TAKING AIM AT THE JURY

.

.

.

It sickens me when I read some of the blatent crap that has managed to get published on various web sites with reference to the Wilbert Coffin case. One has only to peer at a certain site periodically and it jumps at you right away.

.

Specifically I speak of the web site of Mr. Fortin and his light reference to a particular handgun named in the list of exhibits. I will quote you some of Mr. Fortin's words now. Mr. Fortin says, "There is nothing special about this arm whose relevance is negligible as I have already explained. It did not attract the attention of the press in the same manner other exhibits have, like, for example, human remains and so forth. I have seen nothing about this in the newspaper clippings that I have looked at." Well now, isn't that just too bad! It wasn't written about in the press, so it is unimportant! Unimportant to whom? What gives you the right Sir to dictate what is and what isn't important to the citizens of this country?

.

I contend that anytime you have a case involving a triple homicde that features no weapon, no fragmented bullets, no spent cartridge cases, and yet you are declaring a firearm as a cause of death, very definitely a revolver numbered 28 on the exhibits list within a specific series of make and model should be of prime interest. These statements by Mr. Fortin go far beyond that which could be labelled as common sense.

.

I am of the opinion that the crown knew this was not the firearm as described and identified as the make, model, and type as that owned by Wilbert Coffin. I believe that the crown tossed this firearm in the pile knowing that it was a revolver and not a semi-automatic 9mm Luger. If this were not the case it would have been described as "Armee" 9mm Luger" as was transcribed on the side of the firearm, which had previously been identified to Sgt. Vanhoutte and Captain Matte. By the crown tossing the revolver that they had which was a Smith & Wesson into the heap as a "red herring" they would describe it as the Luger, thus swinging the mood of the jury to the crown's side. As a result, a weapon would have been established. However, without knowing it at the time, defense lawyer Maher threw a monkey wrench into the plan when he called no witnesses. This would have been manipulation at it's finest hour.

.

There is no other logical conclusion to draw, simply because all folks possessing sound mind and body would have recognized right away that the firearm was a revolver with revolving cylinder and not a semi-automatic, so it was a good time to back away from it. The seed was planted with the jury and it was not necessary to talk about it.

.

As usual folks I welcome your signed comments and letters. I will be back in a couple of days with some more police reports for you.

.

Lew Stoddard.

TAKING AIM ON THE TRUTH.

.

In the first half of this posting, I presented documentation proving beyond any doubt that the revolver on the crown's exhibit list, duly listed as Exhibit #28, "was not, and never had been the property of Wilbert Coffin."

.

In this, the second half of the posting, I shall be presenting evidence displaying proof beyond any doubt as to what was "Wilbert Coffin's firearm."

.

There is documented evidence throughout this case that Wilbert Coffin served Canadians in Europe for most of the six years of the Second World War. You may ask here, what does that have to do with this scenario? I ask you to read on and you will see where some old fashioned detective work on our part provides the answers to that question.

.

The war with Germany in Europe brought many service personnel in contact with many new types of armament previously unknown to them. Germany was an innovator of new technology, not only of heavy arms, but in the area of small arms provided to their front line soldiers and other personnel.

.

Many German companies were in high gear providing various forms of technology. One of these companies was the Luger company who excelled in the manufacture of small arms. In the very early 1900's the Luger pistol was being produced as the official pistol of the German navy and in later years just prior to the onset of the Second World War, the Walther company began producing this pistol for the war effort and it would soon become the official pistol of the German army. It became the "Luger Model P38 Armee." The word "Armee" being the German translation of the English word "Army."This identification stamp would be stamped on each firearm, and it would be produced as before in the 9mm Luger or 9MM Parabellum cartridge. It was "not a revolver." 'It was a semi-automatic pistol" capable of carrying nine rounds of ammunition. To give you some idea of the extensive usage of this pistol some 200,000 of them were produced for the German army alone, thus many of them turned up on many battle sites throughout Europe.

.

Due to the popularity of this pistol, it became a favourite souvenir of allied soldiers returning home to North America. Wilbert Coffin was one of those allied soldiers who returned home after his tour of war duty in Europe. Wilbert Coffin also did as thousands of other North American soldiers and brought home a variety of war souvenirs. One of these souvenirs was a Luger P38 9mm pistol.

.

I am in possession of documentation that was prepared by the Quebec Provincial Police, namely letters between Sergeant John Vanhoutte and his boss Captain Alphonse Matte with reference to the handgun owned by Wilbert Coffin. Emphatically, it is stated that Wilbert Coffin owned a handgun and that it was a Luger P38. They take it a step further. Without knowing it, they made my work easier because not only does Vanhoutte state that it is a Luger P38, but they state that the the word "Armee" appears in the information on the side of the pistol, proving beyond any doubt that the pistol is indeed one from the recently concluded Second World War in Europe. Thus, the identity of Wilbert Coffin's pistol is established.

.

The police would have known for certain when the exhibits were assembled in list form that #28, the revolver, was not that owned by Wilbert Coffin. I also have documented evidence pointing to the fact that the police had interviewed the local game warden in the Gaspe' region and learned that Wilbert Coffin had shot two deer out of season in 1952. Though this had nothing to do with the Lindsey crimes they did learn from the warden that at the time of the illegal hunting charge, Wilbert Coffin did possess a pistol. A pistol that he identified as a Luger P38. This pistol was returned to Wilbert Coffin a few days later simply because it was legally owned and had not been used for anything untoward.

.

The police had also learned from Mr. Tuzo that he had been the keeper of Wilbert Coffin's pistol for some time until he returned from the forest. Because of this fact the police would have been fully aware of the fact that Wilbert Coffin did not have the Luger pistol in his possession at the time of the Lindsey and Claar murders.

.

Mr. Fortin is suggesting on his web site that the revolver identified as #28 was indeed Wilbert Coffin's and that the reason that it was not presented as evidence was because Wilbert Coffin's lawyer presented no defense and called no witnesses. That is a lame brain statement, because it would have been up to the crown to present their case first. In reality, I believe that they did not present it because the crown was fearful of trapping themselves. I further believe that the revolver did belong to the Lindsey party, probably to Fred Claar. By listing it and naming it as an exhibit without presentation, it would still serve the purpose of instilling the thoughts of a firearm for the jury to think about when hearing a murder case.

.

From what I read on Mr. Fortin's site yesterday regarding this matter, in my view he seems to be suggesting that the above reasons came from the Brossard inquiry and that he is merely interpreting their findings. If what I read there is Mr. Fortin's words, then I suggest that his knowledge of this case is extremely limited. If, on the other hand these statements are from the Brossard Inquiry, then it buttresses the fact all the more that I have always preached, to take that inquiry with a grain of salt, because it took place at least eleven years after the fact.

.

I took a quick look at that web site this morning. It is quite noticeable that Mr. Fortin has quickly moved on to another topic. This was obviously as a result of my indepth study of item #28 on the exhibits list. He has made no mention whatsoever of followup after me taking the writings on his web site to task. If you, the reader agrees with the things that I have uncovered about this handgun in the past year and reported to you in the past two days, then I invite you to send a comment to his page and express that he should set the record straight. As I have told all you folks many times, it is the wagging tongues going off like loose cannons that plagued this case from it's genesis.

.

I am anxious to read your feedback on the "Stoddard Online" web site. As I do not publish anonymous letters, I ask that you provide a name with your letter, the same rules as writing a letter to the editor of your newspaper. In addition, to maintain integrity your letter must not contain profanity.

.

Before concluding today I am presenting you a photo of what Wilbert Coffin's handgun looked like. If you move the photo to your picture program and magnify it, you will easily see the word "Armee" on the stamping, the same word that was on Wilbert Coffin's identifying it as a German war souvenir.

.

Photo Credit: Walther Arms Co.

If you find after viewing the photo of the Luger P38 9mm semi-automatic above and the Smith & Wesson Revolver pictured in the last posting look alike, I am confident that I could convince you that Miss Piggy and Cleopatra were twin sisters. In other words, this is a prime example of some of the crazy ideas that were put forward and shoved down the throats of the public during the years after these crimes were committed.

.

Mr. Fortin took aim at me because we erred in our translation of one item from the list of exhibits. It seems that we translated one series of words as "Blue toilet paper" when in fact it should have read "Blue towel." I apologize for that, but in thinking about it, perhaps toilet paper would be more appropriate in this case than toweling, because of the fact that throughout this whole case there was so much low level crap flying around that toilet paper may have come to mind first to the translator. If the toilet paper issue is the most severe of criticism that you can lob in my direction from the last two postings Mr. Fortin, I can live with that.

Lew Stoddard.

SEEING IS BELIEVING.

.

.

When conducting an exhaustive investigation such as we have been doing for the past months it is not uncommon to receive mail from folks wanting clarification on this and that. The past few days have been no different with respect to the Regina vs Coffin case.

.

In my view, the disturbing aspect of the matter in this case is simply that questions are being raised based on information garnered from a source ignorant of the overall picture, preferring instead to re-write information that was skewed from the beginning. Unfortunately, it would appear that this case was built upon a such a foundation many decades ago. I say that because my last posting provided that information to me. Read on and you will see what I am alluding to.

.

As you are no doubt aware I am immersed in police reports from the Coffin case. Planning for each posting includes the question, which one will I show next? For the last posting, I decided the timing was correct to insert the report listing the exhibits for trial. Specifically, as you will recall I focused on item #28, listed as a revolver. I thought it would be interesting to determine the degree of focus that some others from a particular web site would place on this particular item because I know their knowledge on the case is extremely limited. However, they would be forced to take a stand because there is always the slim chance that someone may ask them a question, other than themselves posting comments and answers to themselves and each other.

.

In my last posting and later follow up's to answer readers comments and questions I was very careful to not not use the word "revolver." Instead, my reference to exhibit #28 was always the same. I called it a handgun, which in the broad sense is exactly what it was. You may wonder what that has to do with anything, well I suggest that you read on and you will see the significance.

.

I received some e-mail with reference to this revolver on the exhibits list, asking what if anything could I offer that ties it into the case. I was told that on this other site, this firearm was being labelled as Wilbert Coffin's. The blog author went into a long song and dance about how Wilbert Coffin had retrieved his handgun from a friend who was holding it as security by approaching him in the wee hours of the morning demanding it back. Since I have now touched upon this aspect of the event, I will explain to you what really happened before moving forward with the rest of the investigation regarding the revolver.

.

Wilbert Coffin had borrowed the sum of $10.00 from his friend Mr. Earl Tuzo. As security, yes he did leave his handgun with him. Earl Tuzo's Mum did not like the idea of the handgun being in the house, so when Wilbert returned from the forest and learned of the Mum's displeasure about the gun, he repaid the $10.00 to Earl Tuzo and regained possession. The information with respect to the gun being in the house was conveyed by Mrs. Francis Annett, a long time friend of all concerned.

.

Mr. Fortin went on to say that the police "found" the handgun in Montreal. They did not find the handgun at all. Wilbert Coffin voluntarily stated to police where the handgun was in Montreal. Wilbert Coffin had sold it to his wife's brother, a Mr. Harold Petrie. He sold it because he had every right to sell it. It was his own personal and private property. Mr. Fortin it would appear, attempted to lead you down the garden path to make you think that the police found it as a result of an extensive search and investigation. That may be the way that it was written into the Brossard Commission, but keep in mind, anything that was put on record in the Brossard Commission was based on information of events that happened at least eleven years in the past.

.

Now that we have cleared the air on that element, I shall carry on now with exhibit #28, the famous revolver. As I mentioned, folks apparently were curious about this revolver and on that site that I speak of, it was being touted as Wilbert Coffins handgun. I am sorry to burst your bubble here but guess what? That particular handgun listed as exhibit #28 was not the handgun of Wilbert Coffin. A good question here would be can I prove that statement? By now you should be familiar with the fact that if I can't back the statement up with documentation or an interview, it doesn't get published on this site. I invite you to go and get another coffee and read on and I will explain to you how we learned that.

.

Let us make reference to item #28. By the authorities of the day it was listed as a revolver. They are quite correct up to a point. It is listed as Series 4597, again correct to a point. It leaves one to assume that the number 4597 is the serial number of the firearm. It is not. One key thing that we are not told here is the calibre of the firearm.

.

It was approximately one year ago that I conducted the investigative nature of this firearm, something that should have, but obviously was not done fifty-five years ago. We tore apart this element of evidence as we did most everything else pertaining to this case. The following constitutes my findings with reference to item #28 of the crowns exhibits list.

.

The fact that the handgun was being touted as a revolver told me that it was most probably North American manufactured. There was and still is two companies in the United States who manufactured this style of handgun. These companies are highly respected Smith & Wesson and Colt.

.

The number 4597 is not a serial number. It represents just what it says in the list, "Series 4597." It denotes a particular style of handgun. In this case, a revolver. It does not identify the calibre, however, in this case it would have been either 38 Special or 357 Magnum, and most probably was 38 Special. There would have been a separate serial number to identify a specific firearm which is, and was required by law. There were literally thousands of this type of handgun produced.

.

The term "revolver" simply means that it is a firearm with a magazine consisting of a rotating cylinder. These firearms were produced as well with a variety of barrel lengths from less than two inches to six and eight inches. The six inch barrel was probably the most popular. The longer the barrel, the more cumbersome a handgun is to draw from a holster. The longer barrel does offer a much longer sighting plane. This style of handgun was until about twenty years ago a favourite of law enforcement. It was also popular with those wishing an inexpensive firearm to shoot targets and tin cans.

.

Mr. Fortin alludes to the picture on page 14 in Alton Price's book "To Build A Noose." The firearm that Mr. Claar is holding is very definitely a firearm from this series. In the photo, it is easy to spot the revolving magazine open. This is how new cartridges are loaded into the firearm, and spent cartridges removed. This style of firearm had a capacity of six cartridges, and with Colt especially, this is where the term "Six Shooter" originated from. In the case of Colt, many of this style of firearm was silver or metallic in colour giving it the old west image and were used extensively in the movies.

.

In the case of the firearm that Mr. Claar is holding, and the revolver mentioned in the exhibits list, they are very definitely Smith & Wessons. Having established that fact, I will now state to you that Wilbert Coffin did not possess a Smith & Wesson. Here comes that question again, "Can I prove that statement?" Of course I can. As usual, if I cannot back it up with documentation I do not publish it on this site.

.

Due to the length of this posting I am going to break it here and I do promise to be back in two days explaining and displaying to you the firearm that Wilbert Coffin owned. In the mean time I am leaving you with a better picture of the series of handgun that I talked about today. I invite you to compare my photo of this style of handgun and that from Alton Price's book. I am certain that you will agree the style is one in the same.

.

Thank you again for reading my web site. As usual, your signed comments and questions are most welcome. I shall see you in two days for the other half of this posting. God Bless you one and all.

.

Lew Stoddard

Host of "Stoddard Online"

.

Do not plagiarize. Please note, material from this web site is not to be copied or reproduced in whole or in part by whatever means and for whatever reason without the express written permission of the author, Lew Stoddard.