Cameron’s Point

Cameron’s Point

Ron Leroux’ muddled recantations and testimony about what and who he did or did not see at Cameron’s Point, Ontario on the evening he alleges he was sexually abused by “Father Eugene” (Bishop Eugene Larocque) 

Cameron’s Point is on the St. Lawrence River a short drive east of Cornwall toward Montreal, Quebec.

Ron Leroux, whose allegations of a paedophile “clan” and ritual sexual abuse have long been the talk of Cornwall and focus of media,  took the stand at the Cornwall Public Inquiry and proceeded to recant large portions of his previous affidavits and statements.  He consistently blamed Perry Dunlop for statements which he, Ron, now claims are false.

In his inquiry testimony Ron stated and/or implied that he had been manipulated and coerced by Perry Dunlop, that he was intimidated by Perry and/or Perry’s lawyer Charles Bourgeois, that Perry and/or Bourgeois fabricated portions of his affidavits and statements, that portions of his statements were “all wrong” and had been “orchestrated,” and that he would sign anything “they” put in front of him because “I was on a hell of a merry-go round for a year — for a few years with them.” He also testified that he re-read the affidavits to the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) without correction because Charles Bourgeois was in the room, the implication being that he was intimidated.

The message conveyed was that as long as Perry Dunlop and/or Charles Bourgeois were around Ron was somehow obliged to stand by what he knew to be lies in his affidavit.His animosity toward Perry was both surprising and palpable as was his upset that Perry had packed his bags and relocated his family to British Columbia in 1999 leaving Ron “alone” (“I feel Perry abandoned me and left me alone to face this mess.”)

Unfortunately, and as is usually the case, the transcripts fail to capture the emotion, body language, facial expression, tenor, pauses and silences which are part and parcel of and integral to a witness’ testimony. However, even minus emotion and silences Ron’s testimony to 29 June 2007 has, as you will see, been a muddled and confusing mess.  Therefore, in an attempt to sort out what Ron has or has not recanted and what his testimony of 26 June 2007 to 29 June 2007 actually is I am breaking it down and grouping it into categories in the hopes of shedding some light on the muddle. As I complete a category I will both link it at the foot of page and post it as separate posting.I will start with Cameron’s Point.  I recommend you read the relevant sections of both Ron’s 13 November 1996 affidavit (see para #15) and his statement of 04 December 1996.

Cameron’s Point

Some of Ron’s testimony regarding his sex abuse allegations against Bishop Eugene Larocque at Cameron’s Point is unchanged. What has however changed is that Ron now says he doesn’t know the identity of the other priests who were there.  He recanted and then sort of un-recanted his allegation that two priests he alleged molested him during confession, Fathers Cameron and Donald McDougald, were there.  And he recanted and sort of un-recanted his allegations that he witnessed some sort of a ritual with altar boys with candles in their bottoms and other boys being sexually abused.  I say sort of because, as you will see, after three days on the stand and the belated introduction of a new document into evidence Ron’s initial inquiry conviction of what and who he absolutely did or did not see at Cameron’s Point evaporated into thin air.

As you will see, Ron seemed to fluctuate on whether or not he saw any other sexual improprieties the evening he alleges he was sexually molested by “Father Eugene” (Bishop Eugene Larocque) at Cameron’s Point, Ontario.  And he was initially adamant that he had never witnessed a sex abuse ritual.  He was also initially ready and willing to accuse Perry Dunlop and Charles Bourgeois of inserting the eye-witness account of ritual abuse into his affidavit:  when he testified that he had been told a story about ritual abuse which he in turn repeated to Dunlop and Bourgeois he implied the pair decided willy-nilly to incorporate the story into his affidavit as Ron’s personal eyewitness account.  That accusation went by the bye when Ron changed his story and testified that while he had never seen a ritual he did tell the pair that he saw it – but even at that he continued to imply coercion about the ritual on Perry’s behalf.  Ron also said he is ready to take the blame “for some of this mess,” and then, after saying he did tell Dunlop and Bourgeois that he had witnessed the ritual he switched again and said might have told them he saw it (“I might have told them I saw it”).   And then, after all the adamant recantations and conviction that no matter what he told Dunlop and Bourgeois he never personally witnessed a ritual and he did not see anyone being molested, he switched gears again and testified that he “doesn’t think” he saw a ritual, and he’s “not sure” if he saw his friend Stan LeGallais being molested, and he “can’t say for sure” if he saw any other boys being sexually abused!

A mess!

I’ll break this section of Ron’s testimony down into two portions: (1) testimony of 26 June 2007, and (2) testimony of 28 June 2007, the latter in red text to allow a slightly greater degree of ease in moving back and forth to check what was said on one day or the other.

Testimony of 26 June 2007 

Peter Engelmann (lead commission counsel) pointed out that in some statements Ron named priests who were at Cameron’s Point and in other statements he did not. At this point in his testimony Ron was adamant that Fathers Bernard Cameron and Donald McDougald, named in his affidavit and elsewhere as being there, were not there:  Here’s the exchange which transpired when Engelmann asked “Sir, do you know if these other priests were there or not?”


MR. ENGELMANN: It seems sometimes you can’t  — you don’t identify priests and other times you do — being there at Cameron’s Point. 

MR. LEROUX: Not McDougald or Cameron. I would remember that…. Not McDougald or Cameron, because I would remember that. They were not there.

Asked later if he personally witnessed any altar boy at Cameron’s point being molested or fondled, he replied “Fondled, yes.” Strangely, he was not asked to elaborate.

Then, when asked about the part in his affidavit which indicates he witnessed a sexual abuse ritual at Cameron’s Point Ron pointed a finger at Perry:

That’s not something I saw. That’s something that was told to me by a man around my age that works at — or was working at a clothing store. I’ll give you the name. Just a second. The Squire Shop. I turned around and told the story to Dunlop and he put it in there.

After Engelmann pointed out that Ron’s account of a ritual was repeated in a number of interviews Ron seemed to assume every instance entailed his reading his affidavit into the record, a scenario which he had already implied was coercive.  Therefore, when Engelmann told him he had repeated the account in a number of interviews Ron replied that that was  “because it was on the statement I was reading.”

Engelmann then turned to the transcript of a videotaped interview in which Perry apparently referenced the ritual and asked Ron if it is vivid in his mind and if he can remember it.  Ron replied “Like it was yesterday”:

“[Perry Dunlop] says to you, right after you say something about it [the ritual] he says “It’s pretty vivid in your mind. You can remember that?” He asks you that question. And the answer that’s transcribed here “Like it was yesterday.”

“That’s a lie or something” said Ron after he persisted with his recantation.  Ron claimed he did not see a ritual.  He did not explain why he would have lied to Perry by saying he recalled the ritual vividly.  And, amazingly, despite the fact this was a transcript of a videotaped interview in which he is recorded personally told Perry he vividly recalled a ritual he pointed the finger:   “That’s a lie or something.”

Peter Engelmann then asked if Ron was now saying he did not witness a ritual – and Ron came out with the following:

MR. LEROUX: I was given two books by Mr. Nadeau at the time that Perry left Cornwall in around 2001 — no, about rituals — yes, he gave me books on rituals.This was already entered in there before that as another — he said “This person that you talked to at the Squire Shop” — I don’t know his name, but I don’t know if he’s still working there. I have no idea. But he brought that up.

THE COMMISSIONER: I’m sorry; who brought that up?  

MR. LEROUX: The person at the Squire Shop –

Where Dick fits in here and what sense this makes of anything I have no idea.  According to Ron’s testimony he and Dick first met and communicated sometime in 1999, long after the allegations of a ritual were out and about in Ron’s various affidavits, statements and conversations.

Anyway, from there Ron went back to his account of the man at the Squire Shop (men’s clothing) from Nativity church who told him in  “the early 70s or 80s” about a ritual.    And then, – and then after several times inferring that Perry had doctored his affidavit Ron indicated that he had made the ritual story his own and even though it wasn’t the truth told both Perry and the OPP that he had personally witnessed the ritual:

THE COMMISSIONER: So, is there a reason why you would adopt that — you would tell Mr. Dunlop or the police that you saw this with your own eyes? 


THE COMMISSIONER: And why is that? 

MR. LEROUX: Anger. 


MR. LEROUX: For being molested. I just wanted to get them back some how; some way. Ron was asked again, and again he flatly denied ever seeing the ritual described in his affidavit.

Testimony of 28 June 2007

On the 26th of June Ron was adamant that neither Fathers Bernard Cameron nor McDougald were at Cameron’s Point the evening he was molested.  And he was equally adamant that he had never witnessed a ritual at the time.  Two days later, as you will see shortly, the certitude was gone. 

First, a little backgrounder is in order.   On 27 June 2007 all parties at the Weave Shed received copies of a transcript from a 2003 examination for discovery in a legal action against Ontario Correctional Services.  Because Ron alleged he was sexually assaulted by probation officer Nelson Barque he was part of that action.  The belatedly sought and disclosed transcript includes Ron’s response to some 1,500 questions put to him by Correctional Services lawyers. Remember, this was 2003 – long after Perry Dunlop had left for British Columbia and probably long after Ron had finished any dealings he had previously had with Charles Bourgeois.   

It seems that in his examination for discovery Ron said he had witnessed a ritual at Cameron’s Point and that he was “positive” both Fathers Cameron and/or McDougald were there!  Those are some of the very things Ron had just been recanting in whole or in part since he took the stand at the Cornwall Public Inquiry, all the while laying blame for what he now implies are errors, lies, fabrications or distortions in his affidavit and statements and his failure to correct same at the feet of Perry Dunlop and Charles Bourgeois.     

Peter Engelmann broached the discovery transcripts and the conflicts in Ron’s testimony.  Things changed again.  Ron was no longer adamant he never witnessed a sex ritual.  Ron was no longer adamant Fathers McDougald and Cameron were erroneously identified in his affidavit as being present at the ritual at Cameron’s Point because, as he said in his recantation, if they had been there he would remember them.  Look at this:  

MR. ENGELMANN: Okay. Well sir, there is certainly a conflict in your evidence here about who was there. Because in some of your statements you say you don’t remember any of the priests except Father LaRocque — or Father Eugene, as you called him then.  


MR. ENGELMANN: That’s how you knew him then. And then others, you say one or both of these men, Cameron and McDougald are there. Can you tell us today, sir —  

MR. LEROUX: Not for sure. 

MR. ENGELMANN: — other than — 

MR. LEROUX: I don’t know when he was — it was so long — I mean, I just — I’m beating it — I don’t know. 

MR. ENGELMANN: So other than Father Eugene — 


MR. ENGELMANN: — you alleged he sexually abused you that night, can you tell us for certain the names of any other adults that were there at Cameron’s Point? 

MR. LEROUX: I’m not sure anymore. 

MR. ENGELMANN: And sir, you’ve told us here that you didn’t observe the incident with — the ritual with the candles. Correct? 

THE COMMISSIONER: You didn’t see that? 

MR. LEROUX: No, I don’t think so. 

MR. ENGELMANN: Sir, did you or did you not — listen very carefully to my question — did you or did you not see any other adult there, any other adult there engaging in any sexual activity with a minor?  

MR. LEROUX: I can’t say for sure. I just was traumatized, and I wanted to get out of there. I just wanted to run.  

MR. ENGELMANN: Right. So aside from your own allegation — 


MR. ENGELMANN: — you can’t tell us today — 


MR. ENGELMANN: — if you observed any other adult doing anything to any child?  

MR. LEROUX: Not sure. No, I’m not sure.  

MR. ENGELMANN: All right. And who did you go there with? 

MR. LEROUX: Stanley LeGallais. 

MR. ENGELMANN: And did he leave with you when you left? 


MR. ENGELMANN: All right. Did you observe him with any adult? 

MR. LEROUX: I’m not sure. 

MR. ENGELMANN: All right. 

What happened?  Was it the introduction of the discovery transcript which caused the apparent melt down? 

Ron also testified that apart from the abuse by “Father Eugene” he does not recall witnessing any “sexual improprieties” at Cameron’s Point.  However on the 26th he told Engelmann he had witnessed altar boys or an altar boy being fondled.  I believe that constitutes some manner of sexual impropriety. Engelmann, however, did not clarify that, nor did he ask Ron to elaborate two days earlier when Ron testified he witnessed the fondling. 

And then, look at this.  After consistently denying he witnessed a ritual and then testifying that he doesn’t think he saw one, and after testifying that he did not tell Dunlop and Bourgeois that he witnessed a ritual and then on the 26th that he did he tells Engelmann on the 28th – after a convoluted exchange about Cameron’s Point – he back tracks again and says  “I might have told them I saw it” 

MR. ENGELMANN: All right. So let me just go through those with you for a minute.At Cameron’s Point, Summerstown, Ontario — 


MR. ENGELMANN: Other than what you allege happened to you — 


MR. ENGELMANN: With Father Eugene. 


MR. ENGELMANN: You are telling us today that you don’t recall seeing, and you don’t remember seeing any sexual improprieties. 


MR. ENGELMANN: Now we have talked about that ritual incident that comes up time and time again. Let me just ask you this, sir. You say now that you heard that story from a tailor? Or — 

MR. LEROUX: Yes, at the tailor shop. 

MR. ENGELMANN: Did you ever tell Mr. Dunlop or Mr. Bourgeois that that’s where you heard the story? 


MR. ENGELMANN: Are you absolutely sure? 


MR. ENGELMANN: You actually told Mr. Dunlop or Mr. Bourgeois — just listen to my question — 


MR. ENGELMANN: — that you didn’t witness this ritual? 

MR. LEROUX: No. I heard it from — 

THE COMMISSIONER: Now just to make it clear in my mind — I know that you say you heard it.


THE COMMISSIONER: Did you ever tell Mr. Bourgeois or Dunlop: “Look it; I didn’t really see this, but I heard it from the tailor at the tailor shop.” Or did you say to them, “I saw this” and you never did tell them? 

MR. LEROUX: No, I gave them names of different people, and where they were from, and what happened to them. 


MR. LEROUX: And we put it all together and this is what we came up with. 


MR. ENGELMANN: I am not sure I have an answer to my question. 

MR. LEROUX: Okay. 

MR. ENGELMANN: So I am going to try it again. All right? You have said today — 


MR. ENGELMANN: You may have said earlier this week, as well — I think you did — that that whole ritual incident that you claim to have observed — that you claim to have seen — 


MR. ENGELMANN: — at Cameron’s Point — 


MR. ENGELMANN: — You didn’t see. 


MR. ENGELMANN: And you have told us here at this Inquiry that you heard about it — 


MR. ENGELMANN: — from someone at a tailor shop — 

MR. LEROUX: That’s correct. 

MR. ENGELMANN: — or words to that effect. Okay?That allegation appears in many of the statements and interviews, affidavits that you give to Mr. Dunlop, to the OPP, in an examination for Discovery.

And you never say, in any of those statements, “No, I didn’t witness that.” 

MR. LEROUX: That’s why I’m here today. To set the record straight. 

MR. ENGELMANN: All right. Fair enough. Fair enough. You are telling us that today. 


MR. ENGELMANN: So what I am — so I am going to get back to my question then.  What did you tell Mr. Dunlop? What did you tell Mr. Bourgeois? Did you tell them the same thing you told everybody else before — that you witnessed this ritual? Or did you tell them, “No, I just heard about it from someone at the tailor shop”. 

MR. LEROUX: Some of the things I had heard about some of the things they put together. I mean — it’s orchestrated. 

MR. ENGELMANN: Mr. Leroux, I am trying to get an answer to that one question. 

MR. LEROUX: Okay. 

MR. ENGELMANN: Did you tell either Mr. Dunlop or Mr. Bourgeois that you never actually saw this ritual incident? Or — and that you heard it from someone else — or did you tell them, “That’s what I saw at Cameron’s Point”? 

MR. LEROUX: I might have told them I saw it. 

MR. ENGELMANN: All right. Because that is what appears in all of the documents. 

MR. LEROUX: Okay. 

MR. ENGELMANN: So you are telling us now that you did not come clean with them on this one either. 


MR. ENGELMANN: Sir, maybe it is an appropriate time to take a lunch break. 

Note too that Ron said he never witnessed any sexual improprieties.  As I mentioned before, he testified on 26 June 2007 he witnessed altar boys being fondled. 

Anyway, that was the end of that particular line of questioning.   

Finally, if you have read the 04 December 1996 statement you will recall that Ron stated that he saw a Father Donihee molesting Stan Le Gallais at Cameron’s Point.  You can also look above and see that on the 26th Ron testified he had seen altar boy(s) being fondled while he was at Cameron’s Point, and that earlier on the 28th he testified he wasn’t sure if saw his young friend Stan with an adult and wasn’t sure if saw any child being molested and he didn’t think he witnessed a ritual and he couldn’t say for sure if Fathers Cameron and McDougald were there.  Well, on the heels of all that look at this absolutely intriguing exchange between Mr. Engelmann and Ron, particularly the way the question was framed by Engelmann and the definitive response from Ron: 

MR. ENGELMANN: Now the late John Donihee, that name comes up, I believe, on one occasion as someone who may have been at Cameron’s Point. The only reference I’ve seen to that, sir I would suggest to you, that you have not seen this individual engaged in any kind of sexual impropriety? 

MR. LEROUX: Definitely not. 

Isn’t this astounding? Engelmann strongly suggests to Ron that he did not see Father Donihee engage in any sexual impropriety.  Where or where did that come from? How could Peter Engelmann have such certitude after listening to a witness who no longer seems to know what or who he did or did not see? And what about the fondling which two short days earlier Ron said he had witnessed and Engelmann, by accident or design, ignored? Might that have been reference to Father Donihee and Stan? Perhaps I should copy that exchange so you can see how it went.  Here it is: 

MR. ENGELMANN: …Did you actually see anybody else at Cameron’s Point the night you went there be either molested or fondled or anything? 

MR. LEROUX: Fondled, yes. 

MR. ENGELMANN: That was some other altar boy or that was an altar boy? 


That was it.  No probing on that one.  So,what does Ron’s unclarified response mean?  I’d say Ron testified he saw at least one altar boy being fondled.  How many, and by whom we have no idea.  But, at that moment in time it might have meant Ron saw Father Donihee molest young Stan.  Maybe not.  But,  we don’t know because Peter Engelmann didn’t ask.  

No matter. The bottom line is that after all of his previous recantations followed by his very recent waffling Ron replied to Engelamann’s weighted and leading question with great certitude: “Definitely not.”  He didn’t say: “I’m not sure anymore,” “”I don’t think so,” or “I can’t say for sure.”  No. Ron was both emphatic and adamant: “Definitely not.” 


For the time being, that is the essence of Ron’s recantation regarding who and what he did or did not see at Cameron’s Point. As his cross-examination continues August 13 to 15 I will add relevant exchanges.   


Further commentary on Ron’s muddled testimony:

(2)  Who’s on or off “The List”?

(3) Joss Van Doepen Incriminated

(2)  Who’s on or off “The List”?

(3) Joss Van Doepen Incriminated