Annoyed to no end

Share Button

Perry has now spent 67 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children.


Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Thursday 24 April 2008. I believe Leo Courville – Former Chair of the Cornwall Police Services Board, will be taking the stand.


I visited Perry yesterday morning. My first visit to the jail in several weeks.

He looks good. Hair a wee bit greyer. Beard a wee bit fuller. But, his weight is holding. The smile still comes readily. His sense of humour remains in tact.

He’s holding his own 🙂 He’s a strong man.

There were three of us who showed up for the Wednesday visit. We shared. A nice visit.

I must tell those who are planning to make a visit to be sure to allow a couple of hours. I was there at 08:45. I believe all three of us were there by 9 am.

Perry wasn’t brought down to the visiting booth until somewhere around 10:10 am. So, we chatted. And we waited. That’s just the way it is. Sometimes we just have to wait. But, well worth the wait 🙂 I just want to mention that so people don’t count on getting in at 9 and being out by 9:30. It may happen, but, it may not.

And, good news. A kind soul told me she is taking out a subscription to the Ottawa Citizen for Perry. Perry will now get the Citizen, the Ottawa Sun and the National Post. He should be well up on the news!

And more…..

Another kind soul deposited funds into Perry’s canteen account. Yes, there is on one hand the ‘privilege’ of ordering from the canteen, but on the other hand all goodies and sundries cost $$$.

A thought. Those who pay a visit to the jail might consider contributing a few dollars to Perry’s canteen while you’re there. That could go toward the purchase of a book. Or replenishing his supply of pepperoni sticks. I just found out the other day that he feasts on those pepperoni sticks. Loves them.

A final note on Perry. He loves getting those cards and letters. There is rarely a chat that he doesn’t mention the letters. Don’t stop sending them. They are so deeply deeply appreciated.


Heather got 100% for her essay: The Law is a Ass. And a well deserved 100% it is!


Perry talked to his grandmother (Merle Anderson). She apparently has spells of confusion now, but was lucid and so very happy to speak to her grandson. She wants to see him desperately. Pray for Mrs. Anderson, and pray that somehow she will have a chance to see Perry. Surely there must be room somewhere here for a little compassion.


Note the article on the ombudsman meeting last evening. Two things here:

(1) Why this language shift from male victims of sexual “abuse” to male victims of sexual “violence”? What’s the definition of violence here? What of those boys who were groomed and seduced and deceived and told it was alright, or a right of passage, or any of the other seductions and lies so ably used by sexual predators? What of those boys who didn’t or don’t for countless reasons scream “no.” In other words, what if, as is oft the case, there were/are no visible or external signs of “ violence” per se, but —the boy’s poor soul is raped? Are those boys still counted as victims of sexual “violence”?

I smell a rat when I see a change of language in the offing. What’s going on here?

(2) Why an ombudsman? Is it because no one else is doing the job he/she is supposed to do and paid to do? Why not charge and/or fire those who don’t do their job? Seems to me that would ensure that all victims are dealt with promptly and properly.


I was gone most of yesterday. Missed most of the day’s testimony. I did catch a little. Comments: one brief, the other longer:

(1) There is a new lawyer with the commission: Karen Jones. She is sharp. Really sharp. I was impressed. How sad she wasn’t there all along.

(2) Not one lawyer in that Weave Shed seems to know diddly squat about the age of consent for gross indecency and buggery in the 80s. Not one! If they did, they kept mum.

I have made mention of this before. Today it just annoyed me to no end.

We have heard Constable Kevin Malloy testify about his 1989 “ investigation” into C-57’s “historical” sex abuse allegations against Roman Catholic school teacher Marcel Lalonde. The “alleged” abuse transpired in 1982. C-57 was 16-years-old at the time.

Malloy concluded the acts (oral sex) were consensual. He said he checked the 1982 criminal code. Charges were not laid.

A question was raised. “ What was the age of consent in 1982?” The answer came back: 14.

Not a word. Not a boo from any corner of the Weave Shed.

In 1982 acts of gross indecency (i.e. fellatio) and buggery were illegal if conducted with persons under age 21. Illegal. Against the law. They were legal only for consenting adults age 21 and over. They were ILLEGAL for an adult male with a boy under the age of 21.

Gross indecency is “an act which is inherently indecent according to the concepts and morals which presently prevail.” According to the morals of the day (1982) I do believe that fellatio between a 33 year-old Roman Catholic teacher and a 16-year-old boy would have constituted gross indecency. Marcel Lalonde was engaging in fellatio with a 16-year-old boy.

Why not lay a charge of gross indecency? If it is applicable, why not lay it? Seems to me that all the defence quibbling in the world regarding dates on that one would be futile. The boy was not a consenting 21-year-old adult. He was 16.

Malloy says the age of consent in 1982 was 14. Not. It was fourteen for indecent assault on a male. It was 21 for buggery and gross indecency. Malloy could have charged Marcel Lalonde with gross indecency. The Crown could have recommended Lalonde be charged with gross indecency. They did not. It seems the pair were simply content to conclude the sex act was “consensual.” Not a thought of a charge of gross indecency!

Why not?

Enough for now



This entry was posted in Clerical sexual predators. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Annoyed to no end

  1. AbsentObserver says:

    Not guilty enough: judge: Justice acquits man he believes molested youth

    June 28, 2000

    By Ann Harvey

    CORNWALL – Despite saying he was “pretty sure” Harvey Joseph Latour molested a boy 35 years ago, Justice Richard Byers acquitted the 70-year-old of indecent assault.
    The judge said the Crown case, which resulted from the Project Truth investigation, had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    The two-day trial concluded Tuesday after testimony from the last two witnesses for the defence and closing arguments from both the crown and the defense.
    The judge said he was particularly disturbed because the complainant had said he believed Latour might have had a tattoo, probably an anchor, on one of his forearms. During his testimony Latour had rolled up his sleeves, showing no tattoo and no indication of tattoo removal.
    Crown counsel Alain Godin argued the complainant, who cannot be named, had testified honestly, frequently stating he simply couldn’t remember. He said the courts allow more discrepancies in the testimony of children and that should extend to testimony about events that occurred during childhood.
    The evidence of Latour corroborated the evidence of the complainant on many points, Godin said.
    In his summation, Byers said he did not expect the complainant, now 48, to remember the specifics of events that occurred 35 years ago when he was 13.
    “I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. (the complainant) was an honest and a truthful witness.
    “I was not impressed with Mr. Latour.” The defendant showed “selective memory,” the judge said.
    Witness credibility and reliability is important, but it is not the only requirement, he added. Identity must be clearly established too.
    Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the required standard, he said. “Probably guilty is not good enough,” said Byers.
    “In my view the tattoo raises that doubt. Mr. (the complainant) just may have got the identity wrong. I don’t think he did, but he might have.”
    In an emotional interview following the trial, the complainant said he is not satisfied with the judgment. “I just can’t find words for it.”
    Godin had no comment.
    Defence lawyer Don Johnson said the verdict was right “if you believe in the criminal justice system, that the Crown has got to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
    “Reasonable doubt doesn’t mean you didn’t do it. Reasonable doubt means they didn’t prove it.”

Leave a Reply