Wednesday, January 14, 2009

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.


R. Reinhardt said...

Mr. Stoddard,
An incredibly brilliant piece of detective work on your part regarding the last two posts dealing with the firearm.

I must admit that when I first saw the exhibits list that I was a bit skepital as it gave the impression of a murder weapon. Without a doubt you have erased those thoughts because you prove beyond any doubt that the firearm was not Coffin's and further that he did not have possession of his own firearm when the crimes were committed.

Why is it that lawyers seem to make very poor investigators because the crown lawyers would most definitely have known these things, or was it really because they were trying to manipulate the course of justice.

Keep up the good work Sir.

R. Reinhardt
Niagara Falls

Kim said...

Have finally had a moment to catch up on all the postings and just want to take a moment to say Happy New Year Lew and Lani and thank you again for your continued efforts and unwavering pursuit of the truth in this, we all appreciate it more than words can say.

G. Ainsworth said...

Mr. Fortin,
I am troubled by the fact that you make statements about the revolver which has obviously been proven to be wrong, now you just move on as if that subject never came up. Why do you not reply and let the people know that your information was not correct.

You always state that it comes directly from this Brossard Commission and in this case if that statement is true then obviously they have it wrong.

Why do you carry on in this fashion. Why should I continue reading your page if that is the way you treat your readers? You have promised people in the past answers on this and that and you have never made yourself accountable and answered them as you promised?

I am sending this statement to Mr. Stoddard's web page as well because I doubt that you will publish it. It would appear from your own page that you and your writer of comments read his page on a regular basis.

G. Ainsworth
Toronto, Ontario

J. Hillier said...

Great pair of postings Sir which really display the true story behind the handguns. This was planned trickery to the Nth degree I am certain.

Why does this other site promote this stuff as the truth? Doesn't seem to me to be a very good way to promote his book, if it is just a rewrite of this commission and trial transcripts.

The real story here is the stuff that was held back. I don't want to read all that stuff over and over that this other site promotes.

I can see that based on what was never reported would have scuttled the crown's case very quickly.

J. Hillier
Cabano, Quebec