Stoddard Online

THE WILBERT COFFIN STORY

.

THE CONCLUSION

.

PART SIX

.

With Captain Alphonse Matte's feet firmly planted at the helm of the impending investigation, his work load was evident. The discovery of the remains of the second and third members of this hunting party confirmed that. It was obvious that since all three murder victims were from the same party, the most obvious conclusion would be that the elder Eugene Lindsey was the prime target, with the killing of the young men an insurance policy, thus removing possible witnesses.

.

As with any mass murder investigation, Matte knew the components necessary to reach an integral conclusion leading to a conviction sometimes appeared simplistic by definition, but complex to achieve. He had to identify the bodies, he had to identify a cause of death, and he had to produce a reason or motive for the crime. It is when these components are in place that one can search the available list of suspects and hopefully the guilty party will emerge.

.

This particular case was different. Captain Matte had his suspect before identity, cause of death, or a motive had been established. His one and only suspect was Wilbert Coffin. He reached that conclusion when he learned that Coffin had driven Lindsey Junior for an automobile part, and was the last person reported to have seen any of the Lindsey party alive. The next few paragraphs will detail Wilbert Coffin's rocky road with reference to the way that Matte was building the case against him.

.

In order that the conclusion to this story be presented in an orderly fashion, it is necessary to outline certain events pertaining to major pieces of circumstantial evidence that the crown built their case upon. This is where it is clear that the crown fabricated much of the evidence that was used for the trial and conviction.

.

Wilbert Coffin was adamant that he saw and was introduced to new arrivals when he arrived back at the stalled truck with Richard Lindsey. He stated emphatically that Eugene Lindsey introduced these two people who were driving a modified Jeep, as two fellows from down his way in Pennsylvania. I am in possession of a copy of Sgt. John Vanhoutte's notes to his boss. It is abundantly clear from those notes that the police were aware of these two persons. It is also clear from trial transcripts that the police chose to "cover up" this information and pretend that Wilbert Coffin was lying. By doing this, there was no-one to corroborate Wilbert Coffin's version of the events, and since he was not allowed to speak in his own defense at his trial, they were able to push it through. This was a major blow to Wilbert Coffin.

.

Captain Matte was aware that Wilbert Coffin and Angus MacDonald had come out of the forest. He was also aware that Wilbert Coffin had gone back in by himself, as Wilbert Coffin had decided to ditch MacDonald. Wilbert had a conversation with Bill Baker and the decision was made. Again, according to police reports that I have a copy of, MacDonald told Sgt. Vanhoutte that he stayed that night at Wilbert Coffin's cabin, in the company of "Curly Richardson, and Mr. Soucy". Why he told this to the police, I do not know, because it could be particularly incriminating if he were to be placed under investigation. MacDonald, according to the police reports, stated that his vehicle, namely a "car" had been stored at the home of Francis Annett. It is important here to remember that the vehicle was not a truck, was not a Jeep, but was a "car". The vehicle type will play an important role in the conclusion.

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..

Another very important aspect to the crown's case against Wilbert Coffin was apparently based on evidence garnered from the statement of one Wilson MacGregor. According to MacGregor, the evidence put forth by the police differed drastically from his actual statement. At trial, the crown contended that MacGregor had stated that he had seen the barrel of a rifle protruding from the rear of Wilbert Coffin's truck, and that this was on the night of June 12, 1953. MacGregor signed an affadavit stating that what he had said was "he saw what could have been the barrel of a rifle or a piece of iron bar that prospectors use". He would further state that he had not said it was June 12, but that "it was the week in question". It was a known fact that Wilson MacGregor suffered a disability which was evident from his writing skills. The police could spot this, and tailored it to their advantage. This way a signature could be attained for most anything that they wanted.

.

Both the police and the prosecutor would later make reference to the statement of Mr. MacGregor. They appeared to make light of it by saying, "how does one mistake that what he thought as the barrel of a rifle could turn out to be that of an iron rod?" They were literally displaying Mr. MacGregor as a fool, when in fact, they were using him as a prop to foster belief in their system of evidence tampering. There will be those who do not accept what I am writing here, and agree with what the police and prosecutor had to say. You are entitled to believe what you wish, but I do ask that you pay close attention to the following illustration.

.

Prior to getting into this illustration, I want to take the opportunity to thank Mr. Wendall Stanley of Gaspe' for permission to use his photo, as it is he who holds the copyright.

.

Let us play a little game of pretend. Let us pretend that we are in a court of law. You are now in the witness box. You have been asked to take a hard look at this photo which is representative of sworn testimony that you have just given detailing a crime scene. Strictly in your own words, you are now asked to explain the significance of what can be seen in the photo and the crime scene. This should not present too great a challenge. After all, you were there, you saw clearly, and it is now being recreated in front of you in the form of the photo, so it all comes back. You are feeling quite comfortable. You may even be thinking, "Hey! this trip to court to give evidence is easy."

.

You explain to the court in the greatest of detail. You point out the tire on a rim. You point out the sides of the tire as being white wall, depicting an older vehicle. You point out the good tread visible at the top left of the photo. In general, the tire appeared to be in excellent condition. You further state to the court the weather was inclement that day as you remember snow falling and blowing, as evidenced by the swirling snow flakes. In the final analysis, you have painted a glowing portrait of what you saw on the day of this crime. You are thanked by the prosecutor, who indicates that he has finished with you. He is pleased because he has extracted from you exactly what he needs to present a larger picture.

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.

Lew Stoddard

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.