan MacDonald was said to be so upset over whatever the trio were about that he dodged them. He apparently muttered something about this shaking faith.

Initially a witness (Duncan MacDonald’s secretary) testified that this happened around the summer of 1993. Under cross-examination the door was opened to push the possibility that incident may have transpired in the Fall. Before Fall of 1993 puts it pre the David Silmser pay-off and gagging. After, well, of course puts it after the fact. Either way it’s problematic testimony for Adams.

But, for whatever reason, Adams has pulled back. He’s not chomping at the bit to take the stand again. He actually rejected an opportunity to take the stand today. He’s suddenly content to let it ride. Wonder why?

Heidi Sebalj’s ODE (Overview of Documentary Evidence) was read into the record. I will go through the transcript. I can’t say I heard anything new, but perhaps missed a fine point here or there?

Will get back to my chat with one of Ealry Landry Jr.‘s victims yesterday. I’m taking advantage of the unexpected free time to do a little catching up elsewhere 🙂 Meanwhile, in case you miss it on Sound Off!, I am posting Carmen Pregent’s letter of 15 February 2008 to Commissioner Normand Glaude. Carmen is the widow of Dick Nadeau. Her letter must be read:

February 15, 2008

Commissioner Normand Glaude
Cornwall Public Inquiry
709 Cotton Mill Street
Cornwall, ON K6H 7K7

Commissioner Glaude,

On September 4th, 2007, I wrote a letter to Peter Engelmann stating that
Father Tom Doyle had perjured himself on the stand (Annex 1). I personally hand delivered the letter and met with Mr. Engelmann. Following our conversation, he asked if I would testify in order to give a human face to my husband, Dick Nadeau. He stated that the people representing the institutions were painting a very dark picture of Dick. I was also informed that two OPP officers, Phil Crouch and Luc Leblanc, were hired to gather information on my husband. Mr. Engelmann asked me if I wanted to meet with them, to which I agreed. I was introduced to both of them. After discussions with them, I was again encouraged to testify. I asked the OPP officers to give me some time to think about it. They indicated that they would to be in touch with me in a week or so.

Not long after, I did meet with Pierre Dumais and his assistant, Janie Larocque. I was encouraged to testify. I agreed. However, I clearly stated that there were a few conditions, which I discussed in detail with Mr. Dumais and Mrs. Larocque. The conditions were as follow:

a) I wanted to bring up the issue of Father Tom Doyle and to have the letter deposited as a piece of evidence;

b) Some witnesses, such as Ron Leroux, and others, had indicated that they had never given permission to Dick to post their statement on the projecttruth website. I had emails which were sent to Dick giving permission to have their statement posted on the website. I wanted these to be mentioned and entered as evidence.

At that point, either Mr. Dumais or anyone else objected to my request, including Mr. Engelmann. I understood they agreed.

I met with Mr. Dumais and his assistant on a few occasions and gathered all the information they requested from Dick’s files and even more.

The second day of my testimony, during the morning break, I approached Mr. Dumais and asked him when he intended to bring up the issue of Father Tom Doyle, the letter (Annex 1) and the emails of other witnesses. Mr. Dumais mentioned that it was not a good idea to talk about these issues during my testimony. He stated that Father Doyle was an expert witness to support the victims and by discussing the issue we would play into David Sheriff-Scott’s hand, because Sheriff-Scott didn’t want Father Doyle to testify in the first place. I told Mr. Dumais that it didn’t matter to me, and the importance was to tell the truth and to clear Dick’s name.

During my testimony, none of my conditions were brought up. I left the Cornwall Public Inquiry in distress.

After my testimony, I sent an email to Father Doyle and expressed my great disappointment in regard to his testimony. He explained to me what had happened to him behind closed doors; how the Commission lawyers had cast Dick and Perry Dunlop as the enemy.

How many other little secrets are kept behind closed doors? How many people are being coerced and intimidated to prevent them from exposing the truth? Was this the approach that was used with Ron Leroux and the others who have “recanted” their stories? One has to seriously question the integrity of the Cornwall Public Inquiry. How can the truth prevail?

Did you say and I quote: “It is essential for the success of this Inquiry that people come forward, free from any undue influence, promise or threat” (Justice Normand Glaude 12 December 2006). I see that there are conditions and exceptions to your statement. It definitely doesn’t apply to the whistle blower, Perry Dunlop. How ironic.

We, the citizens who have fought so hard to expose the truth, are facing the most outrageous and arrogant conduct a Commissioner has ever taken in all time: charging the whistle blower with contempt. This is a repeat of Justices McKinnon and Cunningham charging Dick Nadeau with contempt. This type of conduct is exactly the reason why, we, the citizens, demanded a public inquiry in the first place. It is a repeat of what was going on in the court system! Are we going to need another inquiry to investigate the Cornwall Public Inquiry? How come Perry Dunlop is being forced to testify and not the pedophiles? How come Dick Nadeau and Perry Dunlop are still the scapegoats? The same questions are being asked over and over again: “Do you know Dick Nadeau?” Did you know about the website? Do you know Perry Dunlop?” If a witness has the courage to admit that they have been in contact with them, the person fears being broadsided if not railroaded by the lawyers.

For some reason, nothing surprises me anymore!

The only thing that keeps me sane is remembering what an Ojibway elder said to me when I shared my great concern for the injustice taking place in Cornwall. She said: “In my language, the word justice does not exist. Justice is just Is. What goes around comes around”. I had forgotten about this Universal Law.

It’s so obvious that the energy put into the process of the Cornwall Public Inquiry is so negative. So far, the outcomes are as follow: Perry Dunlop charged with contempt, and probably sentenced to jail at your request; the character assassination of Dick Nadeau; Ron Leroux, who for some strange reasons, suddenly “recanted” his story; little secrets being kept behind closed doors, from at least two witnesses; Steve Parisien, a victim, charged with obstruction of obstruction of justice, but the case was dismissed; the maltreatment of David Silmser and other victims etc.

I am requesting that this letter as well as the letter submitted to Peter Engelmann regarding Father Tom Doyle be deposited as part of my evidence.


Carmen Prégent

Cc.: Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty
The Honourable Chris Bentley – Ontario Attorney General
Michael Bryant (former Ontario Attorney General)
Sylvia MacEachern– Journalist
Terri Saunders – Reporter Ottawa Sun
Jim Brownell – Local member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament

Good letter Carmen!

On that note, I’m away for a couple of hours.

Enough for now,




This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Good letter

  1. Myomy says:

    If a witness that can document something that is false in the public testimony thinks they have a deal with the inquiry to correct the record and cooperates with them in giving the evidence they are looking for and gives testimony giving the inquiry everything they want without getting what was important to them corrected we can see that it is wise for Perry Dunlop to give this bunch of snakes a wide birth. Fr Doyle was used as well. We need another inquiry to investigate this inquiry. In any case this process which demonizes Dick Nadeau and Perry Dunlop should be shut down and Perry Dunlop set free. We already know all we want to about the response of institutions to allegations of sexual abuse in Cornwall. The response is “Shoot the Messenger” There won’t be any more of those allegations when the victims see what it is happening to Perry Dunlop.

  2. prima facie says:

    YES Carmen, excellent, really excellent!!!

    Sylvia: DO you remember the editorial Claude McIntosh wrote one day, not too long ago, basically encouraging the Inquiry to re-visit Sean Adams, because “poor Sean” may have been misinterpreted? Claude provided “mounds” of reason’s why Sean should be allowed to return to testify? I wonder if Claude is happy for Sean. Sean, like Murray, can do no evil!!(something sinister in the making or was there a “Club Meeting” last night?)

    IN ADDITION: Last Saturday, there was an article in the “Standard-Freeholder” entitled, “Many abuse victims still keeping mum.” IT discussed in part, the low turnout at the meeting, advertised as “The Visioning Day.”

    Well, since then, I have been contacted by “alleged and/or actual, real victims”, (not allowed to really say what they really are)who tell me, prominent members of the community have challenged them as to why they DID NOT ATTEND the meeting. Some of the “alleged victims” and “victims” are not exactly happy with these “overt attempts” to control them and “monitor” them; especially, when what they say is controlled too.
    IS it clear or not, if some “prominent citizen’s” are more interested in numbers, than, the victim’s well-being?

    SO; as I see it, a couple of months ago, all the “alleged victims” and/or “actual, real victims” were gathered together, by “the people who think they are so smart” and lawyers and the “people who think they are so smart and the lawyers” explained what the “alleged victims and/or actual, real victims” were allowed to say and not allowed to say, when discussing their personal experiences or sexual abuse in general.
    So much for self-help group discussions.

    NOW all “the people who think they are so smart” and lawyers, who have “joined up” with the “alleged victims” and/or “actual, real victims”, to help them,……(just don’t say you are “actual, real victims”) are watching every move and every word the “alleged victims and actual, real victims” are doing and saying.

    GEE, sounds like the “alleged victims and/or actual, real victims” have been rescued from the intimidating, and controlling “reach”, of prominent citizens.

    “The Inquiry” said this is the way we are suppose to do it.”

    Get real….It is my opinion that, before long, the only one attending these meetings, will be, Paul Scott, and, he will report to the “mainstream news media”, that everything is going just fine.

    WE know very well, why, “Many abuse victims still keeping mum.” HELLO!!!!

  3. AbsentObserver says:

    Can someone tell me why there are so many people out there who seem to know so much about things that happened behind closed doors but yet can’t say it at the inquiry? The truth shall set you free … isn’t that the way the saying goes? I understand Perry’s decision not to testify and I understand Heidi’s inability to take the stand and I know why Dave and Ron can’t get up there again, and it’s sad. Their chances to tell the truth have not come to fruition. Sure, Dave and Ron had a few moments during which to tell their truths, but one has to wonder how these guys managed to keep it together at all considering the atmosphere in which they were testifying. I am not sure how we’ll ever know the truth. Any of it. I trust Perry. I trust Heidi. I trust Dave. I trust Ron. I just don’t know if I can blindly believe every single word that comes out of all of their mouths. I so often read in comments on this board about the dangers of taking the words of certain people (police officers, lawyers, priests) without challenge. Don’t believe them, so many posters say. If Chief Claude Shaver says something didn’t happen, why are we all so quick to believe it did? I think the answer lies in the history of this story. For years, we’ve heard some pretty bad things from Perry, Dave and Ron. They’ve all told us things that have made us shiver with disgust and fear for our children. Their experiences are so important and so crucial to understanding what was going on in Cornwall so many years ago, and even today. I wish they’d been able to finish. I understand why they didn’t, but I just wish they could have. I read a comment on the Standard-Freeholder’s web site from a person who was disappointed Heidi can’t testify about being forced to hide that file. I don’t know if I agree with everything that person wrote, but I do agree it’s unfortunate the inquiry, and the community, won’t get to hear her story. How much value is there in hearing from a police officer who could potentially speak to allegations of collusion and cover-up? I can’t imagine all was well and good on that force if the whole matter caused her to leave the force and enter into a decade of therapy. Poor woman. Another victim. They’re everywhere.

Leave a Reply