Perry Dunlop is a political prisoner. He has spent 149 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 was up in the middle of night peering thru his little window to watch the thunder storm rage outside. I think it missed us – or I slept right through it. I hear it was a dandy!
Yard time today – it was raining but he enjoyed the time outdoors – he always does. There was no sound from the bird’s nest – hard to hear with the rain. Are the birds gone, or is just a case of not being able to hear for the sound of the rain? He will watch and listen tomorrow.
Supper this evening was a square fillet of white fish, rice and some sort of diced squash. The fish turned into a fillet of fish sandwich with tartar sauce. The rice was eaten. The squash was left untouched An apple and oatmeal and raisin cookie for dessert.
Lunch was soup, noodles with a tomato and hamburger sauce and the ver-present cubed potatoes. No salad today. The soup replaces the salad.
Breakfast was Frosty Flakes cereal. Time for an Elvis sandwich! Perry thinks – hopes – that tomorrow will be a hot breakfast of eggs and bacon 🙂
Do you remember some time back I mentioned Perry was craving tomatoes? Well, a few days ago he had two slices of tomatoes. He sprinkled them with Italian sauce, a shake of pepper, and savoured every bite!
CIA is still in the pod. I was just asking about him when our time ran out. I did get enough of an answer to know that CIA has switched from Biblical themes to Rock N’Roll. What exactly that entails I don’t know – will try to remember to ask during our next conversation.
My webcast feed was down for about 45 minutes yesterday (Thursday, 17 July). I could get anything else ion the net – not the inquiry webcast. I assumed it was down for everyone, but not so. I have discovered others were getting their feed while mine was down, and this morning had word from two different people in different corners of Ontario who had the feed yesterday but lost it this morning – and this morning I had not problem. Seems like rotating webcast brownouts 🙂 Frustrating when it happens – thankfully testimony was in English so at least I have the luxury of doing catch up by reading the transcripts.
With the feed down yesterday I missed a good part of Dallas Lee’s cross-examination – just caught up on that now and still poring through the previous days to clarify some odds and ends in my own mind.
Anyway, Jacques Leduc has finished testifying (Friday, 18 July 2008). Five calendar days on the stand for him. Seven for Garry Guzzo. Eight for Ron Leroux without any cross-examination. Twelve for David Silmser with a little cross-examination. Interesting! Where’s the focus?
Today’s wrap up saw a little house-keeping and tucking in of loose ends by Maire Henein (Leduc) and Sheriff-Scott (diocese and Larocque), and a little butting of heads between Henein and Karen Jones, Marie Henein and David-Sheriff-Scott. The latter started to show that his ultimate loyalties lie with his client Eugene Larocque. Sheriff-Scott set to a little housecleaning of matters whereby any smidgen of Leduc testimony might inadvertently cast Larocque in a bad light. I say inadvertently because I truly had the sense Leduc went out of his way to ensure that none of the muck falling from the $32,000 pay-off clings to Larocque.
Leduc presumably fell on his sword back in 1994 saying he as legal counsel for the diocese didn’t see the illegal clause in the September 1993 Full Release and Undertaking Not to Disclose because he had erred by not checking the signed document after the fact. It’s much the same story now, except it strikes me it is not so much a case of Leduc falling on his sword for the bishop’s greater good as it is a case of Leduc placing the now deceased Malcolm MacDonald firmly atop the sword. Perhaps indeed that is where Malcolm belongs. My question is does he belong there alone? For example I do believe at the very least it is fair game to ask: what about Charlie? If the sword goes into the deceased Malcolm should it not go into his very much alive client Charlie with equal vigour? And if perchance Charlie did not approve the illegal clause in any way shape or form why then why did he never give Malcolm a public dressing down?
We won’t hear from Charlie. We should, but we won’t. He has the privilege of an inquiry bye given to every real and “alleged” paedophile of Cornwall. He doesn’t want to testify. He doesn’t have to testify. Charlie’s “story” it seems is as insignificant to the inquiry and its mandate as are the veracity of the sex abuse allegations of the real and alleged victims of Cornwall.
Perry, well Perry’s a different matter. We won’t hear from him the Weave Shed either. That’s why he’s in jail. We all know only too well now that in as much as this inquiry is presumably about the “institutional response” it’s really all about Perry.
Anyway, I’m going to call it a day. I will first share this one remarkable piece of information/testimony regarding Leduc’s practise of law in Quebec, or at least his dealings on behalf of a C-69, a Cornwall school teacher with sex abuse allegations against a priest in Quebec.
There are two sets of quotes:
“C-69 advised when in Montreal, she was also assaulted by a priest but that he been looked after. She went on to say that she was paid $5,000 for treatment and that her good friend, Jacques Leduc, had helped her get that. She has been a friend of Leduc’s for years.
They started school together and after Grade School went to Grade 13 together at St. Lawrence High School. Leduc had advised her that she could not proceed criminally due to time limit of two years in the Province of Quebec. Leduc was acting as counsel for the Alexandria-Cornwall Diocese at the time. C-69 paid by a Diocese from Quebec had to sign documents that she would never talk about abuse from Sherbrooke priest ever again.”
“Bishop Larocque also discussed with her that if she ever talked about abuse he would see to it that she was fired from her teaching position with the Catholic Separate School Board. C-69 disclosed to Jacques Leduc everything that had happened to her because he was such a good friend.”
“C-69 advised that she received $5,000 for therapy after being abused by a priest in Quebec. An arrangement was drawn up by Jacques Leduc who is her lawyer and close friend since kindergarten to have her sign an agreement not to pursue matter criminally and, as a result, received $5,000 for therapy. Leduc allegedly advised C-69 that there was a two-year statute of limitations to report sexual abuse in Quebec, and this influenced C- 69 to settle. C-69 also advised that in early ’90s, she advised Bishop Larocque of the major abuse and, at that time, Larocque threatened C-69 by saying if she disclosed major abuse, she would be terminated as a Catholic Board teacher. C-69 states that she is very influenced by Larocque.”
According to Dallas Lee (Victims Group) a note on a typed version of one document states:
“Had to sign documents that she would never talk about the abuse from Sherbrooke priest ever again.”
(Incidentally and for the record, Leduc denies he ever told C-69 there was a 2-year-statute of limitations in Quebec. )
Henein later did damage control. She managed to pull the standard defence ploy of discrediting and undermining the victim’s credibility at all costs by slipping onto the record that, according to Leduc, the now deceased C-69 had “very significant” mental health issues.
I do hope C-69’s family is aware of what was done here. A dirty shot below the belt I’d say. Is there anyone in a position to defend this woman? I hope so. I hope and pray the family get wind of this. I admit I know nothing of the woman’s allegations or mental well-being, but I do know the defence tactic: the victim is deranged therefore it is absolutely impossible that he or she was abused or assaulted or whatever by a priest.
Why Leduc would barter the grand sum of $5,000 for a mentally deranged woman who claimed she was sexually assaulted by a Roman Catholic priest is as far beyond me as understanding how a mentally deranged woman would come up with a story that her lawyer told her she couldn’t pursue criminal charges against a priest because a non-existent two-year statue of limitations had expired.
Anyway, Henien closed off the day thanking Glaude for starting the day bright and early to accommodate her:
MS. HEINEN: I just wanted to thank you, Mr. Commissioner. I know we started early today and that was to accommodate me and my son who’s throwing milk on his head in protest. So I wanted to thank you for that indulgence.
On that note I will indeed call it a day! I will carry on with Leduc’s testimony over the weekend.
FYI, interesting information re insurance and Leduc’s $282,000+ legal bills on the blogs …
Enough for now,