It is important to note that no heat or pressure whatsoever was placed on Angus MacDonald, Richardson, and Soucy. MacDonald especially, was allowed to make his appearance at will and then disappear from the scene. Though he did not know at the time, Wilbert Coffin had gone to Montreal. MacDonald stated to police that Bill Baker had informed him of that fact. I contend that he was lying. Bill baker did not trust the guy, so it is highly doubtful that he would have informed him as to Wilbert's whereabouts. In reality, if what MacDonald says was true and that he did wire Wilbert in Montreal, the follow-up should have been evidence in Wilbert's favour. According to MacDonald he wired Wilbert to find out about his tools, and Wilbert asked him for money, indicating he was broke. This would be in stark contrast to the report that Captain Matte had put together of Wilbert's lavish lifestyle during the trip to Montreal and the subsequent visit there. As trial evidence, we only heard of the grandeur of the trip, not the bump and grind of what it really was.
If the police had bothered to check out Soucy at this time they would very quickly have learned of his checkered past. They would have learned of his stealing vehicles in the maritimes, his drifting around, and his suspicious nature. Without doubt, it represents another scenario of police cover-up in order to build a stronger, more timely circumstantial case against their suspect, Wilbert Coffin..
This is where the defense lawyer would rise to his or her feet requesting to cross examine. The defense lawyer would do a short lead-in. You may be asked at this point if this photograph clearly represents your memory of the crime scene. You have already stated to the prosecutor that it does, so you concur with the defense.
The defense lawyer now requests from the judge permission to submit to the court an alternate photo for comparison purposes. You, as the witness will now be asked by the defense lawyer to select which photo most accurately depicts the crime scene, the one that you have previously selected, or the one that the defense team has just produced? Your response might be that they are so similar that both are accurately depicting the crime scene.
The defense lawyer will now move in for the kill. The next questions by the defense lawyer to you might go something like this, "Can you explain to the court how it is possible for the picture presented by the crown, to which you ientify in graphic detail as a vehicle tire in a snow storm depict this crime scene, when now you are telling me that the picture that I just showed you depicts the same crime scene, when in fact, the photo that I just presented is dirty dish water escaping from my stainless steel kitchen sink after washing last night's dirty dishes. I suggest the swirling snowflakes to which you allude are not snowflakes at all, but are actually the liquid Palmolive dish soap, coupled with some bits of grime and grease."
Guess what, if you as a witness was caught in such a scenario in court, your credibility as a court witness just went down the drain, because there would be no escape. You could have been the best witness in the country, but because of legalized deception and deceit, you would have been reduced to a smouldering ruins.
As you can see, with the right spin by a seasoned lawyer, the best witness has taken a chance when he or she decides to give evidence on a voluntary basis. True, this is a photo of dirty water escaping from a stainless steel sink. There simply is no tire in the photograph. If you were one of many who guessed that it was a tire do not feel bad. I displayed that for one reason only. I wanted to illustrate the fact that sometimes when something appears "is" really "isn't", and when something appears "isn't, it really "is."
The next posting of the story will be the last. It would simply have involved too much to include it with todays posting. We shall be taking an indepth look at the autopsy reports, and we shall be taking an indepth look at evidence as supplied by Constable Lewis Sinnett, and the ways in which his evidence and statements tie in with the known events of the time. In the next posting you will see the relevance of the autopsy reports, and the reasons why they are that way. You will also see the results of Mr. Soucy's trip to Juniper, New Brunswick, and the way in which he ripped off his boss.
.Ladies and gentlemen I thank you for being a great audience, and a patient audience as well. I look forward to presenting the final chapter to you in approximately four days.
This manuscript is protected by copyright. Reproduction in whole, or in part, for whatever reason, and by whatever means, is not permitted without the express written permission by the author, Lew Stoddard.