Dunlop needed Leroux for suit: lawyer

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

21 September 2007

Posted By Terri Saunders

Perry Dunlop ignored allegations of abuse levelled against an alleged victim because he needed the man's story to shore up a multi-million dollar lawsuit, an attorney for the city police implied Thursday at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

"I'm suggesting your husband needed Ron Leroux for his civil suit," Peter Manderville said to Helen Dunlop. "Would you agree with that?" "No," said Dunlop, "I would not."

The inquiry has heard allegations from another man, identified only as C-8, that Leroux sexually assaulted him in the past. Manderville asked Helen Dunlop during cross-examination Thursday why she and her husband didn't report those allegations to authorities.

"He (C-8) was an adult," said Dunlop.

While testifying this week, Helen Dunlop said several times her husband, who served for years as a constable with the Cornwall Police Service, went against the orders of his superiors to deliver a file to the Children's Aid Society. That file contained allegations of historical abuse made by another man, David Silmser, against Rev. Charles MacDonald, a city priest.

Dunlop said her husband was doing his duty under the Child and Family Services Act, which obligates individuals in a position of authority to report any suspected abuse of a child to the CAS.

Perry Dunlop launched a civil lawsuit in the late 1990s against a number of individuals and organizations in the area, alleging they conspired to cover up decades of child sexual abuse and the existence of a pedophile clan at work in the region.

Helen Dunlop said that, after hearing the stories told by a number of alleged victims, she became personally convinced MacDonald had sexually assaulted children. In 1996, police charged the priest with several sex-related crimes but those charges were stayed in 2002 when a judge determined it had taken too long to bring the matter to trial.

Dunlop has said that when she heard C-8's allegations involving Leroux, it didn't change her mind about either man's story.

"Did it cause to you to stop and assess Mr. Leroux in a different way?" asked Comm. Normand Glaude. "Did you believe (C-8) or disbelieve him or did you form any opinion?"

"I don't know that I formed any major opinion at that time," said Dunlop.

"I don't know that it affected it to any great extent, their credibility."

While on the stand, both C-8 and Leroux have said portions of the statements they've made in the past about abuse they either suffered or witnessed were embellished and, in some cases, completely fabricated.

Both men have said Perry Dunlop pressured them into saying things they now claim aren't true.

Helen Dunlop said Thursday her faith in what Leroux told her and her husband years ago has not faltered.

"I believe what he said at the outset is true," said Helen. "I believe what he told the inquiry is false. To this day, I still believe what he told us was the truth."

Peter Wardle, an attorney representing the Citizens for Community Renewal, said if Leroux has, in fact, told the inquiry the truth, there's a chance the story he told the Dunlops many years ago was an effort to manipulate the couple.

"If you're wrong, then you were manipulated by him," said Wardle.

"That's a big 'If,'" said Dunlop, "but I take your point."

Dunlop's cross-examination went by quickly, with only a handful of parties questioning her on her evidence.

At one point, Glaude asked David Sherriff-Scott, an attorney for the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese, if he had any questions, to which he replied that he did not.

"I'm a little disappointed, your honour," said Dunlop.

Outside the hearings, she elaborated.

"I was surprised there were no questions from the church and no questions from Mr. (Michael) Neville (an attorney representing MacDonald at the inquiry) during cross-examination," Dunlop said. "Our lives are an open book. We have nothing to hide. I was ready to go toe-to-toe with Mr. Sherriff-Scott and Mr. Neville."

Frank Horn, an attorney representing the Coalition for Action on Child Sexual Abuse, asked Dunlop if the inquiry should consider recommending whistleblower protection for those who come forward to uncover child abuse.

"If this inquiry doesn't make a recommendation to that effect, it will send a very strong message to every police officer in Canada," said Dunlop, "that when you stand up for children you're going to get nailed."

Dunlop completed her testimony Thursday afternoon.

She and her husband will return to the inquiry this morning at 10:30 when it's expected Perry Dunlop will be asked once more if he's willing to answer questions before the commission.

The former cop has so far refused to testify.