Joe Slemko Reponds to RCMP Critic

Joe Slemko, the blood spatter expert whose opinion evidence contradicted that of the RCMP officer implicated in the death of Ian Bush, has asked me to post his response to a criticism levelled at him by "Mac" in commentary posted on an earlier post.  (In the meantime, if you're planning on driving through Houston, BC in the near future, I suggest you observe posted speed limits.  Even the briefest encounters with RCMP there can end badly.)

“Mac”:

I had the opportunity to review your comments ... and I am disappointed that I didn’t have a chance to respond to your comments back when they were posted.  I do have some concerns considering that you made statements concerning my credibility which have been based on incorrect information.

In the Blog you state that I was not provided with all of the photographs in relation to the Bush investigation and that I am not credible because I did not attend the scene.

I will tell you that my analysis was based upon the COMPLETE disclosure package that was provided by the RCMP to the Bush legal counsel.  The disclosure package contained all of the photos, police reports, lab reports and memorandums that were provided by the RCMP.  If there was any material missing, it would have occurred with the RCMP.  Furthermore, I requested and was provided with the high resolution medium format film photographs that were taken by the RCMP bloodstain analyst who attended the scene.

The only photograph that was not disclosed to me was the controversial bloodstain from Koester on Bush’s sleeve.  I believe that a photograph exists, however I have not had access to it.

The appearance of the bloodstain on Bush’s sleeve does not change my opinion or analysis as I have never disputed that there was a physical altercation between Bush and Koester prior to the fatal gunshot.  In fact, the type of bloodstain on Bush’s sleeve may further support my opinion regarding the positioning at the time the shot was fired.

I think it would be fair for me to assume that the photographs taken by the RCMP bloodstain pattern analyst who attended the scene accurately depict the bloodstain evidence for analytical purposes; considering that he has specific training in the areas of forensic photography and bloodstain analysis.

I always find it ironic that there are no concerns of a peer review of a bloodstain case conducted by RCMP bloodstain analyst who has NOT attended the scene and who only has photographs, BUT it is not a credible review if an independent analyst, who is not from the RCMP, reviews the same material. Furthermore, I have also reviewed cases where RCMP bloodstain “experts” have given opinions on cases where they have not attended the scene.

If you would like to debate the issue regarding the accuracy of the photographs in the Bush case, I can inform you that the photograph that was submitted to the media by the RCMP depicting Koester’s injuries is highly inflammatory and not an accurate depiction of his actual, very minor injuries. I have no doubt that if the photograph was presented at a criminal trial, it would be excluded.

In your Blog comments you also make the following statement, “That's why I question why Slemko would offer an expert opinion based on partial information. Is he not cognizant of the possible consequences? Why would he risk his reputation and that of other forensic expert?”

I can answer that I was profoundly aware of all of the consequences of my opinion(s) when I testified at the Bush Inquiry. I would not have entered into the fray if I was not 100% confident of the basis of my opinions and I could not unequivocally support my evidence.

Furthermore, I am, and always will be, willing to stand-up to anyone and defend my opinions in the Bush case. Unfortunately, as a result of my experiences regarding the Bush case I have learned that is not how the “system” works. Your comments and opinions as an RCMP member are a glowing example of that.

In your Blog comments you also state, “We're the new media generation. We want our information fast and furious. Facts, schmacts! Details? Who cares! Just give me your opinion and call it close enough. 10 second attention span and a quick finger on the clicker...”

To that comment “Mac” I will respond that at the least, the media provides their identity and they don’t hide behind the cloak of anonymity.

It is disappointing that HONOR and RESPECT in our chosen profession have both become a concept of the past.

“Mac”, if you have any further comments, concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me either personally or through this Blog.

Joe Slemko (jslemko@bloodspatter.com)

Comments

[Bill Jorgensen]

What is really sad is that an honorable man, Mr. Slemko has to defend his work and reputation in the court of public opinion. What is even sadder, that law enforcement in general has forgot what they use to stand for; truth and justice. Simple words with great meaning. The RCMP use to be the agency even one from my side of the border looked up to. The best of the best. Where did the moral compass get put? It is there, just like the truth and justice. Mr. Slemko is a friend and has helped me on my son's murder case. I to have seen the moral compass of law enforcement lost. But again, it is there, just like truth and justice. Canada you should be so lucky to have a man with class, inegrity, and a moral compass.

Bill Jorgensen, Williston, ND, usa

[Mac]

I skip reading the U of A for a couple of days and look what springs up!

Joe, thank you for responding.

I would have to review my remarks to be certain (it has been a while) but since I don't have direct knowledge of what evidence you were provided, I doubt I "stated" what evidence you received as such. It's far more likely that I expressed my understanding, based on media reports rather than any "inside" information, was you received selected photographs from the Bush family's lawyer. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the media who misinformed me.

While I'm not a forensics expert, I have expertise in other areas, including collision investigation. I expect many of the same evidentiary restrictions which apply to the investigations I'm familiar with also apply to forensics, especially blood splatter analysis.

If I don't analyze a collision scene personally, I'm unlikely to offer much of an opinion on causal factors, speeds, you name it. Working off only photographs and someone else's measurements, the best I would offer is something like agree or disagree with someone else's results.

I did not comment on any peer review of the forensics and/or bloodsplatter evidence because such was not trumpeted in the media as "proof" that the Mounties were trying to cover something up as your review was. Be careful what you assume.

Take the remarks of mine which you quoted in that context. Can you see why I would express a concern? There's a huge difference between questioning someone's credibility and wondering why someone would risk their credibility. If you cannot see that, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Now, for the benefit of our mutual friend, Russ Brown, how exactly is the RCMP being uncooperative, underhanded, covering up and any other number of nasty things we've been accused of regarding this case, if they've provided you, through the family with the full forensics package? That sounds like an organization which cooperated, in good faith, not the monsters portrayed in the media.

Now search your soul and answer this, Joe... as a member of the Edmonton Police, how many of your fellow officers come to work with the intent in his/her heart to kill someone? How many of them would reluctantly kill someone to save their own life or that of someone in danger? If your agency is anything like mine, the answers are pretty simple; none and all.

If the RCMP was even 1% as foul as the media has portrayed us of late, there would be hundreds killed since we are a force of 20,000+ members. It seems to me that the media has sensationalized a small number of tragic cases in their lust for blood and a headline... and you, Joe Slemko, have been used by them in pursuit of those goals.

Bill Jorgensen, I'm glad Joe Slemko helped your son because injustices should be addressed... That's why I'm addressing your comments. Your sweeping condemnation of the RCMP is ill-informed and insulting. It's unlikely you've ever met a Mountie, let alone 20,000 of them, yet you're prepared to chastise all of us because someone dares question Joe Slemko? How dare you speak of truth and justice while spewing such vitriol against someone you don't know and know next to nothing about? Is YOUR moral compass so pinned on Joe Slemko because of the aid which he gave your son that you cannot recognize the injustice of your own words?

[Joe Slemko]

‘Mac”

First, and of most importance, at no time have I ever stated, or will ever state, or want to believe (for exactly the same reasons as you), that Koester had any intention for the results of the altercation between him and Bush on that tragic night.

My only statement has been that the blood spatter evidence observed, and not observed, does not support Koester’s own stated version regarding the positioning at the time the gun discharged. I cannot opine, based on bloodstain evidence as to what happened before, or after the gun discharged. Any further opinion WOULD be speculation on my part and I will not provide it publicly or to the media. I do have my own personal thoughts as to what possibly happened that night; however, it would be very unprofessional for me to provide them in this Blog. If you are ever willing to contact me personally, I would be happy to discuss them with you and provide you with the basis for my opinion.

Regarding your statements concerning my credibility, I suggest you review you own comments in which you state, “The fact Slemko was even willing to offer an opinion based on such limited information doesn't speak well of his credibility – Dec 02, 1233AM”. That statement seems pretty clear to me.

I previously posted my comments on the issue of the reliability of the photographs used in my analysis. Please also consider that the scope, limitations and confidence in my analysis is based on fourteen years of training and experience specific to bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) and the analysis of hundreds of cases; both through the attendance at scenes and through the analysis of photographs. If you would like, I can provide you with a copy of my CV.

Re: “The Media”; I am having some difficulty understanding your logic concerning the media; You criticize the reliability of the media when the reporting represents the RCMP in a dim light, but you rely on that same media reporting to form the basis your opinion of me and my credibility.

In regards to Bill Jorgensen’s comments; I am also disappointed with his generalizations concerning the RCMP. Please consider that Bill is very emotional about the loss of his son and how he has been treated by the authorities south of the border.

Even in light of all the difficulties, disappointments and conflicts I have had with members of the RCMP during the past couple years, I still respect the vast majority of the members of your organization. Anyone who has ever attended one of my presentations will tell you that I have always acknowledged that Canadians are respected as leaders in the science of BPA largely as a result of the past efforts, contributions and accomplishments of members of the RCMP. I will also tell you that my mentor in BPA, role model and good friend was RCMP S/Sgt. Dan Rahn. Regretfully, Dan has passed-on and not able to provide his respected opinion of the Bush case.

[Mac]

Please accept my apology if I gave the impression I was attacking your credibility, Joe. Such was not my intention. I was expressing surprise and dismay at the thoughts of someone jeopardizing credibility since the overall effect of someone doing so would be far-reaching... as a certain pathologist demonstrated recently...

As for my remarks regarding the media, the Bush case is an excellent example of how difficult it is to tell how accurate their reporting of fact is (or is not) since I've read from more than one media source that you completed your analysis based on partial information. Operating under that false information, I wondered at what could motivate you to do so... and now I have egg on my face.

For what it's worth, I've had my share of difficulties, disappointments and conflicts within the Force in the past few years. As a leader, Zack was a politician at best and a tyrant at worst... and, as the old saying goes, morale starts at the top. Now he's gone (good riddance!) I hope the Force can move forward and begin rebuilding some of the bridges that were burned in the past few years.

While I don't need to read your CV, I will send you an email as I'm curious about your thoughts...

[Joe Slemko]

Mac,

I appreciate your comments. It has been a rough road.

I will look forward to your email.

[Bill Jorgensen]

Mac;
I wanted to wait a few days to respond to your rebuttal so I had the time to think about what you said.

I am glad you feel injustices should be addressed. Now it is my turn!

First I apologize to the 20,000 RCMP for the words, "used to be the agency even one from my side looked up to." Second, I apologize for the words,"law enforcement in generalhas forgotten what they used to stand for: truth and justice." I was also wrong for grouping all law enforcement into one category and i do apologize. I should have been more specific in who and why I addressed them, but after dealing with the Gallatin County Sheriff's Department and the Montana Department of Justice for the last 3 3/4 years I have a bitter taste in my mouth. Also after having to look at pictures of my son in a pool of blood, having been told it was a suicide when it was a homocide, and having to do bullet recovery myself this summer, and still haveing to fight them in the courts. All of us are guilty of letting our emotions get the best of us from time to time. In my opinion, I have earned the right to make a mistake, to recognize that mistake,have you point it out to me, and for me to correct it. Since my moral compass is just fine, i have no problem correcting that mistake.

In your response to Joe, you said you have egg on your face. It is not my place to say you have egg on your face again, but i do believe you owe me an apology also. When I finish this response hopefully ,you will agree.

I will start with your own words! "It is unlikely you've ever met a Mountie, let alone 20,000 of them." The big "A" word, assumption. I doubt very much you have met all 20,000 either. Second you assume since I said, "south of the border," I have never had contact with a Mountie. I have been going to Canada for over 37 years. I have not met all 230,000 but I have had contact with at least 10 for a variety of legal reasons. I have dealt with 7 to 9 police officers in town all across centeral and western Canada. In fact one was the Cheif of Police of Weyburn, Sask. He thought enough of me to give me an official police hat from his department. I have also dealt with 10 to 15 DNR officers over those 37 years of hunting and fishing. we cannot forget the 30 to 40 Canada Customs agents that I have also dealt with. I haver dealt with from 53 to 69 persons representing different law enforcement agencies in Canada. Now considering i do not break the law my chances were slim of meeting that amount of law enforcement. I would think it be fair to say that I have dealt with law enforcement probably as much or more than most Canadians.

I have also given over $10,000 plus in charitable donations in that period. I have spent over $50,000 plus in Canada for gas, tools, tires, oil changes, auto work, hunting licenses, motels, food, DVD's, and a Honda 3-wheeler. I have also spent over $20,000 plus at the University Of Saskatchewan small animal clinic. I have had the privilege of hunting with Howard Nixon, former President of the U fo S, in Saskatoon. I have a great many friends in four of your provinces. I have dealt with , in a very positive outcome, the minister tha over sees Canada Customs in Manitoba, Saskatchwan, and Alberta. Three very good friends at Canada Customs helped me on my son's case by sending me to Regina, Sask., police services, whereI talked to one of the best detectives in that police unit. He was the one who sent me to Joe Slemko. He told me he was the best and had taken a blood spatter course fom him.

I follow Canadian politics from the Quebec separatist movement to the election that was held some years back when they wanted to leave the federation. I have watched with great interest the diffeent elections of the leaders of your country. I think one of the best, in my opinion, Canada has ever had was John Diefenbaker. I also liked Paul Martin, since he told Bush what to do with it on this illegal war in Iraq. I followed with great interest the outcome of the Lattimer euthanasia trial not to many years ago.

Mac, anyone has the right to question Joe, me or for that mattter you! Joes shoulders are braod and so are mine. We both are intelligent enough to defend our work but also undestand that whne we take a stand others may challenge it. I have always felt that being challenged, makes you sharper, more competent and requires you to have the highest standard of integrity. Putting your job and reputation on the line for your work is a profound statement not many are willing to do. Saying your wrong and correcting a mistake is the ultimate statement of integrity in mhy opinion.

My remarks were not caustic (vitriol) and were not meant to be either. I beleive you over stretched on your use of words and over reached to what you may have interpreted in those words. Now my moral compass is just fine and it is not pinned on anyone, including Joe. However, anyone willing to put his career on the line, like Joe, for what he believes certainly would be a good person to pin your moral compass to! Now i would like to see how your moral compass is and where it is pinned.

1. Do you believe in "the code of silence" or "the blue curtain" or what ever you call it in Canada?
2. Have you ever even onced looked the other way when a fellow Mountie has committed even asmall violation of policy or law?
3. Do you believe the mountie from Vancouver that threatened Joe at a blood spatter convention in Texas should be investigated?
4. Do you believe the Mountie who wrote the letter trying to get Joe fired or investigated and who said "plice don't turn evidence against other plice officers" was right? Do you advocate this policy yourself?
5. Do you believe that the Ian Bush family as well as mine do not deserve the truth even if that truth would or possible could bring charges against a fellow RCMP? In my case the resignation of a sheriff, detective, and coroner?

Mac, maybe you have been on the inside so long you forgot it is the public you work for and you have a duty to them first! (other than your countries constitution) If the media, citizens across Canada, and south of the border, had not rallied around Joe, what do you think would have happened? You know damn weel Joe would have been santioned or fired based on what happened in his past sevice.

The police rely on citizens to help solve the majority of crime. Citizens reley on the police for truth,justice and protection. If there is no trust between those in positions of power and the public, the criminals win! I look forward to your answers to my questions. Finally, after looking at my son in a pool of blood, having to do bullet recovery, and the work that law enforcement in Gallatin County Montana should have done, I earned the right to defend Joe, my son, and even you, if the need ever arose. I have apologized for my broad gewneralizations and characterizations of the RCMP, now it is your turn to answer my questionsand apologize for assuming you knew my background and knowledge of your country. Ther is no question that the media loves not only a good story, but also the chance to bring down a prestigious organization like the RCMP. There is no doubt the RCMP brought some of this on its own by not handling certain cases better. After all I believe all 20,000 RCMP work for the public since your country is a democracy. After reading what you said to Joe at the end I believe you are a good man and only wish you the best in profeesion that the majority of the menbers still do reflect the very best of what law enforcement stands for. I also hope you will work to make the changes that law enforcement also needs to do to keep the trust of the public. A good frist step would be to admit mistakes and correct them immediately so there is no chance of rumors or cover-ups. A second step that I do not remember reading about in the media, would have been for all 20,000 RCMP to have stood up for Joe's rights and back him just like the Edmonton Police Service union did, a union Joe, the paper said is not a member of or supports. Third, as I put my name on my opinion and work I believe everyone should have the integrity to do the smae if they are going to opine on a subject. Anonymity is, in my opinion, a total lose of creditability. My email is; jroughrider49@hotmail.com if you want to respond in private.

Bill Jorgensen
Williston, ND 58801

[Mac]

Bill, you're welcome to your opinion(s) and thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I don't feel compelled to apologize to you since I believe you made and continue to make sweeping judgments about law enforcement personnel... how ironic you're accusing me of assuming!

I think you'll find my moral compass is just fine... I didn't realize I was required to write an exam but life presents interesting challenges.

1- I find such concepts as 'code of silence' and 'blue curtain' to be repugnant. I acknowledge there are some cops might find the concepts attractive but there's a world of difference between esprit de corps and covering up for someone. Our friends in Hollywood take great pleasure in representing police officers as rogues who see themselves as being above the law. While there are certainly individual cops who've gone over to the dark side, the vast, vast majority of us are men (and women) of honour who put our lives in danger daily in service of society and civilization.

2- I treat my fellow officers no differently than I do my fellow citizens. I have looked the other way for Joe Canadian who is doing 40 in the 30 zone on dry roads with no traffic. I've done likewise for other cops as well. Should I exercise zero tolerance on everyone, everywhere? I don't think that would be practical or desirable. Anything more serious is treated seriously since the behaviour of my fellow officers reflects on the reputation of my chosen profession.

3- I know only what I read in the media which I mistrust. If Joe believes he was threatened, he knows how to instigate an investigation.

4- I know only what I read in the media which I mistrust. If Joe has an issue with a letter, he knows how to make a complaint. As for what I advocate, read answer #1 & #2 again.

5- I believe the Bush family have been told the truth but they refuse to believe it and the media have exploited their grief and sorrow. Joe and I are communicating privately. Although Joe hasn't shared more details as yet, I expect his analysis doesn't "prove" that Ian Bush was targeted and executed by police. The coroner's inquest saw Joe's analysis and, despite that, not only exonerated Cst. Koester but acknowledged the investigation done by the RCMP was thorough, unbiased and professional. Apparently, even that is not good enough for some people. Do you believe the coroner and the jury are colluding with the police too?

Regarding anonymity, I hold 'top secret' clearance as part of my duties. In the past, when I used my name more freely, I had "internet dragoons" send email messages to the RCMP in an attempt to cause problems for me. Strangely, I'm unwilling to repeat the experience.

Although I know no details of your son's death but let me express my sorrow and sympathy for your ordeal. As a proud father, I hope I never have to deal the death of either of my children, particularly in tragic circumstance. I hope you find peace someday.

[Mac]

Just so this doesn't drop off the radar completely since it appears to be of interest to Russ...

Joe and I continue to communicate via email. Both of us have busy lives so our correspondence take a day or two between replies. Joe sent me some stuff to read; I've responded and await his reaction.

[Derek J. Anderson]

Police transperancy, where art thou? Or rather, having heard your seductive voice, have you gone underground again?

[Russ Brown]

Peace reigns in the Valley.

[All join hands and sing kum-ba-yah].

[Joe Slemko]

Derek:

No one is more frustrated by the lack of police transparency than I am. Unfortunately, I have to be very careful how far I step “out of my box” on the Bush case. I wouldn’t put it past the RCMP to come after personally and civilly if I provide anything outside of the appropriate forum. Let me recap how they have harassed and threatened me so far:
- They have sent a letter of complaint to the EPS alleging a conflict of interest and discreditable conduct on my part for consulting for the defence and challenging their opinions on other cases,
- Their legal counsel obtained personal information about me and my employment history with the EPS and then distorted that information in an attempt to discredit me at the Bush Inquest,
- An RCMP member has threatened me by telling me that I better start “watching my back” (Mac: I have provided the RCMP with a statement regarding the incident), and
- I was forced from my position as an Executive Director of the Canadian Identification Society by the other RCMP executive board members.

I have provided Mac with information concerning the case privately so that he can be hopefully be better informed prior to reaching any opinions that he might have. Hopefully the RCMP won’t have an issue with me providing information to their own members regarding the case……….but then again………….

Believe me, I wish I could be more transparent on the Bush case and I look forward to providing any further assistance that I can provide to legal counsel for the Bush family and to the BC Civil Liberties Association regarding their complaint.

Mac:

Regarding your previous Blog comments: “The coroner's inquest saw Joe's analysis and, despite that, not only exonerated Cst. Koester but acknowledged the investigation done by the RCMP was thorough, unbiased and professional” …..Please keep in mind that the jury was prohibited by the Corner from reaching any conclusion or opinion concerning the RCMP investigation or the culpability of Cst. Koester. I also was prohibited from giving any comment regarding the investigation and I was very restricted in what I could and couldn’t state.

I also have major concerns with the objectivity of Paul Kennedy’s review.

The Bush case is a testament to the fact that people will see only what they want to see and that loyalty and ego can impair objectivity and impartiality.

I don’t think there will ever be “Peace in the Valley” on this one……….

[Mac]

The following comments represent a rough summary of my email exchanges with Joe. As you can see, we don't agree 100% but there are some important points which tend to be overlooked in the "court" of public opinion.

-Mac

ps: Regarding your last statements above:

-J The Bush case is a testament to the fact that people will see only what they want to see and that loyalty and ego can impair objectivity and impartiality.

-M That goes for all involved in this case, does it not?

-J I don’t think there will ever be “Peace in the Valley” on this one……….

-M Not as long as people allow the issues to be polarized and remain emotionally entrenched in their positions.

---------------------------------------------------

-M I think we both agree there is no evidence of an "execution style killing" which is the scenario the media and the Bush family have been claiming since the get-go.

-J I AGREE

-M I think we both agree Koester didn't have criminal intent when he arrested Bush.

-J I AGREE

-M I think we both agree the confrontation that resulted in Bush's tragic death wasn't planned... but Bush wasn't a purely innocent victim.

-J I AGREE

-M I think we both agree the RCMP didn't deal with this horrible situation well and the results are self-evident.

-J I AGREE

-M Is there a cover-up? No, since they've done complete disclosure. Was their investigation biased? Possibly since there were steps which could have been taken that haven't been. Would taking those last few steps have yielded a different result? To be blunt, I doubt it. The Bush family aren't going to be satisfied and the media can't be satisfied. Should they have done so for ideological reasons? Yes, I think they should have and I'm disappointed they chose not to do so.

-J I DISAGREE, I think if a proper, thorough and unbiased investigation was done there would be evidence of Koester’s culpability for Bush’s death. I strongly believe that if this same situation involved two civilians, Koester would have been challenged on a validity of his version based on the physical evidence and that he would not have been given the benefits that he was afforded because he was a police officer (I am not referring to his Charter rights). I think there would have been RPG for a manslaughter charge.

-M To my consideration, anyone who thinks they're going to create a bunch of what-ifs by doing a complete investigation is naive to the point of ridiculous. Incomplete investigations are the natural spawning ground for conspiracy theories. I would like to say it surprises me to hear upper rankers are that naive but that isn't the case. The dinosaurs of management...

-J I AGREE. There are long reaching consequences for all of us in law enforcement. If I have to use lethal force during my duties tomorrow, I want the media and the public to be confident that a thorough and complete investigation was conducted. I don’t want a stigma hanging over my head for the rest of my life.

Next email exchange...

-M You make a very good point. Criminal intent is not an element for manslaughter and there's no question Koester was the mechanism of Bush's death. It's not the police's job to decide guilt or innocence in this kind of situation; that's the Judge's job... but, if fallible memory serves, wasn't a RCC forwarded and the Crown decided it didn't serve public interest to pursue charges?

-J The Crown would only have had the biased investigation (i.e. Koester’s version) that was conducted by the RCMP to base their opinion on. I am sure that the same threshold for the Crown exists in BC as it does in Alberta i.e. “a reasonable likelihood of conviction”. Based on the case that was put forward by the RCMP, I can understand the basis for the decision not to proceed with charges.

-M The Crown can review whatever information it deems relevant.... including submissions from outside agencies like yourself. I'm surprised the Bush family didn't insist your point be considered.

[Mac]

Joe has since replied that the Crown's review and decision was made before he was contacted by the Bush family's lawyer.

[Joe Slemko]

Maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel...............

Police medal 'vindication,' says blood-spatter expert

Chief changes course, will honour Joe Slemko
Charles Rusnell, The Edmonton Journal

Published: 4:36 am, 2008 Feb 22

EDMONTON - Bending to public pressure, the Edmonton police department has reversed an earlier decision and will award
Const. Joe Slemko, an internationally recognized blood-spatter expert, with his 20-year exemplary service medal.
"It is bittersweet given what I was put through to get to this point," Slemko said. "But I consider my exemplary service medal as being vindication by the public and the media for what I believed in and stood up for all along."
Chief Mike Boyd cleared the way for Slemko to receive the award when he dropped all pending internal disciplinary charges against him in September. Boyd did so after a groundswell of public support for Slemko.
In July, The Journal revealed Slemko had twice been convicted of insubordination for defying an order not to testify for the defence. He faced a third internal disciplinary hearing this fall.
Slemko's testimony in at least two international cases was instrumental in freeing two men wrongfully accused of murder, including a Lloydminster man who spent several years in an Australian prison before his release.
The police commission called Boyd to a meeting to explain the policy.
In an about-face, Boyd told the commission Slemko and other officers with expert credentials were free to testify for whomever they wished as long as they told the police department in advance.
Until then, the department had for years contended Slemko placed himself in a conflict every time he testified for the defence. Police officers must clear all outside work with the department and are barred from any business activity which "might reasonably be expected to impair their judgment, independence or unbiased performance of police duty."
A senior officer had decided Slemko was in a conflict because of a belief that the Crown and police are "indivisible" in a prosecution. Slemko said he defied the policy because he believes a police officer has a duty to tell the truth whether it benefits the prosecution or defence. He does not accept fees in cases where he believes a person has been wrongfully convicted or where there is a possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
Department spokesman Insp. Greg Alcorn said the chief personally approved the service medal for Slemko.
Slemko said he will not accept the medal from Boyd, who he said never supported him until the media made it an issue.
Slemko said the only person he will accept the award from is Const. Steve Wells, a colleague in north division. Wells and Slemko are not close friends but Wells, on a point of principle, refused to accept his 20-year exemplary service award until Slemko received his. He only relented after Slemko told him it was alright. At least one retired officer had threatened to return his exemplary service medal unless Slemko was similarly honoured.
"I did not approve of the way he was being treated," Wells said. "Const. Slemko is a man of integrity, he is a top investigator with the service and I felt he should be shown the respect he deserved.
"Our job is to find the truth, and it was my belief that he was doing the right thing."
crusnell@thejournal.canwest.com
© The Edmonton Journal 2008

[Mac]

Congratulations, Joe.

[supercargo]

Slemko took the same 45 day Canadian Police College course in blood spatter forensics, as did the RCMP expert (Hignell) who testified at the Ian Bush inquiry (coroner). (Certification as an "expert" takes 5 years of employment under a recognized expert) Slemko was given the privilege of explaining blood evidence to tax payers, on the main website of Canada's forensic investigators. Slemko is a media celebrity in the UK and Australia, based on both his abllity to articulate his findings, and the fact that they bear legal scrutiny.

Last year the Province (Vancouver) reported that Slemko had accused a Vancouver police sergeant of uttering a personal threat at a US seminar. Why the enmity? The occupational-culture of police imposes a retaliation-code, exercisable against those who implicate members in offences.

Is cop-code enforcement effective? The cop (Koester) who shot Ian Bush to death was shielded from justice by the coroner. Note: coroner training in BC (20 weeks) overlaps with police crime scene modules, thus, close contacts if not friendships are inevitable. A former mayor of Vancouver (now senator, Larry Campbell) went from cop to coroner in 12 weeks. Coroners are barely medical amateurs, let alone professionals. In that context, the coroner's intentional exclusion of key evidence of retaliatory motivation, is a breach of procedure, at least. See for yourself:
http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/6403/1/koester+took+time++to+make+statement+on+shooting+of+ian+bush?id=143&st=20

Be aware that Koester's lead officer - Darren Woroshelo - abused a security officer in the arena where Bush was arrested, with such force, that she was too upset to work the next day. And, in his anger, he acted outside the facts: the Bush group didn't buy drinks at the arena, they brought it there after a manager of another building told them to take it elsewhere.

Koester was driven by anger, that erupted from a false cause. It was in that context that the cop made a commitment to attend back at the arena, to enforce more Woroshelo' contempt-of-cop illegalities. Listen: after making that commitment, it was only 2 MINUTES AND EIGHT SECONDS later that Koester phoned dispatch and made what I would refer to as a guilt statement. What happened in that short frame of time? As Slemko says, there was a physical confrontation. Why? An angry Koester wanted to get back to doing the dirty. He had to get Bush out of there, and that would have hardly been a chore. According to Koester, Bush slugged the 6 inch taller man, and then placed him in a ONE-ARMED (!) choke hold, with which he held him on his stomach, even as he somehow contorted himself into a position where he pistol whipped Bush on the head. Koester testified that he thought of his wife and then, fearing for his life, he used mortal force. Can that be true? Prior to the incident BC's Justice Institute advised cops and security guards that a choke can be broken by using one's elbows to break the grip (and Bush's nominal choke hold was supposedly executed with one arm, and with indifference to a pistol whipping). The Medical Examiner admitted that he omitted to consider evidence of bruising on Bush's leg. And after Koester's 2 phone calls, who was first to arrive? Woroshelo; and on arrival he was allowed to take Koester into a private room for a 5 minute discussion. Koester remained silent on the incident for a full 18 days, and even then only released lawyer studied responses to a group of lame questions, which clearly probed only exculpatory statements.

Afternote (and Slemko wouldn't have been aware of this last summer): last week during the BC judicial inquiry into Vancouver police's negligent homicide of a native man (Frank Paul), it came out that in death in-custody investigations, BC cops are prohibited from attaching charge recommendations to Crown Counsel (cops in BC, Quebec and New Brunswick cannot register a charge). As I write the ex-judge (Wally Oppal) who signed the Order in Council, declaring the Inquiry, has directed invocation of privilege viz police contact with prosecutors in the Paul atrocity. Oppal did that in face of his own declaration that inquiry findings were in the "public interest," which is - normally - THE override of privilege. Over 100,000,000 persons were murdered either by or on order s of officers of the court, in the 20th century. The killers acted because they had seized impunity; that nightmare is repeating itself.

If you want to see BC cop impunity in action, please scroll to page 333 in this attached testimonial:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/37thparl/session-3/pcp/hansard/L20415p.htm

[Concerned]

This is a terrific forum to expose the abuses of the RCMP. My boyfriend is Ojibway, and one night after going out with his friends, he didn't come home. Turns out, he was separated from them by the police when they were travelling by foot. He was put in the police car, driven to a remote area, beat up, tasered. All because he questioned why they were hasseling him. Recently, we were pulled over by an RCMP officer, and when he saw that my partner was native, and I am white, he tried to tell us he pulled us over because he was sure he saw my partner hit me (he definately did NOT). When I refused to agree, and told him I had nothing to say except B.S., he informed me that not only was he going to arrest my partner, he was going to arrest me too.
I have spent a while wondering...what if I was an abused woman who was terrified of the consequences of speaking up. To threaten a woman like that with jail? Wouldn't that just add to the trauma she is already living with? However, this was and is not my case. Insulted (and honestly, pissed off) I lost it on him, and spent the night in custody. The sad part is, we were just going home from an academic conference where I had presented a paper. We are not the stereotype of what I think he was conjuring in his mind. My partner has a very good job, and I am working toward a PhD. Nevertheless, he had authority, and he used it. I used to have respect for the police and the job they did. However, their conduct in other matters and my own experiences of late are making me question my regard.