|
Who’s on or off “The List”? [Part 2 of Ron Leroux’ muddled testimony and so-called “recantations”] Part 1: Cameron’s Point and the Ritual Part 3: Joss Van Diepen Incriminated |
|
“I was at several parties at Ken Seguin’s home, Malcolm MacDonald’s summer residence, and St. Andrew’s Parish House where I observed among others:..” (Ron Leroux’ 13 November 1996 affidavit)
Crown attorney Murray MacDonald, probation officer Joss Van Diepen and victim David Silmser have been struck off “The List” – Ron Leroux’ contentious list of 34 persons or groups he alleged he saw at various locations frequented by “the clan.” In referring to the names which he says do not belong on the list Ron told lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann: “I’m going to take blame for most of that or some of that.” Engelmann did not ask for clarification. As testimony ensued and names were painfully but painstakingly struck Ron never offered to take the blame for the inclusion of any particular name, nor did Mr. Engelmann ask if he would. In this portion of Ron’s testimony of the 26-29 June 2007 I will restrict myself to addressing who he now says he did or did not see at various locations. Please note that this list does not address Ron’s removal of names from that of the other group identified by Ron as being part of a “clan” of paedophiles. I will deal with that when I address his testimony on “sexual improprieties.” I will break down this portion of Ron’s testimony as follows: (1) the amended list; (2) Ron’s testimony of who he says he saw at (a) Ken Seguin’s home, (b) St. Andrew’s rectory, and (c) Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage; (3) Ron’s testimony regarding The List and Peter Engelmann’s seemingly protracted efforts to get Ron to study, focus and expunge; (4) Allan Manson’s cross-examination as it relates to Murray MacDonald, (5) the names of those who are not part of The List but whom Ron says he saw at Harv’s Diner, and: (6) those Ron testified he saw at Fort Lauderdale. 1. The Amended ListThis is The List from Ron’s 13 November 1996 affidavit. Those who were expunged during his 28 June 2007 testimony are highlighted in red with a strikethrough, and those with corrections are highlighted in green, with or without a strikethrough as the situation warrants. 1. Bishop Eugene LaRocque 3. Ken Seguin 4. Chief Claude Shaver 5. Murray MacDonald 6. Milton MacDonald 7. Ron Wilson 8. Father Gary Ostler 9. Father Kevin Maloney 10. Father David Ostler 11. Father Rory MacDonald 12. Gerry Renshaw 13. Father Charles MacDonald 14. Mark Menard 15. David Silmser 16. C- 5 (Described him as a “little buddy” of Malcolm MacDonald. Said Malcolm MacDonald had nude pictures – plural – of C-5.) 17. David Latraielle 18. Gino 19. Daniel Flipson 20. Sylvain Flipson (There was a passing mention of Sylvain. That was never clarified.) 21. Stuart McDonald (Stuart McDonald is still on the list. Ron reduced his previous sightings of McDonald to one. His name appears twice because Ron was apparently shown and identified two different pictures) 22. Harvey Berry, Jr. 23. Robert Renshaw 24. Fred Renshaw 25. Bob Varley ?? (Either Bob or his brother Travis were there. Ron said he can’t remember which one.) 26. Travis Varley ?? (Either Travis or his brother Bob were there. Ron said he can’t remember which one.) 27. Dale Crowder 28. C-8 29. Stuart McDonald (Stuart McDonald is still on the list. Ron reduced his previous sightings of McDonald to one. Stuart McDonald is also listed as #21. )30. Al Laplante (Ron seemed to indicate he thought this might be the uncle vs the nephew. Mr. Engelmann did not seek clarification) 31. Fern Touchette 32. Kara Berry 33. Joss Van Deepen 34. Male prostitutes both adults and juveniles, altar boys and several others (Altar boys is in question. According to Ron some of those already on The List may have been altar boys at the time. He is unsure. Beyond that he says he doesn’t recall any other altar boys at any of the locations. He was not asked if the young lad he alleges he saw with Andre Pommier at Malcolm’s cottage might have been an altar boy.) 2. Who did Ron see where?These lists are a compilation of those persons Ron identified at various times on the stand as being at (1) Ken Seguin’s Summerstown home, (2) St. Andrew’s Church rectory in St. Andrew’s West, (3) Malcolm McDonald’s Stanley Island cottage, and/or (4) various spots in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. (a). Ken Seguin’s waterfront home for supper Ron testified that he recalled attending two dinners at Ken Seguin’s “where other people would have been in attendance.” On 28 June 2007 he recalled attending a supper which he thinks might have been for Malcolm MacDonald’s birthday. Those he recalled in attendance were: (i) C-8 (ii) Claude Shaver (iii) Father Charles MacDonald (iv) Another priest (“A young fellow. A young priest. I’m not sure of his name. They were talking about Vermont, a cabin, at the supper table.”) (v) Ron Also on 28 June Ron testified that he attended another birthday party at Ken’s. This one he thought was for one of Ken’s relatives. Those he recalled in attendance were: (i) Al Laplante (ii) A nephew of Ken’s (“He was named man of the year not long ago in the papers, on page — not Brian — I’m not sure of the first name. It will come to me, though.)” According to Ron this man was named businessman or man of the year and “owns a steelworks back on 12th Street.” (iii) “maybe” Doug Seguin and Nancy (iv) “maybe” Gerry Renshaw and one of Gerry’s children Ron also testified that he saw probationers and others at Kens home. He named the following: (i) Gerry Renshaw (ii) Roger Robinson (iii) Dale Crowder (iv) Stuart McDonald (now testifies he saw him there only once) On 28 June testified he never saw Father Kevin Maloney at Ken Seguin’s home. (b). St. Andrew’s Church rectory Father Charles MacDonald once served as pastor at St. Andrew’s Roman Catholic Church in St. Andrew’s West on the outskirts of Cornwall. It seems he was definitely there in 1988, beyond that I am uncertain. While Father MacDonald was at St. Andrew’s Ron was hired to do two major jobs at the rectory (1) painting much of the interior and ripping out kitchen cabinets, and (2) building a high fence around the backyard. During his testimony on 28 June 2007 Ron testified that while he was doing work at St. Andrew’s rectory he saw the following persons: (i) Father Ranald (Rory) MacDonald: Ron testified he saw Father Ranald (Rory) MacDonald at the church rectory for supper on one occasion. He added that Father Ranald MacDonald was with Father Charles MacDonald a lot – he thought he travelled with Father Charles MacDonald a lot and “Like we’d see him, they’d stop in.” Where they’d stop in wasn’t asked. (ii) Father Kevin Maloney: Ron testified he witnessed one bedroom incident in which Father Kevin Maloney took a young boy to an upstairs bedroom. Ron said he later saw the two in bed together and clothing on the floor by the bed. Says he never saw Father Maloney at Ken Seguin’s home or Malcolm’s cottage. (iii) Daniel Flipson: according to Ron attended a BBQ on the back deck of the rectory. Daniel was described by Ron on 26 June 2007 as “a friend of Charlie’s.” According to Ron at the BBQ Daniel laid the table and served the food which had been prepared by an unidentified woman. (iv) Danielle Latrielle: attended the same BBQ on the back deck of the rectory. (v) Gino: attended the same BBQ on the back deck of the rectory (vi) Malcolm MacDonald: attended the same BBQ on the back deck of the rectory (vii) C-8: attended the same BBQ on the back deck of the rectory (viii) Ron: attended the same BBQ on the back deck of the rectory (viiii) One of the Ostler priests: attended the same BBQ on the back deck of the rectory. Ron could not recall if it was Father Gary or David Ostler. (x) Father Gary Ostler: On the 26th Ron confirmed and did not recant his previous allegation that while he was painting at the rectory there was, as Peter Engelmann put it, “an incident” with Father Gary Ostler. That incident was recounted by Ron in his affidavit in which he said Father Gary Ostler came in while he was painting and “grabbed me by the bag and said ‘what is your game?” In addition to the above Ron also testified that he has seen a picture of Claude Shaver and Malcolm MacDonald having a drink at the rectory and that Perry Dunlop showed him a picture of Stuart McDonald and Kenny Crepe standing outside St. Andrew’s church. Ron was not asked who else, if anyone, he saw at the rectory at lunch time. (c). At Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage on Stanley Island was visible from and a bare five minute boat ride from both Ron’s and Ken Seguin’s waterfront homes in Summerstown, Ontario. A previous witness testified that one bedroom in Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage was wall papered with gay porn and porn magazines were lying around on coffee tables in the living area and elsewhere. Ron testified there were little whips lying around which Malcolm ordered from magazines. Ron testified that he saw the following persons at Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage: (i) Claude Shaver: Testified Malcolm MacDonald used to invite Claude Shaver over to the cottage for steaks. He also testified that he was at the cottage at a time when both Father Charles and Shaver were there. (ii) David Latreille (iii) C-8 (iv) Andre Pommier: On26 June Ron testified he saw Andre Pommier at Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage with a boy once – he doesn’t know who the boy was. It seem that in another transcript the boy falls into the category of “children.” He testified he never saw Father Kevin Maloney at the cottage or at Ken Seguin’s 3. Expunging names from The ListRon’s 13 November 1996 affidavit lists the names of 34 people he observed at Ken Seguin’s house, Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage and/or St. Andrew’s “Parish House” (rectory). On 28 June 2007 Peter Engelmann asked Ron to study that list and identify those he now says don’t belong. As is usually the case the transcript fails to adequately capture the ensuing process of elimination. However, in light of the Attorney General’s recent leap to defend Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald and paint Gerry Renshaw as a liar it seemed a given there would be an attempt by someone somewhere in the Weave Shed to extricate Murray MacDonald’s from his # 5 spot on The List. As #5 on The List I think one one could reasonably anticipate that if Murray MacDonald was going he would have been gone in flash. No so… (a). The painstaking process begins David Silmser was struck. There was question regarding which of the Varleys was there. Joss Van Diepen – who had just sought and received standing in anticipation of damning testimony from Ron – was struck. Any impression of “juvenile” prostitutes was struck. No mention of Murray MacDonald. Finally, with a gentle nudge from Peter Englemann, Murray MacDonald was gone. I will try to detail the process as best as I can and with ample excerpts from the transcript…. Peter Engelmann asked Ron to study the list. Ron studied the list. And he studied the list. Silence. It doesn’t come through on the transcript but it seemed to go on forever. Finally Ron spoke. He went all the way down the list to #15. Right past #5 (Murray M) and down to #15: Number 15 — I never saw at any one of those three places. Number 15 is David Silmser. Ron said he never met or saw Silmser before a meeting between the pair in Toronto arranged by Perry Dunlop. He said he has no idea how Silmser’s name got on the list. He agreed that he never corrected the error. He did not offer to take the blame. (Some time after this session of who’s in and who’s out was wrapped up Ron confirmed that he had seen a photo of naked David Silmser – it was part of Malcolm MacDonald’s collection. Asked how he knew it was Silmser Ron replied that Malcolm showed it to him, asked him if knew who it was and when Ron replied in the negative Malcolm said it was David Silmser. Engelmann failed to ask how Malcolm would happen to have the picture of a naked David Silmser. To my knowledge David Silmser never alleged he was sexually abused by Malcolm MacDonald). Ron was then asked to look at the bottom half of the list. Then: MR. LEROUX: See 25 and 26 — I’m not sure. One of them, one of those two — I think number 20 — I’m not even going to speculate, but whatever one the shooting was about was one of those two. I’m not sure. Nos. 25 and 26 are Bob Varley and Travis Varley. Number 20 is Sylvain Flipson. There was no clarification by Engelmann of Ron’s passing reference to Sylvain Flipson. After further study Ron pointed to #29 (Stuart McDonald). In this instance Ron wasn’t pointing to say he had never seen Stuart McDonald at any of the locations, but rather to say he had seen him at Ken Seguin’s – but only once: MR. LEROUX: Number 29 — wait a second, that’s a brother-in-law. He was at one place, one time, for a short talk on the lawn. That’s all. No. 29, as I said, is Stuart McDonald, a police officer and Perry Dunlop’s brother-in-law. Ron stated in his affidavit and told people over the years that he personally saw Stuart McDonald at Ken Seguin’s home a number of times. In his affidavit he also stated he heard Stuart McDonald’s name mentioned frequently by Malcolm and Ken Seguin and heard Ken Seguin say the allegations against him (Ken) and Father Charles MacDonald were going nowhere because Stuart McDonald was looking into it. Ron had also frequently identified Stuart McDonald as one of the men attending ‘the VIP meeting’ on Stanley Island. Then, on 28 June 2007, Ron identified Stuart McDonald as someone he had never seen at any of the locations – but had in fact seen at Ken Seguin’s, but only once, “for a short talk on the lawn”! Stuart McDonald stays on The List. Ron went back to The List. He got side-tracked with Al Laplante (#30), and, as you can see by the following, Mr. Engelmann showed no interest in clarifying whether the Al Laplante on the list was the uncle or nephew. Instead, Engelmann nudged Ron to “focus” on the business at hand: MR. LEROUX: See, Al Laplante worked with me at the church, but he was an — that’s his uncle. MR. ENGELMANN: Okay, sir, I’m asking you to just try and focus on the question — MR. LEROUX: Okay, I am getting away — MR. ENGELMANN: — any one of those 33 that you never saw at any of these three places, other than Mr. Silmser? And then, another pause, and JossVan Diepen was off the list: MR. LEROUX: Thirty-three (33). MR. ENGELMANN: So Mr. Van Diepen? MR. LEROUX: Just lunch; this guy had nothing to do with these three places. There were some — Ron said earlier he had seen Joss Van Diepen having lunch at Harv’s Diner, but, according to his testimony regarding The List, Van Diepen had “nothing to do with” the locations in question, One day earlier, however, on 27 June, Ron seemed less certain. On that date, when Joss Van Diepen was the topic of discussion, the exchange went like this: MR. ENGELMANN: Was he ever over at Ken’s? MR. LEROUX: I don’t think so; didn’t like him that much. MR. ENGELMANN: I’m sorry. MR. LEROUX: I don’t know. No. MR. ENGELMANN: You don’t recall him being MR. LEROUX: Like to associate, like to sit in, have a tea or something, or go fishing? MR. ENGELMANN: Whatever. MR. LEROUX: He might have, but I didn’t see him. MR. ENGELMANN: Okay. So if he was there, he wasn’t there frequently. MR. LEROUX: Yeah. On the 27th Ron was uncertain and hesitant; on the 28th he was certain. (b). Prostitutes and altar boys By the time Van Diepen was struck from The List Ron had studied it from top to bottom. He had made no reference to or mention of deleting or amending #34 (“Male prostitutes both adults and juveniles, altar boys and several others.”) Ron made no mention of #34. Mr. Engelmann did. Engelemann wanted to address #34. He was interested, it seems, in the possible presence of minors ( Ron had earlier testified he saw a male prostitute over age 18 at Seguin’s home): MR. ENGELMANN: And what about number 34? I want you to take a look at that for a minute. You mentioned a male prostitute over the age of 18; did you see any other individuals that you knew to be male prostitutes that were either under or over 18, or is it just the one? MR. LEROUX: Just the one; yes. MR. ENGELMANN: All right. So when it says male prostitutes, and it refers to juveniles, that’s not correct. MR. LEROUX: No, that’s — it doesn’t belong there. MR. ENGELMANN: All right. THE COMMISSIONER: I’m sorry? MR. LEROUX: That doesn’t belong there. I mean — At this, Justice Normand Glaude intervened. He seemed anxious to ensure that Ron saw “one, and only” adult male prostitute: THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So you saw one male prostitute who was an adult? MR. LEROUX: Yes, he was flown in from the United States. THE COMMISSIONER: Right but one, and only one. MR. LEROUX: One, and only one. MR. ENGELMANN: And that goes for all three places: Malcolm’s cottage, Ken’s home, and St. Andrew’s Parish; is that correct? At that Ron recalled some male strippers from Montreal: MR. LEROUX: As far as prostitutes go, yes, but — wait a second — there was two male strippers that came up from Montreal who came to get some money from Ken to go back to Montreal. I don’t know who they were and — but they were originally from Cornwall and they were on parole with him. And he had to lend them like, 80 dollars or something. And they just came in, took the money and left. MR. ENGELMANN: And how did you know they were male strippers? MR. LEROUX: Well, they said they were. MR. ENGELMANN: They told you that? MR. LEROUX: Yeah. That led Engelmann to briefly switch gears to Ken Seguin’s trips to Montreal. Ron testified that he used to travel to Montreal, Quebec with Ken. He recalled that once when Malcolm MacDonald and Ken went to Montreal they went the Cave restaurant and then visited a few gay bars. It seems possible that Ron accompanied them on the trip but that was neither clear nor clarified. Then Engelmann got back to #34. He confirmed that Ron was now testifying that there were no male prostitutes who were “juveniles.” Then it was on to Ron’s reference in 34 to “altar boys”: MR. ENGELMANN: Sir, after you talk about the male prostitute. We know now there’s no juveniles that you are seeing there. There is a reference to altar boys. Now does that refer to people already on the list, or are there other people? Or do you know? MR. LEROUX: What’s the question again? MR. ENGELMANN: All right. We are looking at number 34. There is a reference to altar boys. MR. LEROUX: Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: Do you see that? Do you know if the reference — so we have got a — we have got 33 names before that. MR. LEROUX: Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: I am asking you if there — if you are aware — if you observed others who were altar boys who were at one of those three places? And then, perhaps to add clarity, Justice Glaude stepped in: THE COMMISSIONER: So let us remember now, that this is your affidavit. You have sworn an affidavit that says, “I was at several parties at Ken Seguin’s house, Malcolm MacDonald’s summer residence, and St. Andrew’s Parish House, where I observed, among others …” You have got the 34 people there and the last one, it says, “Altar boys.” So did you ever see altar boys at Ken Seguin’s home, at the summer residence of Malcolm MacDonald, or at St. Andrew’s Parish? MR. LEROUX: No. I don’t know whether anyone of the — like Sylvain or Daniel — if they were altar boys or not. I don’t know. I didn’t know them then. MR. ENGELMANN: Could be there on the list already? MR. LEROUX: That’s a pretty extensive list. MR. ENGELMANN: I am talking about — or I am asking you whether there were others — MR. LEROUX: No. MR. ENGELMANN: — that you can remember? MR. LEROUX: No. (c). Murray MacDonald’s turn So, David Silmser was off The List. Ditto Joss Van Diepen. Ditto any and all “juvenile” male prostitutes. Barring the possibility that some on the list already were altar boys at the time, no other altar boys. Murray MacDonald was still on the list. Now, look at this: MR. ENGELMANN: All right. Now you told us, I believe, about meeting Murray MacDonald. MR. LEROUX: Yes; Crown. Note the “yes.” Ron agreed he met Murray MacDonald. Now look at the convoluted muddled mess which ensued from there: MR. ENGELMANN: Right. And I think you told us you were working on a car or something. MR. LEROUX: Oh, wait a minute — MR. ENGELMANN: Do I have that right? MR. LEROUX: No. MR. ENGELMANN: Okay. Hope I am not — MR. LEROUX: Oh, that’s Shaver. THE COMMISSIONER: On the backhoe? MR. LEROUX: Working on a backhoe; Shaver. MR. ENGELMANN: All right; Shaver. Do you recall ever seeing Murray MacDonald – – the person you have identified as a Crown — You have got him on your list as being at one of these three places, at least. MR. LEROUX: His father. His father;Milton. MR. ENGELMANN: Okay. But where did you see his father? MR. LEROUX: Sitting on a picnic table at Ken’s. He didn’t want him there. MR. ENGELMANN: Did you ever see him elsewhere — either at Malcolm’s or at the Parish House? MR. LEROUX: No. MR. ENGELMANN: So what about the son? Not the father. The son. Not MiltonMacDonald, but Murray MacDonald. Do you recall seeing him at any of these three places? MR. LEROUX: No. MR. ENGELMANN: So he should not be on the list then? MR. LEROUX: No. Engelmann didn’t ask what that initial “yes” meant. That was either ignored or forgotten in the ensuing hodgepodge about Murray’s father and Malcolm’s brother, convicted paedohile Milton MacDonald. As it stood, Ron said he recalled meeting Murray MacDonald. Engelmann failed to ask when or where. Murray MacDonald was off the list. Then it was on to sort out how Murray’s name got on the list. Look at the convolution on that and Engelmann’s frustration when Ron goes off on a tangent about Milton MacDonald again and no one knows who they’re talking about, but at the end of it all Engelmann makes doubly sure that Murray MacDonald is indeed off the list: MR. ENGELMANN: Do you know how his name got on that list? MR. LEROUX: I’ve no idea. MR. ENGELMANN: Do you know if he was a friend or an acquaintance of Ken or Malcolm MacDonald? MR. LEROUX: Malcolm knew him. MR. ENGELMANN: How do you know that? MR. LEROUX: We talked about him. Talked about Milton. MR. ENGELMANN: I am not asking you about Milton MacDonald. I am asking you about Murray — MR. LEROUX: Malcolm MacDonald. Oh, Murray MacDonald. MR. ENGELMANN: There’s too many MacDonalds. It’s important. It’s important. MR. LEROUX: Okay. All right. MR. ENGELMANN: I am asking you about the Crown prosecutor. Not his father. MR. LEROUX: Okay. MR. ENGELMANN: All right? Do you know whether or not he was an acquaintance or friend of either Ken Seguin, Malcolm MacDonald or Charles MacDonald? MR. LEROUX: I don’t know for sure. MR. ENGELMANN: All right. And the MacDonald that you saw at Ken Seguin’s was his father; it wasn’t him? MR. LEROUX: His father. MR. ENGELMANN: Is that your evidence? MR. LEROUX: Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: So that is another name then, that should not be on the list. Is that what you are saying? MR. LEROUX: That’s correct. Ron doesn’t know “for sure” if Murray MacDonald was “an acquaintance or friend” of Ken Seguin, Malcolm MacDonald, or Charles MacDonald? He doesn’t know for sure? No clarification was sought. (Further down I will touch on Allan Manson’s cross-examination which comes back briefly to the issue of whether Ron did, did not pr might have seen Murray MacDonald.) (d). Confusion abounds Engelmann moved on to #16 who has the moniker C-5. Ron had been looking at the list. No mention of #16. Look at this: MR. LEROUX: C-5has never been — or that I know of — at any one of those three places. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. MR. ENGELMANN: All right, well, Mr. Leroux, then I want — MR. LEROUX: — but, in Malcolm’s office. MR. ENGELMANN: That’s where you saw him? MR. LEROUX: No. Photographs of him. MR. ENGELMANN: What kind of photographs of him? MR. LEROUX: Polaroid photographs. Polaroid picture/photograph. MR. ENGELMANN: Yes. MR. LEROUX: Was he alone in the picture, or with someone? MR. LEROUX: Alone. MR. ENGELMANN: Was he clothed or not? MR. LEROUX: No. MR. ENGELMANN: All right. So you don’t remember seeing him at any of these three places? MR. LEROUX: No, he was the little buddy of Malcolm’s. MR. ENGELMANN: How do you know that, sir, unless you saw them together? MR. LEROUX: He talked about. He liked to brag. MR. ENGELMANN: Who liked to brag? MR. LEROUX: Malcolm MacDonald. Peter Engelmann was clearly getting frustrated and, as you will see, obviously confused about how many people had been struck from the list and in what sequence: MR. ENGELMANN: All right. Sir, I asked you — MR. LEROUX: Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: — just minutes ago, to look at this list. I asked you to concentrate on it and tell us if there were any people who shouldn’t be on that list. You remember my asking you to do that? MR. LEROUX: Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: And we went through it once, and you told me there was only one person who shouldn’t be on that list. That was David Silmser. And then I asked you about Murray MacDonald. MR. LEROUX: That’s correct. MR. ENGELMANN: And you told me he shouldn’t be on the list. MR. LEROUX: That’s correct. MR. ENGELMANN: And now you’ve come up with a third person. MR. LEROUX: C-5. The truth of the matter is that by this point of the ordeal Ron had totally removed Silmser, Joss Van Diepen, one of the Varleys and any and all “juvenile” male prostitutes from the list. In addition he had quasi-removed altar boys and had limited Stuart McDonald’s presence. After all of that, and only after, did Engelmann raise Murray’s name at which time Murray MacDonald was removed from the list. But Engelmann had it in his head that he, Engelmann, raised Murray’s name right after Ron struck Silmser from the list? Anyway, Mr. Engelmann beseeched Ron to “focus…one more time”: MR. ENGELMANN: Right. So Mr. Leroux, I really — I want you to focus on that list — MR. LEROUX: Okay. MR. ENGELMANN: — one more time, and tell me if there’s anyone else who shouldn’t be on that list. And that’s a list simply of people who you claim to have observed at Malcolm’s cottage, at Ken’s home, or at St. Andrews Parish House. Justice Glaude intervened. Did he mouth a message? Whatever happened Engelmann realized almost instantly he was in error, but, witness the following, by then Ron was beginnning to wonder who he had or had not extricated from The List: THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Engelmann. MR. ENGELMANN: Oh, I’m sorry. I apologize, Mr. Leroux, you had told us there were two people. MR. LEROUX: Thirty-three (33); pardon me? MR. ENGELMANN: Yes, you told us 33 shouldn’t be on that list, too. MR. LEROUX: That’s correct. And then, look at this. Ron wondered had he mentioned Stuart McDonald? That led to new testimony about a picture in front of the rectory: MR. LEROUX: Did I mention 29 [Stuart McDonald], also? MR. ENGELMANN: You did. MR. LEROUX: Okay. MR. ENGELMANN: You’ve told us that you thought you only saw him — I’m hoping I have got this right — on one occasion. MR. LEROUX: That’s correct. And there was also a photograph of him in front of St. Andrews Church, a Polaroid picture Kenny Crepe, from St. Andrews, was standing next to him. He had his arm over his — his arm around him like this, standing — a picture in front of the church. MR. ENGELMANN: Not Ken Seguin? MR. LEROUX: No. MR. ENGELMANN: All right. MR. LEROUX: Father — no this — this is Stuart McDonald — a police officer. MR. ENGELMANN: Yes. MR. LEROUX: With Kenny Crepe standing in front of St. Andrews Church; Polaroid picture. THE COMMISSIONER: Who had the picture? MR. LEROUX: Perry had the picture. Perry showed me a picture. MR. ENGELMANN: Perry Dunlop? MR. LEROUX: Yes. He said, “Do you know who those two people are?” I said, “Yeah, that’s your — and that’s Kenny Crepe.” (The transcripts have “Kenny Crepe.” I believe it should be CRAIBE: Kenny Craibe. Kenny Craibe was a tailor in St. Andrew’s West. In the past Ron Leroux has identified Craibe as a “buddy” of Father Charles MacDonald. According to Ron “Charlie” used to chase Craibe away from the rectory because he was “too blatant.” Sometime in the mid 90s Kenny Craibe’s body was found floating in the canal. ) The testimony of the picture of Stuart McDonald at St. Andrew’s rectory prompted the following exchange which had Engelmann trying to ensure that Ron personally saw McDonald only once at Seguin’s, and Ron “brain wracking,” and Engelmann trying to ensure that Ron “didn’t actually” see McDonald in front of the rectory: MR. ENGELMANN: If I remember your evidence from a few minutes ago, you said you only saw Stuart McDonald on one occasion. MR. LEROUX: I’m brain wracking here. MR. ENGELMANN: That’s fine. So you now remember — but you didn’t actually see him in front of the St. Parish house. MR. LEROUX: No, I saw a picture of him in front of it. MR. ENGELMANN: All right. But seeing him yourself? MR. LEROUX: No. MR. ENGELMANN: You said one occasion at Ken’s was it; on the lawn? MR. LEROUX: Yes. Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: So you don’t recall seeing him at St. Parish — MR. LEROUX: No, no — MR. ENGELMANN: — or at the other place? MR. LEROUX: — no, no, no. And that was it. An obviously frustrated Peter Engelmann asked Ron to focus yet again: MR. ENGELMANN: So again, if you could just focus, sir. MR. LEROUX: Okay. MR. ENGELMANN: I am asking you about people that you wouldn’t have seen at any of these three places. We have now taken David Silmser off the list. We have taken Joss Van Diepen off the list. We have taken Murray MacDonald off the list, and we have taken — MR. LEROUX: C — MR. ENGELMANN: — C-5, who is number 16, off the list. Is there anybody else that should be coming off that list? MR. LEROUX: Well, 31 [Fern Touchette] is a neighbour. MR. ENGELMANN: Okay, but you would have seen him there? MR. LEROUX: Oh, yes; he was in and out of the yard, okay. MR. ENGELMANN: Mr. Leroux, I apologize, but all I’m asking you is — you’ve said in an affidavit — MR. LEROUX: Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: — that you’ve seen all of these people and others at one of these three places. I asked you if that was correct, and I’ve asked you whether there should be someone coming off. MR. LEROUX: Okay. The rest are fine. MR. ENGELMANN: All right. You are sure? MR. LEROUX: From my recollection, yes. 4. Cross Examination & Murray MacDonaldI said I would touch on Allan Manson’s (Citizens for Community Renewal) cross-examination of Ron regarding Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald. As an aside here, Manson’s cross-exam barely got off the ground on the afternoon of 28 June 2007 before his questioning prompted what I believe is a wise decision by Justice Glaude to have one and all all view three of Ron’s videotaped interviews and listen to one audio recording of a telephone call between Perry and Ron. One video, a one hour 01 December 1996 videotaped interview by Perry Dunlop was viewed in the Weave Shed the following morning. Two 07 February 1997 interviews of Ron by the Ontario Provincial Police – one approximately 2 hours, the other 17 minutes – will be viewed when hearings resume 13 August 2007, and the tape of a 30 May 1997 telephone call between Ron and Perry will played. The plan is to view and listen in sequence. Now back to the cross-examination. Manson quoted from para #28 of a 31 October 1996 sworn statement obtained by Perry and signed by Ron, and immediately following the quote posed a question: MR. MANSON: … “Ken advised me also that Rory was present as well as a bunch of VIPs. He also advised that Murray MacDonald, Crown Attorney was there”. But you told us earlier Murray MacDonald was never at Ken Seguin’s house; was he? Ron affirmed: “That’s correct, yes.” Manson moved on: MR. MANSON: …Paragraph 27 is a big story about a VIP meeting at Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage. Did you ever see Murray MacDonald going from Ken Seguin’s house to Malcolm MacDonald’s? MR. LEROUX: No. No, I answered that before; somebody had asked me that. Actually no one asked Ron that particular question before. True, Ron first told Engelmann that he had met Murray MacDonald and then denied seeing Murray MacDonald at any of the three locations. But, until Manson posed the question no one had specifically asked if Ron had seen Murray going from Ken’s house to Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage. That may seem like a small point but I believe it reflects the prevailing confusion regarding Ron’s testimony to date. The bottom line is that particular question was never put to Ron. Anyway, Mr. Manson moved on and asked Ron to read paragraph 27 which I believe is the same as or similar to para 28 his 13 November 1996 affidavit. Silence. MR. MANSON: Just tell me when you’re finished, Mr. Leroux. MR. LEROUX: Wow, a lot of people. MR. MANSON: Are you finished? MR. LEROUX: Yes. MR. MANSON: This isn’t true; is it? MR. LEROUX: No. MR. MANSON: This story about a group of prominent Cornwall people all gathering at Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage in September of 1993 just isn’t true; is it? MR. LEROUX: No. MR. MANSON: Did you make up this story, Mr. Leroux? MR. LEROUX: He [Perry Dunlop I assume] asked me different times about people that went there. Apparently, it all hooked up together I guess. That begs the question: What all hooked up together? Is Ron saying he told Perry he had seen Murray MacDonald and others at Ken’s or Malcolm’s? And is he implying that subsequent to providing the names Perry drummed up a story which placed a select group – Murray MacDonald included – at a “VIP meeting” on Stanley Island? Note that Ron did not read the paragraph and say: ‘I never mentioned Murray MacDonald’ or ‘I told Perry I never saw Murray MacDonald anywhere’ or “How did Murray MacDonald’s name get in there?’ No. And when asked if he made the story up Ron neither answered “yeah” nor “nay” – he said Perry asked him about different people and Ron guesses “it all hooked up together”! Ron then went on to imply he had never laid eyes on the statement before (“Never seen this laid out like this before”) and then, strangely he came out with this: “I named the ones that went there.” Which ones did he name? That went where? It was a bit of a muddle. But what struck me most is that within a couple of short hours of removing Murray MacDonald from The List not once did Ron object to or question the inclusion of Murray MacDonald’s name in that particular paragraph of his sworn and signed statement. Indeed if anything Ron’s testimony under cross-examination implied that he had indeed identified Murray MacDonald to Perry Dunlop as someone who used to go to Malcolm’s Stanley Island cottage. Read it through: MR. MANSON: This story about a group of prominent Cornwall people all gathering at Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage in September of 1993 just isn’t true; is it? MR. LEROUX: No. MR. MANSON: Did you make up this story, Mr. Leroux? MR. LEROUX: He asked me different times about people that went there. Apparently, it all hooked up together I guess. MR. MANSON: Well, but looking back now — MR. LEROUX: Yes? MR. MANSON: — and — MR. LEROUX: Never seen this laid out like this before; like actually sit there and read this. MR. MANSON: But you agree with me — MR. LEROUX: Yes. MR. MANSON: — a story about you sitting in your house and watching a group of prominent Cornwall people all going over to Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage on a morning — MR. LEROUX: I named the ones that went there. MR. MANSON: Yes. But all at the same time — MR. LEROUX: No. MR. MANSON: — that did not happen; did it? MR. LEROUX: No, maybe half a dozen at a time; that would be about it. I mean on a weekend or something. MR. MANSON: But let’s just get this clear. MR. LEROUX: Yes. MR. MANSON: The story that I just asked you to read — MR. LEROUX: Yes. MR. MANSON: — is not true; is it? MR. LEROUX: No. “I named the ones that went there”? Do you see that? I am sure there will be there more on this. It requires a lot of clarification and Ron’s cross-examination is barely off the ground. 6. Harv’s Diner Harv’s Diner is a Cornwall diner on Pitt Street originally owned and operated by “alleged” paedophile Harvey Latour (found “not guilty enough” at his Project Truth sex abuse trial). Although not identified as such in his affidavit Harv’s Diner has traditionally been identified by Ron – and others – as a meeting spot for the clan. I believe it goes without saying that anyone can go into a diner for a cup of coffee and all that can or should be deduced from the gatherings is that those who coffeed together were at least acquaintances. Ron testified that he had seen the following persons at Harv’s: (i) C-8 (ii) Al Laplante (iii) Ken Seguin (iv) Malcolm MacDonald (v) Ron Wilson (vi) Ron Wilson’s nephew “from the steelworks company” (vii) “a couple of guys from an engineering place up on Rosemount — his wife owned the M&M Meat Market” (viii) Joss Van Diepen (probation officer) (ix) Carol Cardinal (worked with probation office) 7. At Fort Lauderdale Although not included in the locales Fort Lauderdale is another location traditionally said to be frequented by the clan. Because Ron’s testimony included names of men he has seen in Fort Lauderdale I will include them below. (I will address this further in the section on “sexual improprieties.”) (i) Claude Shaver (ii) Bishop Eugene Larocque (iii) Ron Wilson (iv) C-8 (v) Ken Seguin (vi) Father Charles MacDonald (vii) “ some young fellow in a Mustang was from here, he had Ontario plates and he was picked up by Malcolm. They left in a car, that’s all I saw.” …………………………………………………. Part 1: Cameron’s Point and the Ritual Part 3: Joss Van Diepen Incriminated
|