Clear Full Forecast

Jury Begins Deliberations in Ian Bush Death

By 250 News

Friday, July 06, 2007 09:50 AM

The Coroner’s jury looking into the death of Houston resident Ian Bush has begun its deliberations.
The five person jury will determine how Ian Bush died in the Houston RCMP office on October 29th-2005, but cannot flay blame with anyone in the matter.
The jury can make recommendations with regard to steps that can be taken to prevent such tragic events from  recurring.
The inquest had moved from the community hall last night to the Gymnasium of the high school.
That is the same school Ian Bush had attended.
    
Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Let's see...

How did Ian Bush die? He was shot in the head.

What happened in the interrogation room that resulted in a struggle between Bush and Koester? The surveillance equipment should have been turned on and we would know the answer to that question.

How could this have been prevented? If Koester had taken a chill pill and not overreacted to being lied to about Bush's name.

The sad truth about this whole matter, is that if Bush had not lied to Koester twice, he likely would never had been taken into custody and would still be alive. Everyone should remember that fact when dealing with the police. Although talking back to an officer should not be such a big deal, the truth is that there are some cops that will not accept disrespect even if they do not show respect to others. It may be hard to do if one is not entirely sober, but until cops are made more accountable for their actions, do not do ANYTHING to antagonize an officer.
"It may be hard to do if one is not entirely sober, but until cops are made more accountable for their actions, do not do ANYTHING to antagonize an officer".

What does that mean? Cops are always called on the carpet for their actions. How about not antagonizing them period...If you are going to drink and act like a buffoon in public then you will attract their attention..Simple common sense stuff.
The Jury is required by law to produce a narrative of events leading to death, and to describe both proximate and ultimate causation factors. How the hell can they do that when police conceal evidence? The Justice Institute offers instruction in investigations involving re-creation of a crime scene. Without a Koester re-enactment of the fatal shooting, justice is obstructed. However, the Jury can go with what they know.

Coroners are barely educated cop-doormats. This Jury can report acceptance of blood spatter evidence, implicating Koester in Murder. However, this coroner has already informed that he will NOT report findings of fact outside of the narrow scope that he has set. Said scope is cop-centrist.

To cops, "accountability" means: producing reports that exhonerate fellow cops. Deceit is sytemic in policing. What exactly is the difference between falsification issuing from Hitler's Gestapo or Stalin's Chekists, and the serial fiction purveyance that is vomited by our paid protective surrogates? Cops are pathological liars; Verity is the exception, and Perjury is the rule.
Truth, how come you didn't provide any answers to my posts on the other stories? We would like to hear about your successful lawsuits. What evidence was concealed? How do you know? Why don't you answer any questions?
Maybe his mummy told him not to talk.