Coroner's Inquest Into Police Shooting Death of Ian Bush Resumes

Tuesday, July 03, 2007 04:01 AM

Memorial to Ian Bush, the 22 year old who was shot to death by an RCMP Constable in October of 2005.

The Coroner’s Inquest into the October 2005 police shooting death of Ian Bush resumes today in Houston.

The inquest had started on May 22^nd, and carried through to the 25^th but was adjourned until this week as it was the next possible time for all involved to be able to attend.

The first session heard testimony from the police, emergency serv ices who attended following the shooting, and from the pathologist who performed the autopsy on Bush.

The pathologist admitted he had erred in not taking a closer look at a mark on Ian’s groin. It appeared to be a bruise, but the pathologist said it might have been an ingrown hair. He testified he had intended on going back to that site to further examine the mark, but forgot to do it.

The Lawyer for the Bush family has asked the Coroner to allow testimony from another pathologist.

The first session also heard from the Constable who shot Ian Bush in the back of the head . Constable Paul Koester testified he was preparing to release the 22 year old when the young man became violent, sucker punched him, there was a fight and Koester said Bush had him in a choke hold and he feared for his life. Although when asked to re-enact how he could get his gun from his holster, and swing his right arm up and around to the back left of Ian’s head before pulling the trigger, Koester did not comply with that request.

The first session also heard about inconsistencies in photographic evidence. There are discrepancies in the photos of the interview room where Ian died. In one photo, the deceased’s shirt was up, down in another. In some pictures there are two chairs in the photos of the interview room, in others, three. A shoe is in one spot in the room, then other pictures show it in a different location. There is also the matter of an unopened bottle of beer, which no one can explain as no one remembers how it got into the room.

This week, the Coroner will hear from people who were with Bush that evening, including Clayton Poznikoff. Constable Koester testified "Clayton Poznikoff" was the name Ian Bush first gave him. Other friends are set to testify that Bush seemed to be singled out as the person police were going to charge.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 04:01 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 3 2007 7:45 AM

Go get em Ben!

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 3 2007 9:14 AM

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2007/07/03/4308489-sun.html

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on July 3 2007 11:30 AM

2 Experts...2..Different opinions, but every one wants to believe a family hired expert, Who to believe,...1 is tainted by being a member, the other is tainted by been hired by the family,so his loyality is to his employer.

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 3 2007 11:44 AM

But the truth isn't confusing...Koester and his clan confused me.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on July 3 2007 12:04 PM

As does Your hate for the RCMP heidi555 We have only heared ONCE about his bad side when he was drinking ...Why...If Ben would talk to people in Houston other then family and friends he might find out Mr Bush did not have Record, But was not the Angel family and friends make him out to be... What Happened I do not think we will ever Know....CAMARAS MUST WORK ALL THE TIME AND WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS INQUEST.

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 3 2007 1:13 PM

I happen to know a few RCMP officers so you are mistaken Don. My hate is directed at the ones who do wrong by us. Not just RCMP but anyone who holds any power and abuses it. I just want people to do their jobs the best way they can and if they're not fit for the job then bite the bullet and look elsewhere. I too wish the camera was on.

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 3 2007 1:14 PM

and p.s. nobody is an angel and he didnt deserve to die

Posted by: Free Enterprise on July 3 2007 1:25 PM

Don't attempt to kill a cop and you won't get shot.

Posted by: owl on July 3 2007 4:25 PM

There are those who think that the police can do no wrong. Then there are those who believe that the police screw up all the time.

Neither is right. The police are people like everyone else. Every single one of them makes mistakes just like every single one of us makes mistakes. Some of their mistakes can affect people�s lives much more than our mistakes ever could. Some of them have social problems, including those which are criminal in nature, just as we do.

There is nothing more or less magic about a policeman than there is about a doctor, a salesman, a tourist guide or a truck driver. The good ones do their work to the best of their ability; the bad ones are self-centred and look out only for themselves.

http://www.unknownnews.org/070628-stinkybadges.html

http://www.unknownnews.org/060918stinkybadges.html

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 3 2007 4:44 PM

I'm 50/50...love the good ones/hate the bad ones...not hard to understand that and i'm smart enough to know there are good people in every profession. Those links are endless aren't they owl...it's so sad. I found lots too in january when I first started all of this googling. Don't forget the pepper spray news last night on global...children and all. That would break my heart if my kids got pepper sprayed...the momma bear in me would really come out then. I can't imagine and hope I never have to know what Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Young have to go through every single second of every single day. See you all on thursday in Houston. One officer I do respect...Joe Slemko. Takes a lot of courage and strength to stand up for what you believe in. Bless him.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 3 2007 7:33 PM

Once again, everybody is running wild with this. So I will too. Here is my two cents to the debate.

If you want to keep yourself on track, here are some ideas to munch on. Maybe you'll understand more ? It's kind of like my analysis from education, experience, evidence, and logical deduction.

BUSH

I believe Bush was shot from behind, with the officer on his knees behind Ian. I also feel that this was an unintentional shooting. What happened, or why he fired is anybody's guess. I do feel he intentionally held the gun to the back of Ian's head, for one purpose or another, but I don't think he meant to fire the shot, or at least I feel that he was shocked or surprised that he had fired a round.

And..

ST. ARNAUD

I think this was an intentional shooting. I think it was a case of excessive use of force. I don't know why he chose to shoot Kevin, but I feel it was not accidental. Whatever the reason, he obviously felt some culpability for his actions. He fabricated a story of self defence, he purjured himself numerous times in the inquest, against his own partner, and that speaks volumes to what his very own belief system is telling him about the justice of his actions.

Lastly, Don M, you are such a decent fellow to talk to, why do you have to change when you go online ?

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 3 2007 9:44 PM

Courage to speak comes from your fingertips...don't have to look anyone in the eye while you bash them :) Yes, we are going wild with this and will continue to as long as injustice is lingering it's awful stench around our heads....Cause and effect. They made this awful mess and who do they expect to clean it up? Nobody...they pretend to ignore it and brush it to the corner but little do they know mold will start to grow.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 3 2007 10:45 PM

Everything would be made much easier for everybody if the truth was pursued right from the start.

Good lord... traffic analysts can tell you that a car backfired, which scared a cat, which ran towards a dog, who barked and scared a moose, which ran out on the road and made a truck swerve, which made part of it's load come off and hit a vehicle going in the other direction, which caused it to lose control and leave the road, and eventually hit a house, which made the chandelier fall down and hit the guy sitting at the kitchen table, who was already dead because he didn't take his heart medication on time, and his pants were too tight.

How are we expected to believe that the same level of precise, professional investigation cannot be applied to these situations, to generate similar precise, factual answers ?

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 4 2007 12:01 AM

lol...t-man ok goodnight for sure this time.

Posted by: pisspulper on July 4 2007 9:25 AM

You posters are unbelievable with all your theories and deductions. The truth lies between the two people involved, Koester would be wise to assist himself and the public with the truth. He will relive this forever, certainly his conscience will torment him much worse if he doesn't deal with the matter honestly. Hardly does the level of impairment matter in this case, alcohol affects everyone in different ways, physically and mentally. Sober people can be just as stupid. We shouldn't need examples of this.

Neither of the forensic shooting scenarios prove anything. Merely speculation thus far it seems, but hey i'm no expert. Maybe they should call in the CSI forensics consultants, they seem to have an answer for everything. Bear in mind one thought, an officers sidearm is holstered with safety on. Make your own conclusions from that. Anyhow one of your expert conclusions indicates that it was more like an execution.

I posted before to a Bush comments barrage, go read it. Alcohol kills, one way or another. Minus the alcohol and we probably would be griping about some other terrible tragedy. Yes i drink and maybe too much on occasion, and yes i have paid the price a few times. S**t happens, and you move on. My condolences to the Bush family and all his friends. Ian RIP.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 4 2007 7:09 PM

I agree with you...you're no expert.

Here is a definitive analysis, not just a theory:

The cop was tripping on Ian, Ian's fuse finally blew, there was an altercation, the cop ended up behind Ian with his gun to the back of Ian's head, Ian's head face down on the couch, probably on his knees, the cop probably on his knees also, or at least bent over or not standing straight up, maybe Ian's head pushed down at the base of the neck, causing his head to tilt back towards the cop somewhat, and the cop (in a very agitated, and hyper state now) was probably saying something like "don't move or I'll blow your head off", or "do that again and I'll shoot you" probably with the intent of scaring him and ending the situation right there. I'm sure he thought that was the end of it, then the gun fired.

Who knows why or how, there are many explanations. I do not believe Koester had any intent of firing the gun, but I do believe he acted inappropriately and escalated the situation exponentially, handling the entire encounter very poorly.

Of course, it ended with the worst possible outcome for everyone involved.

Bullet holes and blood spatter don't lie.
I think you will find that out on Thursday.

I think Koester would have served himself and everybody else much better to come clean right from the start and take his lumps for his actions.

Go ahead and tell me I'm full of sh!t, but I've seen this stuff firsthand, time and time again. It becomes intuitive.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 4 2007 7:13 PM

One of the tests they used to put new recruits through was to set up a table with 20 or so different items on it. "Now tell me the story behind all these items" was the question, designed to test the level of common sense, logical deduction, etc that the individual had.

Your task was to explain what happened by examining all these items.

Posted by: pisspulper on July 5 2007 8:46 AM

You are correct, you are full of something, but im not here to attack or insult anyone. Your analysis is just that, YOURS. I hardly doubt youv'e seen this firsthand as you claim, only the suspect and victim have first hand privilege. But if you believe spending your days posting to everything you read mskes you an expert, so be it. Have you forensic reports that we haven't seen yet?

??? the tests. Not much relevance to anything in this matter.

I do have first hand experience that the RCMP officers aren't perfect. Still i dont lable the entire force for the actions of several officers. A tragedy has occurred and more will. The inquest won't solve this.

Koester hasn't been charged with anything because so far it hasn't been proven that he did anything wrong. Maybe he did and will be charged. Appears most believe nothing will come of this inquest. Possibly, but i hope for the opposite.

Slemko's appearance bothers me because of his possible bias. RCMP expert testifying in an RCMP inquest. Oh well, he's an EXPERT.

This inquest will run its course, i hope in favor of the Bush family so they can have some form of closure and finally be able to focus on grieving their loss.

UNREASONABLEMAN Lets be polite. People have opinions, not facts. We share these here. Right or wrong, a common courtesy should be extended, at least we care.

Posted by: Truth on July 5 2007 3:07 PM

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on July 5 2007 8:00 PM

Once again, nothing but links to other websites.Referring to these decisions to prove some sort of goofy conspiracy theory is hilarious.What these decisions refer to are mistakes made by police officers in the execution of their duty. It is a difficult job and mistakes will be made. You seem very angry about something....A speeding ticket perhaps?

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 5 2007 9:42 PM

For clarity, I do not support the "every cop is evil" mentality. Just so you all know (or remember).

My platform is "let's sift out the evil ones and deal with them appropriately", not provide them sanctuary. This cover-up at all costs has got to stop.

It's not fair to everyone else, and they lose lots of really good members this way. REALLY.

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 5 2007 10:48 PM

I'mmmmm hommmmme from Houston!!!! Troll how i've missed you!!!!! Troll I agree that conspiracy theory is goofy but the brotherhood they have isn't so goofy now is it?
It's like the good RCMP officers have a healthy brotherhood and hovering above them is the dark cloud of the RCMP members who have a sick version of brotherhood. We need more Joe Slemko's in this world who can keep pushing through that dark cloud. Joe Slemko has a true love for his job and the truth. He is a beautiful man.

Posted by: pisspulper on July 5 2007 11:10 PM

Cut the Pollyanna act.

Ah, but again we must resort to a form of insult. Seems a bit childish. Perhaps you have a notion that if you read more drivel,this will back up your arguments. Please, we can all read. Not everyone suscribes to the theory that if its in the media it must be true. Mistakes are made by everyone, everday, everywhere. I must be EVIL, because hell i've made a mistake or several in my time. Anyhow, i think someone really needs to try their corn flakes with milk next time.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on July 5 2007 11:42 PM

Didn't the RCMP have a blood spatter expert present his evidence? Did most folks here not believe it simply because he is employed by the RCMP? His evidence contradicts that of Slemkos.Why hasn't Slemko given evidence for the Crown in almost a decade? What makes you so sure that Slemko is right?

Posted by: Truth on July 6 2007 4:03 AM

I see that the RCMP are using high priced criminal-cop defence attorney, David Butcher. I saw him at the hearings into the Office of the Police Complaint Commission hearings into the dispositions against the 6 Vancouver slugs (now convicts) who kidnapped 3 men and battered them in Stanley Park. Butcher also appeared for RCMP thugs at the Hughes Commission into the RCMP atrocities at the APEC hearings.

Suprise: the OPCC's Dirk Ryneveld (former Deputy Regional Crown Counsel), has employed cop-doormat, Butcher, in contract work for the OPCC. Strange bedfellows.