Inconsistencies :One Man's Opinion

By Ben Meisner

        If you have five people testify that an event took place in the manner they describe and they are consistent and on the other hand you have one person, who by the way has a very serious vested interest  describe the events in another manner , who would you believe?

Common sense would suggest that you believe the five people with no vested interest.  When you look at the Kevin St Arnaud shooting death that simply didn’t happen.

Staff Sergeant John Ward of the Media Relations Wing of the RCMP’s "E" Division says it is not unusual to have five different people give five different descriptions of the event.

I wonder aloud then why the RCMP would bother to have witnesses?

In the future, we should pick the witness that has the testimony we like the best and put them on the stand. Wait a minute could we do that in the case of St. Arnaud?  After all, the star witness was a fellow RCMP officer with considerably more experience than the officer who shot St Arnuad.  Hold on, the additional "inconsistency" came from a fellow police officer who testified about the blood patterns, those patterns being consistent with a person standing not lunging toward the police officer as the shooter had suggested. Or should we accept the testimony of a private citizen who said he watched St. Arnaud turn around, with his hands raised in the air after the officer chased him into a field? Now that just happens to be consistent with the testimony of the police officer who witnessed the shooting.

Then there is the matter of how the bullets entered St Arnaud’s body at a 30 to 45 degree downward angle. Sorry, you can’t change that inconsistency.

Pardon me, yes you can.

It’s that one bit of evidence that the Coroner wouldn’t let in.  The officer in charge of the investigation wanted to bring in some drawings that show how it might be possible to have someone shoot in a downward angle while laying down. The Coroner asked "Are you producing the witness, so that they can be cross examined?"  The reply, "No" so quite properly Coroner  Shane DeMeyer didn’t allow that testimony. Seems reasonable or should you allow the investigating officer to put forward any evidence that he feels should be introduced without benefit of cross examination or would that cross examination be considered an "inconsistency"? 

If that is the pitch of not allowing evidence into the Coroners inquest, I’m smiling.

Now the final question must be asked, just what did Constable Sheremetta  stand to gain in his testimony to the Coroners inquest, would you consider that impartial Staff Sergeant Ward?

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion. 
    

Email | Print | Facebook | Twitter | Digg | Del.icio.us