The Truth Will Most Always Come Out

Monday, January 21, 2008 03:45 AM

During the inquests into the death of Kevin St. Arnaud and Ian Bush it became apparent that if there was any chance that justice would be served in the deaths of these two youths it would be in the case of St Arnaud.

In the case of the Vanderhoof man, there was plenty of outside evidence that Sheremetta had shot Arnaud as he walked towards him, not as he lay on the ground. Part of that evidence was that of his partner in the RCMP who was not prepared to compromise her integrity. She has I am sure suffered as a result of being ,to the best of her ability, truthful of what she saw.

There then was another witness who said the shooting did not go down the way Sheremetta had described it. That coupled with some very serious questions in his testimony left one wondering, where justice may be found?

It very often takes some time to get there, but the wheels on the system now are moving ever so slowly.

Now what about Linda Bush and her unending quest to see justice brought forward in the death of her son? She will not be surprised to hear this. I don’t personally believe that it ever will be possible to get a clear understanding in her son’s death.

You had one police officer and one other person who was shot dead, the opportunity to seek another opinion is just not there.

Combined with that, was the time that it took senior police officers to take a statement from Const. Paul Koestor. We can’t suggest that there would have been plenty of time to craft a bullet proof story; it is suffice to say that there was plenty of time to get only your side of the picture out, to a willing audience.

The police investigated Sheremetta, and gave him a clean slate. I recall being told by one of those investigating officers, that I really didn’t anything about police work. To him I must say today, I do know that the truth most always will come out.

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

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, January 21, 2008 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: heidi1555 on January 21 2008 7:50 AM

Yes the truth always comes out in the end...whatever the end is.

I read yesterday that officers across Canada are being looked at for perjury. In the Ian Bush case was it said on the stand two separate ideas about the video machine or was that just in articles written by different newsrooms.

One report: Tape was in but machine was off.
Another report: No tape was in and machine was on.

Which was it and were both versions spoke about under oath?

Posted by: Andyfreeze on January 21 2008 8:53 AM

Keep digging and keep it in the news,even when it seems there doesn't seem to be any new news or new information.
Allowing it to fade away is exactly what "they" would like us to do.
Ben is right...the truth WILL come out!
As far as the unanswered questions are concerned,I think they are unanswered because somebody wants them to stay that way.
Not because there actually are no answers,and until the RCMP deals with that,they will be forever tainted and unable to rebuild the trust they have so badly abused.

Posted by: Harbinger on January 21 2008 11:33 AM

When ever I see a group of Mounties at Timmie's when I'm there, something just isn't the same anymore. I look at them in a different light. As per the world in general and in every respect, a few wreck it for all.

Posted by: Sean on January 21 2008 6:26 PM

Anyone who thinks the media doesn't distort the facts is an idiot. They call for civilian oversight of the RCMP. Who oversees the media and what makes them accountable, the CRTC? That's laughable. Who holds Meinser accountable for his version of events in the Ian Bush death? The media, in general, has no credibility.

Posted by: Sean on January 21 2008 7:42 PM

Ben

I don't think you are objective enough to see the irony in your world view. On the one hand, you call for the truth and, on the other, you speculate on your version of events in regards to the in custody death of Ian Bush.

Don't forget the dangers of speculation. Specifically, your thoughts go off in all sorts of directions and you, therefore, lose your objectivity.

Bravo!

Posted by: heidi1555 on January 21 2008 11:56 PM

"The officer said he was knocked face down on a couch in the room and was choked by Mr. Bush who was on top of his right side.

According to Const. Koester, he managed to pull out his gun with his right hand, hit Mr. Bush on his head and then shoot the young man after he said "take your last breaths."

An autopsy revealed that Mr. Bush was shot in the left side of the back his head and the bullet travelled in a left to right path."

Koester may just be another officer who puts his own career to an end with his own testimony.

It is physically impossible for a right handed person to raise their right arm high enough over their own head, while being choked on your stomach pressed down into a couch, never mind even higher over someone elses head which is over your own head when the person on top of you is over your body to the right. That totally immobilizes the arm of the person underneath. The person underneath would need their shoulder free in order to try to move in this way.
Ian was over Koesters shoulder as said in Koester's own statement so there is no way he would be able to raise his arm in the manner he said he did. The weight of Ian's body on top of Koester's shoulder would limit his arm from moving. He may be able to raise his own arm straight out to his side but would never be able to raise it any higher because his shoulder was restricted.

Obviously 3 months wasn't long enough to come up with a smart story. Remind me to never go to his lawyer for legal advice.

Posted by: tinyapplecork on January 22 2008 1:43 AM

Uh.....Sean, with all due respect to your opinion, Ben's comments are based on fact. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. No need to get personal with Ben. However, I understand that some media will only report certain things because it's sexy, flashy, or whatever. This particular site, and in Ben's defense, his articles, try to report the WHOLE story. So we would be quite interested in reading any supporting evidence to back up your claims in your posted comments.
Thanks a bunch.
~tinyapplecork :)

Posted by: Sean on January 22 2008 4:55 PM

Ben's version of events are based on fact? How so? He has no supporting evidence whatsoever. It is all based on speculation and personal opinion. It is gutter journalism. Yes, there was some balanced writing, but only by a few.

There were seven reviews into this matter and all arrived at the same conclusion. There will always be armchair critics who, without supporting evidence, will continue
suggest otherwise because they originally were so far removed from the facts and the truth that they would find it hard to admit they were so mistaken.

People complain that the police cross lines, but they arrive at these conclusions from sensationalistic and irresponsible journalists. One day the media will cross the line too many times and will then be subject to oversight and they will only have themselves to blame but, knowing them and how self serving and hypocritical they are, they'll call it censorship.

Posted by: Sean on January 22 2008 7:24 PM

Ben Meisner, "Ian is being released. He is not a happy camper, he is being criminally charged and as he leaves the interview room, Koester maybe gives him a push and says , see you in court. Bush pushes back, Koester kicks Bush in the testicles. Bush goes down and when he stands up he is mad, someone has just kicked him in the crotch. By the way little attention was paid to that bruise on Bush�s body"

It is the responsibility of the media to present objective points of view, not fuel this narrow-minded thinking which, I might add, is exactly how Ben Meisner thinks. Journalists don't report the news. Rather, they create it and that is a dangerous and unethical practice.

Posted by: heidi1555 on January 22 2008 9:42 PM

Ok Sean but how do you explain what Koester had said himself (no media) about Ian being over top of him to the right, he reached with his right hand for gun. How do you explain his arm movement? Try it at home with someone choking you leaning more to your right side and see if you can get your right arm up high enough to angle gun the way it happened in this case. I don't care who you are and how many times you try to get it to work...it won't. Arms were not designed that way. I could see if he was one human trying to convince a room full of fish or snakes (no arms) but life isn't that wonderful.