Never, ever, ever

Share Button

Perry Dunlop is a political prisoner. He has spent 156 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children, and then daring to say he has lost faith in the justice system. This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.


Perry received a stack of birthday greeting from around the world!  Listen to this:  cards, notes, Masses and greetings from every province in Canada, and a multitude of states including California, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Illinois, and a number of countries including Spain, Venice, Great Britain, Wales, Australia.

Perry has countless new friends and supporters from one corner of the world to the other!  Thankfully the eyes of the world are watching this terrible travesty of justice unfold, this an unbelievable saga which defies logic and common sense – a decent upright citizen locked behind bars, … because he did his all to protect children, and in the process lost all faith in the administration of justice in this once great nation.

And real and “alleged” paedophiles prowl the streets of the nation unfettered and free.

I have said in the past and will it again, this will go down as the shame of the nation!

All correspondence deeply appreciated by Perry.  He cherishes every word. Don’t ever forget him in there.  He needs your prayers and support constantly.

And don’t forget Helen and the girls.  This has been and continues to be an extremely difficult ordeal for the entire family.


Hearings resumed at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Friday 25 July 2008.  Dr. Raymond Legault will take the stand.  Remember, it’s Friday so hearings will run through lunch and recess in the early afternoon.


I have posted the transcripts of Gord Bryan’s testimony, 23 July 2008 and 24 July 2008. Scroll down to page 60 on the former.


The ODE to deceased Bishop Adolphe Proulx was read into the record yesterday.  Not an awful lot to it but certainly evidence of Father Don Scott being shipped around hither and yon – even off to Steubenville, Ohio in 1968!!  And bits and pieces about Father Gilles Deslaurier.  I will create a page for Proulx and put the ODE info in along with other bits and pieces I have at my disposal. (Scott molested Claude Marleau)


I don’t quite know what to say about Gord Bryan’s testimony.  The man was here there and everywhere in the diocese but knew nothing of the sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald until early 1994. He heard “rumours” about Fathers Paul Lapierre and Carl Stone some time in the late 50s but they were just “rumours.”  There were rumours about why Lapierre was leaving “because of problems he had here, so — rumours are rumours are rumours.”

There you go.  Rumours are rumours. Turns out Lapierre was indeed a molester.  Ditto Stone.  But, as we all now know all too well, “rumours are rumours.” And common sense says that if no one digs a little to find out the facts that’s exactly what they stay – “rumours.”

Then there’s the whole fiasco with brown thoroughly sealed envelope containing the now infamous illegal release which presumably no one but Malcolm MacDonald, Sean Adams and David Silmser ever laid eyes on until the media got hands on it and made it public.  And Sean Adams a lawyer read the release but didn’t grasp the illegal dimension, and Jacques Leduc, the diocesan lawyer who helped barter the pay-off, didn’t see it because he failed to open the sealed envelope to ensure all “i”s were dotted and “t”s were crossed before he passed the sealed envelope off to the diocesan Bursar (Bryan)with instructions to “Seal it well; mark private and confidential and to be opened by the Bishop  only”, and Bryan suggested to Leduc the envelope could/should be able to be opened by the bursar in the event the bishop wasn’t available so it was marked accordingly, and although he had permission to take a peek Bryan didn’t peek, and Bryan taped the sealed envelope before filing it away, and although it was obviously for the bishop’s eyes he did not bring it to the Bishop’s attention nor did he file it in the Bishop’s filing cabinet where it belonged, and although the Bishop had been concerned enough about this whole mess that he discussed it behind closed doors with his confreres at the CCCB plenary he wasn’t concerned enough to ask to see the signed documents, and so the doubly sealed brown envelope sat in obscurity in the wrong filing cabinet from September 1993 until chaos erupted in January 1994 when chaos erupted in the public domain, and even when chaos first erupted no one it seems dug into the filing cabinet to check the facts, and only when the media reported that the settlement entailed the victim withdrawing his complaint did someone finally dig out the sealed envelope and take a little boo inside, and, lo and behold there was the signed release – illegal clause and all!!!

Too much.  Too too much!

And then there was David Sheriff Scott jumping in protest when talk of an OPP/Bryan interview regarding luncheons vs “parties” at St. Andrew’s rectory arose. And Glaude paid heed and that was territory not to be trod with this witness.

 MS. HAMOU: Now, sir, in the context of this interview you were asked about dinner parties at St. Andrew’s Parish.


MS. HAMOU: And you indicated that there were no parties, there were luncheons. Can you explain to me what you meant by this?

MR. SHERRIFF-SCOTT: Sir, I object to this line of questioning. These are interviews and pursuant to investigations. The man’s response is embodied in his statement. We’re focused on the institutional response to allegations of the Diocese and that’s what the Commission is focused on as opposed to the flip side of the mandate, vis-à-vis organizations, which is what I urged the Commission to interpret the Diocese as. And so —

THE COMMISSIONER: But that’s gone. I don’t
know why you keep repeating that.

MR. SHERRIFF-SCOTT: No, no, because it makes a difference in terms of the response. If the Commission’s approach to this — I know you know my position on this. There’s no controversy about that. We understand each other in terms of your view and my view and so forth. But it makes a difference in terms of the jurisdiction.

If the Commission treats the Diocese as an organization then its interaction with institutions is on – – what’s being measured here is the alleged institutional response and not the underlying factual matrix of investigations. These are all questions pertaining to those matters, and whether it’s an allegation about a particular person it’s certainly pursuant to allegations. And so this is the substratum of fact and pursuant to your ruling I think this is not something we should be dealing with.


MS. HAMOU: I’m at a loss for words.

I wanted to explore these matters with Reverend Bryan to ascertain his knowledge of allegations that were made against priests and his knowledge about that. I’m not contending to ask him questions about allegations that would have or not have been made against

THE COMMISSIONER: So I still don’t understand for what purpose?

Mr. Sherriff-Scott is saying we have to look at the institutional response. So we have the OPP; we can look at the OPP’s institutional response and see how — what kind of questions they ask the Reverend, see if they were complete, if they were thorough, that kind of thing.

But from his vantage point —

MS. HAMOU: I’m prepared to move on.


All fine and dandy, but Bryan conveniently won’t be there to elaborate on what he knows about lunches at the rectory.  But, there you go.  We’re dealing with a handful of diocesan witnesses who are on and off the stand at break-neck speed.  Dare I say ” the Church” is being protected?

I get fed up with all this.  Truly I do.


And now at this “public” inquiry the gathered throng is heading in camera and behind closed doors – again!  Seems there are secrets surrounding names of “complainants” and at least one “perpetrator” with whom the diocese’s sex abuse committee dealt.  More monikers are in order. And Glaude is balancing the interests of the public to know.  And Frank Horn wanted to know if the name of the alleged perpetrator has ever been made public, and no one was prepared to answer him .

And on and on and on it goes.

But, there never was and is no cover up.  And the diocese is lily white.  And there absolutely never was a paedophile ring, or clan or pack.  Nor for that matter was there ever such thing as a ring or clan or pack of men who socialized and holidayed and partied and coffeed together and homosexually molested young boys. Never, ever, ever.  That’s all sheer ” rumour” and “innuendo.”


 I forgot to mention, Ron Wilson will not be testifying.  He has a sick slip.

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Clerical sexual predators. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Never, ever, ever

  1. RealityChecker says:

    The Diosese IS NOT lily white.

    My belief is….They never notified their insurers because they wouldn’t have been be able to hide the deductable in their accounting books. How would they explain the deductable if the insurers were to pay out?

    At least with a $27,000 check made out to the trust account of a lawyer (a lawyer who was on the book as having done real estate transactions for the Diosese) they could hide what $27,000 was released for. No one would question it was a payout to a sexual abuse victim.


  2. prima facie says:

    In Re: “Glaude rules former cop won’t testify.” Friday July 25, 2008. Ron Wilson has provided a Doctor’s note, so-to-speak, suggesting Ron Wilson “is not healthy enough to testify at the inquiry.” “It is difficult for me to envision how, under these circumstances, we could ever accommodate him as a witness,” said Glaude.
    Yes, Commissioner Glaude comes to this VERY significant “opinion”? “ruling”? “order”? or whatever it is, based upon his review of a Doctor’s note. Or, perhaps Commissioner Glaude reviewed other reports too? It’s not very clear though, is it?
    BELIEVE me, as MOST people know, Ron Wilson was much, much more, than a “former cop”. Wouldn’t public knowledge of the alleged effects of “rumour and innuendo”, endured by Mr. Wilson and his family, not serve the inquiry and the people of Cornwall well, by knowing this. Is this not one of the reasons for this public inquiry.
    But, Leduc and Wilson, are excused from expressing how the so-called rumour and innuendo destroyed them. Two very important witnesses “slipped through the cracks”, or did they?

    Doe anyone find it interesting how the witnesses were “positioned”, so-to-speak, on the “waiting list”? How was it decided Perry Dunlop would testify in the Fall of 2007. What strategy was utilized when deciding where all the witnesses would be placed on the list, waiting in line to testify and why?
    For example, several important witnesses, other than Dunlop, have simply presented a “doctor’s note” or other claims, therewith, immediately excluding them from being examined, cross-examined and/or other at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”. FURTHERMORE, I submit to you, it is my opinion; several of the witnesses have known for years, they would never “speak a word”.

    Consider the following. In part, looking at what has transpired at the inquiry since November 2007, what if Perry Dunlop had presented a “doctor’s note” in or before November 2007, disclosing a Doctor’s analysis and recommendations surrounding his “related” health issues and medical treatment, therewith suggesting, “it is difficult for me to envision how, under these circumstances, we could ever accommodate him as a witness.?” At the time, Perry Dunlop would have been “one of the first” to do this.
    DOES anyone really believe, Perry Dunlop would have received similar “sympathies” and dispositions, received by other witnesses, such as “former cop” Ron Wilson?
    How about “those” who seem to want Dunlop’s blood and nothing less. Would they have excused Dunlop then and now?

    Has anyone at the Inquiry or the “Attorney Generals Office” considered issuing an “Order” to subpoena and subsequently review Perry Dunlops related medical files, including Doctors reports, analysis, recommendations. Has anyone considered having his doctor’s testify? Don’t forget, Dunlop is currently “serving time”, with his “Charter Rights and Freedoms” basically, suspended, “anything goes”. Even people “locked up” have “Rights and Freedoms”. Isn’t this correct Mr. Greenspon, Mr. Greenspan,
    Mr. Humphrey, Mr. Skurka, Mr. Glaude and others?

    However, you see people, I believe Perry Dunlop WANTS to testify. Yes, but, about the facts. I believe he wishes to re-assert his information previously submitted into various court proceedings and this “Cornwall Public Inquiry”. However, I believe, in part, Dunlop, for various reasons does not trust the public inquiry mandate and does not trust “the coliseum” designed to slaughter him and render him totally mentally and physically incapacitated. Is it not obvious to even the uninformed, something is terribly wrong here and it can’t be all Dunlops fault?

    Really people, after reviewing the “facts” surrounding this entire “public inquiry” and before, I submit, how can any reasonable person conclude, this is a “fair and balanced” public inquiry?

    My opinion. I pray Commissioner Glaude is also brilliantly naïve and ignorant…..and nothing else.

  3. Sherlock says:

    I notice in the Proulx evidence that the death certificate asserting “asphyxiation due to hypoglycaemic attack” is signed not only by the coroner I. Deepan, but also by a Dr. R.H. Huxtable. A difficult call perhaps, especially as the Bishop had made some very dangerous enemies from his work on human rights in Guatamala and Chile. He chaired some international inter-church investigation committee; death threats would be par.

  4. RealityChecker says:

    So…(and I’m just trying to put things in proper context after reading transcripts)…

    Ron Wilson suceeded in getting a doctor’s pass – 2 reports from a specialist and 1 from his family doctor are reviewed to come to the decision.

    The 2 specialist reports came from a Dr. Solonyna and in whom Wilson has been under care for the past 10 years.

    This wouldn’t by any chance be Dr.Daniel Solonyna from Montreal – would it???

    It’s NOT a familiar name and sure can’t find anyone else listed as a physcian under that name!

    Solynyna ia a PSYCHIATRIST.

    So I take it Ron Wilson just got excused from testifying at the Cornwall Public Inquiry for a debilitating psychiatric illness he’s had for the past 10 years??? But no supporting evidence. And Comissioner Glaude has come to the conclusion the inquiry can’t accommodate Mr. Wilson because of his mental health issues – or “debilitating illness”.

    Uh…what about the victims??? Where’s the fairness here???

    Who is getting the wool pulled over their eyes. Like you prima facie I pray Glaude is brilliantly naive and ignorant!!!

    BTW….Proulx’s investigation and autopsy???

    Done by a local GP – Indrajeet Deepan. NOT a pathologist or forensic expert!!!Only a local family physician taking on extra duties and acting as a coroner at that time. Few extra dollars in his pocket.

    Regional Coroner Huxter?? – buddies with Dr. Charles Smith – need I say more?

    Unbelievably DISGUSTING!!!

  5. AbsentObserver says:

    While I do not like the idea of anyone from an institution getting a so-called “pass” from the inquiry, I think I need to clarify a perception held by a few people. When I read commentary which suggests it’s ONLY people from the institutions who are being excused, it’s necessary to point out others who have been extended the same courtesy. Both David Silmser and Ron Leroux left the witness stand before their testimony was completed due to information provided to the inquiry by medical officials. In both cases, evidence was presented which suggested both men would suffer greatly if forced to continue. They were not forced to continue.

    I have a hard time accepting it when anyone believed to have important information is permitted to skip testifying in any capacity. I, for one, would have liked to have heard the rest of what Dave and Ron had to say. I also would have liked to hear from Perry Dunlop, Heidi Sebalj and Ron Wilson. The fact of the matter is neither of these people, for a variety of reasons, is in a position to sit in that witness stand and go through the process of examination and cross-examination.

    If I respect the decisions of Perry, Dave and Ron not to testify, I must do the same for Heidi, Ron and anyone else. I do not want to see anyone else victimized by this process. It may be tough to take, especially when most of us know what the inquiry is missing out on hearing, but this is the process. I was very sad to learn Heidi would not be testifying as I believe she could have given all of us great insight into the inner workings of the Cornwall Police Service around the time of Dave’s complaint and all that followed. But I do not wish for her to have to go through the process of testifying if it would damage her mental health. This inquiry is not worth that much. I understand victims have suffered greatly, both through the abuse they experienced and the aftermath as well as through participation at the inquiry. But for those victims who had the emotional stability and courage to be questioned as they were, it was a difficult time. They gave us all a window into their lives and helped us understand the affects the abuse and the resulting institutional response (or lack thereof) had on them. I applaud their bravery in stepping into the Weave Shed, but I’m certain most if not all of them would tell you taking that stand is a personal choice. For some, they were able to do it. For others, they were not. I’m certain if Perry had provided the inquiry with medical documents outlining the emotional anguish he would suffer through testifying, he wouldn’t be behind bars today. But Perry’s story is different. He’s behind bars because his duty is not only to protect children but to stand in defiance of a system which would rather jail a whistleblower than hear the truth. Perry is making history by being the one person to stand up and say, “I will not testify at this inquiry, not just because of my health and not just because of what this will do to my family but because I have no faith in this process.”

    So, here’s my point — those people who come forward (or are brought forward) and do not testify have their reasons. If we start pointing at one person and demanding they speak while allowing others to be silent, we are not being fair. So, RealityChecker, I think the “fairness” you seek might be something we can all foster.

  6. RealityChecker says:

    I beg to differ with you…

    Ron LeRoux, David Silmser and countless other victims had the guts and DID TESTIFY! They DID take the stand and I’m most certain it wasn’t easy for any of them! I laud their courage and fortietude to fo the unthinkable – talk openly and publically about the abuse they endured – on the witness stand of the Cornwall Public Inquiry. Whether they finished their testimony or not is here nor there. THEY DID IT!!! They were on the stand!!!

    Perry Dunlop has CHOSEN not to testify. Perry Dunlop is facing the consequences.

    Heidi Sebalj and Ron Wilson opted to take the easy way out – doctor’s notes. They didn’t even hit the stand.

    I don’t wish mental anguish or distress on anyone and you are right – this Inquiry is not worth it. However, lets put things in proper perspective – it was a little TOO EASY for a few “institutional” witnesses to get a way out regardless what their reasons might be!!!

    And yes I am pointing fingers.

  7. RealityChecker says:

    ….and by the way Dunlop did take the stand too!!!

  8. Myomy says:

    Taking the stand is much easier for some than for others. There is no doubt in my mind that Perry Dunlop would have had a much worse grilling than anyone from the police or church. Sheriff Scott is the most effective of the lawyers. Just having him there either protecting you or out to get your scalp would be a big factor never mind the rest of the pack most of whom would be out to get Perry Dunlop. Perry should have an automatic medical dismissal without any doctors letters because his grilling would reduce the strongest most self assured person to a wreck.

  9. prima facie says:

    I believe an attempt to put Perry Dunlop’s refusal to testify at the Cornwall Public Inquiry in the same boat as witnesses who have presented Dr’s notes, consequently facilitating their avoiding testimony, is “simple minded” thinking, to say the least and hopefully nothing more than naïveté.

    In fact, to represent that “all such” cases must be regarded in the “same light” and understanding is, in my opinion, a very dangerous practice.

    It is my belief Perry Dunlop and some members of his family have extensive medical histories, relating to this matter. But, the Dunlop’s know the many elaborate and intricate complexities of this “file”; some of which helped convince Perry to take the action he took in 1993 and thereafter; so they want to speak about “the facts”.

    Also, does anyone recall Leduc’s reluctance to disclose how he believes “rumour and innuendo” affected him and his family?
    I believe “the Dr.’s notes and Leduc’s refusal to disclose”, for various reasons, are well calculated strategies, designed and instructed by various legal counsel.

    May I remind people, there have been many previous litigations and “purported” investigations, with copious evidence and testimony in the records.

    Also, there exists current litigations, complaints and there are anticipated litigations; all surrounding the various issues being discussed at this Inquiry.

    In the context of news media disclosures, in addition to so-called “rumour and innuendo”, made in and since 1993, relating to “sexual abuse allegations” and “prominent” citizens; I believe, anyone who has lived in and around Cornwall or who has worked in the healthcare services, is well aware of the medical treatments some of these “witnesses” have received, despite the efforts to “muzzle” everyone. Much of the intervention and “treatment” was conducted prior to 2000.
    I, of course, have listened to many opinions on what issues prompted some people to seek the treatment or receive the treatment, they received.

    I submit, despite what the Dunlop’s have been through and the medical treatment they have received and most likely are still receiving, “the Dunlop’s” know they speak the truth, they have nothing to hide and they are willing to disclose the facts in a “safe and fair” environment, even though he has already submitted his written testimony.

    I will not go into detail about “closed systems”, but I would urge readers to “Google” “closed systems” or conduct other research.

    In my opinion, Cornwall is synonymous with “closed system”, to the extreme. I believe people existing in such an extreme, “closed system” such as Cornwall, live “covert, out-of-date, inhuman lives, where rules remain fixed and there are spoken and unspoken restrictions on comment.” Outcomes are “accidental, chaotic, destructive and inappropriate.” In this type of system, self-worth grows ever more doubtful and depends more and more heavily on the dominating personalities. Knowingly or unknowingly, people become complacent, avoid challenging authority and if people are unwilling or unable to relocate, learn how to survive.

    Finally, Perry Dunlop was at the Cornwall Public Inquiry in the Fall of 2007. He has provided authorities with many related files as well as his own testimony surrounding the facts. In addition, Helen Dunlop testified under examination and cross examination, in detail.

    Would any of the wives/significant others or family members of “the others” like to testify?

Leave a Reply