I MARILYN HEDLUND of Regina, Saskatchewan, civil servant MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. THAT I am employed by the Government of Saskatchewan as the Executive Director of Child and Family Services in the Department of Community Resources and Employment.
2. THAT I am aware of the judgment under appeal on this matter and of the general nature of the facts underlying the judgment.
3. THAT the Child and Family Services Division with the Department of community Resources and Employment, in which I am employed administers the Province's child protection program pursuant to The child and Family Services Act S.S. c C-7.2.
4. THAT program puts the department's staff in very many situations of investigating whether or not a child is in need of protection as defined in the statute and of providing for the needs of children who by the operation of that program have come into the care of the Minister.
5. THAT the work of that program is carried out by departmental employees and by many people under contract with the department such as therapists working with children who are wards of the Minister.
6. THAT frequently that work brings to the attention of those departmental representatives stories told by children or observations of the children which appear to point to a crime possibly having been perpetrated against the child.
7. THAT it is and has long been our department's expectation of our staff and contractors that they will report such information to the police, co-operate with the police, but leave the police investigation and police decisions to te police while they continue to perform their functions for the children which will involve satisfying themselves as to the relevant facts to enable them to make decisions regarding the safety and best interests of the child.
8. THAT in such situations there is often need for information sharing between departmental representatives and police who are each performing important functions respecting the same situation.
9. THAT from my discussions with and messages from employees of the department, I am convinced that many of them with jobs in the area of child welfare consider this judgment to create uncertainty in the law with respect to whether or when they can report information to the police and to what extent thay can co-operate with the police without risking liability in a malicious prosecution lawsuit.
10 THAT makes me concerned that the departmental representatives may hesitate inappropriately to make reports to the police of information that comes to their attention, as required by policy and that this could potentially impact the safety of children.
11. THAT I consider it to be a matter of public importance to seek clarification regarding the issues of law in this appeal and take this affidavit in support of the Attorney General for Saskatchewan's application for leave to intervene sp that counsel for the Attorney General might seek to ensure that these issues are fully argued before the Court of Appeal.
Signed before a Notary Public December 8, 2004, Marilyn Hedlund
MacPherson's Gag order
Note: The gag order is not a court order. It is a letter. No one had the opportunity to challenge the wishes of the chief justice in a court of law. The primarily reason the trial judge granted the gag order at the time of the trial was because Miazga, the prosecutor, claimed the public could order copies after the trial. That is what Anne Wallace was trying to do.
The Honourable Donald K. MacPherson Chief Justice, Court of Queen's Bench Court House, 2425 Victoria Avenue, Regina, Saskatchewan
March 29, 1993
MacDermid Lamarsh Barristers & Solicitors 905 - 201 - 21st St. East SASKATOON, Saskatchewan S7K 0B8
Attention: Anne M. Wallace
Dear Ms. Wallace:
Re: Queen v. Klassen etal. - Preliminary Inquiry Transcripts
Your letter of February 15, 1993, has been referred to me for attention and reply, and I apologize for the delay in responding.
As I understand the situation, following the preliminary hearing of 11 accused persons in this matter, Mr. Peter Klassen, after the appropriate election, entered a plea of guilty to certain charges whereupon the Crown entered a stay of proceedings in respect of the other accused persons, and that is the way the matter stands at the present time.
I see several problems in releasing to the public, or a member thereof, a copy of the transcript of the preliminary hearing at this time:
(1) At the outset of the preliminary hearing, the court, on application by defence counsel, made an order under s. 539(1) of the Criminal Code prohibiting the publication by broadcast or newspaper until the accused parties have been discharged, or until the trial has ended if the accused are committed. Neither of these events has occurred. The transcript does not indicate there was any limitations as to the application of this order as suggested in your letter.
(2) Further, the court at the outset also made an order pursuant to 486(3) in respect of all the complainants and witnesses involved in all the informations. That order remains in effect.
(3) While it rarely happens, still, under the Criminal Code s579(2) it is open to the Crown to recommence the proceeding within the time limited by that section. If that should occur with a jury trial or trials being the result, the publication of the testimony given at the preliminary hearing could have an unfavourable affect on the minds of potential jurors. While this factor was not considered in either the MacIntyre case o[r] the Vickery case, I feel it is a sound reason for refusing the release of those transcripts at the present time.
(4) You are aware that in Vickery, the Supreme Court of Canada held that public documents in the possession of the Court should be made available to the public except, inter alia, in situations where it is necessary to "protect the innocent". In my view, those "child complainants" and other young persons who testified at the preliminary, fall within the classification of "innocent persons" and I am satisfied that publication of their testimony, either now or in the future, could cause them great and undeserved embarrassment and anguish, and for this reason as well the transcript should not be released.
Based on the foregoing, I have ordered the local registrar of the Judicial Centre of Saskatoon to refuse to release the transcript.
I should add that I, and I believe the other members of this court, support the views as expressed by the then Chief Justice Dickson in Vickery, but I am of the view that the foregoing reasons are sufficiently compelling to refuse release of the transcripts.
I would add as well that later in the course of the preliminary hearing, the court did make an order under s. 486(1), presumably in the interest of "the proper administration of justice", excluding members of the public from the courtroom, and a further order under s. 486(2.1) that the child witnesses be screened from the accused persons. However, I do not view these orders as affecting my instruction that the transcript not be released. Yours truly, (signed) D. K. MacPherson
The Satanic Ritual Hysteria The experts on dead baby remains buried in a Saskatoon backyard Exorcisms Not For Amateurs
pdf file 1 page
Marilyn Thompson Notes Transcript June 22, 2001
Page 41, 42 and 43 of 84 pages
Marilyn Thompson Notes Transcript June 22, 2001
he's had to do & can't tell us yet. Like Jon says that little blip could be a key. I didn't get it down because I was concentrating on Michelle and what Michael was saying was like Jon says they talk about an airplane going over or the fan etc.
Michael says this is serious stuff sometimes a baby was used in place of an animal & all the adults & kids would line up the same as with the animal (baty) they would do the same as the did to the animal. Peniss up bum ladies fingers up bum & the kids had to do the same. The baby got slapped & punched lots. Really beat up sometimes they tried to cut off his penis
The dog that died they killed it. My Mom called her friends on the computer to tell them to come over they watched our mom kill the dog and they didn't shed a tear. She put the dog on a newspaper on a coffee table. She took the knife and put it up the dogs bum. We were scared scared. There was plastic under the paper. After my mom killed the dog - the blood came out - the dogs eyes were open & my dad stuck the knife up his bum to kill him again, then my mom gathered the blood in a container and a sign on it "blood from a dead dog" before they put the dog in a box my dad took the sharp end of the knife & popped the eyeballs out & put them in the blood. They put the dog in a box and wrapped it in a black plastic so no one would know what it was. the dog was bigger than Pansy like a german shepard. they (mom & Dad) put the blood container in their room in a cupboard. My mom had a halloween gorilla mask all hairy and she would wear it when the baby or animals were there. She'd scare the lights out of the baby & the dog. The cat had to run. She'd wear black clothes that went with the mask She wore the mask when she killed the dog we used cats. Whenever we wanted to screw the cat we'd tie their paws separate so they wouldn't scratch. When the cat was old my mom took a picture of the cat before she killed it. We did the same with the cat as we did the dog. Put the knife up the bum. My dad killed the cat & my mom popped the eyes out. The blood went into the container. The sign said "It's time to kill the cat" the eyeballs went in the blood. They brought the same container with the dogs blood there was blood in the container. It was crusty on top it oi looked on top of the blood like edges of burnt paper but the under
Transcript of Taped interview of Michael London Ross by Corporal Brian Dueck and Carol Bunko-Ruys October 20, 1990.
I will be writing up a post about how a just turned 11 year old child in grade 4 was manipulated into supplying testimony to agree with the above Thompson notes. This is a sick abuse of the law and a sicker abuse of a child’s trust. Some people may have trouble distinguishing who the adults are. Michael answers to questions are proceeded by the letter A. He is the child. CPL. DUECK and MS. BUNKO-RUYS are the adults.
14:35 57 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay, and that's all? Are you there? A Yeah.
14:36:03 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay. Is your sisters there? A Mm hrnm.
14:36:06 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay. Anyone else? A Everybody
14:36:13 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay. A ... good family, bad family, mom, dad, me, Michelle and Kathy.
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay. CPL. DUECK: Okay. MS. BUNKO-RUYS: So quite a few people. MICHAEL: Okay —
14:36:23 Q CPL. DUECK: What were the people wearing when this happened, Michael? I know that you're really -- A They ain't wearing nothin'.
14:36:26 Q CPL. DUECK: I know you're real eager to show us all this stuff but we need to just ask a few questions. Okay, they weren't wearing anything? A (Shakes head no)
14:36:33 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay.
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay. A Except for the guys just wear underwear and the - 59 -
14:45:59 Q CPL. DUECK: You cut up at the cat at that house, okay. And where is that house? A That was on 1813 Avenue C North.
14:46:06 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay.
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay. A This was Eighth Street.
14:46:10 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay. A I want to show (inaudible).
14:46:17 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay. A Eighth Street, (shouts into video camera)
14:46:20 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay. What about the other one? A And we cut up the dog here.
14:46:27 Q CPL. DUECK: Cut up the dog there? A But we didn't do any of the things that - they just sexually abused us.
14:46:34 Q CPL. DUECK: They just sexually abused you at this one, that's on Eighth Street? A Mm hnim.
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay.
14:46:37 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay, good. A 310 Streb Crescent, ya, ya.
CPL. DUECK: Okay, come on back here. Thank you.
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay.
14:46:46 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay, now the cat, that happened on Avenue C? How old were you when that happened to the dog? A Probably eight - eight or nine.
14:46:58 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay. What about the cat? A The cat —
14:47:03 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Michael, where were you living when you were eight or nine? A Anita's. One weekend I went to go stay with my mom and dad.
14:47:10 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay.
CPL. DUECK: Okay, very good. And it was the weekend you went to stay with your mom and dad that that happened? A Mm hmm, yeah.
14:47:15 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay, very good. Okay, now how about the cat? You said that happened at 1813 Avenue C North, and who was living at 1813 Avenue C North then? A Just my dad.
14:47:26 Q CPL. DUECK: Just your dad. Where was your mom then? A She was living with Don and —
14:47:29 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay. A ... one time my mom went to go get the knife. It's all the exactly the same thing happened.
15:55:12 Q CPL. DUECK: And they did this the same way with the dogs? A Yeah.
15:55:15 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay. Who flipped the quarter? A Usually my dad.
15:55:19 Q CPL. DUECK: Usually your dad did? Okay. 15:55:26 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: So what - like I'm imagining if I was maybe there and if I was a little kid and I didn't want to do that. What would happen? A They would almost get their head cut off.
15:55:36 Q CPL. DUECK: How come? How would that happen? A They'd raise the knife and go --
15:55:44 Q CPL. DUECK: Who would raise the knife? A The person that was handling it, one of the adults.
15:55:49 Q CPL. DUECK: So was it always the same adult or different adults that handled it? A Different adults.
15:55:55 Q CPL. DUECK: Different adults handled it? The adult that was handling it, did they - what were they wearing? A Nothin'.
15:56:02 Q CPL. DUECK: Nothing? They had all their clothes off? A Yeah.
15:56:05 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay. Did they ever wear any kind of clothes when they did stuff like this? A No. Sometimes they would just leave their gitch on.
CPL. DUECK: Okay. MS. BUNKO-RUYS; Mm hmm.
15:56:13 Q CPL. DUECK: You said before that your mom, when she killed the dog and that blood was coming from the dog, that she took a picture of it? A Yeah.
15:56:21 Q CPL. DUECK: Did they ever take pictures of this when this was happening? A Yeah, they took pictures of all sexual abuse things.
15:56:27 Q CPL. DUECK: Did they? Who took the pictures? A My mom.
15:56:31 Q CPL. DUECK: Mm hmm. Anybody else? A No, just my mom or my dad.
15:56:34 Q CPL. DUECK: Or your dad? There was no one else ever took pictures? A No. None of the other people had cameras.
CPL. DUECK: I see.
15:56:41 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Mm hmm. What kind of camera did your mom and dad have? A They had those kind where the pictures just come out.
16:11:10 Q CPL. DUECK: That time that your - can we go back. to that dog and you showed us before - remember, you had your demonstration and you showed us how your mom put the knife up the dog's bum and then the dog dropped and it died — A Yeah.
16:11:24 Q CPL. DUECK: ...and they cut it up? Was J/our mom wearing anything different that day? A No. She was wearing nothing. Every time sexual abuse had to come they always wore nothing.
16:11:34 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay. What about the other kinds of hurting and stuff? What would they wear? A For all the cutting and stuff and sexual abuse stuff they would wear nothing. For all the bad stuff they would wear nothing.
CPL. DUECK: Mm hnun.
MICHAEL: What's that for? Is that what I tell you?
CPL. DUECK: Just some notes. MICHAEL: That I talked about one night? CPL. DUECK: Yeah, mm hmm. MICHAEL: Yeah.
CPL. DUECK: Sit down, come on. Come on back and sit down for a while. Okay, just relax? Just take it easy for a while. Take some of
those deep breaths again, okay?
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: We're almost done here. Thanks for getting those dolls repaired.
CPL. DUECK: Yeah, you did a good job there. That would take me a long time to do that. MICHAEL: What's in that bag? MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Oh, that's my bag of some things, my book and stuff I wanted to bring today.
16:12:23 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: So Michael, I want you to do something here. Can you look at me? Close your eyes and think of the time - hey, I want you to do this now. Close your eyes and I want you to think of what might mom and dad have been wearing. Is there any a time they would have been wearing anything — A No, they wore nothin', nothin', nothin', nothin'.
16:12:46 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Always nothing? A Never.
16:12:48 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: You're definite on that? A Yes.
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay. Okay.
MICHAEL: What are we going to do after we see what I've done on the video?
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Well, then it will be time for the end of the day and we'll continue on another
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: You know what, I have one question. MICHAEL: What?
16:14:01 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: When you talk about you being hurt and Michelle and Kathy and all of these kids — A Yeah.
16:14:08 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: ... was there ever - was there anyone who got hurt the worst -- A No.
16:14:14 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: ... or did everybody sort of get hurt the same amount or -- A Yeah, everybody got hurt the same amount.
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay.
CPL. DUECK: Where are you going?
MICHAEL: Hi (shouts into video camera).
There is not books in here.
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Yeah, there's my book, it's in there.
MICHAEL: Which book?
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: My appointment book.
CPL. DUECK: Michael, thank you, and the next tine —
MICHAEL: There's nothing in here.
CPL. DUECK: Michael - Earth calling Michael.
CPL. DUECK: Earth calling Michael. MICHAEL: Yes? CPL. DUECK: The next time that we talk we're going to start talking about Dale and Anita's place and all that stuff, okay? MICHAEL: Yeah. CPL. DUECK: You did a great job today. Thanks very much for helping us, okay? MICHAEL: Yeah. CPL. DUECK: Now you're going to go home and relax, take it easy? MICHAEL: I don't know. I'm going to get some candy. MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Are you? CPL. DUECK: All righty. MS. BUNKO-RUYS: How come? MICHAEL: Because I want some. MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay. MICHAEL: Go watch that film I did.
AT THIS POINT THERE WAS A BRIEF ADJOURNMENT
CPL. DUECK: Okay, we finally got our tape figured out there.
MS. BUNKO-RUYS: All right.
CPL. DUECK: Good. Took a while to find all
of that again.
16:37:57 Q CPL. DUECK: How are you doing? We thought we were almost done for today and then we went over in the other room there and you mentioned something about watching Gorillas in the Mist and something came out of that, didn't it? A (Nods head yes)
16:38:09 Q CPL. DUECK: What was it that came out of that? A Noises.
16:38:12 Q CPL. DUECK: Noises? Okay. A And my mom —-
16:38:15 Q CPL. DUECK: Yeah. A ... she bought a gorilla mask—
16:38:19 Q CPL. DUECK: Mm hinm. A ... and whenever she wore the gorilla mask she wore black clothes.
16:38:25 Q CPL. DUECK: She wore black clothes? Okay. A Like a black skirt or something.
16:38:28 Q CPL. DUECK: Mm hmm. Was it all black? Like her skirt and everything was black? A (Nods head yes)
16:38:33 Q CPL. DUECK: Okay, and then what happened? What would she do then when she had the gorilla mask on and the black? A Whenever the babies or dogs or cats would come
16:38:39 Q CPL. DUECK: Mm him. A ... she'd go, argh, and whenever the dog seen her he would bark. One time the baby was sitting on the floor —
16:38:51 Q CPL. DUECK: Mm hitim. A' ... he was sitting on the floor playing with blocks, we'd go hy-goo-goo-my-yak, and he'd go, baa, and the baby, he'd fling his hands, go fwoing. He just jumped.
16:39:07 Q CPL. DUECK: Did it scare him? A Yeah.
16:39:09 Q CPL. DUECK: Yeah? What else would she do when she wore that, besides scaring them? A She would make me wear them, too.
16:39:15 Q CPL. DUECK: She would make you wear them? Okay. When she wore them though, did she do anything else besides scaring the dogs and the cats and the baby? A Yeah, she did the exact same thing as if she wasn't wearing the mask.
16:39:29 Q CPL. DUECK: Now when we're talking about the exact same thing, what are we talking about there? A Sexual abuse. 16:39:33 Q CPL. DUECK: Sexual abuse, like using the knife and her fingers and all that? A Yeah.
16:39:37 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Before we took this last break I asked you a few times, was anyone ever wearing anything different and you said, no, everyone always just had either no clothes on or else their underwear on. So are you saying that's different now? A Yeah.
16:39:55 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay, so what's different? A Well, sometimes they wore nothin', sometimes my mom just wore --
16:40:01 Q CPL. DUECK: Mm hmm. A Sometimes they would just bring costumes and they would change into them.
CPL. DUECK: Okay. 16:40:06 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS; Okay. So what else did the costumes look like? You said your mom sometimes wore this mask and a.black skirt and top. A Sometimes_they'd all wear the same masks or —
16:40:19 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: How would the same masks be? A Like my mom, she had a rubber face --
16:40:25 Q CPL. DUECK: Mm hmm. A ... for the mask —
16:40:27 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Mm hmm. A ... and then hair —
16:40:29 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Mm hmm. A ... black hair and it was all over the place.
16:40:32 Q CPL. DUECK; Okay. How about their clothing? Did they — A Yeah, they wore black clothing.
16:40:36 Q CPL. DUECK: Mm' hmm. A This one lady - this one adult, she wore a black mask and all black except for her socks. Her socks were like bright orange.
16:40:51 Q CPL. DUECK; Mm him. And what did she do? A When they came over they did sexual abuse stuff --
16:40:56 Q CPL. DUECK: On who? A ... using fingers - on everybody.
16:41:01 Q CPL. DUECK: And when you say "everybody," who do we mean? A Good family, bad family, our family.
16:41:06 Q CPL. DUECK: Was she part of the good family or the bad family or was she someone else? A She was part of the bad family.
16:41:12 Q CPL. DUECK; Was she? Who was she in the bad family? A She was the mother.
CPL. DUECK: I see. Okay.
16:41:16 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Mm hmm. So you said that people had costumes. So who all had costumes? A Everybody.
16:41:22 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Did you have a costume?
16:41:26 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: What was your costume? A A dress.
16:41:29 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Mm hmm. What colour was it? A Black.
16:41:34 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Mm hmm. A I just had a skirt.
16:41:38 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Mm hnun. A You know how skirts are made and they twirl right around and you can see the girls' panties? That's how - that's the one I wore.
16:41:51 Q CPL. DUECK: That's the one that you wore? Who made you put that on? A Whenever - my mom and dad.
16:41:56 Q CPL. DUECK: Your mom and dad did, okay. A They forced me, so I did.
CPL. DUECK: Okay.
16:42:02 Q MS. BUNKO-RUYS: Okay. Anything else for you? Did you have a mask? A No, I had one of those masks that had - it had a black stick and had a mask like glued to the end of it. It was like this.
16:42:17 Q CPL. DUECK: You mean like black eyes sort of on the end of a stick that you had to hold? A Yeah.
CPL. DUECK: Okay. I know what kind you're talking about. A Bad family, good family, our family, yeah.
Cpl. Brian DUECK
SASKATOON CITY POLICE - YOUTH SECTION
1) CULT MENTALITY AND CULT OFFENCES Conference presented by: Randy JOHNSON of International Protection Assets Consultants.
-Dealt with levels of Satanic Cult Involvement, Cult Members Participation In Criminal Activity, Occult Symbols, Holidays and Paraphenalia.
2) CHILD ABUSE AND RITUAL CHILD ABUSE CONFERENCE Presented by: Dr. Jon CONTE of Washington State University.
-Dealt with Symptoms of Familial and Non-Familial Child Abuse, as well as Rituallstic Abuse and the Validating of Disclosures of Abuse.
3) RITUALISTIC CHILD ABUSE CONFERENCE Presented by CARAC Saskatoon.
-Dealt with Ritual Offences Against Children, Cult Involvement.
-Demonstrated Signs and Symbols Significant in Occult Circles. Also dealt with Multiple Personality Disorders of Ritualistic Abuse Victims.
Dr Parker letter to Norma Rivard
ROYAL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SASKATOON. SASK.. CANADA S7N 0X0 PHONE (306)244-232
Norma Rivard Dept. of Social Services 122-3rd. Ave. North SASKATOON, Saskatchewan S7K 2H6
Dear Ms. Rivard:
RE: ROSS, Michael
B.D.: Oct. 18/79 PHN: *** *** *** R.U.H. #380 062
I would like to raise some concerns over the delay in planning for Michael's placement. We have met several times during the last year and there has been considerable discussion about the need for Michael to be placed out of his present foster home. Concerns include continued sexual activity between him and his sisters and ongoing difficulty in maintaining limits on his behaviour. We have been able to provide respite to the foster home through the Youth Services Community Assessment and Treatment Unit (CATU) but only with the provision of an additional staff person as Michael has required an intensity of supervision and one to one care to maintain adequate controls. As you know we had some problems in recruiting staff for this purpose because of extensive delays in payment for their services and our current arrangement is that respite is arranged with Anita Grosse who also organizes additional staff assignment from her known child care resources.
I will not review Michael's history here as it is well known to you and to those to whom a copy of this letter is directed. I had anticipated that the goal for placement was to be this summer as a natural break in the school year provides an opportunity for change that is least disruptive over the long term. Michael is likely to have extreme difficulty in making this change as his present foster parents have become an extremely important and valued relationship to him. I would not like to see this relationship and its future prejudiced by over taxing this home's
R.U.H. #380 062 ROSS, Michael
resources. I believe it. is quite possible that a crisis will occur that could see Michael enter the Young Offender system as his behaviour is sometimes unacceptably physical and threatening. Also my understanding was that there was a general consensus of agreement on the plan by all members of this treatment team. Please, could this matter have your earliest attention.
c.c.: Anita Grosse Brian Rector Dr. J. Kluger Marilyn Thompson Carol Bunko
Letter from David Macknak to Matt Miazga February 24, 1992
Saskatchewan Social Services
122, - 3rd Avenue North Saskatoon, Canada S7K 2H6
February 24, 1992
Ms. Sonia Hansen Mr. Matt Miazga Crown Prosecutors 9th Floor, Canterbury Towers 224 - 4th Avenue South Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 2H6
RE: ROSS, KLASSEN, ET AL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Dear Sonia and Matt:
As the preliminary hearings have now concluded on the above matters, I would like to extend appreciation on behalf of the Saskatoon Region, Department of Social Services, for the work you have done in such a difficult and complex case.
Your efforts in assisting our regional staff in making the presentation of evidence for the children as least traumatic as possible, are recognized and greatly appreciated. These matters require multiple agency co-operation and to some extent we are all learning the best means of dealing with them.
The more we learn about this particular pathology, we are led to the inescapable conclusion that we will likely have more cases of this nature in the future.
Thank you for your interest, co-operation and expertise.
Yours sincerely, David Macknak A/Regional Director Family Services
SG/mac PC: Fred Dehn, A/Regional Crown prosecutor
Letter From Matthew K. Miazga to Sheila Gagne February 25th, 1992
February 25th, 1992
Department of Social Services 122 - 3rd Avenue North Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 2H6
Attention: Ms. Sheila Gagne
Re: R. vs. Donald Ross et al Sexual Assault Charges
Further to our meeting held on February 3rd, 1992, our office has decided to continue with the prosecution of the birth parents and Donald White. Our plan is to proceed to trial on this matter in the Fall and after that determine what should be done in regard to the charges against the foster parents and their relatives.
We recently had a meeting with a Justice of the Court, of Queen's Bench in order to generally discuss the set-up for this trial. Tentative dates have been set from October 26th, 1992 through December 11th, 1992. A lengthy period has been set down for trial on the assumption that there will be three Defence counsel acting in this case and that cross-examination of the witnesses will likely be much more extensive than it was at the Preliminary Inquiry. In addition, it was felt that we should try to sit fewer hours each day and simply go for longer period of time in order to ease the fatigue that the children will be facing.
In preparation for this trial, I would suggest that the children should be seen by a psychologist in order to be reassessed at this time, I understand that Defence counsel may well be requesting that the children be seen by their own psychologist in this matter. I am not sure what the Department's position would be on this issue but in my view, if there is going to be an assessment done by the Department anyway, it might be preferable to have this done by a psychologist that would be acceptable to the Department, the Crown and Defence counsel. This would alleviate the children having to be seen and assessed by more than one individual.
Further, the Crown will have to give serious consideration to calling evidence in order to explain some aspects of the children's testimony that relate to ritual abuse. I recognize that there are people locally who have some experience in this area but it had been suggested to me previously that there may be a person from the United States who would be prepared to come for his expenses to testify in this area. I would appreciate it if you could ascertain it this is the case and provide me with the name and address of this individual so that I could contact him/her in order to discuss the possibility of testifying in the Fall.
As you know, I will be on leave of absence from my position from March 1st until September 30th, 1992. I will, no doubt, have to come back the odd time to do some work on this case in preparation for the trial in October. In my absence you can contact Sonja Hansen and discuss parts of the case with her as she is very familiar with it.
Matthew K. Miazga Crown Prosecutor
c. c. - Ms. Carol Bunko-Ruys 715 Broadway Avenue Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 1B3
Letter Aug 13, 1992 C. Richard Quinney, Q.C to Matthew K. Miazga
Saskatchewan Justice Public Prosecutions
August 13, 1992
11th Floor 1974 Scarth Street Regina, Canada S4P 3V7
I have reviewed your letter of July 23, 1993 and have discussed the use of expert witnesses with our new Deputy. It was my view that it was not defensible to not call these witnesses if there is a true need and he has agreed with me. I would ask that you carefully assess the need for the expert witnesses in these cases and if you deem they are necessary to support the Crown's case then you are authorized to use the experts as required, of course, please try to keep expenditures to a minimum.
Yours truly, C. Richard Quinney, Q.C. A/Executive Director
Letter May 25 1993 Miazga to Murray Brown
May 25th, 1993
Public Prosecutions 1874 Scarth Street Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3V7
Attention: Mr, D. Murray Brown, Q.C. Director of Appeals
Helen Susan Ross Donald Leo Ross Sexual Assault Conviction and Sentence Appeal
I refer to your letters dated May 11th, 1993 and May 13th, 1993. I have enclosed a copy of the Indictment, pre-sentence and psychiatric reports in respect of each of the three accused, their criminal records and the judgment of Her Ladyship Judge Batten. I have included the materials in respect of Donald White as I assume he will be appealing his conviction and sentence as well.
This was a lengthy non-jury trial held last Fall in Saskatoon. I believe your office is quite familiar with the matter as a result of various discussions that we have had concerning problems with it as well as the Klassen case which followed this particular matter. In essence, Donald and Helen Ross, the birth parents of the three victims, were convicted of sexually assaulting them over a period of several years in the early to mid 80's. Donald White is the boyfriend of Helen Ross who came on the scene some time in 1986 and also was convicted of sexually assaulting the three children. In addition, the birth parents were convicted of offences dealing with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon in respect of some of the children.
The sexual assault charges related to long term and repeated assaults perpetrated by the birth parents on all three of the children. These children were described as some of the most disturbed children ever encountered by the therapists and psychiatrists involved in the case. They basically had been abused physically, mentally and emotionally. The children were eventually apprehended by the Department of Social Services in February of 1987 and placed in the Klassen foster home which subsequently led to further charges being laid against members of this home and their extended families. As you may know, the grandfather eventually plead guilty and charges were dropped against the other members of the family. He was sentenced to a period of four years in custody. Judge Wedge having indicated that he would have received five years but for his guilty plea.
In speaking to sentence in this case, the Crown represented that a sentence in excess of that received by the grandfather was appropriate for the birth parents and a somewhat lesser sentence was appropriate for Donald White as his involvement was for a lesser period of time and no doubt less extensive. Also, he was not a blood relation to the Ross children.
This case will have an extensive transcript and I would be pleased to discuss aspects of it with whoever will be arguing the appeal in due course.
Matthew K. Miazga Crown Prosecutor
Letter September 30, 1992 Matthew Miazga to Richard Quinney
September 30th, 1992
Public Prosecutions Dept. of Justice 1874 Scarth Street Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3V7
Attention: C. Richard Quinney, Q.C. Dear Sir:
R. Vs. Donald Ross et al Sexual Assault Charges
Further to our telephone conversation of September 29th, 1992 this is to outline some of the circumstances giving rise to the dilemma we discussed as to whether to call the foster parents of the abused children in the above case. The Rosa children were apprehended by the Department of Social services and placed in the foster home of Dale and Anita Klassen in 1987. At that time the reason for this placement was parental neglect of the children and the inability of the Ross’s to properly parent in light of their own disabilities namely, deafness and an alcohol problem. There was no psychological or psychiatric assessment done of the children at that time and information as to their condition that's contained in the Social services file comes primarily from reports received from the foster parents. It is my understanding that these parents can testify as to strange behaviour exhibited by the children immediately upon them coming into the foster home. There was sexual advances made towards the natural children of the foster parents, much sex play between between the foster children themselves and very sophisticated knowledge of sexual matters for children of their age. In addition, they can testify as to the fact that the children often return from visits to their father extremely upset and remain so for some time. Often, the visits were cut short at the request of the children or did they did not wish to go on them in the first place. This evidence can be interpreted by an expert as being consistent with children who have been abused sexually. In my view it would be important to our prosecution of the parents to present evidence of their behaviour going back to their initial placement in the foster home. The children have made complaints against these foster parents as well as nine members of their extended family alleging they were abused by each. They were eventually apprended from this foster home and placed in the home of the Thompsons in 1989/90. Much evidence is available from the Thompsons about the bizarre activity of the children in their home but such behaviour would be equally consistent from a psychiatric or psychological point of view with abuse in the foster home or the birth home. The foster parents, Anita and Dale Klassen, deny that they in anyway abused these children. In fact, they reported some of the behaviours of the children to the Department of Social Services and the police were contacted who conducted a brief investigation into allegations of sexual abuse against the natural parents in 1987 but no charges were laid as the children's complaints were deemed not sufficient to found any charges at that time.
I would like to call Dale or Anita Klassen to the stand in the prosecution of the Ross's to give evidence of the behaviour of the children that could be linked more specifically to the allegations of abuse in the parental home. The defence in the Ross case are sure to attempt to affix blame for some of the children's current difficulties upon the abuse they allegedly underwent in the Klassen foster home. This evidence, combined with that of the psychologist interpreting it, to my mind could in part remove much of the force of this defence argument. Of course, in the course of calling the Klassens they no doubt would be denying having made any sexual advances towards the Ross children at all and this, of course, would be in direct conflict with testimony the children would give at the trial regarding Dale and Anita Klassen. Thus, although the evidence would be helpful to the Crown in one sense, it would be in direct conflict with our principal witnesses and this may lead to the court having even further difficulty accepting the complainants as credible when apparently, or at least implicitly, the Crown does not on certain points.
I am wondering if you and your colleagues could consider this situation and offer any suggestions or advice on what course of action I should follow. It is my view that without the Klassen evidence there would be no way of showing the children were demonstrating disturbed behaviour immediately upon their removal from the parental home that would be consistent with having been sexually or physically abused.
I have contacted counsel for the Klassens to outline this proposed course of action and he confirms that they can give evidence along the lines I suggest and further confirms that he would advise them to be cooperative with the Crown in this venture. Since our discussion I have also spoken to our proposed psychiatric expert who confirms that evidence indicating disturbed behaviour shortly after removal from the home of the birth parents would enable that expert to give an opinion that such behaviour would have been consistent with abuse prior to having been placed in the foster home. They are unable to give such an opinion solely based upon the condition of the children after they were removed from the foster home.
My preference would be to call Anita Klassen in this case as I believe the benefits of her testimony would outweigh the disadvantages, however, I would certainly appreciate any input or suggestions that you or your colleagues may have.
Matthew K. Miazga Crown Prosecutor MKM:cms
Letter July 23rd, 1992 Matthew Miazga to Murray Brown, Director of Appeals
July 23rd, 1992
Public Prosecutions Saskatchewan Justice 1874 Scarth Street Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3V7
Attention: D. Murray Brown, Director of Appeals
Queen vs. Donald Ross et al Sexual Assault Case
Further to our conversation of a couple of weeks ago, I finally received Information from people I would like to call as expert witnesses and, am asking for your approval to retain these people at the rate specified.
The first witness is Carol Bunko-Buys of Community Child Care in Saskatoon. She was the therapist that was involved in this case from the outset and gave evidence at the preliminary inquiry in support of the Crown's applications to have the screens used while the children were testifying as well as having part of the case held in camera, she also gave expert evidence on the symptoms that the children exhibited which are consistent with those who have been abused sexually. I might point out that part of her fees for testifying at the preliminary inquiry were covered by Social Services as part of their budget for her providing counselling to the children. However, a large part of the bill she had submitted at that time was rejected and needless to say, without some specific guarantee of her fees being covered, she will be less than happy to testify at the trial. Her rate for preparation both with myself and the children for court is $50.00 per hour. Her rate for testifying in court is $400.00 per day. It is difficult to estimate specifically how much time will be required by her in this case as in the previous cases the length of the applications for the screen and in-camera hearings range from one-half day to three full days. It depended, to a great extent, on the tack taken by Defence counsel. Also, depending on what issues are brought up by Defence, it may be necessary for me to spend additional time with her during the course of the trial to receive information on the validity of various claims made by the Defence. I would estimate that the sum of approximately $3,000.00 should be sufficient to cover her fees both for testifying and consulting in connection with this case.
The second expert witness I feel is necessary to produce at this trial is one in the area of ritual and satanic abuse of children. A large portion of this case concerns itself with these types of suggestions made by the children. The nature of the suggestions on their face is highly unbelievable as they include suggestions of child sacrifice, animal sacrifice, sex with animals, drinking of urine, eating of bodily excrement and other acts which are difficult for anyone to accept as being legitimate. An expert in this area would, I believe, be able to provide the court with much background information on these types of allegations and illustrate the frequency of them across North America and the large degree of similarity between the disclosures in these types of cases. Further, some of the behaviour exhibited by the children in terms of drinking their urine and saving their urine, sexual interplay with each other and other more bizarre behaviours, can be explained in light of this type of abuse by a person with more experience in these fields. Ms. Bunko-Ruys has been able to give some insight into these matters but indicates she has only dealt with a very few cases in this area and does not have the type of background that some of the suggested experts have. The person I propose to call is Dr. Fraser who is a psychiatrist with Royal Ottawa Hospital. He has indicated a willingness to testify in this case and indicates his fees are $1,000.00 per day for testifying and $150.00 an hour for reports and preparation. In addition, his expenses for travel would also have to be covered. In his case I would expect that one day's witness fees would be sufficient for him along with expenses and perhaps a couple of hours of preparation time in connection with myself. In this case I would suggest that between $3,000.00 and $4,000.00 would be sufficient to cover his expenses. I would ask to be given approval to retain him for the purpose of giving evidence in this case.
It is my view that the evidence of Ms. Bunko-Ruys is essential to the prosecution of this matter and the evidence of Dr. Fraser or a witness similar to him would be highly desirable to try to explain some of the more bizarre aspects of the children's testimony. It is my view that these types of disclosures are going to become more and more frequent in the future and if nothing else, the testimony of these types of experts can slowly go towards educating the court and public as to the existence and legitimacy of these types of disclosures which up until now have been largely discounted not only by the public but by the authorities as well. In regards to the witness on ritual and satanic abuse, I have canvassed locally and although there are people with experience in this area, no one comes close to the stature of someone such as Dr. Fraser in terms of his experience and knowledge in the area. There are two or three other persons who have been suggested as possible witnesses but Dr. Fraser seems to be the best candidate in my view.
I would ask that you advise me as soon as possible as to what arrangements I could go ahead to make as this case is scheduled to begin in October and or course I am on leave until that time and must make my arrangements with these witnesses quickly.
Matthew K. Miazga Crown prosecutor
ROYAL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
C.A.T.U. - YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT
NAME: ROSS, MICHAEL R.U.H. #: 380 062
PRIMARY WORKER: B. FRANCIS SHSP#: *** *** ***
PRIMARY COUNSELLOR: DR. Z. PARKER D.O.B. OCTOBER 18, 1979
CONSULTANT: DR. Z. PARKER ADMISSION: JULY 10, 1992
DISCHARGE: AUG. 21, 1992
PRESENTING PROBLEM/REASION FOR REFERRAL
Michael was admitted to the Community Assessment and Treatment Unit for a six week assessment period. There is an extensive history of abuse and behavioral problems. Another area to be addressed was that of sexuality; youth is currently cross dressing and as well, is involved in inappropriate sexual touching.
Admission to the C.A.T.U. was to provide a complete psychosocial assessment, provide respite to his foster parents and to assist in stabilization of behaviours.
Michael is a twelve year, old Caucasian male. Michael, his sisters, Kathy and Michelle (ten years old), are all permanent wards of the Department of Social Services. Currently, all three children have been placed with Marilyn and Lyle Thompson (foster parents) of Warman, Saskatchewan. Prior to this placement, youth was in a different foster home and before this, was residing with his natural parents. There is a history of physical and sexual abuse at both of these residences.
Michael has been involved in counselling with Carol Bunko for the past three years. There has been much disclosure related to the abuse that youth and his sisters have suffered. This disclosure would indicate that all youths had been ritually abused for a lengthy period of time.Consequently, there are many dysfunctional behaviours presented by Michael. These include cross dressing, inappropriate sexual touching among the siblings and including a family pet, aggressive, angry behaviour and as well, illegal activity, i.e., stole a car, started a teacher's car on fire, started a park on fire. Youth also requires an aide at school to provide him with individual time and to keep him on task.
#1. General Medical:
Michael had an admission physical completed on July 10, 1992. Youth appeared to be in good physical health, with no abnormality noted. Two weeks prior to admission, Michael was circumcised at City Hospital. The sutures utilized were dissolvable and youth reported same to be dissolving without problem.
On July 23, 1992, Michael was seen at Children's Services by Dr. Erica Venugopal. This was in relation to attention deficit disorder testing.
On August 12, 1992, youth was commenced on Mellaril 50 mg p.o. O.D. at h.s. Michael was very compliant to taking his medication, indicating that this did not make him tired or fatigued. In fact,