Saturday, June 06, 2009

Taking Out The Garbage.
Occasionally I get asked a question by someone as to why I say this or that on this site. As most of you know I am a man of few words, and when I write on this site it is because I have done my homework, thus I can state it as fact. As I have said many times, if it cannot be buttresed by an interview and/or sworn testimonial it is on it's way to the garbage can. I shall never compromise that stand. Otherwise, what credibility would be contained in my work?
I am making specific reference here with respect to my comments from time to time regarding the police and judiciary. Again I stand by my comments. Occasionally I am referred to as one who is down on the police. Allow me to again clarify. I have the greatest respect for any man or woman who makes the decision to become law enforcement officers. True, it is a voluntary decision to become an officer of the law, and true, it is not within the officers jurisdiction to tailor the rules to support their personal goals at someone else's expense.
I shall conclude this part by simply saying, "On one hand I have the greatest admiration for hard working, honest, and fair minded police officers." On the other hand, "I have absolutely no respect for a bunch of lying, cheating, manipulating Dirty Cops."
In spite of what is being preached by this Mr. Fortin's web site, it is easily proven that the enforcement officers in charge of the Coffin affair fell into the "Dirty Cop" category. Mr. Fortin does not see or understand this because he takes all his information from this Brossard Enquiry.
The steering committee for that enquiry were the same officers who conducted the investigation in the first place. There was nothing presented as evidence that the police had not already approved of. There was no presentation of evidence that should have been presented at the original trial but was suppressed. Suppressed by the same bunch of thugs who were now conducting an investigation into their own behaviour.
One would have to be a complete dunderhead to assume that these cops would come out critical of their own investigation, especially when they had already hanged a man. You must accept the fact that the Brossard enquiry was allowed to proceed purely for political reasons. Do you really think they cared about the fate of Wilbert Coffin? I can assure you, they did not. That enquiry went ahead under the banner of Jean Lesage and the Liberal party in Quebec, purely as a means of attempting to strengthen political suppoprt.
Think about it, Jean Lesage's Liberals would look good no matter how the enquiry turned out. If the enquiry had gone against the government of Quebec, Lesage was in a position to blame Duplessis and the Union Nationalle and he could say a bad era had come to an end. On the other hand if the enquiry come out in favour of the Quebec judiciary, Lesage would simply maintain that as a new premier he felt he owed it to the people to bring it out in the open.
As I state in my mission statement, "Do not accept anything in life at face value, ask questions." This is where I implore you to "look beyond the box." Just because someone has a stripe down the leg of their pants or wears a pretty uniform, do not assume that fair, honest, and unbiased opinions and actions shall prevail. The same rule should have applied in 1953, and leading up to the Coffin trial in 1954. This was not an isolated case pertaining to a provincial judiciary back then because it is still running rampant in modern day. Read on and I shall cite you a few examples.
Nearly two years ago a Polish gentleman arrived at Vancouver International Airport. He spoke no English, had trouble communicating, became distraught, and ended up dying at the hands of four burly Royal canadian Mounted Police Officers and a security guard. The original story from the RCMP was that he had been tasered once. Thanks to a member of the travelling public with a digital video camera the true story would come out. He was not tasered once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times in total. The police immediately seized the camera, however they had to return it, and that camera was instrumental in those officers being presented in the true fashion of their actions, nothing short of a bunch of thugs. It did and should bring a lot of disgrace to the RCMP.
I have studied and researched the Stephen Truscott case in detail. That was a chilling tale as well. Through lies and manipulation the police and judiciary were able to garner a first degree murder verdict against a fourteen year old boy who has been proven not guilty. It is proven that the police chief lied, and they held this boy against his will without ever informing his parents that he was in custody. As in the Coffin case they botched evidence, suppressed evidence, and pushed for a quick conviction. Fortunately because of his age he did not get executed. He was spared the gallows yes, and it could be said that it was a poitical decision because John Diefenbaker's Conservative government would have looked bad hanging a teen-ager. I do not for a moment believe that his sentence was commuted for any other reason.
In modern day Ontario pay attention to the number of cases where people have been given life sentences based on the evidence given by the provincial medical examiner. These cases are being overturned left and right. The big question that begs an answer is, "If we still had capital punishment in this country, how many of these innocent people would have gone to the gallows by now?
I could go on and on here, but I think that should be enough examples to cause you to sit back and think, and reflect for a moment on just how you would re-act if the accused in one of these cases was a member of your family.
Someone pointed out to me that Mr. Fortin and '"Anonymous Andre" who writes comments on his site as if they have been written by members of the public at large have been very protective of Inspector Matte, VanHoutte, and Sirois and others. That is because the only reading and research that has been done by Mr. Fortin is reading this Brossard Report, and never conducting an exhaustive, critical, and independent investigation of the case.
It is particularly evident that Mr. Fortin has done no research beyond this Brossard Report, because his site excels at unwarranted and unsubstantiated remarks against individuals who are no longer here to defend themselves. A good example of that was Jacques Hebert. As soon as Mr. Hebert passed on, the writings on his site were cruel and undeserving. The references that he makes to the Baker families, the Sinnett families, and the Doyon families are cruel, cruel because he has nothing to back up his claims. In my view one is severely lacking in intestinal fortitude to level such verbal attacks on a deceased individual, but then again, dead people do not fight back. It is because of this stuff that I pay little attention to his site, other than when someone asks me to comment on a particular incident.
Over the years I have arrived at the conclusion that lawyers tend to be a bit lacking when it comes to investigative skills, particularly in the criminal investigation field. I am of the view that they tend to lean heavily in the direction of what is put in front of them on a piece of paper rather than explore beyond the box. This is why most members of the profession tend to fill the ranks of legalized litigation clerks. Very quickly one is aware of this comparison if the time is taken to attend a criminal trial staffed by high profile criminal lawyers. At that level, watching these professionals perform is truly poetry in motion.
With the deck stacked against him, Wilbert Coffin was doomed. As we know, the crown had suppressed evidence that should have been presented. They were able to manipulate the process all the way from the inquest to the trial, with little or no opposition from the lead defense lawyer, Raymond Maher. Wilbert Coffin's fate was sealed with Maher at the controls. It would be like trying to win the Stanley Cup with a community Junior B hockey team.
I will be back in a couple of days with some new reading for you. I think you will find it interesting.
Lew Stoddard


Bruce Miller said...

I have taken a look a couple of times at this Fortin site that you are speaking about. I do not read it on a regular basis. It is quite clear that his site lacks credibility and is put together by self inflicted comments. Continue with your work Sir. Don't let this junk slow you down.

Bruce Miller
Kingston, Ontario

M. Holmes said...

From looking at this Fortin's site it is difficult to gauge exactly what he is trying to accomplish. He states that he is writing from this Brossard text, but that is already said and done, same old stuff over and over, a group of cops kissing each others butts to cover for wrong doing that was sanctioned by the government of Quebec, with this guy Fortin trying to convince everyone that it was all above board.

Wierd wierd wierd, strange stuff indeed.

M. Holmes
Saint John, New Brunswick

Sandra Doucette said...

Message for Lew Stoddard,

Hey Lew, good to see you are full of vim and vigor once again.

When are you going to drop back into the news department at the radio station? I know you were here a few weeks ago but I was away on assignment, and anyway, it is your turn to buy lunch.

I found your posting with the Lindsey lady most interesting. Just like the old days, you haven't lost your touch, conducting a first class interview from a delicate situation with grace.

The way that you develop your own information from your interviews and research really sets your work apart from a lot of this other crap that still permeates the air after a half century.

Our station manager informed me that it was ok to tell you that he reads every posting that you do and he is most impressed. He always has an ear trained on a good news story.

Again Lew, good to see you back and don't let any of these "make believes" cause you to falter.

Sandra Doucette
Mission, B C

M. McLean said...

I do agree with what you say about ths Brossard Inquiry. It was done 10 or 11 years after Wilbert Coffins execution, and it was the same police doing their own so called investigation of themselves. What a joke! Of course if he was found guilty with what they presented at trial, the Inqiiry is going to come out the same, especially with the same players conducting the inquiry.

Now if they had decided to bring forth all the suppressed evidence, and admit to all the deceit and trickery, then the results would have been different. The cops wouldn't have been so smelly either if that had been done.

Keep up the good work Lew.

M. McLean

Ken Daniels said...

A Question for you Mr. Stoddard. Do you feel that this case could or would have been solved if it would have been handled differently by an other jurisdiction?

Ken Daniels

B. Brandon said...

Your comparison of Wilbert Coffin's defense team and trying to win the Stanley Cup with a Junior team is funny but true, oh how so true it really is. Surely other lawyers are not protective of this buffoon named Maher are they? If they are then the whole judicial system needs to be torn down and rebuilt.

You are also quite right in what you say that most lawyers fall into the category of litigation clerks, and personally in life I can provide a couple of personal examples where they didn't even do a very good job at that.

It is terrible that an innocent man had to go to the gallows, but much more terrible when his own lawyer helped him along as it is apparent in this case by presenting no evidence or very limited cross examination, Raymond Maher very definitely aided in the demise of the defendant.

Where were the rules of fair play in this case? Is it not a responsibility of a judge or other lawyers in a criminal proceeding to speak up when they see obvious examples of bad lawyering even if it is for the defense. In any case the judge should not be taking a side as to guilt or innocence at that point anyway therefore there would be no excuse for not speaking up.

I believe that in this case if a judge was not smart enough to see examples of mis-conduct on the part of the defense lawyer, then he should not have been sitting in judgment of the case in the first place.

B. Brandon
Regina, Saskatchewan