|
Bunko-Ruys and prosecutor Matt Miazga
are continuing their appeal
from Judge Baynton's
findings they acted with malice. If you are new to this story,
this is the best
place to start . . .
Memorandum
for Attorney General to intervene on his own behalf | Affidavit
of Marilyn Hedlund | Affidavit
of Murray Brown
From
Carol Bunko Ruys Examination For Discovery:
The defendant Carol Bunko
Ruys was examined by the plaintiff Richard Klassen on the 16th,
17th, 18th, 19th days of September, A.D. 2002. This is what she
had to say about Michael's sexual attacks on smaller children
including his sisters Kathy and Michelle. Carol Bunko-Ruys used
the word "touching problem" in describing the sexual
attacks that Michael was involved in on smaller children in the
community of Warman, Saskatchewan and in the home of the Thompson's,
as well as at the school in Warman Saskatchewan where Michael
attended. On page 109 of her examination of discovery transcript
558 line 26 question;
Richard Klassen you had
mentioned before sexually acting out, as describing? --
Carol Bunko sexually intrusive.
Richard Klassen intrusive,
describing some of Michael's actions towards others; is that
correct?
Carol Bunko yes.
Richard Klassen is this
a term that you have used often?
Carol Bunko it's the term
that I've used, yes.
The transcript will go on to
show how Carol Bunko used the term touching problem on many occasions.
She used this term to describe Michael on almost every ocassion
when he would sexually act out with smaller children, this term
was used By Carol Bunko Ruys even when Michael raped smaller
children in the community, including his twin sisters. Carol
Bunko Ruys testified in her examination for discovery that this
was a term used by many folks back in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993
and into 1994. She states that the term they use now is "sexually
intrusive behavior." Page 110 of the transcript of Carol
Bunko Ruys line 17, 564;
Richard Klassen So in 1991
you are not sure if you use the term, you're looking at that
report -- --
Carol Bunko That's what's
listed here, yes.
Richard Klassen Did you
at times use the words "touching problem"?
Carol Bunko Yes.
Richard Klassen To describe
Michaels sexually intrusive behavior?
Carol Bunko In terms of
the language in the literature around children and behaviors,
that language has continued to develop and what I recall that
the early time of working with those kids that that was a reference
used, and that at some point there was literature that started
to use the language "sexually intrusive behavior" and
I'm not sure what time frame that as the information developed
around children's sexualized activity, that language has changed.
Richard Klassen If you use
the word and the terms "Michael has a touching problem"
with that properly have described to anyone what happened, say
for example in your office?
Carol Bunko To the best
of my information and knowledge at that time, that term meant
children who could potentially cross boundaries that included
sexual activity. Would everyone have known that? I'm not sure.
I do recall that the other social workers would have known what
that meant and that yeah, I think that that was the language
at that time.
Carol Bunko Ruys continued
to call the rape of a 4-year-old boy a touching problem throughout
her reports to the Department of Social Services she used that
term to describe Michael raping his sister Kathy all night long,
tying her up, gagging her so that she could not scream for help,
a mere touching problem. She called what happened in her office
when the three children were left alone when she left the room
to speak To Corporal Brian Dueck, and again where Michael's sisters
were raped in her absence, a mere touching problem. When giving
testimony in court she called what the children did a mere touching
problem. Page 114, 584 line 15 reads as follows;
Richard Klassen did you
testify in a trial for the Ross, Ross and white?
Carol Bunko yes I did.
Richard Klassen October
29th, 1992, were sometime in October of 1992, did you tell
the court and did you described what the Rosses were alleged
to have done to the court as a touching problem?
Carol Bunko I'm not sure
what you're asking me.
Richard Klassen when asked
what the children alleged about the Rosses did you describe properly
to the court what was alleged, or did you describe their activities
to the court as a simple touching problem?
Carol Bunko I don't recall
being asked that question and I am not sure that I would use
that language. In terms of working with children at that time
the language that I was aware of was that sexually intrusive
behavior at that time was referred to as having a touching problem.
It is the intention of the
plaintiffs that they will show the court at trial that there
is no way that the judge at the preliminary hearing stage or
at any trial stage would have properly known what Carol Bunko
Ruys was describing to the court. It is the plaintiff's contention
that had the court known that Michael was a full-blown sexual
offender, who frequently sexually attacked younger children in
such a violent manner the court would have known then that it
was more than likely Michael who was a danger to his sisters,
and not the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs will show how Carol Bunko
Ruys knew this from the start. It is obvious That Carol Bunko
Ruys try to pass off to the courts that Michael had just a mere
touching problem when she knew all along that Michael was a serious
danger to any child younger than himself. If Carol Bunko Ruys
had told the court of the serious problem that Michael posed
to other children even at the time that she was giving testimony,
the court would have come to the conclusion that Michael needed
to be removed from his sisters immediately. I am sure that Madame
Justice Batten would have asked the question, why is Michael
still being allowed to be with his sisters in the same home when
it is obvious that they are being sexually attacked on a daily
basis? The defendant Carol Bunko Ruys claims in the same examination
for discovery that steps were being taken to ensure the safety
of Michael's sisters. She claims that there were buzzers put
on the door of Michael so that should he leave his room at night
the Thompson's would know. Page 163 line 5 of the examination
of the defendant Carol Bunko Ruys reads as follows;
Carol Bunko My sense is
that the "rope undone," is that this is prior to the
installation of the buzzers, and that there was something used
to tie the door but I'm not positive. But I believe that's what
that refers to, and that he was able to somehow remove that,
and that he then went to Michelle's room for sex, and then came
to get Kathy, and that he put things in Kathy's mouth and made
her suck his penis, and put his penis in her vagina. And then
that Michael and Michelle carried her out of that room to Michelle's
room where they tied her arms to the bed, and made suck Michael
and kiss Michelle's vagina. And Kathy said Michelle made her
suck that little part that hangs down in the vagina, and that
Michael then laid on top of her and that Michael again screwed
her, and they held her mouth. And then later that Michelle said
that Michael had threatened them and the whole family that when
he's grown-up that he would shift of, and that Cassie won't scream.
That he seemed to be threatening Michelle now, too. Maybe its
because she's opening up, question mark. And when they face Michael
with the gun threats he agrees but keeps it but keeps saying
it's the other people I want to shoot and kill.
Richard Klassen would that
properly depict what at least is the allegation that happened
that night, what you've just read?
Carol Bunko say that again?
Richard Klassen is that
your understanding of what the allegation was that night of what
Michael did?
Carol Bunko that's what
was reported to Marilyn and then at some point shared with me,
yes.
The buzzers that Carol Bunko
speaks of were only put on the doors according to her testimony
after this violent incident. The evidence will show that there
were many violent incidents prior to this one; I guess Carol
Bunko decided that this was the straw that broke the camel's
back. I will remind the court at this time that there were buzzers
put on the door of Michael when he resided in the home of Dale
and Anita, and that these buzzers failed to protect Michael's
sisters. This information was available to the defendant Carol
prior the children moving to the Thompson residence, The Defendant
Carol Bunko knew that buzzers would not keep children safe from
Michael. We believe that it was at the advice of Carol that Michael
be tied in his room at night with a rope, even that extreme measure
failed to keep his sister safe. The proper advice that Carol
could have given was to have Michael removed from his sisters
and any other small children when she had first heard that Michael
had sexually raped, 4-year-old Gus. Page 167 of the examination
of discovery of Carol No. 32 line 5 reads as follows;
Richard Klassen Michael
then was tied and locked into his room. If he's tied and the
door is tied shut, he's effectively locked in the room; is that
correct?
Carol Bunko That's what
my sense is from reading this. I don't recall exactly. And again,
in reading this, said that I speculate that that's what's what
that means with the rope, yes.
The plaintiffs would ask since
when is it the protocol to tie a foster child, or to lock a foster
child in their room? If a child is that dangerous to other children
wouldn't have it made more sense to just remove Michael from
other children? The home of the Thompson's was not a secure environment
like it would be in a prison, and surely the Thompsons were not
qualified as security guards? The Department of Social Services
and the defendant Carol Bunko had to have known that locking
Michael in his room at night would not solve their problems.
What about daytime? What if you turned your back for just a moment
at any time? You take a bath for 20 minutes, would the girls
be safe? The plaintiffs will show the court that smaller children
were not safe around Michael at any time day or night, the plaintiffs
will show the court for the first time that the complainant Michael
even sexually assaulted his sisters while he was giving testimony
on the stand. The plaintiffs intend to show the court that Michael
could not be trusted at any time prior the laying of the charges
and to the duration of the charges. Michael was having sex, raping
other children in the community as well as his sisters. The plaintiffs
will show the court that the defendants downplayed what Michael
was doing by calling it a mere "touching problem."
Not one of the defendants can justify this. The public will no
know for the first time that the defendants in this action knowingly
aloud their crown witness to rape and sodomize his sisters and
other children in the community while they used him and his testimony
to convict the innocent. As stated recently on November 2nd 2002
in an article written by the star Phoenix in the weekend extra
addition a quote by Saskatoon lawyer Robert Borden who said,
"Michael was assaulting his sisters. The police and social
workers knew. It was unbelievable," said Borden. And a further
quote by Rob Twigg, a therapist and professor of social work
at the University of Regina, said he couldn't imagine why officials
would knowingly keep a sexually abusive boy under the same roof
as his sisters. "I don't know how one would justify that.
The first priority should always be the safety of the children,"
Twigg says.
The Security Measures That
Were Put In Place For The Safety Of The Children:
No. 1 Buzzers were put on the
door of Michael while he resided in the home of the defendant
Anita the sexual assaults of his sisters continued.
No. 2 Michael's door was tied
shut at the home of the Thompson's Michael managed to get
the rope undone and effectively rape his sister Kathy all-night
long without the Thompson's waking up.
No. 3 the buzzers were again
put on the door of Michael after the locking of the door wasn't
working at the Thompson home -- again more rapes occurred.
No. 4 the defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys
testifies that more security measures were put in place after
the buzzers was 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 Michael -- more sexual
attacks took place after the extra supervision was put in place.
No. 5 Michael was removed from
his sisters in 1994, because 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 in this action
knew all along that Michael would sexually attack any small child
given the chance; they must have also known that the only way
to keep any of the children safe from Michael was to remove him
and not give him an opportunity to carry out his sexual fantasies.
One can only imagine why the defendants would believe that they
were able to keep children safe from Michael by placing him with
his sisters when they knew that that was the very reason Michael
was removed from the home of Dale and Anita in the first place.
The defendant Carol wants us all to believe that it was more
important for the siblings to stay together than that of keeping
them safe. Her role as a therapist/counsellor was to insure that
the safety needs of the children was being looked after. Even
if The Defendant Carol Bunko believed that the plaintiffs were
guilty of sexually molesting the three Ross children, surely
the three Ross children could not be seen to be in danger any
longer from the plaintiffs. When Michelle and Kathy were removed
from the home of Dale and Anita, there should have been no more
concern about their safety needs regarding the plaintiffs? They
took the children from a safe environment, and placed them with
their brother Michael, that being what they already knew as an
unsafe environment. There only excuse is that it was important
to keep the siblings together so that they would not loose contact
with each other. Certainly one would think that they could have
continued contact by allowing visits to occur with the siblings
on a regular basis, making sure that those contacts were supervised.
There was no reason to put Michael's sisters back in the hands
of Michael when they already knew that he would sexually attacked
them if given the chance. It is the plaintiff's contention that
the public would be more than outraged to hear this evidence.
The plaintiffs intend to point
to the fact that the defendant Carol told the defendant Brian
Dueck, the Department of Social Services, and the prosecutors
on a regular basis all the information that Michael was abusing
children in the community as well as the sisters. That the defendant
Carol at all times kept the other defendants in this action in
formed about Michael's sexually intrusive behavior and that the
defendants were from the beginning aware that Michael was a danger.
I now turn your attention to page 374 of the examination of the
defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys; which reads as follows;
Richard Klassen And your
perception of what he was doing was that he had sexual activity
or a touching problem; is that correct? . . .
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
