The Ontario Probation Service says a high-risk abuser of an intimate partner who violates his probation order and continues to kill two ex-partners and a victim of harassment should be considered for more intensive surveillance.
James Pearson, probation quality assurance manager, made the confession Thursday as he was cross-examined during his third day of testimony in a trial investigating the murders of Carol Culton, Anastasia Kuzik and Natalie Wormerdam.
On September 22, 2015, a man with a known history of gender-based violence killed all three women in and around Renfrew County after repeatedly failing to attend a program designed to treat abusers of intimate partners.
Vasily Borutsky has been convicted of three counts of murder in a trial and is in prison.
The investigating jurors, who hear first-hand experts and witnesses on the case, have the task of recommending changes in policies and protocols to better protect and support survivors of intimate partner violence in rural communities.
On Thursday, Kirsten Mercer, the lawyer for End of Violence Against Women, Renfrew County, a local coalition asking questions to witnesses in the investigation, told Pearson at length about the work of probation officers on the case. Pearson was not directly involved, but he reviewed the case files.
Mercer learned from an internal probation check written just over a month after the killings that was recorded in the investigation report.
He found that probation officers had missed the opportunity to make a remark and monitor Borutsky more closely, including gathering more information about him from side contacts as victims.
There is a gap there. – James Pearson, probation quality assurance officer
The report says that given his violent history – including convictions for threatening Warmerdam’s son and brutally beating Kuzik – and his continued denial of responsibility, “it would be reasonable for him to be considered a potential violator of intensive surveillance.” .
“I agree, yes,” Pearson said when asked if he agreed.
Mercer also referred to an email from December 2014 from an institutional rehabilitation officer to the probation service. It was sent shortly before Borutsky was released from prison after being convicted of assaulting Kuzik.
“My opinion is that the victims are at risk from this person,” the officer wrote, according to information read aloud by Mercer. “My experience with bullies like this … is that he won’t comply at all. You’re going to have to break it, break it, break it, and break it forever.”
“If you receive such an email from someone who had good contact with the offender while he was in prison,” Mercer told Pearson, “will it give you information about your judgment on how to treat him when he starts to?” is moving the requirements? “
I think we have acknowledged that we would like to see further guidance, the introduction of additional implementation protocols. – James Pearson, probation quality assurance officer
“I believe it will, yes,” Pearson said.
He said he did not know why the probation officers involved in the case did not testify during the investigation.
“Gap” in the application
At one point in his cross-examination, Mercer focused on the seven-month period from February 2015 – when Borutsky was considered at high risk of repeated violence by an intimate partner – and the murders.
This was the period when he lurked for Culton without knowing the police.
Also, when he continued to apologize for not attending a court-ordered treatment program for men who abused their partners. He was originally ordered to do so more than two years earlier.
The murders of Anastasia Cusick, Natalie Warmerdam and Carol Culton are being investigated during a trial in Renfrew County, Ontario, with a focus on intimate partner violence and the prevention of future domestic homicides. (CBC News)
The investigation heard that probation officers encouraged him to attend, but he was never charged with violating probation conditions, prompting Mercer to ask why no more enforcement measures had been taken.
“In this case, I think we have acknowledged that we would like to see additional guidance, the introduction of additional implementation protocols, as this is related to the presence of the infringer. There is a void there, “Pearson said.
Not so subtle signs of danger are ignored, says a lawyer
An internal review by the probation service concluded that if probation officers had gathered more background information about Borutsky from personal contacts and police, “subtle indications of deviation … may have become clearer.”
But the signs were anything but fine, Mercer told Pearson.
“Most of it wasn’t,” Pearson agreed.
Mercer cited one of Borutsky’s first meetings with a probation officer in January 2013, when he was released from prison following his Warmerdam-related sentence. He was ordered to stay away from her after her release.
“He’s talking about how he has the right to appear … on the edge of her property and hang out there,” Mercer said, referring again to the case.
Victims of concern would be a red flag, yes. – James Pearson, probation quality officer
The probation officer “freed” him from the idea, Mercer added, before asking Pearson if it sounded like someone pushing the boundaries of his probation.
“I would consider it an indicator of someone’s willingness to comply,” Pearson said.
The move of the killer “red flag”
Mercer then shifted the focus to May 2013, when Warmerdam, royal lawyers and police expressed a “flood” of fears that he had moved to a location closer to Warmerdam following his conviction.
Pearson said the probation officer spoke to Warmerdam about the possibility of serving him with peace bonds, but she did not because “she did not want to return to the offender’s spotlight.”
“So she was afraid of opposing him, wasn’t she?” Mercer said.
“That’s how I’d interpret it, yes,” Pearson said.
“Does this even look like a red flag?” Mercer pressed.
“Victims of concern would be a red flag, yes,” he replied.
Borutski was allowed to stay in his new position after the move was backed by a judge.
The final arguments are due on Friday
The investigation was heard by its last witness later Thursday.
Pamela Cross, a lawyer and women’s advocate, looked at the systemic changes that Renfrew County residents have signaled they would like to see made after the killings.
The ability of the police to disclose information about abusers to current partners and alliances between law enforcement agencies and community groups to monitor abusers was just two of them.
On Friday afternoon, the eligible parties, including End of Violence Against Women, Renfrew County and Natalie Wormerdam’s daughter, will present their concluding arguments and outline what recommendations they believe the jury should make.
The jury will then withdraw to consider its recommendations.
Leslie Reum, chairman of the investigation, said she expected their discussions to continue on Monday and the recommendations to be announced on Tuesday.
Add Comment