Eyes on Cornwall

Share Button

Four more days until Perry Dunlop re-enters the lion’s den.

Hearings resume at 10:00 hours (10 am) Tuesday, 09 October 2007. Perry is scheduled to take the stand.

One day after Thanksgiving. One day before election day.
Several bits and pieces I want to touch on:

(1) Note today’s ground-breaking ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. Police can be sued!

John Callaghan, legal counsel for the Cornwall Police Service, may have a few busy but profitable years ahead 🙂

(2) Note the child abuse stats. 3% of provincial and 7% of Cornwall investigations involve sexual abuse. More than double the provincial average!!

I can;t help but wonder if this alarming statistic is no more than “rumour” and “innuendo”? The doings of Perry Dunlop? Or is this perchance the ‘work’ of Cornwall’s real and “alleged” paedophiles?

(3) Note that David Sheriff-Scott has concluded that Ron Leroux told the truth on the stand and that he lied to Perry Dunlop back in 1996.

As convenient as that may be for the diocese, and as nice as it is that the diocese has donned sheep’s clothing when it comes to Perry, how Sheriff-Scott reached that conclusion is beyond me.

On 27 June 2007 I queried if someone had put something in Ron’s water. That wasn’t the Ron Leroux I once knew on the stand.

I don’t claim to know what happened with Ron over the past several months, nor what prompted his floundering attempts to recant after ten years. Would I did. But I do believe it is hasty to conclude, as seems to be the case with the gathered throng, that his ever-changing testimony at the inquiry is proof he is now telling the truth. I still believe there must be serious questions raised regarding the possibility of threats and/or deals. I also believe there is a strong possibility Ron’s emotional, physical and/or mental health rendered him incapable of testifying and his testimony should have been automatically rendered null and void.

That said, and regardless of what he did or didn’t do or say, I am genuinely concerned about Ron’s well-being. Under normal circumstances I would call to find out how he is. Under the present circumstances however my concerns would at best be misconstrued and at worst spun into a conspiracy of some sort. In the end my expression of concern for Ron would fall at Perry’s feet. The spin masters would say Perry made me call Ron to exert pressure on him to recant his recantation ………….etc etc etc..

I fear I dare not give cause for another layer of spin to further mask the facts. Plus, Perry doesn’t need that. Once lawyers start their spin he doesn’t stand a chance, witness the first Leduc sex abuse trial. A distraught mother called Perry Dunlop! That was the sum of it. And Leduc walked.

So, no. There’s already been enough spinning and misconstruing and misrepresenting and villifying Perry’s every move, word, deed and contact.

I think about Ron, but dare not call him.

That’s the climate in Cornwall.

Very unhealthy, but, believe me, very very real.

(4) Note the 2001 article in Ethics Role Call – American praise for the courage and conviction of Perry Dunlop.

I am struck at this time by two sentences:

….leaders must stand up and let it be known that ethical behavior is both encouraged and protected, and that people who step forward will be supported. Failing that, there should be no surprise when officers take stock of what has happened to people like Perry Dunlop, and decide they are unwilling to pay a similar price for doing “the right thing.”

That I believe speaks for itself. How many police officers from coast are prepared to do ‘the right thing’ to protect children after witnessing the relentless wringer the spin doctors in ‘the system’ have put Perry and his entire family through for 14 years?

(5) Yesterday I pondered why the commission has no compunction to hear from a host of the alleged paedophiles of Cornwall, and why not one will be compelled to take the stand.

I have another name to add to the list.

Robert Sabourin.

The former Cornwall school teacher is once again facing charges. ( I thought i had posted the article. Will do so later today)

The puzzle here is why is the commission not compelling this known Cornwall paedophile to testify?

Sabourin taught at LaCitadelle. Father Gilles Deslaurier was chaplain at LaCitadelle. For a spell at least their tenure over-lapped.

Deslaurier was close to Adolphe Proulx, one time bishop of Alexandria-Cornwall and later Bishop of Hull Quebec. Sabourin was known to have a particularly close friendship with Proulx.

Sabourin was also known to have friendships with a number of clergy in the Alexandria-Cornwall diocese. The pair undoubtedly knew each other. The question is, how well?

After his sex abuse trial and conviction Deslaurier wound up in the Diocese of St. Jerome, Quebec.

After his sex abuse trial and conviction Sabourin wound up in St. Jerome, Quebec.
Coincidence? Who knows?

The fact however is that Sabourin could undoubtedly answer a lot of questions about the sexual proclivities of bishops, clergy and Roman Catholic laymen within the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall. Without doubt he and Gilles Deslaurier together know more than Perry Dunlop could ever begin to know about what was going on in Cornwall.

Why is the commission not compelling this former Roman Catholic teacher, a convicted paedophile and friend of the diocesan clergy, to testify?

(6) The eyes of the world are on Cornwall.

An addendum by an American has been attached to the email advisory I posted at the foot of my last blog. It reads:


This is an issue close to our hearts.

The request is that in addition to you forwarding this letter to anyone on your e-mail list that you also please send an email to: info@cornwallinquiry.ca or via their web page at: http://www.cornwallinquiry.ca/en/contact/index.html and inform them you’re watching the Cornwall Proceedings, and will be watching how Perry Dunlop is treated by the commission at his future appearance.

All that is necessary is a simple note that you are watching the proceedings and will be watching how you treat Perry Dunlop and his wife on October 9th. Just to remind them that they are being observed. Somehow, evil does not do very well when Light is shed upon its activities. Let us shed some Light on this case.

Remember, what is happening in Canada also has effects here in the USA, especially since many of those accused in Cornwall traveled into the USA to abuse children.Thank you,

(7) Blogging. I notice people are having trouble posting blogs. When you go to post a blog click on the blue screen – it will turn white. Either write your blog there or paste your previously written text.

You will see a small red “x” at the bottom of the screen. When you are finished and ready to submit the blog, click on that little “x” That is the submit button which for some reason is not properly identified as such. (if anyone out there familiar with WordPress can help me fix that up I would appreciate the assistance)
After you submit I believe you also need to hit the logout button when you’re finished.

(8) A reminder to check New to the Site on the Home page regularly. I post links to every new posting on theinquiry.ca on New to the Site.
Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Eyes on Cornwall

  1. prima facie says:


    …”The Exploitation and Re-victimization of Victims”…

    In the “Cornwall Standard-Freeholder” dated 04 October 2007 and an article written by “Terri Saunders” entitled, “Leroux lied about Dunlop pressure: lawyer”, Ms. Saunders writes, “Ron Leroux has lied in the past about a lot of things, including being manipulated by former cop Perry Dunlop, a lawyer for the Catholic church suggested Wednesday.” Also, she writes, “David Sherriff-Scott said Leroux made up stories to suit his own agenda which was damage the reputations of innocent people.”


    Boy, I tell you, when David Sherriff-Scott speaks, everyone stops everything to listen.

    MOST DISTURBINGLY though and Unfortunately, EVERYONE believes his assertions to be factual…or…the truth. HELLO, wakey!! wakey!! Even though Sherriff-Scott is a great manipulator of the news media and public opinion, does anyone really think he is without bias….HELLO!!! HE IS A LAWYER, NOT GOD. Furthermore, David Sherriff-Scott has been representing the “accused” (Roman Catholic Diocese)for fourteen years. HE HAS AN AGENDA!!! HELLO!!!

    In fact, I can assure you, Sherriff-Scott wants EVERYONE to dismiss Mr. Leroux as a liar….anyone know why???

    As is heard frequently at the “Inquiry” let me say the following;

    “Wouldn’t it be fair to suggest”, that because of Mr. Leroux’s victimization and minimal “treatment or help”, he is in fact behaving or “reacting” exactly as any very distressed and ill victim might behave? Mr. Leroux and other victims have learned how to “survive”, perhaps not live “functionally” but, “SURVIVE”!! They have utilized various learned and innate, “defense mechanisms”, which have “kept them alive.” (“google” “defense mechanisms”, “flight or fight”) Besides, “dissociation”, defense mechanisms can include, “argue, comply, withdraw, rationalize, justify, lie, etc., etc”.

    Mr. Leroux is behaving “normal” for a person who has suffered as he has. He needs help not “punishment” from the likes of Mr. Sherriff-Scott, with his undisclosed but clearly, obvious to me, “motives.”

    “Wouldn’t it be fair to suggest”, that representatives for law firms were sent to Cornwall, to “round up” as many “alleged victims” as possible, sign them to agreements with the law firm and “command” their silence and loyalty? (sounds like abuse to me).

    These “alleged victims” may have included Mr. Leroux; right? I mean how badly was he “jerked” around by these “$$$$$ civil litigation clowns?”PROMISES, NOTORIETY!! GOVERNMENT FUNDED ASSIGNMENT!!!PROMISES! PROMISES!!$$$$$

    Many of the other, “alleged victims” are still too injurred to know what they are doing or involved in….yes, I mean YOU…..!

    “Is it not fair to suggest”, these “alleged victims” were told stories of receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars, for potential settlements, surrounding “sexual abuse” claims or allegations? “Is it not fair to suggest”, many “alleged victims” have received monies and have been “gagged” further?

    “Is it not fair to suggest” that Mr. Leroux may have objected to, or resisted, or perhaps he was intimidated or INFLUENCED as a result of the “Inquiry””pre-conditioning”, he had to undertake prior to giving testimony? Other witnesses have complained about the “pre-conditioning”, but they have not spoken publicly about it.

    I MEAN, “Is it not fair to suggest” that Mr. Leroux has spent most of his life in “fear, pain, hurt” and he is, at least “surviving” any way he can?

    The Advisory Panel is ignorant of the above, because they are “self-serving”, “rent an expert to meet your biased mandate”, puppets, who will be revealed further. Judge Glaude and Mr. Engelmann are ignorant of the above because they are ignorant “placements” by the “Pearheads” and they don’t give a s—!! The fact is, the “mandate” will meet its mandate, no matter what.

    AND, Mr. Sherriff-Scott’s “motive” for such a public humiliation of Ron Leroux…..to protect his clients at any cost.

Leave a Reply