An expert witness has slammed the findings of RCMP complains commissioner Paul Kennedy exonerating Constable Paul Koester in the shooting death of Ian Bush.
Blood stain expert, Edmonton Constable Joseph Slemko, says Kennedy got it wrong on the evidence and in the way he dismissed Slemko's conclusions. Kennedy said Slemko's evidence was undermined because he did not agree that there had been a significant struggle between Bush and Constable Koester that preceded the shooting. That's nonsense, says Slemko:
"I have never disputed that there was a physical altercation between Bush and Koester," said Const. Slemko yesterday. "My opinons were directed at the point in time when the blood-letting injury was generated. That is what bloodstain pattern analysis is based upon - blood evidence."
It sounds as though Commissioner Kennedy was grasping at straws, any straw, to get out from under Slemko's expert evidence. It was essential for him to discredit Slemko's evidence in order to uphold Koester's account of how he came to shoot Bush in the back of the head.
Just what did this internationally-recognized blood expert find? He concluded that Koester was probably either at the side of Bush or behind the young man when he fired.
"Unlike the RCMP, I actually conducted a reconstruction with actual human models to try and prove or disprove Const. Koester's version of the positioning in the context of the observed blood stain evidence. I was not able to prove his version and I am still waiting for someone to show me otherwise," Const. Slemko said.
The blood pattern expert testified at the coroner's inquest that there was no blood transfer evidence consistent with Const. Koester escaping out from Mr. Bush after he was shot. Kennedy concluded that Koester could have extracted himself from under the dead man's body without getting even a trace of blood on him.
I don't think Kennedy's report is worth the paper it's printed on. He has done backflips to get around critical evidence that doesn't support his finding of justifiable homicide, a self-defence shooting.
Blood stain expert, Edmonton Constable Joseph Slemko, says Kennedy got it wrong on the evidence and in the way he dismissed Slemko's conclusions. Kennedy said Slemko's evidence was undermined because he did not agree that there had been a significant struggle between Bush and Constable Koester that preceded the shooting. That's nonsense, says Slemko:
"I have never disputed that there was a physical altercation between Bush and Koester," said Const. Slemko yesterday. "My opinons were directed at the point in time when the blood-letting injury was generated. That is what bloodstain pattern analysis is based upon - blood evidence."
It sounds as though Commissioner Kennedy was grasping at straws, any straw, to get out from under Slemko's expert evidence. It was essential for him to discredit Slemko's evidence in order to uphold Koester's account of how he came to shoot Bush in the back of the head.
Just what did this internationally-recognized blood expert find? He concluded that Koester was probably either at the side of Bush or behind the young man when he fired.
"Unlike the RCMP, I actually conducted a reconstruction with actual human models to try and prove or disprove Const. Koester's version of the positioning in the context of the observed blood stain evidence. I was not able to prove his version and I am still waiting for someone to show me otherwise," Const. Slemko said.
The blood pattern expert testified at the coroner's inquest that there was no blood transfer evidence consistent with Const. Koester escaping out from Mr. Bush after he was shot. Kennedy concluded that Koester could have extracted himself from under the dead man's body without getting even a trace of blood on him.
I don't think Kennedy's report is worth the paper it's printed on. He has done backflips to get around critical evidence that doesn't support his finding of justifiable homicide, a self-defence shooting.
Slemko also reports being threatened by an RCMP officer: "You watch your back."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=763cced3-ac37-4d7d-87a4-7a2fcf60640e
Gee Dawg, thanks for the link. I don't know what's getting into the RCMP these days but the sergeant who supposedly made those threats should be off the force. period. There's no room for mounties like that, none. The government really needs to hit the "reset" button and get this force back on an even keel.
ReplyDeleteThe RCMP, in all honesty, are dysfunctional, corrupt, broken, and brutal. There are outstanding officers, of course, but they're silenced or ignored by their peers.
ReplyDeleteAnd here's another knock (by Robin Matthews from Vive le Canada) against Paul E. Kennedy's credibility:
"In Calgary, dental malpractice victim Kelly Marie Richard believed her confidential Alberta government Health and Wellness files were entered and changed by a party to the (then forthcoming) malpractice action, a large Information Technology corporation.
Richard reported what she knew and what she believed to the Calgary RCMP Commercial Crime branch – which advertises strict confidentiality. Officers there misinformed her. They broke confidentiality and informed the opposing lawyer for the Information Technology corporation of Ms. Richard’s report. That lawyer (according to her lawyer) expressed anger and asked that Ms. Richard be subjected to a psychiatric examination. The Commercial Crime branch wrote her incorrectly about the nature of the crime she reported, and it refused to investigate on the basis of the incorrect information it provided.
Alarmed, she filed a complaint with Paul Kennedy’s Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. An officer presented herself on the telephone from the very office Ms. Richard had complained of, stating she was investigator for the CPC. The RCMP officer, Ms Richard alleges, so harassed and terrified her that she withdrew her complaint.
Deeply disturbed by the events, I wrote a careful complaint to the CPC, which is, remember, the Commission for PUBLIC Complaints Against the RCMP. I addressed the complaint directly to Paul Kennedy, Chair, and sent it to his address.
He, or someone else in his name, handed the complaint to people named in the complaint – an outrageously improper act which, of itself, calls Paul Kennedy’s competence into question. One of the people named in the complaint wrote to me an incorrect, improper, and insulting letter, telling me my complaint (which hadn’t been “opened”) was closed."
Troy, that's just plain scary. This stuff needs to get aired in public and that means not relying on the Public Complaints Commissioner. I find Kennedy's conduct in the Bush complaint gravity-defying. His performance needs very close scrutiny.
ReplyDelete