Mum Says Koester Doesn't Want To Talk Today

Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:44 PM

"His mum said that she didn’t want Constable Paul Koester talking to the police and giving them a statement" and so the police officer who made the phone call, Corporal Rich Murray, the lead investigator from the Major Crimes Unit in Prince George did not get a statement from Koester.

That call took place on November 7^th, more than a week after Ian Bush had been shot dead in the Houston detachment of the RCMP.

The Coroner’s inquest into that shooting death continues in Houston.

Lawyer Howard Rubin, representing the Bush family asked, "You don’t have to have a lawyer present to take a statement, now do you?" After much examination Murray said, “That’s correct”. Why then, Howard asked ,was Koester given more than a week, after repeated calls, refusing to give a statement on what took place?

Well, said Corporal Murray, you couldn’t ask him to give a statement when he could hardly put words together much less statements.

Again Howard asked, "What about the average person, say that I was representing? "

Corporal Murray testified every situation is different as to when you take a statement.

There were, according to testimony, numerous attempts to get a statement from Koester. The day after the shooting, at another police officer’s residence, investigators were told that Koester would only speak through his lawyer.

On November 3^rd Murray was told that Koester was not in the right state of mind and would not meet with the investigators that day.

On November the 4^th, Corporal Murray tried to arrange a meeting with Koester, again, he said he was refused.

The only statement given was one and a half pages long that took place through a series of phone calls.

The statements taken from Bush’s friends took place the day after Ian’s death. They were taken by RCMP Officers in Houston.

Howard Rubin told the jury, right from the beginning the police took the position that Koester was not guilty and they went about gathering evidence to support that.

Rubin asked of Murray, "Is it the belief of some police officers that their fellow officers are never guilty of any wrong doing?" Murray replied, "Yes I have heard that from other officers."

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:44 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 4 2007 6:13 PM

A farce, at best.

Posted by: REALIST on July 4 2007 6:29 PM

If it were me and I really did want to clear my name (or the reputation of the police force), I would demand and independent inquiry to prove my (our) innocence. Neither Bush nor the police are volunteering to do this. Next to shooting someone in the back of the head, this is the second most damning indication that they in fact do have something to hide. Sad state of affairs. Perhaps the R.C.M.P think they are James Bond and have a license to kill at will. Until independent inquiry's are the standard procedure and accountability is returned, I will never look up to a single R.C.M.P officer again, in fact it might even be a defense in court for refusing to stop for an officer because there is no accountability for their actions.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 4 2007 7:26 PM

... and our politicians should have called a for public,independant inquiry if they had the guts...but you notice they don't want anything to do with this?

Posted by: lmorg on July 4 2007 7:47 PM

well then realist, you'd better stop if the police pull you over. The reality of it is if you don't you'll be sorry you didn't

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on July 4 2007 9:34 PM

Realist that is some hilarious reasoning. "I didn't stop for the police because there is no accountability for their actions". I'd love to see that one in court. I'm sure some dummy in this town would use it.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 4 2007 9:40 PM

Or already has !

Ya, that's a big stretch.

However, the lady who had a bumper sticker that read, "Take my car, please !" was as shocked as I was, when the thief that stole her car, used the bumper sticker as a viable defence and was acquitted. I thought that one was a stretch, who'd have thought ?

Posted by: ChrisAnnB on July 4 2007 9:44 PM

"well then realist, you'd better stop if the police pull you over. The reality of it is if you don't you'll be sorry you didn't"

Then again, you might be sorrier if you did nowadays. Sounds like a case of 'da*ned if you do and da*ned if you don't'.

How do you know? Who do you trust any more? I love the good cops but how do we know who they are? And the bad ones scare the he** out of me ...

The good cops have to fight to get back their good name if they want to regain our trust in them. We used to respect and believe in them. Now, sadly, it seems, they let any nutso, whacko join the force so we don't know who to trust anymore.

Not sure what the procedures are to get into the force, but I firmly believe there should be thorough background checks and intense psychological testing and training to insure the safety and well being of the public.

And rookies should be in the company of a senior police officer for (at least) the first 3 years, until they earn their 'wings'. They shouldn't be left on their own to take care of things until 'qualified'.

Sorry for spouting off, but that's just my opinion ... one woman's opinion. ;)

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 4 2007 9:45 PM

If Koester was an accused person, he would have the right not to give a statement to, or answer questions from, the police.

He has never been accused of, or charged with anything.

Posted by: Truth on July 5 2007 12:37 AM

Few Canadians know anything about the work product of cops. Be aware, the average cop delivers 1 conviction per unit per month. As many as 19 out of every 20 substantiable crime complaints are intentionally unfounded. Police service is constrained by what cops refer to as: rate busting. Once they make quota, they omit law enforcement/crime prevention service. Conversely, a quota short cop will use report falsification to meet duty obligations, and will make false arrests. In BC, 30% of charge recommendations, after arrest, are referred back to lead officers, and shelved without re-work. Shelved cases are kept on file for 6 months, and they placed in cold files.

In Vancouver, cops admit a response time of 12 minutes to major crimes. However, that only tells us when they arrive on site. Before attending, they consult the CORNET data base to assess, address, suspect and complainant (!) history. "Officer safety" and not protective service, are paramount to cops. Since 1867, no sued cop has EVER admitted to having a duty of care to ANY of his wage payers. Cops don't serve and protect; they lull and evade.

Think of the taxes that you pay for policing as: subsidization of your own jeopardy. Cops are slugs; their work product is slime.

Posted by: jonnypg on July 5 2007 10:06 AM

Next time I get pulled over,should I cry for my mummy.... never know might work.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on July 5 2007 11:47 AM

Truth, where did you obtain you info? It is incorrect and does not have any factual basis. You have zero understanding of what the police do during their response to a call. It seems that you cut and pasted your information from various anti-police websites.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 5 2007 9:28 PM

I'm already crying....