|
Contents | Previous page | Next page Carol Bunko-Ruys Preliminary Hearing of Ross, Ross and White. This testimony can be seen in Book 5. On page 83 Carol testifies that it took one year before Michael or the girls were able to share with her disclosures made to the Thompson's. She testified that the first disclosures with to the Thompson's. See Tab 79, Book 5. On page 84 Carol states that it took the girls six months after she began working with them that they would disclose to her. See Tab 79, Book 5. On page 85 testified that the Ross children felt guilty because of their participation in abuse the abuse that they had succumb too. See Tab 79, Book 5. On page 91 Carol testifies that the Ross children have experienced "extreme" trauma and the effects were large on them. See Tab 79, Book 5. On page 93 Carol states that during the holiday season the children became more agitated. See Tab 79, Book 5. On page 95 Carol states that she believes that there needed to be a safe and secure environment for the Ross children. See Tab 79, Book 5. Carol Bunk-Ruys testimony at the Trial of the Ross, Ross and White dated October 1992: This testimony can be seen in Book 5. The defendant Carol Bunk-Ruys testified page- 1418 that she considered her role with the Ross children to be that of allowing them to express themselves freely and to experience. She further testified that she would not elicit disclosure and that she was only there to listen to the children "express". See Tab 80, Book 5. On page 1935 the defendant Carol testifies that she worked closely with the foster mother Marilyn Thompson. See Tab 80, Book 5. On page 1936 the defendant Carol testifies that she witnessed positive changes in the Ross children while they resided in the Thompson residents. See Tab 80, Book 5. On page 1940-41 the defendant Carol sees Michaels cross-dressing as a "clue" to his becoming sexually intrusive with others. See Tab 80, Book 5. On page 1938-40 the defendant Carol testifies that she personally heard disclosures of Michael touching girls and others in the community. See Tab 80, Book 5.
On page 1950-52 the defendant Carol testifies that she believes the Ross children as being children who had been sexually abused at a young age. See Tab 80, Book 5. On page 1964-65 the defendant Carol testifies that she sees the children as having a "touching problem". See Tab 80, Book 5. On page 1967 the defendant Carol testifies that she became initially involved with Michael, and then Michelle and Kathy at a later time. See Tab 80, Book 5. On page 1973 the defendant Carol Bunk-Ruys testifies that she believes that the safety measures which were put in place were working in the Thompson home. It should be noted that a little while later she testifies to witnessing an event in where Kathy and Michelle were left in her office unattended with her brother Michael while she stood outside the door speaking with the defendant Cpl. Brian Dueck. This refers to the incident in where Kathy and Michelle were attacked by Michael while these two defendants' were outside the door listing to the sounds of "chair banging" outside the door. See Tab 80, Book 5. On page 1983 the defendant Carol testifies that she sees Kathy as a "victim". See Tab 80, Book 5. On p. 1987 the defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys testifies that she believed the Ross children were some of the "most extremely dysfunctional children she had ever worked with". See Tab 80, Book 5. On page 1989 the defendant Carol testifies that she believed her role was not one of which was to determine who had abused the children but rather her only role was to support the children's "perceptions of their abuse". See Tab 80, Book 5. On page 2002 the defendant Carol testifies that the Ross children were insecure about being asked questions over and over again. See Tab 80, Book 5. On p. 2005 the defendant Carol testifies that children feel "guilty" and might not want to tell the truth. See Tab 80, Book 5. On p. 2010 the defendant Carol testifies that she did not take part in the investigation, and that her only role was there to support the children. See Tab 80, Book 5. On p. 2017 the defendant Carol testifies that she relied upon a "checklist" of behaviors of abused children. See Tab 80, Book 5. On p. 2029 the defendant Carol testifies that she believed it was the defendant corporal Dueck's roll to be the investigator. See Tab 80, Book 5. On page 2037 the defendant Carol admits that children have told lies, and that it was difficult to determine when they were lying. See Tab 80, Book 5. The testimony at the Preliminary Hearing of the Klassen/Kvello: The defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys states that she has given workshops to foster parents in protecting themselves from potential allegations of sexual abuse from children. See page 29. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys has attended C.A.R.A.C. in relation to Ritual Abuse. See page 31 See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys states that the children are not always very verbal but things are displayed in their behavior. See page 32. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states in her examinations that she worked with all the people in the children's lives that were significant. "It is important to me to know how children are doing in all parts of their lives" See page 34. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Carol states that the dysfunction of a child is not necessarily due to sexual abuse. see page 35. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that she has previously referred some of her cases to other specialists such as Zillah Parker McNeill Clinic. See page 36-38. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys states that she believes very strongly in a "team" approach. See page 42. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys stated that she believed at the time of her testimony that the Ross children had already been assessed by a psychologist or psychiatrist. See page 43. See Tab 81, Book 5. She states that she referred the children to a psychologist for an assessment but continued to work with them while waiting for this to transpire. She states that had the report from Dr. Parker been in place prior to her work with the children and the Thompson's, things might have been different. See page 46-47. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys states that she did not feel that she needed help dealing with the Ross children from someone more qualified than herself. See page 53. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that they needed someone else to be part of the "team". A psychologist would help to determine what to do next. See page 60. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Carol admits that she would gain more insight into treating the children with a psychologist on board to assist her. See page 63. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys states that she feels the children are at a stage of stability at the present time. See page 64. This would have been at the preliminary hearing of the Klassen's and Kvello's. One should note that if this was in fact true, then the statements maintained throughout by all the defendants in relation to the children being too traumatized, would therefore not seem completely reasonable. This however is the reason the defendants rely on in having the charges against the accused stayed. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that the caregivers, which would be the Thompson's, are important in giving information to herself as well as the social workers and the teachers at school. She states that she maintains ongoing conversations with the Thompson family on a weekly basis and information is imparted to her as to the children's behavior in school and at home. See page 67. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Carol states that relied on the Social Workers regarding school issues. See page 69. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that she feels that she has been having success in treating the children. See page 79. See Tab 81, Book 5.
She further states that the children have shown a definite improvement since coming into her care. See page 80. See Tab 81, Book 5.
The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that the Ross children feel fear, embarrassment, and shame when they are in court. See page 87. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that the children would feel intimidated and fearful when faced with the accused in court. When they are asked questions by adults on the stand, they may lie or change their stories. See page 88. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that in not having to face the accused, it would allow the children to testify accurately. See page 89. One should note that during the preliminary hearing of the Klassen's/Kvello's there were screens put into place as to prevent the child complainants from having to face their alleged abusers. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that the Ross children feel an extreme need to please people, and would exchange their stories and responses to achieve that gratification of pleasing someone. See page 91. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that Michael was extremely non-communicative, and the initial disclosures came from the Thompson caregivers and not from Michael himself. She states that this is due to the fact that there must be a complete element of trust in order for disclosures to take place. See page 101. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that Michael only began to disclose abuse after he had been in the residence of Marilyn and Lyle Thompson for approximately a year. See page 103. See Tab 81, Book 5.One should note that if you cross reference this with the Department of Social Services report written by Carol Middleton. Statement as to documents of Dueck # 478-1-6, Book 1,Tab 6, you can clearly see that the defendant Bunko-Ruys interviewed Michael at the request of the Department and disclosures were obtained. This interview took place on or about the 29th of May 1990. Michael was placed in the Thompson home on December 12th 1989. This interview and disclosure was six months after Michael moved into the home of Marilyn and Lyle Thompson. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that the Ross girls began to disclose about six months after they were moved to the Thompson home. She states that the children must have time to gain trust in their caregivers in order for them to feel comfortable enough to disclose this sort of abuse. See page 104. See Tab 81, Book 5. One should note that within the defendant Dueck's documents he has hand written notes detailing an account wherein Kathy, upon arriving at the Thompson home, states that Anita had a "touching problem." Statement as to documents of Dueck # 482, page , Book 1, Tab 7. The plaintiffs believe that a child must have trust in order to disclose actual abuse that happened to them. In considering this aspect that has been testified too by therapists including Carol Bunko-Ruys, one must question the validity of the child complainant Kathy disclosing the very night that she is removed from the Klassen foster home. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that Ross children have great difficulty with trust. See page 107. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that if the child Kathy was under less stress in the courtroom, she may not change her stories for other adults. See page 110. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that Michael is not an exhibitionist and does not like to receive attention from others. She states that he does not like an audience while talking about this kind of stuff. See page 116. If you are to watch the videotaped interview of the child complainant Michael London Ross, you can clearly see that he enjoys the attention that he receives from the interviewers, Carol Bunko-Ruys and Brian Dueck. He becomes extremely animated and vocal in his disclosures and enjoys roll playing to demonstrate the alleged abuse and rituals that apparently occurred to him. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that Michael needs to feel that people believe him. See page 117. One should note that regardless how bizarre the allegations became; there was never a time wherein the defendants in this action questioned the children as to the validity of their disclosures. The plaintiffs contend that had a different approach been taken in dealing with these disclosures, The Ross children would have stopped their lies long prior to the plaintiffs in this action being charged with having committed sexual assaults against them. The plaintiffs contend that had a proper investigation been conducted and had the children had proper therapy in place, their stories would not have been afforded the opportunity to grow to the mass proportions that they did. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that Michael is very dysfunctional however he is doing much better now. (Time of Prelim of Klassen's) She states that he is now successful in school, and has demonstrated big changes. See page 140. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states "they are better children than when I first met them." See page 141. When reading this statement, one must question the defendant's definition as to better children. The rapes that Michael inflicted upon his sisters continued the entire time that they were housed together in the Thompson home. Michael's attacks, that began as sexualized touching of his sisters at the Klassen foster home, excelled into violent full blown rapes wherein Michael would gag and tie his sister Kathy. He would threaten that if she would tell he would kill her and the Thompson family. These facts were well known to all the defendants in this action. These facts were documented by Marilyn Thompson and given to the defendants Carol Bunko-Ruys, Brian Dueck, Matthew Miazga, and Sonja Hansen as well as to the Department of Social Services. It would be impossible to have an honest belief of this statement, knowing the facts as they are. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that the children do have a "touching problem" however she continues to work with them on this problem. She states that there has been much success in this area, but the children continue to need help. See page 154. See Tab 81, Book 5. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that she discussed forms of discipline with the Thompson family. There was to be no physical discipline of the Ross children. See page 164. One should note the incident in the Thompson notes wherein Marilyn Thompson writes of an incident where she puts Michael against the wall and lifts him up so his feet are no longer touching the floor. She did this because she was angry at Michael for attacking his sisters the night before. See Tab 81, Book 5. The Testimony of the Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys at the Examination for Discovery: Carol states that the Department of Social Services relied on her information in determining what was best for the three Ross children. Carol states that she shared information that she either directly obtained from the children, or indirectly obtained from the foster parents Marilyn Thompson, to the Department of Social Services, and the Defendant Brian Dueck, and as well the Defendants Matthew Miazga and Sonia Hansen. See page 215 of the examination of the Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys by Richard Klassen dated September 16th, 19th, 2002. Carol states throughout her examination that she helped the children when they were testifying at the trials. Carol Bunko-Ruys also states that she charged the Department of Social Services, the Justice Department fees for her services. See 157-158 examination of the Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys by Richard Klassen dated September 16th, 19th, 2002. Carol Bunko-Ruys testifies throughout her examination for discovery that it was her belief that Michael was best off with his sisters Michelle and Kathy. Carol further states that even though she knew Michael would sexually molest his sisters on a regular basis, it was her belief that it was still best to keep the siblings together. Carol states that at times she had doubts. Carol states that the children were left alone in her office while she stepped out to talk to the Defendant Brian Dueck. Carol states that she left the fact that Brian Dueck was at the office visit out of her report. She further states that this information was left out of her report because she only reported what she perceived happened that day. See Page 78-81 examination of the Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys by Richard Klassen dated September 16th,19th, 2002. Carol states that had she had her own children she would not have left them alone with the child complainant Michael. See page 177-178 examination dated September 16-19, 2002. This evidence shows clearly that the Defendant Carol knew at all times that Michael should not have been left alone with children smaller than he was. Carol states that she testified at two preliminary hearings, and one trial, and that she called what Michael did to the children a mere "touching problem". Carol states that she is not sure if the courts or others knew what that meant, and whether or not they knew or were aware that what she meant included Michael anally raping a 3- 4-year-old boy. Carol further failed to mention to the court that Michael sexually molested his sister's even after all her safety measures were put in place, i.e. Buzzers on Michael's door, extra supervision, and locking Michael's door at night. Carol states that she helped the children recall their allegations against the Plaintiffs, and that she helped Brian Dueck in his interviews with the children. She states that she had no formal training in interview techniques. She tells us that her role as a therapist/counselor was only to look after the needs of the children, and to consult with the Department of Social Services. The Defendant Carol states in her examination for discovery, that she was part of a "team" in relation to this case. Page 139-140 of the examination for discovery of Carol Bunko-Ruys held by Robert Borden dated December 9th, 2002. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that in her opinion, in 1991, the correct term to depict a child sexually attaching another child, even as far as anal and vaginal intercourse would be "touching problem". She states further that she would not have known whether others hearing that term would know to what extent this act may have gone, but does state that these were the terms that were used at that time. She states that now the correct term to be used with respect to such acts would be "sexually intrusive" behavior. See pages 111-116 of the examination for discovery of the defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys conducted by Richard Klassen, dated the 16th -19th of September 2002. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that she does not recall being asked to assist the prosecution however in paragraph (g) above she does state that she was in fact part of a "team" in relation to this case. See pages 132-135 of the examination held on the 16th-19th days of September 2002. The defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys states that she was aware of the abuse that Michael was portraying upon his sisters and received notes from the foster mother Marilyn Thompson. She states that these notes would have been given to the Department of Social Services. She states that Michael sexually intrusive behaviors was a concern to her; however their main objective was to keep the children together so they might work on and improve their relationship with one another. It is the defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys evidence that safety measures were discussed on a regular basis to ensure the children's safety, however the sexual attacks on Kathy and Michelle continued. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that the safety of the children was addressed on a regular basis, but when asked if she would have left her own children alone with Michael, she stated "no". See pages 156-179 of her examination held September 16th to 19th 2002. The plaintiffs believe that the Ross children were kept together for the explicit intention of attempting to maintain consistency within their disclosures. This was however, unsuccessful due to the fact that the inconsistencies are immeasurable from the onset to the conclusion of this case. The plaintiffs contend that had the safety of the children been even a minute concern, Michelle and Kathy would have been removed from Michael immediately upon receiving evidence that his sexualized behavior was continuing in the Thompson home. The defendant Bunko-Ruys adamantly maintains that to keep the children together was that of a therapy measure and it was felt that this was necessary at the time. However, this was not an issue when Michael was first placed in the Thompson home. The two Ross twins remained at the foster home of Dale and Anita Klassen up until Michael began to disclose abuse by the Klassen's. The children's relationship had not suffered from Michael's removal from the Klassen home. The plaintiff Anita was the sole person who's concern for the children's safety can be proven by documented reports in relation to Michael's behavior with his sisters. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states in her examination for discovery that the concern to remove Michael from his sisters escalated and that this became a major concern for Norma Rivard the Supervisor for the Department of Social Service in November of 1993. She admits that the concerns outlined in the letter from the Supervisor addressed to Dales House admissions Committee, correctly and accurately depicts the same concerns that the public postering group where displaying at the time, that being Michael's propensity to sexually abuse, and the danger this poses to others in the community. See page 279-286 Examination dated September 16th-19th. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that she was asked to assist the children through the court process. She was approved for pay to assist the children as well as to testify. She states that she would talk to the children prior to them having to take the stand. As well she states that she would be there to assist them once they were finished. She states that she had many conversations with the children regarding their testimony, likely consisting of assuring the children to tell the truth. This was obviously a concern as there were notes indicating "still inconsistencies". The defendant Bunko-Ruys states that it was not her job to decide or determine the accuracy or truth of the statements the children were making. See page 291-299, examination for discovery held the 16th 19th of September 2002. The defendant Bunko-Ruys stated in her examination that the attack by Michael against his sisters did in fact happen as the notes that she obtained from all three children are consistent. See page 302-303 of the examination for discovery of the defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys dated the 16-19 of September 2002. The Defendant Carol would have us all believe that it was more important for the siblings to stay together. Yet when you read her undertaking # 27 of her examination for discovery dated September 16-19th, 2002 she states: "Clearly there was never a time that I felt that the girls were safe from Michael in the sense that no precautions needed to be taken". The issue of keeping Michael in the Thompson foster home along with his sisters was a matter of ongoing discussions that involved myself and the Department of Social Services and others over a prolonged time". The plaintiffs contend that the defendant Bunko-Ruys played a much more significant role in this case, reaching far beyond the therapy of the children. The defendant Bunko-Ruys was contracted by the Department of Social Services to assist the children. She worked with the children and assisted the defendant Dueck in the interviews of the children, far exceeding her duties of being present for the children's support network. The defendant Bunko-Ruys played a large role in interviewing the children in relation to specific allegations that the children were making. She claims that she was not to determine the innocents or guilt of the accused, however if one is to examine the videotaped interviews of the children conducted by the Defendants Dueck and Bunko-Ruys, one can clearly see that her involvement was that of obtaining disclosure from the children, therefore assisting in the investigation of the accused. The defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys states in her examination by Richard Klassen that she did in fact have the video taped interviews of the children and watched parts of them with Dr. Zillah Parker. See page 497-498 of the examination for discovery conducted on the 9th day of December by Richard Klassen. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states in her examination that she received a package from the defendant Brian Dueck which consisted of approximately 40 pages of color copy highlighted occurrence reports on the accused. See page 499-501 of the examination for discovery conducted on the 9th day of December by Richard Klassen. The defendant Bunko Ruys states in her examination for discovery that she never personally heard from the Ross children that the plaintiffs Richard or Kari Klassen ever sexually assaulted her. See page 526 of the examination for discovery conducted on the 9th day of December by Richard Klassen. The defendant Bunko-Ruys states in her examination for discovery that she recollects distinct allegations of ritual abuse which were disclosed by the Ross children regarding the plaintiffs in this action. See page 533-544 of the examination for discovery conducted on the 9th day of December by Richard Klassen. It should be noted that the defendants deny that the allegations against the plaintiffs were of a ritualistic or satanic nature, however if you read the Marilyn Thompson notes one can clearly see that the allegations that the children were making in relation to ritualistic abuse definitely included some of the plaintiffs in this action. The defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys stated that Brian Dueck was at least one of the case conferences that she attended in relation to this case. See page 540-541 of the examination for discovery conducted on the 9th day of December by Richard Klassen. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant Bunko-Ruys stepped way beyond her duties and boundaries as a therapist as she was assisting the prosecution in obtaining expert witnesses to testify at trial. See document # 359-110-111 to the defendant Miazga's statement as to documents. Book 2, Tab 50. These experts were to be obtained with the anticipation of explaining away the bizarre allegations of the children so they could be presented as credible witnesses at trial. If the defendant Bunko-Ruys only role was to assist the children through out there healing process, and not to determine the innocents or guilt of the accused, she would not have, nor should not have been assisting the prosecution in proving their case against the accused. Therefore, the plaintiffs contend that the defendant Bunko-Ruys was part of the "team" and assisted in the investigation and prosecution of the Klassen/ Kvello accused. The Plaintiffs believe that the following inference can be drawn based on the following evidence: i) Buzzers were put on the door of Michael while he resided in the home of the Defendant Anitathe sexual assaults of his sisters continued. ii) Michaels door was tied shut at the home of the Thompson'sMichael managed to get the rope undone and effectively rape his sister Kathy all-night long without the Thompson's waking up. iii) The buzzers were again put on the door of Michael after the locking of the door wasn't working at the Thompson homeagain more rapes occurred. iv) The Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys testifies that more security measures were put in place after the buzzers were found not to be working. The Defendant does not specifically indicate what measures were put in place other than saying that there was more supervision of Michaelmore sexual attacks took place after the extra supervision was put in place. v) Michael was removed from his sisters in 1994, when it was finally felt by the Department of Social Services and the Defendant Carol that there was no other way that they could keep Michael's sisters and other children in the community safe. By this time all the trials of the Plaintiffs had ended, and the Plaintiff Richard Klassen who had taken to the streets of Saskatoon knocking on doors and telling anyone who would listen that Michael was a danger in the community and that the Defendants in this action were covering up this danger, and that therefore the Defendants in this action were personally responsible for allowing Michael to sexually Molest our children. After Michael was removed and sent to a secure environment in Regina, there were no more sexual attacks on our children, or his sisters. The Defendants knew from the onset that Michael would sexually attack any small child given the chance; they must have known that the only way to keep any of the children safe from Michael was to keep him at arms length of any small child. The Defendant's knew that the reason that Michael was placed in another foster home away from his sisters was because they were in need of protection from him. The Plaintiffs believe that the Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys worked hand in hand with the police investigator Brian Dueck, and the prosecution "team". The Plaintiffs believe that her role was to ensure that the three Ross children were kept together to ensure that their stories would remain consistent. The Plaintiffs believe that the court can, and must draw this inference for the following reasons: The Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys could not have possibly believed that any safety measures that she was putting in place would work given Michael's cunning behavior. The Defendant Carol knew that after the safety measures were put in place that they were not working. See undertaking # 27 of the examination of the Defendant Carol-Bunk-Ruys dated September 16-19th, 2002. Surely the Defendant Carol knew that it was more important to keep Michael from sexually abusing his sisters then that of keeping the siblings together. Book 4, Tab 64. Paragraph 36 of the Plaintiffs Claim reads as follows: The three children Michael, Kathleen and Michelle were kept in the same foster home by the Defendants or one or more of them, in order to ensure that the stories of the children Michael, Kathleen and Michelle remained consistent. The Defendant Bunko-Ruys Dilemma in Separating the Children: The defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys has always maintained the reason for keeping the Ross children together was because she felt that it would be best for their healing process as well this would be essential in maintaining their family bond. She has stated on many occasions and in various documents that the problems that the children experienced were as a result of the trauma that they had suffered at the hands of the accused. Carol Bunko-Ruys began working with Michael Ross while he resided at the home of Dale and Anita Klassen and through out the proceedings and well after, maintained regular sessions with the Ross children. Michael's propensity to sexually act out was always a known fact to all the defendants in this action as well as the Department of Social Services as they too had reports of Michael's behavior prior to his move to the Thompson "specialized" foster home. Michael's propensity to lie was documented by the Social worker in charge of the file at the time that Anita housed the three Ross children; however this has continuously been disputed and denied through out this action. The plaintiffs in this action have always stated that there is no plausible explanation that one could conclude which would justify these children being kept together. All of the defendants in this action have maintained that the choice to keep the children together was one of considering the best solution for all concerned. In viewing the document below, one can undoubtedly see the dilemma the defendants faced in keeping the children together and the ramifications of such a decision. The following is an outline of a document contained in the defendant Bunko-Ruys statement as to documents # 42 a-g. Book 3, Tab 59. Strengths and Weaknesses: All stay - Strengths:-Keep
them united as family. For your family: Strengths:-Stronger for kids, however a challenge. Carol Bunko-Ruys writes in her notes that the children seem to set triggers in each other, abuse cycles, etc. She was evidently concerned about the children's inability to grow as individuals if kept together in the same home, as Michael's abuse of his sisters obviously continued regardless of the attempts to keep him from sexually attacking them. The question as to the ability of the Ross girls to heal would never have been in visible sight as long as the attacks were on going as they were until Michael was removed from the Thompson home in 1994. Carol Bunko-Ruys as well as all of the defendants in this action have maintained through out that they believed the allegations of the children. Should we accept that the defendants in this action had an honest belief in the guilt of the accused then there should never have been a fear that the children might allege abuse against the Thompson family, as they were the persons who were admired by the Department of Social Services, Carol Bunko-Ruys, Matthew Miazga, Sonja Hansen, and Brian Dueck for providing "exceptional" care to the three Ross children. If we are to now believe that the defendants in this action considered the possibility that the Ross children may allege abuse against the Thompson family, then the defendants were aware that the children could and possibly would lie about sexual abuse that had seemingly been done to them. The defendants in this action maintain that they believed the allegations of the Ross children and this was their cause for proceeding with the prosecution against the accused, however if one considers the concern which was exhibited by the defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys as to the children accusing the Thompson family of abuse, she clearly did not have an honest belief in the guilt of the Klassen/Kvello accused. One must ask why the Thompson family didn't have Michael removed when it became apparent that Michael would not stop sexually abusing his sisters. The plaintiffs belief and adamantly state that the reason Michael was not removed from the Thompson home was that of a situation of fear. The fear of being accused as the Klassen's, Kvello's and Ross's had been accused. The defendants in this action as well as the Thompson's surely questioned the possibility of the Ross children lying about the abuse that had happened to them at the hands of the accused. If they had truly believed what the children were disclosing was fact, there would never have been a fear of being accused as surely no one ever thought that the Thompson's had abused the children. One must ask whether this information
and opinion of the defendant Bunko-Ruys was imparted to the prosecutors
and investigating police officer in charge of this file. One
should note that throughout the examinations for discovery it
has become apparent that the defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys did in
fact impart information and opinions to the other defendants
in this action.
Michael's Sexually Intrusive Behavior: 659. Prior to The Anita Klassen Placement: Michael London Ross was sexually active in his natural home in 1986 prior to moving to the home of the Plaintiffs Dale and Anita. Evidence of this can be seen in the Judgment dated December 18th, 1992 page 3. Document # 52-3 of the listed statement as to documents of Matthew Miazga, Hanson and Quinney, Book 2, Tab 27. The witness Garnet Francis talks about having observed Michael's sexually acting out in the beginning of September 1986, but had heard of prior activity.
At the Plaintiffs Dale and Anita's
residence: Michael has sex with
"little Crystal" (Rick & Kari's daughter) behind
the Howard Coad Rink. See Document # 430 page 3 of the Dueck
documents, Book 1, Tab 1. See Document # 356-3 of the statement as to documents of the Defendants Matthew Miazga, Sonja Hanson and Richard Quinney, Book 2, Tab 44. This document is a fee calculation guide prepared by Bob Neufeldt which states that Michael is sexually acting out (severe) Constant supervision and that Michael lies constantly. Also see 356-11, Book 2, Tab 45, dated March 19th,1987 which states some sexual acting out behavior regarding his sister Kathy. At the Thompson Home: See Document # 357-13 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents Book 2, Tab 49. May 14th, 1992. "He has touching urges-especially with Kathy". 664. 357-19 as to the listed statement as to documents of the Defendant Matthew Miazga Book 2, Tab 49. Dated Oct. 25th. "Michael threatened to kill our family", Michael abuses Kathy and Kathy pees her pants. 665. See Document #357-33 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents Book 2, Tab 49. Where Michael threatens to kill if she tells anything. 666. See document # 357-39 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents Book 2, Tab 49. Where they are making sure that Sarah ties the door of Michael to keep him from sexually abusing Kathy at night. 667. See Document #357-43-44 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents Book 2, Tab 49. Where Michael and Michelle attend the room of Kathy in the night and tie and gag her while they rape her all night long. 668. See Document # 357-44 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents Book 2, Tab 49. Where all three children have sex in a cubicle at school. 669. See document # 357-46 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents Book 2, Tab 49. In where Michael has sex with the Thompson family dog. 610. See document # 357-56 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents Book 2, Tab 49. in where Michael has sex in a dryer drum with his sister Michelle. 611. See document # 357-61 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents Book 2, Tab 49. In where it reads "Michael has sex with Dennis and Christine". 612. See document # 357-84 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents Book 2, Tab 49. In where it reads Michael uses his "teddy bear" for sex. See Document # 357-85 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents Book 2, Tab 49. In where Michael has sex with Gus the three year-old boy. See Document # 357-89 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents Book 2, Tab 49. In where Michael and Michelle have an orgy. Also See Document # 429 (c) of the listed statement as to documents of the Defendant Dueck Book 1, Tab 1, in where it is stated presumably in the handwriting of the Defendant Dueck that "Michael and Michelle screwing-touching problem". Also see document # 641(a-i), page 2, paragraph 3, of the listed statement as to documents of the Defendant Dueck Book 1, Tab 15, in where it is stated in a June 15th, 1993 Carol Bunko-Ruys report that Michael continues to sexually offend. Pages 2 and 3 See document # 642-(a-e) of the listed statement as to documents of the Defendant Dueck, Book 1, Tab 16. Bunko-Ruys report dated May 11th, 1992 (page 2) in where Michael still has urges to touch his sisters etc See document # 650 of the listed statement as to documents of the Defendant Dueck, Book 1, Tab 17. A report by Dr. Zillah Parker dated July, 1993 in where Michael is still reported as having a severe problem with his sexual attacks on his sisters and others, and where it is felt that Michael has become a serious threat to others. See Document # 651 of the listed statement as to documents of the Defendant Dueck, Book 1, Tab 18. C.A.T.U. report dated August, 1992 on page (1) and page (4) in where Michael sexually acts out with another child who is attending this program. See document # 653 Page (2) of the listed statement as to documents of the Defendant Dueck.. Book 1, Tab 19. A "Dales House" document in where it speaks of Michael being a "high risk" for sexual offending. See document # 722 of the listed statement as to documents of the Defendant Dueck, Book 1, Tab 22. A report prepared by the Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys dated May, 1990 pages (2-3) in where the Defendant bunko-Ruys speaks of the children's continued sexual activities during the moths of May and June 1991. See document # 720 of the listed statement as to documents of the Defendant Dueck, Book 1, Tab 20. Pages (2-3-4) Bunko-Ruys report dated November 26th, 1990 of the listed statement as to documents of the Defendant Dueck speaks of Michael's inappropriate "touching problem". See document # 721 of the listed statement as to documents of the Defendant Dueck, Book 1, Tab 21. Bunko-Ruys report dated April, 1991 pages (2 and 5), in where Bunko-Ruys reports how Michelle will as Michael to move away when he gets too close. Also see page 5 in where, Carol reports on how Michael begins sexualizing with the "Thompson" 14 year-old daughter Sara. See document # 52-12 of the Matthew Miazga statement as to documents, Book 2, Tab 27. In where Michael threatens Michelle that he is going to "stab" her, and Marilyn hides the knives. . The Law of Disclosure: The Plaintiffs Disclosure throughout the entire Process: 625. The plaintiffs received the following disclosure from the defendants Matthew Miazga and Sonja Hansen: i) Police videotaped interviews of Michelle Ross, Michael Ross, Kathleen Jessica Ross, Michael Klassen, Trevor Heinrichs, crystal Heinrichs. It should also be noted that the plaintiffs Peter Dale Klassen, Anita Klassen, John Klassen and Myrna Klassen were charged with having assaulted the Mayes children however the defense never received the videotape interviews of the Mayes children nor any other disclosure concerning these three children except for what was originally in the occurrence reports which were also not part of the Crown disclosure package. ii) Police videotaped interviews of the Klassen's. iii) A McNeil clinic psychiatric examination. Two pages. iv) Four pages of a McNeil Clinic child psychiatric report. v) 5 reports from the defendant Carol Bunko Ruys headed Child Care Community Consultant with the following dates: December 4th 1989 54 pages of the Marilyn Thompson's notes. Three volumes of transcripts of the Ross children interviews. Contents | Previous page | Next page May 11, 2005
|