A reprieve

Share Button

19 DAYS TO FREEDOM DAY:  04 October 2008.

 Time served behind bars for caring about children and losing faith in the administration of justice:  

212 days.

 Perry served a six month sentence for civil contempt of court!!!  He is now serving an additional 30 day sentence for criminal contempt of court. No early release.  Unlike other inmates Perry will serve every single day.

This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.


Hearings resume Tuesday 07 October 2008.


I have been occupied with other matters over the weekend.  Just not able to get my blogging done.  I should be able to get on top of things this week.

Perry is well.

He watched and listened as the remnant of hurricane Ike roared through Ottawa last night.  Hail.  Rain and hail.  Monsoon type rain. It was quite a show.

Perry told me over the weekend about some company he had in his cell.  Well, sort of in his cell.

Now that Perry is back at OCDC he has a window in his cell.  The glass is double paned.

A five-legged fly somehow wound up trapped between the two panes of glass.  There he was, hour after hour – three legs on side two on the other –  crawling about, flying about, frantically trying to find an exit.  No luck.  Perry figured the little fellow would be dead in day or so.

Well, whatever happened when Ike swept over OCDC, the little fellow found an out.  He was gone this morning.  Not laying at the bottom legs in the air.  Gone.  He found a way out.

Helen flew home on Saturday.  Before she knows it she’ll be on her way back to meet Perry coming out the doors of OCDC 🙂

Helen’s birthday is two days away:   Wednesday 17 September.  If you missed getting a card in the mail it can still go as belated greetings 🙂   All well wishes I know will be appreciated.

1895 Alma Road

Duncan, B.C.

  V9L 5M7

Perry has been talking to the girls – all are excited about his return to Duncan.  Lots of plans on what they’re going to do when Dad gets home. 🙂  The excitement is building.

There is still time to get mail to Perry.  I think mail posted no later than 22 September 2008 will still reach.

Perry Dunlop c/o OCDC 

Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre
2244 Innes Road
Ottawa ON
K1B 4C4

A reminder to please put your return address on your letters to Perry at the detention centre.  The return address in envelopes is often torn off leaving Perry with no way to reply.  If the address is on the letter itself he will be able to – and wants to – send a note.

Also, it seems that any mail addressed to Perry and arriving at OCDC while he was doing the ghost run around the jails of Ontario were returned to sender rather than held pending his return.  If a letter was returned you could pop it back in the mail now.  It would reach him.

I didn’t mention before but this past Friday was Perry’s first day in the yard in ten days!   Ten days no yard.  Thankfully before too terribly long Perry can be outdoors all day long every day – rain or shine – if he has the yen.

CIA has quiet days and rambunctious days.  Yesterday he was relatively quiet, singing the theme song from Annie.  Today he’s yelling out messages.  The big one today is “ Thy rod and Thy staff will comfort me.”  And today he’s also doing what he often does, calling out messages cell by cell, i.e., “ Cell #6, be kind to your neighbour.”

Three sausages and scrambled eggs for breakfast yesterday.  A cold pate for lunch with some sort of salami roll, a salad with Ranch dressing, and another sort of bean and rice salad.  The meat was gritty – Perry didn’t eat it all.  The salads were O.K.

Saturday supper was cut-up chicken, gravy, mashed potatoes and peas with a little wedge of  a tea biscuit.  The tea biscuit was a treat 🙂  Also on the plate – what looked like a nice crisp red apple.   But, looks can be deceiving.  The apple was soft.  Disappointing.

For those who have asked, yes, Perry is carrying on with the appeal.


A few things I want to address:

(1)   In his  13 September 2008 article: Police should have turned file over to CAS, Trevor Pritchard has two very basic facts wrong.  I am surprised.   This creates untold confusion for those with no other source of information.

The relevant errors with my comments in italics:

(i) After Cornwall police closed their investigation without laying charges, former cop Perry Dunlop took matters into his own hands and gave Silmser’s file to the CAS. That file showed the Alexandria- Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese had paid Silmser $32,000 in exchange for his silence.

[Perry turned over David Silmser’s victim statement, and only the victim statement.  Perry did NOT have files related to the $32,000 pay-off.  That has long been known. 

Last week we all learned that Malcolm MacDonald turned the pay-off files over to CAS, that after Jacques Leduc refused cited confidentiality. ]

(ii) When Silmser went to police, [Father Charles] MacDonald was still an active priest. He was suspended soon after the diocese learned of the allegations.

[The diocese did not suspend Charlie “ soon after”  learning of the allegations.  The diocese learned of the sex abuse allegations against Charlie in early December 1992.  Charlie was not suspended until October 1993 – after the cat was out of the bag on the allegations. 

It took the diocese ten months to suspend Charlie.  For every day and every hour of those ten months Charlie was an “active” priest.]

(2) 05 September 2008:  Update from Commissioner Normand Glaude on where the inquiry’s been and where it’s going

A few quotes with my comments in italics:

(i) Public inquiries are particularly suited to the thorough examination of complex and sensitive matters, without making findings of civil or criminal liability.

[Note, “without making findings of civil or criminal liability.” 

What about Steve Parisien?   What about Perry Dunlop?  How and why did a victim and “whistleblower” fall through the inquiry cracks and wind up charged?]

(ii) There was public demand for a public inquiry in Cornwall to be thorough and fair minded. Our work has always been directed at this fundamental purpose.

[Thorough? Thorough would entail putting the real and a” alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall on the stand.  Where are they?  

Thorough would entail putting Justice Colin McKinnon on the stand?  Where is he?

Thorough would entail putting Justices Peter Griffiths and Robert Pelletier on the stand?  Will we see them?

Fair minded?  An inquiry commissioned by the office of the Attorney General which is heavily implicated in the allegations of cover-up, and which signs off the commissioner’s pay cheque, and which crafted the mandate, and which has standing at the inquiry to protect its vested interests could be perceived as fairminded?]

(iii)  We came to do an important job on behalf of the public, carefully, compassionately and completely

[I’d say the inquiry came to do an important job on behalf of the institutions implicated in the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up.

As for “ compassionately and completely”  – I’d say both entail determining the veracity of the sex abuse allegations of the “ alleged” victims of Cornwall.  Thanks to the mandate that has not and will not be done.  ]

(iv)  The commissioner notes there are three topics under considerations for policy roundtables.  Two of the three – with my comments – are:

(a) Homophobia and fears about pedophilia – how homophobia can hurt efforts to prevent child sexual abuse or address it when it happens

[Why do I have the unsettling notion that this a politically-correct manouevre geared to downplay the reality that some “homosexuals” in Cornwall did indeed molest young lads?]  

(b) Confidentiality provisions in civil settlements – are there situations in which such provisions should be lifted, in the public interest?

[There should be no confidentiality provisions in any civil settlements related to adults molesting children and youth. None.]

(3)  I think perhaps there should have been a contempt of court citation on Friday?  Sparks were flying between Peter Manderville (Cornwall Police Service) and Commissioner Normand Glaude.  As always the transcript does not come close to catching the edge in the voices and the sarcasm, but it does give a bit of the flavour.

The issue was the pending sick slip for former CPS officer Ron Lefebvre.

Lefebvre is now working as a special constable at the Cornwall Courthouse and routinely reports for duty.  For whatever reason there is a move afoot to keep him off the stand.  Glaude had previously asked for more information regarding Lefebvre’s apparent inability to testify for health reasons or whatever.  The information was not forthcoming on the due date  because, according to Manderville, the doctor was stuck in the Caribbean or somewhere because of inclement weather.

Glaude told Manderville he was to report back to the commission on 12 September with (i) a doctor’s certificate, or (ii) the doctor, or (iii) Lefebvre.

Come Friday 12 September, there was Manderville, but – no doctor’s certificate, no doctor, and no Lefebvre.

Things got testy.  Glaude snapped at Manderville.  Manderville snapped at Glaude.  The air was charged.

As you will see, Glaude flexed his judicial muscle and ordered Lefebvre be brought in.

But, by the time Lefebvre was brought in,  Glaude was all apologies!

At the end of the fireworks no one was cited with contempt.  That it seems is reserved for Perry.

Here’s the transcript:

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning, sir.

MR. MANDERVILLE: I’ve alerted Commission council to this.
20 I’ve now received word that Officer Lefebvre’s medical specialist will be able to provide us with a follow-up report within a couple of weeks time. And I know what you set out last time.

THE COMMISSIONER: Where’s your client?


THE COMMISSIONER: Where’s your client?

MR. MANDERVILLE: He is aware of what is to transpire today and he would be available within 20 minutes time. I don’t feel that it’s necessary to go that route.

If that is what you are inclined to do then I guess I have to consider my options; one of which, of course, would be to seek judicial review of the rulings. And in the meantime, we’ll have a medical report that is intended to address all of your concerns.

THE COMMISSIONER: Say that again?

MR. MANDERVILLE: I said that I don’t believe — I know what you told us.

THE COMMISSIONER: What did I tell you?

MR. MANDERVILLE: That this would be returnable today.


MR. MANDERVILLE: That as of today, I should either have a medical report to show you or one of Officer Lefebvre or his medical specialist to appear.


MR. MANDERVILLE: Officer Lefebvre has been advised of what you had said and that today is the day.


MR. MANDERVILLE: We also talked about if circumstances arose that caused problems for today and having things finished for today, that I could apprise you of those.

And as I mentioned to you last time, Doctor — Officer Lefebvre’s medical specialist was in the Caribbean, that a hurricane was preventing him from returning; he was delayed in his return. He has now —

THE COMMISSIONER: Hold on. How long has he been back?

MR. MANDERVILLE: He’s been back since last week.


MR. MANDERVILLE: And I’ve now been advised by him as of yesterday that he would have a report for me within two weeks time.

THE COMMISSIONER: I’d like to see your client here.

MR. MANDERVILLE: Well, he can be here within 20 minutes time, sir, but as I said, I don’t believe it to be necessary for him to get in the witness box.

THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, did anybody say that he was going to be in the witness box? I just want — I ordered that you had one of three things here; either the motion to continue; your attending physician; or your client. That’s what I asked you to do.


THE COMMISSIONER: And you have neither. So I’m saying — and you say your client is available. I’d say, ask him to come here, I think we have to have a chat.

MR. MANDERVILLE: What do you mean when you say chat, Mr. Commissioner?

THE COMMISSIONER: We’ll see when I — he’s not going to testify today. I’m not going to force him to testify, but I think he should be here.

MR. MANDERVILLE: I will call.


MR. MANDERVILLE: I will call him.


All right. So have him here — well, what time do you think he’ll be here?

MR. MANDERVILLE: I can expect him to be here around noon, given the time now.

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, will you
18 want to speak to him a little bit?



———-Short Break ————

MR. MANDERVILLE: Officer Lefebvre is here,Mr. Commissioner.

THE COMMISSIONER: Monsieur Lefebvre, is that you? Good morning, sir.

It seems that your counsel misunderstood my — no, no, you may sit down, sir.

First of all, let me say that I must apologize for this situation; not because I think that —  well, in any event, sir, I don’t mean to cause you any discomfort or stress.

I had asked your lawyer to either have the motion here, the doctor here or you here, and your lawyer chose not to have anyone here and so I thought we’d remedy that by asking you to come here today.

Now, my understanding is that the medical specialist was away and that I had asked that the report or something happen today. Obviously it hasn’t, but it seems that the medical specialist is prepared to prepare a report that would be due when, sir?

MR. MANDERVILLE: We anticipate receiving it on or before the 24th of September.

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So then I want it filed here by the 27th.

MR. MANDERVILLE: That’s a Saturday, sir.

THE COMMISSIONER: Then we’ll make it — you gain two days; 29th.

The reason why I want it before then it so that it can be distributed to other parties so that we can properly assess this and get this done properly and once and for all.

MR. MANDERVILLE: That was certainly our intention, sir.

THE COMMISSIONER: Yeah. Next time when I ask somebody to come here, they should be here. Thank you.

MR. MANDERVILLE: Is that it? Is that it, Mr. Commissioner?

THE COMMISSIONER: You may sit down, sir.

Mr. Lefebvre, I would certainly ask you to quarterback this, if I can use that expression, to make absolutely sure that that report is here on time.

Sometimes patients and clients get lost in the shuffle.

MR. MANDERVILLE: I will quarterback it, sir, and I will make sure that it happens.

THE COMMISSIONER: He’s the client. I was speaking to him. And if he wants to give you those instructions, that’s fine with me.

MR. MANDERVILLE: And that’s something he will decide to do and I will quarterback that. Thank you very much.

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, if you want to be that way, then I will tell you then that the next time we come back and we hear this motion and when you set it down, it will be peremptory. Is that understood?

MR. MANDERVILLE: Certainly, sir.


MR. MANDERVILLE: I wouldn’t have had it any other way.


All is well at the Weave Shed again.

No contempt citation.  A reprieve.

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Clerical sexual predators. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply