Perry has now spent 86 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children. This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.
Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, 14 May 2008. S/Sgt. Brian Snyder will return to the stand. Commission counsel Mrs. Karen Jones has about a half hour of examination in chief left. Then Snyder will be cross examined.
I want to get this one off my chest. I will browse the transcripts and post other items of interest later.
This relates to testimony regarding the non-trial of Bernard Suave and an “alleged” victim of Sauve identified as C-66….
We heard that on 17 March 1997 C-66, a sex abuse victim of Roman Catholic school teacher Marcel Lalonde, disclosed to officer Brian Snyder that he had been sexually abused by Sauve. Due to time constraints at that time an agreement was made that the matter would be pursued later.
Nothing. At least not from Snyder. According to Snyder C-66 told him during an encounter in the street or somewhere that he, C-66, was not ready to pursue the Sauve allegations. There is no record of this encounter anywhere in Snyder’s notes.
Then, fourteen months later, on 22 May 1998, an officer (Genier) from the OPP Project Truth probe interviewed C-66 regarding the Suave allegations.
According to testimony of Monday 12 May there was action+++ when Cornwall Police Service officers were advised that Project Truth officers were about to interview C-66. The word emanating from the CPS quarters was that C-66 was “fragile.”
The interview eventually proceeded. There is apparently no indication in the Project Truth officer’s notes that C-66 had ever told Snyder he, C-66, wasn’t ready to proceed, and every indication that C-66 was anticipating follow up from Snyder.
Things slowly moved along.
There was apparently a preliminary inquiry either in April 2000 or at which Sauve was committed to stand trial April 2000. ( “This matter proceeded to preliminary inquiry and he was committed to stand trial on April of 2000.”)
In the end the trial date became 17 June 2002.
That’s five years!!! Five years from the day C-66 first disclosed to Snyder until “trial”!!!
That means for five years C-66 had the investigation and charges and preliminary hearings and pending trial an integral part of his life. Difficult.
It also means that for five years another “alleged” paedophile – known as such to the CPS! – was out and about.
Was Children’s Aid Society notified about the allegations back in 1997? If there was testimony in that regard I missed it, but, as seems to be -or at least has been – CPS standard, I don’t believe they were.
I reiterate that by 1997 there is not a police officer in Cornwall and probably well beyond who could not have known the legal duty for police officers to report to CAS. The failed attempt to lynch Perry Dunlop for fulfilling his legal obligation in that regard had been well publicized: officers have a legal duty to report children at risk.
So, five years pass.
Then, the non trial of Bernard Sauve.
Look at this. This is an excerpt from the transcript. Crown attorney Findlay speaking ( addressing the court I assume):
“I can tell Your Honour that in March, 1999 after I had thorough police investigation in this case, charges were laid against Mr. Sauvé for offences allegedly committed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This matter proceeded to a preliminary inquiry and he was committed to stand trial on April of 2000 on the offences now before the court. And since that time I can advise Your Honour that there are two complainants in this case and they both have suffered extreme anxiety and stress related to court, despite the best efforts of the Crown, the police and the Victim Witness office to assist them. I also know that the accused person, Mr. Sauvé, although medically fit to stand trial himself, suffers from various medical difficulties related to heart disease, diabetes and complications from diabetes. And late last week, Your Honour, it became apparent that the complainants in this case because of their difficulties may not be able to testify; that they may not be able to endure testifying in court. Despite that, there was some reason for the Crown to hold out some hope that over the weekend the circumstances would change and that they would be able to call them as witnesses in this case, but by this morning it became clear that this was not something that was going to take place. So based upon that factor, Your Honour, as well as the fact of the accused’s own difficulty with his health, it’s the view of the Crown that it’s not in the public interest to proceed any further with the charges and I’m asking the indictment to be marked ‘withdrawn’.”
So, what was the problem? The medical health of Sauve? Or the state of the victims? Or both?
If the complainant/victims weren’t going to testify then what difference does it make what Sauve’s state of health and well-being was or wasn’t?
What I would like to know is what was going on in the background leading up to this non-trial? Why would two “alleged” victims who hung in in their pursuit of justice for five long years suddenly bail out?
Was there a deal? I am hard pressed to look at Findlay’s statement and not wonder what the heck was going on, and why on the one hand his chatter about the “alleged” victims, and on the other his chatter about the well-being of Sauve.
Is it just me? I would certainly like to hear more about this one from C-66 himself. Seems to me there is more to it all than meets the eye.
Now, moving on, look what happens when Jones presses on about the lengthy delay. Snyder claims that C-66 told him he didn’t want to proceed and – he blames the victim:
MS. JONES: And you’ll agree with me that’s a very long time for something to proceed from the time you first make a complaint to the actual trial date?
MR. SNYDER: But you’ve got to remember he wasn’t ready when he first spoke to me, so a lot of the delay was in him preparing himself to be prepared to speak to a police officer and give him his testimony.
MS. JONES: With the greatest respect,that’s your evidence?
MR. SNYDER: That’s my evidence.
MS. JONES: There is — there is documentation that doesn’t necessarily bear that out coming from other sources, but I understand that’s your evidence.
John Callaghan (Cornwall Police Service) to the rescue. Callaghan himself puffs on about “accusatory” statements and “respect for all the witnesses”!!
MR. CALLAGHAN: Again, Mr. Commissioner, we haven’t heard from any of the witnesses. It’s the Commission counsel’s take on what she’s reading from a transcript of Mr. Genier. You’ll no doubt make your own conclusion at the end of the day.
I don’t think it’s helping to put the accusatory sort of statement to the witness that that’s his version. Obviously it’s — you know, we talked about having respect for all the witnesses.
How much of this can we take? How much are we expected to take and still preserve our sanity.
Tell me I’m not going mad!
That’s John Callaghan actually advocating the notion of “respect” for witnesses!
This is insane.
In the midst of this circus let’s not for a moment forget that Perry Dunlop is behind bars. He’s locked up because (1) he did the right thing and (2) he has lost faith in the justice system.
Listen to the testimony spewing forth from the mouths of the Cornwall Police Service witnesses. But, for all that, in the eyes of John Callaghan and Justice Normand Glaude and Peter Engelmann and the Ontario Attorney General and the Ontario Divisional Court and S/Sgt. Garry Derochie and who knows who else, Perry Dunlop is the criminal.
Everyone turns a blind eye while one “alleged” paedophile after the other has the run of Cornwall. Perry is the bad guy.
Well Perry dear, all I can say as I watch and listen is good on you. Good on you for thinking first and foremost of the safety of children. Seems to me nobody else in that police department did or does.
And good on you for not becoming one of them!
What a sorry, pathetic, disgraceful, wretched lot they are.
Enough for now,