Perry has now spent 70 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children.
Perry’s weekender ‘roomates’ were relocated yesterday morning (Saturday 26 April 2008). They were there for the night on Friday. Contrary to the order from Ontario Divisional Court that Perry be placed in segregated protective custody for his protection, two ‘weekender’ inmates were housed with Perry in his small 8’x12’quarters – space equipped with one toilet, one bed and two spare mattresses on the floor.
Helen called the Quinte Detention Centre on Friday evening to find out why two inmates were being confined with Perry. She was told the jail is overcrowded and no one at Quinte has a cell to himself. She asked if anyone had read the order from Divisional Court that Perry is supposed to be in segregated protective custody. Her concerns fell on deaf ears. She and her concerns were essentially brushed off.
I gather Helen assured whoever she spoke to, as she can do so well, that if anything happened to Perry Heaven help them.
So, the convicted ‘weekenders’ and Perry spent the night in their cramped quarters. I can only imagine what kind of night Perry spent. Friend of foe sharing his quarters? How could or would he know? Or how would anyone else know for that matter? How would they know?
Thankfully, and for unknown reasons, sometime early this morning the pair were pulled out and apparently relocated elsewhere.
Perry is once again in segregated protective custody: in Quinte Detention Centre.
All of this yet another unwelcome reminder that Perry and Helen are totally at the mercy of “the system.” Need I say that there is good reason that Perry must be segregated from other inmates? Friday night was a cause for concern. I am sure Helen barely slept a wink. Ditto Perry.
I scanned and posted the 11 January 1994: PRESS RELEASE – Police Board Account: Incident involving alleged sexual assault. That’s the press release signed off by Leo Courville, then chairman of the Board and obviously approved by acting Chief Carl Johnston. S/Sgt. Luc Brunet had input as well.
Whether by accident or design the chronology of events in the press release omits, misrepresents and/or provides erroneous information regarding the “investigation” of the David Silmser sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald and probation officer Ken Seguin.
Several observations, questions and comments:
(1) Why do the trio say in # 5 that Dave Silmser was “negotiating a settlement” with church officials? Where is there proof of such accusation? Certainly diocesan officials seemed keen to negotiate a settlement with Dave. Dave was not. To say for public consumption that Dave was negotiating with the diocese in February 1993 is, I submit, stretching both fact beyond limits.
(2) Why did the trio want the public to believe the “investigation” was completed 24 August 1993 (#7) when in reality the file had been sitting dormant from April 1993?
(3) Note that #8 states the Cornwall Police Service first received notice “on or about 07 September 1993” that David Silmser no longer wished to pursue criminal charges against Charlie. The facts prove otherwise. In an 03 September 1993 letter from Malcolm MacDonald to Brunet it is obvious that Brunet was apprised of the situation o3 September 1993. Furthermore, in a 09 September 1993 letter to Crown Murray MacDonald Brunet himself indicates he was advised on 03 September 1993 that Dave no longer wished to proceed with criminal charges.
Why did Brunet, Courville and Johnston put out a press release that says “on or about 07 September 1993” when documents in the CPS files clearly show otherwise? What was to be gained by this little bit of deception?
(4) Why, for that matter, did the trio not advise the public that Crown Murray MacDonald had declared a conflict of interest but despite that conflict failed to turn the file over to an outside Crown? and in fact kept abreast of the “investigation”?
And why not inform the public that despite his conflict of interest the Crown had somehow judged Dave Silmser to be a “non credible” complainant with “ulterior motives” who used the threat of criminal action to get money?
Why did the trio choose to omit that bit of factual information from the press release?
(5) Why, in # 13, do the trio suggest a trip to see “a very senior representative of the clergy.” In fact Brunet and Chief Shaver visited the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio, the Vatican representative in Canada. Further to that they say they went to advise of “impropriety” by a member of the clergy. Why do they not explain why it took the CPS 10 months to advise anyone in the Church about allegations of Charlie’s “impropriety”?
Indeed, why do they not give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that it was Perry Dunlop who asked S/Sgt. Brunet on 29 September 1993: “Have you ever considered going to the Bishop” and Brunet replied “No, but that’s a good idea. Maybe the Chief and I could go down. But then that’s it. You have to let it go”?
It was Perry’s idea that the bishop be told. Indeed it seems that the trip to the Nuncio and bishop may have been made in the hopes it pacify and silence Perry.
(6) Why is there mention of the fact in #14 that an internal investigation was commenced – yet no mention of the fact that CPS had presumably completed that investigation and that in fact on 07 January 1994 – four days before the press release was issued! – S/Sgt Garry Derochie submitted his report to Chief Johnston?
And why no mention of the fact that the report concluded Perry had acted out of concern for the safety of the community and that no disciplinary action would be taken? (Derochie favoured a “counselling” session) Had they truly forgotten so soon?
The press release, issued to presumably address extensive media coverage and “the possibility of a cover-up” and to presumably advise the public “what has actually happened to date” is, by accident or design, rife with error and misrepresentation of the facts.
In addition, despite the fact that various documents indicate that the CPS had conducted an investigation of Perry Dunlop’s actions and concluded no discipline would be imposed the press release seems to implicitly imply otherwise. Indeed it very publicly (1) casts the actions of Perry in a negative light, (2) directly or indirectly implies that his actions are at the heart of “all” outstanding issues which demand resolution, and (3) directly or indirectly invites David Silmser to file a complaint against Perry Dunlop.
Some are questioning if indeed David Silmser filed a complaint against Perry Dunlop. I have checked and am told that he did. I have been unable to find any paper work in that regard but shall continue to hunt. I do have paperwork substantiating a complaint filed by Dave against the investigative officer Constable Heidi Sebalj on or about 21 January 1994, I also have a copy of a letter from Dave’s lawyer which was hand-delivered to the Police Services Board, Carl Johnston and Heidi Sebalj. The letter, threatening legal action, is, coincidentally dated 11 January 1994!!!
I will scan and post the latter this evening.
I do believe that the wheels of CPS propaganda and cover-up were well set in motion with the issue of this 11 January 1994 press release. Ditto the move to very publicly shift focus from cover-up allegations by pointing the finger at Perry Dunlop.
But, remember: there is no cover-up. A few mistakes here. A little human error there. A tad of negligence the other place. A shortage of $$$ always. A shortage of personnel always. Evolving policies, practices and procedures always. Personality conflicts sometimes. Morale issues maybe. But, …..no cover-up!!!!!!
Note too the 10 July 1995: Ontario Civilian Commission On Police Services: Report Of An Investigation Into The Cornwall Police Services Board . This was conducted during Courville’s tenure. It outlines the friction between then Mayor Martelle and Courville. It also addresses the conflict relating to Courville’s practise of criminal law while occupying a position with the Board. It is intriguing that on the latter the OCCPS sought the advice of the Crown (Murray MacDonald I assume) who allegedly advised that to his knowledge there had been no cases before the courts where such conflict has arisen. It is also intriguing that Courville spent about two years as Chairman of the Cornwall Police Service Board working closely with the Chief before he decided it was inappropriate to defend persons arrested by members of the Cornwall Police Service.
Enough for now,Sylvia