Perry is a political prisoner. He has spent 148 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 will 47 on 22 July 2008. If you haven’t done so already there is still time to get a card or note off in the mail:
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.
Perry has still not received his meagre belongings!!!
Hearings resumed at 0930 hours (9:30 am)this morning, Thursday, 17 July 2008
They went in camera at 0950 hours (9:50 am) to hear the motion to exclude Ron Wilson, former Cornwall Police Service officer and head of the Cornwall Police Service Board. Back out at 10:30. No report on what transpired.
Cross-examination of Jacques Leduc by Helen Daley (Citizens for Community Renewal) has resumed.
A circus in there yesterday. An absolute circus. Steven Skurka must have had other pressing business. He was absent, but Marie Henein did quite nicely single-handedly bouncing up and down like a yo-yo on Leduc’s behalf. Well, not quite single-handedly – the diocese (David Sheriff-Scott) and Cornwall Police (Peter Manderville) did a fair few benevolent bounces on Leduc’s behalf. Even the Ontario Provincial Police did a pop-up via Neil Kozloff.
Quite a sight to behold.
Interesting – there seems to be a remarkable bond between the diocese and the Cornwall Police Service. When not doing the bounce Sheriff-Scott and Manderville seemed absorbed in good-natured humour and banter – lots of shared chuckles and a fair few smiles and smirks and nods one to the other. I have noticed much the same fraternal bond between David Sheriff-Scott and John Callaghan.
I have lots to say about Leduc’s testimony of yesterday. Read the transcript. For now I will make the following observations:
1) We discovered that, true enough, Leduc will not be testifying in any way shape or form about his own personal sex abuse allegations. Seems that has been deemed irrelevant to the institutional response, and seems that indeed there was a sweet deal brokered which assured Leduc if he testified his status as an “alleged” paedophile would be hands off.
Commission counsel Karen Jones did manage to read into the record that Leduc had been charged and received two stays. That was it!
My issue is this. Why the sweet deal? If Leduc was asked to testify and was reluctant to do so then seems to me the next order of inquiry business is to issue a subpoena. And if Leduc was reluctant to comply with the subpoena and refused to appear, or if took the stand and refused to answer certain questions then seems to me the next order of inquiry business to charge him with contempt of court.
It a charge of contempt was good enough for Perry, why not for lawyer, Church canon lawyer and “alleged” paedophile Jacques Leduc?
So, why the sweet deal?
As for Leduc’s status as an “alleged”paedophile presumably having no relevance to the institutional response, well, really! Let me put it this way: hypothetically speaking, if virtually every major institution in a small community is controlled by paedophiles and their buddies what do you suppose the institutional response will be to sex abuse allegations against a paedophile or one of his buddies?
(2) Straight from the mouth of a lawyer. Billing clients is “an art.” According to the Leduc the hours he lists on his billings mean nothing. He fiddles around and juggles the numbers as he sees fit to get what he’s after in financial remuneration: “I will tell you clearly again not to believe that these numbers referring to hours relate to actual time spent”;
(3) Leduc may or may not have read the David Silmser Full Release and Undertaking not to Disclose with the illegal clause. He probably didn’t, he’s quite certain he didn’t, but, then again he may have;
(4) Diocesan bursar and Church deacon Gord Bryan was integrally involved in the whole business of sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald. Leduc frequently got his marching orders from Bryan;
(5) Leduc received no less than three sex abuse allegations against clergy. He did nothing about them – solicitor-client privilege! Seems that anything in Leduc’s eyes anything anyone says to a lawyer anywhere falls under the mantle of solicitor-client privilege – even if someone telling a lawyer something at a cocktail party – solicitor-client privilege;
(6) How many times did we hear “in fairness to the witness” or words to those effect from Leduc’s lawyer Marie Heinen? There was no thought of “in fairness to the witness” from Leduc’s ‘dream team’ back in 2001 when Leduc’s “alleged” victims testified;
(7) I found Leduc alternately presented as arrogant, exasperated, condescending and glib;
(8) Leduc is taking the fall for the illegal clause in the document. He insists he didn’t put the clause in and told Malcolm MacDonald to take it out, but he is taking the fall for not picking it up in the final draft, signed or unsigned, because he probably didn’t read it. Bottom line, he accepts full responsibility. This is not news – he took that stand back in early 1994 when word of the illegal pay-off leaked out into the public domain;
(9) Leduc sees the Full release and Undertaking Not to Disclose as David Silmser’s work. Even though Dave did not have a lawyer and would not have two sweet clues about drafting such a statement, Leduc puts it on Dave’s shoulders!
(10) Leduc seemed to be the Garry Derochie of the diocese – when it came to anything or anyone related to clerical sex abuse allegations Leduc was here, there and everywhere .
(11) Even as recently as 2007 Leduc, an “alleged” paedophile, was doing work for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall!
Articles posted on New to the Site on the Home page. I shall continue.
Enough for now,