Monday, March 03, 2008

In the last posting we were taking a look at the trial process of Wilbert Coffin. We were making a determination as to whether Wilbert Coffin actually received a fair process from the judiciary of the day.
You will recall that we reviewed the inquest process conducted by Doctor Lionel Rioux. You will further recall the scenario leading up to and including the changing of the inquest verdict to reflect one of responsibility on the part of Wilbert Coffin. This was done subsequent to the jury having already delivered a verdict of non-responsibility on Mr. Coffin's part. This was done on directions from the Ministry of Justice of the province of Quebec.
It is important to note here that the directive from the justice ministry was swift and absolute. They simply stated that they were going to charge Wilbert Coffin with murder anyway, whether or not the inquest jury found him responsible. In spite of the directive from the ministry, the decision to change the verdict was not unanamous. Two of the responsible businessmen from the Gaspe' area saw fit to hold out and not go with the directive. They were Whorrel Annett and Gabriel Bernard. The government got their wish in the form of a majority vote, with the two dissenters remaining intact.
To the surprise of many, Gabriel Bernard is still alive at this writing and confirms this revelation. He is also willing to convey this information to a court of enquiry. I have personally spoken with Mr. Bernard and he has assured me that he was never convinced that Wilbert Coffin was guilty of this crime, and as well, feels badly with respect to the ministry of justice promoting a change in verdicts.
I have reviewed these things simply to display to you the illegal happenings which took place, as it is important to remember that it was these events that laid the frame work for the upcoming trial. There is an important question here that needs to be answered. The question is simple, it is the answer that is complex.
The question is simply, "Is it proper and prudent that a court of law be allowed to flourish and make a determination on a first degree murder charge, when the very venue of determination is laced with illegal procedures? In my view, I do not believe that it is. I know of no other court system in the land that would permit this to happen.
For the past few months I have been working on an aspect of this trial process that has never been worked in the past. That is not to say that it shouldn't have been investigated. If the trial judge had done his work properly at the onset of the trial it would have been discovered. More importantly, if the defense legal team headed up by lawyer Raymond Maher had done his job the crown would not have got away with it either. The whole scene emits a stench of complicity on the part of both the crown and the defense. I ask that you read and re-read the following few paragraphs before you form an opinion.
In order to fully understand the gravity of the situation that I am going to describe to you it is important that we fully understand and appreciate the laws governing our court system and the rights of individuals caught up in the workings of the judiciary of Canada. It is also important to note that Canada received her Charter Of Rights And Freedoms in 1982. Prior to this date, as a nation we were subject to the laws and rules of Great Britain. As a result, persons charged with an offence were covered by certain rules, which enabled a fair exposure to the justice system.
Subsequent to 1982, in a more refined and defined structure, certain laws and rules remained intact. In other words, since the original confederation there were always some rules governing the handling of an accused. Without doubt, that set Canada apart from many other regimes of the world who offered much less.
An important consideration is the fact that under both the British regime and our current charter, the rights and freedoms of a citizen is a very precious and fragile component, especially to those who may find themselves falling within the net of a judicial proceeding against them. That is why the application of our rules are entrusted to those in authority, to make certain that those less fortunate are treated equally to those who may be in a higher social status.
During the course of my investigation of the Wilbert Coffin affair, it has always been in my mind as to whether Wilbert Coffin received the full benefit of protection as would have been provided by law. Early on my question was partially answered when I learned of the changing of the verdict at the Inquest. My feelings were that if this was an example, there would be others. I did not know where, but I was determined to find them. I am glad that I am not one to give up easily.
Fair exposure to the justice system includes a competent legal defense. That is not just my interpretation, that is laid out clearly in both the old system under British law and our new system, falling under the current Charter Of Rights And Freedoms. Without that principle in place, clearly there would be no equality within the parameters of law. In simple terms, "the law for the poor, and the law for the rich" would be the order of the day. Unfortunately, to the peril of an accused, if justice is allowed to be meted out by the wrong hands, then the scales of justice are name only, and meaningless. I invite you to read on.
The tale that I am now going to relate to you is true. I know that because I personally researched it, and conducted interviews. It is an ugly, chilling tale, mostly because it happened here in Canada, a place where this sort of thing could never happen. I should tell you now, this did not happen by accident. It was a planned, calculated strike against a citizen of Canada, charged with an offence. His name was Wilbert Coffin of Gaspe', Quebec.
In order that one do an indepth study of this affair as I have done, immediately one asks themselves the question, "Was Wilbert Coffin adequately defended?" From the time of his arrest until trial, much of his time was spent without the services of a lawyer. There is documented proof that in the beginning he was denied legal representation. There is also proof that as pre-trial time continued, his defense planning time with a competent lawyer could at best be described as sparce.
Prior to being moved to the Quebec City jail for "more professional" interrogation as it was described by Captain Alphonse Matte, his local lawyer in Gaspe' had been denied access to him. His brother and father had arranged for a young local lawyer by the name of Mr. Garneau to look after him, but it was evident that Garneau was no match for the big guns sent down from Quebec on the part of the prosecution and investigation.
During his time spent being interrogated at Quebec jail for nearly three weeks, I can find no recorded time spent with a defense lawyer. On the other hand, I can find records of hours of torturous treatment meted out by Captain Alphonse Matte and others in an effort to gain a confession, of which they were never able to extract. This evidence is supported in statements by the late Eugene Letourneau, the Quebec City jailer and staff.
It was because of these things that caused me to "look outside the box" in order to enhance my investigation of this case. I asked myself, "If a qualified, competent defense lawyer existed during this time for Wilbert Coffin, would that person in their professional capacity have stood idly by and allowed these things to take place, considering the fact that they were dealing with the most celebrated legal case in Quebec history?" Instantly, common sense told me of course they would not. At that point, I knew that I was on the right track with respect to the legal defense of Wilbert Coffin. It simply did not exist. The crown would argue during this period that Wilbert Coffin was not being denied counsel to defend a charge, because he had not been officially charged and that he was only a suspect.
You will recall some months back that I put out the call for any police officers who may be still alive that took part in some way with the Wilbert Coffin affair. I was assured by a couple of people that my search was fruitless as each and everyone were now deceased. Each time that I was assured they were all deceased, I was encouraged me to look more thoroughly. I encouraged anyone who had a Grand Dad or Great Grand Dad, great uncle or family friend, or associate in any way, who might be able to help to please conact me.
Once again the search paid dividends a few weeks ago.Through a third party, I was assured that a former police officer who worked on the case was very much alive. I made an effort and was able to locate this former officer. Prior to contacting him, I was able to determine that he was French Canadian. I was prepared to do an interview with him providing he would discuss the situation with me. I was further prepared to utilize the services of an interpretor, as I do not speak French.
This former officer's name is Gilles Bastien, a current resident of the Gaspe' coast. Upon contacting Mr. Bastien, I discovered that he was most willing to discuss the matter with me, and to simplify matters, Mr. Bastien is most fluent in both English and French.
During the course of my discussion with Mr. Bastien he was able to enlighten me, and in many ways corroborate what others had been able to tell me about the course of events leading up to and including the trial time at Perce'. Specifically, I am referring to the defendant, Wilbert Coffin and his inability to speak with his legal counsel, brought on by the actions of the solicitor general and attorney general of Quebec.
In this particular affair, we have only heard of the actions of the prominent players such as Captain Alphonse Matte, Sgt. John Charles VanHoutte, and the head of the Quebec Provincial Police traffic division, Captain Raoul Sirois. It is important to note that any orders coming down the pipe from Captain Sirois, were merely being passed on from Solicitor General Antoine Rivard and his cohert the Attorney General, Maurice Duplessis who just happened to be the premier of the province as well.
Captain Matte had been in touch with Raoul Sirois and requested assistance in manpower. He stressed the importance of keeping Wilbert Coffin distant from legal counsel during down time from the trial. He requested that some officers from the traffic division be re-assigned their duties during the trial, just as Constable Lewis Sinnett had done previous to the trial. It would be these officers who were charged with the responsibility of keeping Wilbert Coffin on the move to avoid dialogue with counsel.
The story now will focus in the direction of former Quebec Provincial Police officer Gilles Bastien. I asked Mr. Bastien to describe to me in his own words as to who appointed him, his role, and the territory covered. Here is his response to my questions.
"I was a traffic officer on the Gaspe' coast with the Quebec Provincial Police, stationed in the Chandler area. The head office for the traffic division for the Quebec Provincial Police was in Quebec City and was headed up by a Captain Raoul Sirois. It was from the Quebec head office that all decisions were made with respect to each individual office.
Captain Alphonse Matte made a request to the Quebec office for some officers to carry out a special detail. I was one of the officers selected to go to Gaspe' for this duty. This duty involved the Wilbert Coffin murder trial. Captain Matte would outline my duties and give verbal instructions as to what the expectations were. My instructions were simple. During time when the trial was not actually in progress, I was to prevent Wilbert Coffin from being able to have discussions with his lawyers. This would include time spent to and from the court house, stand downs for lunch, and other breaks in the trial.
In restaurants and coffee shops, I was to control his talking to staff. It was not uncommon to place dark glasses on his face so that he would not be recognized. This was all part of the orders from Captain Matte.
We travelled to nearly every community along the coast during the course of the trial. We travelled all the way to Rimouski, always trying to mask his identity. On other days we travelled to Matane, Mont-Joli and many other places. He was handcuffed at all times except when we would go into a restaurant. I would then remove the cuffs. He never made any attempt to run away. He was always friendly and cheerful with me. He was aware of what we doing and why. He did not blame me, he knew that I was only following orders.
Wilbert Coffin would get upset when sometimes he would spot something in a newspaper and it was written in French as he did not understand. I would translate for him.
Upon arrival back at the court house, it was always pre-arranged for him to arrive immediately prior to the beginning of the days proceedings. This way there would be no time for discussions with Mr. Maher or the rest of his legal team. These actions were the order of the day for the duration of the trial".
Mr. Bastien's statement is very important to this case. It magnifies the fact that Wilbert Coffin was very much a victim of a very flawed process, and yet that same flawed process set the stage for his eventual hanging at Bordeaux Jail in Montreal.
This complete scene is directly opposite to what both the English system of law and our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees us as citizens. That guarantee tells us that as citizens we have a right to legal representation to defend a charge, and an equal right to a fair and unbiased trial. Wilbert Coffin was a citizen of this country, so why did the system fail him?
It failed Wilbert Coffin because our governments allowed it to happen. The government of Quebec and the government of Canada could have easily not allowed these events to happen. Obviously, both levels of government were determined to bring this case to conclusion as expeditiously as possible. That is evident by the judiciary of Quebec resorting to a bunch of thugs doing the police work for a very corrupt system from top to bottom.
Since beginning to write this particular posting to the Wilbert Coffin investigation, I have had the good fortune of being pointed in the direction of another gentleman who is very much alive and willing to talk. He was a businessman on the Gaspe' coast at the time of the Wilbert Coffin affair, and he has an interesting story to tell as well that ties in with the control of Wilbert Coffin and the prevention of him being not allowed to speak with his legal counsel. I shall be including this gentleman's account in the next posting.
As you can see, there are many examples of Wilbert Coffin not being treated fairly in the justice system. It is also interesting to note that these events that I am telling you about here are well documented. They are not based on opinion. They are based on factual accounts, facts brought to the table by the players themselves, not through a third party.
If you are thinking that some of these tales are horrendous, wait until we get into the trial itself. That is where the trickery, the manipulation, the lies and the deceit rear their heads. I beg forgiveness for my tardiness, and I do promise to speed the process. You are a great audience, and I want you to post your comments. That is what makes the site successful. I will be back real soon. God Bless you one and all.
Lew Stoddard
This manuscript is protected by copyright. Reproduction in whole, or in part, by whatever means, and for whatever reason is prohibited without the express written permission of the author, Lew Stoddard.


Darcy McLean said...

Excellent posting. You are correct about one thing Sir. It was a flawed process. Would hate to face the court on those terms

Darcy McLean
Abbotsford, B C

Nephew Rick said...

Hi Lew;
The Coffin family are so grateful for the the people who have come forward.
To have a conviction overturned is near impossible at the best times but, for someone who is deceased, it is precedent setting.
The more information that is received and verified, the better our chances.
Please keep searching and passing on info. Thanks again Lew and Lani and AIDWYC.
Rick Willett

N Comeau said...

Attention: Lew Stoddard
I was under the impression Sgt. Henri Doyon was in charge of the prisoner Wilbert Coffin. Was Mr. Doyon not head of the detachment in Gaspe. I know that he had difficulties with his superiors but I thought that was later on. I am curious about this and would like to know.
Your site is much cleaner now sir.

N. Comeau

Darren J said...

I have been reading your site and studying it for some time as I am doing a research and writing project for school.

My uncle is a criminal lawyer in Winnipeg and I have him interested in this case now as well. I asked him if he thought that you have a chance of getting the government to overturn the conviction. His reply was simply, if you don't try you will never know. Typical lawyer answer huh!

I know that you have copyright to your story. I must admit that I have used several passages, with credit of course, in my school assignment. I hope that is ok.

Darren J

C Scott said...

You are right when you say that you are approaching this from an angle that has not been explored, or should I say if it has I have never seen anything specifically written on whaere you are now taking this. It is a most interesting angle and in my thinking it displays unfairness and I do know that in todays world it would certainly be grounds for at the very least a mistrial.

Because it did happen does not mean it is ok and if it did happen, then it should be reversed because really why should society be able to hang someone based on a process that did not fit the boundaries of what is the law.

This is my opinion Lew for what it is worth.

C. Scott
Campbell River, B C

Davis M said...

My compliments Mr. Stoddard for the work you do on this web page. It is so nice to see the comments page cleaned up to reflect the serious minded. This is the way that it should be. You have my support on this.

I am anxious to see you do the autopsy reports on the victims in detail. You made a lot of sense in the past on that topic.

Davis M
Burlington, Ontario

Anonymous said...

Maher, Doiron and Gravel, assisted by famous lawyer Arthur Maloney from Toronto, did not call Coffin to the stand for a very simple reason: they knew he was guilty. The Coffin family also knew he was guilty.
Stop makin' a fool of you Stoddard.
N. Scott and Scott N. Montreal

Lew Stoddard Host, Stoddard Online said...

Reply to Scott N from Montreal,

You should familiarize yourself with the case a bit more before you post.

If you had done that, you would very quickly realize that it is on record that both lawyer Gravel, and lawyer Dorion are on record as wanting Wilbert Coffin to testify.

With respect to Arthur Maloney from Toronto, he is on record many times of voicing his opinion that Wilbert Coffin should be allowed to testify.

You see I can make these statements with some authority. Never, never on the "Stoddard Online" investigation of the Wilbert Coffin case do we ever publish that which cannot be backed up without documentation. In this case it is more than that. You see I am in posession of an interview on film where both Mr Maloney QC from Toronto, and lawyer Francois de Billy Gravel both state that they wanted Wilbert Coffin to testify. The only stick in the mud was the lead lawyer, Raymond Maher. So you see Sir, by their very own mouth these gentlemen were calling for Wilbert Coffin to testify.

In the case of Louis Dorion, "with permission from Alton Price, author of To Build A Noose", here is an extract from an interview that Mr. Price did with Mr. Roger Rail, the jury foreman. This interview was done immediately after the trial conclusion. Mr Rail stated, "On the day that we convicted Coffin, Louis Dorion came up to me and shook my hand and said, Congratulations, you have just convicted an innocent man." Not exactly the words that you might hear if it was as you state Sir, that Dorion knew he was guilty.

With reference to the Coffin family, I am certain that I have interviewed more of them than you have. I am still waiting for the first one to tell me that he/she thought Wilbert guilty.

I appreciate your questions, and feel free to direct them my way. I do not mean to sound like I am bragging Sir, but I do know more about this case than anyone else in Canada. That is made possible because I took the time to research, investigate, and study the case in exhaustive detail before going public with it.

Constantly there is someone out there always trying to re-invent the wheel. It all comes back to the same thing though. It bogs down in the mire when details are necessary.

Thank you Sir for making your points. They were things that I might have forgotten otherwise.

Lew Stoddard
Host Of "Stoddard Online"

Anne Sears said...

Mr. Stoddard you state that you don't want to sound like you are bragging, well guess what, you are bragging and you also sound like you are bragging.

How do I really know if what you are telling people about this case is accurate or the truth or whatever? Are you not the one who says Dont accept anything at face value, ask questions? That is what it says on your home page.

if all this is true I would like to know why it is you who knows so much about this case? I am not saying these things to be critical but I am curious.

I sometimes wonder if you are a member of the Coffin family as othrwise why are you so wrapped in this affair? I am sure over the years there have been others who have researched this case in detail. I know you have done a lot of work on this and I respect that, but something just doesn't add up.

Anne Sears

Lew Stoddard said...

Response to Anne Sears. .

Hello Anne,

Thank you for your comments and questions.

Firstly Anne, to respond to your comment about bragging, yes, I guess that I am bragging. I shall now tell you why.

As I have said many times, I commenced this work two years ago. A monsterous task, yes it was. My original plan was to research and write about this case from beginning to end.

I thought that I knew a fair amount about the case as I had read tons of written material, most of it turned out to be sensationalized "junk". I was not interested in recycling that which was already there.

I needed help. I was getting great response to my site from my comments page, but I needed to broaden my horizons. Unable to speak or write the French language, I was faced with another challenge as much of the material that I was gathering was in French.

One day in July of 2006 I was looking at the comments page and I spotted a name that interested me. This person went on to say that she was originally from the Gaspe' and I noticed that her former family name was the same as one of the names who was a major player in the Gaspe' area during this period.

I immediately posted a response to this person and asked her to e-mail me. Within a half hour I had my e-mail from this lady. She explained who she was, I told her I badly needed help. I did not have to ask her. She volunteered to assist me in whatever way that she could, as it was her wish as well to get to the bottom of the Wilbert Coffin case.

On that particular day I introduced her on the site. Her name is Lani Baker Mitchell, and nearly two years later, Lani is still here.

Lani's long list of connections is impossible to realize. In addition, Lani has researched a mountain of material, translated literally hundreds of pages of documents. She has set up interviews, contacted many people and a host of other things too numerous to mention.

Behind the scenes we have prepared several hundred pages of our investigation, which you have not seen posted. Lani has correlated all of that and we have it filed in a secure location.

Lani does not plan to give up on this affair. We are of the same mind, that it will overturn.

Getting back to your comment about bragging, yes I am bragging, but I am bragging because Lani Mitchell makes it possible. Indeed, I could never have done it without her. That is why I can state with authority, collectively, between lani Mitchell and myself, we have taken this thing further than it has ever been taken before.

By the way, I am not a member of the Coffin family as you suggest. I have only ever met one member of the Coffin family. That is James Coffin whom I met one week before Christmas in 2006.

I remember this affair as a child. I always suspected that it was not right, and I can now honestly state that it was a cheap, manipulated and dirty affair that snuffed out the life of an innocent man. That is my motivation, to expose a cheap, sleazy campaign brought about by a corrupt government.

Thank you for your comments.

Lew Stoddard
Host of "Stoddard Online"

Anonymous said...

Hi Lew
Finally brought myself up to date with your last few postings, great reading as usual.

Hope to talk to you soon!

Ains in NZ

Rene Peltier said...

I commend you for what you are doing and what you have done but the thing that bother me is the fact that this is an east coast story and i have to put up with you from the west coast pushing your idea down my is like you are saying there is noone capable of doing it proper from the east. I dont like that

Rene Peltier

N Kenny in Fredericton said...

It is easy to understand Lani Baker Mitchells agenda in all of this because we all know her father was Bill Bakker, the dude who drank and partyied and got in trouble with everybody. i read about this many times.

N Kenny in Fredericton

GEM said...

N Kenny in Fredericton said...
" It is easy to understand Lani Baker Mitchells agenda in all of this because we all know her father was Bill Bakker, the dude who drank and partyied and got in trouble with everybody. i read about this many times."

You read about this many times ? Well, I guess you need to read some more times because after all that reading,you still got it wrong.
Bill Baker was NOT Lani's father

Gus Mitchell

S Smith said...

I am wondering Sir why it is thar you never include anythings from the Brossard Enquiry in your writings of the Coffin case. Is there something that you are afraid to write about? It makes it look like there is something suspect that you don't want to talk about. This enquiry is very much a part of the case and you treat it like it has nothing to do with it. Why?

S Smith

Lew Stoddard said...

To S. Smith in Montreal,

You are quite correct Sir in your observations with reference to the Brossard Enquiry not being part of my writings on the Coffin affair. You asked for a reason. I am pleased to address your concerns.

Firstly, the Brossard Enquiry was nothing more than "window dressing" on the part of the government. They gave it that fancy title, "Royal Commission" that we often hear about when government and public officials are caught in a trap.

You must understand, Wilbert Coffin's trial took place in 1954 in Perce', the Brossard Commission did not take place until eight or nine years after Mr. Coffin was executed in Montreal in 1956.

We are lead to believe that the Brossard enquiry was about Wilbert Coffin. It was not. The Brossard Enquiry was convened for one purpose only, and to put it bluntly, the reason was to shut up a young journalist of the day named Jacques Hebert. Mr. Hebert studied and investigated the Coffin case, and he was exposing the dirty deeds and corruption that surrounded the Coffin case.

Mr. Hebert was eventually thrown into jail because the heat for some of these guys was too hot in the kitchen. Pure and simple, this is what the Bropssard enquiry was all about. An enormous sum of time and money was spent on the part of the government travelling the country with a dog and pony act trying to convince a curious country that the police and judiciary had committed no wrong doing in the Wilbert Coffin affair.

If the government had expended a fraction of the cost of this enquiry in the Coffin affair when they had a chance, the three perpetrators of these crimes would have been brought to justice, and Wilbert Coffin would have had a chance to see old age.

It is important to note that the individual who headed up the enquiry on the part of the judiciary was none other than John Charles VanHoutte. He was one of the lead police officers who conducted the investigation which led to Wilbert Coffin's conviction. After the trial, he was appointed head of the Gaspe' detachment, and from there he was appointed to a very high position within the judiciary in Quebec.

The bottom line here, "VanHoutte was investigating himself along with his bosses. That really speaks volumes about a fair and unbiased enquiry"

I understand there is currently someone running around the province of Quebec to the various media outlets touting guilt on the part of Wilbert Coffin based on transcripts from the trial, but to a large degree from the transcripts of the Brossard enquiry, the same enquiry that displays the police and judiciary investigating themselves. In the case of trial transcripts of course, there is no mention of all the suppressed evidence, and manipulated evoidence.

Unfortunately, the media of the day lap this stuff up like a kitten drinking warm milk. There are a precious few who are familiar with the case, and even less who have taken the time to research it.

Thank you Sir for asking this question. It was a good one and I was pleased to respond. I encourage you to keep reading my site as coming right up is my full expanded review of the autopsy reports and you will see once again the inept practises of the judiciary, which again, had it been handled properly at trial, Wilbert Coffin would never have been charged.

Lew Stoddard
Host of "Stoddard Online"

Doris Beaulieu said...

I have read completely your story of this affair, some of your posts several times. I am impressed with your knowledge of the whole chain of events. There is no question, you are way out in front with your understanding of this whole scene. You and Ms. Mitchell have covered a lot of ground.

I am certain that the Coffin family are so pleased that you have surfaced in the past couple of years.

You handle the rude comments in fine fashion. I do not blame you for banning those who are malicious, your patience exceeded mine. These people have no interest in the case, some admitted it, and others were only trying to scuttle something that should be viewed as serious.

Your comment to S Smith today says it all. I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately to this day, police still investigate themselves, and that is bad. Hard to build public confidence this way, but then again, do they really care if they have the confidence of the public or not as long as they are cloaked in a protection veil?

I spent 30 years in the teaching profession and retired in 1992 and I can tell you Sir, I remember this case very well. I was living and teaching in Quebec at the time in the Eastern Townships. I had many friends, both English and French. I cannot remember one person who felt that Wilbert Coffin was guilty. I hope Sir that you and Ms. Mitchell can prove that.

Doris Beaulieu
Toronto, Ontario

C Adams said...

Mr. Stoddard you talk as if someone who has been charged with murder should be treated with velvet gloves. Is not murder a very horrible and henious crime? Why do you figure that someone charged with murder should be treated any more special than other people?

C. Adams
Saint John

bob myles in toronto said...

i agree with the last comment. that someone is charged with murder says it all. They have no rights and should have no thoughts of mercey with a charge like that. True maybe Wilbert Coffins trial does appear to be a bit flawed but again muder was the charge so he had to expect hard treatment. at least the police did there job.

Bob Myles in toronto

Lisa said...

I come on here once in a awhile to get an update and instead of reading a lot of great comments as in the past. I wasted the last fifteen minutes scrolling through people mocking eachother, and more importantly mocking my dad!!

I'm probably one of the younger people writing on here, and yet I would never act the way some of you have acted. What is going on here is a serious topic that has greatly affected my dad and the rest of his family and all they want is for justice to be had so that it can be put to rest.

How would all of you feel if your father was wrongfully accused and put to death, would you not want answers? I would think so, but given the fact that some of you are acting quite childish it makes me wonder...

So as my dad used to tell me, if you dont have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all and keep your comments to yourselves. Lew and my dad have been trying to inform Canadians and others on the topic, not advertise things, or preach their thoughts - its up to you to believe what you want and if you believe the opposite fine, but at least present yourselves in dignified ways.


14 March, 2008

Lew Stoddard said...

Comment to C Adams, and Bob Myles..

If both of you people would kindly send me an e-mail indicating a current mailing address, I would be pleased to send you each an early Christmas present of a dictionary and a copy of The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms of Canada.

There is a mountain of difference of being "charged" with a crime and being "convicted" of a crime. The Charter guarantees us that a presumption of innocence is in place, until such time as being convicted in a court of law. That statement is quite probably the spinal column of the complete charter as we know it.

Until such time as a case is disposed of in court, an accused is entitled to the same rights and freedoms as anyone else, you included.

Lew Stoddard
Host of "Stoddard Online"

Ps...The ironic aspect about this case is the fact that Wilbert Coffin and three of his brothers had just returned from the battle fields of Europe a very short few years before, fighting for those same freedoms for all, only to have the system fail Wilbert one cold night in February 1956, in Montreal.