Is there a shadow of a doubt?

Share Button

Perry has now spent 81 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children!

****

No hearings this week.  Hearings resume Monday, 12 May 2008.

****

Quite a day.  This time problems of my own doing 🙁  I was working on those David Silmser Citizen’s Complaint against Constable Heidi Sebalj which seemingly morphed into charges under the Police Services Act against Perry.  I somehow managed to delete all the posts!   So, .. rather than use the day to add to the chronology I spent it re-doing what had been done.  But, all not in vain.  It gave me opportunity to take another look at the various documents.  It doesn’t look or get any better!  It smells to high Heaven!!

It’s all together on the Heidi Sebalj page for now.  More to add.  Hopefully tomorrow (Thursday 08 May 2008)

I did manage to get the Colin McKinnon quotes and have posted a page with comments committed to that.  A link to the page is posted with the David Silmser/Heidi chronology.   Please read.  I do hope I have explained it in a manner that people can grasp what has been going on down there in Cornwall in early 1994.   I’d say the canons were aimed – right at Perry.  He didn’t stand a chance.

Some questions:

Is there a shadow of a doubt that Justice Colin McKinnon should be put on the stand?

Is there a shadow of a doubt that the CPS waived its solicitor-client privilege in 2001 and that therefore all the relevant documents  which it has squirreled away under lock and key should be out in the public domain?

Is there a shadow of a doubt that this “inquiry” should have been mandated to inquire into allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up?

Is there a shadow of a doubt that the inquiry should have been a joint federal-provincial inquiry?  Then we could have – as we should have –  not only Colin McKinnon but all the Project Truth trial judges on the stand.

There is no cover-up?

Right.  Then beyond a shadow of a doubt I’m a real computer nerd 🙂

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Is there a shadow of a doubt?

  1. RealityChecker says:

    Sylvia – I want to make it very clear to people reading your BLOG that I do not know the Dunlops – have NEVER met them or communicated with them – I do not know YOU and have only ever communicated with you through this Blog. I also am NOT Catholic….nor am I from Cornwall!

  2. Sylvia says:

    Very true. I will add that I certainly hope to get to know you some day. Or even to talk to you! For now and until then I’m good with knowing you as RealityChecker, a blogger who digs in to put together pieces of an increasingly complex and convoluted saga. An invaluable contribution. Keep digging RealityChecker.

    Sylvia

  3. RealityChecker says:

    Can you PLEASE tell me if the Attached Appendix to Complaint Form 1 – a public complaint against Heidi Sebalj signed by David Silmser on January 21 1994 is the CORRECT Attachment/Appendix in what you have posted.

    Cause I think I may need a stiff drink.

  4. Sylvia says:

    I am just going to finish posting media for the day. Then I am going to hunker in with these documents to see what else should be posted and what belongs where. Will post as soon as I can confirm 🙂

    Sylvia

  5. Sylvia says:

    The Appendix to the 21 January 1994 Complaint Form 1 – complaint against Constable Heidi Sebalj – is the correct Appendix.

  6. RealityChecker says:

    It CANT be!!!

    It’s a page from the FINAL REPORT!!!

  7. Sylvia says:

    The same documents are in various packages for various purposes. I have copies of Public Complaint Form – 1 and Appendix A marked with a black marker in the upper right as 1 & 2 repectively. I have copies of the same two documents marked 100 & 101 respectively. They belong together but in each instance were apparently utilized and catalogued for a differnet purpose – a lawsuit? Board of inquiry?.

    As for the #10. I have the 51 pages minus pp 1 &2. Those pages are marked with a black marker in the upper right corner as pp 34 to 82. Page 3 of 51 is, as you note # 10 (Description of Investigative Steps – black marker nos. 34 to 37).

    Page 7 of 51 starts the “11. Summaries of Statments Obtained During This Investiagtion (Final Report to Inlcude Summaries of All Statments Obtained)” Then the individual who statment follows is identified.”

    Each subsequent statement is designated as “11. Summaries of Statements…” Those pages are black markered 38 to 50.

    The final page, 51 of 51, is “12. Description and analysis of documentary and physical evidence obtained (Final report to include all documentary evidence obtained) It is numbered with black marker on upper right as 82.

    As I say, my pages for this start at 3 of 51. I do not have or can not find anything marked 1 of 51 and/or 2 of 51. BUT, even if I could that is only the first 2 of 51 pages – no room there for nos. 1 to 7, therefore the #8 and # 11 on the pages can not be totally sequential – at last not in this particular report. I am guessing there is some sort of reporting/filing process which demands the numerical identifier/designation? And all files are not included? That I do not know. The only for sure is that we can follow the “investigation” by the dates and information contained in the various documents.

    Note as a point of interest that several paras in the Leo Courville Press Release of 11 January 1994 are verabitm those in the Summary of Incident.

    Sylvia

  8. RealityChecker says:

    Is the Attached Appendix to Complaint Form 1 – David Silmer’s public complaint of January 21, 1994 a…

    1. page from Deroches’s final report PRIOR to Simler’s actual complaint? (Sometime late fall/winter ’93)

    OR

    2. page from Wells final report? (Sometime April ’94)

    The attached Appendix to the January 21, 1994 complaint with “8.Summary of Incident” is obviously a page from someone’s report – but the question is WHO’s?

    And WHY would this PAGE be attached as an Appendix to a complaint form – filed out January 21, 1994 (NAMING Heidi Sebalj and omitting the CPS Board or Acting Police Chief Johnston) that was actually submitted to CPS by David Silmer’s lawyer on January 11, 1994.

    Courville already had the details of the complaint and attached Appendix when he put out his press release on January 11/94 – yet the complaint forms had not yet been filed out – not until January 21/94! Geez – I wonder how he would Have EXACTLY a SUMMARY OF THE INCIDENT PRIOR to an actual complaint form being filed?

    Sylvia – your right – IT STINKS!!!

  9. Sylvia says:

    The Appendix (8. Summary of Incident) is definitely part of Well’s final report. That’s a for sure.

    Was it a part of Derochie’s final report? I don’t think so. Not the report completed 05 January 1994 and sent to A/Chief Johnsotne 08 January 1994. I have the report – 60 odd pages. I don’t see it there. A mystery 🙂 There my be something in Derochie’s testimony which would cast light.

    There is a possibility I suppose that the text of the document existed in some other format and for some other purpose re the pay-off/CAS ruckus and was re-labelled for the summary?

    As for Courville, I think there are two options there. Either (1) Brunet and Johnstone provided the text of the summary as a basis to prepare the press release, or (2) Brunet, Johnstone and Courville complied the press release and subsequently a series of paras were lifted from it to create the summary for the Appendix? I just don’t know. Will have to leave it until I come across something that fills in the gaps.

  10. RealityChecker says:

    Curious if this page (8. Summary of Incident) was part of the Well’s package? – He received 13 documents in a file that was put in his mailbox October 07, 1993 from Deputy Chief St. Denis… there were very very questionable items in that package and Well’s was INSTRUCTED to:
    1. familiarize himself with the enclosed
    2. investigate Constable Dunlop’s involvement in providing CAS with a copy of Silmser’s statement
    3. speak with Brunet who had info and would assist him.

    This Appendix (8. Summary of Incident)shows up a little too frequently when you follow along…where did it come from because obviously it was in place PRIOR to the Heidi Sebalj complaint (File C.C. 94-01)of January 21/94.

    WE see it used in a press release of January 11/94. We see it used as an Appendix in the Complaint Form 1 against Heidi Sebalj on January 21/94. We know it became a part of Well’s final report -Public Complaint Form 4(March 21/94) and I am assuming it is the same Appendix in Public Complaint Form 19 (May 12/94)giving Notice of a Board of Inquiry.

    I can’t stress enough – It was already there – PRIOR to the Sebalj complaint!!! The FIX was in!!!

  11. Sylvia says:

    To save me time, which document are you referencing re Wells recieving 13 documents?

    Re Appendix to Public Complaint Form 19 giving notice of Board of Inquiry – I have no idea if it is the “8 Summary of Incident.” It could be anything. It could be the latter.

  12. RealityChecker says:

    OOPS….MY MISTAKE!!!

    DEROCHE

    Not Wells!!! As soon as you posted I realized my mistake!!!

  13. RealityChecker says:

    Emgleman takes Deroche thru all 13 documents he received in the October 07/93 package/file that was left in his mailbox during his first couple of days of his testimony but the testimony is not that elabotate or detailed as what it was exactly that Deroche received.

  14. RealityChecker says:

    DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THESE APPENDIXES??? OR A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT SHAVER PROVIDED TO DESROCHE???

    On October 15th, 1993, Staff Sergeant Derochie met with Chief Shaver and Deputy Chief St. Denis. Chief Shaver was still very upset as a result of his confrontation with Mrs. Dunlop the night before. He had obviously been struggling with the matter for at least part of the night because he had a plan of action developed to deal with Constable Dunlop.

    Chief Shaver wanted Constable Dunlop formally counselled for his actions. He had an outline of what should be covered in this counselling session and what strategy should be used. Chief Shaver provided a document which contained those subjects he wanted raised (see APPENDIX A). The counselling session would be formally documented and that documentation would be added to Constable Dunlop’s personnel file.

    Staff Sergeant Derochie prepared a document which was to be used in the counselling session with Constable Dunlop (see APPENDIX B).

Leave a Reply