Interesting

Share Button

Perry has now spent 115 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.

****

Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am) tomorrow, Friday, 13 June 2008.  Former Chief Claude Shaver will resume his testimony.  And yes, he’s still here 🙂

An interesting wrap up to the day today.  Seems Shaver arrived in Canada armed with his own polygraph – a just in case he needed it sort of thing 🙂   A bit of a ruckus and admonition by the commissioner on that one.  More explanation on that required and will do so later.

And then on the heels of that a great cross-examination by Dallas Lee (Victims Group) re Shaver’s on  personal website.  More on that too.

And then Michael Neville (Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin) jumping up and down and howling that this is not a criminal trial after Lee pointed out to Shaver that not one single accused has accepted the commission’s invitation to testify.  That because yesterday Shaver was quite distraught at the plight of those he deems wrongfully accused whose names have been posted on websites.

Interesting.  I think Justice Glaude was not a happy camper.

For now, time to get supper together

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

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

13 Responses to Interesting

  1. RealityChecker says:

    Are you telling us Shaver tried to introduce a polygraph into his testimony??? Is that what you are saying??? He came with a polygraph?

    OH MY…will read the trancripts when they are posted.

    Now what did I say about some mental health issues???

    Since when does ANY former or present police officer show up to court or a government led public inquiry with a polygraph in hand (WHO’s his counsel???)

    Is that NOT what the courts and an inquiry are for – to determine the facts but also the credibility of the witnesses??? That’s a slap in the face to Commissioner Glaude!!! More so than any other comment ever made or suggested by anyone on blogs- the media – or whatever.

    I can’t believe Shaver would stoop so low (actually I can!)

  2. Sylvia says:

    You almost took the words right out of Justice Glaude’s mouth Reality Checker: “This is beneath you.” (directed at Shaver)

  3. prima facie says:

    Wow…and I was going to go to Cornwall today to watch this in person. Great show today folks and to think, Dallas Lee was at the two yard line……until “Denny Krane”, I mean Mr. Neville…Sir, jumped up from a nap….eyes open, but napping.

    Commissioner Glaude also seemed like a “deer in headlights”, quickly closing for the day….WOW, what a show. I’m taking off work tomorrow.

    I like to go to the inquiry. There are so many head gestures, nodding, edging on and other movements, from everywhere, that I have witnessed “out of the camera” view, well, I just wished I had been there.

    In fact Mrs. what’s her name…the “C.C.R.” rep. gestures to Commissioner Glaude when she has to have a “pee” or when the day should end…it’s quite a treat!!

    Mr. Shaver states he is an expert and or a trained professional, and, well-versed in observing, as well as interpreting body language of individuals he interviews (interrogates). IN fact, it seems he and a couple of other members of the Cornwall Police Services were so, “expert”, they didn’t have to keep notes or records, etc., therefore, relying totally on their “expertise”, when determining the validity of an individuals statements.

    WELL, I hope he has a tape of his performance testifying, because, boy oh boy, “body language” and ambiguous, roaming, testimony…like,….comparatively speaking,… from here to Tampa, type “ROAMING”…

    I wonder how he would rate his own performance after reviewing “the tape”.

    IS his lawyer licensed to practice in Canada and specifically Ontario, or what is his real purpose here? And as far as polygraph’s in Florida. Well, boy, could I take y’all on a ride-of-your life. Having lived in Florida….and experienced Florida for a few years and having been self-employed there, as well as contracted by others there, well, as anything in Florida, you can probably get a polygraph in a corner convenience store for fifty bucks…..they are a dime a dozen!! I’ve been involved in many. NOTHING in Florida is “normal” or “professional” as Canadians perceive normal or professional.

    For twenty-five dollars you can be a notary public. IN Canada “the lawyers”, law offices, or other very select “professionals” are the notary’s…..a very different life.

    BUT boy, do I wish this Inquiry and other proceedings were being held in the U.S.A. and specifically in Florida.
    GOOD idea.

  4. prima facie says:

    Gee, I try to make sure I get things accurate too. The $25.00 thing to be a notary in Florida, was when I last lived there…that was up to 1988. Maybe it costs more now or maybe it has been regulated, but, I don’t think so. The polygraph may be a little more expensive, but definitely, private sector business. You might even be able to do it on yourself in Florida (sarcasm).

    And yes, “the record speaks for itself”, see the transcripts. Way to go Commissioner Glaude for setting Mr. Shaver straight. Mr. Shaver tried a very dirty and dishonourable trick that will be costly and as Commissioner Glaude clearly stated, Mr. Shaver CLEARLY knew what he was attempting to do; among other things manipulate and influence public opinion and the boys in the newsroom…..the newsroom probably had the type “SET”.

  5. prima facie says:

    Finally…I’ll shut up, but, Mr. Engelmann and therefore The Cornwall Public Inquiry received and accepted into the record, “the polygraph” of Mr. Shaver, which may pose a serious problem for the inquiry; I’m not certain of what though.
    Mr. Engelmann should NEVER have accepted the polygraph in the first place.
    The Inquiry should explain, under what conditions, did Mr. Engelmann agree to accept Mr. Shavers polygraph and what are the real, anticipated positive and negative consequences of accepting Mr. Shavers polygraph?

  6. Sylvia says:

    That’s an interesting point prima facie. Engelemann said it was partly his responsibility because he accepted the polygraph as ‘dislosure’ last Weadnesday. BUT my understanding is that Shaver’s polygraph which accompanied him all the way from Florida relates to a personal allegation against him. If indeed that’s the case and has no relveance to the inquiry then why was it accepted?

    I taped and am just going to review that section to see what I missed here

  7. RealityChecker says:

    ….perhaps Mr. Shaver was accused of doing something he shouldn’t have been doing and the public hasn’t been told about it in any detail???

    Now – I wonder what that could be especially at an Inquiry for historical sexual abuse.

    Did someone make a specific allegation against Shaver???

    He certainly was a hands off chief – and would we ever hear about it if such allegation was made???

    I somehow don’t think so! Just like we are hearing very little about the block party and crashing into the veranda. It didn’t happen according to Shavert cause No one took pictures!!!!

    This just sickens me!!!

  8. Sylvia says:

    O.K. Here it is…

    Dallas Lee was asking Shaver if he still denied ever being at Ken Seguin’s home or Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage. Shaver said he denied it “absulutley.” THEN he said in fact that he sewars to the point that he took a polygraph.

    Lee determines Shaver has been a police officer 32 years. He asks if Shaver understand the value of a polygraph in legal proceedings. Shaver says he understands they are not admissable in a legal proceeding. He corrects – in a criminal proceeding. When asked if its admissable at an inquiry he squirms and fidgets – he doesn’t know

    It goes on. Glaude weighs on.

    Dallas says he is in a difficult position – the cat is now out of the bag. He says the only reason Shaver made reference to the polygraph was to make an end run around what he knows is an inadmissable document. The public has now been given the impression the polygraph was positive for Shaver. The document is inadmissable. There is no way Lee can examine the Florida polygraph operator, and no way of pointing out the deficiencies in the polygraph and no way of addressing the questions which weren’t put to Shaver.

    Then John Olver (Shaver’s lawyer) weighs in. He says the polygraph concerns something Shaver “did” before Olver was retained as counsel – there were concerns that a question about whatever it is might come out at the inquiry. According to Olver, there has been no “direct” question. He says Shaver’s impact statment yesterday regarding things on the internet is what’s motivating the response.

    Then Glaude raps Shaver’s knuckles. Not with a contempt citation – just an angry little ‘bad boy’rap.

    That’s about it. I’ll get the full text from the transcript.

    There’s a fair bit of circle talk going on here and we are left rather in the dark. But, bottom line is Shaver tried to pull a fast one on all of us. And good on Dallas Lee for not letting him get away with it!

  9. RealityChecker says:

    Well we know from testimony Mike Federico – a VERY senior officer from the Toronto Police Service was somehow involved with Shaver’s retirement. We also know Shaver was being investigated for THREE alledged incidents.

    I think it’s time to tell all of us WHAT those three incidents are and let the inquiry (and/or court) decide who is credible!!!

    Light bulb goes off – what did Lortie testify to??? Wasn’t there some issue being covered up at the end of his testimony…something about discipline…and related to the credibility of an upcoming witness? We never did find out what that was all about. Will check back into the transcripts.

  10. RealityChecker says:

    Lortie’s transcripts does refer to a letter Lortie wrote to Repa – issues about discipline – and officers lying during and internal investigation. There’s not a whole lot of detail in the exchange in the transcripts about what the incident was or anything like that and it was in September 97 the letter was written.
    Shaver was gone by then!

  11. Myomy says:

    The impression this leaves with me is that Shaver protests too much. His credibility is weak on this. As Dallas Lee showed people would recognize him because he was a public figure as police chief his picture was in the paper etc. None of the witnesses had an ax to grind or reason to lie but shaver does have a reason to lie. It would be good if someone has a picture showing shaver with one of these people such as Ken Seguin.

  12. prima facie says:

    okay, this is my last blog:

    In my opinion, Shaver should have been immediately sanctioned, “on the spot”, by Commissioner Glaude for his (Shaver’s) obvious, premeditated, indiscretion, wherein, based on the facts, I believe he (Shaver) intended to maliciously, deceive the public and therewith, the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

    I believe THIS is a very significant indiscretion, being minimized by “the powers that be”.

    HOW are we to “TRUST” these proceedings?

    Commissioner Glaude must explain why he is unwilling to “sanction”-discipline Mr. Shaver.

    As Commissioner Glaude stated, Mr. Shaver clearly knew what he was doing.

    “The cat is out of the bag” states, Dallas Lee.

    These actions and inactions may lead other reasonable persons to now question:

    1) WAS/IS any member of the Commission Counsel et al, complicit with Mr. Shaver in his attempt to intentionally deceive “The Cornwall Public Inquiry”, the Ontario Justice System, the public and therewith, “the world”?

    2)Was/is any applicant granted standing and funding, their agents, representatives, counsel, solicitors et al, complicit with Mr. Shaver, in his attempt to intentionally deceive “The Cornwall Public Inquiry”, the Ontario Justice System and therewith, “the world”?

    3)Was/is any accused, complainants, witnesses, their agents, representatives, counsel, solicitors, protectors, supporters et al, complicit with Mr. Shaver, in his attempt to intentionally deceive “The Cornwall Public Inquiry”, the Ontario Justice System, the public and therewith, “the world”?

    In this act and/or acts of ommission, did “a combination of two or more persons by concerted action intend to accomplish an unlawful act”?

    IN my opinion, Mr. Shavers acts, caught “red-handed” on television, “the smoking gun” so-to-speak, must be further explored and investigated, despite Commissioner Glaude’s declaration that this matter was over.

    Compare this obvious and intentional attempt to deceive the “process”, with Perry Dunlops “open and disclosed” “dissidence” against what he perceives to be an untrustworthy, Ontario Justice system.

    In my opinion,Perry will be in jail for more than two years, because he was fed up with the corruption.

  13. RealityChecker says:

    In my humbled opinion….if Commissioner Glaude takes this direct slap in the face sitting down and does nothing….we will ALL know what a HOAX the Cornwall Public Inquiry is.

    What I see and read in the ongoing testimony – this is just so disrespectful to policing, the courts, the judicial system – Commissioner Glaude himself – everything about the Law.

    Is it any wonder WHY Perry Dunlop refused to testify??? I sure wouldn’t have!!!

    If Glaude doesn’t do something – it will speak volumes!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *