Blood Spatter Expert Cleared to Testify

Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:40 AM

The Coroner’s inquest into the shooting death of Ian Bush today resumed with efforts to prevent evidence from a blood spatter expert.

Despite an effort by Constable Paul Koester’s lawyer, to have Constable Joe Slemko deemed not qualified to testify, Coroner Shane DeMeyer has ruled the evidence from Slemko as a blood spatter expert will be given to the jury.

Butcher, took 1 hour and 45 minutes in an attempt to discredit Slemko. He , repeatedly grilled Slemko on cases in England, Australia, Canada and Thailand in which Slemko had been involved, trying to discredit him as an expert witness.

At one point Butcher pointed to an error in Slemko’s report on the Bush case on an issue of blood analysis. The gallery gasped when Butcher described the mistake as “stupid”. Slemko responded with “Yes I made a mistake there, and I admit that I did it, it was an oversight in my report.” Slemko is not testifying on the blood analysis, only on the blood spatter patterns, which is his area of expertise.

Slemko also told the Coroner’s jury he had travelled to Houston from Edmonton on his own dime. “I don’t represent the police, I don’t represent the family, I seek the truth.”

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:40 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on July 5 2007 1:02 PM

WELL...so the so called Expert...Missed all the Evidence on the Arm..And Ben the family is paying for Travel of this so called Expert...So it is not on his dime.....BC TV...Just said Family paying For Travel and Room....Ben remember your Suppose to be a Impartial REPORTER

Posted by: Belvedere on July 5 2007 1:37 PM

I have noticed on a few occasions that the facts presented in some articles on this site were not all verified before the articles were posted. Also, several articles have suffered from spelling mistakes. A little more care by the editors would be a definite improvement.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on July 5 2007 1:59 PM

Some good picking and choosing of what to report here. Didn't hear anything about Cpl.Knight's evidence.It was reported everywhere else. Doesn't fit the mandate of this website I guess.

Posted by: ammonra on July 5 2007 2:34 PM

In this article no evidence is reported, so what's the problem?

What this article reports is the attempt by the lawyer representing Koester to avoid having this person give his opinion on the blood pattern. Obviously the lawyer is concerned that his opinion might have some bearing on the perception of truthfulness by the person paying the lawyer's fees. For let us not forget, that Koester's lawyer is paid to advocate on behalf of Koester and will do that no matter what his personal opinion about the truth is.

Paying or not paying someone's travel, fees, dinner, or even beer has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the reasonableness of their testimony. Using it to discredit an expert witness is just an underhanded way of distracting attention from the opinion the expert is giving.

Obviously, this particular expert is of great importance, or the lawyer would not have attacked him so intensely. Considering his testimony, reported elsewhere, about a pistol whipping being involved, I am not surprised.

To all the rednecks on this site who advocate, over and over again, the shoot first and ask questions later approach to crime resolution, are you happy?

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 5 2007 9:09 PM

There are two really important strategies involved in being a good defence lawyer.

1). Have as much evidence excluded from trial as possible (voir dires).

2). Mitigate the rest.

1). Try to have Slemko denied as an expert witness in the inquiry.

2). Try to discredit him if he does testify as an expert witness.
----------------------------
Then, I'm reading this bit in the story above...

"He repeatedly grilled Slemko on cases in England, Australia, Canada and Thailand in which Slemko had been involved, trying to discredit him as an expert witness."

And I think....can you really not recognize a guy as an expert witness when he has testified in cases all over the world ? Would you really want to mention that, or the fact that he has instructed courses for the RCMP and other police forces around the world ?

I think it would have been a more effective argument to say, "You're from Edmonton, what the hell would you know ?"

...jk
;-)

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 5 2007 9:13 PM

One other thing, when I read this..

"Also, several articles have suffered from spelling mistakes."

I thought you were talking about Don.

:-)

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on July 5 2007 9:46 PM

Ammonra, you missed my point. It appears that the media is picking and choosing what to report on. Why can't we have unbiased reporting of this inquest? Since this item appears to be the flagship story of this website I just wonder why only certain items appear to be chosen for our viewing pleasure?

Posted by: ammonra on July 5 2007 10:59 PM

That's a good point trollunder... Personally, I would have liked to actually be present to hear all of the evidence in detail so I could make up my mind. However, that is not possible.

In Ben's defence I think the point has to be made that up to now the RCMP have controlled the public relations in this case, and right from the start have targeted Bush as the proponenet of the problems leading to his death. Most of that evidence is quite old hat and has been stressed repeatedly in the news media leading up to the inquest.

Now, for the first time, we are hearing another side to the story, and I am quite appalled at what it shows may have happened.

You will note, though, that even now I do not openly condemn Koester and call for a judicial inquiry into the death instead. I am convinced that there is more material that needs to come out, the reconstruction of the fight, as an example. A coroner's inquest is not the place for that, but a full judicial inquiry most certainly would be. Especially is that the case if there was a coverup. The air needs to be cleared and the blunt truth established.

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 8 2007 11:05 AM

Well Troll maybe you should email the coroner and his friends and ask why he didnt let all the info come out at inquest so this site and the other media can report on more. They really limit what they want the public to hear. Why is that? The truth will get out 100% if they don't.