[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,