Sorry but what a dorkish thing for that reporter to say. I've only just met this family in january and have been reading report after report..google this and google that and attended only two days of the inquest and I can see the truth spelled out in blood. If the officers in this case were smart they would've come up with a better story.

"I ran into another reporter who proceeded to tell me that Ian Bush was a drunken Red Neck who got everything that was coming to him in the police station in Houston."

Sounds like some people on here. Wonder if he posts on here.

We all know that reporting is not a scientific endeavour. Reporters have biases and they show up to those whose opinions run counter to those biases. Those who share the reporter's biases, think they are the best thing since sliced bread and will follow them religiously.

Investigative reporting teams such as those which support an on the air reporter such as Ted Koppel are hard to find.

I am eagerly awaiting the testimony of the forensic expert who has another version of what likely happened based on the available evidence.

Uh me too owl. I checked out his website and seems like a real good guy Joe Slemko I believe his name is....
http://www.bloodspatter.com/
Yes Joe Slemko... he's like a little piece of heaven for us down here on earth :)

If you look hard enough and for the right price you will always find an expert to agree with your opinion. Slemko's opinion will certainly differ from that of the RCMP's expert blood spatter evidence.Who would put any weight behind someone's evidence who is likely paid to contradict that of the investigation? Just a point to keep in mind.

blah blah blah blah....good usually beats evil in the end troll. Does anyone know please, please, please which day Mr. Joe Slemko takes the stand? I want to be there more than anything to hear his wisdom.

"Who would put any weight behind someone's evidence who is likely paid to contradict that of the investigation?"

The coroner ..... a judge .....

It is the way the system works in this country. Both sides get to put on their "expert" witnesses.

As far as the weight goes, that depends on several factors, including the credentials of the person who is the expert and the reasonableness of the interpretation of the evidence they bring forward.

An impartial coroner or judge should not weigh evidence on the bases of which party they were called by to give an expert opinion.

Your bias is showing loud and clear.

If judges and coroners thought the way you did, there would be no need for a hearing. The investigation would be the end of story.

My bias? Have you read most of the posts on this incident which include many conclusions without any knowledge of the facts? I totally agree with and understand the procedure of an inquest. Of all the kneejerk reactions posted here and I get the business because my opinion differs from that of most of the above?

The following were your words, posted once again:

"Who would put any weight behind someone's evidence who is likely paid to contradict that of the investigation?"

My answer once more is that an impartial chair of a hearing is the "who".

Simple.

You asked a silly question. The situation you decribe happens every day at hearings. I happen to represent people in WCB related administrative hearings.

As I said, if I would go into a hearing with the belief that the chair of the tribunal would believe the investigation of the WCB officers without question and give no weight to opposing evidence brought forward by the claimant, then I may as well not show up on behalf of my client.

While you may have heard and know more about the details of the evidence and expert opinions provided so far, neither you nor have heard the evidence of the "expert" being brought in now.

Notice what I said in relation to the "expert" yet to be heard:

"I am eagerly awaiting the testimony of the forensic expert who has another version of what likely happened based on the available evidence."

I am open to hear what he has to say. After I read that, I can perhaps make up my mind, but I doubt it since I really do not have enough information other than filtered information.

So, unlike you, I have not said anywhere on here that I think the police is full of it or that Bush was the instigator or whatever. I simply do not know, other than what I do believe is that the outcome simply does not seem to fit the "crime" which may have been committed.

The coroner is the one who is in the postion to make up his mind. The document I actually look forward to reading is the coroner's report.

I only spoke highly about Joe Slemko before he even takes the stand is because I really respected his website and the work he has done in the past and would be honored to see him in person at work for a family i've come to love.

My question of which you called silly pertained only to the inquest in Houston, not your WCB activities.I have faith in the system and trust that the good coroner can properly analyze the information despite the antics of Mr Rubin.Having someone try to simulate the struggle with wooden dolls is utterley ridiculous. The purpose of the inquest is to determine the cause of death and to make recommendations to prevent further deaths.

The cause of death is a bullet into the head. I doubt anyone disputes that.

The reason for the inquest as I understand it is to find out the circumstances which led up to that bullet finding its way into his head. The RCMP investigation team has arrived at its conlusion. However, they are not impartial. Thus the coroner comes on the scene as an impartial individual.

"Having someone try to simulate the struggle with wooden dolls is utterley ridiculous."

I agree. They should have used actors of similar size to the two individuals involved and shot a film of the actors from several angles going through the scenario put forth by the RCMP and the scenario put forth by others who have other version which they feel may be plausible.

Maybe they ran out of money.

Antics is sort of a loaded word, isn't it? What would have been wrong with a more neutral word such as "presentation"?

Yes you are right. A presentation or perhaps a rendition.

The fact is; no individual should be shot to death while in police custody. Period!

As a man who has seen the work of Mr. Slemko first hand I can only say if you look up the words ethic in the dictionary you should find Joe,s name first. I know you won't but you should get the point. to "Trollunder the bridge" stay there. You mader a stupid comment with out knowing the facts. Mr. Slemko proved my son was murdered. He charged nothing. I repeat nothing. Second he asked for nothing either. Ethics is a word one could use to discribe Mr. Slemko but caring would would be tied with it for first place. It is a rare and unusual day when a plice officer will break the code of blue. Mr. Slemko is not only a peace officer but an ethical one at that. Like Sean Connery in the roll he played in the untouchables! To bad we do not have more Joe Slemko's in the world.

obiwan