Wednesday, January 21, 2009

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.

3 comments:

Sara Gautier said...

Excellent reporting Mr. Stoddard on the reports regarding the handgun exhibited as #28 on the list.

This is absolutely incredible. There is no way that the police would have not known what they were doing when they had already been made aware more than once what Wilbert Coffin's pistol really was. This, I believe was meant to sway an ignorant jury.

Do not let this aspect diappear easily, and IMAGINE this guy Fortin trying to quickly change the subject after his stupid and inept statement by saying he did not find it important as they did not back in the 50's. This guy is a lawyer????

Sara Gautier
Barrie, Ontario

B. Ransford said...

The last commenter pretty well sums it up with this exhibits list and the handgun. Of course it was of the utmost importance, in spite of what this Fortin says.

I just finished reading another review of your writings on this case. The documented evidence taht you have displayed that never made it to court as well as areas where it was twisted sets a perfect example of a very shameful process.

I know it is a lot of work, but I encourage you to not give up. This case needed you before this so called trial back in 1954.

B. Ransford
Winnipeg

Joyce said...

After all these years Mr. Stoddard are there any members of the judiciary from the 50's still with us.

I know it is a long time ago but was just wondering. Was thinking that if there are, they could be a wealth of information perhaps. I am sure though that you have probably already covered that base, considering the indepth reporting and investigation that you are doing on this case.

Again, as I have stated many times, do not give up. Thank you once again.

Joyce
Bristol, New Brunswick