Makes no sense

Share Button

Hearings resumed at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Tuesday 08 April 2008. S/Sgt. Luc Brunet’s examination in chief continues.


A kind benefactor has taken out a subscription to the National Post in Perry’s name. Perry now receives the Ottawa Sun and, as of Friday, the National Post.

If anyone would like to get Perry a subscription to the Ottawa Citizen he would appreciate that as well. He has hours upon hours of reading time at his disposal. The papers will keep him informed and abreast of what is happening in the news.

If you call to order the Citizen check first to ensure it has not already been ordered. Delivery address is:

Perry Dunlop c/o OCDC

Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre
2244 Innes Road
Ottawa ON
K1B 4C4

And keep the cards and letters going. He is enjoying and savours every one which comes his way.


Some comments on Brunet’s testimony of yesterday:

(1) Re Chief Claude Shaver and Luc Brunet travelled to Ottawa to meet with the Apostolic Pro Nuncio (Nuncio), Carlo Curis.

First and foremost, yesterday the Nuncio was referred to consistently by both commission counsel and Brunet as “the archbishop.” True enough Curis was an Archbishop. So is the Pope. However just as we do not refer to the Pope as “the archbishop” neither do we refer to the Nuncio as “the archbishop.” There are a number of archbishops in Canada, there is one, and only one, Nuncio. Shaver and Brunet might have set up an appointment with Archbishop Marcel Gervais, the Archbishop of Ottawa. They did not. For whatever reason they set up an appointment with the Nuncio, the Vatican ambassador to Canada.

According to Brunet it was Shaver’s idea that the pair visit the Nuncio.

To put this visit into perspective:

(i) Bu this time the Cornwall Police service had apparently concluded after a ten month “investigation” that no charges would be laid against Father Charles MacDonald because various officers had decided that for various reasons David Silmser was not a credible witness and there was no corroborating evidence, – and this despite knowledge of two other “alleged” victims;

(ii) Perry Dunlop went to Children’s Aid Society when he discovered that an investigation into sex abuse allegations against a local priest had been called to a halt and that two high profile “alleged” paedophiles – the priest and a probation officer – were on the loose in Cornwall. On 30 September 1993 Perry gave Richard Abel of the CAS a copy of David Silmser’s victim statement. (David Silmser was paid off, hushed and illegally gagged 02 September 1993. On 29 September 1993 he did as the settlement illegally obliged and told police that he no longer wished to proceed with criminal charges against Charlie.)

Remember also that from the time David Silmser first contacted the CPS in December 1992 no one at the CPS with knowledge of his allegations – Shaver and Brunet included – had exhibited any concrete concern that children in or out of ‘the Church’ were at risk. In other words, there was no attempt to have Charlie removed from circulation during the “investigation” nor was there any attempt to inform Roman Catholics parents that their children may well be at risk.

Finally, remember that there are allegations of a paedophile ring/clan and cover-up. Chief Claude Shaver, Bishop Eugene Larocque, Father Charlie, Ken Seguin and Malcolm MacDonald are/were amongst those who allegedly are/were members of the alleged “clan.”

So, with that as a backdrop, Brunet and Shaver decide on 04 October 1993 to set an appointment with the Papal Nuncio in Ottawa. The appointment was set for 07 October ’03.

The purpose of the visit was, according to Brunet:

MR. BRUNET: …to voice our concerns about the settlements — a settlement like this, how it didn’t resolve anything; it wasn’t in the interest of the public. Well, it was in the interest of the safety of the community. It wasn’t in the interest of the Church to do that. If they had — if there was some criminal activity going on that they have to deal with it and just settling it civilly didn’t meet any of the community safety concerns.

Can you believe that? In the interests of the safety of the community? Why now? Why are Shaver suddenly and very belatedly interested in the safety of the community?

If there was some criminal activity going on? Who’s job is that? This is ridiculous. The police washed its hands of Charlie, but ten months after the fact they want “the church” to do something? Do what? Ship Charlie off to another diocese? The same old same old?

This does not make one single iota of sense.

So, what did the pair hope to gain from the visit? Here are Brunet’s thoughts on that:

MR. BRUNET: … we were hoping that they would cause some type of further internal investigation. I was aware that they had already done somewhat of an internal investigation or looking into it and I was hoping —

THE COMMISSIONER: And what — what do you mean by that?

MR. BRUNET: Well, they had — we were advised by Mr. Silmser that he had already gone to the Church in December of 1992 and that they had met with him and — with Mr. Silmser and they had received his allegations and they had obviously interviewed the priest and we were hoping that they would do more to be able to address the community concerns or the community safety concerns.

Unbelievable isn’t it?

Brunet calls the goings on by the diocese an “internal investigation”? Where did that come from? From what I can see they were frantically scrambling to silence Dave. That’s an investigation?!!!

Remember too that at this point in time the public dis not know a boo about the sex abuse allegations against either Charlie or Ken Seguin. Anything that was out in the public domain would have been be chalked up to and discounted as no more than “rumour and innuendo.”

But, there were Shaver and Brunet – suddenly talking about “community concerns” and “community safety concerns”!

What community concerns? In October 1993 the community per se did not know! The cat had not as yet wriggled right out of the bag.

Was the Nuncio’s visit no more than a ‘pass the buck’ decidedly belated but equally decidedly pre-emptive strike?

No matter, the fact that Shaver decided to contact the Nuncio is intriguing. It is not a step the average Roman Catholic even thinks to take let alone takes. Indeed, most Roman Catholics don’t even know there is Nuncio. They do however understand that the Bishop is responsible for the priests in his diocese. Some eventually discover that if the bishop fails to pay heed to their concerns they might go to the Nuncio.

Again, as I asked yesterday, why the unusual decision of Chief Shaver to go to the Nuncio?

(2) Shaver and Brunet were, as was inevitable, directed by the Nuncio to take their concerns to Bishop Eugene Larocque.

According to an August 19994 interview with the OPP Brunet recounted the visit with Larocque thus:

“We advised the Bishop that we had independent statements that gave credibility to Mr. Silmser and confirmed homosexual behaviour by Father MacDonald. Bishop Larocque shared that he has serious concerns when he was approached about this settlement. He was led to believe by the people involved in these negotiations that the police had not found any other evidence to substantiate the accusations.”

Who involved in the “negotiations” allegedly told Larocque that there was no evidence to substantiate David Silmser’s allegations? Was it Jacques Leduc? Malcolm MacDonald? Sean Adams? Father Charles MacDonald?

Who? And where did he/they presumably get such information? In other words, who with the CPS was presumably revealing information, erroneous or otherwise, to Charlie’s team about the status of the sex abuse investigation?

(3) After the meeting with Larocque Chief Shaver received a call from Larocque. Shaver related the nature of the call to Brunet:

MR. BRUNET: He [Shaver] told me that he had received a call from the Bishop and that they had met with him [Charlie] and that he had told him that he was — he had admitted to being a homosexual and that he would be going for treatment.

Does this mean this is the first Larocque allegedly knew of Charlie’s sexual proclivities? Or does it mean Charlie didn’t say a boo about this for ten months? If yes, to the latter, what prompted Charlie to make the admission? Why then? After all, the criminal investigation had been successfully shut down. David Silmser had been successfully paid off and silenced, and in fact gagged. Why would Charlie decide to fess up to this in October 1993?

Strange? I think so. It makes no sense.
For that matter, how long and from what date was Charlie, a Roman Catholic priest, living a homosexual lifestyle in defiance of the moral teachings of his Church?

Why did Charlie not leave the priesthood and the Church if that’s the lifestyle he decided ‘choose’  and wanted to pursue?

(4) The Nuncio allegedly already knew about the sex abuse allegations against Charlie. Larocque had raised the issue at a meeting with bishops and it had seemingly become the topic of discussion.

The bishops meeting referenced would, I think, perhaps be the 1993 Canadian Conference of Bishops’ annual plenary.

It was the CCCB which one year prior (1992) had released its sex abuse guidelines in From Pain to Hope.

(5) The pay-off monies ( $32,000) are referred to in police notes as “mystery money.” According to one set of notes from, I believe October 1993, a discussion transpired regarding the “mystery money” and in the process the following was said:

“Father MacDougall, St Raphael’s, Charlie denied but Charlie put in $10,000 of his own money. Bishop put in $10,000 from the Diocese for treatment and someone else put in $10,000 or $12,000.”

Interesting. No?

(6) During the CPS investigation into the sex abuse allegations against Father Gilles Deslaurier Bishop Eugene Larocque allegedly kicked (“ordered”) two officers out of his office.

Is this why Shaver decided to go well over Larocque’s head to meet with the Nuncio! If yes, would this mean the Cornwall Chief of Police was intimidated by the Bishop?

Bottom line, it makes no sense to me at all that Shaver and/or his officers failed to initially discuss their concerns with Larocque and trekk off to the Nuncio. None.

Who suggested the trip to the Nuncio?

(7) The CAS conducted its own investigation into the sex abuse allegations against Charlie. When so requested the CPS refused to disclose the identities of the two other “alleged” victims to assist CAS. The CPS presumably refused to co-operate because the two had indicated to Heidi Sebalj in the past that they did not want their identities known.

Perry, however, was denounced and ridiculed by fellow officers and forced to disclose identities of “alleged” victims who desired similar protection and anonymity.

(8) On 24 November 1993 David Silmser called CPS and talked to a S/Sgt. Dupuis. According to Brunet S/Sgt Dupuis related the conversation as follows:

MR. BRUNET: Well, he explained that he had received a phone call from a male who had identified himself as David Silmser. The gentleman on the phone had explained to him that he was very close to settling a civil suit within the next 48 hours involving a sexual abuse case, and that he had requested that the officer put in a report indicating that should anything happen to him that Ken Seguin or Charlie MacDonald were to be considered suspects.

According to a document signed off by Dupuis

“[David Silmser] indicated that there were many peoples involved in this matter, mentioning a judge as well as Seguin and MacDonald.”

There was no follow up within the CPS regarding Dave’s reference to the involvement of a judge!!! None.

The following day, 25 November 1993, Ken Seguin was found dead in his home. The death was ruled suicide.

Tell me all of this makes sense. Tell me one more time there was and is no ring/clan and there was and is no cover-up. I keep forgetting….


Lunch break. Must get to the media of the day and get it posted.

Enough for now



This entry was posted in CCCB, Clerical sexual predators, Cornwall, Ken Seguin, Perry Dunlop. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Makes no sense

  1. prima facie says:

    I mean, does anyone really find Brunet’s testimony to be credible? He held two volunteer positions with the “Children’s Aid” while he was a police officer and he NEVER thought that sexual abuse allegations, surrounding incidents committed “in the past” warranted investigation or the reporting thereof. HELLO!! WHAT!! There is something “mighty strange” happening here folks and then the Shaver-Brunet trip to the “Papal Nuncio”…WHAT??.

    ALSO, everyone keeps saying that Silmser “settled a civil litigation out-of-court.” For $32k. It is reiterated, “civil litigation, civil litigation, civil litigation.”
    Sylvia, could you please provide a link to Silmser’s documents clearly identifying the “civil litigation, court file number” and a copy of the “Statement of Claim” Silmser filed in The Ontario Superior Court and subsequently “served” against his Defendants (the accused).

    I just want EVERYONE to clearly see if in fact, this was a real “court filed civil litigation”, where a “public record” is available or if it was in fact, a “private settlement, out-of-court”, with NO Court litigation EVER filed.

    Thanks Sylvia.

  2. Sylvia says:

    Good point prima facie. So simple. I just did a quick check on the pay-off docuements to ensure – no. There is court NO file no. Check the documents at

    A point here. When David Silmser was at Divisional Court during one of Perry’s appearances he was interviewed by a CBC reporter. The reporter asked if he had ever had a settlement with the church. Dave said no. I wondered if the reporter was perhaps referencing the $32,000 so later asked Dave if perhaps that’s what she was looking for. He was surprised. He didn’t quite follow what I was saying. It turned out that the $32,000 never for a moment crossed his mind as a settlement because he absolutley does not now and never did consider it to be a settlement. In Dave’s eyes and mind the $32,000 was a pay-off.

    So, there you go. They can chatter on and on ad nauseam about a settlement. As far as Dave was concerned it was no settlement, he was paid off 🙂

  3. RealityChecker says:

    What I find stunning in the past couple of days is that Sebjal was doing things behind her supervisor’s back and NOT reporting eveything to him (Brunet) because she didn’t TRUST him and was already sensing a coverup! (April 07 – pg 188-190)

    Do I read these transcripts right?

  4. AbsentObserver says:

    Heidi Sebalj does “after hours” investigations and talks to potential witnesses without informing her superiors. Hmmm. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? And she wasn’t punished? The CPS must have a soft spot for their girl. Seems to me she was put on that investigation with the hopes it would go nowhere fast, which it did. Turns out she was given a nice pat on the head and sent on her way. Perry was sent to jail.
    And what about John Callaghan suggesting the lawyer for the victims doesn’t have the right to question Brunet about the Silmser file? I’m pleased Dallas Lee was able to so ably articulate to the commissioner the fact he is the only counsel in the room to ask questions from the perspective of victims. Good job.

  5. Sylvia says:

    Yes. There it is. A mrs. Fitpatrick of the CAS apparnelty said that, accorind to the transcript, ” Sebalj would have told her that she did not trust Luc Brunet and that he was from Lancaster,and she felt that there was some kind of cover-up with the priest and with the Crown Attorney and with the Crown Attorney’s father.”

    There was further reference today to Heidi’s lack of trust in Brunet and the fact that she wouldn’t tell Brunet certain things because she didn’t trust him. I’m not sure if it’s referencing the same document -think it may be.


  6. RealityChecker says:

    If Sebalj did not trust her supervisor do you really think she was that upfront with him reporting all the details of her investigations to him??? Brunet came across like they were really close or at least worked very closely on the file together and all decisions on the Silmser file were done jointly. I somehow don’t think someone was being very truthful today.

    I find it very ODD not one but TWO CPS constables were working “off hours” doing investigations on alleged sexual abuse crimes…and both have been “targeted” as somewhat deranged. Neither will be testifying. Can you imagine the info and knowledge these two have!

    BTW…Has it been revealed yet WHO the judge was in Silmser’s phone call? I somehow think we are in for a few more surprises. Stay tuned.

  7. prima facie says:

    I believe Brunet, like Durochie, is a disgrace. IF this is representative of what over two-hundred and fifty-thousand dollars paid for, in the last couple of months, wherein, the “Cornwall Community Police Service” have been role-playing and otherwise preparing for testimony, well, “hello “Saturday Night Live.”…kids, playing “Cops”
    Any reasonable person can see right through his testimony.
    It is my opinion; Heidi was grossly exploited, in more ways than one, while on duty with the “CPS.” I believe she has been unemployed and on disability for a very long time.
    I believe she is now “hanging out” with a different “group of friends and acquaintances”.

    Sylvia: In recent days, this “civil litigation”, “out-of-court”, “settlement” terminology is being utilized more and more by “the powers that be”, “lawyers” and some “witnesses” . Also, falling in line and on “queue” is the “mainstream news media”. It almost seems like a “conditioning”.

    I believe that “CPS” witnesses, forthcoming witnesses and authorities, are relying on the naiveté and ignorance of laymen, in “their” effort to “minimize, justify, rationalize and therewith, mitigate” our opinions, regarding “alleged” cover-up and the “coercion” utilized to “silence” Silmser and other witnesses.
    The above witnesses et al, may be using the words “civil, out-of-court settlement, etc.” under the “guise” that they are related to an ACTUAL civil court litigation and therewith, are hoping that “we” deduce, an inkling of “fairplay”.
    ON the other hand, if there is in reality, never been any civil court litigation and “we” interpret that Silmser and other witnesses or “complainants” have been coerced into a “payoff”, in exchange for silence and withdrawal of criminal charges, then, “we” might just cry-out, “cover-up”.

    David Silmser must know if he hired a lawyer and filed a “Statement of Claim” against a “Defendant”, “the accused” or not and in which court he did file “the action”. There has to be a “court file number” and “Statement of Claim”.

    ANYONE; Commissioner Glaude and including lawyers who are cross-examining witnesses MUST make it crystal-clear. WERE “monies and/or other benefits” paid to David Silmser “the Complainant”, paid subsequent to “the Complainant” filing a “Statement of Claim”, civil action, or were the monies paid to Silmser, a result of a “payoff”, “constructed and implemented by more than one person”, in a back alley or across a kitchen table etc., where NO “Statement of Claim” has ever been filed and served on a “Defendant”.
    Are the “words” “out-of-court civil settlement”, among other words, being used when really, “payoff” is the correct terminology? HOW would “we” react then?

    The words, “out-of-court settlement”, “civil” etc., are more often utilized in “genuine” civil court litigations and in a legal context. If this was an “actual” case, the words, ”dismissed or withdrawal and settlement” would NOW be on the Court File Number docket sheet or record, in the records department of the applicable court and ANYONE could apply for a copy of the same.
    HOWEVER, the “words” can also be utilized to “lull” people into a false sense of security and (mis)understanding of the “facts”.
    THEREFORE, either way, will most definitely elicit very different interpretations of “intent” and “motivations”.
    I SUBMIT these “varying interpretations, intentions and motivations” are why in part; “The Cornwall Public Inquiry” mandate was recently “amended” dramatically, as “Ordered” by the Appellate Court.
    BASED on the “Rulings”, we will now see WHO will now be protected…can we say “historical abuse-historical sexual abuse?” “Failure to Act-Report?”

  8. RealityChecker says:

    Brunet testified today Silmser HAD a lawsuit when under cross by Council for the AG (Scharbach ???) (check transcripts when posted)

    They keep referring to this civil lawsuit and a civil settlement….no one obviously is saying “payoff”. The cop and the AG are saying settlement reached in civil suit so what is really going on here???

    With the above posts by prima facie and Sylvia now I’m really questioning….Did Silmser file a civil lawsuit??? Was a civil suit filed on his behalf without his knowledge??? (check it out – stranger things have happened!)
    Other questions…Where was this lawsuit filed – Cornwall??? Who filed it??? It certainly is in sworn testimony there was a civil lawsuit!!!

    Like prima facie I want to see the statement of claim before I ever take this as truth – can anyone find records of this – at the court house??? Cause I don’t believe there EVER was a civil lawsuit as what is being testified to. I believe there was a PAYOFF!

    They keep digging the holes deeper.

  9. RealityChecker says:

    April 09, pg 73 1st paragraph

    Brunet….”we had discussion about the –lawsuit or the, yeah, the civil — civil remedy.”

Leave a Reply