Perry has now spent 117 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.
IF Perry was convicted paedophile James Lewis he would be out tomorrow! Lewis – previously convicted (18 month conditional sentence!) for possession of kiddie porn – was sentenced to six months for molesting a 9-year-old boy. He was out and about after serving 118 days!!! Out and about somewhere. Who knows where?
Perry is in jail. Serving every single day and every single hour of a six month sentence.
A national disgrace. Paedophiles prancing the streets in 118 days. “Alleged” paedophiles foot-loose and fancy-free because their Charter rights to a speedy trial were presumably violated. The man who stepped up to the plate to protect children behind bars!!! For who knows how long?!
****
Something is amiss for next week. Perry is not listed on the Ontario Court of Appeal schedule . The court schedule went up at 2 pm yesterday afternoon (Friday, 13 June 2008). Perry’s name is nowhere to found.
This was not discovered until after hours. As I told you earlier, yesterday afternoon Perry was still at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre awaiting transfer. I understand he was still there last evening. Meanwhile out on the West coast Helen and daughter Heather are packing their bags. They leave in the wee hours – will arrive in Ottawa today. The plan was to be here for Perry’s court appearance. They planned to drive to Toronto Sunday or Monday.
Now? Who knows what’s going on? The one for sure is Perry is not on the roster.
Helen will find what’s going on Monday. As soon as I know with certainty I will relay the word. Right now things don’t sound too good.
As if this family hasn’t had enough!!!
****
On a perhaps lighter note, I must tell you about this. While I was talking with Perry yesterday I heard an inmate somewhere in the pod scream at the top of his longs: “The Pope is cool”!! Yes. The Pope. That’s what he said. “The Pope is cool.”
Perry tells me that’s the sort of thing they hear from this poor soul all day. That and chatter that he’s met the Pope and he knows the Pope,. Ditto Saddham Hussein . Ditto a host of the Who’s Who of the world. The inmates call him CIA 🙂
CIA starts the day at 6 am. Apparently he’s given to early am call outs for “voodoo child.” “Hey, …voodoo child.” He is greeted by a rousing chorus of “Shut up.”
That’s life behind bars. As I often say, it’s a different world. It’s a little bit funny. It’s awfully sad. And ,meanwhile there’s poor Perry in the midst of that, waiting with great hope to be transferred to Toronto for his court appearance on Tuesday, and he’s not on the roster!!! Something smells here.
Keep him in your prayers. Please keep him in your prayers. And Helen. And the girls. And Perry’s Mom, and his sister.
****
Hearings wrapped up at 1:45 yesterday afternoon. Former Chief Claude Shaver finished his testimony. Yes, I am pleasantly surprised. He didn’t cover himself in glory by a long shot, but he finished. His testimony such as it was was rife with contradictions and inconsistencies, and endless repetitions of how he did or thought this that or the other thing to protect children. Over and over and over. Did anyone count how many times we heard how much he wanted to protect children? That from the mouth of the man who was so very happy when his officers failed to charge Earl Landry Jr. back in the mid 80s. Happy for Earl Landry Sr!! There was no rush to Children’s Aid back then, was there? No burning concern then for the protection of all those little boys who frequented the park and were in Landry Jr.’s company day in and day out, was there? Just happy. Shaver was happy. Happy Landry Jr, wasn’t charged. Happy for his dear friend Earl Landry Sr.
That is one of the countless contradictions in Shaver’s testimony.
I’ve already touched on the fact Shaver arrived armed with his own personal polygraph. And that he pulled a fast one on the stand. As far as humanly possible Dallas Lee didn’t let him get away with it. Glaude did.
What can I say?
And then there are the website games.
There is lots more. Lots. Those of you with observations and/or relevant excerpts from the transcripts please blog to inform those who don’t have time to follow the hearings or pore through the transcripts. I will never manage to do what I want to do which is point out the contradictions and inconsistencies over a full week of testimony. I will however pick away at it. All help gratefully appreciated 🙂
****
Father’s Day on Sunday. Perry’s in jail. Another rough day for the Dunlops. God love them all and give them the courage, patience, strength and wisdom to carry on day after day.
Enough for now,
Sylvia
Somewhere along the line someone posted a comment that really popped out at me and I can’t shake. Basically the posted comment said “if you don’t want an answer – you don’t ask the question”.
HOW TRUE!
Shaver, in his testimony talks very briefly about the “black van theory”. He mentions it then quickly changes his tune and compares it to rumors that he committed suicide and he was getting calls from the Ottawa press – he turns it into himself – no further mention of the “black van’ rumours that he says were just rumours.
I take it from this very small exert it was rumoured at one time that Cornwall had a stalker in it’s mist. Someone driving around in a black van close to school perimeters approaching children. There’s no elaboration in the testimony about this “black van theory” nor is there any indication when this alledgedly happened. According to Shaver it was just a rumour!
If you don’t want to hear the answer – you don’t ask the questions. Why was this NOT pulled from the testimony and expanded on??? Is this inquiry NOT about historical child sexual abuse??? Is something about the mention of a black van driving around school yards NOT significant???
DID HE EVEN INVESTIGATE THIS RUMOUR??? Why was it even mentioned in testimony?
WHERE’S THE COMMON SENSE!!!
Did anyone ever think you might have indeed had a child sexual preditor in Cornwall for a period of time while these “rumours” circulated???
IT is VERY highly PROBABLE that a black van was driving around school perimeters staking children out!!!
Especially in light of ALL the allegations comiming out of Cornwall related to historical sexual abuse.
COMMENT-OPINION: June 14, 2008:
If anyone is searching for something to do, this Father’s Day weekend; well, please allow me to suggest watching the movie, “The Great Debaters”, with Denzel Washington and Nate Parker. This is based on a true story, circa 1935, but still so very applicable today.
In my opinion, applicable today, comparatively speaking of course, especially as I compare the movie with the context of “The Cornwall Public Inquiry”, the “Perry Dunlop file”, Perry’s acceptance and acknowledgement that he “pay the consequences” for breaking the law, as interpreted by Ontario Divisional Court.
It is also applicable when “visiting” and reflecting upon, the “moral, authoritative, administrative and legal factors”, surrounding Perry Dunlop’s current and anticipated incarceration, the “rule of law” and civil disobedience.
I’m certain many of us, even those who have a critical perspective of St. Augustine, remember quotations such as, “The man who is the deceiver, is committing a great evil” or perhaps, an “unjust law is no law”.
Yesterday, subsequent to Claude Shaver’s deception (unlawful reference to an invalidated, inadmissible polygraph, admitted into the “Inquiry” record.) and the “systems passing with an inconsequential scolding or showboating”, David Sherriff-Scott and Michael Neville, put the topping on the cake, “so-to-speak”.
It starts on page seventeen of yesterday’s transcript. Mr. Sherriff-Scott so delicately and intentionally “leads” Mr. Shaver “out-of-the-maze”, while, further entering into the “Inquiry” record, re-interpretations of language, legalese and “substance”.
Among other things, Mr. Sherriff-Scott states, on page 18, beginning on line 9, “Just to orient our discussion here on the first subject I want to talk and perhaps in a bit of an unusual approach, what I want to do is tell you exactly what I’m going to do in terms of an approach and where I’m going by identifying a number of points that I want to canvass with you in the evidence; okay?
The “strategic” and deceptive word being utilized here is “canvass”. YES, Mr. Sherriff-Scott is taking a very unusual approach AND no one, objects, challenges him or demands clarification or supportive citations etc. Consequently, Mr. Sherriff-Scott tells Mr. Shaver (“canvas”) several sensitive issues about critical evidence and tells Mr. Shaver, basically and arguably, how to answer and what to say. Interpretations are openly re-defined and UNCHALLENGED.
Mr. Neville, in his representations, does the same; both of whom represent high-profile accused and have for years, or in Mr. Sherriff-Scotts case, over fifteen years…MUCH, MUCH to lose.
So, from a sports analogy perspective, Dallas Lee, knowingly or unknowingly, was on the one yard line a day ago, as I discussed in previous blogs. Now, the “search for answers and clarification”, is back to the fifty yard line now. The referee left the field of play, and the opposing team, left the field or never showed-up.
MAKE no mistake about it, these high paid, mal-practice, liability insurance carrier lawyers, just about lost everything with Dallas Lee’s cross-examination the day before.
Believe me, these lawyers, on behalf of their clients et al, have MUCH to lose.
IN my opinion, this ‘Inquiry” and “the public record”, has more to do with “covering butts” for previous “proceedings-evidence-testimony elsewhere and for anticipated future proceedings”, than it has to do with the CURRENT time period.
For example, would it be fair to suggest if you or anyone is facing an accusation in future proceedings or confronted in “the future” about factual errors uttered in previous proceedings, that, I or you could refer to “the record” and evidence of this public inquiry, for supportive submissions? “Supportive submissions, that were very strangely and un-normally, permitted to be entered into the record of the public inquiry. Then, because I or you, knew the records were really inadmissible and would never be addressed, blurted the “words”, again, into the public record for a second time; only this time typed in by the “recorder”.
Unfair, very unfair and why this permitted transgression. I believe, as has been mentioned more than once in this public inquiry, including in Commissioner Glaudes action against Dunlop at Divisional Court and also in letters sent to me from various politicians; the fear of civil disobedience, anarchy or that citizen’s would grow to distrust the justice system.
Well, again, I urge you, watch the movie I mentioned above and conduct your own meditation and reflection. SHAME!! SHAME!! SHAME!!
CONSIDER: Is Perry Dunlop a practitioner of “civil disobedience”? How is civil disobedience defined and by whom, from what perspective? Does Perry Dunlop’s “punishment” match his crime or is his punishment excessive, cruel and/or unusual?
Is Perry Dunlop being treated as a political prisoner or a danger to the stability and security of the nation? Is the “rule of law” being abused and exploited by Commissioner Glaude and the Divisional Court, to teach Perry Dunlop and all citizens a “moral or legal” lesson? Is this good or evil?
Furthermore, as the movie asserts, some scholars and other professionals will argue that non-violent civil-disobedience, is a mask worn to conceal its true face, anarchy. (there’s that word again, that appeared in Divisional Court documents, anarchy).
Some scholars and legal minds may believe that “civil disobedience” or whatever name we give it, is not moral or legal, but an erosion of the “rule of law” and the erosion of the rule of law, results in anarchy.
I ask, what was Perry Dunlop’s crime? Was he a thief, a killer, a convicted paedophile, a rapist, a terrorist? Really, what was his crime to warrant such treatment?
Look at Perry Dunlop’s life. HE is a model human being, acting with love and respect for fellow human beings; not just since some significant life changing event, but, all his life.
He believes and accepts, as he has displayed by his own, peaceful actions, that lawbreakers must accept the legal consequences for their actions.
Have the deceivers in this public inquiry and related, even admitted to their indiscretions, plots and schemes to deceive, let alone, been held accountable and been subjected to consequences?
I believe, civil disobedience is a moral weapon in a fight for justice. Unjust law or the oppressive and misconstrued, misadministration of law is no law at all and I have a right, as does Perry Dunlop and all citizens and a duty, to resist unjust persecution, prosecution and incarceration, with non-violent civil disobedience.
I urge people to reflect on Perry Dunlop’s plight and his upcoming appearance at Divisional Court in Toronto, Ontario, CANADA, next week. Reflect on the “Cornwall Public Inquiry” proceedings to date, reflect on the record and recent testimony.
Reflect on our own life experiences and education.
Reflect upon our beliefs and our life decisions. Reflect upon “the rule of law”.
The law has done nothing, just left us wondering,…..why?
Who is “the criminal”?
Are there any unsolved missing children reports originating out of Cornwall (historically???)
DO WE KNOW???
WITHOUT PREJUDICE:
Well RealityChecker; In my opinion, you are quite a character, patient in research and analysis, passion, unafraid to speak out and a probing mind, demanding answers to your questions. WHERE have you been?
I hope to meet with you some day. I wish you were around a few years ago.
Interesting you should comment on this subject/concern.
May I be so bold as to humbly request; what has stimulated your interest in this topic at “this time” and specifically, can you recall if you have received any information from any source or have you had any interactions with anyone recently, which may have STIMULATED this query and elicited this particular interest in you? ANY “input” at all, that has “stimulated” this interest in you?
Forgive me for my “tone”.
I’m am not attempting to be arrogant or intrusive. It is simply that, for various reasons, I have had concerns about this same interest, as a result of my interactions with various “local” residents in the 1990’s, when I still resided and worked in Cornwall and area.
Regarding your direct query and from my perspective:
I suspect you will not find any official records or reports, disclosing what you seek. In fact, I believe you will not find any records or reports disclosing statistics, or, “comparison studies” suggesting and/or validating, higher than “average” percentages of missing persons in general or missing “children and/or adolescents” specifically. In short, I believe, there will be no “red flags”.
However, you may hear stories from some “local” residents, suggesting “the same”, or suggesting, suspicions of unreported and/or unrecorded, missing children/adolescents.
Furthermore, in my attempts to “learn more” about the above-mentioned, I ran into many roadblocks; which I will not clarify on this site.
Additionally, I inquired with different contacts I had, in different U.S. venues. Some of these people were affiliated with different private sector companies and some were affiliated directly and indirectly, with universities and related. All of them had expertise in forensic studies/research/analysis/investigations, etc. and they all had contacts in other international venues.
I explored the possiblities of securing and transporting to the Cornwall area, “geophysical instrument(s)/device(s) and trained personnel”, to investigate different “sites”, I believed warranted investigation.
Again, I “stress”, I was acting on no direct and/or corroborated, circumstantial evidence. I was “motivated” on hearsay discussion and other input.
I and a couple of contacts, were trying to promote the “project” as a “case study”.
Eventually, the costs, time and complicated logistics required to “initiate” the project alone, as well as other “roadblocks” we encountered, that I will not clarify or expand upon on this site, terminated the project.
Philanthropy was considered, but not, followed-up.
I hope you receive some further input from other readers.
“…the fear of civil disobedience, anarchy or that citizen’s would grow to distrust the justice system.”
That reminds me of Captain Vere’s motivation in Billy Budd.
He was a loser though. I think Canada can do better, improve the system.
I thought June 10th was one of the most interesting days yet. The rich part between Glaude and Shaver begins about page 104/296. Obviously Shaver had interfered in the Landry case far worse than later alleged Perry Dunlop interference. Shaver pleads incompetence, his ‘heart ruling his head’.
Possibly that’s true. But curiously Shaver incompetence seems to show up whenever there is a pedophilia case under investigation. Small wonder people suspect a cover-up. Shaver’s weird grammar (p109) “perceived badly” is interesting as motivation for such a cover-up. Anyway Glaude seems to recognize the Dumb-as-a-Fox game, and when he gets around to “admonishing” him on Thursday he starts with telling him he is an intelligent man and it’s beneath him. That was about the set-up for the “Shaver Took a Lie Detector Teast” headline, pure PR barely masked as “blurting it out”.
p.277/296 is rather telling. Shaver went to the Crown who offered to introduce Shaver to his principle .
Englemann: His principle being the Regional Crown?
Shaver: No, being the Bishop.
Engelmann: Oh, sorry.
Shaver: His employer, his principles…
The Crown who works for the Bishop was Murray MacDonald.
Then Shaver drops the Ken Seguin part also, claiming the church was “tying his hands”.
He thinks (p.230/296) there’s “only a single complaint”, plays it down. The perverse probation game remains protected. I’m sure the Priest who received the two years probation sentence didn’t find it too onerous.
Was Shaver the arrogant incompetant egomaniac he seemed, or was he an efficient janitor cleaning up a mess for his hidden principles? I’m looking forward to Murray MacDonald’s testimony.
As for “rumours”, by 1999 CBC found 50 victims implicating 20 suspects. That’s a whole lot of person-to-person ‘rumour’ even before media or blogs ‘spreading it’.
I think you may be able to get some answers by checking with someone out in the boonies by Cornwall….specifically R.R.#4 Cornwall (I take it that’s rural)…
http://theyaremissing.org/phonebook.htm
Scroll down and find Child Find (Canada)…It’s a Cornwall address. Just down the street!
Funny thing is….this address is NOWHERE on the official Child Find site!!!
In 1999 CPS also had a woman walk in to their detachment claiming her husband killed their 3 year old missing son in Slave Lake Alberta…
http://doenetwork.org/cases/117dmab.html
Shortly before 1 p.m. on April 24, 1980, Dupres told his mother he was going with his five-year-old friend to play next-door at his house. Dupres and his mother were both outside at the time in the small town, 251 km northwest of Edmonton. The mother took the opportunity to go back inside her home to transfer a load of laundry from the washing machine to the dryer. About 20 minutes later, the friend showed up looking for his playmate.
A White female was seen leading the child into a car driven by a White male. The vehicle was described as a 1979 or 1980 model Chevrolet truck, light to dark blue in color. RCMP initially thought the mother was involved in Jeffrey’s disappearance. She said she was forced to take a lie detector test that summer. Her husband, who she has since divorced, was in High Prairie on business at the time Dupres vanished.
The biggest lead came in 1999, when a woman in Cornwall, Ontario, told officers her husband, who had lived in Slave Lake in 1980, was responsible for killing Dupres. Police investigated but were never able to gather enough evidence to make an arrest.
Need we ask – WHO DID THE INVESTIGATION???
Where have I been???
Been here all along.
I’ve been watching…but prefer to remain annonymous and prefer to do my own thing. I get more accomplished that way! I have my reasons for having an interest – but it’s NOT what you think!
In this internet age we are all swamped with minute bits of information which can be mined for useful information and even eventually wisdom. I for one am glad we have RealityChecker here helping with this task. He/She has a real talent for this uncovering parts of the story that could easily remain hidden because nobody has the patience to check out all the details that are public knowledge. Go ahead RealityChecker and do your own thing!
ok, understood and I’ll back off. Thanks.
OH BROTHER!!!
How am I going to word this without offending anyone.
It doesn’t matter WHO I am.
I’ll let you in on a little secret…I am JOE PUBLIC.
Nobody of importance. Just someone who is interested and is posting info, offering my opinion and outing misconceptions.
I don’t personally know anyone nor am I interested in getting to know anyone.
I do what I do out of concern. Nothing more!
BTW…I have a tendancy to think they have one heck of a problem related to Shaver’s polygraph that was submitted.
First, it is a fundemental RULE OF LAW regarding credibility that the courts determine credibility – not a polygraph!!! No one can tell me Shaver as a police officer for 32 years did not know what the RULE OF LAW is.
Second, according to Part II Section 11 of the Public Inquiries Act …Nothing is admissible in evidence at an inquiry that would be inadmissible in a court by reason of any privilege under the law of evidence. In other words Engleman – by allowing that polygraph to be submitted into evidence has blatently breached the Public Inquiries Act!
What is this? – do the laws/Acts NOT apply to this Public Inquiry or is it a make as you go approach and nothing applies to us – we can do what we want!
There’s a hell of a problem here. Perry and Helen Dunlop were RIGHT!!!
Why on earth would ANYONE trust in these proceedings – when it’s becoming so so obvious it’s a TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE.
The Dunlops say they have No faith in the system? – well Joe Public isn’t left with much faith either!!!
“SCREW OFF”…now do you get it?
GOODBYE!!!
I apologize for being any assistance. I’ll go back to where I was.
Don’t need the hassle!
“RealityChecker”. You are a very significant asset to Sylvia, her website and other readers.
I am only “around” for a about 1 or 2 days a week, as I spend most of my time “on-the-road” working and only have time to periodically look at the site.
I really wish I could research everything that is available in the public domain and connect the dots, as “myomy” has implied; something I’ve wanted to do for years, but, my situation, just doesn’t provide the convenience.
Please, whether you accept my apology or not, I apologize to you for my rudeness.
For the benefit of this site, don’t run away because of my “screw off” comment.
Allow me to “step back” and reflect for awhile.
Sincerely,
prima facie
I have a life too prima facie. This isn’t what I am all about. But at this time I choose to remain annonymous. Please accept that. I have my reasons for doing things the way I do. Maybe some day you will get to know who I am and I will elaborate on those reasons – but for now – it’s NOT the time.
Apology accepted!
Sincerely
RealityChecker
…or place on a Blog or comments thread.