Surprise, Dead Men Tell No Tales

The RCMP have announced they’ll pursue no charges in the Cadman Affair. What a surprise!

Chuck, of course, is long gone, lost to cancer in 2005. Before he died he told his wife, daughter and son-in-law about an apparent bribe offered by some Conservative fixers to get him to vote to defeat the Liberal government of Paul Martin.

Unfortunately this man of such great integrity didn’t get into details of who, what, when and where – the information the cops would need to build any case warranting prosecution.

With Cadman dead and the possibility of the others voluntarily incriminating themselves pretty slim, there’s really nothing for the cops to go on but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have tasered a few highly placed Conservatives just to avoid the appearance of favouritism.

So, what does the RCMP announcement tell us about the Cadman affair? Precisely nothing.

 

Just Askin, That’s All

Rumours are surfacing of yet another pending arrest in the Sponsorship Scandal. Okay, now this is eight years and two governments after the fact.

This proceeding, if it comes to pass, needs to be put under some scrutiny. Remember we’re dealing with the RCMP here, the same once-proud outfit whose commissioner gamed the last election with a spurious, mid-campaign press release about a possible scandal involving hinted wrongdoing by Ralph Goodale.

Now that same tattered remnant of a national police force is headed by whom? Why it would be my old lawschool classmate and life-long Tory insider Bill “Bubbles” Elliot. Much as I like Bill it does trouble me that Harper appointed a total partisan to head the RCMP.

Now in the justice system, appearances count. The mantra goes that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In other words, it’s all got to be above board and completely beyond suspicion. That’s not being picky. There’s a good reason for it, the best in fact. If the administration of justice is tainted with the appearance of favouritism or bias, it can undermine the one thing the system cannot do without – public confidence in its integrity.

The appearance on this one – well it stinks frankly. You have the Harper Cons now reeling from a succession of scandals – Mulroney, Cadman, In & Out, etc. – and they could really use something to distract the public and turn the tables on the Libs. What have they got? Precious little – unless they can milk that sponsorship scandal one more time, especially now that an election is looming.

The RCMP hasn’t done too well on the smell test lately. If they’re going to launch another politically-charged proceeding – at this late stage – when they’re headed by a lifelong partisan – and having displayed an openness to dodgy interference in the last election – they damn well better come up with a very convincing explanation of the timing and they’d better not count on the benefit of the doubt if their story has that now all-too-familiar stink to it.

Meanwhile the force can explain why it’s not proceeding with perjury charges against Mr. Mulroney. The Commish, after all, worked in Mulroney’s government. Maybe they don’t think that Mulroney’s sworn statements that his only involvement with Schreiber was a few meetings for coffee constitutes perjury. If so, I’d love to hear them come out with it.

 

Just When You’d Lost All Faith In The RCMP

Along comes the news – surprise, surprise – that utterly disgraced RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardeli intervened to slap Ralph Goodale’s name right on a pivotal press release that may well have handed Stevie Harper a ticket to 24 Sussex Drive.

Now according to RCMP Complaints Commissioner/smokescreen Paul Kennedy, there was no evidence that Zaccardelli’s intervention was politically motivated. Mr. Kennedy, of course, is the man least able to find evidence of anything untoward in any complaint against the RCMP.

“I have found that Commissioner Zaccardelli made the final decision to issue the letter and news release, and he likely also provided the impetus and direction for the production of those documents. There is no evidence that Commissioner Zaccardelli relied on any improper considerations in coming to his decisions.”

No evidence at all, none whatsoever. I mean, just because Zaccardelli plastered Goodale’s name on the press release and then released it, by fax, not to the press but first to an opposition MP, that’s not evidence of anything improper, is it?

Of course the most telling point of the Kennedy absolution is found in this line from the Globe & Mail:

“Mr. Kennedy said that Mr. Zaccardelli and several senior members of the RCMP policy centre, which was responsible for the conduct and communication of the income-trust investigation, refused to provide him with any information about the disclosure.”

Oh, now I get it. There’s no evidence of any wrongdoing because all those who would have any knowledge of it refused to talk to the guy who then blithely exonerated them.

After standing on his head to the delight of bystanders, Kennedy went on to do the splits, adding that the RCMP has no policy on notifying complainants when an investigation is initiated into a complaint. “Clearly if you have no policy you can’t break policy,” he said.

There you go, classic Kennedy. What a waste of skin.

 

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.

 

They Can’t Be Trusted

Saturday’s Globe & Mail editorial says it all:

“Canadians cannot believe a word the RCMP have to say over the taser death of Robert Dziekanski.”

Not a word. They killed this man and then waged a disinformation campaign to cover their backsides. Gee, haven’t we heard this before? Remember a kid named Ian Bush who wound up with a bullet fired into the back of his head, supposedly in self defence by an RCMP officer who said he was pinned, face down, on the floor of a cell with Bush at his back? Guess what? That’s an impossibility, just maybe not to the RCMP.

They always get their man. Do they ever. Wish it weren’t so.

This time, though, they weren’t so lucky. A guy named Paul Pritchard was there with a video camera. He captured the truth we weren’t going to get from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

 

Have the Mounties Hit Rock Bottom?

They’ve burned barns in Quebec, screwed up the biggest terrorist attack in Canadian history, shot a young man in the back of his head in “self defence” and now brought international ridicule on their force by the apparently unnecessary execution of an innocent, confused man pleading only for their help. Surely it’s time to say “enough” to these people and get someone in charge who will rein them in and curb their excesses.

What’s needed at the top of the RCMP is one very tough, very straight cop – not a bureaucratic insider with lifelong ties to the Conservatives.

This garbage has got to stop.

I have always respected the RCMP even though my admiration for the force got dented every now and then over the years. The homicide at Vancouver airport was the straw that broke this camel’s back. I’m not saying it was murder or even manslaughter but it certainly was a homicide. That man was killed and for no good reason and there are people, including those who were nowhere near that airport that day, who should answer for it.

Something went horribly wrong. Were these officers not trained properly or did they ignore their training? Were they not fit to be trusted with the weapons we gave them and, if so, who chose to give them the weapons?

For my money, the cops involved ought to be treated as though they had drawn their service revolvers and shot that man to death. They ought to be in the prisoners dock. We also need to ensure that whatever infected them and made four fit, highly trained police officers believe they had some right to use that level of force on this man hasn’t spread to the rest of the RCMP. It’s time to call the cowboys into the corral for a long, blunt talk.

This is Canada and we act to a higher standard than others, including our closest neighbour. We’re reluctant but not unwilling to have our police use force but, when they do use force, we expect it to be cautious and measured. We’re entitled to expect nothing less than that standard from our national police force and they disgrace us when they abuse the trust we repose in them.

The same goes for our military which has been drawn into the American mentality of “kicking ass and taking names.” The last I checked there was an abundance of ass-kickers and name-takers on this planet. They don’t need our soldiers to swell their ranks. We expect our soldiers to at times use force but we also expect them to be cautious and measured in that. We should be entitled to expect that our soldiers won’t call artillery and air strikes down on the innocent civilians in villages. We’re entitled to expect that they will not surrender the suspects they apprehend into the hands of torturers. We’re entitled to all of that and they too disgrace us when they abuse the trust we repose in them and do those things.

So let’s hear from Hillier and let’s hear from Elliott. Let them tell us why the services they oversee have brought disgrace onto this country. Let’s hear them tell us what they will do to restore our trust in their services. Better yet, let’s hear them do what honourable people in their situation are expected to do – take personal responsibility, apologize and resign.

Let’s stop playing America’s favourite game, “shoot’em up”. Only in America could 9/11 happen and a needless, groundless invasion and occupation of a nation happen and an entire region be set on fire and no one take full responsibility for their abject failures. Tens, probably hundreds of thousands have died and many more will because of the hubris and incompetence of a few and yet that few refuses to accept any consequences for their acts. I don’t want my country to descend into that mentality. The only way to avoid it is for heads to roll and offenders to answer for their actions.

It’s going to be a lot easier to clean up these stains now than it will be down the road if we do nothing for by then they will surely spread.

We have to salvage some good from these miserable disasters. Otherwise those who’ve already fallen victim have endured their suffering for absolutely nothing. We can’t bring Robert Dziekanski back but we don’t have to let his name get tossed away in the garbage either. Let’s not strip this guy of his dignity in death as we did in life. This is way past some lame review of how we use tasers. It’s about standing up and being Canadian again.

 

No Red Serge for Bill Elliot

Whatever reservations you may have about the RCMP’s first civilian commissioner, Bill Elliot has started off making a bright move – he won’t wear the uniform.

I think if Elliot had decided to dress up like a real honest-to-God mountie, it would have sent discontent racing through the force. You have to make it through Depot to be entitled to wear the hat, the boots and the red serge.

Much as it may be hoped that the force will benefit from having an outsider at the top, I would think at some point that leadership ought to revert to a veteran of the force, not a bureaucrat.

 

COP OUT!

The utter uselessness of the coroner’s inquest into the shooting death of Ian Bush while in RCMP custody was left beyond all doubt when the coroner’s jury released their recommendations this afternoon.

Let’s see. The jury wants proper audio and video recording equipment put in place (the existing system oddly was found not to be working after Bush was killed). The jury doesn’t want cops left alone with detainees but recommends there always be at least two officers present until the subject is released to put into a cell. Then they want the force to institute a “business design review” although they don’t say what they want reviewed. Ballistics perhaps? Finally the jury calls on the Houston, B.C. mayor and the RCMP to “further educate the general public on various aspects of the Criminal Code, with the aim of reducing the violations of the law.”

What a farce, just the last of many in this disturbing case. See “It Doesn’t Smell – It Reeks!” posted earlier today just below. Now the BC solicitor-general won’t have any excuse left for getting off his arse and directing a proper public enquiry.

Further confirmation that this whole thing is rotten came yesterday in the form of evidence given the coroner’s jury by Edmonton police officer and blood spatter analyst Joe Slemko who maintains that Constable Koester’s version of what happened makes no sense.

Koester has claimed that Bush was on his back, choking the officer from behind. The constable said he acted in self-defence, drawing his pistol and shooting Bush once in the back of his head. Slemko says the blood evidence at the scene doesn’t correspond with Koester’s account. Instead, he says, it indicates that Koester was behind Bush when he fired.

During Slemko’s appearance yesterday, RCMP lawyer David Butcher tried, unsuccessfully, to have Slemko disqualified as an expert.

 

It Doesn’t Smell – It Reeks!

The saga of the shooting death of young Ian Bush just keeps getting more bizarre.

Bush was shot and killed while in RCMP custody in Houston, B.C..

Bush was killed by a single shot to the back of his head.

Const. Paul Koester, the shooter, claims that Bush was atop him, choking him from behind when, fearing for his life, he drew his side arm and put one square in the back of the young man’s skull (you visualize that, I dare you).

An investigating coroner has refused a simple request that Const. Koester demonstrate just how it could be possible to make such a shot from this supposed position.

Now it turns out that the statement Koester gave to officers investigating the shooting was anything but spontaneous. The constable’s lawyer made sure Koester wasn’t questioned for three months after the shooting and then, this is bizarre, the investigators had to submit their questions in advance.

There is nothing about this case or the explanations that have been thrown about that makes any sense. The whole business just plain reeks.

B.C. Solicitor General John Les claims it’s too early to consider launching a public inquiry.