Bruise On Bush's Body Not In Grown Hair

Tuesday, July 03, 2007 01:14 PM

The Coroner’s inquest into the October 2005 police shooting death of Ian Bush in Houston has resumed.

Howard Rubin, the lawyer acting for the Bush family, says he can produce evidence that shows the mark on Ian Bush’s body was in fact a blow to the groin. That differs from the earlier testimony from a pathologist which indicated the mark was an in grown hair.

"It was blunt force trauma" Rubin says. "I take exception to the statements that were produced by Koester (the Constable who shot Ian Bush) following the shooting of Ian Bush in the RCMP interview room in Houston" Rubin says the RCMP handled Koester with kid gloves in the manner that they investigated this case "He (Koester) had all the time in the world to prepare a statement including advice to get a lawyer before he ever began to say anything about the matter."

Koester’s final statement was not taken until February 18^th, 2006, when the shooting had taken place in October 2005. He was told by the investigating officers to get a lawyer.

At the same time Rubin said the bruises that Bush had on the area near his testicles were as the result of a major blunt force trauma.

An RCMP auxiliary constable with 18 years experience, Shane Ketchell, says he along with three other officers attended a Luckies hockey game between periods at the Houston arena. He said police poured out beer that was being consumed outside the arena, and Bush was the only person who was being charged with an illegal possession.

Scott Stapleton a childhood friend of Bush who was at the game with Bush said that he, along with Bush and two other friends had met up with some other friends at the arena.

Bush wasn’t drinking Stapleton says he had bad heart burn. "My friend Clayton handed a beer to Bush while we were play fighting in the parking lot and that is when the police arrived on the scene. They poured out the beer and then, after a conversation between them, took Ian to the police car where we thought he was being charged with an illegal possession."

Stapleton says Constable Koester put Bush in the back of the police vehicle which had locked doors, then later took him out, put handcuffs on him and put him back in the police vehicle. "He (Koester) pulled his (Ian’s) cap down over his head, and then pushed him into the car. The police said they were taking him to the police station because he had given them a false name and he would be released in about a half hour."

Stapleton said "Six of us had bought a case of beer each and we were drinking it at the apartment across the street. Someone got some beer and brought it over during the intermission of the hockey game" Stapleton said he believed Ian had 3 or 4 beers but he couldn’t be certain because he wasn’t with him all of the time "Ian was like the rest of us young guys he liked to drink."

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 01:14 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on July 3 2007 2:35 PM

His blood alcohol, was twice the legal limit.3 or 4 beers Bullshit.

Posted by: REALIST on July 3 2007 2:49 PM

Unfortunate post here. Perhaps time to put the old guy to bed.

Posted by: Belvedere on July 3 2007 2:53 PM

The same friend said that Bush had not been drinking due to heartburn, and also that Bush had had three or four beers. Which is it?

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 3 2007 3:02 PM

Well i'm thinking he meant Bush wasn't drinking at the time of intermission out in parking lot because of heartburn and he handed his beer for Bush to hold so he could play fight. And Don Bush's body was left so long in that interview room after he died which causes his blood alcohol content to go up because room was too warm.

Posted by: REALIST on July 3 2007 3:03 PM

I just read in the Vancouver Sun that the police are worried about the various youtube postings of Bar fight footage in front of the Generator here in town. Nice to know that our city is the center of drunken bar fights, Hockey enforcer fights(that no other sane community allowed), and police who shoot people in the back of the head. As a Prince George resident, I must say we are doing a wonderful job of presenting our community to the world.

Posted by: editor on July 3 2007 3:04 PM

-We might be reminded to watch the language.
-2nd point, lets also remember the pathologist said leaving the body for so long meant decomposition had started, and the alcohol report that indicated Ian had much more to drink, may not be accurate.
-final point, I think Stapleton meant that while Bush had 3 or 4 beers, when approached by police he was not drinking at that time, he was only holding a beer bottle for a buddy.
Hope that clears up the questions

Elaine Macdonald

Posted by: Belvedere on July 3 2007 4:26 PM

Why are you attributing an incident to Prince George that happened in Houston, Realist?

Posted by: owl on July 3 2007 5:38 PM

"Why are you attributing an incident to Prince George that happened in Houston, Realist?"

Because geography is a small detail. It is in the north. How many people in the lower mainland even know that there is a place called Houston in BC?

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 3 2007 6:57 PM

The results are in from my analysis of Koester's statement. There is way too much detail where there need be none, and there is next to no details where there should be some. It amazes me how much he can remember about trivial details long after the incident, but cannot recall the simplest of details where it really counts.

I think way too much attention is being paid to things that don't matter. If Ian Bush was drinking heavily, he would have been even less of a threat. The drunker they are, the less co-ordinated they are.
He was obviously not drunk, however many damn beers he had or didn't have.

This whole deal just gets stinkier by the second. How many people are now involved in this cover up ?

Why don't you just tell the truth and deal with it ?

Posted by: owl on July 3 2007 7:53 PM

No matter what happened, the event would be stressful for Koester. In fact, it could be so stressful that he could easily be suffering from PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

That would explain his loss of memory of details around the immediate incident. It is one of three conditions which would have to be experienced by Koester for him to be diagnosed with PTSD.

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx32.htm

The individual also has persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as indicated by 3 or more of the following: (only one shown)
� Inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma

Posted by: REALIST on July 3 2007 7:56 PM

Thanks for responding for me Owl. Those are my sentiments exactly. To those in the lower mainland we are past Hope...

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on July 3 2007 10:07 PM

The more people drink the less of a threat they become? R-man It is quite obvious that you have never dealt with a violent intoxicated person. Also you have no clue as to how to properly analyze a statment. Your "Google" searches of these subjects are letting you down in a big way.

Posted by: skabowl1 on July 3 2007 10:11 PM

Of course you are Realist.....way..wayyyyyyyyy .........wayyyyyyyyyyy beyond hope
but on the other hand.......those of us down here only had hope when we used to life there......then we lost our minds and........... lol

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 3 2007 10:23 PM

You've got me confused with Owl.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 3 2007 10:35 PM

I was raised by violent, intoxicated people.

Posted by: owl on July 3 2007 11:18 PM

Trolls are easily confused .... especially if they are drinking too much of that Mountain Dew

;-)

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 3 2007 11:57 PM

i'd say owl...i'm the one that googles everything!!!! Geez.... AAAAHHHHH get me off this darn computer!!!! My nerves are so frazzled for this poor family i'm stuck to my computer chair like glue.....tomorrow if I make one posting on here somebody please kick my shiny little apple..lol. A park day tomorrow with kids it is :) Night all.

Posted by: owl on July 4 2007 12:06 AM

28 Celsius .... too hot to take the kids out. Family services will be after you for cruelty to children....

;-)

Posted by: owl on July 4 2007 12:12 AM

If it was me it was aimed at, I typically google here to back up a point of view or factual information which I already have.

I am quite familiar with PTSD since one of my clients had it and could not remember much dealing with the actual events of the accident he was in. He remembers everything quite clearly from about 10 minutes or so after the accident.

I posted the link to PTSD symptoms in case someone did not believe me. I knew exactly what I was looking for. I was not phishing to see if I could find anything I could use.

Posted by: owl on July 4 2007 1:15 AM

The reason for this google is to find out what has been written about Slemko's version and sharing it with those who may not have read it.

"His analysis showed the blood spattered on the wall at the base of the couch, which indicates Bush was actually underneath Koester. "

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

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on July 4 2007 7:32 AM

General Patton knew how to deal with PTSD. He called them all cowards, screamed at them and demanded they be given a rifle and sent back to the front lines.

Some people can not handle the truth, from both sides.

Clearly Ian was shot by a cop and Ian was having too much fun with the wrong cop.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 4 2007 9:10 AM

...and here is another issue that only makes this all even more bizarre.
How do you actually confuse an in-grown hair with blunt force trauma to the groin area??
Hello?
And how does this get missed during an autopsy??(oh ya,he forgot about it)
So what else got missed or forgotten?
Does that not bring the entire autopsy into question?
Because it sure as hell should!
And I agree with thereasonableman,there are far too many areas that someone appears to be avoiding!
This entire case IS getting stinkier by the minute!
This should have been a full blown public inquirey.
IMO,I am now thinking that this whole case was completely screwed up by the RCMP and there were so many mistakes made that they couldn't back up.
To do so would have been disasterous for all concerned.
The only choice was to continue to confuse as much as possible and hope for the best.
Nothing more than a simple case of a young, inexperienced officer who panicked and things went very wrong.
It should have stayed that way instead of developing into the monster it has become.

Posted by: REALIST on July 4 2007 10:15 AM

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.. How in the world can anyone claim self defence when Bush was face down in the couch when he was shot. nice try but this is the definitive point for me.

Posted by: owl on July 4 2007 10:24 AM

Seems Patton came from the olde school of military training as did Attilla.

History has not been kind to either.

;-)

Posted by: owl on July 4 2007 10:29 AM

"there were so many mistakes made"

Has anyone been following the pepper spray incident in Sechelt? The RCMP is not doing very well these days at all.

As they say, the quality of recruits is going down, as is the level of on the job training it appears.

The mayor can ride in the back of an open pickup or ride on top of the back deck of a convrtible without seat belts during the Canada Day parade, but the Sechelt natives cannot do the same in a soccer victory parade without the RCMP getting trigger happy.

Posted by: owl on July 4 2007 10:34 AM

Sorry for the google search for one of the stories on it, for those who are not familiar with it.

Force of habit to provide back-up information. I know, it is a terrible habit. I have an appointment with a counsellor to see if it can be controlled.

;-)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/07/03/pepper-spray-parents.html

Posted by: owl on July 4 2007 11:02 AM

Here is a globe and mail report of the same incident.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070704.wbcpepper04/BNStory/National/home

Interestingly, they have some more information which was not in the CBC report.

�The melee erupted after Constable Glen Martin tried to stop a pickup truck that went through a stop sign with a number of youths standing in the back.� So the truck also went through a stop sign. Given the scene was one of a continuous parade of cars, such as at a funeral procession, that is not at all unreasonable on such an occasion. In fact, there may have been people directing traffic if that was a high traffic area. We simply do not know those kind of details.

�The truck, driven by soccer coach Troy Mayers, was at the head of a vehicle procession to celebrate victories by local soccer teams in a native youth tournament on the Lower Mainland. Such processions have been held regularly on the Sechelt reserve for more than 20 years without incident.�

So, it was a procession .. and had been going on for twenty years as the way to celebrate performance in a sports tournament. If the RCMP had thought that it was a safety concern, they had 20 years to talk with the band to change the practice.

�At the public meeting, Staff Sgt. Zalys said Constable Martin was relatively new to the force and unfamiliar with the band's tradition of soccer processions.�
So, as I said above, good recruits are hard to find. We have a newbie once again. And we have a newbie who was not properly instructed on local tradition and how to deal with them.

Not only that, but when it gets a bit nasty, the newbie gets scared and reacts in uncontrolled ways rather than with a cool head.

Signs that there will be more trouble ahead if this is the level of police force we are starting to get out there.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on July 4 2007 11:37 AM

the newbie has probably never been confronted by an enraged mob who are used to getting in everyones face without any consequence. He was just trying to do his job. Have any of you been confronted by a mob? I saw the video. Why didn't the coach act like a true leader and try to diffuse the situation with the members instead of being the instigator and mobbing the police. The lesson the newbie has just learned is, "Nobody wants to see the police around, until they are called for then they have to be there immediately to pick up the pieces".

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 4 2007 11:42 AM

I believe your explanation of the situation is probably accurate owl!
I think that's exactly what happened, and there does seem to be an increase in mistakes made by younger,inexperienced cops as a couple of nasty incidents here in the north have shown previously.
Part of being a good cop is knowing who to bless and who to blame and when to stretch the law a bit.
Most older and wiser cops instinctively know this from experience.
And that is what newbies are lacking.

Posted by: owl on July 4 2007 2:17 PM

Let�s take a simple example:

It is against the law to take dogs into Fort George Park.

It is also against the law to have specific breeds such as pitbulls in the public without a muzzle.

I saw both at Fort George Park on Canada Day. Not just one or two, but many dogs, some of whom fell into the dangerous dog group. The reason the laws exist is public health and safety.

This would have been a day when auxiliaries and bylaw enforcement could have made a point and issued tons of tickets. Tons of tickets could also have been issued for people parking in no parking areas, for people taking vehicles into the park, etc.

Some in charge would have operated in that way. Zero tolerance I believe it is called.

Others say to themselves it is only one day a year, and if we were to enforce it, how would it look the next day in the paper with the strong arm of the law coming down on minor cases in a celebrating crowd that was the biggest I have ever seen there.

The difference, as you say, is experience. Risk assessment. Being part of the community, not the outside controller of the community through officious methods but working on the inside to make changes.

It seems to me that is where the whole mess in Houston started. It never should have gone to the point where he was even brought to the station. The beginning is not too different from the beginning of the Sechelt incident.

Had we not had some wiser people in Fort George Park, we could have ended up there as well simply over not obeying a city bylaw.

So, a job well done at Fort George Park. Nothing happened!!!! other than people enjoying themselves.

The people who are there just in case do not get enough pats on the shoulder when they do the job right. Why? because we don't notice it. That is the way it should be.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on July 4 2007 2:50 PM

Right, plus the police here are very well aware of how a group of PG'ers can turn into a mob at the drop of a hat. No point in getting pelted with beer bottles over a leash law.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 4 2007 6:45 PM

Get back on track, you two. PG is a nice city and tame in comparison to some of the places I've been. PG is a good example of a city that is still a community.

Back to the story....

I have to agree with troll on this one and call bullsh!t on the idea of this being a bad cop story.

The newbie was doing his job, however misinformed he might have been.

The coach: should not have continued driving, and refusing to stop for police with a truckload of kids riding in the back.

The coach: should have stopped immediately and calmly and politely explained what was happening, and why. That's a matter of common respect and decency.

The coach: should have diffused the situation and got everything back on track.

The ladies: should not have brought infant children into a confrontational situation. (i.e. If you are holding a baby, that baby's care is your primary and only concern, maybe you're not the right person to intervene)

Lastly, troll is right about mobs.

I've been the solitary guy on the receiving end of an angry mob, without a word being spoken. They are angry and aggressive before you even get a chance to speak. The mob has a mind of it's own, people don't think, they just react. It is a very difficult and stressful situation to deal with, and your well being really may be in danger. You don't know, and the mob doesn't know. All it takes is one person to advance and everybody else follows. It is extremely dangerous for everybody, because common sense goes down the toilet.

The coach acted inappropriately, took a confrontational position with the member, and everybody followed his lead.

In a nutshell, the coach demonstrated disrespect for the police and everybody followed his example.

I believe the officer defended himself in the appropriate manner, however distasteful the outcome may have been for all involved.

This could have easily been avoided, and the cop was not the antagonist in this situation.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 4 2007 6:46 PM

I'm talking about the Sechelt incident, not Bush.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 4 2007 6:49 PM

Now REALLY back to the story.

I can't blame the pathologist for his sloppy work. It must be very unnerving having two uniformed, armed members present during the entire procedure, knowing full well that a cop is on the hot plate over the incident.

They even went so far as to "coach" him the whole while...why didn't they just put a gun to his head and dictate what to put in the autopsy report ?