.

A TIME FOR CONCERN

.

.
In many countries of the world including Canada, when one is found guilty of a crime, a range of prescribed penalties is made available to the judicial process that supposedly will act as a deterrent, and at the same time, satisfy society that a guilty party has been made to pay. A simple solution? Yes it is. It is simple as long as the process will withstand the test of truth. If it will not withstand the truth test, the system will falter.
.
When the system falters, our government law makers have provided a fancy three dollar assortment of words that hopefully will lessen the impact by hopefully preserving our elected as a group who can do no wrong. That assortment of words that we hear all too often is "wrongfully convicted." It is a nice way of simply saying, "The system screwed up."
.
One thing that I have discovered over the years though is the fact that I could not find a single case of the government coming forward and volunteering this disclosure. It came about only after pressure and heat was applied to the process by the public. In most cases, it required many years of non-stop bumping and grinding by a rentless group, unwilling to yield to the assinine decisions of a flawed process.
.
When it becomes apparent by the public there is likelihood of a botched process and conviction, the government immediately moves into "damage control mode." The government does not say, yes, we perhaps made a mistake. The official position, places the onus completely on the public to prove the government was in error.
.
True, the government will make a big splash and state they are doing a complete study of the case, leading the public into thinking they want to make the process right. In my view, I will refer to this as "hogwash." There is another word that possibly defines it better, however, in the interests of good vocabulary, I shall not use the word on my web site. Afterall, if the government is as caring as they portray themselves, then again I ask, why did they not instigate the review on their own, void of public pressure?
.
The Wilbert Coffin case is a prime example of justice gone wild. It is different from many others, chiefly because Wilbert Coffin was executed. In Mr. Coffin's case, serious questions lingered prior to the banging of the gavel at the original inquest. If I can see that some fifty years after the fact, then surely, it was a planned, calculated hit on a fellow human being who had been pre-judged as someone incapable of fighting back. This was wrong, wrong, wrong and the facts of the case support my statement.
.
This case is going to sit right where it is at if we don't get off our butts and collectively make it happen. I cannot adequately stress the importance of becoming aggressive. This is our one and only chance. I have stated that a number of times on this site. This is not the time for cheap shots and bickering. By that I refer to some of the mail that I receive and some of the posted comments. There are a number of you who take example with my style of reporting. That is alright. That tells me that you are paying attention to this case. If more people would have done that over the years, perhaps this case would not be in the chaos that it is in a half century after the fact. Specifically, I am referring to "new evidence."
.
A question for any who are reading this site. Have you read the complete trial transcripts of Wilbert Coffin's trial back in 1954? I have. I read the transcripts to learn about this case. I am not interested in spouting off half-cocked. I wanted to learn what was, and what wasn't covered at trial. If you were to hear some of the remarks by telephone, and read some of the comments that I receive by e-mail, in addition to some of the on site comments, I have no reservations whatsoever, that many of you folks would quickly agree there are many who prefer to engage their mouth before they put their brain into gear.
.
An example to the above is my reference to "new evidence." There are several key pieces of sworn testimony and evidence that was placed with the authorities long before this trial commenced. When the trial concluded, this evidence had never been brought forward, and to this day, does not form part of the official record. This is unacceptable, deplorable, and because of the fact that it was not presented, I stand firm in my belief that it is new evidence. The fact that it was suppressed to strengthen a crooked agenda does not lessen the gravity of it's importance.
.
Prime examples of suppressed evidence would include Doctor Wilson and his wife Mimi. They saw a jeep of a particular design on a ferry in the Saint Lawrence River. This jeep, complete with Pennsylvania licence plates, closely paralleled a jeep with two occupants that had been reported sighted in the woods by Wilbert Coffin. A sworn statement was made by the Wilsons, and that was the end of it. Similarly, a jeep of this description had been reported by Fabien Sinnett. He had spotted this jeep in the town of Gaspe. Again, his statement never made it to court. Why? I want to know why? Until I get that answer, that remains as new evidence.
.
Another question for you. I hope there is someone amongst you who will provide me with details. It is as well, a question that was never answered at the trial. The question is, Is there someone who can e-mail me and tell me all about the information from the Dumaresq family. This information is vital. Again, it ties in directly with jeep sightings, description of vehicles, licence plates and individuals.
.
I will not publish the name of the individual involved, however, here is an exerpt from an e-mail that I received yesterday. I am quoting directly from the e-mail, "Wilbert Dumaresq was with Raymond and Eddy Dumaresq at the time they saw the jeep in the woods. His father Wilbert told him at the time, that the first vehicle was a pick-up truck with an american license with three men, one middle age, and the other two were young men, and about two hours later there was a jeep who stopped and talked to Dufresne a man working for the Dumeresq's. One of the occupant was wearing a jacket with fringes, and they were looking for the bear hunters." This is important stuff. I want to know why they were looking for the bear hunters. I also want to know why this stuff was not covered properly at the trial. In concert with above, until these questions are answered, I consider this to be new evidence.
.
Several times I have referred to the fact as to why this or that never got reported by the authorities. A couple of people in particular are quick to point out that it was covered in this or that newspaper. Let it be said here and now. I couldn't care less which big print media outlet carried something in 1966. I want to know why they did not report it prior to 1954. I want to know why it never got reported where it mattered, in the court room.
.
To date, I have prepared a list of things that can and must be answered before a new determination for this case can be established. I believe that these items are paramount, and will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Wilbert Coffin was railroaded. The following constitutes my list,
.
1) The changing of the inquest verdict
.
2) Refusal to allow Wilbert Coffin to testify at inquest when he requested to do so
.
3) Refusal to allow Wilbert Coffin an English trial as was his wish and request
.
4) Suppression of evidence by Doctor and Mrs. Wilson
.
5) Suppression of evidence supplied by Fabien Sinnett
.
6) No established proof as to the cause of Richard Lindsey's death
.
7) Acceptance that Richard Lindsey died of gunshot wounds when in fact there were no broken bones, there was no murder weapon found, there were no spent cartridge cases, there were no bullets or bullet fragments found in or adjacent to his remains
.
8) Circular perforations in Richard Lindsey's garments that can be proven to be well in excess of any small arms cartridges available. The medical examiner stated that the perforations were varying from 7/16" to 1/2" in diameter.
.
9) Evidence supports my theory that Richard Lindsey was stabbed by a tapered object rather than having been shot to death
.
10) Evidence by the medical examiner at trial stating that the marks on one human bone could have been made by the teeth of a forest animal
.
11) The refusal by the judge to grant Wilbert Coffin an English trial as was his right, by substituting a half English, half French jury at his trial
.
12) The neglect and/or refusal by the judge to ensure that Wilbert Coffin was receiving fair and proper legal representation at trial, when it would have been obvious that he was not. The judge was in charge of the operation of the trial and it would have been incumbent upon him to ensure that the best interests of the defendant were in place.
.
13) Investigating the finding of a handgun discarded in the area of the murder a short time after the event. This person has identified himself to me by name, and I have had dialogue with him
.
I have outlined thirteen major reasons that I consider to be of prime importance with respect to overturning this case. In todays legal process any one of these reasons would be sufficient to declare a misstrial. It should have been in 1954 as well. The passage of fifty-four years does not erase that.

I constantly see references to a possible pardon. This is constantly spelled out in broadcast and print media. I see that idea being touted in the book, To Build A Noose. The final paragraph of the book sums it this way, and I quote directly from the books epilogue. "Hopefully, what has been written will play a part, however small, in obtaining a posthumous pardon for Wilbert Coffin."
.
Allow me to remind any and all who are reading my posting today. Pardons are for the guilty, exoneration is for the innocent. A pardon merely states that the offence took place, but from this point on we are no longer holding you responsible. Exoneration simply means that due to a lack of evidence you should not be held responsible for this crime and are hereby released from the wrath of a trumped up case against you.
.
I reiterate what I have said many times before. This is a time for unity if this affair is ever going to right itself. Lani Mitchell and myself have worked tirelessly on this for a year. We cannot do it alone. We have taken this case down the road far beyond any in the past, and the work is not done. To those of you who find the time to sit out there and criticize others, make an effort to do something constructive.
.
I wish also to remind you that airing tonight on CBC French there is a one hour special program on the Coffin affair. The name of the program is "Enjeux" I am informed that the program will cover all phases of the Wilbert Coffin story and answer many questions. I am encouraged by that. If however, it doesn't answer at least some of the issues that I have raised above, then we are back to re-reporting what has been covered many times. It is unfortunate as well that the program is produced in French only. This is particularly disturbing considering the funding for the CBC comes from the federal government, which is taxpayer based from all Canadians, regardless of language.

.
Lew Stoddard
Posted to site March 28, 2007

THE SEARCH CONTINUES

.

.

As with most investigations there are many loose ends that are necessary to tie everything together. The internet of course simplifies the search and places many things within grasp if one is patient. On numerous occasions in the past, it has been necessary to reach out to you in this way for information. This is another of those times when it is necessary to prevail upon you, the reader, for some assistance. If I did not deem this important, I would not do it in this manner, however, in this case I ask that collectively we all put our heads together. I know the answer that I seek is out there.

.

I am asking you to take a good look at the old photograph that I am posting. I do not know the origin of this photo, other than it was taken in 1953 at or near Gaspe'. The quality of the photo is not good. It could not be enlarged, as in doing such, the clarity of the picture was lessened to the point where the photo was no longer useful.

.

I can tell you that the gentleman in uniform wearing dark glasses is police officer Lewis Sinnett with the Quebec Provincial Police. As well, I am certain of the identity of the gentleman standing second from the left side. I will not state the name at this point because I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. I am most interested in the younger gentleman in the white shirt standing next to Officer Sinnett. You will note that he is young, and there is a good possibility that he may still be alive. If you can help me identifying any or all of these gentlemen, it would be greatly appreciated. You can either post the names in the form of a comment on this site, or you can send me an e-mail to lewisstoddard@shaw.ca

.

.

Constantly you read about me ranting and raving about the importance of reaching out and acquiring statements from those involved with this case. These folks are our link with the past, and they are dwindling in number.

.

You have also read where I have referred to the fact, that in my opinion, it can be proven that Wilbert Coffin was convicted by a flawed process. I stand by that decision. I have located one of the original jurors from that original inquest where this case commenced taking shape. His name is Gabriel Bernard. As well, many have known, and I have stressed as well, that the coroner, Doctor Lionel Rioux who headed up that inquest was still alive and well. I am hopeful that AIDWYC contacted Dr. Lionel Rioux. In my view, his evidence would be crucial in establishing the fact of a flawed process of law, forced by the government of Quebec.

.

Sadly, I have to inform you that Doctor Lionel Rioux passed into eternity this past Wednesday, March 14, 2007. I extend my condolences to the Rioux family.

.

Lew Stoddard

Posted to site March 19, 2007

A TIME TO FACE REALITY

.

.

For those who have followed the story of Wilbert Coffin, the year 2006 would surely have been a milestone. With the date February 10, the fiftieth anniversary of his execution by hanging passed into history. Though a huge swell supporting the belief that a wrongful conviction of Wilbert Coffin took place exists amongst Canadians from coast to coast, sadly, little has been accomplished in the clearing of his name.

.

I simply cannot begin to count the number of times that I have been told that things like that were just not talked about in the community. Why not, I would ask? Invariably, the answer would be, "just because it wasn't." I do not buy that answer. It is not good enough.

.

Here we are in history some fifty years after the fact. Many have obviously passed on. True, from those who remain, there are some who have changed their views and are now anxious to see this case clear the hurdles. This is a commendable approach. There are missing links still existing out there in the Gaspe' community that need to become part of the chain. You know who you are, and you know what you should do.

.

From my own investigation and research, I am confident that the community at large wishes for a successful conclusion to this case. One person cannot do it all. After this period of time, it must be a community endeavour. This case had its roots in the Gaspe' community, so it stands to reason, the community harbours the secrets of the closet.

.

As I have stated many times, it is not my objective to lead in a new guilty party in handcuffs. Personally, I do not think that is possible. While I do firmly believe that Wilbert Coffin was not the responsible party, I do believe that the person or persons who are truly guilty are probably no longer with us. You will note that I said "probably" because I rule nothing out until proven otherwise, as I have come across several in this case who have mysteriously resurrected from the belief that they long ago departed this earth.

.

We are in the midst of a judicial review of the Wilbert Coffin case. It is a review that we know very little about. We know very little about it simply because they have told us little about it. What we do not know about this review, and this is of significant importance, is the depth that the government is prepared to allow the review to go. Will they allow new evidence, meaning evidence that has come forward since the original trial? Will they allow suppressed evidence, meaning evidence that was on hand at the time of the original trial, but was held back? Will they allow testimony of witnesses who gave sworn statements in 1953, but were never called to trial? These are all key questions that have to be answered. Otherwise, the review is going to falter.

.

In addition to the above, the original process and the reasons that it happened the way that it did must be thoroughly studied. If it was flawed, why was it flawed? From the onset, was there a valid legal reason as to why an inquest jury's verdict was called back, forcing a new verdict to coincide with the police theory? Was the evidence presented in a fair and truthful way by the crown to the presiding jury? Did the imposition of a mixed language jury pose an unfair hearing for Wilbert Coffin, when he had requested an English speaking jury and trial?

.

Twice in the past five months, Canadians in general have been advised that the government is doing a review of this case. In the first instance, we were told that it was in response to a review that had been requested some seven years earlier, and that it had been turned over to the CCRG, (Criminal Conviction Review Group) to study the case. The second time, a few weeks ago, the government took a vote on the floor of The House Of Commons and voted unanimously for a speedy review of the case. In neither instance, has the government outlined exactly the parameters of the investigation with reference to the things that I referred to above.

.

This is the most serious and dangerous part of the whole government inquiry. Do you recall the last episode that I posted in this story? Do you recall whatI told you about in that posting of the last time that the federal government did an inquiry into the Wilbert Coffin affair? It took place back in December of 1955? The government was petitioned to do an inquiry at that time, the which, if they would have done it properly, Wilbert Coffin most probably would not have hanged. The government merely threw the case back to the Supreme Court of Canada, and of course the highest court in the land was not about to overrule their own ruling. As a result, we had an execution.

.

There is only one court, and that is the court of last resort that can strike down a Supreme Court decision. The court of last resort is the federal cabinet. That is the reason why it is paramount that the government allow all the components to be part of this investigation. If this case is simply handed back to the Supreme Court, it will be final. There will be no tomorrow.

.

The unanimous vote in the House Of Commons sounds like victory. It outlines nothing as to the direction of an investigation. All the voting members were merely doing was endorsing an investigation. The scope of the investigation will be determined by someone other than themselves. This is where you have to light a fire under the butt of your local voting member to get in there and pitch for this to include the new evidence and suppressed evidence, as well as let the voices of living witnesses be heard as they should have been a half century ago.

.

In spite of what politicians say, this is not a partisan politics issue. This case has been around for a staggering fifty-four years. If either major political party really had a deep rooted interest in this case it would have been torn apart years ago. In fifty-four years the Liberal government has been in power for thirty-two of those years and the Conservatives have been there for twenty-two years.

.

Interestingly, the late Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was vocal on the case in the early days before his tenure into politics by ranting and raving about the unfairness of the case was prime minister on two separate occasions since the execution. He fought a long and hard courageous battle for Jacques Hebert in defense of his writings on the case, again, before he entered politics. Without doubt, this was a commendable thing for Trudeau to do, and while in government, he would use this case as a reference for abolition of capital punishment. Unfortunately, during these two occasions as prime minister, my question is "why did he not order a complete study and review of Wilbert Coffin's case while he had the power to order it done?"

.

The point that I am making is simply that now is not the time to sit back and put your feet up. The time has come to put pressure on your member of parliament. If he or she points out that a review is under way, ask them what are the terms of the review? Ask them if they are allowing new evidence, suppressed evidence, new witnesses, also witnesses who were denied the chance to speak?

.

Don't be alarmed though if your member of parliament asks you who Wilbert Coffin was. You see we have a very delicate situation here because the average age of all three hundred plus members of parliament in Ottawa is only fifty-one years. That means that with very few exceptions, most were not even born when all this took place. This fact alone states very abruptly that we must be willing to carry the torch all the way to the back fence if we are going to be heard. It is easy to get caught up in the hype and excitement, just remember, the battle is not won yet.

.

Some of you will argue that I am a pessimist. Some of you will argue that I am an optimist. Having studied politics, and having watched politicians perform all my life, I like to think of myself as a realist. After this review concludes, you be the judge.

.

Lew Stoddard

Posted to site March 08, 2007