Perry has now spent 145 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.
Perry’s 47 th birthday is 22 July 2008. Get a card in the mail now to be sure it gets to him on time. Have Masses said for him. Shower him with love, prayers and best wishes. It will be a difficult day – help to take the sting off just a little:
Perry Dunlop c/o OCDC
Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre
2244 Innes Road
Monetary gifts can be sent to Helen or deposited at a bank. Perry needs money for his canteen supplies. As we all know only too well Perry can’t work, Helen’s on disability and money doesn’t grow on trees.
Hearings resume at 1300 hours (1 pm) this afternoon ( Monday, 14 July 2008), with lawyer and Church canon lawyer and “alleged” paedophile Jacques Leduc on the stand.
There was a lockdown at the detention centre yesterday (Sunday 14 July 2008). I had a call from Perry in the evening – it was brief. Out of the blue he suddenly said he thought the line was going to go, and that was it – the line went dead. I don’t know if that means the lock down was back on or what.
Quite a life for poor Perry. He’s a political prisoner, that’s what he is. It’s all politics.
Listen to this. I got a little chuckle here – the father of one of the inmates is sporting a Free Perry Dunlop sticker on his car!
I also heard yesterday that a huge Free Perry Dunlop sign has been erected on Highway 138 on the outskirts of Cornwall. Way to go!
A final note here: someone has volunteered to look after distribution of the Free Perry Dunlop stickers. We will iron out the details and by week’s end should be able to give contact and order information.
I am waiting with baited breath to hear Leduc explain why he presumably never opened the envelope contaiing the statement with the illegal gag presumably signed by David Silmser. That’s been the story to date.
Below is a bird’s eye view of the Jacques Leduc sex abuse “trial.” Bear it mind while Leduc testifies as free man and Perry is locked behind bars.
LEDUC TRAIL #1 (16 January 2001 to 01 March 2001)
16 January 2001: start
During jury selection it was proposed that a question related to Perry Dunlop be used to screen potential jurors.
17 January 2001: Justice Colin McKinnon claimed an article posted by Dick Nadeau on the projecttruth2.com website contaminated the jury pool.
There would be no jury.
20 January 2001: Dick Nadeau posted “The right to know is the bedrock of democracy” on his website
22 January 2001: McKinnon called Dick a “dangerous man” and cited him with contempt of court
07 February 2001: Perry Dunlop’s name was first mentioned at the Leduc sex abuse trial when the mother of an “alleged” victim said she had called Perry some time after her son had told her that he had been abused by Leduc and told her she was not to tell anyone. The mother was distraught – she didn’t know what to do or where to turn – she eventually broke down during a visit to the welfare office one day. A woman in whom she confided that day suggested she call Perry Dunlop. A brief and benign phone contact was made with Perry. Perry told her to call Project Truth. At a later date Perry called to inquire as to her well-being and that of her son. That was the extent of contact between Perry and mother. Project Truth officers were at her home the day Perry called to inquire as to the son’s well-being. The mother readily told the officers Perry called. It was no secret. There was never any contact between the son and Perry.
07 February 2001: During her testimony the mother testified that someone told her the best way to get Leduc was to sue him – she couldn’t quite recall who told her and decided it must have been Perry. The mother’s best friend – who was not in the courtroom – later took the stand. The friend candidly testified that as she was told about the allegations she told the mother to sue. Those in the courtroom instantly realized that it was the friend who suggested suing. No action was taken to clarify the matter or set the record straight. After it was all over and this was discussed the mother acknowledged she had been mistaken – it was her friend, not Perry, who told her she should sue.
14 February 2001: Leduc’s legal ‘dream team’ filed an application for stay. The application was based on their allegation of wilful non-disclosure by Ontario Provincial Police of the Perry/”alleged” victim’s mother contact
15 February 2001: McKinnon debated citing The Report, a Western-based magazine, with contempt of court for publishing “No Closure in Cornwall.” McKinnon was upset because the article was “adulatory” of Perry Dunlop. McKinnon also stated “We are not living in Salem” and indicated that the court cannot permit continuance of pieces talking about alleged cover-up.
19 February 2001: McKinnon was confronted in court with his conflict of interest based on his 18 October 1994 threats of legal against Carson and Seaway news (2 letters – scroll)
McKinnon headed off to the Cornwall Police Service to view his files and ‘refresh’ his memory.
20 February 2001: McKinnon reported back. He had viewed some but not all of his files. His memory had been presumably ‘refreshed’ regarding his prior involvement with Perry Dunlop – he had been more involved than he recalled.
At that time McKinnon said “When the name Perry Dunlop came up in this trial, it was certainly going around in my mind. It certainly rang a bell.” He claimed no one foresaw that Perry Dunlop would be involved.
The CPS waived solicitor-client privilege. McKinnon provided the following documents
04 May 1994: McKinnon to Wells
McKinnon reluctantly recused himself from the stay hearing. He had every intent of returning to the bench for the remainder of the trial should Leduc’s application for stay fail. The Crown was opposed. That was left up in the air.
We learned through the Cornwall Public Inquiry that McKinnon was involved in charging Perry under the Police Service Act as early as February 1994
Further info on McKinnon at the Leduc trial can be found at: 2. Appendix A: Complaint to Canadian Judicial Council re Justice Colin McKinnon
Justice McKinnon’s comments are transcribed in part here – scroll down.
21 February 2001 (Wednesday): Justice James Chadwick took the bench to preside over the application for stay.
(After a backroom meet between Leduc’s lawyers and OPP officers the OPP was suddenly and mysteriously off the hook – the allegations morphed from those of wilful non-disclosure by the OPP to wilful non-disclosure by Crown Shelley Hallett. The knife went into Hallett’s back!)
26 February 2001: Last day of evidence. Chadwick announced he would render his decision on Thursday (01 March 2001).
01 March 2001: Chadwick gives Leduc a walk. Much sympathy expressed for Leduc’s plight and a decision to award him costs!
Further info on Chadwick at the Leduc trial: . Appendix B: Complaint to Canadian Judicial Council re Justice James Chadwick
24 July 2003: Justice Laskin overturned the stay on appeal. Chadwick and his ruling got a bit of a tongue lashing – easy on McKinnon.
September 2004: Perry was subpoenaed to take the stand at the second Leduc trial. He understood he was to testify regarding the two phone contacts with the mother of an “alleged” victim. That was not the case. The object of the exercise to villify Perry, blame delays on him and allow Leduc to take a walk claiming his Chater rights to a speedy trial had been vio0lated. There was more going on and on about disclosure of documents. Perry provided this following sworn statement to Laskin.
(I have since learned that although the judge, Terrence Platana, was supposed to be an out-of-towner with no Cornwall connections that was not the case )
13 October 2003: Article on Shelley Hallett – touches on the fact that OPP officers hung her out to dry.
18 October 2003: Leduc ‘walked.’ After Perry was decimated by one and all and denied a lawyer Platana ruled Leduc’s Charter rights to a speedy trial had been violated.
Leduc takes the stand at the Weave Shed today. He’s an “alleged” paedophile. He got off on technicalities – on Perry Dunlop’s back. He’s unfettered and free. Perry is in jail.
I came across an old tape over the weekend – Ottawa’s Archbishop Marcel Gervais talking to the sex abuse victims of the Alfred and Uxbridge reform schools (20 September 1990) . Interesting – there was Gervais apologizing on behalf of the Church and broadening the issue by reminding the upset victims that sex abuse isn’t just happening in the Church and how – I assume because adults won’t do it – we must educate children to defend themselves, and telling the victims who want abusers in jail that it would be impossible to put all the sex abusers in Canada in jail, and offering that there is nothing gained really by defrocking a clerical sexual abuser because all it does is move him out of the Church, and drawing a parallel between paedophilia and alcoholism and telling the victims that back in the early 1900s people didn’t know much about alcoholism and viewed alcoholics so differently than they do now.
It’s all the same old line we hear now at every turn. I particularly detest the notion that since adults aren’t prepared to protect children by getting paedophiles out of sanctuaries and off the streets a nice ulterior option is for the schools to move in and teach children to do what society refuses to do!
Enough for now,