Monday, May 05, 2008

THE WILBERT COFFIN CASE.
.
SPRING CLEANING.
.
.
In a couple of days I shall continue with my reports concerning the Wilbert Coffin case and the police and judicial corruption which dictated the outcome of the affair. As many of you are aware, at the present time I am deeply involved with a special project involving the case and the preparation time is heavy right now.
.
In the past couple of years I have seen a ton of garbage that has surfaced and disappeared on the Wilbert Coffin case. It is no different today. Same old junk, just a different pile as they say. As long as there are a few people out there who have wild imaginations, almost anything will fly. As P.T. Barnum of Barnum and Bailey fame once said "there is a sucker born everyday."
.
I rarely have the time to read other sites pertaining to the Wilbert Coffin affair. My own site takes most of my time. Occasionally I do get several requests from different folks pertaining to the same thing. I do make an effort at that time to take a look at what they are alluding to. That scenario has repeated itself again this past week.
.
I have had several e-mails from folks expressing disgust with subject material that they have seen on another site. To be more specific, I am speaking of the web site of a Mr. Fortin. Upon taking a look at the site in question, I am in agreeance with them.
.
Specifically, I am talking about the latest postings detailing the execution. In my view it is extremely distasteful to publish that level of rubbish, the photograph depicting a human being suspended at the end of a rope through a trap door on a gallows. In my view, even though it is not, that picture could be construed as an actual picture of Wilbert Coffin's execution. It is however, a photograph of an actual execution fished out of some sleazy internet site that satiates a demented lust. This is the type of journalistic "bull waste" that would never stand a chance of publication on this site. I have much more respect for my readers who are after a true accounting of the facts, than to present such garbage.
.
Over the years, the print journalistic reports on this case have been filled with editorial sensationalism. That is not necessairly an uncommon reality, as many journalists who lack the necessary skills to convey a story in true form and still hold the readers interest, substitute ghoulsih superlatives as a catalyst to achieve their goal. I am of the opinion that this is the case in this latest scenario.
.
You will recall a few months back, when this other site came onboard many strange things were happening with reference to my site. Mr. Fortin was engaging in activity with reference to my site. You will recall that he established a link without my approval between his site and mine, which necessiated me requesting that he remove it. You will further recall that comments made by viewers to my site were appearing on his site with the same comment, with the heading that they he had received them by e-mail when he had not. You will recall that I built a gallows to determine what was happening. I set up a ficticious comment letter from "Reg Mersereau" on my site. Interestingly enough, a couple of days later ficticious old Reg began breathing life, as his letter appeared on Mr. Fortin's site indicating that he had received it by e-mail. Mr. Fortin sprung the trap himself. I guess that the old adage proved true once again, "if you give someone enough rope, they will eventually hang themselves."
.
There were many more instances of strange occurences, too numerous to reiterate to you, but I think you get the picture. I do not do book reviews on this site, and I do know that the object of Mr. Fortin's site is to promote some book that he currently has in the matket place. I say that because he makes reference to his writings on a continual basis. Based on the examples that I have seen, and from what I can describe as documented fact, I would seriously question the material. As an example, is his behaviour indicative of the quality of journalistic professionalism that would be displayed in a published work.
.
I can also understand why he would want a link to this site, considering the following that we enjoy here with each posting. By comparison, I notice that greater than ninety percent of his commenters share the same name, "Anonymous." If one did not know, and were a nastier, more cynical person than myself, one might be suspicious that Clement is writing most of his own comments. That would not be true though because Clement tells us that he is a lawyer, and as a respected and prominent member of the bar, he would never resort to such shenanigans as portraying himself as someone else under false pretenses. The old adage that states "all lawyers are liars, but all liars are not lawyers" is not always true.
.
Clement owes many of his readers answers to questions. You will recall that Clement made many references to the mining claims. He thinks he has listed them all, he has but scratched the surface. We have the complete list with all the government registrations, maps, and claim holders. I can assure you folks, they do not marry up with what Clement displays. He may have got them from the Brossard Commission transcripts, but you must remember, only things that the judiciary wanted us to read and know about are featured in the commission hearings, because as you know, this was the police and judiciary attempting to cleanse themselves from any wrongdoing. I should also let you know Clement, that the lady, Ms. Baker, who responded to your comments on the mining claims is Lani Mitchell She was the daughter of John and Enid Baker. It is Lani who is very up to date on all the mining claims pertaining to Wilbert Coffin. You see Clement, Lani's mother is one of the ones to whom you would be referring when you suggested that phoney receipts were being handed out to make it look like Wilbert Coffin had money. You will also recall Clement, Lani was the lady to whom you suggested that she translate the Brossard Commission transcript for you.
.
Clement, you were specifically asked by a lady as to what happened to Eugene Lindsey's truck. You displayed a note from Mrs. Lindsey, which displayed the return of items from Quebec. You made that appear Clement as if to be an acknowledgment that all things were returned. You did not answer the lady's question Clement. Again the question was, What happened to his truck, did it go back to the states, or did it remain in Canada? Anyone who portrays themselves as an authority on the Wilbert Coffin case would know the answer to that question Clement. The answer to that question is very significant, so please answer the lady. If you really cannot find the answer, we will play my little game of pretend and pretend that no one is reading, and I will slip you the answer.
.
Clement has also bee asked many times about the United States government intervention in the Wilbert Coffin affair. You saw what he wrote, you saw what I wrote. Mine was all properly documented from Canadian gocvernment files. The little that he covered he stated that he got it from the Brossard inquiry. That should be a lesson to all of you. The Brossard commission knew nothing of all the international legal wranglings, however, if they did, then how come they hid it? I have said it before, and I will say it again, the Brossard Inquiry was nothing more than window dressing a dirty sleazy judicial process.
.
I notice a letter posted on his site affecting Bill Baker's truck from General Motors Acceptance Corporation. It is advising of a lien. There is no relevance here. He simply bought a truck through their credit plan, and the truck was collateral. They do it the same way to this day. That had nothing to do with Wilbert Coffin. That was between Bill Baker, the dealership and General Motors.
.
As I have stated, using the same transcripts as the original trial, of course a manipulating lawyer may be able to badger a guilty verdict, however, install all that was held back, and insert new evidence that should have been found in 1953, Wilbert Coffin would have been a free man as he should been. It is almost laughable to read of Clement Fortin protecting and portraying Alphonse Matte, John Vanhoutte. and Mr. Sirous as kind, caring, sensitive, and intelligent professionals. In my next posting, you will see how smart these three caring gentlemen really were.
.
I will see you again in a few days, have a great week, and I bid you success in whatever you choose to do on a balmy early summer day as we are enjoying here on the west coast.
.
.
Lew Stoddard

5 comments:

Lionel McIndoe said...

Very sharp on your word skills ythere Mr. Stoddard. I agree with you 100%. He pedals lots of crap.

Lionel McIndoe
Timmins

Joyce said...

You have me curious now on Mr. Lindseys truck? I am anxious to see if he answers this lady or not?

Joyce
Bristol, New Brunswick

W Cairns said...

He will never answer her for the same reason that he doesn't answer others, because he doesn't know the answers. Heis full of Bull.

W Cairns
Victoria

Sandra Doucette said...

Hi Lew,

Good to know that you are back in existence once again. Hope you are feeling better. Drop into the newsroom when you get a chance. The clan misses you and your humour.

Send me an e-mail when you can. I heard something with regard to yourself and the case. Appeared very interesting.

Sandra Doucette
Mission, B C

Joyce said...

I've only just had the chance to read your last posting. You are quite correct when you say "Spring Cleaning." This other web site that you talk about is like the "jesters" in the kings court of centuries ago, meant for amusement purposes, but not to be taken seriously. Did someone say that this Mr. Fortin was actually a lawyer?

Joyce
Bristol, New Brunswick