Perry Dunlop is a political prisoner. He has spent 156 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 received a stack of birthday greeting from around the world! Listen to this: cards, notes, Masses and greetings from every province in Canada, and a multitude of states including California, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Illinois, and a number of countries including Spain, Venice, Great Britain, Wales, Australia.
Perry has countless new friends and supporters from one corner of the world to the other! Thankfully the eyes of the world are watching this terrible travesty of justice unfold, this an unbelievable saga which defies logic and common sense – a decent upright citizen locked behind bars, … because he did his all to protect children, and in the process lost all faith in the administration of justice in this once great nation.
And real and “alleged” paedophiles prowl the streets of the nation unfettered and free.
I have said in the past and will it again, this will go down as the shame of the nation!
All correspondence deeply appreciated by Perry. He cherishes every word. Don’t ever forget him in there. He needs your prayers and support constantly.
And don’t forget Helen and the girls. This has been and continues to be an extremely difficult ordeal for the entire family.
Hearings resumed at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Friday 25 July 2008. Dr. Raymond Legault will take the stand. Remember, it’s Friday so hearings will run through lunch and recess in the early afternoon.
The ODE to deceased Bishop Adolphe Proulx was read into the record yesterday. Not an awful lot to it but certainly evidence of Father Don Scott being shipped around hither and yon – even off to Steubenville, Ohio in 1968!! And bits and pieces about Father Gilles Deslaurier. I will create a page for Proulx and put the ODE info in along with other bits and pieces I have at my disposal. (Scott molested Claude Marleau)
I don’t quite know what to say about Gord Bryan’s testimony. The man was here there and everywhere in the diocese but knew nothing of the sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald until early 1994. He heard “rumours” about Fathers Paul Lapierre and Carl Stone some time in the late 50s but they were just “rumours.” There were rumours about why Lapierre was leaving “because of problems he had here, so — rumours are rumours are rumours.”
There you go. Rumours are rumours. Turns out Lapierre was indeed a molester. Ditto Stone. But, as we all now know all too well, “rumours are rumours.” And common sense says that if no one digs a little to find out the facts that’s exactly what they stay – “rumours.”
Then there’s the whole fiasco with brown thoroughly sealed envelope containing the now infamous illegal release which presumably no one but Malcolm MacDonald, Sean Adams and David Silmser ever laid eyes on until the media got hands on it and made it public. And Sean Adams a lawyer read the release but didn’t grasp the illegal dimension, and Jacques Leduc, the diocesan lawyer who helped barter the pay-off, didn’t see it because he failed to open the sealed envelope to ensure all “i”s were dotted and “t”s were crossed before he passed the sealed envelope off to the diocesan Bursar (Bryan)with instructions to “Seal it well; mark private and confidential and to be opened by the Bishop only”, and Bryan suggested to Leduc the envelope could/should be able to be opened by the bursar in the event the bishop wasn’t available so it was marked accordingly, and although he had permission to take a peek Bryan didn’t peek, and Bryan taped the sealed envelope before filing it away, and although it was obviously for the bishop’s eyes he did not bring it to the Bishop’s attention nor did he file it in the Bishop’s filing cabinet where it belonged, and although the Bishop had been concerned enough about this whole mess that he discussed it behind closed doors with his confreres at the CCCB plenary he wasn’t concerned enough to ask to see the signed documents, and so the doubly sealed brown envelope sat in obscurity in the wrong filing cabinet from September 1993 until chaos erupted in January 1994 when chaos erupted in the public domain, and even when chaos first erupted no one it seems dug into the filing cabinet to check the facts, and only when the media reported that the settlement entailed the victim withdrawing his complaint did someone finally dig out the sealed envelope and take a little boo inside, and, lo and behold there was the signed release – illegal clause and all!!!
Too much. Too too much!
And then there was David Sheriff Scott jumping in protest when talk of an OPP/Bryan interview regarding luncheons vs “parties” at St. Andrew’s rectory arose. And Glaude paid heed and that was territory not to be trod with this witness.
MS. HAMOU: Now, sir, in the context of this interview you were asked about dinner parties at St. Andrew’s Parish.
REV. BRYAN: Yes.
MS. HAMOU: And you indicated that there were no parties, there were luncheons. Can you explain to me what you meant by this?
MR. SHERRIFF-SCOTT: Sir, I object to this line of questioning. These are interviews and pursuant to investigations. The man’s response is embodied in his statement. We’re focused on the institutional response to allegations of the Diocese and that’s what the Commission is focused on as opposed to the flip side of the mandate, vis-à-vis organizations, which is what I urged the Commission to interpret the Diocese as. And so —
THE COMMISSIONER: But that’s gone. I don’t
know why you keep repeating that.
MR. SHERRIFF-SCOTT: No, no, because it makes a difference in terms of the response. If the Commission’s approach to this — I know you know my position on this. There’s no controversy about that. We understand each other in terms of your view and my view and so forth. But it makes a difference in terms of the jurisdiction.
If the Commission treats the Diocese as an organization then its interaction with institutions is on – – what’s being measured here is the alleged institutional response and not the underlying factual matrix of investigations. These are all questions pertaining to those matters, and whether it’s an allegation about a particular person it’s certainly pursuant to allegations. And so this is the substratum of fact and pursuant to your ruling I think this is not something we should be dealing with.
THE COMMISSIONER: Any comments?
MS. HAMOU: I’m at a loss for words.
I wanted to explore these matters with Reverend Bryan to ascertain his knowledge of allegations that were made against priests and his knowledge about that. I’m not contending to ask him questions about allegations that would have or not have been made against
THE COMMISSIONER: So I still don’t understand for what purpose?
Mr. Sherriff-Scott is saying we have to look at the institutional response. So we have the OPP; we can look at the OPP’s institutional response and see how — what kind of questions they ask the Reverend, see if they were complete, if they were thorough, that kind of thing.
But from his vantage point —
MS. HAMOU: I’m prepared to move on.
THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.
All fine and dandy, but Bryan conveniently won’t be there to elaborate on what he knows about lunches at the rectory. But, there you go. We’re dealing with a handful of diocesan witnesses who are on and off the stand at break-neck speed. Dare I say ” the Church” is being protected?
I get fed up with all this. Truly I do.
And now at this “public” inquiry the gathered throng is heading in camera and behind closed doors – again! Seems there are secrets surrounding names of “complainants” and at least one “perpetrator” with whom the diocese’s sex abuse committee dealt. More monikers are in order. And Glaude is balancing the interests of the public to know. And Frank Horn wanted to know if the name of the alleged perpetrator has ever been made public, and no one was prepared to answer him .
And on and on and on it goes.
But, there never was and is no cover up. And the diocese is lily white. And there absolutely never was a paedophile ring, or clan or pack. Nor for that matter was there ever such thing as a ring or clan or pack of men who socialized and holidayed and partied and coffeed together and homosexually molested young boys. Never, ever, ever. That’s all sheer ” rumour” and “innuendo.”
I forgot to mention, Ron Wilson will not be testifying. He has a sick slip.
Enough for now,