Ian Bush inquest overdone, but not over or done
As a conspiracy theory, the killing of Ian Bush is a good one.
Hypothetically, a rookie police officer targets an innocent kid, screws up and shoots him in the back of the head.
His colleagues — some long-standing members of a small community – attend and secure the scene, even keeping first responders at bay while they doctor and plant evidence.
Forensics experts are called in from neighbouring detachments and, ultimately, head office to document the scene.
They purposely hold back the body in the detachment and take their sweet time getting it to the morgue for an autopsy to allow it to decompose and cover up evidence.
The officer is advised to hold back on making a statement until all the evidence is in.
The powers-that-be choose a pathologist with great credentials but no experience with high-profile, in-custody deaths. Police officers attend the autopsy either trying to influence the doctor or determine from him what scenario will best fit the evidence and the public might actually buy.
The pathologist intentionally ignores key evidence.
The officer writes a statement with help from his colleagues, lawyer and wife to fit the concocted scenario.
Another police force reviews the case and requests a reconstruction, which is ignored. They just drop it.
Over the 18 months from the time of the killing to the time of the coroner’s inquest, the officer is coached on giving consistent testimony and saying, “I don’t recall,” to any question that doesn’t fit the script.
Everyone from the officer’s buddies to the attorney general is in on the coverup.
It is so far-fetched as to be unbelievable.
Unfortunately, the alternative explanation is equally unbelievable.
A popular, gainfully-employed kid with no criminal record is out for a good time gets stopped for an open beer at a hockey game.
He has been drinking, but isn’t visibly drunk. Confident in his hometown, where he has lived his whole life with his sweet, kind mother, he screws around with the cops but is ultimately cooperative, by the officer’s own admission.
All of a sudden, with no provocation, he attacks and tries to kill, with his bare hands, an armed officer of the law in the police station.
Let’s face it, 20-something men can be idiots, but it is so far-fetched as to be unbelievable.
“It’s going to be black and white,” remarked Cpl. Pierre Lemaitre, an RCMP spokesman.
“You’re going to have some people who believe Const. Koester and some who don’t.”
Lemaitre is right. And no amount of speculation is going to settle anything. Whether you subscribe to the unbelievable conspiracy theory or the equally unbelievable non-angelic but generally good kid turned homicidal maniac testimony, this case is over.
An inquest will not assign blame or innocence. A civil suit will not serve justice.
The focus now turns to what good can come out of it.
There has been lots of talk about civilian oversight of police since this whole thing began, but I don’t know if that will help.
Oversight is reactive, kicking in when something horrible has already happened.
What we really need is a proactive solution, starting with better policies and procedures for RCMP detachments.
“Nothing will bring Ian back,” said Linda Bush, Ian’s mother.
“This is about making sure something like this never happens again.”
Hypothetically, a rookie police officer targets an innocent kid, screws up and shoots him in the back of the head.
His colleagues — some long-standing members of a small community – attend and secure the scene, even keeping first responders at bay while they doctor and plant evidence.
Forensics experts are called in from neighbouring detachments and, ultimately, head office to document the scene.
They purposely hold back the body in the detachment and take their sweet time getting it to the morgue for an autopsy to allow it to decompose and cover up evidence.
The officer is advised to hold back on making a statement until all the evidence is in.
The powers-that-be choose a pathologist with great credentials but no experience with high-profile, in-custody deaths. Police officers attend the autopsy either trying to influence the doctor or determine from him what scenario will best fit the evidence and the public might actually buy.
The pathologist intentionally ignores key evidence.
The officer writes a statement with help from his colleagues, lawyer and wife to fit the concocted scenario.
Another police force reviews the case and requests a reconstruction, which is ignored. They just drop it.
Over the 18 months from the time of the killing to the time of the coroner’s inquest, the officer is coached on giving consistent testimony and saying, “I don’t recall,” to any question that doesn’t fit the script.
Everyone from the officer’s buddies to the attorney general is in on the coverup.
It is so far-fetched as to be unbelievable.
Unfortunately, the alternative explanation is equally unbelievable.
A popular, gainfully-employed kid with no criminal record is out for a good time gets stopped for an open beer at a hockey game.
He has been drinking, but isn’t visibly drunk. Confident in his hometown, where he has lived his whole life with his sweet, kind mother, he screws around with the cops but is ultimately cooperative, by the officer’s own admission.
All of a sudden, with no provocation, he attacks and tries to kill, with his bare hands, an armed officer of the law in the police station.
Let’s face it, 20-something men can be idiots, but it is so far-fetched as to be unbelievable.
“It’s going to be black and white,” remarked Cpl. Pierre Lemaitre, an RCMP spokesman.
“You’re going to have some people who believe Const. Koester and some who don’t.”
Lemaitre is right. And no amount of speculation is going to settle anything. Whether you subscribe to the unbelievable conspiracy theory or the equally unbelievable non-angelic but generally good kid turned homicidal maniac testimony, this case is over.
An inquest will not assign blame or innocence. A civil suit will not serve justice.
The focus now turns to what good can come out of it.
There has been lots of talk about civilian oversight of police since this whole thing began, but I don’t know if that will help.
Oversight is reactive, kicking in when something horrible has already happened.
What we really need is a proactive solution, starting with better policies and procedures for RCMP detachments.
“Nothing will bring Ian back,” said Linda Bush, Ian’s mother.
“This is about making sure something like this never happens again.”
