|
Contents | Previous page | Next page
279. The Defendant Dueck did not try to corroborate the stories of the children. There were many ways that the Defendant Dueck could have corroborated the children's stories, for example he could have tried to excavate the back yard of 310 Streb Crescent where the children claimed dead babies were buried. In the Thompson notes it is revealed that the Plaintiffs Dale and Anita were present when some of the baby killing took place. See Book 2, Tab 49, Miazga, Hansen, Quinney document # 357-37. This type of information must be considered important for an investigating Police officer; one would think that this type of disclosure could give an investigating police officer an opportunity to look for corroboration. The Defendant Dueck ignored this evidence and just chalked it up to the children were exaggerating, or as the Defendant Bunko-Ruys testified that the children believed this happened. 280. The Defendant Dueck interviewed the Plaintiffs Dale and Anita Klassen in Red Deer, Alberta. There were no indications of abuse by either Plaintiff and nothing either Plaintiff said could be construed as a confession, or admission that they had ever sexually abused the children. The Defendant Dueck ignored the repeated requests by the Plaintiff Anita to speak with a lawyer. See taped interview of the Plaintiff Anita. Inconsistencies of the Ross children regarding the Plaintiffs Dale and Anita Klassen: 281. Book 1, Tab 10, Page 30-31 of the Occurrence Reports, the Defendant Dueck claims that the only disclosure of the Plaintiff Peter Dale Klassen regarding the child complainant Kathleen Jessica Ross is that of the disclosure of Michael and Michelle wherein they state that when Dale did it to them, he did it to Kathy as well, and also the two incidences in the Kvello home. Cross reference: the Thompson notes you will read that Kathy is claiming both Dale and Anita were with her natural parents when the "babies were killed." See Book 2, Tab 49, page 357-37. It is clear that there were other disclosures that the defendant Dueck declined to add into his occurrence report on the plaintiff Peter Dale Klassen. In the Defendants Matthew Miazga statement as to document numbers 357-21 Book 2, Tab 49. Marilyn Thompson notes Michael talks of the plaintiff Dale and Anita Klassen within the last paragraph. "she has a pennant of the Roughriders that he wants out because Anita traced the pennant on cardboard and put pictures of him and Anita doing sex together. She hung this in the basement. She took it down when people came over". 284. Cross reference: There is absolutely no mention of this incident within the defendant Dueck's occurrence reports. It is obvious that the Ross children told a completely different story to the Thompson's then that of their story to the defendant Brian Dueck. The plaintiff's believe the reason for the defendant's refusal to acknowledge the Thompson notes as a source of disclosure of the children is due to the fact that the disclosure contained therein was highly unbelievable and uncorroborated. 285. In document number 357-22 Book 2, Tab 10. Of the Marilyn Thompson notes, Michael talks of a "joker" at Anita's house and trying out "Dale's gun". 286. Cross reference: Again there is no mention of this in the occurrence reports. One would think that the defendant Dueck would have wanted to include this type of information within his occurrence reports. 287. In document number 357-22 Book 2, Tab 49. Of the Marilyn Thompson notes Michelle talk's of a pair of "gloves" that remind her of what she had to do in winter when Anita put her out into the cold with no coat. 288. Cross reference: Again there is no mention of this incident in the taped interview of Michelle or in the occurrence reports themselves. In document number of 357-33 Book 2, Tab 49. Michael tells Marilyn "about hanging from a rope in Anita's basement and she "put fire under them". 290. Cross reference: There is no mention of this in the occurrence reports, and certainly no mention of this was given by the children in their taped interviews. 291. In document number 357-36 Book 2, Tab 49. Michael states that the plaintiffs Dale and Anita Klassen knew his natural parents prior to him going into foster care. 292. Cross reference: There is no mention of this within the occurrence reports of the defendant Brian Dueck. And the Defendants knew this was an untrue statement by Michael. (Jason Dix): [356] See Book 6 293. "It is also not sufficient for police to simply say they received information and relied upon it. The police have a duty to explore the reliability of that information" (Dumbell v. Roberts, [1944] 1 All E.R. 326; Campbell v. Edmonton (City Police Services) (1985),66A.R.222(C.A.). [357] "In addition, a police
officer must take into account all the information available.
A police officer is only entitled to disregard that which there
is good reason to believe is not reliable". ( Cattier
v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 474; R. v. Golub
(1997), 34 OR. (3d) 743 (C.A.), appeal discontinued[1997]S.C.C.A.No.571).
294. The Plaintiffs contend that it has been long established that an investigating police officer should take certain steps before arresting a suspect. The main step would be to investigate the complaint he receives. The Plaintiffs submit that the Defendants took no steps to ensure that the children were telling the truth, but rather they took the word of the children thinking that they were to "assume" the children were telling the truth. The Plaintiffs contend that this was not a proper or prudent way to have conducted themselves considering the severity of the allegations. See Book 2, Tab 26. Page 3, Saskatchewan Child Abuse Protocol 1986. The Criminal Prosecution of the Plaintiffs Richard and Kari Klassen: Brief Background history of the Plaintiffs Richard and Kari Klassen: 295. The Plaintiffs Richard and Kari Klassen were never foster parents. Richard and Kari did not reside with the Ross children, nor were they around the Ross children on many occasions. The Plaintiffs Richard and Kari Klassen had three children of there own. Krystal age 9, Kayla age 2 ?, and Brady age 6 months. Richard and Kari never babysat other people's children. The Plaintiffs Richard and Kari's children had been examined for possible abuse, and the results were negative. The Plaintiffs Richard and Kari Klassen did not reside near Laurrier Village, nor did they ever live near Carolyn Robins School. The Plaintiffs Richard and Kari Klassen lived only six blocks down the hill from the Ross children. The Investigation of the Plaintiffs Richard and Kari Klassen consisted of: a. The children's disclosure. The Defendant Dueck focused on the Plaintiff Richard Klassen's past, as he had a criminal record stemming back to when the Plaintiff Richard was a youth. It should be noted that the criminal record of the Plaintiff Richard Klassen does not include any sexual offences. Book 2, Tab 41. Document # 354-1 as to the documents of Miazga, Hansen, and Quinney. Inconsistencies of the Ross children regarding the Plaintiffs Richard and Kari Klassen: 296. Examination of Brian Dueck held by the Plaintiff Richard Klassen dated September 10th, 2002 page 59 lines 18. "I put together that package; it's in that report. That report was given to the prosecutors along with the tapes. They then came back and said here are the charges to be laid". 297. The "package" is referred to as exhibit P-1 to the examination of the Defendant Dueck by Robert Borden. 298. on page 12 Book 1, Tab 10. "at Pam's house, the same thing happened with Michael, Michelle and Kathy. There was Dale, Richard Klassen and Grandpa Klassen involved in this sexual abuse, and this happened in the basement of Pam Klassen's home, possibly at 225 Ottawa Ave. South". Cross reference: In the transcribed interview of Michael London Ross on page 194-195. Book 4, Tab 70. Michael states emphatically that nothing ever happened at the Plaintiff Pamela Klassen's home. This evidence was ignored by the Defendants. Page 13, Book 1, Tab 10. Michael's disclosure states "Anita, me, Trevor, I did it to Jackie, Dale did it to me, Vivian (Anita's babysitter), Dennis and Diane Kvello, and their kids, Sherry and Sheldon, and their three foster kids (the Mayes children). It happened at Dennis and Dian's house, Diane is Anita's sister. Grandpa and Grandma Klassen, Pam (called her fat Pam Klassen), Rick and Carrie Klassen, and their daughter little Crystal, Ashley Sherman and Mickey (being Pam Klassen adopted son). Big Crystal being Crystal Morin (Heinrichs). Then stated that Grandma and Grandpa Klassen lived with Pam Klassen and they lived in all kinds of houses." Cross reference: page 199 of the interview transcript of Michael Ross in where he states that there was never anyone else there when he was abused by Rick. See Book 4, Tab 70. Page 201 of the transcribed interview of Michael London Ross, Book 4, Tab 70. Michael states that the Plaintiff Richard Klassen was wearing just a shirt and no underwear. Cross reference: the occurrence reports Book 1, Tab 10, on page 16 Michael stated that the plaintiff Richard was always wearing his underwear when the abuse happened. Book 1, Tab 10, page 16: The complainant Michael stated that the plaintiffs Richard and Kari lived near Laurrier Village. Then there is the fact that the child Michelle also stated in her disclosure that the Plaintiffs lived near Carolyn Robins School. Cross reference: Michael and Michelle both claimed the plaintiffs Richard and Kari lived miles from where the Plaintiffs actually lived... See Book 4, Tab 69, a map of the two locations.
306. It should be noted that there is only one mention of the Plaintiffs Richard or Kari Klassen in the Marilyn Thompson. It is inferred that Marilyn is taking notes regarding the videotaped disclosure of the three Ross children. On the page that starts out with Oct. 28th Michael Video it is suggested that Marilyn "never heard that Dale, Grandpa K, Rick did it together to M & K & M. See book 2, Tab 58, It is quite obvious that Marilyn had been either present when the video of Michael was being done, or in the alternative watched the video later and took notes regarding Michael's disclosure. The Plaintiffs believe that the only inference that can be drawn from this is that Marilyn Thompson knew that Michael had never mentioned this to her before. The question is, did the Defendants receive this information? The plaintiffs believe that the Defendants received all of the Thompson notes. 307. Michael refers to the Plaintiff Richard Klassen on page 149 of his transcribed interview Book 4, Tab 70, as "little Rick". This the plaintiffs believe would again show that the Defendants did not have the crucial component of identity before charging the Plaintiff Richard Klassen with having committed a sexual assault against one Michael London Ross. 308. On page 154-157 Book 4, Tab 72, of the transcribed interview of the child complainant Kathleen Jessica Ross: it is said that the Plaintiffs Richard and Kari Klassen never touched her. 309. Note: that there is also no occurrence report on Kathleen Jessica Ross pertaining to the Plaintiffs Richard and Kari Klassen. 310. Note: that the Plaintiffs Richard and Kari Klassen were charged and arrested on July 10th, 1991 with having committed a sexual assault on one Kathleen Jessica Ross. 311. The Defendant Matthew Miazga and Sonja Hanson later had a private conversation with the child Kathleen Jessica Ross in where she stated that Rick and Kari had abused her as well. See Book 2, Tab 51, Miazga, Hansen, Quinney doc's # 414-(47-53).The Plaintiffs believe that had they known that the Defendant Miazga conducted such an interview, they would have asked that the Defendant Miazga and Hanson be removed from acting on the file for they would have become witnesses at trial, or at the Preliminary stage. The Plaintiffs were not advised prior to the Preliminary hearing that this conversation with Kathy, Matthew Miazga and Hanson took place, and certainly it was the only time that a disclosure from Kathy was ever made. It is submitted that this would have made the Defendants Matthew Miazga and Sonja Hanson the only witnesses to such a statement. 312. (R v. T.S. October 17th, 18th, 1994 SASK. CA). Page 23-Book 6. "One must start with the evidence of the complainants because, not withstanding the extensive police investigation and mass of evidence adduced at trial, it is the only direct evidence that the crimes alleged occurred [emphasis mine]and if, they occurred, the appellant committed them. Without the evidence of the complainant, there is no foundation for any conviction". 313. In the original occurrence report regarding the Plaintiff Richard Klassen, page 16, Book 1, Tab 10. The Defendant Dueck states that Michael "drew a picture of Rick and Kari's house, and where the events apparently took place". Note: This drawing was never produced by the Defendant Dueck in disclosure to the defence at the time, nor was it ever produced throughout the disclosure of the above claim. 315. The Defendant Dueck claims in the Defendant Dueck's statement of documents number 612 (a) Book 1, Tab 12, that he interviewed the Plaintiff Richard Klassen, and that the Plaintiff Richard Klassen stated that he had received a letter of apology from the Department of Social Services regarding a past abuse allegation. The Defendant Dueck claims that "in fact he received a letter stating that investigation would go no further because Beck refused to talk to the police." Note: The Plaintiff Richard Klassen has in his possession the actual letter that was received regarding this complaint and can be seen in the Plaintiff Richard Klassen's statement as to documents # 279, Book 4, Tab 68. As the Court can see this letter does not include the details that the Defendant Dueck writes about in his occurrence report to the prosecution. The Court must consider this evidence to be a blatant attempt to persuade the Prosecution looking at this file to think that the Plaintiff Richard Klassen was a liar. The Plaintiff Richard Klassen believes that the only inference the court could draw is that the Defendant Dueck put this deliberate lie in the occurrence report to help to persuade the Defendant Matthew Miazga that the Plaintiff Richard Klassen was hiding something and not truthful. The Plaintiff Richard Klassen states that there is no letter that the Defendant Dueck can produce that states what he claimed in this occurrence report. And that further the Defendant Dueck was inferring that the Plaintiff Richard Klassen was a past abuser of some sort. The Criminal Prosecution of the Plaintiff Marie Klassen: A Brief Background History of the Plaintiff Marie Klassen: 318. The plaintiff Marie Klassen opened her home for foster care in approximately 1972, and received mostly newborn babies. The plaintiff Marie Klassen had fostered up and until 1979 and received approximately 100 children throughout her fostering career. The plaintiff Marie Klassen had never received a complaint before the Ross children. The plaintiff Marie Klassen resided with her daughter Pamela Klassen. The plaintiff Marie Klassen was permanently disabled due to an injury that occurred as a result of being thrown from a horse in 1945. The plaintiff Marie Klassen was only able to walk with the assistance of a walker or something to hang onto like a railing or arm. Marie was partially paralyzed on the left side of her body, and her main mode of transportation was a wheelchair. Marie had four steel rods in her leg due to a bad break, which occurred in 1975. It was at this time that the plaintiff Marie Klassen was restricted to using a wheelchair or walker. The plaintiff Marie Klassen was diagnosed as being clinically blind in 1989 and worked extensively with C.N.I.B. Marie's condition was considered Progressive and the degenerative, and eventually she was made to take sit baths as she was unable to get in and out of a bathtub. By 1989 Maria was being transported by Homecare to a facility where she could be lifted into a therapeutic bath. Marie's children have never witnessed their mother run. It should also be noted that Marie's left hand was always clenched and unable to open all the way, as her balance was so poor that this was the way to have some stability. The investigation of the Plaintiff Marie Klassen : 319. The Defendant Dueck called Peter Klassen Sr. and asked if he would be willing to come in to be interviewed, it should be noted that he had never asked the Plaintiff Marie to submit to an interview. The Inconsistencies of the Ross children regarding the Plaintiff Marie Klassen: 320. Book 1, Tab 10, deals with the disclosure of the Plaintiff Marie Klassen within the occurrence reports and is what the Defendants relied on in determining their reasonable and probable cause to charge the Plaintiff. On page 59-71 of Kathleen Jessica Ross's transcribed interview, see Book 4, Tab 72. Kathy talks at length about the bathroom incidents; the majority of the disclosure is that of the Plaintiff Marie Klassen "fingering" the child complainant. When asked if she did anything else to you, and Kathy states "no", when asked if the Plaintiff Marie ever made Kathy touch her she says "no" when asked how many times that it happened she say's '125" times. She then gets mixed up as to whether it happened in the bedroom or the bathroom. She now answers that it always happened in the bedroom. Cross reference: On page 32, Book 1, Tab 10, Kathy states that it always happened in the bathroom. When asked again by the Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys she states that always happened in the bathroom. The Defendant Dueck is the one that seems to have confused her, and it is only when he tries to get the bathroom into her disclosure, as he is the one to question her on this, that is it mentioned by Kathy. It goes on to talk about a threesome in the bedroom, then the story grew to include Grandma and Grandpa taking turns on each other in the bedroom. There were times when Grandma would be "screwing her" Grandma would stay in the room watching them. Note: none of this is reported in the occurrence report of the Defendant Dueck.
Note: Michelle stated that the bedroom of the Plaintiff Marie was up stairs. Book 4, Tab 71, Page 114 of the transcribed interview of Michelle Ross. The plaintiff Marie Klassen was physically unable to walk stairs and at no time would have had a bedroom located on the second floor. On page 119 Book 4, Tab 71, of Michelle's transcribed interview she states that it happened with the Plaintiff Marie Klassen. That it only happened ten times. This is conflicting disclosure of that of Kathy Ross, and Michael Ross. The Criminal Prosecution of the Plaintiff Pamela Klassen: A Brief background history of the Plaintiff Pamela Klassen: 328. The plaintiff Pamela Klassen opened her home for foster care in approximately 1982. She had received many children through the Department of Social Services some of which were terminally ill. The plaintiff Pamela Klassen also took in emergency cases from the crisis center in Saskatoon. The number of children that the plaintiff Pamela Klassen looked after over this eight year period is approximately 75-100. Pamela Klassen had never received a complaint from the Department of Social Services until that of the Ross children. The plaintiff Pamela Klassen resided with the plaintiff Marie Klassen at all times prior 1989 at which point she resided in her own residence with her adopted son Michael Klassen. The Department of Social Services considered Pamela Klassen to be an asset in working with terminally ill children as well as special needs children. The Department of Social Services often commended the plaintiff Pamela Klassen for her patience and dedication to the foster children. The plaintiff Pamela Klassen would often be given as many as six children at one time even though her home was only approved for two foster children at any given time. The investigation of the Plaintiff Pamela Klassen: a. consisted of the Defendant Brian Dueck visiting the residence of Pamela Klassen and asking questions that were not recorded. The Defendant Dueck making statements such as "your brothers can run but they can't hide". Inconsistencies of the Ross children regarding the Plaintiff Pamela Klassen: 329. Book 1, Tab 10, deals with the disclosure of the Plaintiff Pamela Klassen, within the occurrence reports and is what the Defendants relied on in determining their reasonable and probable cause to charge the Plaintiffs.
On page 107 of Michelle Ross interview Book 4, Tab 71, Michelle states that Pam made her kiss her "boobs and my bum" in Mikey and Ashley's room. Cross reference: On page 108, Book 4, Tab 71, she states that Pam would take her to her bedroom (Pam's bedroom) and goes on to state that it "never happened in any other room". Cross reference: On page 111, Book 4, Tab 71, she states that it happened in the bathroom as well. Within this disclosure Michelle states that it happened in three different rooms, however she stated previously, that it never happened in any room other than Pam's bedroom. On page 92 Book 4, Tab 71, of the Michelle interview she states with the plaintiff Pamela Klassen, it happened three times at Pam's house, and two times at Anita's house. Cross reference: On page 98 Book 4, Tab 71, she states that it happened two times at Pam's house, and three times at Anita's house. 330. Cross reference: If you look at the occurrence report it states that it happened five times at Pam's house and three times at the Plaintiffs Dale and Anita's house. 331. Note: Michelle stated that the bedroom of the Plaintiff Marie was up stairs. Book 4, Tab 71, Page 114 of the transcribed interview of Michelle Ross. The plaintiff Marie Klassen was physically unable to walk stairs and at no time would have had a bedroom located on the second floor. 332. On page 192 Book 4, Tab 71. Michael states that he is abusing Ashley and Mikey in the Plaintiff Pamela bedroom, and states that the fifth time that he went to the Plaintiff Pamela's house, Ashley stated "Pam, bed, bed". Note: Ashley Sherman was a new born child at this time and could not speak. The court should note that her age is never brought up. The Defendant Dueck could have investigated, and reported within his occurrence reports the actual age of Ashley Sherman. On page 158 Book 4, Tab 71, Michelle states that she touched Ashley Sherman on her vagina. Dueck asks if Ashley ever touched her and Michelle states "no". She states that Ashley was too young. This would back up the fact that Ashley Sherman was an infant at this time. Note: there is never any mention of the child Trevor Heinrichs from the child complainant Michelle Ross. On page 160-161 Book 4, Tab 71. Michelle states that she does not remember Crystal's Brother Trevor. This is only mentioned after the Defendant Dueck brings up the name of Trevor Heinrichs. She is adamant that the only Trevor that exists is Trevor Klassen, Dale and Anita's son Note: It should be noted that Trevor Heinrichs would have been in the home of the Plaintiff Pamela Klassen through out this time, as he was not adopted and released from Pamela Klassen's care until he was not adopted in 1989. Note: Michael Ross never mentions the child Trevor Heinrichs. The Criminal Prosecution of the Plaintiffs John and Myrna Klassen: A Brief background history of the Plaintiffs John and Myrna: 338. The Plaintiffs John and Myrna had never fostered children. The Plaintiffs John and Myrna had two of their own children. The Plaintiffs John and Myrna did not live near the Ross children, nor did the visit them very often. The Plaintiffs John and Myrna's own children had been checked for sexual abuse and the results came back negative. The investigation of the Plaintiffs John and Myrna: a. The investigation of the Defendants concerning the Plaintiffs John and Myrna consisted of the children's disclosure and nothing else. Inconsistencies of the Ross children
regarding the Plaintiffs John and Myrna Klassen: 340. The Plaintiffs John and Myrna's disclosure can be seen in Book 1, Tab 10. The child Michael claims that the abuse that he suffered at the hands of the Plaintiffs John and Myrna only happened at the home of the Plaintiffs Diane and Dennis Kvello, and the Plaintiffs Dale and Anita's home. The complainant Michael states that most of the abuse occurred in a "chalk" room located in the basement of the home of the Plaintiffs Diane and Dennis Kvello. The complainant Michael also states that he never went to the home of Diane and Dennis very often.
341. Note: Michael claimed on an earlier occasion that the plaintiff Myrna Klassen was involved in sexually abusing him in the exercise room, however when reading from page 208 209 of the transcribed interview See Book 4, Tab 70. He changes his story and states that with the plaintiff Myrna Klassen it happened in her room upstairs, they would flip a quarter and usually John would go first. On page 210, Book 4, Tab 70, Michael describes an incident where there were several adults who engaged in sexual abuse with Michael "behind a washing machine" in the basement of Dale and Anita's residence. He states that it would be either the Plaintiffs Dale and Anita and himself, or the Plaintiffs John and Myrna and himself when this took place. Cross reference: Michael later states that three adults would sometimes come down stairs. It should be noted that there is never any mention of who the third person would have been. He later includes Michelle and Kathy as being part of this group that would sexually abuse him "behind this washing machine." The Plaintiffs believe that this is impossible. This evidence is not credible and the Defendants must have known this at the time. Note: In Book 4, Tab 72, page 162 of the transcribed interview of the complainant Kathleen Ross it is stated that the Plaintiffs John and Myrna Klassen did not touch Kathy. This can only take away corroboration of Michael's story that he witnessed all the children being sexually abused behind a washing machine. On page 207 of the transcribed interview Book 4, Tab 70, Michael is asked if he thought that the Plaintiff John Klassen had ever done this to anyone else, Michael states: "Probably to his own kids, I don't know". Cross reference: On page 210, Book 4, Tab 70, it is claimed by Michael that John is engaging with sexual activity with Michelle and Kathy while he is present. On page 138 Book 4, Tab 70, of the transcribed interview of Michael he is asked if Anita had ever done something with anyone else. Michael states "no" He is also asked who all the adults were that sexually abused him in Diane's home. He states. "Diane and Dennis and Anita and Dale" Note: Michael now does not mention any other adults that were in the basement of Diane's home in the "chalk" room. One would think that this would have been his opportunity to explain that there was John, Myrna, Rick, Kari, Dale, Anita and Diane and Dennis also in the basement of the "chalk" room. This should have been an indication of a serious "Red Flag" for the Defendants in this case, when determining their reasonable and probable cause for having the plaintiffs charged. On page 9 of the transcribed interview of Michelle Ross Book 4, Tab 71, Michelle is asked who all had touched her that made her feel uncomfortable and she states; that John and his wife are included in this list. Note: Michelle later does not disclose
on the Plaintiffs John and Myrna, yet John and Myrna Klassen
were charged with having committed a sexual assault against one
Michelle Mimi Ross. 351. One would think that if the child Kathy had been sexually abused behind a washing machine she would remember this? This concludes the reasonable and probable cause that the Defendants relied on in charging the Plaintiffs John and Myrna with having committed a sexual assault on the child complainants Michael, Michelle and Kathleen Ross. This would also conclude the Defendants reasonable and probable cause in having the Plaintiffs John and Myrna Klassen charged with having committed a sexual assault on all the three Mayes children. It should also be noted that the three Mayes children have never claimed that the Plaintiff John and Myrna Klassen ever sexually assaulted them. The Criminal Prosecution of the Plaintiffs Dennis and Diane Kvello: A Brief Background History of the Plaintiffs Dennis and Diane Kvello; 352. The plaintiffs Dennis and Diane Kvello began fostering children in approximately late 1987 to early 1988. They received two children prior to the Mayes/ Hardy children entering their home in 1988. The three Mayes children Shannavia, Stephen and Sardie Mayes/Hardy resided with the plaintiffs Dennis and Diane Kvello and their two children Sheldon and Sherry until the time they were apprehended by the Department of Social Services in approximately June of 1990. The plaintiff Dennis worked as an Electrician and Diane maintained the home and children as well as being involved in volunteer work with the church and the Canadian Mental Heath Society. This volunteer work began prior to Dennis and Diane opening their home to foster children and continued throughout as well as after the Mayes/Hardy children were removed. Diane Kvello is the sister to the plaintiff Anita Klassen. The investigation of the Plaintiffs Dennis and Diane Kvello: The children's disclosure. Interviews of the three Dupois children who were neighbors of Dennis and Diane Kvello. Diane would often times baby-sit the Dupois children and were personal friends with the family. The defendant Dueck made notes contained within his statement as to documents referring to the Dupois children and Diane's connection to them. The Dupois children were brought into the police station and interviewed by Cpl. Dueck in the soft room. These videotaped interviews contain no disclosure as against any of the accused. One should note that these interviews were never disclosed to the prosecutors in charge of this file and the contents thereof were never discussed. The inconsistence of the Ross children regarding the Plaintiffs Diane and Dennis Kvello: 353. On page 18 of the occurrence report
Book 1, Tab 10. It is stated that Diane and Dennis, Dale and
Anita and John and Myrna all did it in the "chalk"
room in the basement. In the occurrence report on page 26, Book 1, Tab 10, states that he relies on the disclosure of Michael in relation to the allegation of Rick and Kari Klassen in the "chalk" room at the Kvello home. And on one other occasion with the three Ross children and the three Mayes children all taking turns with Richard and Kari, Dale and Anita, and Dennis and Diane. Cross reference: page 201 of Michael's interview, Book 4, Tab 70, when discussing Rick and Kari Klassen and their alleged involvement, Michael is asked directly if he remembers anything about Rick and Kari. Michael states that he does not. This should have led the defendant Dueck to believe that Michael was not giving an accurate account of what his version of the "chalk" room incident was. If Michael did not disclose this apparent incident in the disclosure on Richard and Kari, than how could his disclosure on Dennis and Diane be deemed accurate? On page 18, Book 1, Tab 10, Michael discloses that the six children that being the Mayes children and the Ross children) as well as Diane and Dennis, Dale and Anita and John and Myrna Klassen were together in the chalk room. Cross reference: Page 210 of his transcribed interview Book 4, Tab 70, he has been questioned extensively about the apparent abuse by John and Myrna Klassen. Michael is asked if he remembers anything else, and he answers no. There was no disclosure in relation to the chalk room and John and Myrna Klassen, therefore not corroborating the allegation against Diane and Dennis and the apparent abuse that took place in the chalk room with all the adults taking part. On page 24, Book 1, Tab 10, the defendant Dueck relies on Michael's disclosure in having Dennis and Diane charged with having sexually assaulting Kathleen Jessica Ross and Michelle Mimi Ross. This disclosure included all six children and six adults being Dale and Anita Klassen, Dennis and Diane Kvello and Don (John) and Myrna Klassen with the children in the chalk room. Cross reference: Michelle's videotaped interview, page 126, Book 4, Tab 71, Michelle states that it happened in Dennis's room, on different days than with Diane, and that she never saw Dennis do it to anyone else. Again on page 161, Book 4, Tab 71, Michelle states that Diane abused her but that it was on different days than the apparent abuse had happened with Dennis. Dennis and Diane Kvello were charged with having committed a sexual assault on Kathleen Jessica Ross. The disclosure that was obtained in relation to this consisted of two occasions which were disclosed by Michael London Ross. This alleged abuse happened in the basement at Dennis and Diane Kvello's in the chalk room with Dale and Anita, John and Myrna, Dennis and Diane, and the three Ross children. The second incident consisted of Dennis and Diane, Dale and Anita, John and Myrna, the three Mayes children and the three Ross children all taking turns with one another. See page 33, Book 1, Tab 10. Cross reference: the disclosure by Kathleen Jessica Ross obtained in her interview conducted by the defendants Dueck and Bunko, on page 24 Book 4, Tab 72, Kathy is asked if Dennis ever did anything to her, her answer is "no". 363. The allegations in relation to Dennis and Diane Kvello are based largely on the disclosure of Michael London Ross. Even with his disclosure, the variations of this incident change dramatically. One can only infer that the defendant Dueck wanted the allegation in relation to the chalk room at Dennis and Diane Kvello's to be held as credible evidence as this incident would encompass a large portion of the Klassen and Kvello families and would involve the three Ross children as well as the three Mayes children. Individual disclosures would then not have been as necessary from the child complainant as this would become the blanket of disclosure. The Criminal Prosecution of the Plaintiff Sheldon Kvello: A Brief Background History of the Plaintiff Sheldon Kvello: 364. Sheldon Kvello was a quiet hardworking
teenager, who did well in school. The Investigation of the Plaintiff Sheldon Kvello: a) The disclosure of the children. Inconsistencies of the Ross children regarding the Plaintiff Sheldon Kvello: The plaintiff Sheldon Kvello disclosure can be seen in Book 1, Tab 10. On page 140 of the transcribed interview Michelle Ross Book 4, Tab 71, describes the apparent abuse by Sheldon Kvello and when asked on page 142 about the three foster children Sardie, Shannavia and Stephan, Michelle states adamantly that no one ever did anything to these foster kids. Note: After coaxing from the defendant Dueck and the defendant Bunko-Ruys, Michelle begins to disclose that Sheldon sexually abused all three foster children. See pp. 140-146 Book 4, Tab 71. On pages 122 and 123 Book 4, Tab 70, of the Michael Ross transcribed interview, Michael states Sheldon a long with himself, Dale, Trevor (Klassen) and Dennis took part in sexually assaulting Travis. Note: Travis was born on April 13th 1989. Michael Ross left the home of the plaintiffs Dale and Anita in December of 1989. This would have made Travis seven months old at the time. It was stated by Michael that two adults sexually assaulted this young infant. Note: the plaintiffs Dale and Anita Klassen brought their children, which included baby Travis, to be examined by a physician who concluded that none of their children showed no signs of being sexually assaulted. The only real disclosure of the three Mayes children is the disclosure of Michael where he states that the Plaintiff Sheldon sexually abused all three Mayes children with him. Note: It would later be determined that the Mayes children lied when they disclosed that Sheldon and Sherry sexually assaulted them. It was later disclosed to the Defendant Sonja Hanson by the Mayes children that their mother had told them to say the things that they had once said. It should be noted that: no charges or investigation were ever done regarding this matter. The evidence of the three Mayes children would at one point in time give the Defendants some corroboration concerning certain Plaintiffs. Once the three Mayes children recanted they would have lost any corroboration that they once had. 365. It should also be noted that: the
Defendants did not drop the charges on the Plaintiffs regarding
the Ross children after the Mayes children recanted. It is the
testimony of the Defendant Sonja Hanson that once the child starts
to tell obvious lies they are no longer credible witnesses. This
however is not the same approach the Defendant Matthew Miazga
took regarding his witnesses, the Ross children. After the Ross
children started to give incredible evidence regarding the Plaintiffs
the defendants Miazga and Hansen should have withdrawn the charges.
The Criminal Prosecution of the Plaintiff Sherry Kvello: A Brief Background History of the Plaintiff Sherry Kvello: 366. The plaintiff Sherry Kvello was a quiet, well mannered teenager who did well in school. Sherry Kvello was never known to be in trouble with the law, and did not have a criminal record. Sherry Kvello babysat children after school and on weekends to make extra money for herself, and never had problems of allegations of any kind. The Investigation of the Plaintiff Sherry Kvello: The disclosure of the children. Inconsistencies of the Ross children regarding the Plaintiff Sherry Kvello: 367. The plaintiff Sherry Kvello disclosure can be seen in Book 1, Tab 10. 368. In January of 1992 it was determined that the child complainant Michelle was seen to be incredible as she was now recanting on the plaintiff Sherry Kvello. See Book 2, Tab's 35, 37. Miazga, Hansen, Quinney documents #'s 343 (56-58) and 343 (51-53). 369. Note: It would later be determined that the Mayes children lied when they disclosed that Sheldon and Sherry sexually assaulted them. It was later disclosed to the Defendant Sonja Hanson by the Mayes children that their mother had told them to say the things that they had once said. Miazga, Hansen, Quinney document # 310-20, Book 2, Tab 32. 370. It should be noted that: no charges or investigation were ever done regarding this matter. The evidence of the three Mayes children would at one point in time give the Defendants some corroboration concerning certain Plaintiffs. Once the three Mayes children recanted they would have lost any corroboration that they once had. 371. It should also be noted that: the Defendants did not drop the charges on the Plaintiffs regarding the Ross children after the Mayes children recanted. It is the testimony of the Defendant Sonja Hanson that once a child starts to tell obvious lies they are no longer credible witnesses. This however is not the same approach the Defendant Matthew Miazga took regarding his witnesses, nor did the defendant Hansen carry on this belief and action as it pertained to the Klassen accused. After the Ross children started to give incredible evidence regarding the Plaintiffs the defendants Miazga and Hansen should have withdrawn the charges. The Medical Evidence of the Children: 372. The Medical Examinations of the Child Complainants: See Book 2, Tab 53-57. Miazga, Hansen, Quinney Documents. The three Ross children and the three Mayes/Hardy children are all within the first tab. The three Ross children reports are taken from the defendant Dueck's statement as to documents #'s 517-519. Michael London Ross No Reasonable and Probable Cause regarding the medical evidence: Dr. Joel Yelland examined the three Ross children on July 7th, 1990 and concluded that "Michael had physical scars compatible with physical abuse. He also has had decreased rectal tone and scarring in the rectal area that was determined compatible with the history of sexual abuse that he revealed". See tab listed above. The medical report of Michelle Ross was also completed by Dr. Joel Yelland and it revealed that the vaginal examination was abnormal for the hymen being torn in a cresentic fashion with a total diameter of 7mm. This finding was also determined to be evidence that there may have been sexual abuse consistent with her allegations. See listed above. Dr. Joel Yelland also saw Kathleen Jessica Ross and determined that she too showed signs that were indicative of sexual abuse. See listed above. It should also be noted that all three children seem to have disclosed personally to Dr. Joel Yelland about sexual abuse. Dr. Joel Yelland describes that the children described "ritual sexual abuse"; as well they described details that are not consistent with the occurrence reports. For example: Michelle described to Dr. Joel Yelland that there was "white stuff" that came from the penis of her abuser. This evidence was never mentioned in the videotaped sessions, nor was it ever discussed in the occurrence reports. One would think that the Defendant Dueck would have put something like that in his report to the prosecution Department if in fact the child said this. He was more than specific with these types of details when it came to a child explaining about menstrual cycles and blood. The Defendant Matthew Miazga and Sonja Hansen both claim that they did not rely on the medical evidence in determining their reasonable and probable cause. The Plaintiffs submit that if there were evidence that could have led to the conclusion that the children had been abused, the Defendants would have relied upon it. The medical evidence was elicited at the Preliminary hearing of the Plaintiffs and it is therefore submitted that to some degree the Defendants did rely on this evidence in determining that the children had been abused. The medical evidence however does not determine who the abusers may have been. The Plaintiffs say that the medical evidence was certainly not indicative of multiple abuses by multiple adults. When dealing with the medical aspect of any child abuse case, there are several issues that are extremely important. Obviously, if a child claims that they were forced to perform acts of "oral" sex, there normally is no medical evidence to support the charge. If however, their allegation is penetration of the vagina and/or rectum, normally, the investigating officer, detective or prosecutor usually and immediately would send the child to a hospital for an examination. In order for the examination to be beneficial to anyone, it must be conducted as soon after the alleged incident as possible. If not, there would be no fluid evidence, such as the presence of semen and no manner of determining "when" or "how" certain scarring or tearing actually took place. For example: If a child claimed that they had just been molested, that the accused put his penis into her vagina and that when he finished, she had "white stuff" between her legs and then a subsequent examination at an emergency room determined the presence of semen, this would be beneficial to the Crown in basing reasonable belief that the child had been abused. The emergency room doctor would normally have no problem in determining if a child's hymen is intact. If a child claims that the accused repeatedly and on numerous occasions, (as in this case) put his adult penis inside her vagina and the hospital examination determined that her hymen was partially intact, this kind of evidence would certainly benefit the defense. It should however also put up a "red flag" to the investigating officer as to the legitimacy of the complainants disclosure. Surely an investigator or "prosecutor cannot claim that a hymen could grow back over time? It cannot be over emphasized that the Ross children claimed that many "adult" males stuck their penises inside the children on many occasions over an extended period of time. In short the Plaintiffs believe that the medical reports of the three Ross children were inconclusive and un-supporting in corroborating evidence against the Plaintiffs and should have been considered a "Red Flag" for the Defendants. There was evidence given at the trial of the natural parents that the father (Donald Ross) may have been responsible for sexually abusing the Ross children. Not to mention the fact that there was evidence of an old family friend who may have abused Michael. This evidence was given by the Plaintiff Anita Klassen when the prosecution decided that it was necessary in order to obtain a conviction to call her to the stand. Anita Klassen's testimony was held to be credible evidence, and was largely weighed in finding Donald Ross guilty of sexual assault on his children. See Book 2, Tab 27, Document # 52 as to the defendants Miazga, Hansen and Quinney.
Contents | Previous page | Next page May 11, 2005
|