Saturday, December 30, 2006

Stoddard Online

Stoddard Online
There is an old adage. It merely states the importance of having the right tool to do the job. The prosecution team had the right tool, there is no question of that. The tool was none other than Raymond Maher, the lead defense lawyer. Truly, any defense team headed by such an induividual would be viewed as a work of art by any prosecution team who was worth their salt, especially if they were a team who excelled in sleazy tactics at the expense of an unfortunate, uninformed and broke defendant, facing the gallows.

Across this nation, Canadians are led to believe that we are protected from inept oafs practising law by governing bodies called law societies. Fancy, three dollar words they are, but, do they have any real meaning? It could be argued that if they did, then Wilbert Coffin would have lived to see old age. A law society is supposedly that self policing body that protects the interests of the citizens by guaranteeing fair and equitable representation.

Where was this body in 1954? Obviously, they were not paying any attention to what was happening in the court house in Perce, Quebec. Or, were they? It is important to note here that premier Maurice Duplessis was also the attorney general, and the solicitor general for the province, Antonio Rivard, was little more than a puppet of Duplessis. I suggest there is certainly room for speculation here. Duplessis controlled everything else, so why not the law society as well? Every other well meaning group in the province was afraid of Duplessis and his henchmen, so it appears prudent to surmise that this "independent body", known as the Law Society of Quebec may have shared the same quarters.

Were the long black robes with white trimmings resembling a colony of penguins on an ice floe really masking the evil secrets of collusion between prosecution and defense in this case, or was it simply a case of a drunken buffoon trying to hitch a ride to glory? We will never know for sure because the province of Quebec decided to allow the law society to seal the records of dud lawyers who had run aground.

Being the shy, quiet man of few words that I am, I find it difficult to adequately express my revulsion for the process that took place at Perce. Clearly, this trial sickens me. The process that made it possible causes me to want to vomit. I know there are members of the legal profession who read this site, and if there are amongst you, those who would say that I am wrong in my thoughts on this, then I challenge you to step to the plate, as it is your turn at bat.

I shall now continue with the murder trial of Wilbert Coffin from July, 1954 in Perce, Quebec.




After the first four days of the trial, the prosecution team very quickly realized that they would own the trial. Each day simply showed more evidence of that fact. In spite of his insistence that he would be calling upwards of one hundred witnesses, the lead lawyer for the defense, Raymond Maher, showed no signs of being able to make good on his claim. Time after time the prosecution would call another witness to the stand, firing off questions from a prescribed text. Occasionally, Maher would make a half hearted attempt at cross examination, and in many cases he simply sat silent.

You will recall in the previous posting of the trial, mention was made of a wallet in the list of exhibits. Though not properly identified, this was either the wallet of Eugene Lindsey, or that of Richard Lindsey. Richard Lindsey's wallet was located near his remains, that of Eugene Lindsey was located some distance from his remains in the brook, both void of currenecy, other than five dollars found in Richard Lindsey's wallet.

Mrs. Mary Lindsey would testify that her husband withdrew the sum of $650.00 from their banking establishment prior to leaving Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania for their trip to Canada. The prosecution in their wisdom would play very heavily on the amount of money being carried by Eugene Lindsey while in the forest. Eugene Lindsey had been rumoured to carry large amounts of cash. The prosecution would choose to play with a figure of $1,000.00. Numerous times, this figure would be thrown about to the French/English jury. This was done in an attempt to display lavish spending by Wilbert Coffin on his journey to Montreal. With no defense, the jury obviously believed it and lapped it up.

Lawyer Maher missed or purposely neglected numerous chances for cross examination with reference to the wallets and money. There will be many of you who will believe that Eugene Lindsey was carrying a large amount of cash while on his hunting trip. The question here, why do you believe that? You believe that because prosecutors Paul Miquelon and Noel Dorion were able to feed that to the jury, which in turn, created a motive for murder, and thus, a conviction and execution followed.

As I have repeatedly expressed to you, it is my intention to completely rip apart and examine each and every piece of evidence that the crown brought forth in this trial. It is also my intention to produce factual documentation that will set the record straight with regard to this evidence.

I ask that you pay strict attention to what I am going to display to you. I also want you to understand here, that I am proving something that should have been incumbent upon a defense lawyer to prove to this jury more than fifty- two years ago. I am going to prove to you that prosecutors Miquelon and Dorion were a pair of blatant liars by quoting dollar figures to the jury with respect to Eugene Lindsey's finances. I am able to prove this because the Quebec Provincial Police were not smart enough to get rid of all the incriminating evidence that could destroy their case.

The following is an exerpt from a letter written by Captain Alphonse Matte to premier Maurice Duplessis, who doubled as the attorney general. I have highlighted the sentence that says it all.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gaspé, P.Q.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>July 29 1953

From J.A.Matte, Capt. Pol. Jud.

We were able to obtain again to this trip not any certainty of the amount of money that Eugene Lindsay might have had in his possession before he left Hollidaysburg; neither a single detail about the sort of baggage that the hunters would have had when they were getting ready to come to Canada.

(J.A.Matte) Captaine
In Charge of the Judiciary Police

Mrs. Lindsey was probably accurate that Eugene Lindsey withdrew $650.00 from their account, but there is no proof that this money ever came to Canada, and if it did, where could it have gone? You will recall in an earlier posting that Eugene Lindsey owed gambling debts. You will also recall that Eugene Lindsey is reported to have been involved in off color activities in his home town area. To complete the $1,000.00 as touted by the crown, Mr. Lindsey would have required a further $350.00 on his person. All these figures were simply picked out of the air. They were a lie, they were meant to manipulate, and in this case, sway a jury in their efforts to thwart justice.

By now it is evident the crown did not have a very strong case. Each and every piece of evidence that I have brought forward thus far was relatively easy to destroy with a few facts. It required patience, it required digging, and it required me to make a nuisance of myself and be generally nosey in certain circles. I should not have to do the work of the defense team, fifty plus years after the fact. I feel it is my duty as a writer and investigator of facts to expose the dirt. I am not saying that it has not happened, however, I do not personally know of any media outlet that has bothered to investigate and report on these aspects of this case during the past five decades, and that is sad and disappointing.

Lew Stoddard
Posted January 01, 2007

The next posting, January 05, 2007 will be quite extensive. In keeping with my theme of tearing apart this trial, I shall be presenting to you some very interesting police interviews and comments with reference to Wilbert Coffin's journey to Montreal. The police and the attorney generals ministry tell many lies, from here on in to conclusion.


B Meeres said...

Hello Lew,

Thanks for allowing me to be the first commenter of 2007. My friend, that is an excellent chapter to your story.

You are articulate and down to earth. You also leave no doubt as to your opinions on all this and are not afraid to express them.

Keep it up Sir, you will pull it off yet. The knees will give out on the weak link on this and that is when the world will come thundering down.

B. Meeres
Saint John, New Brunswick

T Cole said...

Hey Lew,

You are out of the gate already for the new year with a commanding start. Good work, and Happy New Year from St. Johns.

T Cole
St. Johns, Nfld

Diane P said...

WOW are you up to date this year or what? The year just changed a couple of hours ago and you have your first posting for the new year already. It is a good one too. You are making a mockery of the prosecutions evidence, that is so good. Too bad Wilbert had to die.

Diane P
Shediac, New Brunswick

Dennis T said...

Good Day Sir from Halifax. Good start up posting for the new year, and right on schedule too. Keep up the good work. Happy New Year. I liked what you were able to dig up about Lindsey's finances and them not knowing how much je left the USA with. That has always bothered me, now I know the answer. I never knew that before.

Dennis T
Sussex, New Brunswick

R Bilideau said...


Good continuation of the Wilbert Coffin story Lew Stoddard. Have been reading your site for many months, enjoy it a lot. Happy New year. You dig up much that we never hear about otherwise.

R. Bilideau
St. Eustache

Wendall M Stanley said...

Happy New Year

Wishing every one all the best for 2007.

Lew, we can not thank you enough for your time and great effort that you have been putting into bringing Uncle Bill’s story to all Canadians.

Lani, I want to personally thank you for your time that you have put into the research with Lew, I know that you have been a great asset to him on this.

Feb 10th, 2006 was the 50th anniversary of Uncle Bill’s execution; this date is also the beginning of the end of this great Canadian injustice. AIDWYC announced that they were going to take on the government to have his name cleared of any and all wrong doing. With this the petitions started to be circulated here in Gaspé, and then on to other locations in Canada. The response to the petitions by Canadians has been fantastic, but we still can use your name on one if you have not signed one yet. (You can print one out at

On April 16th 2006th Lew posted his introduction to the case on this site. Today, 9 months later, he is still at it. Folks this is dedication to uncovering the truth without prejudices.

We still have a long way to go before the government will admit to the injustice of this case. With your continued help and support justice shall prevail.

Wendall Stanley
Gaspé Que

H M Morrison said...

Sir, you raise a very important consideration with respect to the amount of money that might have been on the person of this Lindsey fellow.

One could say, does it really matter? At first glance perhaps not, but deep down, yes it does, because as you say in the chapter, it created a motive for murder, and of course the larger the amount, the more magnified the motive becomes.

Of course the figure of a thousand dollars in 1953, would cause chills to run down the back of someone inclined to commit murder as a finality to robbery.

I am glad you have raised this point as to where the figure came from. Most people, including myself have been of the opinion that the amount of money carried by Lindsey senior was a known, when for sure I now see that it was nothing but speculation. You have done an excellent job on this.

H M Morrison
Winnipeg, manitoba

Ken said...

i dont think lawers are suppose to tell lies in a court so you might be wronge here as theyhave to tell the truths about should not say thes things.

ken in brandon

Randall W said...

Why does it now take a government body to decide if Wilbert Coffin was falsely convicted and hung. Does it have to involve a government ministry to pick out a bunch of bad ass lawyers?

I am no lawyer and I have no problem seeing it. Do they think we are all stupid or something?

My theory to the government is simple, Get off your pompous asses and do what is right here. Restore the dignity to the Coffin family, and do it now.

Randall W
Kingston, Ontario

Catherine W said...

This whole thing is a sham. It is deplorable, and it is sick. Thank you Sir for exposing all the corruption involved in this thing. All stuff that I never knew over the years and I have been involved in many debates on this case in the past 30 years or so.

Give it a full shot of steam, and turn up the heat. You are telling us now and proving what many others have never done.

Catherine W
Sarnia, Ontario

Ruby M said...

Good posting Mr. Stoddard. I do enjoy reading about individual issues concerning this trial, as you portray things that never came out that should have, and would have made a profound difference.

Such a lot of deceit and corruption back then. I had no idea that it was ever to those proportions, was never reported that I know of. Keep your present path on your journey Sir.

I sincerely hope that you will solve this, but at the same time, I am more hopeful that you will be able to successfully get Mr. Coffin's conviction overturned.

Ruby M
Drummondville, Quebec

Anonymous said...

Happy New Year Mr. Stoddard,

I'd like to commend you on the excellent job you are doing on this. I've been following the story with great interest for a number of months now and have been very much impressed with your dedication to not only making this injustice known to the rest of Canada and the world but also your dedication to finding out the real facts and working to clear an innocent man's name.

In reading your most recent posting this morning, I noticed that the paragraphs in the section entitled "Coffin Vs Regina" have a font size of 1 and I was not able to read them until I did a copy and paste into Word and increased the font size.

Just thought I would let you know as I'm sure that others may be experiencing similar problems with their browsers or may not have noticed that several very interesting and pertinent paragraphs could not be read.

Keep up the excellent work and I look forward to your next posting.

Lew Stoddard said...

A note to all readers of the site

As you have no doubt noticed, my web site was experiencing some technical difficulties throughout the day.

Thankfully, all is well now, thanks to a very caring and dedicated group of readers out there who worked with me to solve the problem. I received e-mails and messages from across Canada.

In particular, my personal thanks to Lorelei Reeder of Gaspe' who kindly provided me with a copy of the original posting for today, otherwise, it would have been lost forever. I was able to paste the copy she provided, and presto, like crystall ball magic, we were up and running again. Once again, my personal thanks to all.

Lew Stoddard

Donald W said...

Good to see your site up and running again. Glad to see that part that was missing.

You are quite correct, that trial lacked representation on the part of the defense. The defense would have won that trial hands down, no question about that. I think this Maher guy was nothing short of being a behind the scenes plant on the part of the justice ministry of the day.

Donald W
Regina, Saskatchewan

L Noonan said...

I agree with Donald W, it does look as if this Maher lawyer was part of a behind the scenes picture here. Otherwise, why would he offer no defense and later call no witnesses?

L Noonan
Ottawa, Ontario

Kathy A said...

You are obviously well read on the facts of this topic to which you are writing about, and I am not.

I am therefore curious as to why a lot of your writings so far do not display a lot of the drama that appeared to be so prevalent as indicated by some of the other writers of the case.

I am a journalism student, and I guess I perhaps compare journalistic qualities more severely than some. I have to tell you Mr. Stoddard, I do enjoy your direct approach and style to your work.

Kathy A
Moncton, New Brunswick

Janice K said...

You were right about one thing Sir in a big way. In your first posting that dealt with the trial portion, you indicated at the end of the post that things would get worse. They do. This is incredible.

I am in first year law at university. The elements thus far portrayed in this trial would make a seasoned criminal lawyer cringe. You write it well Mr. Stoddard.

Janice K
Calgary, Alberta

B Pearson said...

I am not saying that you are not, but I am hoping that you are, as accurate as your writings indicate of what went on in this court house at the Coffin trial. If this is all true, this is truly beyond imagination?

Can it get worse? I better not ask that, as it will probably get worse in this trial by the way it is going.

Thank you sir for doing this work. This is a most interesting story, representative of a true event in modern Canadian history.

B Pearson
Halifax, Nova Scotia

Sandra Weins said...

I have never been charged with anything, nor have I run afoul of the law that I know of. I do know one thing though, if I am ever charged with an offence, is there a mechanism in place so that I do not end up with a Raymond Maher to defend me?

Sandra Weins
Edmonton, Alberta

Brad said...

You get what you pay for in life. Works the same with lawyers too. If you pay ten cents you get a chocolate, if you pay fifty cents you get a trouffle.

Quit moaning and groaning.

From somewhere in Canada

Nephew Rick said...

To Brad; Another example of too little info. My mother is Wilbert's sister and she told me quite awhile ago that it took our family 10 years to pay off their share of expenses for the lawyers. I do not know the total cost but it was quite a bit more than the huge sum of $650 that Uncle Bill was accused of stealing and put to death for.

Anonymous said...

hi lew this is just so great what you are doing for the coffin family my heart and prayers go out to each and all the family i met mr coffin,s so this week in gaspe such a nice man,,
heep up the good work lew

Raymond G said...

Lew Stoddard,

While your intentions may be good an honourable, you lean much too heavily on the side of Mr. Coffin in this affair.

How does one know that what you present here is factual? Better still, how do you know? I would think that if things were as different as you say then the newspapers would have picked up on it by now with their broad coverage of events.

I pretty much accept what the major papers tell me about news events as it is competitive and they have to be as unbiased as possible and accurate.

I think that you are too critical of some of the major media companies.

Raymond G
St. Jean, Quebec

Grace W said...

I learned a long time ago to accept reports on anything with an open mind. I am glad that I do. I am impressed at the way that you have dug into this story. You have not based it on other peoples versions, you have obviously created it from your own work and research. I respect that a lot.

Thgis trial was so blatantly concocted to acquire a conviction for the defendant. I am anxious to read your next post. I enjoy seeing all the old actual police interviews and letters to each other.

Grace W

Robert McLeod said...

It is difficult to accept the fact that this story actually took place in Canada.

The police and government officials should have been brought up on charges for permitting this to happen.

Robert McLeod
Edmonton, Alberta

Anonymous said...

To Raymond G.
Did you happen to watch the CTV Montreal two part news report on the Coffin case? (aired last week) If so, did you happen to hear the reporter say that Wilbert Coffin was convicted for the murder of THREE American hunters. Since Coffin was only charged with the murder of Richard Lindsay,it makes me seriously ponder your use of the word ' accurate.'

Lew Stoddard said...

Message to Raymond G

You are quite correct Raymond, the news gathering business is quite competitive. That fact says it all. That is the division line that separates good journalism and tabloid journalism.

You asked me the question as to how I know if what I present is factual?

Firstly Raymond, I do not publish exerpts or clips from any publication unless I can produce supporting documentation from official sources, or from individuals concerned in the article.

If I chose to go the route of many, I could fill these pages with all those "delicious" tabloid stories that have been there for decades and increase in intensity each time they are re-told. My time Raymond, is worth more than that.

In this particular case Raymond, there are so many "new revelations" that good folks like yourself have not heard about.

The sad part Raymond, is the fact that these additions to the elements of this case have been there from the beginning, however, most of the news outlets have never researched or investigated the story beyond what someone wrote fifty years ago.

Consequently Raymond, you never get to hear about suppressed evidence, missing evidence, police wrong doing, and a host of other things. These are the things that I have investigated and researched, and will have a positive impact on the eventual outcome of this case.

In summation Raymond, and using your words, you stated that you pretty much accept what major media outlets tell you about individual stories. My advise to you is simply this, "Raymond, broaden your horizons." As I quote from the home page of "Stoddard Online" "Never accept anything in life at face value, Ask questions"

One final thing Raymond, and this is important. One never has to defend truth. Truth will always stand firm. On the other hand, an untruth constantly needs defending and support. Where does it get it's support from Raymond? You guessed it, from another untruth.

Thanks Raymond for your comment and question.

Lew Stoddard

Georgette M said...

Mr. Stoddard,

Some people swim with the dolphins, some people ride the waves, but you Sir, roll with the punches and do a great job of dancing with the words. I am referring to your recent reply to Raymond G. That is an excellent response and I support what you are saying.

On the serious side of this case, I grew up in Quebec, very near the United States border, and I can tell you that the anger that prevailed when Bill Coffin was executed was tremendous. I do not recall anyone who talked of his guilt, but I sure know of many who proclaimed his innocence.

Keep up the good work Mr. stoddard. I started reading your publication somw eeks ago, and have gone into your archives and read every piece that you have written on this event. It is informative, and easy to understand and follow.

Georgette M
Sherbrooke, Quebec

Joe Palmer said...

I can tell already that comparing what you have shown regarding the Coffin trial with what was allowed to happen, he definitely was manipulated. This has to be made public and corrected.

Joe Palmer
Burlington, Ontario

Ben W said...

Good response Lew to this dude Raymond. Since he believes everything that he reads in the paper, I am going to put a for sale ad in a major paper and try and sell him a bridge.

Thank you for the excellent job that you are doing on this event. I wrote to you some time back on here and just want you to know that I am still here. Happy New year to you as well.

Ben W

Anonymous said...

Raymond G said
" I pretty much accept what the major papers tell me about news events "

Good Lord.. you really can fool some of the people all of the time. Quite sad, really.
No wonder governments get away with what they do.

Clara M said...

There is no such thing anymore, well maybe it never really did exist. I am talking about fair and unbiased reporting.

I guess one of the major problems is the fact that in so many cases the truth is really quite boring at times, so the news outlets see that as a chance to "juice it up" with sensationalism.

With reference to the Coffin case, one cannot possibly accept anything that has been written, because over and over the same event is written inaccurately, and the other outlets follow suit by simply copying it. The end result is we never hear of all the new revelations.

I enjoy and certainly respect and support what you are doing with your accounting of this affair. Your writings with documentation so far is a good example of your endeavours.

Clara M
North Bay, Ontario

Lise T said...

Just a thought to share with everyone. I was passing through the town of Gaspe this weekend, and upon going to the shopping mall, we had the opportunity to purchase a beautiful area calendar supporting the efforts to clear Wilbert Coffin's name.

I urge anyone who would like to help with this effort to purchase a calendar, and at the same time, help the Coffin family in their endeavors.

As a suggestion, it would be nice if perhaps you could publish information on here as to where and how these calendars could be obtained.

Lise T
Bathurst, New Brunswick

Cecile W said...

Mr. Stoddard,

Well here we are into a new year. I have followed this case for years and years, and I guess I learned to accept the fact that there would never be a change in the way that it all turned out.

I am now hopeful after reading your postings for the past several months that something can and will be done. I can also see where it is necessary that everyone work together. You have brought up many new ideas and concepts with reference to this case. I am appalled at what I read from the trial that you have posterd.

Keep up the good work Sir. I do see daylight on it all now. I like your documented factual approach.

I am originally from Rimouski, and my brother taught school in the area for many years so we are quite aware of the case in depth.

Cecile W
Montreal, Quebec

Claude Mercier said...

I do hate to say this but I am of the opinion that you come down on law and order in a bit of a malicious way. That is not good.

You have to accept the fact that in serious cases like this one it would be necessary for the police to appear to be a bit forceful, but in the end you will notice that it came out ok. Sometimes that is necessary in order to achieve success of a prosecution.

You simply cannot blame the premier and the judicial system because you don't happen to like the outcome of a case. They have a job to do as well.

Claude Mercier

gilles said...

C Mercier- where the hell you just land from

was the premier your relative or was your uncle one of these cops. you are as big a dunderhead as thes idits.if things like this satifies you i hope you never get in politic.

Gilles b
grand Falls in new brunswick

G Laurier said...

It is attitudes like you G Mercier that causes problems like we have in this case. That is why it happened in the first place, because of dictatorial powers by a very very corrupt regime. You would have excelled very nicely to have been part of it, or were you, or are you today?

Hang your head in shame Sir. You put us in the dark ages.

To members of the Coffin family, I say pay no attention to comments from people like this.

G Laurier
Cornwall, Ontario

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mercier,
It is because of dupes like you that Mr. Coffin was hanged…
I live in Gaspe Quebec…not far from where the murders took place. “The law and order” as you put it, knew they were too stupid to solve this case back in 1953…They messed up this case so bad, stumbled over all the evidence, why? Because they did not have a clue as to what they were doing, untrained for an investigation of this magnitude… So they did the only thing they could do to get promotions and 15 minutes of fame…. to pretend they knew what they were doing. By prosecuting and hanging an innocent man…
If the police force had been trained, and Mr. Coffin would have had a good sober lawyer, we would not be reading this posting here today…This case would have had a different outcome…
It is time for law and government to wake up here and clear this man’s name…
There is so much more evidence here now, the evidence that the law was too stupid to find in 1953… they think if they ignore it maybe it will go away. Never, it has been around for 54 years, and will continue to be….
Keep up the good work Mr. Stoddard.

Rhonda said...

Hi Lise,

Thank you so much for purchasing a calendar. The family really appreciates your support.

If anyone else would like to purchase a calendar please email or visit

Thank you to everyone who is supporting us in our efforts to have Uncle Wilbert's name cleared.

Rhonda Stewart

T McLean said...

The words "law and order" are pretty words. In 1953 they had laws, but they had no order. That is the bottom line of the whole problem. Anonymous from Gaspe expressed it well.

Unfortunately, throughout the years society has allowed the government to sit on their regal asses and pretend this did not happen. They know it happened, and now they have to go through a long drawn out affair and supposedly investigate as to whether wrong doing existed. Give me a break. You have insulted my intelligence long enough.

Where the hell are the newspapers and the news networks? All they do is focus on the stuff that over and over have cluttered the airwaves, and the printed word.

In my view, many of the news outlets must be taking direction from government. Otherwise, how come they never focus on new information, and why are they not critical of government handling?

This is serious stuff, and it is time to speak up and say, We are not taking this any longer. Get off your butts and bring this matter to rightful conclusion now. Canadians should expect more than a crocodile smile from Mr. Harper. He was full of promises before the election, but now I believe that he may have been full of something else.

T McLean
St. Catherines

J Daigle said...

I know that times have changed. I know that we have better investigative tools, and I know that we have had some smart, and some stupid individuals running the show, but really, it took direction from the top and the full support of the justice ministry back in 1953 and 1954 to pull this thing off and gain a conviction.

If they are out to get you, trust me, they will get you. This is so evident in this case. There is such compelling evidence in the opposite direction, that without ministry intervention, a conviction would have been impossible.

J Daigle
Moncton, new Brunswick

Beth Goodine said...

Just a quick note to say that I really like the new look of your web site. Easy to read, more spunky, more spirit, good way to kick off the new year.

Keep up the good work.

Beth Goodine
Saint John

D McLellan said...

Looking forward to your next posting on the trial. This is an astounding mess. You are sorting it out to where it could have made a lot more sense and an innocent man would not have died.

Also want to say your web site looks super.

D McLellan
Edmundston, N B

D Ambrose said...

I, too wish to congratulate you on the new look of your web site. Very professional looking, easy to read, and good color choice.

Looking forward to the next portion of your story on the trial. I can now see this is where the real story was. So sad, so cruel, and so final.

They absolutely have to straighten this thing out without further delay. This is so wrong. My heart is with Mrs. marie Coffin and all the rest of the family and all those concerned from the Gaspe community.

D Ambrose
Clinton, Ontario

Lani said...

Hi All
Lew has had his next posting ready to post for the past few days but, with our seemingly never ending West Coast winds ( 100 MPH again this afternoon!),he's sitting at home "in the dark!" Hopefully the power will come back on later tonight or in the morning and he can continue on with the next chapter.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mr.Stoddard and Coffin Family i Live in Lachute, Qubebc. and In the news paper today there is a girl calming her grandfather did it something to do with it and her uncle seen it.