Cop Who Reported Cornwall Pedophile Ring Gets Six Months

The Wanderer

20 March 2008 

By PAUL LIKOUDIS  

Former Cornwall Constable Per­ry Dunlop, who reported a decades ­long coverup of a pedophile clan in eastern Ontario, was ordered jailed for six months on charges of civil contempt of court for refusing to tes­tify at the so-called Public Inquiry into historical sex abuse and the “ institutional response” in Corn­wall, Ontario. 

Prior to his sentence, delivered on March 5 at the Ontario Divisional Court in Toronto, he had been jailed for two weeks, following his arrest by Royal Canadian Mounted Police at his home on Vancouver Island, B.C., February 17. After he serves his six-month sentence, he will be sen­tenced to serve an additional term on charges of criminal contempt of court. 

Dunlop refused to testify at Jus­tice Normand Glaude’s Inquiry last October, saying he had “lost confi­dence” in the country’s judicial sys­tem. He said that he had nothing new to offer that was not contained in his 150-page “will state,” a com­plete record of his investigation with 11 boxes of supporting docu­mentation which he submitted to the Ontario Provincial Police al­most a decade ago.

  Testimony at the Weave Shed in January and February by 19 differ­ent officials involved in that “inves­tigation” and numerous other “in­vestigations” by officials in the Cornwall Police, Ottawa Police, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Pro­bations and Corrections bureaus and the Children’s Aid Society, led to some interesting revelations about the circle of police, proba­tioners, corrections officials, priests, and lawyers involved in the alleged abuse and subsequent coverup: Not only did they all know each other, they seemed to be constantly at the same dinner parties and other social and church events.

  Almost everyone who has testi­fied recently seemed to know, for example, that probation officer Ken Seguin (who committed suicide in December 1993 after he was im­plicated as a member of the “ clan”) was not only a homosex­ual and molesting youth put in his charge, but he was placing proba­tioners under his supervision to the care of Fr. Charlie MacDonald, who was also allegedly abusing them.  

For example, retired probation officer Jos Van Diepen testified that he was at a dinner party in the early 1980s when a friend told him that he had been at another dinner party with both Fr. MacDonald and Ken Seguin (everyone knew they were best of friends, and the attorney representing Fr. MacDonald at the Weave Shed, Michael Neville, one of Ontario’s most prominent crim­inal attorneys, is also representing the estate of Ken Seguin) where David Silmser had been sexually abused.  For at least ten years before Seguin was charged with abusing young boys put under his authori­ty, his superiors in the Probation Department, as well as officers in the Cornwall Police, knew of his repu­tation as a homosexual with a pre­dilection for young males. Not only that, Van Diepen also testified that one of Fr. MacDonald’s friends, with whom he would regularly vacation, was the crown attorney in Cornwall, Guy DeMarco. 

At the March 5 hearing in Toron­to, Justice Lee Ferrier of the Ontar­io Divisional Court said Dunlop’s contempt of court “was open, con­tinuous, and flagrant.” He also said that Dunlop, 46, can get out of jail any time he wants if he agrees to testify at the Cornwall Inquiry. 

After the March 5 Toronto hear­ing, Sylvia MacEachern wrote on her blog at http://theinquiry.ca that she found it curious the attorney representing Justice Glaude and pressing the contempt case against Dunlop is Toronto attorney David M. Humphrey of the Toronto firm Greenspan Humphrey Lavine. A member of that firm, noted MacEachern, is Jill D. Makepeace, who at one time represented Jacques Leduc, the former canon lawyer for the Diocese of Alexan­dria- Cornwall who arranged the $ 32,000 payoff to David Silmser and was himself charged with sex­ual abuse of a minor male, at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.  After the sentencing David M. Humphrey told the press: “The ob­jective here as I’ve said throughout is to convince and coerce if neces­sary Mr. Dunlop to testify. If he maintains his refusal to testify and he has to face the consequences and appropriate penalties have to be imposed.” 

“The imposition of penalties in­volves more than just Mr. Dunlop and his personal situation. It’s im­portant that public denunciation be effective and that general deter­rence be effective through the im­position of appropriate penalties,” he added. 

In Mrs. MacEachern’s view, the justice system’s punitive action against Dunlop — which she con­siders “possibly illegal” — “is all about saving face for Justice Glaude, who publicly promised that no one would be forced to tes­tify against his/her will, unilateral­ly waived Perry’s solicitor- client privilege, resorted to deception to secure an inter-provincial subpoe­na to force Perry to testify against his will, refused and continues to refuse to take Perry’s ‘no’ as ‘no,’ resorted to judicial bullying to put Perry behind bars, and now re­sorts to what can only be called judicial blackmail and intimida­tion to force Perry back to the Weave Shed. 

“ This goes beyond the pale. It truly does,” she said.  “Six months for a civil contempt conviction means what for the crim­inal conviction? A year? Eighteen months? That’s a secret. 

“Why the games? Why reserve sentencing on the criminal con­tempt — for six months? Why leave a man languish in jail for six months wondering how many more months of the same lie ahead?” she asked. 

 “Is this another arm to the rule of law? Judicial torture? To coerce tes­timony from a man who has clearly stated time and again he has lost faith in the system and told those two justices in writing that he be­lieves the inquiry mandate is wrong, the commissioner is in a conflict of interest, the agenda of the Ontario government and the of­fice of the attorney general is to ‘protect pedophiles and their sup­porters at all costs’. . . . 

“I cannot believe this is allowed to happen in a ‘democratic’ coun­try. I even have difficulty believing it is legal.” 

For the past two weeks, while Dunlop waited in a Toronto jail for his March 5 sentencing hearing, former Cornwall Police Service’s Staff Sergeant Garry Derochie has been on the stand daily. Derochie, who was the original Cornwall Po­lice investigator looking into Dun­lop’s initial charges of a “coverup” in 1993, has meticulously detailed, under interrogation by Inquiry Counsel Peter Engelmann, how the Cornwall Police viewed Dunlop. 

Dunlop, Derochie explained, had to be continually reprimanded, in­timidated, and disciplined for con­ducting investigations without war­rant, for speaking to the press, for releasing the results of his investi­gations to other police agencies. 

At the same time, Derochie as­serted that almost everyone on the police force in Cornwall knew for years, before Dunlop’s revelations, that a crown attorney, a probation officer, and a priest in Cornwall — among others — “liked little boys” but did not feel it was their busi­ness to do or say anything about it.  At the March 3 inquiry hearing in Cornwall, chief counsel Engel­mann asked Derochie: “And would you all have known that they were all good friends or purported to be good friends, the three of them?” 

Derochie responded: “ That — that was my thought on it, yes, that they were. And that was — again, that would be not through personal knowledge, but from what I had heard around.” 

Engelmann continued: “And you’ve also heard some rumors about [ Crown Attorney] Malcolm MacDonald himself; correct?” 

Derochie: “That’s correct.” 

Engelmann: “And what were they, sir?” 

Derochie: “That — that he was homosexual and preferred — his preference, his sexual preference was towards young people.” 

 Engelmann: “ It was more than homosexual; it was that he had a sexual preference or preference for boys. 

Derochie: “Yes, well, yes, yes. 

Justice Glaude: “Well, the — the note says ‘little boys’.”

  Derochie: “ Little boys. And I would use the same term in describ­ing a — a heterosexual male who dated 15, 16, 17-year-old girls; that he would prefer little girls. . . . 

 Engelmann: “ You said little boys.”  Derochie: “Little boys, yes.”  

Coincidence

  On March 6, one day after Dun­lop was jailed, convicted sex of­fender Michel Joseph Maybury, 54, was released from custody after serv­ing an 11-month sentence for a sex­ual assault on a five-year-old boy back in 2004, and settled in Corn­wall, just blocks away from one of his victims. Police said he has a criminal record dating back to 1974 for armed robbery, impersonating a peace officer, indecent assault on a male and sexual assault among oth­er charges.