Tuesday, March 18, 2008

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.


M Sands said...

Hey Lew Stoddard, you are getting fiesty again. That is what I like to see. Sir, you do possess a lot of knowledge about a lot of things. Keep slugging my friend.

M Sands

Carla Muirhead said...

Thank you Lew for clarifying that about the charges. It makes much more sense the way you have described it. The examples that you make, though real ugly spots on our history do bear out what you are saying.

I would havr thought that this person as a lawyer would have known that as well but apparently he does not. Makes one wonder doesn't it as to what one gets now days for money spent for legal advice.

Carla Muirhead
Toronto, Ontario

D Bledsoe said...

Good posting Sir. My thanks to you for always doing your best to provide the best possible answers. That is what has been needed for years in this affair.

D Bledsoe

Bill Alexander said...

To all people who go to other sites,why waste your time there when you get the right and true facts here. thanks Bill

B McLellan said...

A flawed process of law is a dangerous precedent to set in a free society. If an accused cannot rely upon the courts of the land to protect their rights and interests, then we might as well just charge an accused, then march he/she directly to the gallows without benefit of trial. The end result would be the same.

I am certain that Wilbert Coffin would agree with me if he were here and able to state his thoughts.

B. McLellan

J Wiebe said...

When you go into the autopsy reports I am hopeful that you will do that in detail. I recall you writing about that in the past, especially on the cause of death. It is true, it made a lot of sense as to how you described the probable cause for the actually killings, especially the killings of the two young men. Incredible that no one surfaced back then who was smart enough to figure that out.

Good luck to you Sir and keep it up.

J Wiebe
Fraser Valley, B C

Joyce said...

Good to see you working at solving this case systematically rather than trying to solve it from a script that was put together in a manipulated and somewhat questionable fashion.

That script that I refer to was the trial transcripts and we all know it did not contain all the evidence that the proscution should have presented. really proves nothing, was a very tarnished diary of events.

I have been very critical of you in the past you may recall but I do give credit where credit is due and you have earned the respect of many. You are very dedicated in your beliefs. Good luck to you.

Bristol, New Brunswick

S Williams, Pictou Co, N S said...

I agree with Mr. Wiebe in your writings of the past concerning the probable cause of death for the Lindsey and the Claar boys. I just finished reviewing that posting of sometime back and it makes lots of sense.

This should very definitely should be considered in the review of the government on this case. That would have been so devastating to the case of the crown had it been presented at trial, but then again many more things would have been as well had the crown presented them. Such a sham, so sad that someone had to die.

S Williams in Pictou County, N S

D Cote said...

There is something that I am not clear on Mr. Stoddard. A long time back in your writings on this affair, you had come across the list of various exhibits from the actual police reports when the bodies were found in the woods. The list did not match exactly the list presented by the prosecution at the trial. I found that interesting. I still ask why that was?

I would like to see you go over that again in this where you are now studying the trial. Is this request possible?

D Cote
Edmundston, N B

J Marcotte said...

The more I hear about this Brossard Inquiry the more convinced I am that it was just another scam on the part of the government of Quebec to cover a dirty deed. Nothing will change my mind of that.

How and why would anyone want to justify something like that.

J Marcotte

dianepeter said...

Happy Easter Everyone
Just wanted to stop by and wish everyone a very happy Easter and also to thank You Lew, Lana Aidwyc and all who have come forward with information and have helped over the years with trying to solve this cas. The Coffin family are deeply indebted to each and everyone of you. God Bless you all
Thank you
diane peter
uncle Bills niece

Lew Stoddard said...

Message For Clement Fortin:

I am told that you are a fervent reader of the "Stoddard Online" site, so thought perhaps I would reach you here.

To use your favourite superlative Clement, which I believe is "stunning", I just wanted to let you know that old beat up 1947 Ford pickup does not really fall into that category.

You see Clement, you always hear me preaching that we do not publish anything on "Stoddard Online" that cannot be backed up without documentation, the Lindsey truck being no exception.

The problem in this case being that Eugene Lindsey was a cheap skate, unless he was trying to impress someone of course, then he was at the top of the heap.

Let us play a little game of pretend for a moment Clement. Let us pretend there is no one reading this right now, because you should really know this part as well. "Clement, Lindsey's junker truck did have a defective fuel pump. The police had determined they had had problems with that on the way to Gaspe' in a small town called Binghampton, in New York state".Just to let you in on a teensy bit of the story in advance, the old Ford truck was used to convey the skeletal remains of the three victims back to Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania. It gave problems on the way back as well. And yes, it was driven back by the same fellow who backed out and din't come on the trip the night they departed originally for Gaspe'.

By the way Clement, should you require it, I have the licence plate numbers for the Lindsey truck, and as well, his driver's licence number. I got all of that when I searched in the state of Pennsylvania for Eugene's driving record. I doubt if I shall need that stuff, but if you require it, just let out a yowl!

I know what it is like when one is looking for something, that is why I back everything up with documentation.

Lew Stoddard
Host of "Stoddard Online"

Lew Stoddard said...

Notice To All From Lew Stoddard

\Just a note to remember to Not Mark Your Comments From "Anonymous" as they cannot be published this way. Your comments must bear a name from the sender to get published or to get a response from myself. I am happy to answer all questions put forth, however; it is a rule of the site to not accept anonymous comments.

I do receive many great questions and would love to respond, but please understand, it was because of so many disturbances by a few people that caused this rule to take effect. Thanks for being understanding.

Lew Stoddard
Host Of "Stoddard Online"

Sandra Doucette said...

Hey Lew, I completely agree with your last comment. Folks should make this a prime example of what happens when a few make it bad for many. You have put your heart and soul into this, and you certainly are deserving of the respect and understanding that you have earned. The results of your site are witness to that.

Remember Lew, you are always welcome to drop into the newsroom. We miss you.

Sandra Doucette
Mission, B C

Larry Holmes said...

it seems like you believe that this coffin guy is innocente,how and why do you say that and anyways this hapened so long ago so does it matter anymore anyway.that is what i think about it because he is long gone so he doesnt care anymore. i read your story all the time because it is always interresting. you should write some books and I would buy them in a store.

Larry Holmes

G Geddes said...

I looked at this Dude Mortimer Fortins site. He says he is going to talk now about the pressure from the United States adminstration on the Coffin scene. He will never go deeper than what you did on that part of the story unless he crawls through a worm hole back to 1956. You impressed many people with your depth of coverage and the way you tied that in with the affairs of the government of Canada and the Supreme Court.

I do want to hear your update of the reports on the autopsy reports and the ballistics reports. That, my friend was interesting stuff and is evident that you know what you are talking about in that department.

G Geddes
Calgary, Alberta

Larry Holmes said...

Larry Holmes said...
it seems like you believe that this coffin guy is innocente,how and why do you say that and anyways this hapened so long ago so does it matter anymore anyway.that is what i think about it because he is long gone so he doesnt care anymore. i read your story all the time because it is always interresting. you should write some books and I would buy them in a store.

Larry Holmes