Clear Full Forecast

Slemko , The Most to Lose In Bush Inquest: One Man's Opinion

By Ben Meisner

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 03:46 AM

               

When the inquest into the death of Ian Bush at the hands of Constable Paul Koester at the Houston BC police station , ended last week , the one single person that you had to single out was Joe Slemko, who, after being invited to testify at the inquest showed up on his own dime to tell his version of events.

There will be retribution for Slemko; the system doesn’t permit people who are policemen to step outside of the nine dots to tell their version of events. Slemko made that clear when he said he had been the brunt of letters sent by the RCMP in Edmonton trying to block him from testifying at trials, for the defense. For the "Defense" I say because I would raise the question of whether things would have been different had Joe been at the inquest telling the jury that indeed Paul Koester was underneath Bush when he somehow was able to make a spider man move, get his gun out in spite of being nearly unconscious and then fire a bullet into the back of the head of Bush.

No way said Slemko; I am here to tell the truth, according to the blood spatters it did not happen this way.

Slemko is indeed just a Constable, likely due in large measurement to the fact that his passion in life is to do blood spatter analysis. It is his passion and the people in charge of the Edmonton police should be very happy to draw on the knowledge of a guy who eats, sleeps and dreams about blood spatters.

I sent off a mail to tell him recently that I admired him for standing up for what he believes in. I am not suggesting that his testimony is law, the simple fact that he appeared to testify should indicate something. He took a lot of heat from Koester’s lawyer, who tried repeatedly to discredit him. The people in attendance thought otherwise, they listened to Joe and the fact that they did will resonate long after this thing is over.

He wrote back;

Even though my involvement in the Bush case was very stressful and emotional for me; I would do it again in a heartbeat. I will continue to be available for these types of cases in the future, regardless of the consequences. It is my belief that accountability makes us all better in the job that we do as police officers.

He impressed me with that comment ,  he also reinforced  the believe that I have that there are many good police officers out there who believe in what they are doing, they are clean , squeaky clean , and they are the ones who get  tarred by the same brush when events such as the Bush death unfold.

To many RCMP officers participated in the white wash of the events of Bush’s death either by sloppy innvestigating, or by evidence which was suspect at best.  The result was a recommendation that Koester’s story is the one the public should believe.

Slemko can hold his head high  along with all of the other, good, officers; . we need more of them in Canada.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

I agree completely.
Good post Ben!
Like many people,I have followed this case from start to finish and try as I might,I cannot consider it done until many questions are answered.
I really don't see how anyone can just let it go.
As I re-read printed material and testimony that I kept,even more qestions arise.
Slemko did what was right, and I doubt that he could have slept at night if he hadn't.
He is the one shining light in an otherwise very dark day for policing in Canada and should be commended for his integrity.
Had the jury not been so restricted in what they could actually rule,I believe it would have been a different outcome.
It was one of the sloppiest and most biased exercises in police work I have seen in many years.
From start to finish,this case just plain stinks and we can only hope that somebody in a position of power has the decency to to cry foul!
Not to do so will be devastating for the RCMP and all canadians who would like to believe in our justice system, as we all should.
We can only hope that there are others, like Slemko, who will push for a public inquiry based on the unfinished business of that coroners inquest.
But I won't be holding my breath!
It was a very admiral thing that Joe Slemko did, the fact that he will most likely get reprimanded for doing the right thing is very disturbing to me. We need more Joe Slemko's in police forces across Canada.
I'm so afraid for this man that certain members might batter him mentally for years to come. I feel stress for him because he has such a beautiful soul and would hate to see it crushed. He can at least walk with his head up high and be proud of who he is. A true man. Is he married? lol (just kidding inlaws)
Right on, Ben.
Although Slemko provided expert testimony, he admittingly made the mistake of failing to recognize or analyse the blood belonging to Koester that was on the sleeve of Bush's long sleeve shirt. Could this have been the sleeve containing bush's arm that was chocking out Koester? Certainly. I'm not condemming the guy, but he did overlook a possibly important thing.

So, was slemko bought and paid for by the bush family as reported in several news sites, or did he really do his testimony gratis? It is his side business, you know.
RCMP members are not allowed to have any kind of side business that may show a conflict of interest with their police duties. Personally, I like the idea that slemko is a bit of a rebel against EPD's managerial attempts to muzzle him on his off duty time. He did his 7 year rotational stint in the EPD CSI section if you wanna call it that and was returned to general duties. Thing is, he enjoyed his work in that field so much, he pursued it and has excelled in it. But a person can still make a mistake either willingly or by innocently ommitting to examine all the forensic evidence.
OH and H? don't worry about him. He's a cop after all and can tough anything out. enough with your feeling stressed for him and all that drivel.
okay lmorg you're right....I'll stress about you instead ;) What Mr. Slemko did recognize is totally proof enough IMO. The blood unlike lips doesn't lie. I seem to really pee you off lmorg and I don't think its fair that I don't know who it is that keeps bashing me. Pierre is that you?
Excellent editorial Ben. I also could not agree more. We need more Slemkos and Meisners in this world and a lot fewer lawyers and a lot less political rhetoric from you know who!
Yes H, blood splatter does tell a tale which can be interpreted in more than one way as shown in the inquest. But the blood on the shirt that was omitted by Cst. Slemko may have had a story to tell also about the dynamics of the altercation.
The "proof enough" I was talking about was how Ian's body lay on the couch in a natural position undisturbed. No smearing of his blood which would've been present if someone was underneath of him and had to get out from that position. I'm wondering if the blood on the shirt was also from the ambulance attendant? There was blood on the back of Ian's jeans which they stated could've been from the ambulance attendant. Slowly the pieces of this 3-D puzzle will come into place. Would be nice to know if Slemko could go over all the pics. and get back to us on that one. And lmorg i'm trying my best to understand this crazy world i've come to know.
Administrators:

The official story in this issue is that Ian Bush attempted to murder Paul Koester; you don't serve exercise of freedom of conscience by censoring those of us who disbelieve both that spin and Hitler's yarn about the burning of the Reichstag.

heidi555:

It isn't over. A complaint of Murder against Koester, based on evidence other than what the jury bought, can be registered at police service with jurisdiction in the case. The RCMP won't serve, and that allows the complainant to work with Crown Counsel in swearing out a private information, Criminal Code (507.1). A process will rise if the complainant produces foundation - not conclusive proof - of the offence. The AG - a former judge, and co-racial with Basi-Virk - will have to be pressured to allow an independent investigation of the fatal shooting. His department has only seen RCMP whitewash materials, that were sat on for a year. Again, local RCMP spun cop self-defence, from the get go.

Local Alberta cops like Slemko, have a high degree of professionalism, unlike the RCMP-crime-family. Check out this judgment on a brutal cop who bragged about excessive force:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2000/2000abpc196/2000abpc196.html

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2000/2000abpc198/2000abpc198.html

Nothing can change the fact that Koester made a false arrest of Ian Bush. I have my own copy of Carswell's "Police Officer's Manual," which is the Bible to cops. Cops have access to both that book and Crown Counsel, 24-7. Koester knew that Obstruction would not rise, unless Bush refused to present proof of identification. He did not.
The fact that he goofed whose own testimony reveals over-emotionality, is not sufficient because the mere fact that he had ID in his wallet (found on the floor of the interview room), rebuts probable cause in that there was no present ability to defeat justice. Koester destroyed his notes - a termination offence - because he knew that there was no evidence that he did anything to prepare the requisite Report to Crown Counsel, founding an "Obstruction" charge. He had an ulterior motive in making the arrest. I point to pathological Cop-Rage. Founding a motive in an attempt to defeat justice, is ludicrous. Cop apologists need to posit a credible framework as to why he would want to do that. In the 20th Century, governments murdered over 100 million innocent civilians. Cop-Rage motivated most of the slaughter. Hitler's Gestapo were Officers of the Court, just like BC peace officers.

From the "Manual":
"KNOWINGLY, The general principle of criminal law is that accompanying a prohibited act there must be an intent in respect of every element of the act and not that is inordinately conveyed in statutory offences by the word, "knowingly." (See R v Ross, (1956) SCR 640)

"Motive, 1. That which precedes
and induces the exercise of the will. In the criminal law sense it means 'ulterior intention' (R v lewis (1979) 2 SCR 821)"
Ian Bush was in the Police car when he supposedly gave Koester two false names. Did anyone other than the Police actually hear Bush give the false names. Quite frankly I doubt that Ian Bush did gave Koester a false name and he did have ID on his person. Koester just wanted to pacify the crowd so he could get Ian Bush alone in the detachment. It is obvious that Ian Bush was targeted by Koester from the get go. Why else would he have put Ian Bush into the Police car for having an open beer in public when there were many others doing the same? And why was Ian Bush targeted? And why did Koester want to kill Ian? Retribution for Slemko why the retribution for Ian?
One other thing, remember the long stem beer bottle with Ian's thumb print on which nobody know how it got to where it was. A broken beer bottle is a lethal weapon and a good reason for a policeman to shoot and kill you. Either Ian didn't take the bait or Koester wants you to know he can get away with murder. I'm guessing the latter.
Now we know what natives have known for a long time. Don't mess with the mounties because they can hurt you real bad.
Hey truth:

"Local Alberta cops like Slemko, have a high degree of professionalism, unlike the RCMP-crime-family. Check out this judgment on a brutal cop who bragged about excessive force:" - Your quote

Quite a false statement of yours...your two links show that the brutality came from members of the calgary police service. Local alberta cops.

I don't read most of your propoganda but in this case I checked it out and you are "gonged". Make sure your powder is dry before you fire off a volley.


Truth has no clue as to what he is talking about.He doesn't have both oars in the water. Anyhow, what I am most curious about is why nobody has mentioned anything about Sgt.Hignell and his evidence regarding the blood spatter. I'm sure Hignell's training is on par with Slemkos and that is his fulltime job, not a sideline or hobby if you will.Slemko admitted that he thought of Hignell's findings as "reasonable". Hignell provides expert evidence in many criminal cases in Canada so why is he not believeable? And for Ann to say that Koester intended to kill Bush is typical of the ignorance regularly posted here.
As a troll, disinformation is your job. Well done. The best way to deal with a troll is to ignore what he has to say.
Ian Bush gave a false name as a goof. Rather than demand ID, Koester asked the lead officer if he could arrest for Obstruction. The incident was a classic situation where the ersatz offence of contempt-of-cop was enforced. Bush was not brought into the detachment so that a Report to Crown Counsel could be produced; Koester testified that he had forgot to bring his Provincial Offences ticket book on duty. Only the morally bankrupt could attribute a motive of Attempted Murder, to a man who faced only a small fine.

Cops do very little law enforcement or crime prevention. Canada wide, the work product is less than 1 conviction per month. As for incarcerations, cops cause about 1 person each per year to go to prison. So what do they actually do for the billions we shell out? Vent anger at targets.

Administrators:

Ian Bush is smeared as a perpetrator of ATTEMPTED MURDER. Do your part to ensure that the facts of the fatal shooting are produced through something other than a self-interested cop filter.
Imorg:

Cut the crap. Alberta police heard admissions of excessive force and brought the cop who did it to justice. That is professionalism. Clearly you watch too much crap-tv.
Truth: yeah, the cops were calgary police service, not rcmp members as you portrayed in your blog of July 12, 3:22 am.

If you wish to see a website about rcmp members who get into trouble check out the rcmp external review commitee website. You will see a myriad of things that are dealt with by a professional police force. Not that any others are not professional either.
Credibility , please qualify yourself in your comments.What is the extent of your experience with Police interactions.
Have you been wronged or have they helped you?
Are they your neighbor or inlaw.
Failing to qualify yourself leaves questions open and paints you as a conspiricy theororist and an anonymous bitcher and complainer.
Where are your comments coming from?
"Testimony today before Coroner Shane DeMeyer indicated there had been a violent struggle leading up to Bush being shot in the back of the head.
Sergeant Jim Hignell, a blood specialist, painted a picture to the jury of his interpretation of the crime scene. He said he believed that Bush was on top of Koester on a couch in the room. Bush had Koester in a choke hold. Koester was able to draw his service revolver and beat Bush with the barrel end while on the bottom of the pile, and then, fearing for his life, pulled the trigger.
No evidence has been introduced showing any bruise marks to Koester�s throat area.
Howard Rubin produced for the court a pair of life like statues and asked Sergeant Hignell to reproduce the struggle to the jury. Hignell explained that he would have difficulty in getting himself into a position to fire the gun into the back of Bush�s head.
Under further cross examination Sergeant Jim Hignell testified that he spoke to RCMP Counsel last night. What was said during that conversation is not known because of a client privilege."

lmorg here is why I believe Mr. Slemko. Hignell didnt give, according to this article, any scientific reasons for his findings. His answers are exactly what was already heard in one of many Koester statements. It's like Hignell memorized a script from the grade 10 drama class. Mr. Slemko with intellect could actually explain in great common sense detail why Koester's statement was not found to be true. IMO maybe Koester's 4th attempt to try to beat Ian in the head when standing behind Ian with gun failed because safety wasn't on??????
In fact, Const. Koester said that moments before the fatal shooting, the well-liked local man looked as if he was going to cry after being told he was being charged with having open liquor in a public place and with obstruction of justice.

"My impression was he was trying to talk his way out of it," Const. Koester said in a low voice. "I didn't interpret any threatening tone.... I would consider him co-operative up until that point except for the lying."

So how was Ian Bush provoked to get into a life and death struggle with Koester? Certainly not for the trumped up charges, Koester claims. It had to be far more serious than that. Ian was fighting for his life, but why?



Just like the cop that has to go through anger management courses for kicking a handcuffed suspect in the head. Anger problems. I'd love to hear his history on that subject if there is one.
Koester's history that is.
heidi555:

No evidence was allowed to be presented to a scientific certainty. Joe Slemko could only testify on his analysis of the meagre scraps that he was given. There was no Report to Crown Counsel, and the report to the AG on the incident hasn't been released. Hignell's analysis was based largely on hearsay from the nominal "investigating" cop, from the next RCMP jurisdiction. The day after the fatal shooting, the RCMP posted notice of the shooting, and produced an exculpatory self-defence spin. All government parties rolled with that.

Are judges pro-cop? See how Carol Baird-Ellan (then CJ of the Provincial Court allowed a North Vanc cop to retain full police powers - including use of a service revolver - AFTER he was charged with Common Assault. That animal broke the jaw of a handcuffed man. After the cop was convicted, Carol saw to it that he retained his service revolver and she later even reduced his conditional sentence - no jail time - so that he would not have to be away from his job as: Constable for Saanich Police Services.
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2005/00/p05_0040.htm

What if a cop sicked a police dog on a suspect and then, after the man was chewed up by the animal, kicked the man down an embankment, causing a serious boot-to-head injury? The cop was charged with Common Assault, and acquitted. Again, he retained FULL cop powers AFTER being charged. Even though the assault was committed on videotape, the judge found that the injurious booting was necessary to effect an arrest against a man who was writhing in agony on the ground.
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2005/01/p05_0188.htm

Common ground in these cases: the 2 judges were not only ex-prosecutors, they were both former Deputy Regional Crown Counsel. Three charged cops have had Assault charges sandbagged, after the Chris Williams atrocity. BC cops are treated like the Gestapo, under Nazi "justice." The system sucks.

IAN BUSH WAS NOT AN ATTEMPTED MURDERER; HE WAS AN INNOCENT MAN.
I forgot to tag the links. I assume that not everybody knows how to cut and paste.

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2005/00/p05_0040.htm

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2005/01/p05_0188.htm

I e-mailed Andrea P. The family isn't sure what they are going to do in face of rights butchery. However, pleading a private information against Koester is the best bet. And it is free. Then again, anyone in that jurisdiction is at liberty to swear same before a JP. And Crown Counsel has to take notice of same; in civilized Ontario and elsewhere, they are under statutory obligation to assist testators. In BC, you have the same rights as a Jew in Nazi Germany. I am starting a website in the Fall, aimed at exposing the unflushed sewage in human form, who run the justice system in BC.

IAN BUSH WAS NOT AN ATTEMPTED MURDERER; HE WAS AN INNOCENT MAN.

Ann:

Wow! I have attended Coroner's inquiries in the Lower Mainland, where cops were implicated in possible murder. Cops frame entry doors and eyeball anyone who comes in. I might try to pay Howard Rubin for a transcript of this Inquiry. I have been falsely arrested before; sadness is the last thing I felt.

I have stressed this before: Koester had an obligation to ask Ian for ID before making an arrest for Obstruction. Goofing with a cop is not a crime. Even a rookie cop would know that evidence of a "knowing" attempt to "defeat justice," was not before Koester. Let me cap-lock: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT KOESTER DID ANYTHING TOWARDS PRODUCTION OF A REPORT TO CROWN COUNSEL. And Ian would have known that the Provincial Offence would hold. I once received - and deserved - a $349 ticket for speeding. I paid the fine. Ian Bush faced a puny fine and no charges.

Nobody is going to Attempt to Murder a cop for handing out a ticket, especially where it is legal. As for cops, they fly into rages whenever someone questions their authority. Rage didn't flow from Ian Bush on the night that he was shot to death.

The arrest was tactical; over 30% of arrests made in BC result in a send-back to police, for "more information." False and cheap arrests are made to put targets into the system. Arrest data is placed in the Solicitor General's CORNET database. EVERY government agency has access to same. Tens of thousands of BC residents - most of whom, as myself, have NEVER even been charged with a crime - are prohibited for life from working in education, liquor facililties, casinos, airports, security, locksmith, or any other government or govt. regulated employement in BC. And CORNET enforcement is done in secret; Regulators do NOT disclose use of the database. I had to threaten to sue to get my file. And this Nazism began in February 2003, when Rich Coleman (RCMP retired) allowed it, not by Order in Council or legislation, but by Ministerial management. Coleman wins elections because the lower mainland media won't allow him to be subject to scrutiny.