SQLFusion - Crown conlcuded victim not credible

Credibility issues stifled charges: document
Cornwall Standard Freeholder
Friday, December 15, 2006 - 10:00
Terri Saunders
Local News - Prosecutors initially didn't recommend sex-related charges be laid against a city priest because the alleged victim was deemed not to be credible.
Documents submitted as exhibits at the Cornwall Public Inquiry Thursday included a letter written by then-Crown attorney Robert Pelletier to one of his colleagues, then-Crown attorney Peter Griffiths in April 1997. In the letter, Pelletier outlines for Griffiths the latest developments in the Crown's case against Rev. Charles MacDonald.
The priest had been charged in 1996 with a number of sex-related crimes involving young boys. Those charges were eventually dropped in 2002 when a judge determined it had taken too long for the matter to get to trial.
"(David) Silmser's credibility was questioned bearing in mind the suspicious nature of certain of the allegations (sic), the lack of corroboration and Silmser's criminal record including dozens of convictions involving dishonesty," Pelletier wrote about an earlier Ontario Provincial Police investigation into Silmser's allegations against MacDonald. "It was decided at that time that charges would not be recommended. In fact, no charges were laid."
Pelletier also pointed out the fact when Silmser first came forward with allegations against MacDonald there were no other complainants bringing similar allegations to police.
It wasn't until the fall of 1995 Silmser's allegations finally resulted in criminal charges being laid - when two further alleged victims came forward, John MacDonald and another victim whose identity is protected under a publication ban.
Pelletier wrote Silmser complained of "four specific incidents," the last of which was an allegation of attempted buggery.
"Inconsistencies, internal conflicts, and outright absurdities involving that allegation resulted in charges being recommended only in respect of the first three allegations," Pelletier wrote. "The decision to recommend charges was made on the slimmest possible reasonable prospect of conviction test being met."
Pelletier went on to talk about the impact the involvement of former city cop Perry Dunlop had on the case. Dunlop was an officer with the Cornwall Community Police Service in 1993 when he came upon files related to the allegations against the priest and the fact Silmser had received a $32,000 payment from the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese. The files also indicated no charges were to be filed against the priest, something Dunlop has said in the past led him to bring the allegations to the Children's Aid Society for investigation.
Dunlop was eventually charged under the Police Services Act with various counts related to what was termed "unprofessional conduct" and "insubordination."
Pelletier tells Griffiths the charges against Dunlop never resulted in the officer being found guilty of any wrongdoing.
"Perry Dunlop was eventually exonerated of all police act charges," Pelletier wrote, "however has not abandoned his interest in this case."
Pelletier said Dunlop went on a "crusade" to get to the bottom of a variety of allegations, police investigations and charges involving a number of area men.
"He has since began a crusade aimed at exposing what he perceived to be a conspiracy in Cornwall by a certain number of named conspirators to obstruct justice, suppress evidence and generally undermine the credibility of those such as Dunlop who have attempted to expose this conspiracy," Pelletier wrote.
In time, a number of other alleged victims came forward with allegations, the contents of which gave rise to a belief among some members of the community a clan of pedophiles was at work in the Cornwall area, Pelletier wrote.
"Read together, the various statements, affidavits, pleadings and photographs paint a picture of a large and organized group of homosexual pedophiles involved in illegal sexual activities and abuse of power," he wrote. "Needless to say, I am not convinced that these allegations are well-founded."
Pelletier goes on to say the "Dunlop group" which consists of Dunlop, his wife Helen, his brother-in-law Carson Chisholm, the various victims and "ultimately (Dunlop's) counsel Charles Bourgeois are convinced of the existence of a conspiracy."
"Ultimately, a decision will have to be taken whether or not to recommend further charges against Charles MacDonald in relation to the new complainants," he wrote. "A decision to recommend charges would lend credence to these individuals' claims including the conspiracy theory. A decision not to recommend charges would in all likelihood be seen as the latest in the obstructive measures employed by those in authority."
Charges related to the new complainants were eventually laid against the priest. In staying all the charges against him in May 2002, a full 73 months after MacDonald was first charged, Judge Dan Chilcott said the Crown should have gone ahead with the prosecution of the original charges involving the three initial complainants and dealt with emerging allegations separate from that trial.
"The Crown could have proceeded to trial with the first charges within a reasonable period," said Chilcott. "The Crown should have been alert to the possibility of an (unreasonable delay) application being made and set a date for trial.
"Their failure to do so clearly caused delay."