Ian Bush Denouement
Post
04/07/07, Ian Mulgrew, Coroner bars evidence on RCMP shooting investigation, Source.
03/07/07, Gary Mason, Courageous constable set to testify against his own, Source.
05/07/07, Gary Mason, RCMP officer had every advantage in investigation, Source.
04/07/07, Paul Koester, Statement of Constable Paul Koester, Source.
06/07/07, Recommendations of the jury, Source.
06/07/07, Gary Mason, Jury's tame ideas come up short for Bush's family, Source.
04/07/07, Ian Mulgrew, Coroner bars evidence on RCMP shooting investigation, (Back).
HOUSTON, B.C. - The coroner's inquest into the shooting of mill worker Ian Bush by an RCMP officer turned testy Tuesday as coroner Shane DeMeyer ruled questions about the police investigation into the killing inappropriate.
DeMeyer said "critiquing or commenting" on the investigation by the RCMP goes "beyond the scope" of the inquest and should be dealt with in another forum, such as a public inquiry. He also said he would ban questions related to the Mounties' handling of the slaying, which occurred in the local RCMP detachment on Oct. 29, 2005.
The family was shocked and, through their lawyer, Howard Rubin, said they believe it is important for the five-person coroner's jury to hear how police responded.
Bush was shot in the back of the head after being arrested for giving police a false name when questioned about having an open bottle of beer outside a hockey game.
Const. Paul Koester said he shot Bush after the man sucker-punched him and began choking him.
The rookie officer, who was 28 and had been on the beat for only five months, said he was face-down on a couch, with Bush on his back, when he fired his service pistol.
But the family and others are skeptical of that explanation, in part because Koester refused to re-enact the scene and at least one expert says the physical evidence does not support his account.
Because of the appearance of bias, the Bush family wants the inquest jury to recommend that the Mounties not investigate themselves in police shootings.
The coroner, however, said that is beyond the jury's mandate, adding they will hear no evidence on broad public-policy issues.
The family lawyer appeared frustrated by the coroner's order.
"There have been several in-custody deaths and no police officer has been prosecuted in the last few years," Rubin said. "If police knew there would be a real investigation, that would stand as a warning to them that they are being watched."
Rubin charged that the RCMP "handled Const. Koester with kid gloves," noting that the officer was not obliged to provide a written statement for three weeks after the shooting and wasn't interviewed by investigators for more than three months.
But DeMeyer would not budge. He warned Rubin to keep his questions on point and demanded the family's blood-spatter expert edit out portions of his report concerning his recreation of the slaying.
Edmonton police Const. Joseph Slemko gave the family a report that said the forensic evidence does not support Koester's account of what happened and he is scheduled to explain his findings to the inquest Thursday.
But DeMeyer said he will allow only a portion of Slemko's findings into evidence because he is only qualified as an expert on blood spatters. He told Rubin to have the report edited before it is submitted to the jury.
In the aftermath of the coroner's order, tensions between opposing lawyers rose. At one point, coroner's counsel Mitch Houg yelled across the room, telling Rubin not to approach DeMeyer unless invited.
"I don't think I should be lectured by counsel," Rubin replied testily.
03/07/07, Gary Mason, Courageous constable set to testify against his own, (Back).
HOUSTON, B.C. -- The coroner's inquest into the RCMP shooting death of Ian Bush resumes here today with the whole affair having suddenly taken on a dramatically different hue.
What's different is Joe Slemko. Constable Slemko is expected to take the stand later this week and provide the most compelling and important testimony the jury has heard. It's difficult to understate just how courageous an act his decision to take the stand is.
It's not every day you see a police officer testifying against his own.
But that is effectively what Constable Slemko will be doing. And when he's finished, B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal may have no choice but to reopen the investigation into Mr. Bush's death.
Constable Slemko is a 20-year veteran of the Edmonton police force and a specialist in the science of blood-stain pattern and analysis and crime-scene reconstruction. The officer has participated in more than 400 investigations, has testified 32 times in murder cases around the world and is recognized by his peers as one of the leading experts in his field anywhere.
After the inquest recessed three weeks ago, the Bush family contacted Constable Slemko and asked him if he would review the blood-stain evidence found at the scene of Mr. Bush's death and offer his opinion on whether it meshed with the version of events offered by the RCMP officer who shot and killed the 22-year-old mill worker on Oct. 29, 2005.
Constable Paul Koester earlier testified at the inquest that he arrested Mr. Bush outside a hockey game for having an open can of beer and providing him with a false name. He took Mr. Bush back to the RCMP detachment to process the charges against him.
The officer said he was in the act of releasing Mr. Bush from custody when the victim suddenly, and unexplainably, became violent. A struggle ensued. The officer said he ended up face down on a couch in the interview room, with Mr. Bush on top, strangling him. Constable Koester said he was at the point of blacking out when he somehow got his gun out of his holster and contorted his arm in such a way it allowed him to shoot Mr. Bush in the back of the head.
At the inquest, the RCMP's own blood-stain expert said that based on his analysis, Mr. Bush likely died just the way Constable Koester said he did.
Constable Slemko doesn't see it that way. In fact, in an email that the investigator sent to the Bush family lawyer, Howard Rubin, Constable Slemko said reviewing the way the RCMP handled the investigation into the shooting made him "physically ill."
Constable Slemko said given the height of the blood stains found at the scene it was impossible for the victim to have been on top of Constable Koester when the gun went off. He said it was more likely the other way around, with the RCMP officer on top or off to the side and Mr. Bush face down on the couch, just the way he is seen in the crime-scene photos.
He wrote in his report to the Bush family: "I have found no evidence that supports Constable Koester's version of the position of himself and Mr. Bush at the time the blood stain patterns were created."
Constable Slemko, who also teaches in his area, had two of his students recreate the scene based on Constable Koester's account of events. Again, he concluded it was "physically impossible," for the shooting to have occurred the way the officer said it had.
The coroner presiding over the inquest, Shane DeMeyer, is not going to allow Constable Slemko to talk about the crime-scene reconstruction he did with the students or show photos he took of them carrying it out. The coroner has ruled that Constable Slemko is not an expert in kinetics, the study of human body movement. Apparently, the fact that the officer is a world-renowned expert in crime-scene reconstruction isn't enough.
To me the ruling makes no sense.
Constable Slemko is apparently so upset with the way in which the RCMP conducted its investigation he has waived his normal fee for such reviews. He is only charging the Bush family for the cost of getting to and from Houston.
You almost hate to think of the implications of what Constable Slemko is saying.
But obviously he doesn't believe Constable Koester. And he says the RCMP's investigation into the shooting - one that ended up backing Constable Koester's story - was badly flawed.
So does he believe there was a conspiracy to cover up the truth?
He may not answer that question, or go that far in his answer, but he should be asked the question. But to me at least, that is the clear implication when you connect all the dots that Constable Slemko has laid out.
05/07/07, Gary Mason, RCMP officer had every advantage in investigation, (Back).
HOUSTON, B.C. -- If you needed any more evidence that a police officer, or at least an RCMP officer, who shoots an unarmed man in the back of the head gets different treatment than the rest of us, another stunning example was offered up yesterday at Day 6 of the inquest into the death of Ian Bush.
Mr. Bush, as most now know, was killed on Oct. 29, 2005, shortly after being arrested by Houston RCMP Constable Paul Koester for holding an open bottle of beer outside of a local hockey arena and giving the officer a phony name. A half-hour later he was dead.
The constable earlier testified that the 22-year-old mill worker inexplicably became violent when he tried to release him from custody.
Constable Koester said Mr. Bush started to beat him, eventually pinning him face-down on a couch. The officer said he was on the verge of passing out because of the stranglehold the young man had on him.
Somehow, with the 200-pound Mr. Bush lying on top of Constable Koester's right side, the officer managed to draw his pistol, contort his arm in a way that allowed him to pistol-whip the young man three times with the point of his gun, and then finally fire his weapon.
Yesterday, the RCMP's lead investigator, Corporal Rick Murray, testified. He said that in the days immediately after the shooting investigators tried on several occasions to get a statement from the constable but he refused, saying he wanted his lawyer, Brian Gilson, to be present.
It would be 18 days after the shooting before the constable, with the assistance of Mr. Gilson, provided his first complete account of what happened. But it wouldn't be until Feb. 8, more than three months after Mr. Bush died, that investigators would sit down with Constable Koester to ask him questions about his statement.
However, lawyer Howard Rubin, acting for the Bush family, was able to get Cpl. Murray to confirm that investigators "negotiated" a set of questions with Mr. Gilson beforehand and gave the lawyer and his client two days to consider them before sitting down with investigators.
"And then, when they did the question-and-answer, the investigators made it appear like this was an impromptu thing," said Mr. Rubin, reiterating what he said in court. "They made it look like it hadn't been rehearsed when, in fact, the officer knew every question that was coming.
"Who gets that kind of treatment in this country? Would you and I? I don't think so. It's appalling."
That revelation was the most riveting piece of testimony yesterday and yet somehow, laid beside everything else that has come out at this inquest, it hardly seemed surprising. Of course the Mounties would give Constable Koester a heads-up as to what was coming. Like Mr. Rubin said, wouldn't they do that for you or me? The truly sad thing about the stunning revelation was that it would never have come to light if the lawyers representing the RCMP and the B.C. government, and being paid for by Canadian taxpayers, had their way.
They were constantly objecting to any questions that related to the way the RCMP handled this investigation.
On Tuesday, the chief coroner in this case, Shane DeMeyer, ruled that questions about the way the RCMP ran the investigation were beyond the purview of the inquest. Unfortunately, his ruling only served to create chaos, as it came midway through the inquest.
You can't change the rules of the game halfway through.
Before the ruling, there had been lots of testimony and cross-examination about the manner in which the RCMP handled this case.
Now, Mr. Rubin wants to ask questions related to some of that earlier testimony and lawyers like Helen Roberts, from the B.C. Attorney-General's Ministry and acting for the RCMP, are using the coroner's ruling to try to stop him.
Of course, the RCMP don't want any questions asked about the way they've botched this thing - or, as evidenced by yesterday's testimony, the way they gave one of their own special treatment.
It's been particularly difficult to watch Ms. Roberts in action. For the past few days she's gone after friends of Mr. Bush who have testified about what happened in the hours leading up to his arrest. She has attempted to paint Mr. Bush as a law-breaking drunk. She has tried to poke holes in the statements that some of these kids gave police minutes after they found out Mr. Bush was dead.
For instance, some of those friends recalled in testimony that Mr. Bush hadn't really drunk that much the night of the incident because he had heartburn. Ms. Roberts couldn't understand why they hadn't mentioned this to police. Or why some of their statements to police about Mr. Bush's level of sobriety were at odds with what they were now saying in testimony.
"Try to remember I gave this statement 15 minutes after finding out my best friend was dead," one of them said.
I mean, the gall.
Here is this big-city lawyer trying to rip these kids apart over statements they made right after finding out their friend was dead, while her client, Constable Koester, had 18 days to craft his first statement with the help of an RCMP lawyer and then didn't have to answer any police questions until three months later. Questions he was provided ahead of time.
Today, the inquest is expected to hear from an internationally recognized Edmonton police investigator who says the manner in which the RCMP handled this investigation made him physically ill.
He's not the only one.
04/07/07, Paul Koester, Statement of Constable Paul Koester, (Back).
Digital statement of Constable Paul Koester
February 8, 2006, 1401 hours
TV: Sgt. Ted VANOVERBEEK — "E" Division Major Crime Section
KD: Cpl. Karina DESROSIERS — "E" Division Major Crime Section
PK: Cst. Paul Koester
TV: Okay. It is the 8th of February, 2006, and it is 1401 hours. My name is Dergeant Ted VANOVERBEEK, V-A-N-O-V-E-R-B-E-E-K, I am here with Corporal Karina DESROSIERS, in the office of Brian GILSON, in Prince George. Here with us is Constable Paul KOESTER and, and Brian GILSON, his lawyer. We just talked for a few minutes, we have about eighteen questions that we need clarify (sic) and so I will just ask them, if you can answer them that's great, if you can't we understand that. Okay. First of all, what is your height and weight?
PK: Ah, six foot four.
TV: Yeah.
PK: A hundred and eighty pounds.
TV: And, and is that it now or is the same as it was when this, when it happened?
PK: Yes?
TV: Roughly the same.
PK: Yes. It's roughly the same ah, I lost close to ten pounds.
TV: Ten pounds
PK:…after the incident and I managed to put most of it back on.
TV: Good. Okay. Had you ever met Ian BUSH prior to the dealings with him at the arena?
PK: No I hadn't.
TV: Okay. When you arrested BUSH or when you had your in…initial contact with BUSH.
PK: Um-hm
TV: …during that time, what signs of impairment did you uh-hm, did you see of him?
PK: Ah, I could smell alcohol..
TV: Um-hm
PK: .. and ah, I mean he had a beer in his hand, I mean that is not really a sign of impairment..
TV: Um-hm
PK:..ah, when he was in the car and I was, I was speaking with him.
TV: Um-hm
PK: …he ah, his speech was slightly slurred but not all the time.
TV: Um-hm. Okay.
PK: And ah, he misspelled a couple of surnames
TV: Okay
PK: Albeit those turned out to be not his..
TV: No, no, I understand..
PK:..they were, you know, they were, like STAPLETON, I believe was one of the surnames and ah..
TV: Yeah
PK: To me that would be, you know, fairly easy for a normal
TV: Sure
PK: ..person to spell
TV: So no gross signs of impairment and, and I am sure you have dealt with impaired drivers and, and people..
PK: Um-hm
TV: ..who are seriously under the influence that, that are very off so nothing very obvious about it?
PK: No, I didn't see anything.
TV: Okay. You said before…
KD: Ted.
TV:…sorry, go ahead
KD: Yeah, sorry, you know maybe for you what is somebody that looks impaired or drunk, how would you define you, recognize somebody that's drunk?
PK: Ah, from balance…
KD: Okay
PK: ..eyes and…
KD: Okay
PK: …slurred speech.
KD: Okay. And the things you noted earlier, the slurred speech and the smell of alcohol..
PK: Um-hm.
KD: ..were the two things that you noticed..
PK: Um-hm
KD: ..on BUSH. Okay
TV: You said when you approached BUSH he had beer in his hand, when you arrest at the arena, do you remember, is it a bottle, is it a can, what brand it was?
PK: It was a bottle of beer…
TV: Um-hm
PK: …ah regular size, brown in colour
TV: Sure.
PK: But I don't know what…
TV: What brand it was.
PK: …what brand it was.
TV: Okay, now that..
PK: I poured it out like I could, you know, visibly see it bubbling…
TV: It was beer but you don't know
PK: Yeah.
TV:…if it was a Budweiser or if it was Coors.
PK: Right.
TV:…or what it was.
PK: That's right.
TV: Okay. Can you describe your, your search of BUSH upon his arrest, initially when you arrested him?
PK: Yeah I, to be honest, I don't have full recollection of it
TV: That's fine
PK: Ah, what do I remember is ah, searching his ah, waist band, ah, I remember patting his jacket down…
TV: [Coughs]
PK: ..and I remember patting his legs down, and finding a wallet in his cargo pants pocket.
TV: And that's of course when you pulled it out and he had his proper I.D. in there, that's why you knew, did he have his proper I.D. in there, because…?
PK: I didn't look at any I.D. in there at all.
TV: Okay. Alright. When you got back to the office did, did you or anybody else offer BUSH a chance for legal counsel?
PK: I don't recall.
TV: Okay, inside the, the detachment interview room…
PK: UM-hm
TV:…did you know of any marks or dents in the drywall above the couch and interview room before and after?
PK: No, I didn't.
TV: Hum. During the course of the investigation we located a full bottle of beer, located in an interview room, do you know how it got there?
PK: I have no idea.
TV: Okay. Hum…when, when Ian BUSH first struck you, do you remember if there was any traffic on the police radio?
PK: No.
TV: No.
PK: I can't remember
TV: You can't remember? Okay. Perfect. And what shoulder was your radio mic attached to?
PK: It actually wasn't attached to a shoulder, it was attached, ah, just inside my ah, jacket.
TV: Okay. And jacket…
PK: Not like on the outside, clips on..
TV: Okay, so not a should…not, like, some guys have it on their epaulet.
PK: Right. I didn't have one of the ah, things that comes down..
TV: Okay. Alright.
PK: (indiscernible)
TV: So you just had it on, and so would that be your…?
PK: It would have been, the radio cord would have been coming up, ah, on my left.
TV: So it is on your left, left, on your left chest area.
PK: Yes.
TV: Okay. Alright. And I know you might not be able to tell us this but how long do you think the struggle between you two lasted?
PK: I really don't have any idea.
TV: Okay. Did you strike BUSH before he got you in a choke hold?
PK: I don't have any recollection of hitting him at all.
TV: Okay.
OK: In the ah, before he got me..
TV: Before he got you in the choke hold.
PK: Yeah.
TV: Okay. In your statement you stated that BOOK, BUSH, was choking with his left arm, did BUSH use the left arm for the choke hold the entire time, did he keep his left arm like this around you?
PK: I don't know because I was underneath him when we fell.
TV: Okay.
PK: And…
TV: But nothing that you remember that he would have changed arms or anything eh?
PK: I really couldn't say.
TV: Okay. That's fair.
PK: Yeah.
TV: What hand was your firearm in when you struck BUSH?
PK: Ah, it would have been in ah, my right hand.
TV: In your right hand.
PK: Yeah.
TV: Okay. And what hand was your firearm in when you discharged it?
PK: I believe it was in my right hand just because I, I don't remember switching or anything like that so..
TV: Good.
PK:..I,I don't remember actually pulling the trigger.
TV: No, but, but, it was probably still in your right hand.
PK: Most likely
TV: Okay. Alright. When you discharged your firearm how did you know it would hit BUSH and not you?
PK: I didn't know.
TV: Okay. Alright. Nothing that you could have..
PK: I, I didn't have any idea, like that never even entered my mind.
TV: Okay.
PK: It was, that that would, you know.
TV: Come into play.
PK: Yeah.
TV: Yeah.
PK: It was a, I had to do it so.
TV: Okay. That's fair. After you discharged the firearm, did you have to wait for any radio traffic to clear before calling your 10-33, and if so how long?
PK: I, I don't remember
TV: You just called the 10-33.
PK: Yeah.
TV: Okay. And apart from the Depot thing, did you have any self-defense training and the reason I ask is I know you were a Conservation Officer, did they give you any self-defence training there at all?
PK: Yes, I didn't have a sidearm in Saskatchewan, I just had O.C. spray and baton.
TV: O.C. spray, okay.
PK: But we did go through ah, similar..
TV: Now is..
PK: ..it is similar IMIM to the RCMP.
TV: Is there a college that you go to for that or is there…?
PK:Ah, no, it was just ah..
TV: Through the Provincial Government like?
PK: Yeah.
TV: Okay.
PK: And what, I believe what happens, don't quote me on this..
TK: No, no.
PK:…but ah, the ah, our Senior Officers are trained by RCMP.
TV: Okay.
PK: And then they train us.
TV: Okay. So you're, the Senior Conservation Officers are trained and then when the cadets are..
PK: Yeah.
TV:…you people come in they, they train you.
PK: Yeah.
TV:..in self defense.
PK: We have training officers.
TV: And how, it is at a very, I mean you have the Mounted Police training, was it similar, was it more extensive, or less extensive I should say?
PK: The Mounted Police?
TV: You know the..
PK: Oh much more extensive.
TV: Much more extensive, okay.
PK: Yeah. And it, ah, but similar in nature, I mean..
TV: Yeah, it is the same idea.
PK:..Use of Force Model
TV: Yeah. Okay. You and that Use of Force Model was there too?
PK: Yes.
TV: Okay.
PK: The only other training I had was ah, back in college, I believe it was either in '99 or 2000 I took some Jeet Kune Do.
TV: What is Jeet Kune Do?
PK: It's ah…
TV: [Laughs]
PK:..I honestly, I don't really know too much about it other than, ah, I believe it was the Bruce LEE style of martial arts.
TV: Okay.
PK: …and I, I only took that for about three months and it wasn't in a, like a classroom per se, we just did it on one of the buy's [sic] basements.
TV: Oh, okay, alright.
PK: So.
TV: And that, that's it's, I am not very martial arts orientated but it's like judo where you learn different (indiscernible) that type of thing, or…?
PK: Yeah, from what I can remember we did some stick, like baton type things and ah…
TV: Okay.
PK:…some, you know, defense from knife attacks.
TV: Okay. And, and, this was from somebody who was obviously a trainer in Jeet Kune Do.
PK: Ah, I don't even think he was a trainer at the time, he was learning..
TV: Okay.
PK: …to become one, so we, like I say, we were…
TV: Yeah.
PK:..just..
TV: That's fair
PK: ..you know, horsing around in some guy's basement.
TV: Yeah. Okat. Anything else? No. Anything, questions of us? No.
PK: No, I don't think so.
TV: Alright. Okay it is 1410 and we will turn off the tape.
06/07/07, Recommendations of the jury, (Back).
HOUSTON, B.C. — Recommendations by a coroner's jury following an inquest into the death of Ian Bush in RCMP custody in October 2005:
1. RCMP's E division technology staff should design and set the standard for audio and visual recording equipment to be installed in every detachment. Further it is recommended that the equipment be similar to those commonly in use by banks and retail stores to minimize human intervention with the equipment.
Finally, the use of the recording equipment be made mandatory, verbal warnings be given and printed signage be installed advising those entering an interview room that they will be recorded for everyone's safety.
2. To RCMP E Division, Sgt. Sheila White, Houston RCMP officer in charge: Review the working alone policy such that when a person of interest is detained by a police officer in the detachment he or she must have an additional person within the employ of the RCMP present until the detained person is released and exited the building or the person has been placed in a cell.
3. To the RCMP E Division: RCMP should conduct a business design review to look at current procedures and find potential areas where processes can be revised with the goal of continuous improvement.
RCMP members should annually conduct a self-assessment and have a continuing education plan aimed at maintaining competency.
4. To Mayor Sharon Smith, district of Houston, B.C., and Sgt. Sheila White: In the area of public relations the jury recommends joint efforts between Mayor Sharon Smith, representing the district of Houston, and Sgt. Sheila White, officer in charge of the Houston RCMP detachment, to further educate the general public on various aspects of the Criminal Code, with the aim of reducing the violations of the law for example, but not limited to the following: liquor violations, obstruction of justice, theft, assault and vandalism.
The potential vehicles for disseminating this information may include articles in papers, reminders on radio and television, workshops in schools and-or community, local council motions to adopt the support of the principles of law, increased signage at public venues to describe the law and how to report offences.
06/07/07, Gary Mason, Jury's tame ideas come up short for Bush's family, (Back).
HOUSTON, B.C. — The five members of the jury filed down the hallway of Houston Secondary School on the way to the gymnasium. Staring down at them from a framed picture of the Class of 2001 was Ian Bush.
Within minutes, the group would be asked if they had any recommendations after the weeklong coroner's inquest into the RCMP shooting death of the popular former student. They had – but they wouldn't be nearly enough to satisfy members of Ian's family.
In many ways, the jury's hands were tied. The coroner had ruled earlier that it could not consider whether the RCMP should be investigating itself in cases of in-custody deaths. He also said the jury couldn't comment on how the RCMP had handled the investigation into Mr. Bush's death.
The best the jury could do was recommend that the RCMP install audio-video equipment in all detachments and that its use be mandatory. It also suggested that a police officer not be left alone with someone he or she had arrested. There was a proposal that RCMP members conduct an “annual self assessment” and have a “continuing education plan to maintain competency.” Although no one was quite sure what that meant.
And that was pretty much it. All rather tame ideas, all non-binding.
“We hoped that they would have stronger recommendations,” Ian's mother, Linda, told reporters. “But I guess the process limited what they could say.”
Mrs. Bush had hoped the jury might ignore coroner Shane DeMeyer's instructions and call for a public inquiry into the question of police investigating themselves anyway. When it didn't, she called for one herself.
“I am asking now that [RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner] Paul Kennedy actually call a public inquiry into this matter,” Mrs. Bush said.
The eight-day inquest certainly raised enough questions about the way the RCMP had handled the death of her son. The jury heard how the officer who fired the fatal shot into the back of Mr. Bush's head, Constable Paul Koester, had destroyed his notes after the incident. It heard how the constable had three months before meeting RCMP investigators and how he was provided with the questions ahead of time.
It heard an independent blood-stain expert say that Constable Koester's version of events was impossible based on the evidence at the scene.
While the RCMP and government officials had promised that the inquest would provide answers, it did little of the sort. On the advice of his lawyer, Constable Koester refused to show the jury how he contorted his body to shoot Mr. Bush while the mill worker was on top of him and the officer was face down on a couch. The Bush family lawyer couldn't ask questions related to the way the RCMP investigated the shooting.
Canadian taxpayers financed three lawyers to support Constable Koester and the RCMP, while the Bush family paid for its own lawyer, with the help of donations. But what if it hadn't had the wherewithal to hire Howard Rubin?
“This thing would have been over and done with in a couple of days and a lot of this stuff about how the RCMP handled this investigation would never have come out,” Mrs. Bush said. “The public inquest procedure has to be reviewed. It's not a good system.”
She's right.
If the inquest showed anything it was how flawed the process is. Why are three lawyers publicly financed to help the RCMP while the family of the victim gets nothing? Why was the onus on the Bush family to prove what happened the night of Oct. 29, 2005? And why does the jury waste its time with recommendations that can be and often are ignored?
Mrs. Bush stood behind a podium surrounded by her family. The eyes of Ian's sister Renee were red. Even though her expectations of what the jury might recommend were low, it still hurt to see what it finally came out with.
“We're not giving up,” Renee Bush said.Mrs. Bush looked tired. It wasn't easy listening to someone describe how he'd put a bullet in her son's head.
But that's what she had to do.
“There will be more tears,” she said. “I know that. There isn't a day that goes by I don't think about my son. … While I feel a bit deflated about today, we're not going to give up the fight. We can't.”
(Back)
03/07/07, Gary Mason, Courageous constable set to testify against his own, Source.
05/07/07, Gary Mason, RCMP officer had every advantage in investigation, Source.
04/07/07, Paul Koester, Statement of Constable Paul Koester, Source.
06/07/07, Recommendations of the jury, Source.
06/07/07, Gary Mason, Jury's tame ideas come up short for Bush's family, Source.
04/07/07, Ian Mulgrew, Coroner bars evidence on RCMP shooting investigation, (Back).
HOUSTON, B.C. - The coroner's inquest into the shooting of mill worker Ian Bush by an RCMP officer turned testy Tuesday as coroner Shane DeMeyer ruled questions about the police investigation into the killing inappropriate.
DeMeyer said "critiquing or commenting" on the investigation by the RCMP goes "beyond the scope" of the inquest and should be dealt with in another forum, such as a public inquiry. He also said he would ban questions related to the Mounties' handling of the slaying, which occurred in the local RCMP detachment on Oct. 29, 2005.
The family was shocked and, through their lawyer, Howard Rubin, said they believe it is important for the five-person coroner's jury to hear how police responded.
Bush was shot in the back of the head after being arrested for giving police a false name when questioned about having an open bottle of beer outside a hockey game.
Const. Paul Koester said he shot Bush after the man sucker-punched him and began choking him.
The rookie officer, who was 28 and had been on the beat for only five months, said he was face-down on a couch, with Bush on his back, when he fired his service pistol.
But the family and others are skeptical of that explanation, in part because Koester refused to re-enact the scene and at least one expert says the physical evidence does not support his account.
Because of the appearance of bias, the Bush family wants the inquest jury to recommend that the Mounties not investigate themselves in police shootings.
The coroner, however, said that is beyond the jury's mandate, adding they will hear no evidence on broad public-policy issues.
The family lawyer appeared frustrated by the coroner's order.
"There have been several in-custody deaths and no police officer has been prosecuted in the last few years," Rubin said. "If police knew there would be a real investigation, that would stand as a warning to them that they are being watched."
Rubin charged that the RCMP "handled Const. Koester with kid gloves," noting that the officer was not obliged to provide a written statement for three weeks after the shooting and wasn't interviewed by investigators for more than three months.
But DeMeyer would not budge. He warned Rubin to keep his questions on point and demanded the family's blood-spatter expert edit out portions of his report concerning his recreation of the slaying.
Edmonton police Const. Joseph Slemko gave the family a report that said the forensic evidence does not support Koester's account of what happened and he is scheduled to explain his findings to the inquest Thursday.
But DeMeyer said he will allow only a portion of Slemko's findings into evidence because he is only qualified as an expert on blood spatters. He told Rubin to have the report edited before it is submitted to the jury.
In the aftermath of the coroner's order, tensions between opposing lawyers rose. At one point, coroner's counsel Mitch Houg yelled across the room, telling Rubin not to approach DeMeyer unless invited.
"I don't think I should be lectured by counsel," Rubin replied testily.
03/07/07, Gary Mason, Courageous constable set to testify against his own, (Back).
HOUSTON, B.C. -- The coroner's inquest into the RCMP shooting death of Ian Bush resumes here today with the whole affair having suddenly taken on a dramatically different hue.
What's different is Joe Slemko. Constable Slemko is expected to take the stand later this week and provide the most compelling and important testimony the jury has heard. It's difficult to understate just how courageous an act his decision to take the stand is.
It's not every day you see a police officer testifying against his own.
But that is effectively what Constable Slemko will be doing. And when he's finished, B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal may have no choice but to reopen the investigation into Mr. Bush's death.
Constable Slemko is a 20-year veteran of the Edmonton police force and a specialist in the science of blood-stain pattern and analysis and crime-scene reconstruction. The officer has participated in more than 400 investigations, has testified 32 times in murder cases around the world and is recognized by his peers as one of the leading experts in his field anywhere.
After the inquest recessed three weeks ago, the Bush family contacted Constable Slemko and asked him if he would review the blood-stain evidence found at the scene of Mr. Bush's death and offer his opinion on whether it meshed with the version of events offered by the RCMP officer who shot and killed the 22-year-old mill worker on Oct. 29, 2005.
Constable Paul Koester earlier testified at the inquest that he arrested Mr. Bush outside a hockey game for having an open can of beer and providing him with a false name. He took Mr. Bush back to the RCMP detachment to process the charges against him.
The officer said he was in the act of releasing Mr. Bush from custody when the victim suddenly, and unexplainably, became violent. A struggle ensued. The officer said he ended up face down on a couch in the interview room, with Mr. Bush on top, strangling him. Constable Koester said he was at the point of blacking out when he somehow got his gun out of his holster and contorted his arm in such a way it allowed him to shoot Mr. Bush in the back of the head.
At the inquest, the RCMP's own blood-stain expert said that based on his analysis, Mr. Bush likely died just the way Constable Koester said he did.
Constable Slemko doesn't see it that way. In fact, in an email that the investigator sent to the Bush family lawyer, Howard Rubin, Constable Slemko said reviewing the way the RCMP handled the investigation into the shooting made him "physically ill."
Constable Slemko said given the height of the blood stains found at the scene it was impossible for the victim to have been on top of Constable Koester when the gun went off. He said it was more likely the other way around, with the RCMP officer on top or off to the side and Mr. Bush face down on the couch, just the way he is seen in the crime-scene photos.
He wrote in his report to the Bush family: "I have found no evidence that supports Constable Koester's version of the position of himself and Mr. Bush at the time the blood stain patterns were created."
Constable Slemko, who also teaches in his area, had two of his students recreate the scene based on Constable Koester's account of events. Again, he concluded it was "physically impossible," for the shooting to have occurred the way the officer said it had.
The coroner presiding over the inquest, Shane DeMeyer, is not going to allow Constable Slemko to talk about the crime-scene reconstruction he did with the students or show photos he took of them carrying it out. The coroner has ruled that Constable Slemko is not an expert in kinetics, the study of human body movement. Apparently, the fact that the officer is a world-renowned expert in crime-scene reconstruction isn't enough.
To me the ruling makes no sense.
Constable Slemko is apparently so upset with the way in which the RCMP conducted its investigation he has waived his normal fee for such reviews. He is only charging the Bush family for the cost of getting to and from Houston.
You almost hate to think of the implications of what Constable Slemko is saying.
But obviously he doesn't believe Constable Koester. And he says the RCMP's investigation into the shooting - one that ended up backing Constable Koester's story - was badly flawed.
So does he believe there was a conspiracy to cover up the truth?
He may not answer that question, or go that far in his answer, but he should be asked the question. But to me at least, that is the clear implication when you connect all the dots that Constable Slemko has laid out.
05/07/07, Gary Mason, RCMP officer had every advantage in investigation, (Back).
HOUSTON, B.C. -- If you needed any more evidence that a police officer, or at least an RCMP officer, who shoots an unarmed man in the back of the head gets different treatment than the rest of us, another stunning example was offered up yesterday at Day 6 of the inquest into the death of Ian Bush.
Mr. Bush, as most now know, was killed on Oct. 29, 2005, shortly after being arrested by Houston RCMP Constable Paul Koester for holding an open bottle of beer outside of a local hockey arena and giving the officer a phony name. A half-hour later he was dead.
The constable earlier testified that the 22-year-old mill worker inexplicably became violent when he tried to release him from custody.
Constable Koester said Mr. Bush started to beat him, eventually pinning him face-down on a couch. The officer said he was on the verge of passing out because of the stranglehold the young man had on him.
Somehow, with the 200-pound Mr. Bush lying on top of Constable Koester's right side, the officer managed to draw his pistol, contort his arm in a way that allowed him to pistol-whip the young man three times with the point of his gun, and then finally fire his weapon.
Yesterday, the RCMP's lead investigator, Corporal Rick Murray, testified. He said that in the days immediately after the shooting investigators tried on several occasions to get a statement from the constable but he refused, saying he wanted his lawyer, Brian Gilson, to be present.
It would be 18 days after the shooting before the constable, with the assistance of Mr. Gilson, provided his first complete account of what happened. But it wouldn't be until Feb. 8, more than three months after Mr. Bush died, that investigators would sit down with Constable Koester to ask him questions about his statement.
However, lawyer Howard Rubin, acting for the Bush family, was able to get Cpl. Murray to confirm that investigators "negotiated" a set of questions with Mr. Gilson beforehand and gave the lawyer and his client two days to consider them before sitting down with investigators.
"And then, when they did the question-and-answer, the investigators made it appear like this was an impromptu thing," said Mr. Rubin, reiterating what he said in court. "They made it look like it hadn't been rehearsed when, in fact, the officer knew every question that was coming.
"Who gets that kind of treatment in this country? Would you and I? I don't think so. It's appalling."
That revelation was the most riveting piece of testimony yesterday and yet somehow, laid beside everything else that has come out at this inquest, it hardly seemed surprising. Of course the Mounties would give Constable Koester a heads-up as to what was coming. Like Mr. Rubin said, wouldn't they do that for you or me? The truly sad thing about the stunning revelation was that it would never have come to light if the lawyers representing the RCMP and the B.C. government, and being paid for by Canadian taxpayers, had their way.
They were constantly objecting to any questions that related to the way the RCMP handled this investigation.
On Tuesday, the chief coroner in this case, Shane DeMeyer, ruled that questions about the way the RCMP ran the investigation were beyond the purview of the inquest. Unfortunately, his ruling only served to create chaos, as it came midway through the inquest.
You can't change the rules of the game halfway through.
Before the ruling, there had been lots of testimony and cross-examination about the manner in which the RCMP handled this case.
Now, Mr. Rubin wants to ask questions related to some of that earlier testimony and lawyers like Helen Roberts, from the B.C. Attorney-General's Ministry and acting for the RCMP, are using the coroner's ruling to try to stop him.
Of course, the RCMP don't want any questions asked about the way they've botched this thing - or, as evidenced by yesterday's testimony, the way they gave one of their own special treatment.
It's been particularly difficult to watch Ms. Roberts in action. For the past few days she's gone after friends of Mr. Bush who have testified about what happened in the hours leading up to his arrest. She has attempted to paint Mr. Bush as a law-breaking drunk. She has tried to poke holes in the statements that some of these kids gave police minutes after they found out Mr. Bush was dead.
For instance, some of those friends recalled in testimony that Mr. Bush hadn't really drunk that much the night of the incident because he had heartburn. Ms. Roberts couldn't understand why they hadn't mentioned this to police. Or why some of their statements to police about Mr. Bush's level of sobriety were at odds with what they were now saying in testimony.
"Try to remember I gave this statement 15 minutes after finding out my best friend was dead," one of them said.
I mean, the gall.
Here is this big-city lawyer trying to rip these kids apart over statements they made right after finding out their friend was dead, while her client, Constable Koester, had 18 days to craft his first statement with the help of an RCMP lawyer and then didn't have to answer any police questions until three months later. Questions he was provided ahead of time.
Today, the inquest is expected to hear from an internationally recognized Edmonton police investigator who says the manner in which the RCMP handled this investigation made him physically ill.
He's not the only one.
04/07/07, Paul Koester, Statement of Constable Paul Koester, (Back).
Digital statement of Constable Paul Koester
February 8, 2006, 1401 hours
TV: Sgt. Ted VANOVERBEEK — "E" Division Major Crime Section
KD: Cpl. Karina DESROSIERS — "E" Division Major Crime Section
PK: Cst. Paul Koester
TV: Okay. It is the 8th of February, 2006, and it is 1401 hours. My name is Dergeant Ted VANOVERBEEK, V-A-N-O-V-E-R-B-E-E-K, I am here with Corporal Karina DESROSIERS, in the office of Brian GILSON, in Prince George. Here with us is Constable Paul KOESTER and, and Brian GILSON, his lawyer. We just talked for a few minutes, we have about eighteen questions that we need clarify (sic) and so I will just ask them, if you can answer them that's great, if you can't we understand that. Okay. First of all, what is your height and weight?
PK: Ah, six foot four.
TV: Yeah.
PK: A hundred and eighty pounds.
TV: And, and is that it now or is the same as it was when this, when it happened?
PK: Yes?
TV: Roughly the same.
PK: Yes. It's roughly the same ah, I lost close to ten pounds.
TV: Ten pounds
PK:…after the incident and I managed to put most of it back on.
TV: Good. Okay. Had you ever met Ian BUSH prior to the dealings with him at the arena?
PK: No I hadn't.
TV: Okay. When you arrested BUSH or when you had your in…initial contact with BUSH.
PK: Um-hm
TV: …during that time, what signs of impairment did you uh-hm, did you see of him?
PK: Ah, I could smell alcohol..
TV: Um-hm
PK: .. and ah, I mean he had a beer in his hand, I mean that is not really a sign of impairment..
TV: Um-hm
PK:..ah, when he was in the car and I was, I was speaking with him.
TV: Um-hm
PK: …he ah, his speech was slightly slurred but not all the time.
TV: Um-hm. Okay.
PK: And ah, he misspelled a couple of surnames
TV: Okay
PK: Albeit those turned out to be not his..
TV: No, no, I understand..
PK:..they were, you know, they were, like STAPLETON, I believe was one of the surnames and ah..
TV: Yeah
PK: To me that would be, you know, fairly easy for a normal
TV: Sure
PK: ..person to spell
TV: So no gross signs of impairment and, and I am sure you have dealt with impaired drivers and, and people..
PK: Um-hm
TV: ..who are seriously under the influence that, that are very off so nothing very obvious about it?
PK: No, I didn't see anything.
TV: Okay. You said before…
KD: Ted.
TV:…sorry, go ahead
KD: Yeah, sorry, you know maybe for you what is somebody that looks impaired or drunk, how would you define you, recognize somebody that's drunk?
PK: Ah, from balance…
KD: Okay
PK: ..eyes and…
KD: Okay
PK: …slurred speech.
KD: Okay. And the things you noted earlier, the slurred speech and the smell of alcohol..
PK: Um-hm.
KD: ..were the two things that you noticed..
PK: Um-hm
KD: ..on BUSH. Okay
TV: You said when you approached BUSH he had beer in his hand, when you arrest at the arena, do you remember, is it a bottle, is it a can, what brand it was?
PK: It was a bottle of beer…
TV: Um-hm
PK: …ah regular size, brown in colour
TV: Sure.
PK: But I don't know what…
TV: What brand it was.
PK: …what brand it was.
TV: Okay, now that..
PK: I poured it out like I could, you know, visibly see it bubbling…
TV: It was beer but you don't know
PK: Yeah.
TV:…if it was a Budweiser or if it was Coors.
PK: Right.
TV:…or what it was.
PK: That's right.
TV: Okay. Can you describe your, your search of BUSH upon his arrest, initially when you arrested him?
PK: Yeah I, to be honest, I don't have full recollection of it
TV: That's fine
PK: Ah, what do I remember is ah, searching his ah, waist band, ah, I remember patting his jacket down…
TV: [Coughs]
PK: ..and I remember patting his legs down, and finding a wallet in his cargo pants pocket.
TV: And that's of course when you pulled it out and he had his proper I.D. in there, that's why you knew, did he have his proper I.D. in there, because…?
PK: I didn't look at any I.D. in there at all.
TV: Okay. Alright. When you got back to the office did, did you or anybody else offer BUSH a chance for legal counsel?
PK: I don't recall.
TV: Okay, inside the, the detachment interview room…
PK: UM-hm
TV:…did you know of any marks or dents in the drywall above the couch and interview room before and after?
PK: No, I didn't.
TV: Hum. During the course of the investigation we located a full bottle of beer, located in an interview room, do you know how it got there?
PK: I have no idea.
TV: Okay. Hum…when, when Ian BUSH first struck you, do you remember if there was any traffic on the police radio?
PK: No.
TV: No.
PK: I can't remember
TV: You can't remember? Okay. Perfect. And what shoulder was your radio mic attached to?
PK: It actually wasn't attached to a shoulder, it was attached, ah, just inside my ah, jacket.
TV: Okay. And jacket…
PK: Not like on the outside, clips on..
TV: Okay, so not a should…not, like, some guys have it on their epaulet.
PK: Right. I didn't have one of the ah, things that comes down..
TV: Okay. Alright.
PK: (indiscernible)
TV: So you just had it on, and so would that be your…?
PK: It would have been, the radio cord would have been coming up, ah, on my left.
TV: So it is on your left, left, on your left chest area.
PK: Yes.
TV: Okay. Alright. And I know you might not be able to tell us this but how long do you think the struggle between you two lasted?
PK: I really don't have any idea.
TV: Okay. Did you strike BUSH before he got you in a choke hold?
PK: I don't have any recollection of hitting him at all.
TV: Okay.
OK: In the ah, before he got me..
TV: Before he got you in the choke hold.
PK: Yeah.
TV: Okay. In your statement you stated that BOOK, BUSH, was choking with his left arm, did BUSH use the left arm for the choke hold the entire time, did he keep his left arm like this around you?
PK: I don't know because I was underneath him when we fell.
TV: Okay.
PK: And…
TV: But nothing that you remember that he would have changed arms or anything eh?
PK: I really couldn't say.
TV: Okay. That's fair.
PK: Yeah.
TV: What hand was your firearm in when you struck BUSH?
PK: Ah, it would have been in ah, my right hand.
TV: In your right hand.
PK: Yeah.
TV: Okay. And what hand was your firearm in when you discharged it?
PK: I believe it was in my right hand just because I, I don't remember switching or anything like that so..
TV: Good.
PK:..I,I don't remember actually pulling the trigger.
TV: No, but, but, it was probably still in your right hand.
PK: Most likely
TV: Okay. Alright. When you discharged your firearm how did you know it would hit BUSH and not you?
PK: I didn't know.
TV: Okay. Alright. Nothing that you could have..
PK: I, I didn't have any idea, like that never even entered my mind.
TV: Okay.
PK: It was, that that would, you know.
TV: Come into play.
PK: Yeah.
TV: Yeah.
PK: It was a, I had to do it so.
TV: Okay. That's fair. After you discharged the firearm, did you have to wait for any radio traffic to clear before calling your 10-33, and if so how long?
PK: I, I don't remember
TV: You just called the 10-33.
PK: Yeah.
TV: Okay. And apart from the Depot thing, did you have any self-defense training and the reason I ask is I know you were a Conservation Officer, did they give you any self-defence training there at all?
PK: Yes, I didn't have a sidearm in Saskatchewan, I just had O.C. spray and baton.
TV: O.C. spray, okay.
PK: But we did go through ah, similar..
TV: Now is..
PK: ..it is similar IMIM to the RCMP.
TV: Is there a college that you go to for that or is there…?
PK:Ah, no, it was just ah..
TV: Through the Provincial Government like?
PK: Yeah.
TV: Okay.
PK: And what, I believe what happens, don't quote me on this..
TK: No, no.
PK:…but ah, the ah, our Senior Officers are trained by RCMP.
TV: Okay.
PK: And then they train us.
TV: Okay. So you're, the Senior Conservation Officers are trained and then when the cadets are..
PK: Yeah.
TV:…you people come in they, they train you.
PK: Yeah.
TV:..in self defense.
PK: We have training officers.
TV: And how, it is at a very, I mean you have the Mounted Police training, was it similar, was it more extensive, or less extensive I should say?
PK: The Mounted Police?
TV: You know the..
PK: Oh much more extensive.
TV: Much more extensive, okay.
PK: Yeah. And it, ah, but similar in nature, I mean..
TV: Yeah, it is the same idea.
PK:..Use of Force Model
TV: Yeah. Okay. You and that Use of Force Model was there too?
PK: Yes.
TV: Okay.
PK: The only other training I had was ah, back in college, I believe it was either in '99 or 2000 I took some Jeet Kune Do.
TV: What is Jeet Kune Do?
PK: It's ah…
TV: [Laughs]
PK:..I honestly, I don't really know too much about it other than, ah, I believe it was the Bruce LEE style of martial arts.
TV: Okay.
PK: …and I, I only took that for about three months and it wasn't in a, like a classroom per se, we just did it on one of the buy's [sic] basements.
TV: Oh, okay, alright.
PK: So.
TV: And that, that's it's, I am not very martial arts orientated but it's like judo where you learn different (indiscernible) that type of thing, or…?
PK: Yeah, from what I can remember we did some stick, like baton type things and ah…
TV: Okay.
PK:…some, you know, defense from knife attacks.
TV: Okay. And, and, this was from somebody who was obviously a trainer in Jeet Kune Do.
PK: Ah, I don't even think he was a trainer at the time, he was learning..
TV: Okay.
PK: …to become one, so we, like I say, we were…
TV: Yeah.
PK:..just..
TV: That's fair
PK: ..you know, horsing around in some guy's basement.
TV: Yeah. Okat. Anything else? No. Anything, questions of us? No.
PK: No, I don't think so.
TV: Alright. Okay it is 1410 and we will turn off the tape.
06/07/07, Recommendations of the jury, (Back).
HOUSTON, B.C. — Recommendations by a coroner's jury following an inquest into the death of Ian Bush in RCMP custody in October 2005:
1. RCMP's E division technology staff should design and set the standard for audio and visual recording equipment to be installed in every detachment. Further it is recommended that the equipment be similar to those commonly in use by banks and retail stores to minimize human intervention with the equipment.
Finally, the use of the recording equipment be made mandatory, verbal warnings be given and printed signage be installed advising those entering an interview room that they will be recorded for everyone's safety.
2. To RCMP E Division, Sgt. Sheila White, Houston RCMP officer in charge: Review the working alone policy such that when a person of interest is detained by a police officer in the detachment he or she must have an additional person within the employ of the RCMP present until the detained person is released and exited the building or the person has been placed in a cell.
3. To the RCMP E Division: RCMP should conduct a business design review to look at current procedures and find potential areas where processes can be revised with the goal of continuous improvement.
RCMP members should annually conduct a self-assessment and have a continuing education plan aimed at maintaining competency.
4. To Mayor Sharon Smith, district of Houston, B.C., and Sgt. Sheila White: In the area of public relations the jury recommends joint efforts between Mayor Sharon Smith, representing the district of Houston, and Sgt. Sheila White, officer in charge of the Houston RCMP detachment, to further educate the general public on various aspects of the Criminal Code, with the aim of reducing the violations of the law for example, but not limited to the following: liquor violations, obstruction of justice, theft, assault and vandalism.
The potential vehicles for disseminating this information may include articles in papers, reminders on radio and television, workshops in schools and-or community, local council motions to adopt the support of the principles of law, increased signage at public venues to describe the law and how to report offences.
06/07/07, Gary Mason, Jury's tame ideas come up short for Bush's family, (Back).
HOUSTON, B.C. — The five members of the jury filed down the hallway of Houston Secondary School on the way to the gymnasium. Staring down at them from a framed picture of the Class of 2001 was Ian Bush.
Within minutes, the group would be asked if they had any recommendations after the weeklong coroner's inquest into the RCMP shooting death of the popular former student. They had – but they wouldn't be nearly enough to satisfy members of Ian's family.
In many ways, the jury's hands were tied. The coroner had ruled earlier that it could not consider whether the RCMP should be investigating itself in cases of in-custody deaths. He also said the jury couldn't comment on how the RCMP had handled the investigation into Mr. Bush's death.
The best the jury could do was recommend that the RCMP install audio-video equipment in all detachments and that its use be mandatory. It also suggested that a police officer not be left alone with someone he or she had arrested. There was a proposal that RCMP members conduct an “annual self assessment” and have a “continuing education plan to maintain competency.” Although no one was quite sure what that meant.
And that was pretty much it. All rather tame ideas, all non-binding.
“We hoped that they would have stronger recommendations,” Ian's mother, Linda, told reporters. “But I guess the process limited what they could say.”
Mrs. Bush had hoped the jury might ignore coroner Shane DeMeyer's instructions and call for a public inquiry into the question of police investigating themselves anyway. When it didn't, she called for one herself.
“I am asking now that [RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner] Paul Kennedy actually call a public inquiry into this matter,” Mrs. Bush said.
The eight-day inquest certainly raised enough questions about the way the RCMP had handled the death of her son. The jury heard how the officer who fired the fatal shot into the back of Mr. Bush's head, Constable Paul Koester, had destroyed his notes after the incident. It heard how the constable had three months before meeting RCMP investigators and how he was provided with the questions ahead of time.
It heard an independent blood-stain expert say that Constable Koester's version of events was impossible based on the evidence at the scene.
While the RCMP and government officials had promised that the inquest would provide answers, it did little of the sort. On the advice of his lawyer, Constable Koester refused to show the jury how he contorted his body to shoot Mr. Bush while the mill worker was on top of him and the officer was face down on a couch. The Bush family lawyer couldn't ask questions related to the way the RCMP investigated the shooting.
Canadian taxpayers financed three lawyers to support Constable Koester and the RCMP, while the Bush family paid for its own lawyer, with the help of donations. But what if it hadn't had the wherewithal to hire Howard Rubin?
“This thing would have been over and done with in a couple of days and a lot of this stuff about how the RCMP handled this investigation would never have come out,” Mrs. Bush said. “The public inquest procedure has to be reviewed. It's not a good system.”
She's right.
If the inquest showed anything it was how flawed the process is. Why are three lawyers publicly financed to help the RCMP while the family of the victim gets nothing? Why was the onus on the Bush family to prove what happened the night of Oct. 29, 2005? And why does the jury waste its time with recommendations that can be and often are ignored?
Mrs. Bush stood behind a podium surrounded by her family. The eyes of Ian's sister Renee were red. Even though her expectations of what the jury might recommend were low, it still hurt to see what it finally came out with.
“We're not giving up,” Renee Bush said.Mrs. Bush looked tired. It wasn't easy listening to someone describe how he'd put a bullet in her son's head.
But that's what she had to do.
“There will be more tears,” she said. “I know that. There isn't a day that goes by I don't think about my son. … While I feel a bit deflated about today, we're not going to give up the fight. We can't.”
(Back)
Home