Clear Full Forecast

State of the Art Recording Device Now at Houston RCMP Detachment

By 250 News

Tuesday, July 03, 2007 05:19 PM

The Officer in charge of the  RCMP’s Houston  Detachment,  Sergeant White, says the police force has acquired a new recording device which will record up to 284 hours in the interview room where Ian Bush was shot dead by Constable Paul Koester in October of 2005.

“I think it’s a good idea to have the equipment turned on when an officer is alone in the detachment"  says Sergeant White.  She did however acknowledge that whether to turn the recording device on is still left at the discretion of the officer.

Constable Paul Koester said he did not turn on the recording equipment the night that Bush was shot in the interview room.

The Bush family’s lawyer, Howard Rubin, asked of the Sergeant, "Wouldn’t it have been better to have an accurate record of how Ian died?  That would have happened if the machine was on. With a flick of the switch we all would not be wondering what really happened on the night of October 29th, 2005."

Corporal Troy Durand, Second in Charge at the Houston Detachment  told the jury that he gave the , "heads up”, to Constable Paul Koester when he arrived at the detachment about 5 minutes after the shooting.  "I told him that I was not the investigating officer in the matter so he shouldn’t talk to me." 

Howard Rubin told Durand the lawyer representing Koester had already talked to him (Koester) around the time of Durand’s arrival. "I think he only talked to his lawyer about 2 minutes"  Durand said.

Durrand said Bush’s name had surfaced after an incident in which a car was pulled over near the 7-11 store in Houston and the operator of that vehicle, believed to be Bush, jumped out of the car and fled around the back of the building, other than that he said Bush had never shown up on the radar beyond a speeding ticket.

In a statement to the inquest ,Dr. R.I Crawford said he had examined the bruises on Bush’s thigh and concluded that they were definitely not as a result of an in grown hair.

While the testimony of Koester does not agree, Rubin says he believes that Bush’s bruise came about as a result of a kick to the testicles.

Bush’s young friends also appeared at the inquest to give testimony. All said that Bush did not drink extensively that night, because he was suffering from heart burn. He was, according to all of them, singled out from the crowd to be handed an illegal possession ticket. He had been holding a beer while two friends play fought during  the intermission at the hockey game.

James MacInnes told the jury that Ian was like a brother to him. The night in question he said , "Koester looked like a rookie cop who was just out to prove himself. Not one other person but Ian got a ticket for illegal possession."  He added "I have never seen the police hand out a ticket here in all the time I have lived in Houston for drinking in the parking lot between periods. When they come along they just ask you to pour it out and then go on their way. They had Ian singled out for some reason." 

MacInnes was asked by a jury member whether Bush was given a through search before being put in the police car. He said yes, "Koester gave him a very close search."

Earlier testimony was that a long neck bottle of beer had been found in the interview room near where Bush’s body was and no one can explain how it got there.

The story that was painted by Bush’s friends told how they all had grown up in Houston, many of them working at the same mill. They had gone to a friend’s apartment across the street from the arena after buying 6 dozen beers. Upwards of 14 people were in the apartment before they all left to attend the game. Several of them had to pour out their beer when the police came by, including Bush, who then was arrested and placed in the police car.

Friend Scott Stapleton was asked by Counsel for the RCMP, if he would lie about who he was to the police, he said, "Never , this is a small town, they all know me."

The friends were also asked would Bush fight ?  They all replied, yes, if he was provoked.

MacInnes testified "One time I kept at him and after three times he hit me on the arm. I seen him get into one fight, mostly he would step in if people where fighting, he didn’t take over or anything he just would step in."

The testimony is expected to wrap up tomorrow.

   
Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

When this first happened the RCMP siad that Bush was "known to police". I asked what that meant and someone told me it meant the person had been in trouble with the police for something distinct. Now we are told he was clean except for a speeding ticket (who isn't). He was "believed" to have run from a vehicle. Not "did", but was "believed". In other words he was NOT "known to the police" as it was defined to me on Opinion 250.

If Bush was searched thoroughly when arrested a beer bottle would have been found, I would suggest. If one was in the interview room then someone other than Bush put it there. Who had access to the room other than RCMP officers and other employees of the police?

The more I hear the testimony, the more I get uneasy.
Just uneasy ?
"I think it’s a good idea to have the equipment turned on when an officer is alone in the detachment" says Sergeant White."

Bingo! What a novel, interesting idea! But, flawed if a) someone can turn it off, b) if it is optional to have it on or off.

Are all RCMP interrogation rooms in Canada being equipped with the *new* recording device?

One would think that in the interest of self protection no RCMP officer would ever conduct an interrogation again when the recording device was OFF and NOT recording?

To me it should just be on a motion detector and as soon as someone walks into the room it starts recording. With the new systems that are on the market many many days can be recorded and then if not required purged from the system. I am sure the RCMP have heard of a company called CHUBB. They have many models that do just that.
The choice to have it on or not shouldn't be theirs. It protects their word and it protects the word of the one that was taken into custody. The truth is the answer to all these tricky formulas we've been presented with. It's just that some of the formulas are incorrect and must be corrected. The camera acts as the most honest voice. Can't argue with it, can't fight it and can't cover it up.
I am trying to be patient here and give all those involved the benefit of the doubt until the conclusion of the inquest but it is not easy.
The more I read,the more uncomfortable I am with what is taking place.
Something is very,very,wrong and I doubt we will ever know the whole truth.
There are too many unanswered questions and it does seem that certian areas of the case are being either ignored or are simply untouchable.
Why?
I just can't get past thinking that somebody isn't telling all they know.
Hopefully,these questions will be answered but in actual fact,I doubt it.
And regardless of the outcome,this cops career is over before it has even begun.
He became a lame duck and a liability the second he pulled that trigger and nothing will change that.



Hey!!! Lock that barn door!! Our only horse escaped!!! Mega-DUH !!!!
Heidi
just thought you might like to know the blood spatter expert is scheduled to testify on Thursday morning.
-Elaine Macdonald
Thanks so much Elaine :) I managed to get in touch with someone on facebook earlier about it.Then global confirmed it.... I really want to be there can you tell??lol At first I saw my name and thought uh oh what did I say??? lol...Thanks again very sweet and Good night :)
“I think it’s a good idea to have the equipment turned on when an officer is alone in the detachment" says Sergeant White. She did however acknowledge that whether to turn the recording device on is still left at the discretion of the officer.

Do people listen to what comes out of their mouth ? Do they realize how dirty that sounds ?

How about it's on all the time, like it or not. Jails are like that. Businesses are like that, many other surveillance systems are like that.

Why do they insist on being able to disable it ?
"Why do they insist on being able to disable it?" (recording device)

Maybe because their intentions are less than honorable? Why would they want to turn it off unless they have something to hide?