tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203669722024-03-06T19:48:00.718-08:00Stoddard OnlineYour opinion may not parallel mine, however, I will argue until the end of time for your right to express it. "Never accept anything in life at face value, ask questions". . . Lew StoddardStoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-81340412389168517752011-10-14T11:42:00.000-07:002011-10-14T11:43:02.075-07:00<span style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> A "Celebration of Life" honoring Lew Stoddard will be held on Tuesday Oct. 18th at 3 PM at the Surrey Pentecostal Assembly in the Prayer Room.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">16870 - 80th AVENUE (corner of 168 & Fraser Hwy)</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">SURREY, B.C. </span></span><br /></span>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-28596850079606985752011-10-05T13:42:00.005-07:002011-10-05T14:27:11.538-07:00Lew Stoddard Dies<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">I am so very sad to have to post that early Sunday morning Lew Stoddard passed away after a lengthy battle with leukemia. I met with Lew 2 weeks ago and, in spite of his clearly poor health, he remained steadfast in his desire to do whatever he could to clear Wilbert Coffin's name.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Lew had come to appreciate the resilient and caring attitudes of the many Gaspésians he met over the years. Although he never was able to enjoy his wish to spend time in Gaspé, I believe he was able to get a true sense of the area and its people. He became especially fond of the many members of the Coffin family & wished he could have lived to see Wilbert's name be cleared.<br /><br /></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Plans are not yet made for a celebration of this gentle & generous man's life, and I will post again when I have more information to share with Lew's followers</span>.</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">........Lani Baker Mitchell</span><br /><p style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">for Lew.....<br /></p><p style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">A good man never dies--<br /> In worthy deed and prayer<br />And helpful hands, and honest eyes,<br /> If smiles or tears be there:<br />Who lives for you and me--<br /> Lives for the world he tries<br />To help--he lives eternally.<br /> A good man never dies.</p><p class="lineb"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Who lives to bravely take</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);"> His share of toil and stress,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">And, for his weaker fellows' sake,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);"> Makes every burden less,--</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">He may, at last, seem worn--</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);"> Lie fallen--hands and eyes</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Folded--yet, though we mourn and mourn,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);"> A good man never dies.</span><br /><br />(James Whitcomb Riley)</p>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-57165406179277574432009-12-01T23:50:00.011-08:002009-12-03T02:17:33.399-08:00<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">WILBERT COFFIN CASE UPDATE.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><span style="color:#000000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>It has been a very busy month. We are in the process of packaging our complete investigation and research of the Wilbert Coffin case for presentation to AIDWYC for the CCRG.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>As I look it over on a daily basis, I am impressed with what we able to accomplish, thanks to a good healthy cross section of folks out there, determined as we were to get this case straight once and for all. It is particularly rewarding considering that we were able to pull it off with no budget, and no staff, just sheer determination on the part of Lani Mitchell and myself.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I am impressed further as I learn of the respect that national and international media is pointing in my direction with reference to this case. Obviously my investigation and research for the past three years has caused folks to sit up and take notice. Precisely, that was one of my objectives. Folks are tired of reading the same old rhetoric, sensationalised to the outer limits on this case.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>There are possibly no less than fifty versions of the same story floating around out there. That was my reason for reading nothing about this case prior to commencement of my work. It was started fresh, and continued in that fashion, with each element properly documented. I couldn't care less what someone else had written or were planning to write in the future. Mine would always continue to be what it started out as, a clear factual portrayal of the elements of this case, not tied together with hearsay coupled with hypothetical theories. In simplistic terms, if it could not be backed up by a document or personal interview or a combination of both, then it did not get published on this site.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.<br />The above statements may sound like I am bragging. Perhaps I am. However, I stand by my work in this matter. The truth always finds a way to work it's way to the top. The only thing that defends truth, is truth itself. It was not difficult to understand that my investigation was making a mark. I say that because information was routinely stolen from my site and published elsewhere. That statement was easily proven because as you may know, I set up a sting operation and caught the perpetrator red handed.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Several media outlets across the country have expressed an interest in the Coffin affair as a result of my investigation and writing of this black mark on the history of Canada. I know this because of invitations extended to myself to appear as guest to talk about this event. I am presently co-ordinating several such invitations which will take place within the next few weeks.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>In the earlier stages of my investigation I was given the opportunity to discuss at length my involvement with the Wilbert Coffin case. That particular interview was conducted by popular Canadian news talk show host, Tom Young.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>In case you are not aware, Mr. Young has been a prominent news broadcaster for many years, and is aware and understands the stories and events that have shaped our horizons. Throughout the week Tom broadcasts to a large audience as his program from the studio in Saint John, New Brunswick is carried live on local FM radio at 88.9, and live on many areas by way of cable. Additionally, the program is available world wide on the internet.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>At the conclusion of my prior interview, Tom requested that I keep in touch. I extend my thanks to Tom and his producer, Tyler McLean, for granting me the opportunity to come back on the show and bring everyone up to date. As I mentioned, media attention on this case is increasing. Considering the attention previously by Tom Young and his "Afternoon News," I thought it pertinent this time around to extend the opportunity firstly in this direction.</strong></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>I invite you to listen to the upcoming broadcast which will take place this coming Friday, December o4, 2009. To determine the time in your local area of Canada, please check the appropriate time zone at the conclusion of this report. I am safe to say that it is available in your area no matter where you reside on planet Earth. Locally of course in the New Brunswick area it is available at 88.9 on your FM radio dial as well as well as being broadcast on the Rogers cable TV system. If neither of those options work for you simply click on the the internet address shown below and that will take you directly to the radio station. When the radio station page opens, simply click on the "Listen Live" tab at the top right of the radio station page and it will automatically take you live to the show. Here is the address,</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><a href="http://www.news889.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:#3333ff;">http://www.news889.com/</span></a></div><div align="justify">.</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>As we are dealing with six time zones, the following represents the time of broadcast.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong></strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Atlantic Standard Time 2:30 PM.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Eastern Standard Time 1:30 PM.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>NFLD Standard Time 3:00 PM.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Central Standard Time 12:30 PM.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Mountain STD Time 11:30 AM.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Pacific Std Time 10:30 AM.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Lew Stoddard</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;">.</span> </div><div align="justify"><strong></strong></div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-86190907621457435102009-10-30T00:00:00.004-07:002009-11-01T21:30:39.262-08:00<div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">WHY THE SYSTEM FAILED WILBERT COFFIN.</span></strong></div><br /><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><br /><div align="center"></div><div align="justify">.<br />.As soon as the federal government became involved in the Wilbert Coffin affair, it ceased being a case of probable unfair and unjust principles that were levelled against a defendant. It would fast become a political football between the province of Quebec, and the federal government of Canada, with the United States of America standing by ready to gobble up the spoils of what remained. This statement can now be easily proven. Documented proof still exists to this day that substantiates that claim.</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">It is no longer a secret that premier Maurice Duplessis of Quebec hated The Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent, the prime minister of Canada. It is also no secret that St. Laurent carried a hatred just as large for Duplessis. The American administration in Washington DC knew this, and they would use these facts behind the scenes to foster their own agenda with reference to Canada. They would do it smoothly, they would do it diligently, all the while making it appear that it was Ottawa who had smoothed out the edges. If the boys in Ottawa could be manipulated into a situation where they looked good to themselves, the electorate in Canada would hopefully look favourable at them again as election time was looming.</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">Prime Minister St. Laurent, and his band of loyals known as the federal cabinet must at all costs appear unified. It was paramount, affairs must be carried out accordingly. It was imperative. If the liberal government under St. Laurent was to have a chance of another term in Ottawa, the electors in Quebec must be kept onside, with or without the personal support of Duplessis.</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">One must consider here, this period of Canadian history and the way that it was put together would stand out as the very catalyst in the drafting of an accord affecting the two largest trading partners on the planet. The United States Of America was not about to sit with their engines in idle. Let's face it. They had the most to lose.</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">Canada had what the USA needed most, that was resources. This was post Second War, and the half way point of the century. There was an even bigger fish to fry. In 1954, Canada and The United States had embarked upon a joint venture known as The St. Lawrence Seaway. This would open both countries to vast untold fortunes in both importing and exporting. As is hoped with any vast venture such as this project, both partners would hopefully emerge as winners, except it was Canada who gave up the most to achieve the goal. This was another reason that the USA would tread carefully in her quest to control. Canadian authorities must feel that the American administration was bowing to them.</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">You may be wondering what all of this has to do with the Wilbert Coffin affair. That is a fair question. From this point forward, you are going to be introduced to a new cast of characters with reference to the Wilbert Coffin affair. You will see how the above ties in directly with Regina Vs Coffin. It will appear to be a tangled web of deceit, manipulation, and corruption. Trust me, it is all of those. I also caution you. There will be parts of this that will require an indepth reading and discovery by yourselves, but if you take the time, you will see the true picture emerge. If you are not prepared to do this, then you may be wasting your time. You must remember, this was not put together fifty plus years ago in such a way that generations down the road could easily figure it out. Clearly, it was meant to deceive. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">Here is my documented report, although a nastier more cynical person than myself might have titled the proceeding "The United States Of America and Regina Vs Coffin" instead of simply Regina Vs Coffin. It is now necessary that we go back into time and work forward.</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">Having failed to gain a new trial for Wilbert Coffin, his defense lawyers, Francois Gravel, and Arthur Maloney had made the decision to petition the federal cabinet to review the case and render a decision based on that review. The date was September, 1955. Other than a motion to approve a pay raise for themselves, politicians are not known to be expedient. The Coffin affair would be no exception. They did not know a lot about it, and anyway, it was something that had taken place down in eastern Quebec in Duplessis country. True, they wanted to look good to the people, but no matter which way they leaned, there would be a force against them. They would avoid the wrath of Duplessis if at all possible, as otherwise, they would be in a double jeopardy situation, and not a nice position to be in.</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">This is where it begins to get a bit complicated. Up until now most Canadians familiar with the Wilbert Coffin case had heard of the displeasure expressed by the United States of America for three of its citizens being murdered in Quebec. True, they were upset, and of course had good reason to be. The United States Ambassador to Canada, the Honourable John Foster Dulles had touted the theory to Duplessis and to St. Laurent that the affair would have grave consequences on the tourist business, especially, from the Federation of American Sportsmen. It would have that effect to be certain, however, it went much deeper. It went much deeper with St. Laurent and the cabinet, however, Duplessis would not be made aware of the hidden implications. He was left right where all wanted him to be, thinking that the Americans were putting pressure on him with reference to the tourist trade.</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">The following is the first thread of the web. It involves legal wranglings between Canada and the United States over the extradition of two individuals, W. H. Link and H. M. Green to face charges in the United States on securities fraud. The problem stemmed from December 1954 when Chief Justice W. B. Scott of the Quebec Superior Court refused to extradite these individuals to face justice in the USA. The United States administration replied by making application to the Supreme Court Of Canada to appeal this decision. The Supreme Court refused the appeal on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction in extradiction matters. The following exerpts from a confidential memo are self explanatory in this matter.</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">The following is a memorandum from Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs to Secretary of State for External Affairs.</div><br /><div align="justify">.<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">CONFIDENTIAL</span></strong><br />.Ottawa, October 24th, 1955<br />.EXTRADITION, POLITICAL REASONS FOR SUBMITTING LINK AND GREEN<br />.<br />REFERENCE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA<br />.1. Scope of Memorandum<br />.The Minister of Justice is presenting to the Cabinet, at this week's Cabinet meeting, a draft submission to the Governor in Council, recommending that two questions be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration in regard to the Scott Judgment in the Link and Green extradition case. The Minister of Justice's draft submission to the Governor in Council will explain the legal position. The purpose of this memorandum is to set out the political reasons that make this action necessary.<br />.<br />In December, 1954 Associate Chief Justice W.B. Scott of the Superior Court of Quebec, Montreal District, refused the application of the United States Government for the extradition of W.H. Link and H.M. Green on charges involving fraudulent dealings with securities under the Extradition Act, pursuant to the 1951 Supplementary Extradition Convention. The United States Government applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the decision. The Supreme Court refused the application. The Court did not pass on the substance of the judgment, as it considered that it did not have jurisdiction to hear appeals in extradition cases.<br />.<br />Views of the Minister of Justice<br />.<br />The Minister of Justice is of the opinion that it is important to the administration of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States that this reference should be made to the Supreme Court of Canada.<br />.Conclusions:By making this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian Government will be taking the measures open to it to meet the problem of fraudulent securities offerings across the border. Should the Canadian Government, on the other hand, decide not to make this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, an awkward situation would be likely to develop. The United States Government would be frustrated in its efforts to solve the fraudulent securities problem and it would be in a position to place the blame on the Canadian Government. Such a situation clearly must be avoided if at all possible.<br />.For these reasons the Department of External Affairs supports the recommendation of the Minister of Justice that the Scott Judgment be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.<br />.J. L[ÉGER<br />.<br />It was necessary to show you this because it will form the basis of subsequent parts which will involve Regina Vs Coffin. The name above, J. Leger, refers to the under secretary of the Minister Of State for External Affairs. The Minister of External Affairs during this period was Lester B Pearson, who of course is no stranger to Canadian politics. He would go on to win a Nobel Peace prize, and become Prime Minister of Canada.<br />.<br />As you can see, the Americans were mad at Ottawa. Justice Scott had muddied the waters when as a Quebec Superior Justice, he refused to extradite two fugitives whom Washington wanted, and then Ottawa snubbed the US Administration when the Supreme Court Of Canada refused to grant their appeal. The bottom line here of course is that Washington couldn't have cared less about Duplessis in Quebec, nor,about the Canadian federal government in Ottawa. It was a situation that needed to be straightened out, and it would require calm heads to do it. This is where the plot begins to thicken. . .<br />.<br />From here it is necessary that we make a quick stop in Washington D C. The U S Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Brownell, is planning a trip to Canada. He is not going to Ottawa. He is going to Toronto to address The Canadian Club. He has been advised to maximize this trip to include business other than his speech to The Canadian Club. The following "Confidential" memo from the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Mr. A. D. P. Heeney sums up the content of business to be conducted on the trip.<br />.<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Memorandum by Ambassador in United States<br />.CONFIDENTIAL</span></strong><br />.[Washington], November 8th, 1955<br />.SECURITY FRAUDS; EXTRADITION; LINK AND GREENCASE136 CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE MINISTER OF JUSTICEAND THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, AT TORONTO, NOVEMBER 7, 1955.<br />.<br />.It had been arranged through the Embassy that advantage should be taken of the presence of the United States Attorney General in Toronto on November 7th, for a private and informal discussion of this subject with the Minister of Justice, who was to be there for Mr. Brownell's speech to the Canadian Club. It had also been agreed that the United States Ambassador and I should be present. This had first been suggested at the meeting on September [26th], in Ottawa, of the Canada-United States Committee on Economic Affairs, when the Secretary of State had referred to the United States Government's concern.137 .</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">The conversation took place in Mr. Brownell's suite at the Royal York Hotel on the afternoon of November 7th. It was agreed by all present that it would be entirely informal and private - a frank exchange of information and views. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">The Minister, after referring to the suggestion that a "reference" be made to the Supreme Court of Canada on the points of law arising out of the judgement of Associate Chief Justice Scott of the Quebec Superior Court and describing briefly the law and procedure which govern such references, went on to explain to the Attorney General the position of a current reference to the Supreme Court in Regina v. Coffin.</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">This (Coffin) reference raised difficult and delicate issues for the Federal Government in regard to the administration of justice in the Province of Quebec, since the Supreme Court would appear to be reviewing the verdict of a Quebec Court after the unanimous refusal of an appeal by the Provincial appellate court. The Government, nevertheless, had felt bound to proceed with this reference (for reasons which Mr. Garson had explained) and the hearing would take place in December. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">For the Government, the Minister went on, to make now a second reference to the Supreme Court which would reflect on the Quebec Courts (since it would at least indirectly impugn the finding of Chief Justice Scott in the Link and Green case) would exacerbate an already complicated and delicate situation. In the opinion of the Federal authorities the Scott judgement was bad law and had the effect of frustrating the purposes of the Extradition Treaty of 1952 between Canada and the United States. The Canadian authorities, like those of the United States, were anxious to rectify the position and restore the régime which the Treaty had intended. .</div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">In due course, Mr. Garson felt, it should be possible for a reference to be made which would achieve this purpose. The Government would wish to have this done just as soon as possible. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">The Minister said that Canadian authorities had read with interest a proposal put forward by the General Counsel for the United States Securities Exchange Commission that the Extradition Treaty should be amended to provide for an appellate procedure. The Canadian Department of Justice would be interested in exploring this possibility (which from the Government's point of view would provide, at least prima facie, a politically easier course than a reference to the Supreme Court), but before doing so wished to know whether the United States Department of Justice had considered fully the implications of such an innovation in extradition procedures. Having regard to the fact that it would seem to be politically impossible to provide an appeal for the state without similar provision for the accused, Mr. Garson was inclined to think that the delays in litigation caused by such appeals might make them unworkable. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">The Attorney General said that Mr. Timbers' proposal had not been examined fully by his Department and was not now being put forward as a suggestion to the Canadian Government. He personally was inclined to think that it would be a doubtful expedient; as Mr. Garson had observed, the delays involved would probably be intolerable. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">If, Mr. Brownell continued, the situation could be restored to the pre-Link and Green position by a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, this would be preferable from the United States point of view, provided that the lapse of time before a judgement were obtained were not too great. United States authorities were already subject to very considerable pressures and these would build up seriously when Congress got under way in January. What length of time did the Minister foresee before the Canadian Government would be willing to refer the question to the Supreme Court? </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">Mr. Garson replied that unfortunately it was not possible to be precise on the timing of a reference. If his colleagues agreed to a reference (and he was awaiting the return of the Secretary of State for External Affairs before taking the matter up in Cabinet) the timing would be affected by the course of the Coffin reference and hearing. The Canadian authorities were also anxious to clear up the present unsatisfactory situation with regard to extradition for security frauds, but had obviously to take account of the considerations which he had set forth. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">I suggested, in attempting to sum up, that the two Governments had the same objective, namely to establish as promptly as possible the régime contemplated when the Treaty was negotiated. The baleful effect of the Scott judgement should be got rid of as soon as could be. The problem was one of method and timing - not objective. To this all present agreed. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">The Canadian position, I continued, had been frankly explained to the Attorney General but he would be unable to make this explanation to those in Washington who were pressing him for action. It seemed to me important, before any statement were made by the United States authorities, that agreement should be reached on the form of such statement. To this, too, there was agreement. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">Mr. Brownell expressed his appreciation of the full and candid explanation which Mr. Garson had made and it was agreed that the Minister and the Attorney General would keep in close touch with one another, through me. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">It was agreed that, in the circumstances, no purpose would be served by further suggestions from Canadian Counsel for the United States Department of Justice or others, with regard to any references that might be made to the Supreme Court or other procedures in this matter. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">On the following day, returning to Washington, I mentioned to Mr. Brownell the importance, if any reference was to be made to the Supreme Court, of avoiding any impression that this procedure was being taken under pressure from United States authorities. He readily understood this and agreed to caution his officials. When the time came that something had to be said, the two Governments would agree on the form of statement. </div><br /><div align="justify">.</div><br /><div align="justify">A.D.P. HEENEY<br />.<br />Here is a note at the bottom of the Ambassador's letter. I find this troubling in a democratic society.<br />"The version of the memorandum reprinted here was amended in late November to take into account Garson's comments on Heeney's original draft which was removed from the files and destroyed."<br />.<br />Just to make things clear, the name Garson refers to Canadian Minister Of Justice, The Honourable Stuart Sinclair Garson. I find it very troubling to see a federal Minister Of Justice having files removed and destroyed.<br />.<br />As you read this, you can perhaps see how Canada had dug a hole for herself in her relations with the United States. This all stemmed from the court decision in Quebec Superior Court by Chief Justice Scott in his refusal to order extradition proceedings against Link and Green. Equally stupid though was the refusal of The Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal of the process. Throughout it all, Wilbert Coffin was being used as a pawn. He was the sacrificial lamb in all these proceedings.<br />.<br />In their quest to crawl back into the fold with the United States, the federal cabinet in Ottawa pulled out all the stops. There was more butt kissing at the diplomatic level in Ottawa in the final three months of 1955 than there had been in the decade since the war concluded. It is prudent to show you an example of that fact before we move on. Here is an exerpt from a memo sent by The Honourable Lester Pearson to the American Ambassador, John Foster Dulles, at a joint meeting between the two countries. You will note that the minutes of this meeting are designated as "Secret."<br />.<br />Summary Record of Meeting of Joint Canada-United States Committee<br />.<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">SECRET</span></strong><br />.<br />Ottawa, September 26, 1955<br />.<br />Mr. Pearson as Chairman expressed the sympathy of the Canadian side with President Eisenhower in his illness.127 It was to be hoped that he would soon be restored to his full health and vigour. Not only the Canadian members but all of Canada appreciated the President's attitude towards trade matters and the efforts which he was making to improve international relations generally. As the leader of the Allied Forces during the war and during the early period of NATO's history, President Eisenhower had come to belong to Canada and the other North Atlantic countries as well as to the United States.<br />.<br />As you can see, The United States could do no wrong. You will note the highest praise extended to then President Eisenhower. One would think that he single handedly won the war, even though the war in Europe was practically concluded when the United States decided to enter it. Pearson obviously forgot about the thousands of Canadians who paid the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefields by his praise of the American president. The bottom line here is simply that the federal government was willing to go to the outer limits to make the United States happy during this period.<br />.<br />Here are some exerpts from a letter written by Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Heeney. It is written to The Honourable Lester Pearson. If you really digest the contents of this letter, it says it all.<br />.<br />Ambassador in United States to Secretary of State for External Affairs<br /><strong>.<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">CONFIDENTIAL</span></strong><br />.<br />Dear Mr. Pearson,<br />.On November 9th I wrote you a personal letter? reporting upon the conversation in Toronto between your colleague, the Minister of Justice, and the United States Attorney General concerning extradition in relation to security frauds.<br />.<br />In speaking to me yesterday, Mr. Garson said that he would expect you to bring up this subject in Cabinet shortly. When you did so he would be willing to agree to a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada which would rectify the present unsatisfactory situation. In this connection he mentioned again the desirability of having the question put to the Supreme Court in such a way as to avoid explicit reference to the judgement of Associate Chief Justice Scott, whence our difficulties arise. On the timing of the reference to the Court, Mr. Garson would be guided largely by the views of your Quebec colleagues, but he himself would have no objection to the reference being made reasonably soon.<br />.<br />In raising the matter in Cabinet as one involving our relations with the United States, you would certainly be justified in saying to your colleagues that the present situation is one which has caused, and continues to cause, difficulties between us. Furthermore, the pressure upon the Administration to take action of some kind within the competence of the United States executive and legislature may be expected to increase sharply once Congress reassembles after Christmas.<br />.<br />As you will note from my memorandum of November 8th, Mr. Brownell has agreed to consult us when he feels it necessary to make some public statement on this subject. I would hope that by that time we will be in a position to announce the reference to the Supreme Court along the lines now favoured by your colleague, the Minister of Justice.<br />.<br />One final consideration - from the point of view of External Affairs, the sooner the reference is made and announced the better; from the point of view of the Government in Ottawa too I should think it is highly desirable that the reference should be made before the clamour in this country increases and the Government are put in the position of acting in response to public pressure from the United States.<br />.<br />Yours sincerely,<br />.<br />A.D.P. HEENEY<br />.<br />.<br />.As the wheels turn, the federal government is becoming mired deeper and deeper. They are faced with straightening out some bad law from Quebec. If they don't fix the decision by Chief Justice Scott from the Quebec Superior Court, the Americans will be all over them for evermore. Canada could also become a haven for criminals from the American side of the border, as the court decision did not force them to be extradited. Maurice Duplessis will be furious.<br />.<br />On the other hand the federal cabinet has been asked to review the Wilbert Coffin affair. The appeal had been rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada, so any meddling on this case would again upset Duplessis. The decision now necessary for cabinet to decide was, did they really want to review The Coffin affair and get the government of Duplessis mad again? Wilbert Coffin through his lawyers was asking for a full review and an order for a new trial, based on the fact that he did not receive a fair trial and process from the beginning.<br />.<br />In a following memo to the Attorney General of the United States through Ambassador Heeney, Canadian Minister of Justice, the Honourable Stuart Garson would announce that a solution had been found that should bring the matter to conclusion. As a result, the decision by Chief Justice Scott would be reversed. As well, the federal government would be free and clear of a ruling on the Regina Vs Coffin affair. Ottawa would come out not looking like they had bent to pressure from the American administration. The following extract designated <span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>"Top Secret"</strong></span> is from cabinet conclusions pertaining to the decision affecting the Coffin affair.<br />.<br />Extract from Cabinet Conclusions<br />.<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>"Top Secret"</strong></span><br />.<br />Circumstances had made it appear desirable to make a rather unusual reference to the Supreme Court in the recent Coffin murder case.135r It would seem undesirable to take unorthodox action with regard to this extradition difficulty so soon after the Coffin incident. It might, perhaps, be preferable to wait until such time as another judgment similar to the Scott judgment of December 17th, 1954, was rendered before taking any such action<br />.<br />On the other hand, unless some action were taken, the government of Canada would likely be blamed for doing nothing to prevent the fraudulent use of the mails by unscrupulous brokers<br />.<br />The Cabinet noted the report of the Minister of Justice and deferred decision on a proposed reference to the Supreme Court with regard to difficulties which had recently been encountered in the administration of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States, pending further consideration at a subsequent meeting when the Secretary of State for External Affairs could be present<br />.<br />On October 14, 1955 Cabinet asked the Supreme Court of Canada to review the conviction in Quebec courts of Wilbert Coffin for the 1953 murder of Richard Lindsay after suggestions were made that Coffin had not received a fair trial. Cabinet asked the court to answer the following question: "If the application made by Wilbert Coffin for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada had been granted on any of the grounds alleged on the said application, what disposition of the appeal would now be made by the court?"<br />.<br />It is the last paragraph above that tossed Wilbert Coffin into the wind. His lawyers had asked the federal cabinet to review the case. This would have taken it from day one. It would have reviewed the inquest jury process, it would have reviewed the jury selection process, it would have reviewed suppressed evidence, and it would have reviewed the judges charge to the jury. None of this was ever done of course. The cabinet simply sent the case back to the Supreme Court with the above question. In reality the cabinet knew what the decision of the Supreme Court would be. They were the ones who had made the decision in the first place. In a round about way the government was asking the Supreme Court to re-rule and make a decision on their original ruling. One does not have to be smart to figure that a Supreme Court of Canada Justice is not about to rule against his own ruling.<br />.<br />Unfortunately the government of Canada was willing to throw out and sacrifice one man's last chance for justice in this country. It could have easily been avoided. It required nothing more than an order in council to further delay the hanging of Wilbert Coffin until such time that a full and proper conclusion be reached with respect to the capital punishment being carried out.<br />.<br />Fifty-one years later the federal government is once again being asked to investigate this case as a miscarriage of justice. It is a miscarriage of justice because the government allowed it to be that way.<br />.<br />I am firmly of the opinion that a complete review of this case should take place. Simply asking that a review be done based on the same criteria that was done over fifty years ago is not enough. A complete review must include the admission of new evidence, meaning both evidence that was suppressed and omitted, and evidence that has surfaced since the original proceeding. There are witnesses still alive who gave statements prior to the original trial. It is imperative that these people be heard because it was their intention to give evidence. There was evidence concerning Jeeps and vehicles that was never brought forward. Again, this evidence must be presented, because originally it was intended to be part of the process.<br />.<br />It is important to note that I have raised very serious concerns with reference to autopsy reports on the crime victims. A murder weapon was never found, no spent cartridges cases or bullets, no broken bones and yet the victims were declared to have died of gunshot wounds. Perforations in clothing clearly indicate they are much too large for any calibre of bullet available. There were marks on one bone, and the medical examiner stated in court the marks could have been made by a forest animal.<br />.<br />In order that a full and impartial review be made of this case, it is necessary that all these things must be looked at and considered. Several of these elements made up the scope of what the federal government was being asked to do in 1955. Sadly, they chose to not do that. If they had done what was asked of them, Wilbert Coffin would not have hanged on February 10, 1956. By displaying themselves as a spineless bunch of creatures, they were able to uphold themselves as weak and inept and afraid of Duplessis, and at the same time, display their loyalty to the United States Of America as puppets on a string.<br />.<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>.Lew Stoddard</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">The above report is protected by copyright. Any reproduction, in whole or in part, by whatever means and for whatever reason is not permitted without the express written permission of Lew Stoddard. </span></strong></div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com45tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-2984142153138256862009-10-26T08:35:00.003-07:002009-10-26T09:24:13.129-07:00<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">THE WILBERT COFFIN CASE.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="left"><strong>.</strong></div><p><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>Hi everyone! Just so you know that I did not fall over a cliff, I felt it pertinent to let you know what has been happening.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>Due to health concerns and doing "hard time" in the hospital, I was unable to post to my site for the past few weeks. I am pleased to now announce that I am up and running full steam ahead.</strong></p><p><strong>Firstly, I want to take the opportunity to extend a huge thank-you to all of you who took the time to send me an e-mail of support and to those who tracked me down by phone as well. It was gratifying in a big way when I answered my door a few days ago to accept a bouquet of flowers. That was very touching.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>For anyone who has an interest in this case, and I know there are many, I encourage you to sit up and pay attention over the next few days. I shall be reviewing some material that I have touched upon in the past, but the best part is, I have new material that you have not seen, and yes, as usual for this site, it is documented material, not from newspaper accounts and hearsay material, you know the stuff that has flooded society for the past fifty years. Some of this new material strongly enhances and buttresses already published material from the past.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>Once again, thank-you so much for being patient. I will publish to the site in one or two days. God Bless you one and all.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard</span></strong> </p>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-43546232523080223802009-09-22T00:01:00.002-07:002009-09-22T00:09:51.841-07:00<div align="left"><br /><strong><span style="font-family:arial;"> <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">WILBERT COFFIN CASE UPDATE.</span></span></span></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:180%;">.<br /></span>.<br />.<br />Even though further information with reference to the Wilbert Coffin case has been slow in coming, please do not assume that my investigation has ground to a halt. Actually it has been in high gear behind the scenes. There is always one more rock to turn over, and I am pleased to tell you that over the past few weeks I have been fortunate in being able to turn over a fair sized pile of stones. I will also tell you that this particular part of the search produced much in my belief that a wrongful conviction took place with the hanging of Wilbert Coffin, and I do not plan to let go until I prove that.<br />.<br />As most of you will know, immediately following the execution of Wilbert Coffin there existed much public outcry as to the handling of this case. An appeal to the Quebec appeal court was turned down, and as well, subsequent to the provincial appeal being turned down, a likewise appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied as well. Further to the denial of the appeal by the Supreme Court Of Canada, an application was made to the federal cabinet of Canada with a request that they consider the case.<br />.<br />It can now be proven that the federal cabinet did not serve Wilbert Coffin well. They knew this as well. Clearly, the actions of cabinet did not reflect a particularly caring attitude toward Mr. Coffin. Their actions were carried out in such a way that an unsuspecting public would not recognize.<br />.<br />If the application placed before the cabinet had been placed at any other time, I am certain that the results would have been much different. The federal cabinet was caught in the middle of a dispute concerning the United States of America and the province of Quebec, with premier Maurice Duplessis at the helm. In it's simplest form the federal cabinet chose the path of least reistance, this way they avoided the wrath of Duplessis, and further pressure from the American administration. The fact that Wilbert Coffin would surely hang by going this route seemed to matter not.<br />.<br />It is ok to ask me here if I know all the details of what I am suggesting? The answer is Yes I do. It sickens me, but I know about all the dirty laundry that made it possible. To make matters worse, some of the people involved were our upstanding politicians of the day. A lot of this stuff I have known about for some time, and I have written about it. I can see a much clearer picture of the chain of events now. This has been made possible as a result of constant digging and searching for the past three years.<br />.<br />I can further state that none of this information was garnered from a mile deep pile of newspapers that has permeated society for the past half century. As I have said many times, this stuff, along with most of the documentaries as a means of displaying sensationalism was the direct opposite of the mandate that occupied my time for the past three years. I was intrested in one avenue only, to discover the truth, and make it known to Canadians. That is why I steered a course in the opposite direction from all the junk that floated around.<br />.<br />As you continue reading this posting, you will note that I have also managed to acquire some other interesting reading. Again this was not acquired from newspapers or books on the Coffin affair. It came from digging and making a general nuisance of myself. It is interesting though because I know that it is authentic. Some of it is in both English and French. I also know that the translation is official because it would have been transcribed in both official languages at the source by the government.<br />.<br />This information is not only interesting, but it is important as well to this case. It contains the written decisions from every judge and the reasons why some of them dismissed the appeals and the reasons as to why some of them would have allowed the appeals. It is also abundantly clear as to which judges actually read the case in detail that was presented before them. You will see where erroneaus information that was accepted as evidence at the trial by the original trial judge made it's way through the system all the way to the supreme court. This is stuff that I shall be going into in great depth.<br />.<br />You have read in the past where I have made reference to the amount of money that Eugene Lindsey had on him when he was murdered. As I have said many times, it was merely supposition, but here you have a judge quoting exact amounts, when the police themselves stated that they could not determine how much money that Mr. Lindsey came to Canada with. I have a letter from one officer to his boss where he stated it was unknown.<br />.<br />That little five letter word called "truth" is a powerful little word. For the most part it can be boring and it often gets covered up with the muck of life, but the beautiful part of it all, if you stir the mixture long enough, the batter rights itself and the truth floats to the surface.<br />.<br />Ladies and gentlemen, as usual I thank you for your support. I ask you to hang in there just a bit longer until I get all this put together. I am presenting it all in a finished state to the Criminal Conviction Review Group (CCRG). I have given it my best shot, but my fingers are still crossed. God bless you one and all.<br />.<br />.<br />Lew Stoddard</span></strong> </div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-11383869695989506812009-07-28T00:52:00.007-07:002009-08-06T01:14:57.935-07:00<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">REGINA VS. COFFIN.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size:180%;">QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS</span>.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="left"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Rather than answer your questions individually on the comment page, I made the decision to create a posting involving your comments and concerns. I did this chiefly because some of your comments and questions will involve a detailed answer, and as well, some of them tie together.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>It pleases me to see that some of you take the time to write a comment or ask a question. As I have said many times, all are welcome. As usual, I must insist that your comments and questions bear a name in order to be published on this site. A comment signed as anonymous will not be accepted for publication. As well, profanity and maligning of other commenters is not allowed. These rules are quite basic, very similar to writing a letter to the editor in your local newspaper.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Today, I am starting off with one the last comments received on my last posting dealing with the autopsy reports. Mr. S. Dewitt of Halifax asks a very good question, that I have pondered many times. He wants to know" how long the Lindsey truck was stationery in the spot where it was found." </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>From my digging and researching Sir there is no available direct answer to your question. We can assume, and I do hate the word assume, that the truck was parked there and abandoned for the duration. I believe that it was, although admittedly, that cannot be proven. It was abandoned on a reasonably well travelled road leading into the logging camp areas of the forest. I simply do not believe that the truck could have set there all that time without someone asking questions about it. It is also reasonable to believe that if it was there for that extended period, then the truck and it's contents would have also been vulnerable, and yet there were still items found in the truck including a rifle. This is one area where I have always felt that someone knows something but has chosen for some reason to remain quiet.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>One thing is for certain, anyone who would have seen this truck parked there for an extended period would also have known that the Lindsey party was in the woods as the truck contained plates from the state of Pennsylvania. and further to that, Mr. Lindsey was apparently assumed to have been carrying valuables, thus if he could be located in the forest, he would be easy prey.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Lloyd Mason of Toronto asks an interesting question pertaining to finger print evidence. Very definitely finger print evidence was used in the fifties. It was not used in this case nor was it attempted because the police felt that it would reveal nothing. They made this decision without making an attempt to determine if it would be successful, and it is here that I reiterate what I have said many times. Raymond Maher, the defense lawyer was nothing but a dud. Otherwise he would have challenged this decision during the trial. He could have made the prosecution look real bad because of that decision.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>The next comment that I shall reply to is from S. McGuire in Saint John. Mr. McGuire asks "if we know the exact date that the hunters were killed in relation to when Wilbert Coffin came out of the forest?" The quick answer to your question is no, we do not know the answer. I sincerely wish that I did, and that I could prove it. The answer to that question would have been instrumental in proving Wilbert Coffin's innocence. I have it well documented as to the date that Wilbert Coffin came out of the forest, and of course there are those who say that was the date the hunters met their death. I will go on record as saying that any who say that was the day that the hunters were killed, they are merely guessing and making up stories. I further state there was absolutely no evidence that would link the death of these three individuals to any given day. It simply was never established.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>As a matter of fact, during the trial at Perce' the crown steered around the possible date that the hunters may have been killed. There was a reason for this, and the reason being that there was a possibility that they could get caught in a trap by making a statement as to the date of death and not being able to prove it.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Dean Simmons from Niagara Falls wrote "how far apart were the remains of these hunters found?" Good question Dean, and for the answer to that I will refer directly to a police report from Captain Alphonse Matte. Here is an excerpt from a letter that he wrote to his boss on the matter.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>"In place, accompanied by Capt. Sirois, Sgt. Doyon, Gend, Romuald Poirier and others, we put in some boxes the remains found about 75 ft. from the camp known as no. 26 of Canton Holland and that the complete skull, the jawbones, the bones, such as parts of shoulder blades, collarbones, thighbones, tibias, fibulas," </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>He continues on now in the same report with the finding of the second remains, "The same day, being 23-7-53, in proximity to the first skeleton some remains belonging definitively to a second skeleton, were found about 115 feet from the first, on the other side of the St Jean river in a flank of a mountain bordering camp no. 26; a pelvis with part of a spinal column, traces of four sides, 2 femurs and some other small bones. That which allowed us to make identification of this second skeleton was the inferior jaw bone and a denture, the two fit perfectly together.;1 pair overalls "Jeans" blue, where the pockets were inside out, were furthermore found, 1 red t-shirt, size "large of Penney’s " 1 ankle boot, left foot, in brown leather laced with eyelets, sole of a black galosh, being probably size 11 or 12.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>These two sets of remains were those identified as those of Richard Lindsey and Frederick Claar. The remains identified as the father, Eugene Lindsey, were found approximately one week prior approximately two miles from the young men in an area known as Camp 24.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>This is a good time for me to reply to those who suggested that I was too critical of the medical officers report and the search in general for the bodies and the subsequent discovery. Critical? Yes I was. I am guilty as charged. However, I do not believe that my level of criticism which I levied was strong enough to adequately address the gravity of the situation. Look at it this way. Here you have the discovery of two skeletons in close proximity that probably account for the two, yet unaccounted for missing hunters.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>You just read in the police report above that these bones were disturbed and tossed into cardboard boxes. You also read Captain Alphonse Mattes report that he was able to positively identify the upper and lower jaw portions as belonging to the same body because of an inferior jaw bone as they seemed to fit perfectly together. </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>This guy and his crew did not collectively form the brightest star in the sky in terms of smart police officers and here you have them making scientific evaluations on skeletons in a triple homicide. It was one of these same dimwits that pulled out his service revolver and fired some lead into an already dead bears carcass thereby destroying it as potential evidence instead of having an autopsy done on the bear to determine it's stomach contents.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>The bottom line with respect to the medical officers report and the handling of the crime scene was appalling. Society was deserving of more and the defendant was deserving of more. I can deal with ignorance, but I have a real tough time with stupidity. To sum up my findings, I am of the opinion that stupidity reigned supreme in this case with the actions of the judiciary of Quebec. This case was truly beyond comprehension and someone should be held accountable.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>The comment posted from D. Landry of Moncton speaks volumes when comparing my investigation to the stuff that has been written repeatedly over the years. From the beginning it was my personal mandate to investigate and explore every known avenue of this case without reading all the junk that has been written in newspapers over the years. This stuff was written based on sensationalism, not on investigation. I had no interest whatsoever in retelling a story that had been beaten into submission by newspapers and periodicals in a quest to garner a fast buck.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Again I thank you for your comments. I read each and every one of them. They are important to me. It gauges the depth of the impact that my investigation of this case has made on Canadians, and thanks to all you good folks, the impact has been positive and rewarding.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Lani Mitchell and myself have come a long way with this affair but it is not totally over yet. I know there are some who make comments which displays the fact that they really know nothing of the case and I guess their reward is their fifteen seconds of fame in reading their own comments on the comment page. As someone once said, "it is difficult to soar with the eagles when first you have to deal with the turkeys."</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I will talk to you again in a few days. In the meantime, write, sign, and send your comments. I have some good material to show you that will explain how a few things came to pass. God Bless You one and all.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:85%;color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:85%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:85%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"> </div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-55072931865360719542009-07-07T21:15:00.019-07:002009-07-19T17:35:41.279-07:00<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">REGINA VS COFFIN</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>AUTOPSY REPORT UPDATE</strong></span></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;">.</span></div><div align="justify"><strong>Before I get into today's posting, it is important that you understand the difference between an autopsy and an inquest. In their proper context, both can be considered as vital components in both identifying a deceased body and establishing a cause and time of death as is the case with an autopsy. Though autopsies are routinely performed nearly every day in large hospitals in the interests of medecine with the permission of a deceased next of kin, they are mandatory where there is a suggestion of death due to foul play.<br />.<br />The inquest on the other hand is used to study and make the determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence to consider criminal proceedings as in the case of a cessation of life at the hands of another human being. It is important to understand that an inquest can proceed with or without a formal autopsy depending on the circumstances, and conversely, an autopsy most definitely can be carried out without an inquest.<br />.<br />This posting will focus not only on the autopsies of Eugene Lindsey, Richard Lindsey, and Frederick Claar, all found deceased in the Gaspe' woods in 1953, but will also cover the chain of events leading up to the autopsies, namely the initial search for the remains. It was necessary that I carry out exhaustive research and investigation with reference to these three discoveries. Simply and clearly, I was never satisfied that what was conveyed to the public subsequent to these crimes was a true and accurate accounting.<br />.<br />It has taken over two years to reach my conclusions. I am now ready to proceed with my findings and share them with you. You will no doubt recognize some of which I have stated previously. However, as a result of further investigation, I am able to enhance certain aspects based on information previously unknown to me.<br />.<br />In this whole affair the autopsy reports as put forth by the government of Quebec conducted on the remains of Eugene Lindsey, Richard Lindsey, and Frederick Claar could best be described as shameful. I am convinced that the shameful acts did not begin with the autopsies themselves, but rather with the complete process beginning with the search for the bodies, and the subsequent discovery of the remains by searchers.<br />.<br />As you will see and hopefully understand, the quality and control of the investigation and search would deterioate greatly as soon as the judiciary from Quebec City, under direction from Captain Alphonse Matte seized control from the local detachment of the Quebec Provincial Police at Gaspe' headed up by Sergeant Henri Doyon. This will become abundantly clear as you read and consume this phase of my investigation.<br />.<br />Firstly, with reference to the search, one has to convey the greatest respect to the search team members. True, they were not professional searchers and I am certain they were all taking part for genuine reasons but I have to be fair here. I say that because not all the searchers came from a particular group, and thus, many would not have personally known others taking part. My reasoning for this will become clearer as you read on. </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>From this point onward I shall give you warning now. Some of the scenes that I shall be describing do not depict pretty scenes. If you find the thoughts of what you might read here troubling, then perhaps you should not read it. However, it is necessary that I describe the scenes to you in order to fully illustrate the sloppy and unprofessional route that the Quebec Provincial Police allowed this case to take, and further become part of the official investigation that would send a man to the gallows.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>. </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>The date was July 15, 1953. The remains as identified as that of Eugene Lindsey was located on this date. His skeleton was anything but intact. The head was completely missing as was a large part of the thorax region of the upper body. As a result of marrauding hungry black bears in the area, very little flesh remained on the bones. Approximately one week later the skeletal remains identified as those of Richard Lindsey and Frederick Claar were found a short distance away.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>The following represents the autopsy reports as performed and compiled by Doctor J. M. Roussel. At the end of the reports you can read of my conversation with a pathologist with whom I presented Dr. Roussel's reports.</strong> </div><div align="justify">.</div><div align="justify">.</div><div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>LABORATORY OF LEGAL MEDICINE AND POLICE TECHNIQUE<br />443 St. Vincent Street<br />MONTREAL</strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>EXPERT REPORT</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong></strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Re. The disappearance of three hunters at Gaspé- June-July 1953-bones of Camp 24</strong></span></div><p align="justify"><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Last July 15, at the request of M.Charland, directeur-adjoint suppléant of the Surety Provincial of Quebec, I went to Gaspé, so as to examine the bones that were discovered in the woods, about 60 miles from Gaspé.During the day of July 17, accompanied by Sergeant Doyon, of the local station, of the Surety Provincial Police, I transported myself to the same spot, designated by the name "Camp 24."At this place, near a little river, an incomplete skeleton was found, and partly dislocated, to which adhered some malodorous scraps of skin.The preliminary examination shows that it was only the bones of a single person, contrary to that which was believed at first; the bones were placed in a box and taken to Gaspé for a more detailed examination.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATION</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Description of the Bones: - The bones are completely stripped of the muscles that were attached and are more or less disjoined; the head and the sides are missing.The extremities of the upper limbs are relatively intact; the skin of the hands is of a blackish brown color, of a wrinkled consistency and in appearance somewhat mummified; the nails are long and rough.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>The following bones then form the incomplete skeleton:part of the spinal columnthe two scapulasthe left claviclethe bones of the complete upper limbs: humerus, cubitus, radius, wrists and handsthe pelvis comprising of the bones of the iliac and the sacrum, but without the coccyxthe bones of the complete lower limbs.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Determination of Sex: - The size even of the bones, the marked relief of muscular insertions, the dimension of the pelvis and the force of the obturate holes are those that leave no doubt on the masculine sex of the bones.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Determination of the Size: The measurements of the bones of the members gave the following values:- left femur 181/4" or 46, 35 cms-right femur idem; (?)-right tibia 14-5/8" or 37 cms-right humerus 13-3/8" or 34 cms</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>When referring to the anthropomorphic table establishing the length of bones following the sizes, we obtain the following correspondences:-left femur 463,5 mm – size 170,6 cms-tibia 370,0 mm – " 168,5 cms-humerus 340,0 mm - " 173,0cmsThe means of the size corresponding to these three long bones is 170,7 cms, being 5 feet 71/2 inches.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>The method of the coefficients gives us similar results:-femur 483,5 mm x 3,66 = size: 169,64 cms-tibia 370,0 mm x 4,53 = " 166,71 cms- humerus 340,0 mm x 5,06 = " 172,04 cms</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Average of the size: 170,1 cms, being about 5 feet, 7 inches.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Determination of Age: With the absence of the cranium, the only means to appreciate the age of the person who had the bones consists in the research of the degree of ossification of different parts of the skeleton.Radiography demonstrates a complete welding of the epiphyses ( extremities) of the long bones of the members, a welding likewise supplements the iliac peak with the pelvic bone and as well a welding of the crown vertebrae, the ones with the others.And also, the presence of small osteophytes on the level of certain bones and evident signs of arthritis in the articulations of the thumb of the right hand, indicating that this isn’t the bones of a young man or adolescent and that we are in the presence of the skeleton of an adult of middle age.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Determination of Cause of Death: Except for the ( grugement)? spongy end of certain bones of the skeleton, the exam didn’t reveal any trace of significant violence, on the bones at our disposition; it is then impossible, in the circumstances, to confirm the existence of violence of vital origin.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>The complete disappearance of the internal organs and other soft parts of the skeleton prevents us from establishing the cause of death.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Summary:The bones found at Camp "24" are those of a man of middle age, measuring about 5 foot 7 inches tall.</span> </strong></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong><em>The skeletal remains were identified as those of Eugene Hunter Lindsey of Pennsylvania.</em></strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">The desiccation and the parchment of the skin and the soft tissue of the two hands indicate that death occurred at the minimum of one month ago. </span></strong></span></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">WHITE T-SHIRT:Perforation at the edge shredded with the upper left region of the thorax ( or..could read…" shredded perforation at the edge of the upper left region of the thorax?) at 5 ½" of the center line and 4" below the seam of the shoulder surrounded by a zone of reddish color apparently ( tituée?) caused? by blood – No corresponding perforation in the back.NOTE:The three clothing carry to the dorsal area dte? near the middle about 4" in the lower part of the lower seam of the sleeve, a circular perforation not found on the anterior front.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">J.M. Roussel, M.D.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Medical Examiner</span></strong></p><p><strong>**********************************************************************************</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">NOTE ON THE PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS MADE BY DR. J. MARIE ROUSSEL, MEDICAL EXAMINER: 25-7-53SKELETON "A"Skeleton found 75’ from camp 26. (It was in a wood box (Dynamex) and included the bones of the cranium.)Lower maxilla,All the vertebrae except one,18 sides,2 scapulas,2 clavicles,2 humerus, cabitus, and right radius,2 bones of the pelvis,2 femurs,Tibias and right fibulas,Tibias and left fibulas</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">NOTE: The bones of the lower maxillas are partially corroded and it is impossible to make a precise measurement.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Measurements: Left humerus: 33.5 cms or 13 3/16,"Left cubitus: 26.5 cms or 10 3/8",Right humerus: 22.5 cms or 12 ¾",Or 33.5 or 13 3/16" without measured angle,Right cubitus: 26.5 cms or 10 3/8,Right radius: 24.5 cms or 9 5/8",</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">CRANIUM:Jagged (indented?) sutures (joinings?) evident everywhere past traces of ossification.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">TEETH: Lower maxillas healthy natural teeth with no obvious decay, except in the line space of the right interior incisor medians. First lower left molars missing.Upper maxillas: bad establishment of the right incisor (retreating). The first large left molar missing as well as the right.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">BONE OF THE PELVIS: The iliac ridge is not definitely welded. With the tip of the pelvis that which indicates an age lower than twenty years.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">CLOTHES:A pair of black leather boots with the soles sewn with two rows of thread and two rows of copper rivets under the boots, and also a strap with buckles around the hoses, size about 8.Trousers probably brown with a tinted red leather belt with a series of oblique marks and a buckle with the initial "R"<br />A handkerchief with brown and green edges and the second with finer stripes,<br />A white sweatshirt with the name " Hollidaysburg Tigers " on top of the figure of a tiger.<br />A sport shirt tinted green marked Sportop washable, size "S-14-14 ½" with two pockets in the front on the right and the left<br />.A windbreaker or red and black checked shirt marked " Woolrich ", size 15 zipper and two pockets in the front.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="color:#000000;"><em>This skeletal remains was identified as that belonging to Richard Lindsey of Pennsylvania</em></span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>*********************************************************************************</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">SKELETON "B"</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Pelvis with lumbar column and last cervical vertebras and 7 dorsal, vestiges of four sides, I free side with diaphise part of two femurs whose extremities are notched, diaphise tibia dr. notched.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">CLOTHING:</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">1 plaid waistcoat red and black checked marked Woolrich with two sleeves turned out,1 pair of blue jeans, two pockets turned out,1 undershirt marked "Croftman" size No. 42,1 T-shirt red, large, Penney’s,</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">1 left boot brown leather laced with eyelets, soles of black rubber neoprene, oil resisting, size 11.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#000000;"><em>This skeletal remains identified as that of Frederick Claar of Pennsylvania</em></span></strong></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>25-7-53</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Gaspé/jvc</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><span style="color:#000000;">**********************************************************************************</span></strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>NOTES of DR. ROUSSELL</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>(27-7-53)</strong></span></p><span style="color:#ff0000;"><p align="justify"><strong>CLOTHING:Red waistcoat property of T-shirt marked Penny’s, 2 circular perforations measuring <span style="color:#000000;"><em>7/16" to 1/2 " in diameter</em></span> distance of 2 " located at the left anterior face of the thorax, a little on the left and in the lower part of the left center.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Circular perforations similar to the preceding ones located right face anterior of thorax 1" in inside of the seam of the sleeve at the level of the right pectoral area.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Large ovalaire (oval shaped?) perforation measuring about 1" long by 5 lines high situated with the anterior face of the thorax at the same level as the former at 1" to the right of the center line.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>4 or 5 perforations or tears on the posterior right side of the sweater in the line of the armpit.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>CHECKED JACKET </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Checked jacket red and black Woolrich with chamois sleeves. One notes 2 perforations through the anterior pocket and the left side of the windbreaker.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Perforations or tears in the seam or junction between the right sleeve and the jacket (corresponding to the perforations like on the T-shirt.)</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Tear close to the neck (collar) of the jacket at about 2 ½" with the top of the upper snap button corresponding to the ( ovalaire?) oval? tear noted on the T-shirt.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>CLOTHING "</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>A"Red and black checked jacket with zipper- perforation in the upper left region at 3 ¼" from the 3" in the line of the center and 4" with the top of the higher edge of the upper anterior pocket and to 5" to the lower part of the seam of the shoulder</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>GREEN SHIRT:</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Circular perforation at 3 ½" to the left of the centerline 5" of the lower part of the seam of the shoulder.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>WHITE T-SHIRT:</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Perforation at the edge shredded with the upper left region of the thorax ( or..could read…" shredded perforation at the edge of the upper left region of the thorax?) at 5 ½" of the center line and 4" below the seam of the shoulder surrounded by a zone of reddish color apparently ( tituée?) caused? by blood – No corresponding perforation in the back.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>NOTE:</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The three clothing carry to the dorsal area dte? near the middle about 4" in the lower part of the lower seam of the sleeve, a circular perforation not found on the anterior front.</strong></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>I seized upon the opportunity to discuss the above autopsy reports with a pathologist at a large modern hospital. This particular pathologist has performed many autopsies, not only as a result of his routine work in hospitals, but also doing and working on autopsies as a result of trauma deaths. His first question to me was where is the autopsy report. He snickered and shook his head when I said, "what you see is what there was."</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>The good doctor pointed out to me that a first year medical student would be expected to turn out a report far superior than what I was showing him. He simply could not believe those reports as stated could help form the basis for the scientific evidence in a multiple murder investigation. </strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>He went on to say that Dr. Roussel's report is little more than an inventory of the clothing worn by the deceased. It could also be a display by the examiner of his knowledge of bones and their names, something that any medical doctor is required to know. It lacked the key ingredients, namely declaring the trauma if any on the skeletons.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>The doctor asked me if I knew how these persons supposedly died, to which I declared that officially two of them were listed as dying from gunshot wounds. He then asked where were the bullets or bullet fragments, to which I declared none were ever found. He asked about spent cartridge cases, again the same answer, none were ever found. He then asked about a weapon. The same answer applied, none was ever located.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>I suggested to the doctor that one of the younger victims had been reported to have been shot multiple times, and further, that in the case of the younger victims, both were reported to have been shot in the abdominal and chest area. His reply there was the same as I have said many times, that it is difficult to comprehend a human body being felled by firearm multiple times or even a single time in those areas without breaking bones. I explained to the doctor that the provincial chemist had found a mark on one rib, but had also said that it could have been made by a forest animal.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>The doctor went on to say that he assumed that a defense lawyer would have been quick to do an "<em>autopsy on the autopsy report</em>" in the courtroom. He cringed when I informed him that was not the case as there was no cross examination on this by the defense.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>The doctor also asked me as to how and why they settled on the cause of death as firearm related. I explained that because they had discovered some holes in the clothing they were assuming they were bullet holes. I showed him in the report where the size diameter of the holes to be 7/16" and 1/2" to which he replied as not consistent with small arms to which I readily agreed.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>I asked him about the possibility of a stabbing with a round tapered object, to which he agreed was an excellent thought.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>I also explained to the doctor that Richard Lindsey's rifle was found with the barrel muzzle filled with mud and debris. I explained to him that a favorite stance of hunters is to walk and stand with the barrel resting in the crook of the opposite arm pointing out to the side. I suggested to him that if someone were walking or standing like that and they were stabbed from behind that they would probably drop and the muzzle of the rifle would be driven into the ground. He suggested to me that my thoughts on that were very reasonable.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>He wanted to know if the police considered these avenues. Again I could only speculate that if they did, they kept it to themselves.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>When all was said and done the doctor did say to me that even though Dr. Roussel states on each autopsy report that each set of bones were identified as belonging to each named individual, there was absolutely nothing in his examination that would have told him that without outside help. </strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>In the case of Eugene Lindsey, Mr. Clarence Claar had stated that Mr. Lindsey had long finger nails, and you will note in the autopsy report on Mr. Lindsey, Dr. Roussel points out that the skeleton had long finger nails. He pointed that out simply because it had been conveyed to him already. </strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>My conclusions with respect to Dr. Roussel's reports are as follows. These conclusions are not based on my personal opinion. These conclusions are representative of evidence that was put forth by the judiciary of Quebec. As I have stated numerous times, the purpose of this three year investigation was not to offer my personal opinions, but to display to the public as accurately as I can, the events as they unfolded and became part of the overall investigation leading to the execution of Wilbert Coffin.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>1) He did not establish a cause of death</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>2) He did not establish a time of death</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>3) He found no markings on the skeletal remains to suggest firearm trauma</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>4) He left no known instructions to the police to convey to the searchers with respect to the handling of the other two bodies should they be found, and as a result bones were simply tossed into cardboard boxes and transported to Gaspe'. There is no way that searchers would have known which bones belonged to either of the two remains.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>5) He gave no consideration to the fact that the area should have been cordoned off as soon as the first sighting of human remains became apparent. As a result searchers were going in every direction, picking up remains and items.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>6) The police have to shoulder some responsibility here. With the number of people concentrated in the search area, how would the police know if one of them decided to not turn in found items. Afterall, it was the police who touted the story that Mr. Lindsey's money was stolen.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>7) The police allowed the area to become a media frenzy upon discovery of the remains. Searchers were taking turns posing for pictures holding up boxes containing human bones, and in some of the pictures that I have acquired, the police officers are in the photos as well.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>8) One of the lead police officers in the search in his hair brained wisdom saw fit to pull out his service revolver and fill the carcass of a dead bear with lead instead of doing an autopsy on the bear to find out what it's stomach contents were.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>In any homicide investigation the crime scene is where it all begins. It has to be that way. Otherwise it becomes a complete sham, which is exactly what happened in the Gaspe' woods after these murders. It is little wonder that my doctor friend stood shaking his head as I related the chain of events to him.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#000000;">Before I conclude for today I want to make you aware of another interview that I conducted yesterday with respect to the Wilbert Coffin case. It was with a lady named Evelyn Dodson. Evelyn lost very heavily in the Gaspe' woods as well, when these murders were committed. Evelyn lost her brother. Evelyn was the former Evelyn Claar and it was her brother Fred Claar who was murdered. In the next posting, I shall outline some of the material from my interview. It is interesting because Evelyn, who was seventeen at the time,</span><span style="color:#000000;"> attended the trial at Perce' with the rest of her family.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>This has been a rather long posting but I felt it pertinent for the public to be exposed to the shoddy piece of workmanship that went into the pathology end of this affair.</strong></span></p><p align="justify"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Lew Stoddard</strong></span><strong></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong></strong></p></span>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com39tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-5094277780628553222009-06-30T21:16:00.009-07:002009-07-12T12:57:37.487-07:00<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"></span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">THIS LAND CALLED CANADA</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Happy Canada Day.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Projected as a huge book shelf with British Columbia and Newfoundland serving as the bookends this land called Canada stretches for some eight thousand kilometres from the Atlantic to the Pacific representing the largest land mass of any country on the planet.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>There may be some living in this country but hopefully not, who would be inclined to say "So What?" Well, you see it is like this. Canada spans the spectrum with our broad range of diversities. Consider for a moment that Canada is made up of little villages and big villages, little towns and big towns, little cities and big cities, combined with rural areas that stretch farther than the eye can see.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Lets talk about climate for a moment. Measuring 8,000 km. by nearly 4,000 km. Canada represents a vast and varied climate ranging from temperate and very hot to harsh and inhospitable in the far northern reaches. In other words, there is something for everyone.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Canada's people represent nearly 34,000,000 of the planet's inhabitants. We can boast of farmers and fishermen, factory workers, office workers and a whole host of other professions found in other lands. Canada's business representations range from Ma and Pa operations all the way to multi national corporations employing thousands of our citizens.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Canada's institutes of higher learning rank right at the top by world standards. This is evidenced by the volume of off shore students acquiring their education in Canada. I could go on and on. However, it is the week of Canada's birthday, so I shall sum up in this way.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Firstly, I was born a Canadian, I am a Canadian today, and I shall be a Canadian tomorrow. I am proud of that. Being born a Canadian did not come without cost. In two great wars in Europe, my ancestors and many others spilled their blood on the battlefields to preserve the freedoms and ideals that we as Canadians enjoy. I do not take this lightly. This is serious business. Any deviation from the memories of the sacrifices by these people would be nothing short of thumbing our noses at those who died.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I am not against immigration. We need it. I support it all the way. As I have said previously, I am against an open door policy whereby we admit people to this country to create a haven to further their own personal agenda. I believe this is wrong. It is also wrong I believe, for new citizens to expect us to change our constitution each time someone has a new religious belief or a cultural difference. We have the vehicle in motion in Canada in the form of our constitution, to allow for expression of personal beliefs, whether it be religious or cultural. I take a dim view when I am expected to alter my beliefs and morals, to accommodate those that think they can just change the constitution to reflect their beliefs at will.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Over the years I have acquired many friends and acquaintances of diverse ethnic backgrounds. It matters not to me if a person is red, yellow, green, black, or white. My personal views and opinions on what I think makes for a strong and unified Canada has absolutely nothing to do with one's ethnic background. I am tired of the moaning and groaning of the special interest groups, who really care nothing about our country, other than using it as a stepping stone for their own hidden agenda. </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Pure and simple, in my view, "Canada is not for sale." Only a blundering idiot would consider compromising the greatest country on the planet. My final comment to-day, "we may not come up perfect in this country, but I believe that on our very worst day, our light shines brighter in this land called Canada than it does in many other countries of the planet on their best day."</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I want to take this opportunity to personally thank the members of Canada's armed forces currently on deployment in the Middle East. I want you to know that we are thinking of you back in Canada. God Bless you one and all. I do know that my web site is read by a couple of our soldiers who are currently on duty based in Kandahar in Afghanistan.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I shall be back in a couple of days with some interesting revelations on the Wilbert Coffin case.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"></div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-47352305093128076022009-06-06T02:02:00.007-07:002009-12-01T15:44:54.462-08:00<div align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>Taking Out The Garbage.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><strong>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?</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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 <em>Dirty Cops</em>."</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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 <em>"look beyond the box." </em>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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 <em>five times in total. </em>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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? </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I will be back in a couple of days with some new reading for you. I think you will find it interesting.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.<a href="http://www.mail2web.com/cgi-bin/redir.asp?lid=0&newsite=http://www.news889.com/mediaplayer/mediaplayer.jsp" target="_blank">http://www.news889.com/mediaplayer/mediaplayer.jsp</a> </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Lew Stoddard<br /></div></strong>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-46630048126553554212009-05-13T20:15:00.002-07:002009-05-15T03:01:44.547-07:00<div align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>THE WILBERT COFFIN CASE.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>A SPECIAL INTERVIEW.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><strong>.</strong><br /><div align="justify"><strong>Throughout the course of my investigation of the Wilbert Coffin case I have learned to expect the unexpected, especially in the search of individuals whom I had been assured were no longer with us. Two individuals, both of whom I have presented in the past, namely Mimi Wilson and Gabriel Bernard are very much alive and still want to be heard. As well, I have located and spoken with two police officers who are still alive, and who took part in the Wilbert Coffin investigation.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>During the past few days in reviewing various elements of the case, I could see there were a couple of areas that I was not satisfied with. It would require a lot more searching before I was prepared to just assume that all parties had passed on into eternity. I am pleased to have been blessed with an inquisitive mind, because it again paid dividends.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I feel blessed to have had the opportunity this past week to speak with a special elderly lady. She too was touched tremendously by the Wilbert Coffin murder case. This lady's name is Donna McGuire. You are probably not familiar with this lady's name. You will be in a moment. You see Donna McGuire lost very heavily, more heavily than most of us could ever begin to comprehend at that murder scene in the Gaspe' woods back in 1953.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Donna McGuire lost a father and a younger brother, savagely murdered with another young man on that fateful day back in June, 1953. Her Dad was Eugene Lindsey and her brother of course was young Richard.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I must say that I was not totally prepared for the response that I might encounter If I should be fortunate enough to reach this lady. I simply did not know if she would be talkative, bitter, or if in fact would she talk to me at all. I would afterall be intruding into a very tragic element of her life. The first question that I must get out of the way was to determine if she was in fact the person that I was seeking.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>As soon as I introduced myself, I asked her straight out if it was she who had lost a father and brother in the Quebec woods back in 1953. She confirmed to me that it was, and I then asked her if she would mind carrying on an informal conversation about the matter. Donna very politely informed me that she would answer my questions as best she could. I explained to her that if it was too sensitive for her to talk at length, then we could break and continue later, but she told me she was alright.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I asked Donna to explain her fondest moments with her Dad. She explained to me that she cherished most, the times that she and her Dad would go fishing. She did not particularly care for fishing, but it provided time together with her Dad. Donna explained to me that as a family they lived out in the country in Pennsylvania and hunting and fishing was a way of life. She further went on to explain that her Dad was a good provider.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>When asked about her younger brother Richard, Donna explained they were very close and the normal brother/sister rivalries took place. Brother Richard loved the out of doors and like father like son, fishing and hunting were on the agenda in his life along with his school work. When the events in Quebec took place Donna was twenty years old and was a student, and thus, has a vivid memory of the events as they began to unfold.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Donna remembers those days when they should have heard from her Dad's party. She recalls the Pennsylvania police contacting Gaspe' residents and hearing of the discovery of her Dad's truck. The most terrible time of all was when they were informed that a grim discovery had been made in the woods, and Mr. Claar deciding to travel to Gaspe'. Clarence Claar was the father of Fred Claar who was the other young man who was murdered.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Donna informed me that in the months following, police officers arrived from Canada but they did not seem to know what they were looking for. They were informed that a suspect was in custody and would stand trial for murder.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I asked Donna specifically if she or other family members knew for sure as to how much money Eugene Lindsey was carrying on his person. She told me they did not.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Donna, her sister Eleanor, and her Mom Mary travelled to Perce' to attend the trial in 1954. They were accompanied by their family lawyer. </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Upon completion of the trial, they were informed that justice had been done and finally someone would pay for the crimes. My question to Donna was, Do you think that justice was done? This is where Donna gave some interesting comments about the trial process.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Donna felt that the trial was a strange process from the beginning. Shes felt it terrible that a defendant would be facing a death sentence having had nothing better than Raymond Maher as a defense attorney. Her comments was that he really did nothing throughout the trial. He never cross examined, nor did he call witnesses. As Donna said, the crown was able to say anything they wanted and there was no opposition. Their family lawyer she said, stated that Mr. Maher acted like a theatrical prop.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I had to ask Donna the question, Was she satisfied that justice was served? Her response was simple. Even though they were told Wilbert Coffin was guilty, she felt that he should never have been found guilty at that trial based on what was presented at trial, especially in view of the fact that he had virtually no legal defence lawyer acting on his behalf.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>This was the point of the interview where Donna had a question for me. Her question was "Where did they get that Raymond Maher in the first place and why?</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Donna went on to explain that, Yes, they wanted the party or parties responsible for the deaths to be brought forward and be accountable. It was not difficult to read it in her words, they are not sure that is what happened.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I explained to Donna that I have been investigating this case non-stop for three years and several things are coming into focus. I explained to her that I do not believe that Wilbert Coffin committed these murders and that I have reason to believe and I do believe that others should have been investigated. </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I thanked Donna for her time and she explained to me that I have permission to contact her again if there is something that she can assist with.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I felt it pertinent that you read this interview prior to me presenting the autopsy reports and some other police reports. Thank-you once again and God Bless you one and all.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard.</span></strong></div><div align="justify">.</div><div align="justify"></div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-40083279785861809812009-05-10T23:18:00.008-07:002009-05-11T12:49:47.380-07:00<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">IT IS GOOD TO BE BACK.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I repeat. . it is good to be back. I have indeed missed the opportunity to present the Wilbert Coffin case to you. There is an upside however, while I have been away I have received a number of messages and e-mails that sheds a bit of light on certain important aspects of the case, and I shall be presenting those to you in a timely correlated fashion.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I might also mention that someone was kind enough to copy me a message posted sometime back by Mr. Fortin on his site. The message indicated that I was dead. It is generally accepted as good jouurnalistic protocol that one would take a few minutes and check that sort of information out before publishing onto a public site. I note the message has since been removed, so I shall accept it as a mistake. Just before I leave, it has been further pointed out to me that you have my picture published on your site. That is ok because lets face it Mr. Fortin, your site does look sort of bland and plain. This gives it a youthful and vibrant look.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>One last thing, and this is a message to both you Mr. Fortin, and "Anonymous Andre". From now the road will get a bit rocky pertaining to this case. You may want to look beyond the box containing the Brossard Report. We are going to hit the autopsy reports hard. We are going to hit them where they should have been hit fifty -five years ago in Perce. We are also going to strike back at the lack of ballistic information.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>What I am saying is that there was much more than the Brossard report ever presented. Again I remind everyone that the Brossard report was not put together to prove or disprove the Wilbert Coffin trial. It was merely convened in a vain effort by the government of Quebec to make the judiciary look better. We all know this report was aimed at Jacques Hebert, and I stress the fact that this report was done almost a full decade after Mr. Coffin's trial in 1954. If Jacques Hebert could be made to look bad, then the judiciary would look better, without having to address the situation pertaining to suppressed evidence and witnesses.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Having had some time to look over this site of Mr. Fortin's in the past month, I am amazed that he would not have written some of this stuff while Mr. Jacques Hebert was still alive. There is an old adage that states, "If you are going to kick a man, then kick a dead one, as he cannot strike back." The same appears to follow true with reference to the writings referring to Lewis Sinnett, Mrs. Coffin,Henri Doyon etal. </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I will be back with a new posting in a day or so. I want to get this going as quickly as possible, because it is here where strong argument can be made against the way in which these people died, and the shoddy way in which the evidence was presented at trial. </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>To each and everyone across Canada who took the time to send me a note, thank you once again for bearing with me during these troubled times. God Bless you one and all.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard</span></strong> </div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-10021396859500222052009-05-03T08:06:00.002-07:002009-05-03T08:32:29.380-07:00UPDATEA quick posting to let everyone know that, contrary to the opinion of some, Lew is very much alive. He's been dealing with illness (probably caused by his chemotherapy) but is now on the mend and we can expect to hear from him in the very near future. Rest assured that his commitment to the Coffin Case remains strong!<br /><br />As for myself, the winter has been very difficult personally but it's also my intention to continue to pursue the truth in the Coffin case. I will be in Gaspé this summer and would be happy to meet with anyone who can bring new information to light on the case. I can be reached by email:<br />bakerkid@gmail.com<br /><br />Please also note that neither Lew nor I have posted comments on Clément Fortins' site, so anything posted in our name is added by a prankster!<br /><br />Lani Baker MitchellStoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-10223670278969349182009-01-21T21:35:00.002-08:002009-01-22T00:10:37.828-08:00<div align="justify"><strong></strong> </div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">TAKING AIM AT THE JURY</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify">.</div><div align="justify"><strong>It sickens me when I read some of the blatent crap that has managed to<em> </em>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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, <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">"There is nothing special about this arm whose relevance is negligible as I have already explained.</span> <span style="color:#ff0000;">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."</span></em> 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?</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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 <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">"Armee" 9mm Luger"</span> </em>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 <span style="color:#ff0000;"><em>"red herring</em>"</span> 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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Lew Stoddard.</strong> </div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-60071926459190725472009-01-14T12:15:00.009-08:002009-01-15T17:46:41.810-08:00<div align="justify"><strong></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">TAKING AIM ON THE TRUTH.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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, <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">"was not, and never had been the property of Wilbert Coffin."</span></em></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>In this, the second half of the posting, I shall be presenting evidence displaying proof beyond any doubt as to what was <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">"Wilbert Coffin's firearm."</span></em></strong></div><div align="justify"><em><strong>.</strong></em></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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 <span style="color:#ff0000;">"<em>Luger Model P38 Armee."</em></span> 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 <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">"not a revolver." 'It was a semi-automatic pistol"</span></em> 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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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 <span style="color:#ff0000;"><em>"Armee</em>"</span> 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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I am anxious to read your feedback on the <em><span style="color:#3366ff;">"Stoddard Online"</span></em> 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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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 <span style="color:#ff0000;"><em>"Armee"</em></span> on the stamping, the same word that was on Wilbert Coffin's identifying it as a German war souvenir.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><p></p><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5291598540845651538" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 258px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzN4yl2fQqIpsjMgQwyypid8XLEnrlLEapBlpZs5aTv4EPEu3oVzkQI1wCb651O79IugPjxD6CV5jN4zb5abHQzL0nE34BXaZMF3T_UdNOp4jqZKFrAgJJdYtMd3tcyBYWgIuG/s400/walther_p38_ap.jpg" border="0" /><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size:78%;"><strong>Photo Credit: Walther Arms Co.</strong></span></p><p><strong>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.</strong></p><p><strong>.</strong></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>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.</strong></span> </span></p><p><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard.</span></strong><br /></p>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-20326433813997701732009-01-11T16:12:00.014-08:002009-01-13T14:14:13.629-08:00<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">SEEING IS BELIEVING.</span></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;">.</span></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;">.</span></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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 <em>"revolver."</em> 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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Mr. Fortin went on to say that the police <em>"found"</em> 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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>The term <em>"revolver"</em> 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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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 <em>"Six Shooter"</em> 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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><strong>.</strong></div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5290898239139676690" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 222px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQHeyTdjsFRiUxRp6TBJ0arwDoZWinpWrTXEe2fLaEAODsR2q-cAX_JY8y4DfVw29yS58v8Y4O8bp-XyuLAS19_12k-HMD4uov01eOcdYL_QqqEpZ2PMIXDExN3hgYu0_wL9kp/s400/Smith+%26+Wesson.jpg" border="0" /><br /><div align="justify"><strong>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.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Lew Stoddard</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Host of "Stoddard Online"</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong></strong></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:85%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>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.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"> </div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-87563160689343672782008-12-30T17:51:00.012-08:002008-12-31T00:46:49.328-08:00<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">IS IT A FAIR PROCESS OF LAW?</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">YOU BE THE JUDGE.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>2008 is winding down with just one more day to go. It is time to get back into the thick of things and continue where we left off with the police reports on the Wilbert Coffin case. There are still many many reports to present, and I have to say that in many cases the police do not look very good with the handling of this case. The sad reality of the situation is, and always has been that a man took his final walk in life, to the gallows, based I believe on the way that this case was assembled and presented.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>As before, some of the stuff that I am going to show you, I have displayed previously. However, there are new folks joining the web site all the time, so it is imperative that they be brought up to date as well. Additionally, perhaps some of you did not fully understand everything the first time around so it is a chance to review what I am presenting. There are some reports that I had not presented previously, so I can guarantee we should all garner some knowledge from them.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>These police reports can serve as a reminder that one should view this Brossard Inquiry thing with a very open mind. You will not read the information that comes from these reports in the Brossard Inquiry, simply because in most cases it differs greatly with that which was presented at trial and at the inquiry. They simply did not want the public to know, otherwise the information would have been readily available, because much of it I am publishing for the first time in history. If it had been wide open as it should have been, common sense dictates to me that the course of the trial I believe would have been quite different.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Firstly we are going to talk about handguns. Initially according to the police of the day, the Lindsey party did not carry handguns on their person. That is interesting. I want you to take a look at the following list of exhibits that the police assembled for the court. This list is supposedly made from the property of the Lindsey and Claar hunting party. </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Pay close attention to exhibit number 28. Very clearly the police specify number 28 as that of a handgun. Now the big question, did they have one handgun, did they have two, did they have five? How many did they have? We do not know that and never will. I suspect though there was more than one. I say that though because as I have reported in the past, I have had a gentleman come forward and admitted to me that he found a handgun in relative close proximity to where the crimes were committed. For obvious reasons I will not name him here, however, the information will be passed to the department of justice.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>One more question to ponder. Do we know for sure that all items in this list came with the hunters from Pennsylvania? If you say obviously it did, I will immediately ask you, how do you know that for sure? The police say that it was all the property of the Americans as well. They were not being honest though when they were making that statement in court. It is ok to ask me if I can prove that statement. My answer is that according to the police themselves they could not verify what the Americans brought to Gaspe' with them. I retrieved that information from a letter that Captain Matte himself authored. I invite you to read it. I have provided it here directly below the list of exhibits.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>In that same letter we get two police reports for the price of one, and they both offer contradictory testimony to what the police touted. I am referring of course to the amount of money that Eugene Lindsey was supposedly carrying on his person. Captain Matte, in his letter to his boss states that they could not determine the amount of money that Lindsey might have had. This was determined when he was in Pennsylvania, yet later during the trial the figure of $1,000.00 was the figure that the prosecution bandied about to the jury as the amount that Wilbert Coffin stole from Lindsey's wallet. I am of the opinion that manipulation was set into play in a big way.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Even though Lindseys wallet was found void of currency, would it not be feasible that one of the searchers may have come across the wallet and helped himself to the contents? It may be circumstantial, but it is no more circumstantial than the figure of $1,000.00 itself, and the court even referred to "the" $1,000.00 figure as a known item when it was not. Again, I believe that it was manipulation by the prosecution preaching to an uninformed jury and a dud for a defense lawyer. I ask you to read the two letters and I welcome your thoughts.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">LIST OF EXHIBITS.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.</span></strong></div><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">The Coffin Case.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">2670.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">1) Geographical map used by M. Hébert to show the route followed leaving Gaspé to go to the place where one did the searches and found certain effects.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.2) Aerial photo indicating white diagram ( sketching) View of the whole of the region, small truck, etc…</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.3) Stove ( cooker) found at camp no. 21.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.4) reservoir fort the stove.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.5) camera.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">6) case of rifle.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">7) Rifle; marked Winchester, model 66, caliber 30.06 series no. 131404.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.8) strap attached to the rifle.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.9) aerial photo indicating the place where the rifle was found, (letter c ) and letter (1) spot where the remains of Eugene Lindsay were found.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.10) (a) P-10 (c) 3 photos showing Lindsay Sr. skeleton.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.11) Aerial photo of camp 26.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.12) leather wind breaker? Young Lindsay.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.13) photo of pants of young Lindsay with pockets turned out.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.14) photo of wind breaker.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.15) photo sweat shirt “ Hollidaysburg tigers”.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.16) photo pierced shirt.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.17) (a) (b) (c) invoices produced by Tyrrel Eden clerk at Robin Jones.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.18) bottle of ‘ old Time ‘ syrup.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.19) box containing a stamped egg.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.20) fuel pump.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.21) invoice for the pump.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.22) copy of declaration sworn by Coffin to two police officiers.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.23) pick.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.24) shovel.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.25) tarp.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.26) Binoculars with case No.150870 7x35 Bushwell.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.27) knife with accessories.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">.28) Revolver No. Series 4597.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.29) Serviettes ( blue) 1 large, 2 medium, 1 small marked Sears & Roebreck.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.30) 1 suitcase.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.31) overalls, blue.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.32) toilet paper (blue).</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.33) 1 rifle marker Winchester, No. Series 147862 caliber 30.06.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.34) 1 rifle , no marking nor series number, identified by Clarence E. Claar.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.35) 1 T-shirt, 1 plain shirt, 1 mackinaw.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.36) 1 wallet.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.37) 1 wrist watch (no bracelet).</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.38) 1 mackinaw, 1 sweat shirt, 1 shirt1 post card addressed to Mrs. Lindsay“ “ “ “ “1 ring belonging to the friend of young Lindsay1 wallet1 hunting cap1 distance binoculars 7x50’ Mercury”photo pelvis of human remains1 pr. Coveralls ( blue) produced by the defenseThe following exhibits P-6,P-7,P-8,p-35,P-38 were loaned to Dr. Roussel for study. Exhibit P-22 to M. Oscar Boisjolie official stenographer for transcription.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.(signed).</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">. Antonio Rail.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.Registrar for the Court<br /></span></strong></p><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">* * * * * * * *.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">. </span></strong></div><strong><p align="justify">.<br /></p></strong><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">Surete Provincial De Quebec<br />Director Adjoint De La Surete<br />Gaspe'.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.<br />.<br />July 29, 1953<br />.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.<br />We were not able again on this trip to obtain any certainty of the amount of money that Eugene Lindsey might have had in his possession before he left Hollidaysburg, neither a single detail about the sort of baggage that the hunters would have had when they were getting ready to come to Canada.<br />.<br />(J A Matte) Captaine.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;">In Charge Of Judiciary Police</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I shall be back in a couple of days to show you more. Thank you so much for taking an interest in my web site. As usual your signed comments are always welcome, with the usual rules in place.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard</span></strong></div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-33503913401043832352008-12-21T19:40:00.008-08:002008-12-21T23:37:33.086-08:00<div align="justify"> <img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5282507014463066578" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 299px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNkjbaH9oKEkEjKOa-TRB1G_ykgdvxlchXg3OKb9jD_VW7s-BKwrOG7e0sej5fP_UjnPQTyaXBwWEl1Tt4eGvjzCPq__zsqZgcYFN3zHyIho4VUNQLeQdZ6cgs1LzAxKkSrosW/s400/Chrustmas+Tree+%23+1.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">LEW STODDARD'S CHRISTMAS MESSAGE.</span></strong></div><br /><div align="center"><strong>.</strong></div><br /><div align="center"><strong></strong></div><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>Once again we have reached that special magical time that comes around each December. Yes, it is Christmas, and my most favourite time of the year. Sadly, Christmas can bring out both the best and the worst times in many of our lives.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>This year could perhaps be particularly rough for many families when one considers the state of our economy. It is very rough on families where income has been wrenched away due to employment layoffs, and in other circumstances even though employment is still in place, the uncertainties created by instability in our everyday living plays very heavily on children and families.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>Christmas is a special time of year to put aside the everyday pressures of life and reflect upon life in general. Though times may be tough for many of us, there are many within our borders who are worse off.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>In the past few days I have had the opportunity to visit a childrens hospital with a charity group that I help at Christmas. I can tell you this. If you were not a sentimental person when you went there, I guarantee you that you would be when you left. Little boys and girls so seriously ill and yet they put a smile on their faces when they greeted you.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>I had the opportunity to speak with many of these kids, and one in particular, though she was obviously very seriously ill, literally stopped me in my tracks. I had asked her to pick out a bear for herself from our assortment. She explained that she was selecting one, but not for her. I asked who it might be for. She calmly said she was selecting it for her Mom, and that she was worried and concerned about her Mom. You think about that for a moment, here you have a darling little girl, who has not had the opportunity to grow up or experience life and now faces what could be a terminal medical situation. Is she concerned and worried about herself? No she is not. She is worried about her Mom.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>Suddenly after witnessing something like I just described, I have to tell you that one very quickly should realize that we have a lot to be thankful for. Unfortunately we have allowed greed and selfishness to occupy our minds in many cases. In my own case I was diagnosed two years ago with leukemia. Of course it was devastating news. I decided to fight it and meet it head on. Thank God the leukemia is now in remission. I have a biopsy coming up in the last week of the year. If all is still well, and I believe that it is, the medical team do not want to see me again for six months. It is as if I have been granted another lease on life. The bottom line is simply, no matter how bad off we appear to be, there is always someone who is worse off. That little girl at the hospital was a graphic example of that statement for me.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>I encourage everyone during this holiday time to make a point of picking up the telephone, or sending someone an e-mail and let them know you are thinking of them. It only takes a moment. Over the next few days we are going to put the normal work on the site on hold. During this time I invite each and everyone of you to use the comments page to send a message to your friends or relatives. I just ask that you sign your comments as I do not publish anonymous submissions.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>Before I close I want you to remember and reflect upon our members of our armed forces. As many of you are aware, there are many men and women from Canada deployed in Afghanistan and to date, in excess of one hundred have given their lives there. Without doubt, this is truly a sad time for their families and loved ones at home across Canada.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>In closing I wish to take this opportunity to wish you and yours a very <span style="color:#ff0000;"><em>"Merry Christmas."</em></span></strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"> <span style="font-size:78%;"> <span style="color:#009900;">Photo credit: Judith Reeder, Gaspe', Quebec</span></span> </span></strong> </div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com43tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-21123023390782182052008-12-15T11:07:00.006-08:002008-12-16T11:48:19.551-08:00<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">THE LAST JEEP.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>You will recall a few days ago I made mention of the fact that I have many pieces of police correspondence from the Coffin case to display to you. I am pleased to say that I have more than first mentioned. I also mentioned to you that I had a picture of a "Jeep" that I wanted to show you. I have divided this posting into two parts, removing the necessity of having to talk about the Jeep and the police reports in one posting. It is the police reports that are important, not all the banter about Jeeps, as you will see a few postings down the road, because it is another type of vehicle that will become "very" prominent.</strong></div><br />.<br /><div align="justify"><strong>Anyway folks, here is the picture that I told you about. It is a Jeep that was assembled by someone else, perhaps by the CBC or by one of the newspapers. Lawyer Francois de Billy Gravel, who was one of Wilbert Coffin's lawyers touted it as a replica of the Jeep as described and seen by Wilbert Coffin in the forest. This Jeep was widely circulated in the province of Quebec and was put on display. Pictured inside the Jeep that I am showing you is, Francois de Billy Gravel, the lawyer.</strong></div><br />.<br /><p align="justify"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5280099147067215650" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 285px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHWcaG9xj7ewVXCML-MBv48DTQk-sUSSf4ciNGpbzpD1EJgG65H32AR8bFaenzacm8yN0JZOi0AFtCmmm-hvLpDtSRXak1cXpNcJPyQf6CUt3WedQ1idwiFXeglmJLIM1wKVMk/s400/Jeep+and+Lawyer.JPG" border="0" /><strong>The picture may very well be an exact replica. It was constructed based on the description of the Jeep that Wilbert Coffin described as having seen. It was displayed as a means of drawing attention to the vehicle and at the same time asking folks to come forward if they had seen it.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>.I shall be back folks in two days to continue with all the police reports. I guarantee you will be looking at some strange affairs based on police interviews and what actually made it to the court.</strong></p><p>.<strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard</span></strong></p><p><br /></p>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-6560663073707821802008-12-09T22:11:00.013-08:002008-12-10T23:32:29.550-08:00<div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">POLICE REPORTS. . . POLICE REPORTS.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">AND.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">MORE POLICE REPORTS.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="left"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#000000;">You will recall from the last posting that my plan is to continue sharing with you various police reports pertaining to the Wilbert Coffin case. That plan has not changed, however, I am pleased to say that I am now in a position to be able to share more with you. I think after you see some of these graphic examples you will be in a much better position to understand that Wilbert Coffin was not well handled.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#000000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#000000;">You will see that I am not subjecting my opinion upon you, but allowing you the reader, to see first hand the reports filed by members of the judiciary, namely the police themselves. You will see that what was determined by the police was not always what was examined in the court at Perce'. You will also see and read much that never made it to the court.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#000000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#000000;">We shall continue on here where we left off. I am going to display to you an exerpt from a letter written by Sergeant John Vanhoutte to his boss, Captain Alphonse Matte. The following represents the exerpt, and as we all know, translation is not an exact science, therefore small flaws may occur and I beg your forgiveness.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><span style="color:#cc0000;"><div align="justify"><br /></div><strong></strong></span><div align="center"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>Gaspe P.Q.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>.<br />From J.C. Vanhoutte, agent P.J.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>Captain in Charge of the Judicial Police:</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>Re. Eugene H. Lindsay, Richard Lindsay and Frederick Claar (Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pa. Gaspé south PQ.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>" MURDERS"</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify">.<br /><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>To follow your verbal instructions, those that were transmitted by Lt. Gerard Morel, July 23 1953, I left Quebec, to take myself to Gaspé, to accompany you to the present inquiry (investigation) and here at the 29th of the same month, then as were your instructions I was living at Gaspé in order to control different information concerning this affair, accompanied by the agent, Jules Fradette, actually stationed at the "Poste de Gaspé".</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#000000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I am troubled by one statement above from Sgt. Vanhoutte. He states that on instructions from Captain Matte that he was now living in Gaspe' in order that he <em><span style="color:#3333ff;">"might control different information concerning this affair"</span></em>. What do they mean when they say "control?" A nastier, more cynical person than myself might be inclined to read more than one meaning into that statement, considering the fact that many other allegations are beginning to float to the surface with reference to the conduct of the judiciary.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>The following is paragraph 15 as the first exerpt that we shall look at. Sgt. Vanhoutte is talking about the entry permits that were a requirement to enter the forests throughout the controlled areas around Gaspe' town. Sometime back through a contact of Lani Mitchell's we were fortunate to acquire a goodly number of these permits, and I am pleased to say, we were blessed to receive the permits covering the period of time prior to Doctor Burkett and Mr. Ford from Altoona, Pennsylvania arriving right up until after the Lindsey party entered the forest. As well, you will note Wilbert Coffin and Angus McDonald on the permits as well.</strong></div><div align="justify">.</div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#ff6600;"><strong>15) In the course of this investigation, I went likewise many times to the gate of the York river at Wakeham where I got all the booklets of permits (travel) in the forest given at this spot for June 1953. A complete list is made, giving the no. of permits, the person, the destination and the no. of days for which the permit given, for the day between 8am-6pm by the forest warden, Lewis Annett. Copies of this list is annexed to this report and in examining the said list one can see and easily compare the entries of Burkett, Ford at the end of May 1953, as well as Coffin, MacDonald, Lindsay and Claar in June.</strong></span></div><div align="justify">.</div><div align="justify"><strong>It is important to note that the column just to the right of each name states the number of days that a party plans to stay in the forest. Equally important is the fact that these permits were entrance permits, and in reality the life of the permit expired when the permit holder left the forest, unless of course it was necessary to leave through the same gate for a short time and then re-enter by the same gate on the same date. I am told that in cases such as this, the gate keeper usually waived the necessity of acquiring a new permit.</strong></div><div align="justify">.</div><br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5278093014800190834" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 398px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5dzSuZWTnObfqBWQMz-jzTHAwf-2dWNV6OF6170NEaZNIfD3NRC_fTtHNlWfwCYxJztKv7IyD8KYVKrA3lgtdmSJb0HyuxHdAZeI49MS-Fx8AdTSBwMBP6S0IVHD1XXCKUN5Z/s400/Woods+Permits++1053++Gaspe.jpg" border="0" /><strong>. The following permit displays the emergence of Wilbert Coffin and Angus McDonald. They are accomadated by permit numbers 527 and 528 on June 08, 1953. If you scroll downward you will see where the Lindsey party arrives at the forestry gates and are awarded permit numbers 545, 546, and 547, on June 09,1953.</strong><br />.<br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5278091633732582066" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 323px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu9W8lND48pxUSwlylP_nDBe03Xnka7W48Zt6jfUgzek_RUlMsDmgedqSdIblLadGI_RaSBnbyX8_z3Xq9LmdI445uGySPZIjxI0KLCF1EJUI1OnYgmIsBXrtd5L5_PirB0A52/s400/Permits++Woods++Number+4.jpg" border="0" />.<br /><div align="justify"><strong>You will note that Doctor Burkett and Mr. Ford were visiting the forest on an eight day permit. This permit was issued to them on May 27, 1953, which would have indicated that their eight days would be expired on June 04, 1953. The police knew the dates of these two gentlemens permit. You saw a few paragraphs back where the officer states that he had gone to the gate several times to view these same permits that I have just shown you. The permits look clear and straight forward to me.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>You will see in my next posting where Captain Alphonse Matte made a journey to Pennsylvania. On this sojourn to the United States you will see in the police report that I shall be sharing with you that he spoke to Doctor Burkett and Mr. Ford. Armed with the knowledge garnered from the gate permits and his conversations, he knew exactly the details of these gentlemens' trip to Canada.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>This is now another example of where this investigation turned ugly. The prosecutor, who would be well aware of the police investigation implied that Wilbert Coffin was telling a lie when he had insisted that the vehicle and occupants that Wilbert Coffin had seen in the forest with the Lindsey's was not Doctor Burkett and Mr. Ford. The prosecutor brought Doctor Burkett and Mr. Ford to the trial to give evidence of their movements and times of arrival and departure, making it sound like Wilbert Coffin had tried to finger them as the people that he had seen.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>The truth of the matter was that Wilbert Coffin did not even know of the existence of Doctor Burkett and Mr. Ford when he went into the woods. That is clear because of the fact that Wilbert Coffin entered the forest at least four or five days after they had made their departure. The entry permits prove that. It is sad when a prosecution has to rely on trickery, outrtight manipulation, and lies to present a case in criminal court. Prosecutors have a fancy title for behaviour such as this. They call it tossing in a "red herring". I call it outright manipulation, lies and deceit. In this case it was done for one reason only, and in my view, it was done to manipulate the jury into thinking that Wilbert Coffin was a liar and if he lied about this, then he was probably lying in many other areas. It is components such as this that could sway a jury when they begin deliberations.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>This is where we will break for this posting. If you really read into this posting there is a lot to consume. I would like you to sit back and ask yourself, if it were you who was charged with this crime and you knew this stuff was going on, would you be satisfied that you were being subjected to a fair and impartial process of law?.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>I will be back in a very few days to present more. As I have mentioned to you previously, some of these reports I have shared with you in the past, but you will now see it all in much more graphic detail. I now have many pages of various letters and reports from the police and judiciary of the day and my plan is to systematically present them for all to read. You must remember, a lot of this stuff was never reported at trial, therefore, it does not show on trial transcripts, and for certain, it does not show in transcripts from the Brossard Commission, because in my view, the Brossard Commission was really an investigation by the judiciary on themselves, in a half-hearted attempt to convince the public that they could do no wrong.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Thank you again for reading my site. I will be back in a very few days with what I think is something that you will find most interesting. We are even going to talk about a</strong> <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"><em>"Jeep"</em></span> among many other things. God Bless you one and all, and talk to you again real soon.</strong></div><p><strong>.</strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></strong></p>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-70437451235506665772008-11-26T08:02:00.021-08:002008-12-03T06:22:09.155-08:00<div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">THE TIME HAS COME. . .</span> </strong></div><div align="center"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="center"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>It is unfortunate that some folks may be led astray and off the focus of the real issues surrounding the Wilbert Coffin case. All the garbledy gook about Jeeps, stuff that went nowhere, and continues to go nowhere. Who saw what Jeep, what was the colour, how was it constructed, who were the occupants if it existed, and the biggest question of all, was there a jeep in the area that Wilbert Coffin claimed? Those questions and statements can and will be argued and embellished upon until the end of time.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Wilbert Coffin was being made out to be a liar in 1953 and 1954 with reference to his claim to have seen a Jeep vehicle, and there are those today still preaching the same sermon. I'll make a tiny suggestion to anyone caught up in this furore. "Get yourself a coffee, sit back, relax and read on," because I can state emphatically that "yes" a Jeep did exist in the area where Wilbert Coffin claimed to have seen it. The question begging an answer now would be, can I prove that statement?</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Well by now you should know that nothing gets published on this site without documentation, and yes, as usual I have that documentation. Read on and you will find out how I know that the Jeep type vehicle existed when Wilbert Coffin returned to the forest with Richard Lindsey. You will also see that it was Captain Matte and Seargeant J C Vanhoutte, the leaders of the investigative crew, who forgot to cover their tracks by leaving their notes lying around for that nosy Mr. Stoddard to find some fifty years later.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>You see, back in the 50's the art of communications had not been refined to the extent that we do things today. There was no e-mail or text messaging, and telephone and telegraph service was very limited at best because it was dependent upon available service. Thus, the old fashioned way by surface mail offered few options. Hence, the term <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">"paper trail"</span></em> took on new meaning.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>In my files, I am in possession of a ton of these little gems from various paper trails pertaining to the Coffin affair. Some of them simply got turfed, but I must reiterate, many qualify for publication on my site simply because they can be authenticated. As an example, I speak specifically of letters and notes written and signed by senior police officers to each other, and in some cases the correspondence advanced all the way to the top. In this affair one step had been removed. That stepping stone had been the office of the Attorney General, because as we know, the guy at the top was Maurice Duplessis as he had appointed himself Attorney General to compliment his position as premier, not to mention the ease that the appointment would carry in one's quest to stick handle around legal obstacles.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>It was pointed out to me a few days ago that a particular blog on the internet appears to be attempting to re-invent the wheel by re-writing history with reference to Jeeps in the Coffin affair. I can tell you, Jeeps really have no relevance to the overall outcome of this affair. In a twisted way, Jeeps were made out to be a major factor. In my view, this was done by the police and judiciary in an effort to display Wilbert Coffin as a liar, because if the jury could be convinced that Wilbert Coffin was prevaricating in this aspect, it would be much easier to convince them later on in the trial on other matters pertaining to Mr. Coffin.</strong></div>.<br /><strong>It is important that you understand this hearing was not a trial for Wilbert Coffin. At the time of the Brossard commission, Wilbert Coffin had already been hanged some eight or nine years previously. The Brossard commission was assembled by the government of Quebec to investigate alleged wrong doing by the police and justice officials during the Coffin affair as spelled out mainly in the writings of Jacques Hebert.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>As my attention was once again drawn to this site by an e-mail from a commenter, it is not difficult to understand the confusion generated there. There is room for speculation that many folks could be inclined to accept what is written on this site was the evidence produced at trial to convict Wilbert Coffin, when in fact, much of what was contained in the Brossard commission was stuff that was never brought up at trial. Some material that had been submitted as evidence for the trial never made it to the court room. In some cases though, certain statements from that same evidence were taken out of context and presented at the Brossard commission.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>As mentioned earlier on in this posting, I have many notes, statements, and letters from various levels of the judiciary of Quebec pertaining to the Coffin affair. I also mentioned that some of these letters etc. do not always agree with what was accepted and used as evidence during the trial. These are the areas that cause me much concern and interest. It is at this point of time that I simply ask <em>"Why?" </em>Immediately a flag goes up. If there was only one example, I could understand "why." When there are many, instantly one speculates and asks oneself if someone was trying to thwart the direction of justice. But then, justice officials of Quebec of that era would never do that. . . . . would they?</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>Even though I have published some of these in the past, there will be those who have not had the opportunity to peruse them. My current plan is to publish one or two of them every few days so that you may see for yourself the up hill battle that was waged against Wilbert Coffin. Perhaps then it will become clear as to why I have embarked upon a systematic study and investigation of the <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">"Regina vs Coffin"</span></em> case.</strong><br /><strong>.</strong><br /><strong>The following is an exerpt from a note snt by Henri Charland, a justice ministry officer to his bosses that would go all the way up the ladder to the attorney general, but in this case the attornry general was also Premier Maurice Duplessis. I feel that it is necessary to show you this so that you have a graphic example of some of the things that went on during this period. I have highlighted the letter in colour, making it easier to follow. My comments immediately follow the letter.</strong><br /><br /><div align="center">.</div><div align="center">.</div><br /><div align="center"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>SÛRETÉ PROVINCIALE DE QUEBEC.</strong></span></div><br /><div align="center"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="left"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>Quebec,</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>.</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>21 July 1953.</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>.</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>DQ-74890-53.</strong></span><br /><strong><span style="color:#990000;">.</span></strong><br /><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>.</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>NOTE FOR THE FILE.</strong></span><br /><strong><span style="color:#990000;">.</span></strong><br /><div align="center">.<span style="color:#990000;"><strong>Eugene H. Lindsay, his son Richard Lindsay, and Fred Claar (Hollidaysburg, Pa.) Gaspé, City and District of Gaspé, P.Q.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#990000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>“Disappearance".</strong></span></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#990000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#990000;"></span></strong></div><div align="left"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>After several phone calls and following information that was furnished to me by the APGSC, it would seem that about the 11th June, another group of Americans likely coming from the same place as Lindsay, reportedly would have met the party of three to which we are presently referring, and Sergeant Doyon must double check (verify) this information, and, further more, Wilbert Coffin reportedly spoke of this to Doyon, and they went, as well, in the woods where one of the bodies was found, in order to provide him with details.</strong></span></div><div align="left"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="left"><strong><span style="color:#990000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="left"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>RC/AG ( HENRI CHARLAND).</strong></span></div><div align="left"><strong><span style="color:#990000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><span style="color:#990000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="left"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>DIRECTEUR ADJOINT SUPPLEANT.</strong></span></div><div align="left"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="left"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>Copies/rl.</strong></span></div><div align="left"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="left"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>Quebec4-9-53.</strong></span></div><div align="left"><strong><span style="color:#990000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><span style="color:#000000;">This letter is most important because Wilbert Coffin had declared that he had seen a Jeep type vehicle with the Lindsey party when he returned young Richard to the forest from acquiring the replacement fuel pump for their truck. The police spared him no mercy by insisting he was a liar and that the vehicle never existed, and that was also the story that the prosecution took to court to tell the jury. That story is still be told fifty-two years later as Mr. Fortin makes reference several times on his site that Wilbert Coffin <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">"pretended"</span></em> to have seen this vehicle. You will notice in the letter that I just published above, the police were very much aware that the vehicle existed, and yet they chose to lie to help gain a conviction.</span></strong></div><div align="left"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="left"><strong>In my next posting we shall put the Jeeps back in the toy box. I will furnish at that time another police report about a specific Jeep and it's occupants. Thank you for reading my site today. Many hours have been put in by Lani Mitchell and myself to make it possible to present this story and case to you. Thankfully, it is now all coming together and I think you shall agree within a very short period of time. Once again, Thanks and God Bless You One And All.</strong></div><div align="left"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="left"><strong>Lew Stoddard.</strong></div><div align="left"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="left"><strong>Host of "Stoddard Online"</strong></div><div align="left"></div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-16162267243444172872008-11-17T10:58:00.007-08:002008-11-17T17:37:55.923-08:00<div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong></strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>THE FACTS OF THE MATTER.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:85%;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:85%;">.</span></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:85%;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong></strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>I am of the conviction that if a story is told and embellished enough times someone may start to believe it. In other words, the more bizzare it is, coupled with some new hype and certain people will take a stab at rewriting history. You see, many stories and events in their true form are dull and boring, so sometimes certain writers may find it necessary to "<em>Jazz"</em> it up a bit. I borrowed that word from my teen age niece, but I do agree with her.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Of course I am making reference to the Wilbert Coffin case here. More specifically, to certain elements of the case. We have seen and heard a lot about those pesky little vehicles called Jeeps in the past fifty years. You know the ones I mean, the ones that were thrown away by Crown Assets Disposal after the Second World War. You could pick them up for as little as fifty bucks at an auction, thus making them available to not just the affluent, but to the poor as well. Affectionately, they were known as the poor man's Cadillac in many circles.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>For the sake of those seven or eight people who may read a particular site on the internet about the Wilbert Coffin affair there are a couple of things that you should remember or be made aware of before you get your knickers tied in a knot. I am speaking of the gospel according to Fortin.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>There are several elements that sets the site to which I refer apart from what you read on "Stoddard Online." You see, and I mention this often, nothing gets published on my site unless it can be backed up with documentation. That documentation may consist of a true documented account, personal interviews with subjects involved, or a combination of both. This space has not in the past been over overrun with hearsay, is not currently, nor will it be in the future. To borrow a line from Ford Motor Company, that rule is "Job One" on this site.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Reference is constantly made about Wilbert Coffin's sworn statement to the police concerning the vehicle in the area of the Lindsey's when he returned young Richard to the site.. I have yet to see that sworn statement and there is a very good reason. The reason is because Wilbert Coffin did not make a sworn statement to police. Anything that Wilbert Coffin had to say to the police they most certainly would not have wanted in sworn context and the reason is very simple. The police were only interested in garnering a confession, nothing more, nothing less. What they got was Wilbert Coffin steadfast in his statement proclaiming his innocence.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>True there were hearsay statements presented at trial about this vehicle that Wilbert Coffin saw. The one key element that was missing at the trial concerning this vehicle was the one who saw the vehicle himself, Wilbert Coffin. You will recall he wished to give evidence at trial. You will further recall that it was a dead beat defense lawyer by the name of Maher who denied him that chance, thus the hearsay evidence was accepted. Further to that, Sergeant Henri Doyon of the Quebec Provincial Police was portrayed as nothing short of a liar because he did not give evidence consistent with what the crown wanted about this vehicle.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>Wilbert Coffin did make a sworn deposition regarding his case. This is where this other web site that I allude to is obviously confused. As several folks pointed out in my last posting, this other site is constantly monitoring my whereabouts, so once again I shall do my part and set them straight so that they may get their facts straightened out.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>While waiting to be hanged at Bordeaux Jail in Montreal, Wilbert Coffin made a 49 point deposition. In the deposition Wilbert Coffin outlined his case to Arthur Maloney QC, touted to be one of the best criminal lawyers in Canada past and present. Also in attendance was Antonio Pilon. Wilbert Coffin decsribes in detail the vehicle that he witnessed. I am in possession of that deposition. I will share with you the following which is an exerpt from that sworn deposition:</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><br /><strong><span style="color:#009900;">22) On October 8 1955 I had an interview with my lawyers, Mr. Arthur Maloney CR of Toronto and Mr. Francois Gravel of Quebec and gave them the explanations about particular facts that they raised during the interview. I will state now these particular facts in the following paragraphs.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">.<br />23) Mr. Maloney produced a photograph of a jeep with part of the body that was made of plywood, designed like Exhibit A in this declaration. In this declaration Mr. Maloney said that he had obtained this photograph from the Toronto Evening England that presented it as the photograph of a jeep that had been found in New Brunswick. After studying the photograph, I couldn’t judge if this was the same jeep as the one that occupied the two Americans I met with the Lindsay group. The fact that the two jeeps resemble each other, and that the two were constructed in the same way. The jeep I saw, occupied by the two Americans seemed to be constructed as though the plywood wasn’t put there by a manufacturer, but by someone with less experience in this kind of work, and it seemed to me that it was stained with some kind of oil or varnish. It could be that the jeep in the photograph marked exhibit A was the same jeep but I couldn’t swear to it.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">Let us now refer to paragraphs 41 and 42 in the deposition;</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">41) During the time I was in the company of the police and the group of searchers in the region of the camps, I distinctly remember on the road the tracks made by a jeep. I remember seeing such tracks between camps 24 & 25, and on different places on the access road in the region. I particularly instructed Mr. Maher, my lawyer, to try and have photos taken of these tracks as I felt that they still would be visible. No one took these photos. I am now in the belief that Sergeant Doyon had said to Mr. Gravel that he also had seen the jeep tracks.<br />It arrives that neither the ;lawyers for the Crown nor the defense lawyers had ever poised that particular question during the trial. On the contrary, the lawyers for the Crown pretended in front of the jury that there were no jeep tracks in the region. In other words, they exploited evidence that the recent admission of Sergeant Doyon demonstrated to be a falsehood.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">.<br />42) The lawyers of the Crown brought Dr. Burkett and Mr. Ford, who admitted being in Gaspé in a jeep but who proved they left the region June 5. In the process, they tried to imply that I wanted to throw the blame on them. Nothing could be further from the truth, because M. Burkett and Ford definitely weren’t the men I saw in the company of Lindsay June 10 1953.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;"><span style="color:#000000;">The following represents paragraphs 47 to 49 inc.</span> </span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">47) The details given in this declaration are made to my lawyers Mr. Arthur Maloney C.R. and Mr. Francois De B. Gravel Saturday October 8. They have retained the services of a stenographer and dictated the statement I gave them after checking that I found it exact.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">48) I repeat that I am innocent of this crime and I don’t feel I had a fair trial, mainly because the evidence concerning the other jeep and the other Americans in the district of Gaspé wasn’t produced and the evidence of the existence of the tire tracks of a jeep on the road in the vicinity of the camps wasn’t mentioned at all.<br />They made me out to be a liar because they proved that Dr Burkett and Mr. Ford weren’t the men that I saw when I left the Lindsay group, and new evidence now proves that another jeep and other Americans were in the district. The police reporting on my case knew that and didn’t say it.<br />It also is now proved by Sergeant Doyon in his deposition to my lawyer M. Francois Gravel that there were jeep tracks on the route.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">49) I would be pleased to be given the chance to be questioned by a member of the Ministry of Justice of our Federal Government to be able to explain at length all that I’ve said here, and all that again would be necessary.<br />Signed in the prison of Montreal, Bordeaux, Que.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">9 October 1955<br />(S) Wilbert Coffin.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#009900;">.<br />Witnessed in front of me at the Bordeaux prison<br />This day of 9th October 1955<br />J.- Antonio Pilon<br />Juge de Paix, district of Montreal.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>As you can see, what was actually a sworn deposition differs greatly as to what is touted as a sworn statement to police. Due to dirty deeds by the crown, Wilbert Coffin never got a chance to address his case. Equally important, you can easily see that statements given to the police were twisted and fabricated to bolster the crown's case.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>In the case of the reported sightings of a vehicle by Dr. Mimi Wilson, it is particularly interesting as she is very much still alive and I have interviewed her twice. She was not called to testify at the trial because the crown chose to not advise her when the trial was on. Consequently, her evidence was never brought forward to trial. She still wants to be heard though. In Gaspe', Fabien Sinnett, also very much alive, saw a vehicle as well on the days in question. He reported it to police, but like Mrs. Wilson, was not called to testify. His testimony would have also helped Wilbert Coffin, and to this day, he is willing to testify as he does not feel that justice was served. Having had the opportunity to interview both these people, there is one statement that both parties made that is common to this case. I have purposely not reported this statement so as to not compromise their statements. As you can no doubt see, I am patiently waiting to get a look at this vehicle reported by Mrs. Wilson. It should be interesting as there are no pictures available, and yet Mr. Fortin says we will take a look at it. This is where the above held back statement will hit it's mark.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>As you can see Wilbert Coffin did not give evidence about a bunch of gawdy colors. He merely stated that the plywood on the vehicle looked like it was covered by oil or by some sort of varnish.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>In the case of his mother, one would not expect an elderly lady to necessairly be precise in a description. Afterall, she never said that she had seen the vehicle. She was only basing what she remembered from a conversation many months before.</strong></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>As usual, I am looking forward to your comments. I encourage comments from all, just three basic rules, topical, no profanity, and complete with the authors name. Further I wish to thank you for such a nice cross section of Remembrance Day messages. Stay tuned as there is a big one coming up in just a few days. God Bless You, one and all. . . </strong></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-family:lucida grande;color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard</span></strong></div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-63721686279819155542008-11-10T09:13:00.013-08:002008-11-11T23:12:17.637-08:00<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0O6B-vEhOgtraHSmtjMKzrXoKo91lwfdrHEehVo_QUWFkT0zzXM0gved2_pyF2-r4C0NBd8PE9tXUsnRKfUgrs5LPpVevMwZSe8Xk6GJNfhpYlhpYzFMl2adTgdjNYNzQ6b2X/s1600-h/Field+Of+Poppies.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5267083587005397554" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 180px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 156px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0O6B-vEhOgtraHSmtjMKzrXoKo91lwfdrHEehVo_QUWFkT0zzXM0gved2_pyF2-r4C0NBd8PE9tXUsnRKfUgrs5LPpVevMwZSe8Xk6GJNfhpYlhpYzFMl2adTgdjNYNzQ6b2X/s400/Field+Of+Poppies.jpg" border="0" /></a> <span style="color:#ff0000;">.</span></div><br /><div align="center"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;"><strong>In Flanders Fields.</strong></span></div><br /><div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>In Flanders fields the poppies blow<br />Between the crosses, row on row,<br />That mark our place; and in the sky<br />The larks, still bravely singing, fly<br />Scarce heard amid the guns below.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>.<br />We are the Dead. Short days ago<br />We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,<br />Loved and were loved, and now we lie,<br />In Flanders fields.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>.<br />Take up our quarrel with the foe:<br />To you from failing hands we throw<br />The torch; be yours to hold it high.<br />If ye break faith with us who die<br />We shall not sleep, though poppies grow<br />In Flanders fields.</strong></span></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">.<br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:78%;">Lieutenant Colonel John McRae.</span></span></strong></div><br /><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:85%;color:#ff0000;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">This is the week in history that should be foremost and number one in the minds of all folks in the free world. I am speaking specifically of the symbolic end of armed conflict involving Canadian men and women. The eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, hence, Remembrance Day.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><span style="color:#003300;"><strong>.<br /></strong><strong>Remembrance Day was to be a day of reflection, a day to put aside the trials and tribulations of everyday life and show respect for all those who so unselfishly were there to answer the call without conscription, and travel to a far away land in an effort to do their part for all Canadians in an effort to bring successful conclusion to the threat of loss of freedom.</strong></span></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">In the past few years I am troubled when I can notice a down turn in the recognition of this date. True, many of the elder men and women who took part in these conflicts are no longer with us, and their numbers are dwindling each year. That is no excuse. It simply is not. One only needs to take an example from the last verse of Colonel McRae's poem to recognize that fact. He states it well. . . "Take up our quarrel with the foe, to you from failing hands we throw, The torch be yours to hold it high, If ye break faith with those who die, we shall not sleep". . .</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">Many of us in Canada can trace our roots to an ancestor who answered the call. It is important to note that from all those who answered the call many thousands were not fortunate enough to come back home. From those who did manage to make it back to our shores, there were many whose lifes would forever be changed from physical and psychological injuries.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">The highest award for valour in the British Commonwealth is the Victoria Cross. I have been particularly blessed by personally meeting two recipients of the Victoria Cross. Through media work I had the occasion to meet the late retired Lieutenant Colonel Cecil Merritt and the late Sergeant Ernest Alvia (Smokey) Smith. Both of these gentlemen were everyday people, just like you and I. Sergeant Smith always had time for a laugh and a joke.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">In the case of Sergeant Smith, he was happy to oblige when young children would ask him questions about the military and the war. He knew just the way to explain it to them in language they could grasp without fright. I had the opportunity to hold his Victoria Cross medal. I have to tell you, it caused goose bumps. Suddenly one realizes the appreciation that we should hold for these gallant people as they fought the horrors of war. </span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">Each November 11th, I personally make a point of visiting a military cenotaf. I encourage others to do the same. For many, it provides an opportunity for young people to cross paths with others who made a big sacrifice by fighting and standing up for the freedoms that we enjoy to this day. Freedoms and rights were not free. They came at teriffic cost. These are the things that we should all think about, these are the things that we should be impressing upon our youngsters. Upon visiting a cenotaf one very quickly learns those tears in the eyes of elderly men and women are genuine and real, especially where in many cases they are being shed by someone horribly disfigured from the rigors of war. These people are however, not lamenting on their own injuries, they are lamenting the loss of those who did not return.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">Even though many returned military personnel had made a teriffic sacrifice in Europe and elsewhere, some were not treated very well in the years immediately following the war. One of these soldiers was from the province of Quebec. He was from the town of Gaspe' on the Gaspe' peninsula. His name was Wilbert Coffin. This is particularly significant because Wilbert Coffin came from Quebec, and the then premier of the day, Maurice Duplessis was against Quebec taking part in the war in Europe. Duplessis liked the freedoms, but he was totally against trying to win them.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">I invite you to express your thoughts on the comments page. If there are those who thought that I had fallen off the face of the earth, I am pleased to inform that I am still here. If there are those who hoped that I had fallen off the face of the earth, I encourage you to stay tuned and pay attention.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">Lew Stoddard</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#003300;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-size:78%;color:#ff0000;">Photo Credit: Minister Supply and Services Canada</span></strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"> </span></div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-57228551501204440172008-09-29T09:17:00.009-07:002008-10-14T11:43:03.859-07:00<p align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">YOU BE THE JUDGE.</span></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>As I have stated numerous times in the past I do not occupy my time in getting caught up in most of the junk that has floated around and haunted the Coffin case for the past half century. As long as there are people out there in society who thrive on sensationalism, there will be those who in my opinion, are ready to answer the call. These are the ones who traditionally occupy the <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">"wannabe a best seller"</span></em> shelf in the local book store.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Again this is my opinion, but I do know that it is an opinion shared by others who have an interest in this case. Occasionally, someone will send me an e-mail pointing out something that they have read and want clarification on what someone is writing. Such is the case of things being written and published with reference to a particular gentleman named Jacques Hebert.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>I was pointed to the site of Clement Fortin. You will no doubt recall Mr. Fortin. It was his site that routinely <em>"borrowed" </em>information and comments from my site and published it as his own correspondence from his readers. You will also recall that it was necessary that I issue a cease and desist order to Mr. Fortin to curb this practise. You will also recall that I set up a fictious character and sent myself an e-mail from this fictious character and I then published it on my web page. Lo and behold, the very next day this fictious character that I named Reg suddenly began to breathe life and somehow was able to send Mr. Fortin the same letter for his comment page. I took this approach to prove that this type of activity that I describe was actually taking place. You may also recall that Mr. Fortin established a direct link to his page from mine without my permission, which again, forced me to advise him to remove it. I do not bring up these things again as a means of throwing salt into an already open wound, but merely as an avenue to display to you, the readers of this site, some of the credentials of the author who takes many cheap shots against Jacques Hebert and others.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>It was suggested by a couple of readers that I take a look at what has been said about Jacques Hebert on Mr. Fortin's site. I have to say that I am much disappointed with Mr. Fortin. In my view, he comes just short of labelling Mr. Hebert a liar. It is real easy to knock a dead man. If Mr. Fortin had these things to say, why did he not make the statements directly to Mr. Hebert, whilst Mr. Hebert was still with us, as it was only last December that he departed.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>I do not know how much you may or may not know about Jacques Hebert. I know that Jacques Hebert was a man of distinction. I know that he was respected by thousands and that he had many friends and aquaintances the world over. I had the honour, and I do class it as an honour to have spoken with Mr. Hebert on many occasions. He kept appointments and he answered my questions with class and dignity. Mr. Hebert believed in the innocence of Wilbert Coffin. He was really the only one, other than Jean Beliveau who had the courage to stand up and be counted on the matter.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>You must remember the Brossard Inquiry was brought about as a result of Jacques Hebert. It was not convened because the judiciary cared anything about the people. It was a vain attempt to prove Jacques Hebert wrong in his sayings and writings. It was nothing more than the police and judiciary investigating themselves and shovelling it down the throats of the people. It did nothing to prove or dis-prove the case against Wilbert Coffin as when the inquiry took place he had been executed nine years before.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The following are some brief notes extracted from the official biography of Jacques Hebert.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Jacques Hebert received his early education in the maritime provinces. Mr. Hebert later received an honourary Doctoral degree from Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>From 1951 - 1953 Mr. Hebert worked for Le Devoir newspaper.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>From 1962 - 1970 Mr. Hebert worked as a host and writer for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>From 1965 - 1972 Mr. Hebert was president of the Association of Canadian Publishers.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>In 1963 Mr. Hebert, with Pierre Elliot Trudeau founded the Civil Liberties Union.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>During his career, Mr. Hebert founded two publishing houses, Editions L'Homme and Editions du jour.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Jacques Hebert wrote and published many books, including the 1963 publication titled J'accuse les Assassins de Coffin which he steadfastly defended until his death.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Jacques Hebert travelled to more than 130 countries of the world promoting peace and harmony.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Jacques Hebert was the founder of Katimavik in Canada which promoted the involvement of youth, while promoting cultural diversity.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Jacques Hebert was nominated in 2002 to receive <em><span style="color:#ff0000;">The Nobel Peace Prize.</span></em></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>When one peruses the above credentials of an individual such as Jacques Hebert, one has to be very cautious in accepting the cheap shots fired in his direction by someone such as Clement Fortin. One must remember, it is Mr. Fortin who constantly states that he is a lawyer. One must also remember that it is the same Mr. Fortin who evades the question when asked as to where he was engaged in private practise. He states that he taught law. What kind of law? Was it criminal or civil litigation? Down deep, I couldn't care less as to what the answers are to these questions. I do care a lot though when an individual can hide under a veil of secrecy and publicly try to influence the public to accept a doctrine for which there is no basis.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Equally disturbing is the fact that Mr. Fortin has embarked upon a course of action to discredit the late Sgt. Henri Doyon and the late Lewis Sinnett. These two officers were two of the very few on the Gaspe' coast who worked tirelessly on this case from day one. It would appear that because their opinions did not entirely parallel those of the thugs who were appointed to steer this investigation, Mr. Fortin has chosen to take passages out of context and label them as liars and drunks. Most of Mr. Fortin's passages are from the Brossard inquiry, which took place some eight or nine years after the trial at Perce. It is to also be noted that this enquiry was not to establish innocence or guilt, but was an attempt to convince the public that the judiciary of Quebec made no mistakes during the investigation and trial. It was an attempt that <span style="color:#ff0000;">failed miserably.</span> That is precisely why this case is still being studied more than fifty years later.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard</span><br /></strong><br /></p>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20366972.post-80461779346878831362008-08-03T15:18:00.004-07:002008-08-03T21:10:00.767-07:00<div align="justify"><strong></strong> </div><div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff0000;">WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#333333;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#333333;">.</span></strong></div><div align="center"><strong><span style="color:#333333;">.</span></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><span style="color:#333333;">.</span></strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>The term wrongful conviction is a broad term, a very broad term indeed. In reality it is a flowery term that displays error, but in most cases does not address the real root of the problem unless exerted pressure from the public is sufficient to erode the very infrastructure of the process itself.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>If one takes the time to research cases of proven wrongful conviction, it is prudent to deduce that in all cases, the problems either stemmed from sloppy investigations of the crime or corrupt practises on the part of the police and judiciary. In many cases the wrongful convictions were the result of a combination of both.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Unfortunately, when a wrongful conviction becomes apparent, never do we simply see a politician or senior police official rise to his or her feet and simply say, "we screwed up." No, no, no you will never see or hear that. If that were the case, politicians would be trampling on other politicians, police officers would be breaking that silence code that exists among their ranks, and lawyers would be in violation of their favourite old adage stating that "it is better for one thousand guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to go to the gallows."</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>It is important to note, and again statistics will bear me out on this, wrongful conviction numbers are much higher in certain parts of the country as compared to others. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec carries by far the highest wrongful conviction rates in Canada. True, these two provinces have the highest population, however, in terms of sheer numbers the count is staggering.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Lets take a look at Ontario for a moment. Do you listen to the news? If you do not, you should, because the number of people who have been wrongly convicted there at the hands of the Ontario judiciary in the past few years is abhorrent. It is not something from the past, it is still going on. Many have been convicted because of drummed up reports by people unqualified to act as pathologists on the part of government. The government is now beginning to admit this. They have no choice. Did the government admit to this as a result of their own findings? Not a chance. They had no choice because the people took a stand on the matter. People who obviously had no connections to these crimes are now being set free. There are many more to go yet.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>You will recall very recently the conclusion of the long saga of Steven Truscott. At the age of 14, Steven was sentenced to hang by the neck until he was dead, the result of a very botched case brought about as a result of a very corrupt judicial system. It took 49 long years to see justice done on Steven's part. I am of the opinion that the only thing that actually saved Steven from the gallows was the fact that he was only 14. Look at it this way. John Diefenbaker may have signed the order commuting his sentence from death to life in prison, but I believe that it was done for a reason. I ask you to answer the following question for yourself. Which way would Diefenbaker and his crew have a better chance at re-election, by allowing the hanging of a 14 year old boy from a case that was already full of holes, or signing a piece of paper. Again, it is my opinion, but I do not believe that the government of the day back in 1959 was any more compassionate than it is today. Fortunately for Steven Truscott, he had the stamina to fight a long hard battle. He won that battle and I congratulate him.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Before we leave Ontario, let us not forget that darling couple from St. Catherines, Carla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. The Ontario government looks and smells terrible on this one. You see, Carla was wrongly convicted. She was allowed to cut a deal with the attorney general of Ontario. She would be allowed to enter a guilty plea on a charge of manslaughter in exchange for her testimony against Bernardo. At the time the government said they were doing this because otherwise they might not get a conviction against Bernardo, and they further said that they did not have enough evidence against Holmolka. </strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>In the search of their house in St. Catherines the police did not find two dozen video tapes of the torture, rape and murder of two innocent school girls. These tapes were there and were retrieved by a lawyer who did not present them. Very definitely, Carla Holmolka was a willing participant in this affair. In addition, Carla Holmolka supplied the drugs to administer to her younger sister rendering her unconscious, so that Bernardo could rape her. Apparently this was done as a "gift" to Bernardo. The sister died in the process. As I pointed out above, Carla Holmolka was wrongly convicted as a result of all this. She was wrongly convicted because her unrepentant butt should have occupied the cell next to Bernardo's for the rest of her days. Holmolka should have faced the same first degree murder charges. She did her 12 years and is free now thumbing her nose at society.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>As if those revelations are not startling enough, a gentleman was just released from custody in Ontario. He was there serving time for murder. He was declared wrongly convicted when the true killer admitted his guilt to a television news crew. The true killer who confessed his crime and was able to prove it was Paul Bernardo.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Moving eastward, the province of Quebec can boast the highest numbers for unsolved murders of any region of Canada. Again my research comes from official numbers from the government. Indeed, Quebec is also known for a high incidence of wrongful convictions dating back many years.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>These events and figures are alarming. They are also scary. Will we ever know the true figures as to how many people have been wrongfully convicted? Of course we will not.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>One of the most celebrated cases in the history of Canada took place in Quebec. That of course was the conviction and eventual hanging of Wilbert Coffin at Bordeau Jail in Montreal in 1956. The question that is being studied is whether or not Wilbert Coffin was wrongfully convicted and executed. I believe that he was, and I further believe that based on the evidence that was used to convict him, I can produce evidence and information that was never raised at trial that would have freed Wilbert Coffin.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>We have to ask ourselves, how and why did this happen? Was it a case of societal pressure on the justice system? Was it a case of political pressure exerted by the United States of America on the Canadian government in Ottawa? Perhaps it involved both. I can produce documentation that lends credence to that theory.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Earlier on in this report I mentioned problems that Ontario experienced with pathology reports and autopsies. In the Coffin case, a true pathology report was virtually non-existent. It was not complete, it was hastily thrown together, and it lacked key elements.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Very soon the Coffin case will be reviewed by the Criminal Conviction Review Group in Ottawa. I am now in the process of putting my report together that is based on two solid years of research and investigation by myself and Lani Mitchell. I shall be forwarding the report to the review group in Ottawa. There are some things contained in my report, that for obvious reasons, I have not written about. We are truly hopeful that our report will have an effect on the outcome of this case.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>This case was a major undertaking not only for me, but for Lani Mitchell as well. We have talked to scores of people across Canada and elsewhere. As soon as the report has been delivered to the proper authorities, I shall be explaining everything to you.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Once in awhile someone will ask me why I have arrived at this or that conclusion. My answer is always the same. If it cannot be backed up by a document or an interview, it does not get published on this site.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>In the next few days, I shall be forwarding my report to Ottawa. My plan at that time is to provide you with the complete findings. I have had to exercise caution, as there is apparently one or two people who try to scuttle my report from time to time. I know who these people are.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>Folks, as usual you are a great audience. I thank you for your patience for the past month or so. Medical problems have wreaked havoc from time to time. Now is a great time to write a note about the case to your member of parliament. Just click on the link marked letters to members of parliament on the left side of the first page.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>As usual, it is good to read your comments. Feel free to leave a note on the comment page. As you know, only submissions bearing the name of the author can be considered for publication. God Bless you one and all.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong>.</strong></div><div align="justify"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">Lew Stoddard</span></strong></div>Stoddard Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16008000327500269202noreply@blogger.com19