Rather unfortunate

Share Button

Hearings for today, Tuesday 18 November 2008, resumed at 9:30 am.  Randy Millar is back on the stand.

I just and finally posted my notes on Fred Hamelink’s testimony.  More info on this whole extortion “investigation” mess is coming out in Millar’s testimony.  I will eventually incorporate.  Seems to me this confusing mess is rather important.

Millar is making derogatory comments about Perry Dunlop and denying the following statements Perry made in his Will State:

 30.  On November 25, 1993, I was at a restaurant in Cornwall, eating dinner with a Crown Attorney, an Ontario Provincial Police Officer and a professional Engineer. Two Ontario Provincial Police Officers (Randy Millar & Chris McDonnell) entered the restaurant, came over to me and told me that Ken Seguin had committed suicide. The body had been located at his residence this date.

The officers told me that they had visited my residence in order to locate me. The officers asked me if I had a copy of the D.S. victim statement. I told them that 1 did. The officers wanted to obtain a copy from me as they felt that the Cornwall Police may not be willing to provide the said statement. I agreed to do so, and the following day they came to my residence and I provided them with a copy of the statement.

   Millar alternately didn’t recall this, denied the meet had happened, said there was no reason to ask Perry for the victim statement, and was quite sure such a meet didn’t happen .

Perry’s Will State also has the following note:

 NOTE: RANDY MILLAR IS AN ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER. RANDY MILLER WORKED OUT OF LANCASTER AND LONG SAULT DETACHMENTS. RANDY MILLER AND I WORKED TOGETHER IN THE JOINT FORCES OPERATION ESTABLISHED BETWEEN ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE, ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE AND THE CORNWALL POLICE SERVICE. RANDY MILLER IS THE SON IN LAW OF MILTON MACDONALD AND BROTHER IN LAW OF SENIOR CROWN ATTORNEY MURRAY MACDONALD. 

Rather interesting indeed.

Millar testified that he had begun to have “concerns” about Perry around that time.  Millar, who once regularly dropped by to the Dunlops after work for a beer, testified that he thought Perry had become “totally infatuated” by the $32,000 “settlement.”

I suppose all I can say to that is that it’s rather unfortunate a few other CPS officers weren’t equally infatuated.  Thanks to the $32,000 pay-off a suspect clerical homosexual predator was out and about and on the loose in the community. 

I have it in the back of my mind that Perry used to talk about Millar stopping by the Dunlop home to show Perry pictures of the Ken Seguin death scene.  Probably just a figment of my imagination 🙂  I get the distinct impression Millar would never do such a thing.

Must get back to the agony and torture of watching as this disgusting drama continues to unfold….

Will also get the pictures up of Perry recieving the Golden Whistle Award.  My time was taken with the Hamelink testimony.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Rather unfortunate

  1. Reality Checker says:

    Ah come on Sylvia…these are very “upstanding” members of the community and/or police services. None of them have or will do no wrong nor would they ever lie…they’re angels!

    UH – HUH 🙁

    I’m only catching bits and pieces at this time – I find it too disgusting to follow for any length of time. It sickens me!

  2. prima facie says:

    In Re: Testimony at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry” or for that matter, testimony given in any venue:

    I believe one of the most frustrating experiences in life, is observing a witness, providing testimony, which I know is “replete with factual errors.”
    To clarify, my experiences and education, have taught me that the words, “replete with factual errors”, means “lies”.
    What do you do when you know someone is lying, under oath?
    How do you “PROVE” someone is lying? Because most certainly, someone and their supporters or lawyers, will most definitely demand you “PROVE” your assertion that a witness is “lying under oath”. Compound this frustration with the additional frustration, that the witness is already perceived by the “observers” or the public, to be a prominent personality, in public positions of authority, which purport to demand accountability, responsibility, trustworthy behaviours and credibility.

    Unless you have supporting documents containing admissions or other evidence such as audio tapes, video tapes or evidence, recording the actual “issues” being testified about, then everything becomes, “he said”, “he said”.
    The argument over “direct” evidence versus “circumstantial” evidence and even “hearsay” will be argued forever, if necessary.
    Which classification of “evidence” is admissible or considered more/less credible/reliable?
    “Circumstantial” evidence, in the best situation, is still, “not good enough” to “prove” anything. Even if you were present and physically witnessed the “issue” being argued, that is still only, “he said” versus “he said”; creating “reasonable doubt”.
    This is what is so brutally frustrating, isn’t it.
    (see law dictionary definitions for “direct” evidence, “circumstantial” evidence, “hearsay”, “reasonable doubt”, “reasonable and probable grounds”)
    So, what to do?
    People, courts, public inquiries, etc., in part, rely on “corroborating” testimony to decide the facts. Thereafter, a judge, commissioner, tribunal, jury or equivalent, will attempt to determine what the facts are and render a judgement or opinion.
    (see law dictionary definition for “corroborating”).
    But, are the witnesses who are providing the “corroborating” testimony, really, credible? Are they “biased” or otherwise? What if these witnesses are repeating the “factual errors”? Very frustrating.

    Do well-seasoned lawyers, construct cross-examination and therewith indirectly, manipulate testimony, consequently, re-structuring the “facts”, to suit their objectives? Very frustrating, isn’t it?

    Above, I utilize “criminal law” terminology for a reason. I believe, several of the many parties granted standing and funding at this public inquiry, including their lawyers, are actually staging an “event” and “exploiting” this public inquiry, by, “defending” their clients as if in a criminal proceedings, not a public inquiry. In later months and years, these public inquiry transcripts will be utilized to represent their clients.
    Can I “prove” this?

Leave a Reply