Cat’s out

Share Button

Perry has now spent 116 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.

IF Perry was convicted paedophile James Lewis he would be out in two days.  Lewis – previously convicted (18 month conditional sentence!) for possession of kiddie porn – was sentenced to six months for molesting a 9-year-old boy.  He was out and about after serving 118 days!!!  Out and about somewhere.  Who knows where?

Perry is in jail.  Serving every single day and every single hour of a six month sentence.

Think about it!


Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Friday, 13 June 2008.  Former Chief Claude Shaver will resume and no doubt complete his testimony.

Today being Friday hearings may run through lunch and wrap up in the early afternoon as usual.  I would guess tradition may bend if  Shaver’s cross examination is not finished.

Friday the 13 th! For the superstitious, not a good day!


The Cat’s out of the Bag

For the record.   There were a number of blogs related to Shaver and his Florida-acquired polygraph:  This is the verabatim exchange:

MR. LEE: I want to ask you very briefly about some of the evidence you’ve given about being at Mr. Seguin’s home or Mr. MacDonald’s cottage, or both.


MR. LEE: You’ve denied ever having been at either of those places?

MR. SHAVER: Absolutely.

MR. LEE: And Mr. Paul asked you individually for each of the six people whether you had had any contact with them or knew of them at any point, and you said you did not?

MR. SHAVER: Sir, to the point that I took a polygraph to just do that same thing.

MR. LEE: How long were you a police officer, sir?

MR. SHAVER: Thirty-two (32) years.

MR. LEE: And did you at any point come to understand what the value of a polygraph was?


MR. LEE: And did you ever at any point come to understand its admissibility in legal proceedings?


MR. LEE: And what is your understanding, sir?

MR. SHAVER: That it’s inadmissible in a legal proceeding — in a criminal proceeding.

MR. LEE: In a criminal proceeding is your understanding?


MR. LEE: So an Inquiry might be different?

MR. SHAVER: I don’t know, sir.

MR. LEE: You’ve produced to this Commission a polygraph report, haven’t you?

MR. SHAVER: I did.

MR. LEE: And that’s a polygraph that you sought on your own?

MR. SHAVER: It is.

MR. LEE: And I presume you paid for?

MR. SHAVER: I did pay for it.

MR. LEE: And it was conducted in Florida?

THE COMMISSIONER: Whoa, whoa, just a minute. Just a minute.

A polygraph is —

MR. LEE: I’m in a very difficult position here, sir.


MR. LEE: The cat is now out of the bag, and I would say that the only reason for Chief Shaver to have just mentioned that he took a polygraph was to do an end run around what he fully understands to be an inadmissible document. He knows he can’t get it in.


MR. LEE: So he’s blurted it out.

And now we have members of the public, we have the media, we have you sitting here thinking, “Well, isn’t that interesting that Chief Shaver himself has just alluded to a polygraph.” The obvious inference is that it is positive in the sense that it is something that helps his cause.

And I’m now in an impossible position where I don’t believe it’s admissible. We have a polygraph conducted in Florida with a polygraph operator that I can’t examine. It’s not proper for evidence of a polygraph, if it were going to be admissible, would go in through the examinee rather than the examiner. And I have no way now of pointing out the various deficiencies in the polygraph, the various questions not put to Chief Shaver in the polygraph. And now here we are.

So I’m not exactly sure what I should be doing here.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, when in doubt, we’ll ask for some advice.

Mr. Engelmann.


MR. ENGELMANN: This could possibly be partially my fault; but I’ll just tell you what we did. I met with Chief Shaver and his counsel, John Olver, last Wednesday at which time I was given a two or three-page document by them. Given my — given our obligations as Commission counsel to disclose any kind of document that might be arguably relevant to counsel for parties withstanding that’s what we did.

I would have indicated to both Chief Shaver and John Olver at that time some of what Mr. Lee just said about inadmissibility of documents of this nature, opinion evidence, et cetera. But that is some of the background, sir.


MR. ENGELMANN: And that’s all I can really say unless you have some questions.

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, no.
Mr. Olver.


MR. OLVER: Yes, Mr. Commissioner, if I can weigh in on this issue. Mr. Engelmann is correct. We had a meeting last week, last Wednesday, Mr. Shaver, myself and Mr. Engelmann. I believe Ms. Simms was present as well.

Without getting into solicitor-client privileges with Mr. Shaver, he had already —

THE COMMISSIONER: Careful if you raise it.

MR. OLVER: Absolutely.

THE COMMISSIONER: You open the door — I mean you might be bare.

MR. OLVER: I understand that. And I’m very cautious right now about any of this.

Mr. Shaver was concerned about something that he had done before I was counsel. And whether that may come out in some fashion at this Inquiry. Because of the fact that he had produced this on his own and the concern that certain cross-examination questions may in fact induce a response about it, I felt it appropriate to disclose to Mr. Engelmann with my client’s instructions.

THE COMMISSIONER: Were there any questions today that would lead him to disclose it?

MR. OLVER: He was never asked a direct question about that.


MR. OLVER: Absolutely, sir.


MR. OLVER: And I think, if Your Honour — as your — Mr. Commissioner recalls his impact statement yesterday where he specifically addresses the accusations that have been levelled against him in the internet, I think that’s — I think that’s what’s motivating the response if I can put it in that fashion.


Anybody else?

Mr. Shaver.

MR. SHAVER: Yes, sir.è


THE COMMISSIONER: I find that you are a man, a very intelligent man, that you know how things work and that your blurting out this thing is not only improper, I think it’s beneath you.

And so I am going to admonish you now. And I’m going to say for the record that lie detector tests are inadmissible. You knew that. That it helps this Inquiry in no way that you’ve mentioned it. And unless some counsel come up with a really good reason — really good reason to go there, I don’t want to hear another word about it.

MR. SHAVER: Okay, sir.

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that really clear to you, sir?

MR. SHAVER: Very clear, sir.


I consider the matter now closed unless anybody else has any further comments.

All I will say for now is that Shaver is not covering himself in glory.

Will that be the end of it?

We shall see….

I am going to post a few other tid bits from yesterday, including an exchange regarding Shaver’s “website.”  Quite intriguing too.   Stay tuned 🙂

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Cat’s out

  1. Myomy says:

    What is it about boats that changes peoples behavior? Doug Seguin testified that Claude Shaver waved in a familiar, friendly way at Ken Seguin and himself while their boats were passing. The explanation for this from Claude Shaver was that boaters wave at everybody even if they don’t know them at all. Do people really act that differently when they are in a boat or is this more spin from Shaver??

  2. Sherlock says:

    This part caught my eye:

    Lee: You didn’t know him [Hickerson] out there?
    Shaver: No, He was stationed — he was in Saskatoon. I was stationed in Regina subdivision, long way away.

    The question naturally arises of how Shaver knew where Hickerson was stationed.


  3. Sylvia says:

    Right Sherlock. The thing is Hickerson was in Prince Albert, Sask, not Saskatoon. But why would Shaver even know Hickerson was ever anywhere in Saskatchewan?

    Yes, curious…

Leave a Reply