Expert Disputes Bush Shooting Report

An expert witness has slammed the findings of RCMP complains commissioner Paul Kennedy exonerating Constable Paul Koester in the shooting death of Ian Bush.

Blood stain expert, Edmonton Constable Joseph Slemko, says Kennedy got it wrong on the evidence and in the way he dismissed Slemko’s conclusions. Kennedy said Slemko’s evidence was undermined because he did not agree that there had been a significant struggle between Bush and Constable Koester that preceded the shooting. That’s nonsense, says Slemko:

“I have never disputed that there was a physical altercation between Bush and Koester,” said Const. Slemko yesterday. “My opinons were directed at the point in time when the blood-letting injury was generated. That is what bloodstain pattern analysis is based upon – blood evidence.”

It sounds as though Commissioner Kennedy was grasping at straws, any straw, to get out from under Slemko’s expert evidence. It was essential for him to discredit Slemko’s evidence in order to uphold Koester’s account of how he came to shoot Bush in the back of the head.

Just what did this internationally-recognized blood expert find? He concluded that Koester was probably either at the side of Bush or behind the young man when he fired.

“Unlike the RCMP, I actually conducted a reconstruction with actual human models to try and prove or disprove Const. Koester’s version of the positioning in the context of the observed blood stain evidence. I was not able to prove his version and I am still waiting for someone to show me otherwise,” Const. Slemko said.

The blood pattern expert testified at the coroner’s inquest that there was no blood transfer evidence consistent with Const. Koester escaping out from Mr. Bush after he was shot. Kennedy concluded that Koester could have extracted himself from under the dead man’s body without getting even a trace of blood on him.

I don’t think Kennedy’s report is worth the paper it’s printed on. He has done backflips to get around critical evidence that doesn’t support his finding of justifiable homicide, a self-defence shooting.

 

Mountie Who Shot Ian Bush Exonerated

The head of the commission for complaints against the RCMP has ruled that Constable Paul Koester acted in self-defence when he shot and killed Ian Bush.

“After carefully considering the circumstances, I concluded that Constable Koester had a reasonable apprehension of death and believed that he could not otherwise preserve himself from death other than to use lethal force. Accordingly, Constable Koester acted in self-defence.”

Here’s the nub of the problem. From Global News:

“Koester, who stands 6-4 and weighs 180 pounds, insisted the six-foot, 187-pound laborer was atop his back choking the life out of him when he managed to free his gun.

In a physical feat even RCMP investigators conceded was worthy of a contortionist, the Constable got the gun behind his own back, up to the back of Bush’s head and shot him.

He refused to reenact what happened for investigators and the coroner’s inquest that was held earlier this year. “

Koester “refused to re-enact” this amazing feat but you can try it for yourself. Lie on the ground. Have a friend stradle your back and place his hands around your throat. Then, face down, reach around behind your back and point your finger into the back of your friend’s head. Don’t worry about the extra distance that would be required to accomodate a gun, just try it with your finger. See if you can “re-enact” the shooting of Ian Bush. Then ask yourself why no one, including Koester, has been able to re-enact this self-defence shooting scenario. And then draw your own conclusions.

Paul Kennedy’s punchline came in this astonishing finding: Kennedy said the RCMO conducted a highly professional investigation “free from any manner of conflict of interest, bias or partiality” into the slaying. Here’s how the investigation into one of their own was conducted, you be the judge:

The force didn’t interrogate the shooter, Koester, for three months after the killing. Investigators succumbed to the constable’s demands that they submit questions in writing to him in advance. Koester was obviously treating the incident as a homicide, why weren’t the investigators?

Free from any manner of conflict of interest? When the RCMP investigates one of its own there’s an inherent appearance of conflict of interest. When you don’t talk to the shooter for three months and then give him your questions in advance, that smacks of bias and partiality. Sorry Mr. Kennedy, you’ll have to do better than that.