Stoddard Online

SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE

.

.

.

Throughout history it can be proven time and time again that false and erroneous communication sets the stage for a misguided path of belief. Perhaps this is the result of folks taking the path of least resistance, or maybe, taking the path as laid out by an action or statements attributed to someone who is trusted and relied upon to be correct, only to discover later the problem still exists. Either way, the end result remains the same, the problem still exists.

.

Specifically, I am talking here about the Wilbert Coffin case. From the genesis, this case has been riddled with false claims and statements, adding to the complexity of events as they truly happened.

.

There is not a single week that passes that is void of someone approaching and asking me to clarify this or that. It is usually the result of someone voicing their opinion in such a way to appear that it is fact, and in doing so, manages to sway someone else from the truth. As I have stated to you many times, every care and caution is put into place before anything is published as fact on this site. It simply has to be that way, otherwise we are only adding fuel to a fire that has already burned out of control.

.

The most recent revelation that has come to me by way of two separate readers of this site concerns stuff they have read elsewhere on the internet, and for one reason or another made a bad choice.

.

I must admit, my time is generally consumed by my own website, ensuring its accuracy, while investigating and researching new clues, therefore, usually I do not have the time to peruse all that may be being said on other sites. However, this latest one tweaked my interest enough to take a few moments and do some window shopping.

.

One of my readers had alluded to a posting on this other web page that concerned the charge of murder, more specifically, the murder of Richard Lindsey. By now we should all know that three persons were murdered in the Gaspe' bush. However, only one charge was ever laid, that being for the murder of Richard Lindsey, laid against the defendant, Wilbert Coffin.

.

Upon checking this particular site that I was guided to, my reader was 100% correct. On March 13, 2008 the author of this site states and I quote, " By the Criminal Code, a person can only be charged with one murder." Unless there has been a mysterious revision of the Criminal Code, that statement is not accurate. I will cite you some examples. Please read on.

.

By now, all of the world is probably aware of the first case that I shall refer to. In the province of British Columbia, and to be more exact, in the city of Port Coquitlam where I reside, we just witnessed the largest mass murder case in the history of Canada. William Robert Picton was accused of killing 49 women. He was charged with killing in excess of 40 of these women. In January of 2008, the initial trial concluded. His trial had proceeded with the first 6 murders with the trial for each one held simultaneous with the other five. He was convicted, and the crown made the decision to not proceed on the next 20 charges, due to the fact that concurrent sentences would apply. It is to be noted, the crown was prepared to proceed, and it was quite within the parameters of the C C of C (Criminal Code Of Canada) to do just that.

.

The next example is that of Clifford Robert Olson. Olson was charged with the murders of 11 youngsters in British Columbia in the early 80's. As in the case of Picton, he too was charged with multiple murders.

.

Let us not forget the charming couple from St. Catherines, Paul Bernardo, and Karla Holomoka. They were both charged with the double murders of two Ontario school girls. Holomoka escaped the wrath of judgement on a murder charge by cutting a deal with the attorney general of Ontario. Bernardo was found guilty of both counts.

.

To sum up, there is no limitation on the number of murders that a defendant can be charged with. The way that it is normally done, and this should have been related to my reader by the author of the other blog in his comment. Let us use Picton as the example here. He was charged separately with each murder. In the first six charges, it would have been read out to him someting like this, "Robert William Picton, Count one against you is for the charge of first degree murder of Jane Doe in violation of the applicable section of the Criminal Code Of Canada, How do you plead?" The next one would be count two and so on until all charges are exhausted. The same rules would have applied in the other two examples cited above as well.

.

Charges are brought about in this manner to avoid a double jeopardy situation, and as well, by doing it this way, it is possible to find guilt or innocence on any one of the charges without influencing the remaining ones.

.

For someone who is supposedly a lawyer, it simply is not good enough to merely explain to a reader that Wilbert Coffin was not charged purely because it would violate the Criminal Code if the murder of Fred Claar and Eugene Lindsey were included. Make no mistake about it, Wilbert Coffin was not charged for those two murders for one reason and one reason alone, that reason being, because the crown had no evidence to support the charge. In a distorted way, by suppressing evidence, and tampering with other evidence, coupled with wining and dining a jury, made from a pool of half English and half French, they did manufacture a guilty verdict.

.

In a couple of days, I shall be presenting my findings on the autopsy and forensic aspects of this trial. We shall also be into ballistics in a big way. I have no reservations whatsoever, that if you read this report and study it, you will quickly see that Wilbert Coffin should never have been convicted on the basis of what was presented.

.

Thank you so much. I juat wanted to set the record straight again on a couple of things. While looking at that site today, I noticed three other areas that need to be dealt with as well. I shall get to those, one at a time, in the very near future.

.

.

Lew Stoddard

Host of "Stoddard Online"

.

This manuscript is protected by copyright. Reproduction in whole or in part, by any means, for whatever reason is not permitted without the express written permission by the author, Lew Stoddard.