Perry has now spent 107 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children, and then daring to say he has lost faith in the justice system. This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.
****
Lunch break. Hearings resume at 1400 hours (2 pm) this afternoon, Wednesday, 04 June 2008. Inspector Brendon Wells will continue his testimony – such as it is.
It’s La La Land again! Wells can’t remember this and he can’t recall that and he has no recollection of the other thing. He has no notes here and no notes there, but he did have notes somewhere and maybe did have notes for the here or there but he doesn’t have them here right now. He didn’t tell the media this, he may have told them that but bottom line he would never deceive the media. He may have read a 1994 Citizen article which quoted him as saying things which are false, but then again even thought he was the CPS Media rep he may not have. But, no, he did not file a complaint about the Citizen errors and inaccuracies. He does remember that!
Lawyer John Callaghan is up and down like a Yo Yo – protesting this, objecting to that and puffing on about the other thing. So agitated is he today that he’s actually objected at least twice to something there was no need to object – seems he simply misunderstood Commission Counsel Karen Jones’ question to Wells.
But, here it is. This is in part what I have been waiting for. On 09 February 1994 Wells visited lawyer Colin McKinnon in Ottawa. Reason? Double Jeopardy!
This is astounding.
On 21 January 1994 David Silmser filed a complaint against Cst. Heidi Sebalj. Wells was tasked to investigate the complaint.
Perry Dunlop had already been investigated by the force for turning David Silmser’s victim statement over to the CAS. That investigation concluded simply that Perry should be counselled. That was it.
Along comes the complaint – against Heidi!
Believe it or not before the investigation into what Sebalj did or did not do was off the ground Wells and some of his CPS cohorts were busily sorting out how they could investigate Perry: again.
Note: PERRY.
The complaint is against Sebalj and right off the bat they are apparently trying to sort out how to dump it on Perry.
On 08 February 1994 – before Wells has heard any evidence from anyone – Wells was off to chat the ins and outs and ups and downs of double jeopardy – with Colin McKinnon. McKinnon apparently gave an obliging legal helping hand and indeed came up with a way to skirt the thorny issue of double jeopardy.
I still don’t know how the charges morphed into charges against Perry under the same file number. Perhaps Wells can recollect a little of the morphing this afternoon? Or perhaps we will learn that such morphing is routine CPS procedure or best practise?
It truly matters little, does it? What we now know with certitude is that Wells and at least Acting Chief Carl Johnston and who knows who else had their sights set on Perry before the investigation into Heidi Sebalj got off the ground! They didn’t know what Heidi had or had not done and were already in cahoots to side-step the sticky double jeopardy issue to dump it on Perry! (This is shades of Justice Glaude deciding before he had heard a shred of evidence that the “rumour”and “innuedo” circulating around Cornwall on his arrival were false.)
Anyway, Colin McKinnon graciously helped Wells and whomever at the CPS and whomever wherever else through. McKinnon essentially found a way to have Perry re-investigated for the same incident and charged under the Police Service Act – without it being double jeopardy.
This is the same Colin McKinnon who later took the bench as presiding judge at the sex abuse trial of lawyer and Church canon lawyer Jacques Leduc. The same judge who was eventually and reluctantly forced to recuse himself when confronted with his conflicts of interest. He “forgot” he had prior dealings with Perry Dunlop. Things just slipped his mind.
Where is McKinnon on the CPS witness list? True his memory is obviously no better than Wells, but let’s put him on the stand and find out who contacted him when, and what he was told about why Perry and not Sebalj should be charged, and what conversations about this whole dirty mess he may or may not have had with his good friend Claude Shaver.
And let’s hear what sort of legal manoeuvring McKinnon had to do to circumvent the thorny issue of double jeopardy. And let’s see his Day Timer, and let’s at the very least find out who in Cornwall he knew back then, and how well.
What a disgusting lot!!!
They’re back from lunch. Anyway, I have taken the info I already had on theinquiry.ca on the Silmser complaint against Sebalj which morphed into charges under the Police Service Act against Perry Dunlop and put it into a separate page. I have added the Colin McKinnon double jeopardy info. 08 February 1994. Read through. Put it into context. And weep!
They have the audacity to accuse Perry of conspiracy?
Enough for now,
Sylvia
Do we know for fact if David Silmser and Perry Dunlop received Form 19???
http://www.theinquiry.ca/Perry%2012%20May%201994%20Statment%20if%20Alleged%20Misconduct%20naming%20Perry.pdf
As a former member of the Ontario Police Commission Commissioner Glaude must have some knowledge of both the Police Act R.O.1980 and the Police Services Act R.O.1990. He must have knowledge of the Public Complaints section of the Police Services Act (Part VI). I wouldn’t expect him to have knowledge of every single ammendment to the Act but as a member of the Police Commision he has to have some basics as to HOW public complaints work. Does he see the wool being pulled over his eyes???
On the other hand, John Callagan has that knowledge too! And I think I figured out why Callagan has been dancing around so much.
There is something very funny in the timeline and in Well’s testimony (waiting for the transcripts to be posted to be really able to clarify )….
1. April 27th, 2004 – Internal Correspondence Wells to Johnstone stating FORM 4 is enclosed. Form 4 is the FINAL REPORT! THE INVESTIGATION IS CONCLUDED! (Still haven’t seen it posted!)This was internal correspondence. There is NO indication the Complaintant (David Silmser) was informed. No indication the police officer’s have been updated. This is not cc’d to anyone.
2. Form 19 and Form 20 are completed and SIGNED by Johnstone. How they even come into the picture is beyond me – the investigation was concluded. So obviously in that final report Well’s submitted on April 27th they knew darn well what they were going to do to Perry Dunlop. Callagan interjected Daley about whether Silmser had been informed about the Board of Inquiry for Dunlop. Callagan basically stated – Oh yes, Silmser was informed, he was sent FORM 19…. Form 19 and Form 20 are signed MAY 12, 2004. They are indeed cc’d to…
(a)complaintant
(b)police officer(s)
(c)chair of the panel
(d)chief of police
(e)Police Complaints Commisioner
THERE IS NO NAMES!!! (It’s a standard PCC FORM)
WHO are these people???
WHO’S THE CHAIR OF THE PANEL AND WHAT PANEL???
WHAT POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER???
BECAUSE…
Not only was Form 19 and Form 20 filled out on MAY 12th BUT Johnston also sent a separate letter with a little more detail in it then the basic PCC forms to the ACTING Police Complaint’s Commissioner too (Susan Watts). It’s NOT cc’d to anyone!!! Now WHY would he do that???
He sends a further letter to Watts on May 16th (NOT cc’d to anyone)indicating Dunlop was served Form 19 and Form 20 on May 14th. Geez…he doesn’t even mention in this letter when Silmser – the Complaintaint – received Form 19 and Foem 20. WHY??? Wouldn’t the Complaintant be the most important person – #1 person you would keep updated and informed? Didn’t even mention him but we do know WHO is mentioned to the exclusion of everyone else – DUNLOP.
3. June 02, 1994 – Johnstone finally informs Silmser he’s reviewed the FINAL REPORT (Form 4). He is basically telling Silmser – NO FURTHER ACTION and if you don’t agree – TAKE IT TO THE PCC!!! The there is NO mention of DUNLOP yet according to Callagan Silmser was indeed informed of further proceedings on his complaint by way of FORM 19 which he would have receieved on or about May 12, 1994! (Anyone from CPS explain to Silmser EXACTLY WHAT Form 19 was and WHAT Form 19 had to do with his complaint against Heidi Sebalj???)
UH HUH
Think we just might see Callagan doing some more dirty dancing!!!
David….you got a “good lawyer” yet???
(Something funny happened with the blog – this was posted 04 June 2008 in response to Reality Checker post #1.)
No. I don’t think so. At least I can not say so with certitude. I can’t prove either one received it.
There was some talk yesterday about forms – there may be something in the transcript.
Re post # 2. I too am going through the transcripts :). I spent the evening meditating on this 🙁 As far as I’m concerned the whole thing stinks to high Heaven. I’m anxious to see what you come up with Reality Checker. You seem to have a good handle on the Police Service Act.
Power, Authority left unchecked inevitably leads to corruption:
Once again I urge people to research and review, A-) the PURPOSE of/strengths-weaknesses of public inquiries; B-) Pro’s-Con’s of public inquiries.
One Example: “Google” “Gomery Commission”. Justice Gomery is still, to this day, June 2008, attempting to get his recommendations taken seriously and implemented.
THIS, after months and millions of dollars.
Sylvia: You and Reality Checker are doing a GREAT JOB!! Keep it up.
I’m going to “babble on” a bit here about Claude Shaver, the lawyers, etc.
I see where the previous Chief of Police, Claude Shaver, will be testifying at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry.”
Sylvia, have you checked his website lately? Maybe his itinerary is posted.
Maybe a “black Cadillac” can be sent for him, perhaps cocktails and a drive along highway #2.
I tried to rent a Cadillac in Cornwall once. I was advised the only place I could do this, was to go to a local funeral parlor.
Some of the old news articles in the 1990’s, implied Mr. Shaver loved Cornwall and would stay there after retirement, in the private sector, conducting stress management seminars and conducting other small business affairs.
Then, the “Standard-Freeholder” reported Mr. Shaver had moved to Constance Bay, Ontario, or some Ontario community to retire and relax in luxury. Then, the former Police Chief, was on the move again, eventually ending up in the Port Charlotte, Tampa, Florida region.
As one who knows the “excited” States quite well, I believe it is very easy to inconspicuously “melt” into the southern States, specifically Florida and especially, someone who was high profile in Canada.
Claude Shavers appearance at the inquiry will probably be promoted by the likes of Claude McIntosh at the “Standard-Freeholder”, as his first return to Cornwall and Area in years.
Sorry, I beg to differ. Maybe first publicly announced.
In any event, as Shaver well knows, he has nothing to worry about in testifying, nothing to be nervous about, absolutely nothing. Former Chief Shaver is in “friendly” territory, very friendly territory. He will be treated as a competent professional with an impeccable record, who should be honoured and respected. Something similar to Julian Fantino’s public appearance.
In my opinion, Shavers appearance will accomplish two main points,
1-this will simply be, a “promotional appearance” for him, which he will exploit, to promote his most recent business venture. This “appearance” should open more doors, to an unsuspecting, ignorant, uninterested, apathetic, Florida clientele; most of whom, I believe are in law enforcement. 2- for the likes of counsel Kozloff, Callaghan, Manderville, Cipriano, Daley, Neville, Sherriff-Scott/David W. Scott, the Attorney Generals Office and others, amongst this putrid pile of pathetic, malpractice, liability insurance carrier lawyers, Shaver will provide additional “fertile soil”, so-to-speak, further nurturing and perpetuating the maliciously constructed assertions, that an undisciplined, rogue-“cop” (Perry Dunlop), failed to follow company “protocol”, manipulated witnesses, influenced, intimidated and manipulated alleged victims, spread rumour and innuendo of sexual abuse, among other things. “Protocol???” i.e.) secrecy, non-disclosure, no paper trail, memory loss, no note taking, delay, delay, delay…forget, lost documents, shredded documents, hiding documents from Inspectors, interference, obstruction, etc.
One reason, these high priced insurance carrier lawyers are around, is to “cover their butts” and their clients’ butts, relating to proceedings which took place in previous litigations, settlements. Information, testimony, evidence, etc., “ON THE RECORD” somewhere. Another reason is to, permanently “muddy the waters”.
MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT; everything on ANY “record”, whether at this Cornwall Public Inquiry, as well as ANY other proceedings, litigations or other, can and will be exploited, “in part or in whole” by counsel, in their clients interests; re: the current proceedings or future litigations or negotiations, .
Sylvia: THE ONLY WAY:
As you and “Reality Checker” have done in the past, in that you have posted relative testimony and evidence, comparing current “records” to historical supporting and/or contradictive testimony, evidence and/or RECORDS….I urge you to continue.
This is the only way anyone will be able to learn “THE FACTS” and judge for themselves. THE ONLY WAY!! Scrutiny of the “record” and the “facts”. This is what many DO NOT WANT you or anyone to do.
This is why the “Project Truth” offices were burglarized or why, during examination/cross-examination, lawyers initialize “tenuous inferences or leading” and ambiguous questions or statements, such as, “is it fair to suggest”, therewith, inducing speculation and conjecture, from the respondents. Unfortunately, all this “orchestrated” speculation, conjecture, guessing, supposing, etc., gets into the record and may be exploited later, (days, weeks, months, years), in other cases or follow-up cases, when convenient for counsel. Obviously, the information itself, as elicited through biased “tenuous inferences” may, through conjecture and speculation, be inaccurate and therefore result misinterpretations. BUT UNLESS someone argues to the contrary, well, the information is introduced and will influence ANY proceedings.
If the “respondent” is involved in later years and confronted with testimony from the past, then, the “respondent” looks like a fool or hero, depending on the objectives.
Then, public opinion is influenced; as the “lapdog mainstream news media” runs with the interpretation they are fed.
IT is my opinion, this is also why, MANY people forget or can’t remember, or “I do not recall.” (are they counseled into repeating the aforementioned or otherwise?)
Opinion, such as mine, suggestions, rumour, innuendo, hearsay, suspicion, etc., will never “hold water”. Disclosure of “the facts” will.
UNFORTUNATELY: someone must watch the inquiry daily, review transcripts, research and compare previous testimony and evidence submitted in other litigations, hearings etc.
This is next to impossible. Is it humanly possible?
Expensive, no help, draining and mind boggling, to say the least.
This is exactly what “the Pearheads” rely on. This is exactly what the malpractice, liability insurance carrier, lawyers rely on.
The “lapdog” mainstream news media cannot be trusted as they are intentionally through design or through error, complicit, with the agenda of the “Powers That Be”, “for the greater good”.
Unfortunately victims and many other witnesses cannot be trusted.
Fifteen years has passed and many settlements, gag orders, confidentiality, non-disclosure stipulations, agreements, settlements, promises, have been signed to or accepted, with breach of the same, resulting in harsh consequences.
In my opinion, other victims and witnesses have been threatened, intimidated, sued, and/or are otherwise afraid, to come forward and “speak out”.
Your posts with supporting facts are excellent. Way to Go. Good Luck.
I’m going thru alot of stuff too – been up all night – comparing transcripts to the Police Services Act.
GEEZ…it’s so confusing!!!
Daley’s questioning of Wells gives good insight as to what was going on and the discussions about Form 1.
From what I can make out…
Between Jan 11 and Jan 21 CAS disclosure has now been made to David Silmser (Pg 203, Line 1)
Well’s testifies he would ALWAYS sit down with the complaintant in those case and go through the facts in issue (Pg. 204, Line 13)
Well’s would go through it step by step with the complaintant (Pg. 206, Line 14)
Callagan interjects in the questioning on Pg.211, Line 11…”I think the document – in fairness, I think the documents indicate the complaintant was kept apprised of the interim report and of charges of Mr. Dunlop. I think maybe even a document out here you’ll see he’s copied on that material)
Now….realize Wells tried to put Silmser’s complaint to an Inquiry and sent it to the Police Complaints Commission (PCC) reguesting Form 1 be put to an inquiry. I can’t find it right off hand but this I think is a Form 6 where Wells attaches his reasons for doing so and the need for Silmser’s complaint to be basically done by the PCC.
The PCC refused and turned back to CPP basically not accepting Wells’ reasoning. This is all discussed on Pg 199 with Daley making comment about Wells being “out of the water, so to speak” and with added emphasis on Line 10…”that the authority told you there was no way it could happen that way”.
I take it – Wells was really out of line making his request to the PCC. I want to go thru the Police Services Act more on this but what caught my attention is it was a Mr. Michael Pearson from the PCC who turned down the request YET when forms 19 & 20 are filled out on May 12,93 and a letter is sent to the PCC by Wells on that day (and on May 16) – it is an ACTING Police Complaints Commisioner from Ottawa or the East Region the letters are sent to (Susan Watts). Who is Michael Pearson??? And maybe he turned down the request because Wells was trying to go outside proper procedure in a Public Complaint??? I think that’s highly likely ftom what I have been reading through in the Police Act.
Also…take a look at Pg 213, Line 8…according to Callagan – Silmser appealled the June 02/93 letter from AC Johnstone diectly to the PCC!!! Three things Calagan stresses – “he’s advised of the charge, released to Children’s Aid, he’s advised that Constable Sebalj will not be charged and he’s advised that Mr. Dunlop will not be charged and he appeals. He writes the Public Complaint Commissioner on the later two.”
Pg 214, Line 5 Callagan again saying Silmser goes further with the matter and he goes to the PCC.
SO WHO’S LYING HERE???
Cause I’ll say one thing – the process for following up on a PUBLIC COMPLAINT according to the Police Services Act R.O. 1990 Part VI was certainly NOT NOT followed by Wells (regardless if an internal investigation on the actions of Perry Dunlop releasing the statement to CAS somehow became part of his thought process). That investigation was OVER!!! And the public complaint lodged was about the media release!!! What a mess Well’s did!!!
ARG!!!
I just read through some of David Silmser’s testimony. I didn’t get thtough all of it but there is something I want to say and that hit me as I was reading…..
Not one individual from the inquiry has any experience dealing with POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER AND FLASHBACKS that I am certain many of the witnesses at the Cornwall Inquiry suffer from!!!
It was so apparent to me reading thru David Silmer’s testimony!!! Especially where he was asked about links and he said it was too personal and then was pushed to continue!!!
NOBODY at this inquiry has POST TRAUMA training!!!
NO ONE….and I don’t mean sex abuse training!!
There’s a BIG difference!
….and they’re pushing these people!!!
Anyone know if THE Michael Pearson (Lester Pearson’s grandson) was ever affiliated with the Police Complaints Commission???
I’m just wondering (publicly) if that’s…
1. WHY the PCC wouldn’t go along with Wells reasoning to put Silmser’s complaint to an inquiry,
2.WHY Well’s was being “out of the water” and
3. WHY the PCC responded “there was no way it could happen that way.”
I”M JUST asking questions!!!
Because this guy certainly isn’t used (as far as I can tell) in any further dealings with the PCC.
WHO got Forms 19 and Form 20.
Not generics – Name them!!!
Cause I cannot figure out WHY Well’s would send a SEPARATE letter to an ACTING complaint commissioner when those forms supposedly went out.
I’m still onto this PUBLIC COMPLAINT buisness…
It was on Jan 26/94 Wells filed Form 6 with the PCC (Within 5 days of apparently sitting down with Silmser and Geoffries on January 21 filing out Form 1.)
BTW…and I just noted somewhere Jan. 11/94 is when Perry started his sick leave (correct me if I’m wrong)
From Form 6…(to the PCC)
“Pursant to subsection 81(2)of the Police Services Act,1990 I propose to classify the above noted complaint or part thereof as specified below as an inquiry”
Wells would have sent a “package” to the PCC including…
1. Complaint Form 1
2. Appendix A
3. Letter from Bryce Geoffties dated January 11/94
(We know from testimony these were all part and parcel to Complaint Form 1)
So…the PCC not only received the above but they also received Wells reasonings…
– very high profile case
– need for public perception that an independant investigation be carried out
– the gravity of the allegations (see attached article)
– the civil ramifications that have and will flow from the investigation and subsequent hearings
– to re-establish the integrity of the Cornwall Police Service as it relates to Police Disciplinary Process
– the entire incident has been investigated internally, prior to the lodging of the most recent complaint and prior to the imposition of aany corrective process
Subsection 81(2)of the Police Services Act, 1990 STATES…
“If the person in charge of the bureau is in the opinion that all or part of the complaint relates only to other matters than possible misconduct, he or she may, with the Commissioner’s consent, classify the complaint or part of the complaint as an inquiry”
THE PCC REFUSED THIS REQUEST!!!
Why???
Here’s what I think….
First. WHAT “other matters” other than possible misconduct would the complaint relate to??? Read Subsection 81(2) closely. “ONLY” OTHER MATTERS THAN POSSIBLE MISCONDUCT . (Everything about Public Complaint Form I relates to possible misconduct but Wells is twisting things here trying to protect CPS and certainly NOT dealing with the complaintant’s complaints!)
Second, read Wells reasoning closely…these are obviously the OTHER MATTERS THAN POSSIBLE MISCONDUCT…(aludes to media storm) HIGH PROFILE INCIDENT, CIVIL RAMIFICATIONS, RE-ESTABLISH INTEGRITY RELATED TO CPS’ DISCIPLINARY PROCESS, ALREADY BEEN INVESTIGATED INTERNALY, NO CORRECTIVE MEASURES.
The above has absolutely nothing to do with David Silmer’s complaint. All the above has to do with CPS covering their butt!
NOT the job for the PCC!!!
I just find it interesting after this refusal from Michael Pearson of the PCC Well’s happened to find another Complaints Commissioner to deal with – and an acting one to boot! NO questions asked after already been refused an inquiry!!!
As Sylvia so graceously is quoted – “enough for now”
http://www.theinquiry.ca/DS%20Heidi%20complaint%20classified%20as%20inquiry%20and%20reasons.pdf
Form 6
I’m still slugging through this too. A lot of things here are disturbing. What about the extraordnary lengths Wells went to convey the notion he knew absolutely nothing – well, nearly nearly nothing – about the “investigation” of the David SIlmser allegations? Astounding. He knew nothing?!!! Nearly nearly nothing. He hadn’t heard a boo about it all ’till that September 1993 morning meeting when an upset Lortie raised questions. And he heard next to nothing there, and presumably nothing afterwards.
And yes, then he helped with the press releases in early ’94 – not the facts in the releases mind you, just the composition!! – and still he knew nothing. And Heidi Sebalj and Luc Brunet were there and he still knew or heard nothing. But when push came to shove he was the media rep and in one instance contact person and so he admitted that yes indeed therefore he would have read the press releases – well probably, or maybe for sure?
And then he was investigating the David Silmser complaint against Heidi Sebalj, which seemingly had a tad of leeway in an addenum or something to go beyond Sebalj if necessary, and Wells with his absolutely astounding and profound lack of familiarity with what had been going on around him for the past number of months somehow determines – before he has so much as turned an investigative finger! – that he should really be looking at what Perry did? and checking with the Acting Chief to see if it would be double jeopardy to go after Perry again?
Where did so novel a thought arise in such an ubiased mind? How did or could it take root in a mind presumably so devoid of fact, rumour and/or innuendo?
Just out of the clear blue sky Wells thinks of Perry and ponders double jeopardy?
And we’re actually to believe that Wells knew nothing – or just about nothing – about anything? and that he assumed his role as investigator without any predetermined opinons?
Had Wells waited at least until he got a statement from Sebalj, and perhaps even interviewed both Sebalj and Shaver before he was seriously thinking double jeopardy this just might have flown.
Anyway, Reality Checker, keep at it. I’m putting together a lengthy piece on his testimony. We’ll see how our research and digging about marries up to put a few more pieces in this particlar corner of the puzzle. Every piece helps.
I want to get the chronology of and surrounding this Wells investigation together a little more so people can see it in as much of glance as is humanly possible for anything Cornwall. In the process I’m getting a bit of a handle on thinsg which slipped me by. Also am going to post some of the profound exchanges during Well’testimomy. I can’t begin to do them justice with a recap. I decided to let them speak for themselves.
And, yes, I too have had enough for now 🙂
I think this double jeopardy is happening again. Perry refused to testify and he is found guilty of both civil and criminal contempt of court for this. There was one continuous refusal to testify but many subpoenas to appear is one or other court all aimed at getting him to testify. The judicial system portrays it as merciful by giving Perry so many invitations/chances to testify but then it doesn’t look so merciful when each of these invitations becomes a conviction for contempt of court. What would prevent this injustice system from continuing forever ordering Perry to testify and locking him up for another six or fifteen months when he refuses? That is double, triple, or X times jeopardy.