[1300 hrs (1 pm) insert: They have finished with Shaver and are about to resume the testimony of Joseph St. Denis ]
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 continue this morning, Friday, 13 June 2008. Former Chief Claude Shaver is completing his testimony. Yesterday’s transcripts are up. An interesting read.
****
Perry is still at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre. When he will be transferred to Toronto for his Tuesday 17 June 2008 appearance before the Court of Appeal is an unknown. He is waiting.
He had what he calls an “extreme” Elvis sandwich for breakfast. That’s a peanut butter and banana AND jam sandwich. Perry decided since he’s going to be on his way he might as well use up what he has on hand.
He now uses half the banana for the sandwich, the other half is broken in pieces over his cereal.
Last night was cut up chicken with rice and a side of gravy mixed with rise and peas. The gravy was not his forte
Perry had yard time this morning. No yard for the past two days, but he did get out this morning. The birds are still chirping like mad, the wee ones still in the nest. I’m thinking he may well miss take—off while he’s off in Toronto.
I believe it’s tomorrow that Helen and Heather will be flying back. They will then travel to Toronto for Tuesday.
It will be an emotional day for Heather. She hasn’t seen her Dad for four months. A long time for anyone, a long long time in the life of a 17-year-old who loves he Dad and misses him desperately!
Keep the family in your prayers.
****
On Wednesday there was talk of the perils of the internet and the damage done by websites. Claude Shaver testified that he thought theinquiry.ca is garbage. He said that police officers used to seeing garbage would recognize it as such. “Normal” people would or could believe it’s contents.
Yesterday Dallas Lee honed in on the fact that Claude Shaver operates his own website: claudeshaver.com.
Indeed he does. A sort of covert operation it is. So covert that in order to see what Shaver has posted viewers must select and highlight a portion or all the page! That’s the only way to read the postings!!
As Dallas Lee so rightly pointed out, the articles Shaver chose to post are all exclusively those related to Ron Leroux’ testimony or those unfavourable to the Dunlops. (Shaver is clearly of the mind that Leroux’ muddled and untested testimony somehow constituted a recantation. Leroux however still puts Shaver in places wherever he denies he has ever been. and with people he denies he knows.)
What I must relay because it is probably known to few is that in selecting which articles he deemed favourable to bolster his cause Mr. Shaver actually lifted several articles right off theinquiry.ca! I know that for fact because in posting the articles he neglected to delete the links which I had inserted! If you scroll well down the covert version of Shaver’s website (black screen) you will eventually come upon several narrow horizontal whitish lines. Click on or just above the lines. Those are the links embedded in the articles!! Those are the links which I inserted when posting the article on theinquiry.ca!
So, in as much as he thinks theinquiry.ca is a lot of garbage Mr. Shaver had no hesitation turning to it to lift articles to further his own cause on his own website.
He refers to his postings as ” Summary of newspaper accounts and testimony at the inquiry.” (typo in the original)
Now, here is the exchange:
MR. LEE: You also spoke to us about the damage that can be caused by information posted on the Internet?
MR. SHAVER: Yes.
MR. LEE: And you told us that those persons who have cast aspersions on you and the public institutions in Cornwall, via the internet or press, have deviated from the respected and time-proven legal process?
MR. SHAVER: Yes.
MR. LEE: And that the Internet has become the breeding ground for false information and unsubstantiated accusations?
MR. SHAVER: Yes.
MR. LEE: Sir, would you agree with me that you’ve decided to fight fire with fire on the Internet?
MR. SHAVER: Yes, I do.
MR. LEE: You’ve set up your own website?
MR. SHAVER: I did.
MR. LEE: And it’s claudeshaver.com?
MR. SHAVER: It is.
MR. LEE: And am I right that on that website you’ve reproduced several media articles?
MR. SHAVER: I did.
MR. LEE: And that is the bulk of the website; it’s a reproduction of media articles?
MR. SHAVER: That is all that’s on that website, sir.
MR. LEE: And those articles focus on coverage of witnesses allegedly lying, or editorials about witch-hunts and crumbling theories?
MR. SHAVER: Allegedly lying — I took the media coverage as it was from the Inquiry and just posted it. It’s public information, sir.
MR. LEE: You took select media coverage?
MR. SHAVER: Of course, yes.
MR. LEE: Very select?
MR. SHAVER: Yes, because it was — because it’s on my website. Because on — as I told you, if you Google, you — if you Google, what you’ll see about me is horrendous.
So obviously I am going to take anything — and I’m going to look at this. It was public information, sir. It was given here and placed in the press.
Now, it could have been out anywhere; of course I’m going to put it on it. I was just tired of looking at that stuff about me.
MR. LEE: And the focus of your website is a reproduction of media articles relating to Mr. Leroux’ testimony?
MR. SHAVER: That’s the — that was the focus, yes.
MR. LEE: And articles relating to Helen and Perry Dunlop?
MR. SHAVER: Some of those, yes.
MR. LEE: Typically articles that are less than flattering about the Dunlops?
MR. SHAVER: They’re articles, sir, that came back up that disputed what — that disputed the information that was out there on the Leroux site, yes.
MR. LEE: And am I right that you did not endeavour to provide a comprehensive review of the Inquiry?
MR. SHAVER: No. No. It’s —
MR. LEE: Or a balanced commentary on the testimonies?
MR. SHAVER: Certainly not my intent, sir.
MR. LEE: You didn’t provide a link to the Commission’s official website?
MR. SHAVER: No, I did not, sir.
MR. LEE: You picked out a few articles that served your purpose and you posted them on the Internet; is that right?
MR. SHAVER: Well, I picked out a few articles, sir, that said something different than what was out there originally and that had already been given under testimony.
MR. LEE: And would you agree with me there is very little editorial, and by that I mean your own statements on this website?
MR. SHAVER: I did not put anything on my — that’s — I didn’t put a single statement on my website.
It was all stuff that had appeared in the media.
MR. LEE: Well, the Internet — or the website, rather, ends with the phrase “summary of newspaper accounts and testimony at the Inquiry”. Is that fair?
MR. SHAVER: I’m not sure, sir, but I guess it does. Yes.
MR. LEE: Madam Clerk, you were provided copies of the website that was printed in full this morning. I have — it was mentioned, Mr. Commissioner, in the AE as something Mr. Engelmann may get to. He didn’t get there, so I’ve brought copies for my friends, if they need them.
THE COMMISSIONER: Fair enough.
MR. LEE: This I’m told does not have a document number, Mr. Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So Exhibit number 1601 (sic) is documents pulled from a website called Claude Shaver.
MR. LEE: If you look at the bottom of the page, Mr. Commissioner, it has the official web link and the time it was printed.
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, claudeshaver.com, 1of 32 pages printed on the 12th of June 2008.
— EXHIBIT NO./PIÈCE No P-1801:
Printout of Claude Shaver’s website
MR. LEE: Do you have it in front of you, Mr. Shaver?
MR. SHAVER: Yes, I do, sir.
MR. LEE: And this is your website, a printout of it?
MR. SHAVER: I’m gathering it is, sir. It looks like it.
MR. LEE: Can you turn to the very last page please, sir? Can you see the end of the last media article posted ends with, “The Inquiry will resume Monday”?
THE COMMISSIONER: Or “continues Monday”?
MR. LEE: No, the very last page on the flip side of it.
MR. SHAVER: Oh, very last page.
THE COMMISSIONER: Right, sorry.
MR. LEE: Do you see that, sir, “The Inquiry will resume Monday”?
MR. SHAVER: Yes.
MR. LEE: And following that, we have “summary of newspaper accounts and testimony at the Inquiry”. Do you see that?
MR. SHAVER: Yes.
MR. LEE: Just above the copyright?
MR. SHAVER: Right.
MR. LEE: And would you agree with me that “summary of newspaper accounts and testimony at the Inquiry” is something that you’ve added to the website?
MR. SHAVER: No. I don’t think I did. I didn’t add that to the website, sir.
MR. LEE: How did it get there, sir?
MR. SHAVER: I have no idea. I probably just copied the last page as it was, and that was there, I think.
MR. LEE: So your evidence is that Terri Saunders in her article, “Pain of Abuse Resurfaces” finished with the lines “summary of newspaper accounts and testimony at the Inquiry” with “newspaper” misspelt?
MR. SHAVER: Sir, I don’t remember adding that to the account — to it. So I don’t know.
MR. LEE: Would you concede —
MR. SHAVER: Maybe I did. I’m not sure.
MR. LEE: Would you concede you must have, sir?
MR. SHAVER: Okay, then maybe I did, sir.
I’m not sure. I don’t know how it otherwise would have gotten there.
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, but it’s your website.
MR. SHAVER: Yeah.
THE COMMISSIONER: You’re responsible.
MR. SHAVER: I’m responsible. Absolutely, sir, I agree. I agree. I’ll accept responsibility.
That’s it 🙂
Cross examination and plugging the many holes in the leaky dyke right now by Peter Manderville (Cornwall Police Service) -then more of the same by Shaver’s lawyer.
Enough for now,
Sylvia
Great Blog again Sylvia. It appears that Shaver has been going through the “garbage” on your website to pick out a few “gems” to put on his own web site. When asked at the weave shed about web sites he talked about the Ickes web site, not yours which he was more familiar with. What a fraud he is always trying to mislead others. Obviously your web site gives a broad outlook on the inquiry and his a very select one. Dallas Lee’s cross examination was helpful in putting Shavers web site into perspective. I wish he had mentioned the need to highlight before you could read this sorry excuse for a web site.
So when does Shaver get served HIS Notice of Misconduct???
I’M WAITING!!!
I just looked at Shaver’s website. I knew you had to highlight to look at it and it all seemed so strange to me and it still does.
What does Shaver do for a living now – isn’t he into some type of computer software??? Do you not think he would have noted the links from articles he lifted from theinquiry.ca ???
How stupid can a person be???
What’s really getting to me??? The lying! The misleading testimony. The DISRESPECT.
And….He’s getting away with it!!!
You know, it pains me deeply. In my opinion, Mr. Shaver has just gotten away with “highway robbery” so-to-speak and all of the “sitting legal counsel”, including Peter Engelmann and Commissioner Glaude know it. IN fact, I assert, the aforementioned “legal counsel, inclusive” were complicit through their acts of ommission.
ONLY after Commissioner Glaude awakened from what appeared to be a “petit mal-seizure” or “zoning out”, did he take action, wherein, he “scolded” Mr. Shaver,”scolded him”. Really!!
In my opinion, Dallas Lee, knowingly or unknowingly, was on the one yard line and he could have “wrapped up” the inquiry in its entirety yesterday. However, I believe, in Commissioner Glaudes scurrying seconds to regain focus and control, “for the greater good”, he (Commissioner Glaude) quickly tightened the leash and “reined-in”, Dallas Lee. I believe THIS was probably the most critical point, or one of them, of the entire inquiry proceedings.
To say the least, “it was Powerful”.
Unfortunately, “the powers that be” intervened, the observing legal counsel gasped in “awe” and silence,
Mr. Neville slithered to the podium and Dallas Lee, after countering with a few astute observations and citations, slowly retreated into the darkness. (read the transcripts. See how much input Mr. Lee had after “the moment of truth”.)Dallas Lee was truly a Master….and he will pay.
You may be able to savour the flavour of the moment by re-visiting the transcripts, but, I think not. The video was truly a “mark” of excellence…I wish I had been in the room.
You know, this was one of those “spiritual awakening type” experiences, that “come on” suddenly, unannounced and “pass by” without being recognized or acknowledged by many, only to be written off as a coincidence.
Hopefully, Dallas Lee will remember this moment, because these “moments” are rare and go unnoticed. However, I also believe Dallas Lee may be scolded for being “too close and too good”, in this instance anyway.
To tell you the truth, I can’t believe I am praising Dallas Lee. Maybe I’m not, maybe I’m expressing disappointment in “the others”. Yesterday, I believe Mr. Lee was a “vehicle” for truth, knowingly or not.
THE unfortunate point is; Mr. Shaver, was able to somehow, through the hopefully unsuspecting “help” of Commission Counsel Peter Engelmann, “file” an unsubstantiated, invalid, uncorrobrated, polygrah report (lie detector test), presumably, conducted in the United States of America, under United States Law and State of Florida Law, into the formal record of the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”.
The aforementioned polygraph report, which I believe, records and assesses data relating to his physiological and verbal responses, to questions he, himself, prepared and questions posed to him by an unknown employee, friend, associate of his and/or an unknown, private sector, business person, purportedly trained in part, as a polygraph technician or equivalent, the exact facts, still unknown, was entered into the record. Data, supposedly favourable to Mr. Shaver.
The aforementioned polygraph was conducted “by” Mr. Shaver without the knowledge or authorization or input and evaluation, assesment or validation, by the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”.
Thereafter, and being the expert Mr. Shaver is, in such matters, combined with his years of training and experience and therewith, knowing very well the findings of the polygraph, despite where they originated, were “inadmissable”, Mr. Shaver slyly, maliciously, neglently and intentionally, “blurted” out in the inquiry proceedings, that he had taken a polygraph, whic results confirmed his representations as true. SHAME!!
Public opinion and news reports would be false and the public misled by the aforementioned.
Most disturbingly, HEREAFTER, in this public inquiry and in any subsequent proceedings and because the “polygraph” has in fact been accepted and filed by Commission Counsel into the record, it is my opinion, Mr. Shaver and his “agents et al” will be able to refer to this document, relying on the possibility that “all parties” will be different “parties” to the subsequent proceedings and therfore ignorant of the actual facts and therewith, it is my opinion, Mr. Shaver and his “agents et al” will exploit these files and potentially “misconstrue” the interpretations and findings of the documents and files, to benefit himself.
AND……..it’s too late now folks…it’s all over, as per Commissioner Glaude. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!
If you or I take a polygraph the examination is conducted by police who may make you nervous by throwing up disturbing information when you don’t know what they know. This makes it harder to lie to them when they have you wired up to detect any nervous response on your part. When you take it the police have whatever information they can glean from it. In the case of Shaver he is the one in control of the whole proceeding and his questioner has no advantage to test him with. Shaver has control of the whole thing and can just bury it if it is not favorable. He could take multiple tests and pick one which indicates he is telling the truth for all we know. The polygraph is not reliable at the best of times but this one is completely worthless. The fact that Shaver tried this caper is rather an indication that he has something to hide. Shaver tells us police know garbage when they see it. Does he think Glaude doesn’t know about the garbage he is putting out. He is insulting Glaude’s intelligence with this polygraph stunt and it may well backfire on him.