Trial of the century

Share Button

Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Thursday, 03 April 2008.  John Callaghan’s cross examination of S/Sgt. Garry Derochie will continue.  Following that S/Sgt Luc Brunet will take the stand to commence his testimony.

****

Well, what can I say?  Perry doesn’t stand a chance.  He never did.

I am disgusted and utterly revolted by what I saw and heard yesterday…

Michael Neville spinning and twisting Perry’s every word or action.  Neville turning himself upside down and inside out to denigrate, demean and vilify Perry.  Neville protecting his two clients, one (Father Charlie) a very much alive “alleged” clerical paedophile and the other (Ken Seguin) a long deceased “alleged” paedophile who happened to be a Roman Catholic probation officer denigrating.

Denise Robitaille clucking on about Perry’s notes, and speculating and hypothesising and guessing and turning herself inside out to denigrate Perry.  Robitaille protecting her client (Jacques Leduc), a very much alive “alleged” paedophile who happens to be a lawyer and a Roman Catholic Canon lawyer.

S/Sgt Garry Derochie, grabbing a wagon here and wagon there to try to get those darned wagons back into some semblance of a nice neat defensive circle.  Deroche, a Roman Catholic, firing a dart at Perry here and an arrow at him there.  Derochie defending the honour and repute of a police force which has let how many real and “alleged” paedophiles run amok in the community?  Derochie and Project Truth investigator Pat Hall planning to have Hall pen an affidavit to “kick start” criminal allegations of obstruction of justice against Perry.

John Callaghan, in to help Derochie re-circle the wagons.  Callaghan, protecting his client (Cornwall Police Service), a police force which has let how many real and “alleged” paedophiles run amok in the community?  Callaghan, well paid – through the AG’s back door – to do the job at hand.  A canon directed Perry’s way about to blast.

Perry. Perry. Perry.

Perry this. Perry that.  Perry the other thing.

Perry did this. Perry didn’t do that.  Perry said this.  Perry might have meant that.

This one said this about Perry.  That one said that about Perry.

Can you imagine where we’d be with a decent mandate?  A mandate crafted to delve into who this real/”alleged”paedophile rubbed shoulders with?  to find out what this real/”alleged” paedophile said – or might have said – to that one? to find out what these real/”alleged” paedophiles did or might have done to children?

Can you even begin to imagine where we’d be if the focus was where it belongs – on flushing out the paedophiles of Cornwall?  If the idea from the start was to methodically connect the dots, from one real/”alleged” paedophile to the other?  and from one real/”alleged” paedophile to his tolerant and sometimes influential friends?

But no.  It’s all Perry.

The trial of the century.

Yes.  Trial.

No.  Correction.  Kangaroo court.

Anyway, the transcripts are up.  I’ve been busy with my other life away from the computer and just no chance to delve into these over the past few days.  And, eagerly anticipated company arriving today so will probably catch only snippets of testimony throughout today and tomorrow. After that I will delve in.  I must 🙂

Meanwhile, re-read my parody of some months back in Acts of Perfect Charity.  That sums up my thoughts on this charade quite nicely right now.

****

I received information regarding inmates rights.  I will post.  Also will get at media coverage.  Keep an eye for all on New to the Site on the Home page.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Trial of the century

  1. prima facie says:

    Following-up Sylvia’s blog about Counsel Michael Neville’s behaviours yesterday at “The Cornwall Public Inquiry.” Isn’t it “SPECIAL” that Counsel like Michael Neville are permitted to “spew” their opinions with impunity, during cross-examination of witnesses? Lawyer Michael Neville’s comments are getting the headlines around the world, NOT the witnesses

    MY OPINION:
    In the “adversarial system-judicial context”, I never could really explain how I felt about certain behaviours some human beings engage in and to how far an “advocate” will go, to manipulate and control outcomes and opinions of others, in representation of his/her client. Historically and as a result of ignorance, I resorted to utilizing expletives, when expressing my displeasures.

    Surrounding the “adversarial system-judicial context” and based on my training and education, but mostly, my experiences, I have concluded, that, in the majority of cases,

    1) the “greater the fight” by an “advocate” like Mr. Neville on behalf of his client(s),

    2) the more ridiculous the “assertions”,

    3) the more imaginative and “offensive” the conjecture and suppositions,

    4) the greater the grandstanding,

    5) the greater the attempt to lay blame at the feet of others, …..the more desperate the “accused” is. I am not implying guilt or innocence here, I am explaining my perception of what I see as an act of “desperation.” Beware of desperate people, places and things!!

    IT is my opinion, the above-mentioned behaviours are indicative of “representation” in “fight defensive” posture, attempting to “survive” by, “clinging to a blade of grass, hanging over a cliff”, “so-to-speak”.

    The “blade of grass”….assigning guilt, responsibility, accountability and “consequences” on Perry Dunlop..

    As I imply, “The Cornwall Public Inquiry” is no exception regarding my feelings about these behaviours. I often ponder how much of this behaviour is inherent and how much is learned (graduate studies and Law School). I wonder what psycho, social and economic, pre-requisites are required or desired.

    FOR specific reasons, I watch the “Inquiry” mostly when Commission Counsel and three other “individuals” are examining or cross-examining witnesses. The rest of them, to me, are simply “dog and pony”, “smoke and mirror” sideshows in a “play” largely written, a couple of years ago. “Actors” such as Neville, Callaghan, Sherriff-Scott, Daley, etc., get to “strut their stuff” for “promotional” value, opinion forming and notoriety. They are of no real consequence. The “play” has been written. (Oh, you should check out their photos on their personal websites…Neville doesn’t have one. Like insurance agents, the pictures are decades old.)

    As many of you, I have witnessed this type of “persecution” (i.e.:“The System vs. Perry Dunlop”) several times before.
    I abhor the behaviours exercised by “The Powers That Be Of The Day”, as “acted out” by their “conduits”, in the attempt to maintain “power and control” of the “systems” they “rule”, exploit and prophet from.

    WHEN I receive communications from the Ontario Attorney General’s Office or other politicians, wherein they declare “Justice” is independent from Politics, I chuckle.

    That good old “rhetoric”. I’m sure it works on the naïve newcomer.

    I have been directly and indirectly involved in various criminal trials and civil litigations since the early 1970’s. For various reasons, I can say my professional and personal life has been quite an education and more so, quite an experience.

    For various reasons, I have had the pleasure of meeting many, many people, from all walks of life. I have been fortunate enough to have been able to interact successfully in different socio-economic levels. More importantly, initially and for some time, I have been welcomed by all; it was ultimately my own beliefs, choices, behaviours and my own responsibility, that guaranteed whether I would be welcomed back or not welcomed back.

    You may have noticed, that I wrote, “my professional and personal life” as opposed to “my professional and personal “lives.”
    My “mentors” always told me I had to “separate the two”.

    I was told to show no emotion, acknowledge no guilt, never apologize, follow instructions, be obedient to my superiors, etc. I was told more than once, that, “for the greater good”, “mine was not to reason why, mine was but to do and die.”
    Well, I wouldn’t. Yes, I could have, but I wouldn’t. Therein, lies my weakness or my strength.

    Am I vulnerable? (to who, what, where, when, why and how?)

    I survive today.

    Instead of reacting to the small “acts” of biased “straw men” and “advocates” with a “secretive mission”, I attempt to “look at the big picture” or “The Play” and how it fits into the “greater picture.” (I’ve read the “play” before, several times in fact.)

    I try to accept the circumstances of the present and what has “brought about”, “the present”. I attempt to learn who my “confederates” are and who my opposition is. I want to know my opposition’s perspective and why I have opposition.
    I learn how my “opposition fights”, “so-to-speak”, so I know how to “fight an effective battle.” I research, discover, network and analyze facts that will help me to decide what intervention strategy can be most effectively utilized, when interacting with my confederates and opposition. For example, is negotiation, mediation, conciliation or reconciliation an effective strategy, in the “present” context?

    I assess whether “all parties” are exhibiting “trustworthy” behaviours, indicative of reaching “goals” which will be beneficial to all.

    I learn and accept whose “battlefield”, “so-to-speak” I am fighting on and the strategies I must learn, “to fight a good fight”.

    MOSTLY and with God’s help, I learn to identify and accept my duty-my role in life and the effect it has on the lives of others. I accept that I must be patient and rested, to recognize what I must learn and accomplish.

    I learn how “my fight” can be fought and when I should fight it.

    I learn and accept how to assert my “position-argument” and when I should “assert” it.

    IN CONCLUSION:

    I believe Perry and Helen Dunlop have, “through whatever means”, been “given” an assignment, in life that they still do not totally recognize.

    IT IS MY OPINION: DESPITE what many “parties” at “The Cornwall Public Inquiry”, through the “lapdog” mainstream news media they utilize, would like the world to believe,…..many, many Cornwall Citizen’s, know the truth.

    IT IS MY OPINION, all of “the parties” with standing and funding “know the truth”, Commissioner Glaude “knows the truth” and “The Powers That Be”, know “The Truth”.

    Is the “adversarial system” out of control or being manipulated, again?

    I believe Perry Dunlop is serving his punishment for “breaking the law” surrounding Divisional Court Rulings and his requested appearance at “The Cornwall Public Inquiry.” I believe Perry Dunlop has accepted this debt to society and is fulfilling it. “The Powers That Be” are going to the extremist of the extreme, measures to “punish”, “discredit” and “humiliate” Perry Dunlop. IT ISN’T WORKING and IT WILL NOT WORK!!

    I believe Perry Dunlop understands the suffering he and his family are experiencing and why.

    IN THE SAME LIGHT; I believe Perry Dunlop will come out of jail, after fifteen to twenty-one months of incarceration, a much stronger man, a much wiser man and understanding his “role”.

  2. Sherlock says:

    The report in your local paper didn’t exactly capture the critical action. Justice Glaude gave Mr. Neville lots of latitude. He’d interrupted, and made the “mushroom theory” crack, and then descended to his most weaselly anti-Dunlop framing before Glaude stopped him. The paper quotes thus:

    “That Mr. Dunlop is not here to defend himself is his choice,” said Glaude.

    OK, but he goes on, including: “I have the greatest of respect for Mr. Dunlop”! The paper didn’t quote that. Nor that thereafter Judge Glaude maintained a firm grip on Mr. Neville’s further shenanigans, eg (p. 119): “No. No. No. We don’t want to dwell on the merits. What I am concerned with is you (i.e. Mr. Neville) putting things to the witness and past me that aren’t correct.”

    The way these guys talk this is major criticism, comparable to ‘you suck’ in vernacular. Judge Glaude must have figured it out himself by that point, so he is pointing it out purely for benefit of the public.

    As for ‘tainting the jury pool’ (which had been mentioned earlier) a statement from the Judge that he has the greatest of respect for Mr. Dunlop is rather amazing. It is certainly a positive development for those seeking the truth (which obviously excludes the local paper).

  3. prima facie says:

    PERSPECTIVES:

    Despite Judge Glaude stating that he has the “greatest of respect for Mr. Dunlop” is neither “rather amazing”, nor “a positive development” for me.

    In the “context” of this “Cornwall Public Inquiry” and regarding the local Cornwall Standard-Freeholder, Judge Glaude and others, I expect and anticipate exactly what I am seeing, hearing, reading and have witnessed.

    However, we are all allowed to have our own opinions and perspectives. Sherlock, I disagree with you.

    Sherlock, you write, “It is certainly a positive development for those seeking the truth…” As you appear to have made this a “blanket coverage about “ALL” those seeking the truth”, am I to interpret that I or others with different opinions, are, not seeking the truth?

    The differences may include, that, I am one of those seeking the truth “BE DISCLOSED”, admitted and that the “accused” be held responsible and accountable, through applicable and appropriate consequences!!!

    PLEASE consider myself to be excluded from your “general” assumption of how those “seeking the truth” see this as a positive development.

    In my opinion, as I see it, there is no “development” and nothing “amazing”.

    IN FACT, I have great respect for Judge Glaude, including the position he holds; (amazing? positive?)

    I have no respect for “Public Inquiries” in this context, the mandate of this Cornwall Public Inquiry etc., and for the “drifting, power-coercive” methods being utilized to achieve the “objectives” of this “Public Inquiry”.

  4. Sherlock says:

    I guess I didn’t express my thoughts very accurately. As an outsider going just by that transcript, what I found amazing was that a Judge, any Judge, having had someone tossed in jail for contempt of court, would then state on the record their great respect for that person. The positive development, if I am not simply too optimistic, would have been what went on in Judge Glaude’s mind.

    Of course there is a difference between the big truth of what actually happened and the smaller version: the truth that can be disclosed without libel chill or breaching national security. Being true, being provable and being mentionable are different types of truth.

    Suppose, for example…

    Near the beginning of the Korean War, circa 1951, the U.S., Britain and Canada decided they needed research into military applications of advances in psychiatry and psychology. They had inherited both the research and the scientists from German experiments regarding mind control of nonconsensual subjects. Some of these involved traumatizing children to the point of creating dissociated ‘alter’ personalities which could be programmed through hypnosis to develop superior abilities in fields such as photographic memory or accurate intuition (remote viewing) or a complete lack of ordinary sexual inhibition such that they could be used to compromise foreign agents, diplomats and even domestic politicians. The experiments were certainly unethical and illegal and for their most egregious cases the Americans wanted a foreign supply of experimental subjects. Hence, while Ewen Cameron lived in New York state he commuted to Montreal to conduct his brainwashing and ‘psychic driving’ experiments on unsuspecting Canadians. But these were adult patients; procuring children was more difficult and dangerous. Hence the Catholic church was approached at a high level to seek their co-operation since they were at the time running the orphanages in Quebec and native boarding schools, the institutions where unwanted children could be abducted. Indeed, in recent times people have come forward saying they or relatives were victims of the program. From the Duplessis’ Orphans, Pierre Sampson and Rod Vienneau have gone public. Regarding the residential schools, shut down in 1984, lawyers Renate Auger and Jack Cram “managed to gather strong evidence that proved the involvement of judges, lawyers, police officers and people from the high society in a pedophilia ring. The victims were small children from the Indian settlements. In trying to file charges Jack was arrested and locked in a psychiatric clinic for over a week. When he was eventually released, all the evidence he had collected was stolen from his office. After repeated death threats both lawyers had to escape Vancouver. They now live under hiding in another region…”. This quote is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonis_Angastiniotis/
    The case of Keith (Ken) Oullette in Cornwall circa 1974 makes sense in this framework. At that point the problem was roughly to do with police, legal people and probation officers rather than the church aspect.

    By knowing too much from first hand experience Mr. Oullette became a target for incarceration followed by MK-Ultra traumatic programming to either wash his memory or destroy his credibility since his post-traumatic stress could be easily mistaken for bipolar disorder.

    From his testimony at the Cornwall Inquiry:

    “…Sensory deprivation, torture, mind control experiments, LSD, sodium pentathol, electroshock treatment to my teeth, my testicles, and my toes. I was subjected to that treatment. I’m not supposed to talk about it, but I’m going to. That’s for refusing to give head to probation officers…”

    One presumes that when he says he is not supposed to talk about it, what that means is that his silence has been paid for. Paying people to shut up certainly suggests a cover-up.
    Later that day (Aug. 21, 08) Judge Glaude steers well clear of such controversial topics:

    “Whether or not it’s true or not really is not relevant at this point…How the institutions responded to that is important, and so whether or not it is true is irrelevant to me.”

    It is noteworthy here that Mr. Oullette has clearly cited in his testimony a report from that era to Corrections Canada’s Ethics Committee. The primary author is McGill professor Margaret Summerville
    who was of course quite familiar with how Dr. Ewen Cameron had used that university as cover for a related MK-Ultra project. (The Cornwall Inquiry transcript misspells her name as “Somerville”).

    Regarding Cornwall, the stakes seem too low for an intense cover-up if the situation only involves the embarrassment of a few pedophiles in a small Ontario town. More likely the rogue intelligence operation itself was threatened with exposure, particularly of having perverted Cornwall precisely because of its geographical location and sleepy reputation. Insiders (operatives) would have been placed as police chief, police officers, judge(s), prosecutor(s), probation officer(s) and so forth to maintain the secrecy and security of the project.

    Possibly ordinary justice was served as in a normal town with the only exception being cases involving pedophilia which would be cleared with a higher authority in the intelligence apparatus. The important operatives would have been ‘protected people’.

    In the case of the Crown Attorney Malcolm MacDonald he would, as a Knight of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, have done liason with Papal political authorities who would also want an indefinite cover-up.

    Geographically Cornwall would have seemed to be close to Ottawa if some politician or diplomat needed compromising; close to Quebec where the Duplessis-era network had never been properly cleaned up (as evidenced by the recent charges against Armand Huard and Denis Rochefort regarding an ‘off-shored’ orphanage in Haiti); and very close to the United States.

    In fact the island’s in the St. Lawrence include not only Stanley Island where Malcolm MacDonald’s summer residence was the scene of the meeting in late summer of 1993 with “a bunch of V.I.P.s” according to Ron Leroux’s affidavit, but also Deer Island which is owned by the U.S. intelligence-connected “Skull and Bones” secret society. Presumably boat traffic between these islands would be completely discrete and even the presence of children would hardly have raised any suspicion. If a smuggling route was needed to transport children abducted from Canadian orphanages or residential schools into the U.S., then Cornwall’s location was almost ideal. And if this is true then national security trumped local justice long before Perry Dunlop joined the evidently dysfunctional police force.

  5. prima facie says:

    Hello “Sherlock”, in response to your most recent “blog” and the issue I was originally addressing, with particularity. Above, you write in the opening paragraph,..”what I found amazing was that a Judge, any Judge, having had someone tossed in jail for contempt of court, would then state on the record their great respect for that person.” IN the “context” of my opening blog and your opening paragraph referenced above, I am simply stating, “I am not amazed” at all. Over.

    IN regards to your subsequent seventeen paragraphs or thereabouts, discussing, “Dr. Cameron”, “The Allan”, “McGill” “Cold-War-Era, Joint CIA/Canadian Official Secrets, brainwashing MK-ULTRA tests, etc.” and the testimony of one or more “Cornwall Public Inquiry” witnesses. well, to quote you, “suppose”.

    Or, perhaps, simply the “consequences” of a very damaged “victim”, who has been consuming enormous quantities of prescribed or otherwise, psychedellics, hallucinogenics, psychoactive substances, etc., and spends their sleepless nights listening to radio shows like, “Coast To Coast” with George Noory, Art Bell, etc., and/or reading some of the very many articles, documentaries, etc., addressing “The Allan”, “McGill”, “C.I.A”-Dr. Cameron” etc.

    IN fact, there have been several recent “news” stories regarding court actions launched by “so-called patients and/or their families” discussing exactly what you have written about. “suppose or not?”

Leave a Reply