I’ll eat my hat

Share Button

All over for the day at 4:35 pm.  At retired OPP Detective Inspector Pat Hall’s request.

Pat Hall asked that a question posed by Englemann be the last for the day.  Glaude –  usually keen to get out at 4:30 himself –  said he had hoped to go ’till 5 pm today.  Hall said he’s trying to keep from catching a cold.

That was it.  Over for the day.

I mentioned earlier that Glaude had every intent of finishing with Hall by week’s end.  Seems however that over lunch Engelmann and Hall had a wee chat and the commissioner now sees that it will be necessary to keep Hall on the stand until Monday.  So, Monday it now is.

More power to them.  At the rate things are going that’s just not going to happen.  If all that needs to and should be covered with Pat Hall is over and done with by 4:30 pm Monday I’ll eat my hat.

Lots to cover.  Lots. 

For now, the following crumbs:

(1)  The break-in at the Project Turth office on Amelia Street was finally addressed.  Quite bizarre really.  Initially I believe Hall said there was no break-in at the PT office. Then he went on to explain how someone had broken into the Ministry of the Environment office which shared the same building.  And then he explained that once in to the MOE whoever it was took tiles out of the ceiling and crawled up and then over and then accessed the Project Truth office.  Once in the PT office  two computers were taken (Smith’ and Dupuis’ I believe) and the filing cabinet was broken into.

According to Hall, the Project Truth office wasn’t the target of the break-in because no one but no one knew the office was there!! 

The door to the PT office was open, and that, according to Hall, is because the thieves gained entry through the ceiling and exited through the door. 

Two computers were taken, but Hall seemed to think that was no big deal because all the material was on the secretary’s desktop computer anyway and it wasn’t taken.  He also seemed to say or imply that there was nothing of merit anyway on the officers’ stolen laptops. 

And Hall seemed to imply that no files were taken from the filing cabinet.

All in all the rather confusing message conveyed was that the whole event was no big deal. 

The stolen computers were never retrieved.  The thief (thieves) never apprehended.

(2)  For whatever reason I get the distinct impression that Pat Hall absolutely did not want the Dunlops to know that the Crown handling the death threats against the Dunlop family was Robert Pelletier.  The tap dancing that Hall went through trying to explain the fact that he did not tell the Dunlops it was Pelletier when he in truth knew it was Pelletier was almost pathetically amusing. 

The fact that as of June ’97 the Dunlops knew that Pelletier was supposed to be pulled from Father Charlie’s case because of conflict may have had something to do with it?  I have always puzzled over that one.  Conflict for Charlie but not death threats involving Charlie?   Besides, how could a Crown who was buddies with the Cornwall Crown handle death threats in which the Cornwall Crown was at the very least known or alleged to be a peripheral character? 

So, Pelletier was pulled from Charlie’s case, but, believe it or not,  he was left in charge of the Dunlop death threats!!  Someone somewhere decided that was fair game.  And looks like it didn’t bother Hall enough to do something about it, but perhaps enough that he didn’t want the Dunlops to know?

At the end of the day, after the months upon months of Hall’s  “investigation” and non-investigating, Pelletier had a look at Hall’s work and came to the conclusion that it was not in the public interest to pursue the allegations.

Lots more to be said on the death threats and Hall’s testimony.  A bit of nastiness from Hall for sure.  Hopefully I will find time to get through the transcripts as well as look up a few relevant dates. 

Bottom line, for all his tap dancing, I get the distinct impression that Hall did not want to tell the Dunlops that Pelletier was the Crown.

Why not?

For those who watched the testimony, a reminder here that there were death threats against the Dunlop’s 7-year-old daughter Marlee.  Indeed on 03 July 1996 a Miss Laurie Rupert entered a plea of guilty to a charge of uttering death threats.   I have no doubt that both Perry and Helen were talking about death threats in 1996.  Who wouldn’t when the death threats are against their little girl.

Did Pat Hall know about those threats?  He should have.  Perhaps not? He seemed intent on demeaning the Dunlops for talking about death threats in July 1996.

(3)  One more little one.  Hall got a wee testy with Engelmann:  “I didn’t think this was a memory test here.”

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to I’ll eat my hat

  1. prima facie says:

    Re: The “Break In”. I suggest “someone” take a detailed look at the “Standard-Freeholder” articles “of-the-day”; anyone save copies? Strange, the story “of-the-day” depicted a much more serious, series of events. Even the editorialist, columnist and perceived comic-book satirist, Claude McIntosh, wrote critically about the event, in his “Coffee Break” column. However, in reality, perhaps “Coffee Break” is simply a “column”, replete with gossip, rumour, innuendo and satire.

    My point is, wouldn’t it be difficult to conduct thorough investigations and inquiries, or even, refer back to notes, etc., etc., when everything went missing?? (of course, Hall will minimize the event).

    Tell me, after observing this guys testimony to date, does anyone really think this guy, know’s who “is on first” today, let alone, having been competent, “in-the-day”? Brutal….just simply brutal!! Could you even imagine, what type of information would be elicited if there was an objective, unbiased lawyer cross-examining these “buffoons”, or, what if there was really someone informed and professionally and competently, cross-examining, from the “so-called” “conspiracy theorists” perspective?

    I mean, in my opinion, it doesn’t take your average moron, to see what is going on at “The Glaude Inquiry”. YES, “The Glaude Inquiry”..I want this inquiry/commission or whatever, to be referred to as “other” inquiries/commissions are referred, that is, many are referred to by the name of the Judge “sitting”.

    Refer to it as “The Glaude Inquiry”, make it STICK!!

    Back to the “BREAK IN”: As I recall, there was reference to a police report. Wouldn’t it be interesting to read it? Oh, I can hear “them” scrambling now! I suggest you check beside the lawyer-Justice Colin Mackinnon “records” or check the shredder.

    I mean, can you believe that the Pat Hall “types”, the Tim Smith types and these other “cop” types, who are testifying, were actually protecting us in the community? I have lowered myself to calling them “cops”…this is brutally disgusting.

    Threats, Intimidation, “Advice”:

    In or about 1995-1997, when I was receiving various “advice” to “not get involved”; I was driving east bound along highway#2 in Long Sault, Ontario. I was driving safely and within the speed limit. I was talking with an “alleged victim” who had received money, as a result of “their” allegations of sexual abuse. “Alleged victim”???

    Of course the “money” included a stipulation to, “release of all claims”, “statement and acceptance by the accused admitting no guilt” and it was stipulated to be a “confidential, non-disclosure” agreement, with consequences “attached” to the “alleged victim”, in the event of their disclosure of “the facts” and/or the “settlement”.

    Suddenly, the “Ontario Provincial Police” pulled me over. Two constables appeared and requested my drivers license, insurance, registration. They requested the passenger get out of the car. They all went back to the police vehicle.

    Approximately fifteen minutes later, they returned. The police constables returned my particulars and provided me with no explanation. The “alleged” victim got in my car and we proceeded. Visibly shaken, the “alleged victim” said to me, “….”my name”…they are after you.” “You have to watch out.” “They wanted me to say anything against you.” “I’m serious, “my name”…they are after you!”

    At the time, I worried about this event. Combined with the other events I became distressed.

  2. Sylvia says:

    Very interesting re your encounter with the OPP prima facie. And very very disturbing.

Leave a Reply