Stoddard Online

2011-10-14T11:42:00.000-07:00

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.

16870 - 80th AVENUE (corner of 168 & Fraser Hwy)
SURREY, B.C.

Lew Stoddard Dies

2011-10-05T13:42:00.005-07:00

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.

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.

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.........Lani Baker Mitchell

for Lew.....

A good man never dies--
In worthy deed and prayer
And helpful hands, and honest eyes,
If smiles or tears be there:
Who lives for you and me--
Lives for the world he tries
To help--he lives eternally.
A good man never dies.

Who lives to bravely take
His share of toil and stress,
And, for his weaker fellows' sake,
Makes every burden less,--
He may, at last, seem worn--
Lie fallen--hands and eyes
Folded--yet, though we mourn and mourn,
A good man never dies.

(James Whitcomb Riley)

2009-12-01T23:50:00.011-08:00

WILBERT COFFIN CASE UPDATE.

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.

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.

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.

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.

.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

http://www.news889.com/

As we are dealing with six time zones, the following represents the time of broadcast.

Atlantic Standard Time 2:30 PM.

Eastern Standard Time 1:30 PM.

NFLD Standard Time 3:00 PM.

Central Standard Time 12:30 PM.

Mountain STD Time 11:30 AM.

Pacific Std Time 10:30 AM.

Lew Stoddard

2009-10-30T00:00:00.004-07:00

WHY THE SYSTEM FAILED WILBERT COFFIN.

.
.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The following is a memorandum from Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs to Secretary of State for External Affairs.

.
CONFIDENTIAL
.Ottawa, October 24th, 1955
.EXTRADITION, POLITICAL REASONS FOR SUBMITTING LINK AND GREEN
.
REFERENCE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
.1. Scope of Memorandum
.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.
.
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.
.
Views of the Minister of Justice
.
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.
.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.
.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.
.J. L[ÉGER
.
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.
.
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. . .
.
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.
.
Memorandum by Ambassador in United States
.CONFIDENTIAL
.[Washington], November 8th, 1955
.SECURITY FRAUDS; EXTRADITION; LINK AND GREENCASE136 CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE MINISTER OF JUSTICEAND THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, AT TORONTO, NOVEMBER 7, 1955.
.
.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 .

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.

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.

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.

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. .

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A.D.P. HEENEY
.
Here is a note at the bottom of the Ambassador's letter. I find this troubling in a democratic society.
"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."
.
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.
.
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.
.
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."
.
Summary Record of Meeting of Joint Canada-United States Committee
.
SECRET
.
Ottawa, September 26, 1955
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Ambassador in United States to Secretary of State for External Affairs
.
CONFIDENTIAL
.
Dear Mr. Pearson,
.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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Yours sincerely,
.
A.D.P. HEENEY
.
.
.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.
.
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.
.
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 "Top Secret" is from cabinet conclusions pertaining to the decision affecting the Coffin affair.
.
Extract from Cabinet Conclusions
.
"Top Secret"
.
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
.
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
.
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
.
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?"
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
.Lew Stoddard

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.

2009-10-26T08:35:00.003-07:00

THE WILBERT COFFIN CASE.

.
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.
.
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.

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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
.
Lew Stoddard

2009-09-22T00:01:00.002-07:00

WILBERT COFFIN CASE UPDATE.

.
.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
.
Lew Stoddard

2009-07-28T00:52:00.007-07:00

REGINA VS. COFFIN.

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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,"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Lew Stoddard

2009-07-07T21:15:00.019-07:00

REGINA VS COFFIN

AUTOPSY REPORT UPDATE

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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.

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.

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.

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.

LABORATORY OF LEGAL MEDICINE AND POLICE TECHNIQUE
443 St. Vincent Street
MONTREAL

EXPERT REPORT

Re. The disappearance of three hunters at Gaspé- June-July 1953-bones of Camp 24

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.

RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATION

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Average of the size: 170,1 cms, being about 5 feet, 7 inches.

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.

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.

The complete disappearance of the internal organs and other soft parts of the skeleton prevents us from establishing the cause of death.

Summary:The bones found at Camp "24" are those of a man of middle age, measuring about 5 foot 7 inches tall.

The skeletal remains were identified as those of Eugene Hunter Lindsey of Pennsylvania.

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.

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.

J.M. Roussel, M.D.

Medical Examiner

**********************************************************************************

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

NOTE: The bones of the lower maxillas are partially corroded and it is impossible to make a precise measurement.

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",

CRANIUM:Jagged (indented?) sutures (joinings?) evident everywhere past traces of ossification.

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.

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.

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"
A handkerchief with brown and green edges and the second with finer stripes,
A white sweatshirt with the name " Hollidaysburg Tigers " on top of the figure of a tiger.
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
.A windbreaker or red and black checked shirt marked " Woolrich ", size 15 zipper and two pockets in the front.

This skeletal remains was identified as that belonging to Richard Lindsey of Pennsylvania

*********************************************************************************

SKELETON "B"

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.

CLOTHING:

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,

1 left boot brown leather laced with eyelets, soles of black rubber neoprene, oil resisting, size 11.

This skeletal remains identified as that of Frederick Claar of Pennsylvania

25-7-53

Gaspé/jvc

**********************************************************************************

NOTES of DR. ROUSSELL

(27-7-53)

CLOTHING:Red waistcoat property of T-shirt marked Penny’s, 2 circular perforations measuring 7/16" to 1/2 " in diameter 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.

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.

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.

4 or 5 perforations or tears on the posterior right side of the sweater in the line of the armpit.

CHECKED JACKET

Checked jacket red and black Woolrich with chamois sleeves. One notes 2 perforations through the anterior pocket and the left side of the windbreaker.

Perforations or tears in the seam or junction between the right sleeve and the jacket (corresponding to the perforations like on the T-shirt.)

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.

CLOTHING "

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

GREEN SHIRT:

Circular perforation at 3 ½" to the left of the centerline 5" of the lower part of the seam of the shoulder.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

The doctor went on to say that he assumed that a defense lawyer would have been quick to do an "autopsy on the autopsy report" 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.

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.

I asked him about the possibility of a stabbing with a round tapered object, to which he agreed was an excellent thought.

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.

He wanted to know if the police considered these avenues. Again I could only speculate that if they did, they kept it to themselves.

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.

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.

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.

1) He did not establish a cause of death

2) He did not establish a time of death

3) He found no markings on the skeletal remains to suggest firearm trauma

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, attended the trial at Perce' with the rest of her family.

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.

Lew Stoddard

2009-06-30T21:16:00.009-07:00

THIS LAND CALLED CANADA

Happy Canada Day.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

I shall be back in a couple of days with some interesting revelations on the Wilbert Coffin case.

Lew Stoddard

2009-06-06T02:02:00.007-07:00

Taking Out The Garbage.

Occasionally I get asked a question by someone as to why I say this or that on this site. As most of you know I am a man of few words, and when I write on this site it is because I have done my homework, thus I can state it as fact. As I have said many times, if it cannot be buttresed by an interview and/or sworn testimonial it is on it's way to the garbage can. I shall never compromise that stand. Otherwise, what credibility would be contained in my work?

I am making specific reference here with respect to my comments from time to time regarding the police and judiciary. Again I stand by my comments. Occasionally I am referred to as one who is down on the police. Allow me to again clarify. I have the greatest respect for any man or woman who makes the decision to become law enforcement officers. True, it is a voluntary decision to become an officer of the law, and true, it is not within the officers jurisdiction to tailor the rules to support their personal goals at someone else's expense.

I shall conclude this part by simply saying, "On one hand I have the greatest admiration for hard working, honest, and fair minded police officers." On the other hand, "I have absolutely no respect for a bunch of lying, cheating, manipulating Dirty Cops."

In spite of what is being preached by this Mr. Fortin's web site, it is easily proven that the enforcement officers in charge of the Coffin affair fell into the "Dirty Cop" category. Mr. Fortin does not see or understand this because he takes all his information from this Brossard Enquiry.

The steering committee for that enquiry were the same officers who conducted the investigation in the first place. There was nothing presented as evidence that the police had not already approved of. There was no presentation of evidence that should have been presented at the original trial but was suppressed. Suppressed by the same bunch of thugs who were now conducting an investigation into their own behaviour.

One would have to be a complete dunderhead to assume that these cops would come out critical of their own investigation, especially when they had already hanged a man. You must accept the fact that the Brossard enquiry was allowed to proceed purely for political reasons. Do you really think they cared about the fate of Wilbert Coffin? I can assure you, they did not. That enquiry went ahead under the banner of Jean Lesage and the Liberal party in Quebec, purely as a means of attempting to strengthen political suppoprt.

Think about it, Jean Lesage's Liberals would look good no matter how the enquiry turned out. If the enquiry had gone against the government of Quebec, Lesage was in a position to blame Duplessis and the Union Nationalle and he could say a bad era had come to an end. On the other hand if the enquiry come out in favour of the Quebec judiciary, Lesage would simply maintain that as a new premier he felt he owed it to the people to bring it out in the open.

As I state in my mission statement, "Do not accept anything in life at face value, ask questions." This is where I implore you to "look beyond the box." Just because someone has a stripe down the leg of their pants or wears a pretty uniform, do not assume that fair, honest, and unbiased opinions and actions shall prevail. The same rule should have applied in 1953, and leading up to the Coffin trial in 1954. This was not an isolated case pertaining to a provincial judiciary back then because it is still running rampant in modern day. Read on and I shall cite you a few examples.

Nearly two years ago a Polish gentleman arrived at Vancouver International Airport. He spoke no English, had trouble communicating, became distraught, and ended up dying at the hands of four burly Royal canadian Mounted Police Officers and a security guard. The original story from the RCMP was that he had been tasered once. Thanks to a member of the travelling public with a digital video camera the true story would come out. He was not tasered once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times in total. The police immediately seized the camera, however they had to return it, and that camera was instrumental in those officers being presented in the true fashion of their actions, nothing short of a bunch of thugs. It did and should bring a lot of disgrace to the RCMP.

I have studied and researched the Stephen Truscott case in detail. That was a chilling tale as well. Through lies and manipulation the police and judiciary were able to garner a first degree murder verdict against a fourteen year old boy who has been proven not guilty. It is proven that the police chief lied, and they held this boy against his will without ever informing his parents that he was in custody. As in the Coffin case they botched evidence, suppressed evidence, and pushed for a quick conviction. Fortunately because of his age he did not get executed. He was spared the gallows yes, and it could be said that it was a poitical decision because John Diefenbaker's Conservative government would have looked bad hanging a teen-ager. I do not for a moment believe that his sentence was commuted for any other reason.

In modern day Ontario pay attention to the number of cases where people have been given life sentences based on the evidence given by the provincial medical examiner. These cases are being overturned left and right. The big question that begs an answer is, "If we still had capital punishment in this country, how many of these innocent people would have gone to the gallows by now?

I could go on and on here, but I think that should be enough examples to cause you to sit back and think, and reflect for a moment on just how you would re-act if the accused in one of these cases was a member of your family.

Someone pointed out to me that Mr. Fortin and '"Anonymous Andre" who writes comments on his site as if they have been written by members of the public at large have been very protective of Inspector Matte, VanHoutte, and Sirois and others. That is because the only reading and research that has been done by Mr. Fortin is reading this Brossard Report, and never conducting an exhaustive, critical, and independent investigation of the case.

It is particularly evident that Mr. Fortin has done no research beyond this Brossard Report, because his site excels at unwarranted and unsubstantiated remarks against individuals who are no longer here to defend themselves. A good example of that was Jacques Hebert. As soon as Mr. Hebert passed on, the writings on his site were cruel and undeserving. The references that he makes to the Baker families, the Sinnett families, and the Doyon families are cruel, cruel because he has nothing to back up his claims. In my view one is severely lacking in intestinal fortitude to level such verbal attacks on a deceased individual, but then again, dead people do not fight back. It is because of this stuff that I pay little attention to his site, other than when someone asks me to comment on a particular incident.

Over the years I have arrived at the conclusion that lawyers tend to be a bit lacking when it comes to investigative skills, particularly in the criminal investigation field. I am of the view that they tend to lean heavily in the direction of what is put in front of them on a piece of paper rather than explore beyond the box. This is why most members of the profession tend to fill the ranks of legalized litigation clerks. Very quickly one is aware of this comparison if the time is taken to attend a criminal trial staffed by high profile criminal lawyers. At that level, watching these professionals perform is truly poetry in motion.

With the deck stacked against him, Wilbert Coffin was doomed. As we know, the crown had suppressed evidence that should have been presented. They were able to manipulate the process all the way from the inquest to the trial, with little or no opposition from the lead defense lawyer, Raymond Maher. Wilbert Coffin's fate was sealed with Maher at the controls. It would be like trying to win the Stanley Cup with a community Junior B hockey team.

I will be back in a couple of days with some new reading for you. I think you will find it interesting.

.http://www.news889.com/mediaplayer/mediaplayer.jsp

Lew Stoddard

2009-05-13T20:15:00.002-07:00

THE WILBERT COFFIN CASE.

A SPECIAL INTERVIEW.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Donna, her sister Eleanor, and her Mom Mary travelled to Perce' to attend the trial in 1954. They were accompanied by their family lawyer.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lew Stoddard.

2009-05-10T23:18:00.008-07:00

IT IS GOOD TO BE BACK.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lew Stoddard

UPDATE

2009-05-03T08:06:00.002-07:00

A 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!

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:
bakerkid@gmail.com

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!

Lani Baker Mitchell

2009-01-21T21:35:00.002-08:00

TAKING AIM AT THE JURY

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lew Stoddard.

2009-01-14T12:15:00.009-08:00

TAKING AIM ON THE TRUTH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo Credit: Walther Arms Co.

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

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

Lew Stoddard.

2009-01-11T16:12:00.014-08:00

SEEING IS BELIEVING.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lew Stoddard

Host of "Stoddard Online"

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

2008-12-30T17:51:00.012-08:00

IS IT A FAIR PROCESS OF LAW?

YOU BE THE JUDGE.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

LIST OF EXHIBITS.

The Coffin Case.

2670.

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.

.2) Aerial photo indicating white diagram ( sketching) View of the whole of the region, small truck, etc…

.3) Stove ( cooker) found at camp no. 21.

.4) reservoir fort the stove.

.5) camera.

6) case of rifle.

7) Rifle; marked Winchester, model 66, caliber 30.06 series no. 131404.

.8) strap attached to the rifle.

.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.

.10) (a) P-10 (c) 3 photos showing Lindsay Sr. skeleton.

.11) Aerial photo of camp 26.

.12) leather wind breaker? Young Lindsay.

.13) photo of pants of young Lindsay with pockets turned out.

.14) photo of wind breaker.

.15) photo sweat shirt “ Hollidaysburg tigers”.

.16) photo pierced shirt.

.17) (a) (b) (c) invoices produced by Tyrrel Eden clerk at Robin Jones.

.18) bottle of ‘ old Time ‘ syrup.

.19) box containing a stamped egg.

.20) fuel pump.

.21) invoice for the pump.

.22) copy of declaration sworn by Coffin to two police officiers.

.23) pick.

.24) shovel.

.25) tarp.

.26) Binoculars with case No.150870 7x35 Bushwell.

.27) knife with accessories.

.28) Revolver No. Series 4597.

.29) Serviettes ( blue) 1 large, 2 medium, 1 small marked Sears & Roebreck.

.30) 1 suitcase.

.31) overalls, blue.

.32) toilet paper (blue).

.33) 1 rifle marker Winchester, No. Series 147862 caliber 30.06.

.34) 1 rifle , no marking nor series number, identified by Clarence E. Claar.

.35) 1 T-shirt, 1 plain shirt, 1 mackinaw.

.36) 1 wallet.

.37) 1 wrist watch (no bracelet).

.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.

.(signed).

. Antonio Rail.

.Registrar for the Court

* * * * * * * *.

Surete Provincial De Quebec
Director Adjoint De La Surete
Gaspe'.

.
.
July 29, 1953
.

.
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.
.
(J A Matte) Captaine.

In Charge Of Judiciary Police

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.

Lew Stoddard

2008-12-21T19:40:00.008-08:00

LEW STODDARD'S CHRISTMAS MESSAGE.

.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
In closing I wish to take this opportunity to wish you and yours a very "Merry Christmas."
.
.
Lew Stoddard
Photo credit: Judith Reeder, Gaspe', Quebec

2008-12-15T11:07:00.006-08:00

THE LAST JEEP.

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.

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.

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.

.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.

.Lew Stoddard

2008-12-09T22:11:00.013-08:00

POLICE REPORTS. . . POLICE REPORTS.

AND.

MORE POLICE REPORTS.

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.

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.

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.

Gaspe P.Q.

.
From J.C. Vanhoutte, agent P.J.

Captain in Charge of the Judicial Police:

Re. Eugene H. Lindsay, Richard Lindsay and Frederick Claar (Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pa. Gaspé south PQ.

" MURDERS"

.
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".

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 "might control different information concerning this affair". 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.

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.

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.

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.

. 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.
.
.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?.

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.

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 "Jeep" among many other things. God Bless you one and all, and talk to you again real soon.

.
Lew Stoddard.

2008-11-26T08:02:00.021-08:00

THE TIME HAS COME. . .

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.

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?

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.

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 "paper trail" took on new meaning.

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.

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.

.
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.
.
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.
.
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 "Why?" 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?
.
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 "Regina vs Coffin" case.
.
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.

SÛRETÉ PROVINCIALE DE QUEBEC.

Quebec,
.
21 July 1953.
.
DQ-74890-53.
.
.
NOTE FOR THE FILE.
.

.Eugene H. Lindsay, his son Richard Lindsay, and Fred Claar (Hollidaysburg, Pa.) Gaspé, City and District of Gaspé, P.Q.

“Disappearance".

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.

RC/AG ( HENRI CHARLAND).

DIRECTEUR ADJOINT SUPPLEANT.

Copies/rl.

Quebec4-9-53.

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 "pretended" 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.

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.

Lew Stoddard.

Host of "Stoddard Online"

2008-11-17T10:58:00.007-08:00

THE FACTS OF THE MATTER.

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 "Jazz" it up a bit. I borrowed that word from my teen age niece, but I do agree with her.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

.
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.

Let us now refer to paragraphs 41 and 42 in the deposition;

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.
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.

.
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.

The following represents paragraphs 47 to 49 inc.

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.

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.
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.
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.

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.
Signed in the prison of Montreal, Bordeaux, Que.

9 October 1955
(S) Wilbert Coffin.

.
Witnessed in front of me at the Bordeaux prison
This day of 9th October 1955
J.- Antonio Pilon
Juge de Paix, district of Montreal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. . .

Lew Stoddard

2008-11-10T09:13:00.013-08:00

In Flanders Fields.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.

.
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 us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

.
Lieutenant Colonel John McRae.

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.

.
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.

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". . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lew Stoddard

Photo Credit: Minister Supply and Services Canada

2008-09-29T09:17:00.009-07:00

YOU BE THE JUDGE.

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 "wannabe a best seller" shelf in the local book store.

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.

I was pointed to the site of Clement Fortin. You will no doubt recall Mr. Fortin. It was his site that routinely "borrowed" 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.

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.

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.

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.

The following are some brief notes extracted from the official biography of Jacques Hebert.

Jacques Hebert received his early education in the maritime provinces. Mr. Hebert later received an honourary Doctoral degree from Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto.

From 1951 - 1953 Mr. Hebert worked for Le Devoir newspaper.

From 1962 - 1970 Mr. Hebert worked as a host and writer for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

From 1965 - 1972 Mr. Hebert was president of the Association of Canadian Publishers.

In 1963 Mr. Hebert, with Pierre Elliot Trudeau founded the Civil Liberties Union.

During his career, Mr. Hebert founded two publishing houses, Editions L'Homme and Editions du jour.

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.

Jacques Hebert travelled to more than 130 countries of the world promoting peace and harmony.

Jacques Hebert was the founder of Katimavik in Canada which promoted the involvement of youth, while promoting cultural diversity.

Jacques Hebert was nominated in 2002 to receive The Nobel Peace Prize.

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.

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 failed miserably. That is precisely why this case is still being studied more than fifty years later.

Lew Stoddard

2008-08-03T15:18:00.004-07:00

WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lew Stoddard

2008-06-24T19:18:00.003-07:00

BACK ON TRACK.

THE WILBERT COFFIN CASE.

Prior to getting back to a regular posting routine of the Wilbert Coffin case, there are a few things that folks have requested of me by e-mail for clarification. As I have been battling health issues, I have been unable to post with the frequency that has been possible in the past. Hopefully, those issues are behind me now for awhile, and I will now address a couple of things.

Firstly, there have been a few folks asking about the Brossard Inquiry and its significance to the murder conviction of Wilbert Coffin. Apparently, there is a web site with the mandate to pursue the Brossard Inquiry transcripts, and tie them in with the finding of guilt of Wilbert Coffin.

As readers of this site, you will have learned that Wilbert Coffin was found guilty in Perce', Quebec in 1954 for the murder of Richard Lindsey. I have also alluded to the fact many times that the Brossard Inquiry took place nearly ten years after the trial, and approximately eight years after Wilbert Coffin's execution.

Based on this knowledge, you may be asking why the Brossard Inquiry was necessary, and if so, what was gained on conclusion? In simple terms, in my opinion, the inquiry was not necessary and nothing was gained on conclusion.

You must understand the Brossard Inquiry was not an appeal of Wilbert Coffin's conviction, nor was it an appeal of his sentence. In my view the inquiry was nothing more than a selfish move by the government and the judiciary of Quebec in a vain attempt to absolve themselves of the appearance of any wrong doing, when it could be demonstrated that a man was hanged based on a trial that was unfair and in many instances illegal. It is also important to note that many of those charged with the responsibility of a fair and impartial inquiry were the same ones who had headed the steering committee on the original police investigation. I speak specificially of John Vanhoutte and others. In effect, John Vanhoutte was investigating himself.

The journalist, later to become Senator, the late Jacques Hebert brought much heat on the judiciary of Quebec during those days. The inquiry was portrayed as a means of bringing Mr. Hebert to task for his actions, however there are apparently some who now preach the findings of the Brossard Inquiry as part of the finding of guilt of Mr. Coffin.

I have had the opportunity to look over the Brossard transcripts in detail, and one does not have to be a genious to quickly discover that questions asked of witnesses at the inquiry were well placed to focus information in a different direction than that made available for scrutiny by the jury at the perce' trial. One must also ponder the very real possibility that after a time lapse of almost ten years, it is reasonable to assume that answers to some questions may vary. Think for a moment, do you remember in the finest of detail the conversation that you may have had with someone nearly ten years ago?

Another aspect of this inquiry that renders it useless is the fact that information could be taken out of context from the original trial. Questions could be asked of the same witness, but I do notice that the questions could be worded in a slightly different manner, and thus the answer given at trial differs from that of the inquiry.

I do stress that before you base your thoughts on guilt or innocence from what you are being presented from the Brossard Inquiry you should consider all the variables and draw conclusions only after you see the full story presented from the trial. Afterall, it was the trial at Perce' that convicted Wilbert Coffin, not some travelling dog and pony act.

It is blatently obvious that the trial of Wilbert Coffin was a very flawed process. It was the result of this flawed process that I believe robbed a man of his life.

In the next few days we shall be hitting this trial in a heavy handed way. The forensic report will prove that. This is stuff that you will never read about in the Brossard Inquiry transcripts. In addition, I shall expose a couple of letters written by John Vanhoutte and Captain Matte. These I guarantee you will not see in the Brossard Inquiry, because if the information contained in these files had been brought up at trial, there would have been no Brossard Inquiry because the trial could have ended.

Thanks once again in a big way folks for being patient. I shall be back in a few days. As you know, I am a man of few words but we do our best out here on the west coast of Canada. God Bless You, one and all.

Lew Stoddard

2008-06-08T18:54:00.003-07:00

THE WILBERT COFFIN CASE.

BACK TO BASICS.

Hello everyone, it is great to be back. Thanks to all who sent e-mails and words of encouragement, telephone calls, and especially to those who remembered me in their prayers. I am feeling much better now, and will get down to business again very shortly.

Most of us are able to find something to be thankful for in spite of the crazy mixed up world in which we live. That is what encourages us to trudge onward. Throughout the past few weeks, I have reflected in my thoughts as to what the thoughts of Wilbert Coffin may have been during his last months on this earth. Never faltering, he maintained his innocence until the end, and now, some fifty-two years later, I believe that I can present a very strong case which confirms that he was telling the truth. Very simply expressed, he was the victim of gross manipulation at the hands of a very corrupt regime.

In the past two years I have had contact with scores of people who support what Wilbert Coffin was saying with reference to his innocence. People are still coming forward at this late date with their unsolicited comments regarding the events of the early 1950's in Quebec. As an example, please read on.

A few days ago I was in the city of Burnaby. By chance encounter I met an elderly French Canadian lady in a restaurant. This lady's name was Marie. I asked Marie if she had been born in the province of Quebec. Marie stated to me that she had in fact been born there and remained there with her family until she was in her late 20's. She further stated that it was at this time that her Dad said it was time to move. Marie and her family moved from their small home town situated between Trois Rivieres and Quebec City and moved to another province.

I was curious as to the move made by Marie and her family so I inquired as to why. Having worked and lived there for a time, I suggested to Marie that Quebec is a very beautiful province. Marie was quick to point out that yes it is a very beautiful province. I asked her what she remembered and missed the most about her home village. Very quickly she mentioned the village, it homes and people, and the gleaming white church with the large steeple. In looks Marie said, it was a perfect post card. Unfortunately stated Marie, "the post card harbored many ugly secrets and scars."

Marie went on to point out that in her opinion, "Quebec was controlled by a very scary regime in those days." Marie continued stating that this regime of which she spoke was headed by none other than Maurice Duplessis. Marie explained that "many during this time feared Maurice Duplessis and his band." Marie further stated that Duplessis and his gang were responsible for the hanging of an innocent man by the name of Wilbert Coffin.

According to Marie, the majority of French speaking in her area of Quebec never believed in the guilt of Wilbert Coffin. Marie suggested that everyone who has an interest should research and read of the happenings in the province during the tenure of this man. She mentioned the Jehovah Witnesses in Montreal and their treatment, and she mentioned the treatment of twins born in the province. In Marie's words, "if you were French speaking, if you were Catholic, and if you supported the Union Nationalle political party, you would be treated much better than those who did not." These were the reasons that Marie and her family left Quebec.

I point these things out to you today because it is necessary that you know something of the regime that executed Wilbert Coffin. Suddenly, it is difficult to place much respect on the decisions of a judiciary falling under such a regime that I have just described.

As I have shown you many times in the past two years, there was so much evidence that was suppressed, evidence that was intended for the court room at Perce' however, never being presented for the jury to ponder and examine. These things could only happen in a crooked and corrupt regime, manned and staffed by a bunch of thugs, and protected and encouraged by a higher level. That higher level being the late premier Maurice Duplessis who doubled as attorney general in congruous fashion.

I have further stated to you many times to not get caught up in this Brossard Inquiry. This enquiry took place eight years after the execution of Wilbert Coffin. You should also remember that this enquiry was really a trial for Jacques Hebert, because, it was Mr. Hebert who had the nerve to speak out about the injustices of the day, and in doing so, the judiciary of Quebec was painted another color. In other words, the late Mr. Hebert stepped on a few toes, and in doing so, blemished the government. True, by the time that this enquiry was held, Mr. Duplessis had departed, however the new Liberal government under premier Jean Lesage allowed the inquiry to proceed. It could be viewed as a means of distancing his government from that of Duplessis.

As we know by now, the ones appointed to oversee the inquiry were some of the very ones who were involved. Names such as Captain Sirois, John Vanhoutte and others were prominent. In effect, they were investigating themselves for wrong doing. It is also important to note that evidence presented at this enquiry was the same in most cases as that of the original trial, and suppressed evidence still remained suppressed. Evidence was perhaps spun in a little different direction in some cases, but in the end nothing was really accomplished.

There is argument going on about the term Jeep and station wagon. Firstly, a jeep covered with plywood on the sides could very easily be labelled as a station wagon, but any intelligent person would agree that a station wagon covered with plywood on the sides in no way resembles a Jeep. For some strange reason there are some who now play with the idea that this denotes guilt. I can understand that an elderly lady such as Jessie Coffin could very easily have said station wagon instead of Jeep, especially when told of the plywood sides. Ladies and gentlemen, there are much bigger fish to fry in this case.

I get asked periodically about stuff that is being read on another website about this case. This writing apparently is a spinoff from the Brossard Commission transcripts. I do not know what is being written on this website that is referred to, and quite frankly, nor do I care. One thing that I am abundantly clear on however, is the fact that if what some have suggested to me is being said there, then the writers of this site know very little about the Wilbert Coffin case and have done no research whatsoever, other than to read tarnished reports from a corrupt regime as has been proven.

I have researched this case for two years, interviewed dozens of people, and checked and rechecked many reports. Information and comments has been stolen from this site and I have shown you proof of that. Because of that, I would never compromise the hard work of Lani Mitchell and myself in order to dignify some of the questions that I get asked with reference to the site in question.

In a few days I shall be presenting to you a few more disturbing facts of the Wilbert Coffin case. I do believe now more than ever before, that we have a good chance of having this case overturned and a new determination being established. This ladies and gentlemen comes from hard work, not from sitting back and taking at face value the minutes and and transcripts that were assembled by a corrupt regime.

Once again folks, you are a great audience. I love you one and all and I want to hear from you. Thank you for bearing with me and God Bless you one and all.

Lew Stoddard

2008-05-25T16:56:00.002-07:00

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.

It is great to be back again. Thank you one and all for all the e-mails that you were kind enough to send me expressing your concerns and support. It means a lot to know there are so many caring people out there.

Several people have written to me pointing out their concerns with certain information that has been floating around. There is nothing new about that, except for the past while much erroneous information has been permeating the air from a particular web site.

I don't get to excited about these things, because personally, I give little credence to the source site from which it originates. In my view, I have trouble accepting as fact, information from a site that has a track record for stealing information and comments. As you are probably aware, I am speaking specifically of the web site of Mr. Fortin. You will recall, it was his web site that I singled out as the one that stole many comments from this site, stating that he had received them by e-mail, when in fact he fell victim to a set up sting operation. I can prove this. He was also the one who set up a link to my web page without permission.

Mr. Fortin, you owe several commenters answers to questions that concern them. Over the course of the next few days I shall address these one by one. My only reason for involvement, is the fact that your commenters whom you are avoiding e-mail me for answers to questions that they asked of you. By now they are coming to the conclusion that you know very little about this case.

Let us start out with a lady named Susan. Susan asked you to tell her what happened to the Lindsey truck and if it went back to Pennsylvania. You avoided her question, and when I pressed you on it, you posted a directive from Captain Matte which indicated that Mrs. Mary Lindsey authorized the turning over of the truck to a gentleman from Pennsylvania. The copy of that directive is nothing new, it has been around for a long time. You left it there, hoping that would be the end of it, and in fairness to yourself, you may have believed that was the right answer. You see Clement, that document has no significance whatsoever, however, if you care to read on, I will tell you what really happened, and yes Clement, it is documented, because nothing gets posted to my site without documentation and/or an interview.

Clement, in the vicinity of Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania, Eugene Lindsey and Clarence Claar, who was the Dad of Fred Claar, had a circle of friends with whom they hunted. Over the years, several of these friends accompanied Eugene Lindsey and Clarence Claar to Gaspe' to go bear hunting. One of these friends was Willard Campbell. Up to the night before Eugene Lindseys party was to travel to Gaspe', Willard Campbell had planned to travel with them, but had a last minute change of mind this time.

Willard knew the route to Gaspe' and he knew the area there. It was he Clement, who actually went to Gaspe' to drive the Lindsey truck home. He commenced his journey to Pennsylvania, but alas, all was not well. Willard experienced truck engine problems on the way. Lo and behold, it seems that pesky fuel pump was acting up. You remember what a fuel pump is Clement, that was one of those little vacuum thingies that you displayed for all the world to see. To make matters worse Clement, you reported on your site there was nothing wrong with the old fuel pump.

You will recall Clement that you reported it was Wilbert Coffin who convinced the hunting party with the broken down truck that the problem was with the fuel pump. How could you truthfully report that Clement? How would you possibly know that, as all three occupants of the vehicle turned up dead. There was no one left to talk. Wilbert Coffin never reported that he advised them that the fuel pump was defective. No one at the garage in Gaspe' stated that Wilbert Coffin had advised that the fuel pump was bad.

Wilbert Coffin's explanation was that it was Fred Claar who stated that the fuel pump was unserviceable, and further, that Eugene Lindsey contracted him to drive his son to Gaspe' to procure a replacement. That statement is corroborated by what Willard Campbell states about the fuel pump. He stated that the fuel pump was giving problems before they even left for Gaspe' according to Mr. Campbell. He also indicated that Eugene Lindsey was arrogant and cheap and when advised of the fuel pump he decided to carry on anyway without addressing the problem.

As I indicated in my last posting, anyone who knows very much about this case would be aware of the disposition of the Lindsey truck. Clement, before I leave this part I should also tell you that the truck carried cargo on its way back to Pennsylvania. Are you aware of what the cargo was Clement? In case you don't know the answer, the truck carried the skeletal remains of Eugene Lindsey, Richard Lindsey, and Frederick Claar.

Something else that I noticed of interest. On your site, it suggests that I may have been trying to clear the name of Bill Baker. Question for you Clement. Does that statement suggest that Bill Baker may have been guilty of something? I am certain there are members of the Baker family who would debate the issue with you if that is the suggestion. It is on your site in the form of one of those unsigned comments that your site is famous for.

Another area where you have avoided the answer to a question is in reference to the involvement of the federal government in the Wilbert Copffin affair. The reader was asking you why your coverage was so shallow. You have never replied. Don't worry about it right now, I shall remind you later.

Have mentioned this before Clement, but it is so serious that it actually becomes amusing. You remember that fellow named Captain Sirois. He was one of Duplessis' most trusted servants. He is the guy who went up into the gaspe' woods to study the crime scene and gather evidence. He found a dead bear in very close proximity to the scene. What does he do? He takes out his service revolver and in true rambo style, fills the dead bear full of lead. Very quickly he destroyed what could have been a very valuable piece of evidence. He is one of the police officers that you state that I pick on. The reason that I mention him again here Clement is because you preach this Brossard Inquiry to the outer limits. This gentleman, along with John Vanhoutte, headed it up for the police in the judiciary for Quebec. One of the mandates of the inquiry was to convince society of the unblemished manner in which the police presented themselves during the whole affair.

Again everyone, it is great to be back. I am feeling much better. I will leave you here, but only for a short time. I will talk to all of you again in a few days, and as usual, I look forward to your comments. Please keep in mind, comments must be signed and topical, otherwise they will not be published.

Lew Stoddard

2008-05-05T13:09:00.004-07:00

THE WILBERT COFFIN CASE.

SPRING CLEANING.

In a couple of days I shall continue with my reports concerning the Wilbert Coffin case and the police and judicial corruption which dictated the outcome of the affair. As many of you are aware, at the present time I am deeply involved with a special project involving the case and the preparation time is heavy right now.

In the past couple of years I have seen a ton of garbage that has surfaced and disappeared on the Wilbert Coffin case. It is no different today. Same old junk, just a different pile as they say. As long as there are a few people out there who have wild imaginations, almost anything will fly. As P.T. Barnum of Barnum and Bailey fame once said "there is a sucker born everyday."

I rarely have the time to read other sites pertaining to the Wilbert Coffin affair. My own site takes most of my time. Occasionally I do get several requests from different folks pertaining to the same thing. I do make an effort at that time to take a look at what they are alluding to. That scenario has repeated itself again this past week.

I have had several e-mails from folks expressing disgust with subject material that they have seen on another site. To be more specific, I am speaking of the web site of a Mr. Fortin. Upon taking a look at the site in question, I am in agreeance with them.

Specifically, I am talking about the latest postings detailing the execution. In my view it is extremely distasteful to publish that level of rubbish, the photograph depicting a human being suspended at the end of a rope through a trap door on a gallows. In my view, even though it is not, that picture could be construed as an actual picture of Wilbert Coffin's execution. It is however, a photograph of an actual execution fished out of some sleazy internet site that satiates a demented lust. This is the type of journalistic "bull waste" that would never stand a chance of publication on this site. I have much more respect for my readers who are after a true accounting of the facts, than to present such garbage.

Over the years, the print journalistic reports on this case have been filled with editorial sensationalism. That is not necessairly an uncommon reality, as many journalists who lack the necessary skills to convey a story in true form and still hold the readers interest, substitute ghoulsih superlatives as a catalyst to achieve their goal. I am of the opinion that this is the case in this latest scenario.

You will recall a few months back, when this other site came onboard many strange things were happening with reference to my site. Mr. Fortin was engaging in activity with reference to my site. You will recall that he established a link without my approval between his site and mine, which necessiated me requesting that he remove it. You will further recall that comments made by viewers to my site were appearing on his site with the same comment, with the heading that they he had received them by e-mail when he had not. You will recall that I built a gallows to determine what was happening. I set up a ficticious comment letter from "Reg Mersereau" on my site. Interestingly enough, a couple of days later ficticious old Reg began breathing life, as his letter appeared on Mr. Fortin's site indicating that he had received it by e-mail. Mr. Fortin sprung the trap himself. I guess that the old adage proved true once again, "if you give someone enough rope, they will eventually hang themselves."

There were many more instances of strange occurences, too numerous to reiterate to you, but I think you get the picture. I do not do book reviews on this site, and I do know that the object of Mr. Fortin's site is to promote some book that he currently has in the matket place. I say that because he makes reference to his writings on a continual basis. Based on the examples that I have seen, and from what I can describe as documented fact, I would seriously question the material. As an example, is his behaviour indicative of the quality of journalistic professionalism that would be displayed in a published work.

I can also understand why he would want a link to this site, considering the following that we enjoy here with each posting. By comparison, I notice that greater than ninety percent of his commenters share the same name, "Anonymous." If one did not know, and were a nastier, more cynical person than myself, one might be suspicious that Clement is writing most of his own comments. That would not be true though because Clement tells us that he is a lawyer, and as a respected and prominent member of the bar, he would never resort to such shenanigans as portraying himself as someone else under false pretenses. The old adage that states "all lawyers are liars, but all liars are not lawyers" is not always true.

Clement owes many of his readers answers to questions. You will recall that Clement made many references to the mining claims. He thinks he has listed them all, he has but scratched the surface. We have the complete list with all the government registrations, maps, and claim holders. I can assure you folks, they do not marry up with what Clement displays. He may have got them from the Brossard Commission transcripts, but you must remember, only things that the judiciary wanted us to read and know about are featured in the commission hearings, because as you know, this was the police and judiciary attempting to cleanse themselves from any wrongdoing. I should also let you know Clement, that the lady, Ms. Baker, who responded to your comments on the mining claims is Lani Mitchell She was the daughter of John and Enid Baker. It is Lani who is very up to date on all the mining claims pertaining to Wilbert Coffin. You see Clement, Lani's mother is one of the ones to whom you would be referring when you suggested that phoney receipts were being handed out to make it look like Wilbert Coffin had money. You will also recall Clement, Lani was the lady to whom you suggested that she translate the Brossard Commission transcript for you.

Clement, you were specifically asked by a lady as to what happened to Eugene Lindsey's truck. You displayed a note from Mrs. Lindsey, which displayed the return of items from Quebec. You made that appear Clement as if to be an acknowledgment that all things were returned. You did not answer the lady's question Clement. Again the question was, What happened to his truck, did it go back to the states, or did it remain in Canada? Anyone who portrays themselves as an authority on the Wilbert Coffin case would know the answer to that question Clement. The answer to that question is very significant, so please answer the lady. If you really cannot find the answer, we will play my little game of pretend and pretend that no one is reading, and I will slip you the answer.

Clement has also bee asked many times about the United States government intervention in the Wilbert Coffin affair. You saw what he wrote, you saw what I wrote. Mine was all properly documented from Canadian gocvernment files. The little that he covered he stated that he got it from the Brossard inquiry. That should be a lesson to all of you. The Brossard commission knew nothing of all the international legal wranglings, however, if they did, then how come they hid it? I have said it before, and I will say it again, the Brossard Inquiry was nothing more than window dressing a dirty sleazy judicial process.

I notice a letter posted on his site affecting Bill Baker's truck from General Motors Acceptance Corporation. It is advising of a lien. There is no relevance here. He simply bought a truck through their credit plan, and the truck was collateral. They do it the same way to this day. That had nothing to do with Wilbert Coffin. That was between Bill Baker, the dealership and General Motors.

As I have stated, using the same transcripts as the original trial, of course a manipulating lawyer may be able to badger a guilty verdict, however, install all that was held back, and insert new evidence that should have been found in 1953, Wilbert Coffin would have been a free man as he should been. It is almost laughable to read of Clement Fortin protecting and portraying Alphonse Matte, John Vanhoutte. and Mr. Sirous as kind, caring, sensitive, and intelligent professionals. In my next posting, you will see how smart these three caring gentlemen really were.

I will see you again in a few days, have a great week, and I bid you success in whatever you choose to do on a balmy early summer day as we are enjoying here on the west coast.

Lew Stoddard

2008-04-25T03:32:00.005-07:00

THE WILBERT COFFIN AFFAIR.

FILES

FROM THE HALL OF SHAME

We constantly hear the stories that Wilbert Coffin was penniless. Tucked away in the midst of many files I managed to come up with something that doesn't really lend support to that theory. I may have mentioned this previously, but there are many who haven't read my complete research and investigation, and of course from some of the messages that I get sent to me there are those who have only recently joined in.

.
This file dates back to 1948. No, it did not come from a family member, it came from a source. I want you to take a look. I apologize for the wear and tear on this document. We do have the original on this, and it has many creases. Doggone it, paper does not stand up well after 60 years!

.

.

You will note that it is a receipt for the purchase of a new truck in the town of Gaspe'. You will further notice that the purchaser is none other than Wilbert Coffin. You will also note that he has paid a $1,000.00 down payment, against the full price of $1,326.00 including tax. You may think so what, a thousand bucks is no big deal. You are quite correct, by todays standards, it is not. Think of this though, the guy that paid this money was Wilbert Coffin, the guy that many think was always broke.

.
We are talking 1948 here, that was a lot of cash back then. For comparison sake, yesterday I phoned an investment broker and asked him how much money today would it take to equal $1,000.00 in 1948. He called me back and advised me that it would take approximately $16,000.00 today to purchase what $1,000.00 did in 1948.

.
My question to you is this. How many of you could walk into an auto dealership tomorrow and plunk down $16,000.00 without dipping into the plastic stuff? The bottom line here, don't be too quick to write Wilbert Coffin off as one who did not pay his way.
.

Here is another little gem that I am pleased to leave with you today. It is from Captain Alphonse Matte. He is writing to his boss, regarding his trip to Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania. He went there to gather evidence. Take a read and find out what he got. My apology as well, translation not being an exact science, there may be a few grammatical errors. In no way is the meaning of the text altered.

Surete Provincial De Quebec

Director Adjoint De La Surete

Gaspe'

July 29, 1953

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.

(J A Matte) Captaine

. In Charge Of Judiciary Police

.This letter is proof that the police and crown lawyers were nothing short of a bunch of deceitful manipulating liars. Throughout the trial the crown constantly played with the figure of $1,000.00, when in fact they had absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it. It was done purely as a means of swaying the jury. Additionally, in the letter you read where they also could not find out about baggage. Fabrications existed there as well and I will show you in a few days. You will see where the term "Men Of Law" suddenly takes on new meaning.

.We have in our possession many of these notes, letters, and interviews. I am determined to expose each and everyone of them.

I will be back in a few days with a bit more selective reading. In the mean time, have yourselves a great weekend, drive carefully, and as usual, thanks from both Lani and myself for all your support and rallying to the cause during the past two years.

Lew Stoddard.

. Host Of "Stoddard Online"

2008-04-22T13:05:00.005-07:00

SPECIAL NOTICE

THE WILBERT COFFIN STORY

This is a special notice to all who are following the Wilbert Coffin case on this site. As I have stated in the past this case had many twists and turns, thus, it was not always possible to present the various elements in a defined chronological order.

In some cases it has been necessary to repeat certain aspects of the investigation. All information on a particular topic does not necessairly come to light simultaneously, and in many cases folks simply do not read, they skim. I assume that is because they lack patience.

Beginning tomorrow, I shall commence a four part series which will depict deceit, manipulation, and corruption in general with respect to the judiciary in the province of Quebec in the 1950's with Duplessis at the helm. You will see why a decision would be entertained to bury certain reports for 100 years.

In my view, the judiciary of Quebec did not do a very good job of covering their tracks back in those days. As a result, I believe that I am in possession of certain documents that were perhaps meant to be buried years ago, but for some strange reason, they got leaked before interment.

I know that these documents are authentic, because in all cases they bear the signature of the author. I also know that Wilbert Coffin's investigation was done primairly in French, but the translation has now been completed to English. Thank God for Lani Mitchell! As usual, I also wish to point out that nothing gets published on the "Stoddard Online" site without documentation and/or an interview.

I think that you will be pleasantly surprized as you take a wee peek at some of this stuff. I find it absolutely incredible, yet horrifying to think that such a cover up could take place.

Again, I ask you to join me tomorrow, April 22, 2008 for some very interesting reading from my investigation of the Wilbert Coffin affair.

Lew Stoddard

Host of "Stoddard Online"

2008-04-03T09:14:00.004-07:00

WHY DIDN'T OTTAWA SAVE WILBERT COFFIN ?.

This posting may appear to be many pages of heavy reading. In reality, it is. Some of it, you may have to re-read several times, but if you do, the full picture will emerge. This is what happens when governments get hold of things that should be written for the everyday person. Before you get into it, get comfortable with a pot of good coffee. If, after giving it a good try, you honestly do not understand, send me an e-mail and I shall help. Bear in mind though, I will answer a specific question. I am not prepared to once again re-write the complete posting. As well, remember to sign your questions and comments, as we do not respond to "anonymous" queries.

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.

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. 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.

The following is a memorandum from Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs to Secretary of State for External Affairs.

CONFIDENTIAL.

.Ottawa, October 24th, 1955
.EXTRADITION, POLITICAL REASONS FOR SUBMITTING LINK AND GREEN
.
REFERENCE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
.1. Scope of Memorandum
.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.
.
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.
.
Views of the Minister of Justice.

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.

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.

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.

J. LÉGER
.
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.
.
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. . .
.
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.
.

.CONFIDENTIAL.

.[Washington], November 8th, 1955
.SECURITY FRAUDS; EXTRADITION; LINK AND GREENCASE136 CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE MINISTER OF JUSTICEAND THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, AT TORONTO, NOVEMBER 7, 1955.
.
.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.

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.

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.

A.D.P. HEENEY
.
Here is a note that I discoveredat the bottom of the Ambassador's letter. I find this troubling in a democratic society.

"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."
.
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 federal Ministers from any democratic society having files removed and destroyed.
.
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.
.
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."
.
Summary Record of Meeting of Joint Canada-United States Committee
.
SECRET
.
Ottawa, September 26, 1955
.
"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."
.
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.
.
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.
.
Ambassador in United States to Secretary of State for External Affairs
.
CONFIDENTIAL
.
Dear Mr. Pearson,

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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Yours sincerely,
.
A.D.P. HEENEY
.

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.
.
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.
.
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 "Top Secret" are from cabinet conclusions pertaining to the decision affecting the Coffin affair.
.
Extract from Cabinet Conclusions
.
"Top Secret"
.
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
.
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
.
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
.
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?"
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.

I have published much of this information in the past, although, by the questions that I am often asked, I thought it prudent to cover it once again. In addition to a lot of new people coming onboard to learn of this travesty of justice, there are those out there pedelling an agenda to sensationalize and sell books, something that we do not approve of here on the site. Lani Mitchell and myself have worked far too many hours to have the site compromised by the embellishment of things that we know are less than factual.

Lew Stoddard.

*The source of much of the material contained in this article, combined with permission to reproduce, was garnered from the Federal Government archives in Ottawa for the ministry of External Affairs.

Parts of this manuscript are protected by copyright, representing the personal work of Lew Stoddard. Reproduction in part or in whole, by whatever means for whatever reason, is not permitted without the written consent of the author, Lew Stoddard.

Lew Stoddard

2008-03-23T07:26:00.009-07:00

MORE INTERFERENCE FROM THE TOP.

You will recall a few days ago in my last posting that I alluded to certain things that were being stated on another blog site with reference to the Wilbert Coffin case. Much of what was being discussed concerned material that I have covered in the past. I find no cause for quarrel at being used as the centerpiece for the table. As a matter of fact, it is gratifying to discover that other writers choose my site when they are in need of factual and informative information. The disturbing fact here of course is the taking of certain things out of context, rendering the appearance of an altogether different meaning.

I have been accused by this person as one who is always blaming Maurice Duplessis for the misfortunes of Wilbert Coffin. That is partly correct. I blame Duplessis where it can be proven that he was responsible. I can assure you, there are many instances where Duplessis can be blamed.

I make no excuses for statements that I have made, and given the same set of circumstances, I would do it again. The problem is that someone should have said something back in the 1950's, but chose to set back and say nothing. That is precisely why the Wilbert Coffin case was allowed to end up as it did. People were afraid to voice their concerns to a premier turned dictator.

Interference is one thing in all walks of life, but when it has to be fought at the top level, it takes on new meaning. Such was the case in Quebec in the 1950's. The stumbling block there of course was the leader himself, none other than premier Maurice Duplessis. From the days of his first being elected, Duplessis, assumed a dictatorial role. He would maintain this stance, surrounded by his handful of henchmen throughout his party's tenure in office. Without doubt, Union Nationale spelled Duplessis, and Duplessis spelled Union Nationale. He was the Lord and ruler, and woe unto anyone who got in his way.

I wish to point something out. On this other web site the author criticizes me for blaming the government of the day for the illegal application of rules with reference to the inquest verdict which was changed to reflect responsibility and guilt on the part of Wilbert Coffin. The author points out that it was not Maurice Duplessis, the premier, who made the decision to do this. I am in receipt of documentation which clearly states, "the attorney general of Quebec has stated that Wilbert Coffin will be charged with murder, no matter which way the verdict reads". I would suggest that the author of this blog refresh himself on the history of Quebec during this period.

I do agree, yes it was the attorney general of Quebec who made that statement, but the damaging aspect is the fact that the attorney general was none other than Maurice Duplessis. You see, in order to exercise complete control , it was necessary to appoint himself to all the big cabinet posts, as well as wear the hat of the premier. There are those who do not like for me to make reference to these facts, but the bottom line is, these are the markings of a dictator. If that person has his sights set on you, your chances are slim to none of escaping his grasp and wrath when he comes calling. Wilbert Coffin is an excellent example.

Much emphasis is now being placed by a few on the importance of the Brossard Inquiry. I have stated it before, and I'll state it again, the Brossard Inquiry was nothing more than "window dressing" subsequent to the execution of Wilbert Coffin to shut up those who were asking questions with reference to the judiciary of Quebec during the Coffin affair. This inquiry was not about Wilbert Coffin's dilemma. Not at all. Wilbert's case merely cleared the path and provided an avenue for the government and police to get at Jacques Hebert, because it was none other than Mr. Hebert who put all the pressure on the government. You must remember, by the time that the decision to hold the Royal Commission into this affair was decided upon, Wilbert Coffin had been in his grave for nine years, and the guy at the top, Maurice Duplessis, had occupied his for six years.

Even though Duplessis had departed, the rumours and anxiety continued to mount to the point of affecting the day to day operations of the new government. With the death of Duplessis, came the death of the Union Nationale Party. It was important that any new government distance itself immediately from the political fallout associated with the Union Nationale Party and Maurice Duplessis.

The new Liberal government under Jean Lesage did just that. Lesage knew that the Brossard Inquiry would accomplish nothing. However, it might quiet down the people who were still up in arms over the Coffin affair. It would be a cheap price to pay if it could accomplish this goal, and it may instill some public confidence in the Liberal party once again in Quebec. Now you can perhaps see, with the intervention of government the affair started to turn bad at the tainted inquest, and by now we are studying the affairs of the second government during their best to mop up the slop left by Duplessis and the boys.

To reiterate, the Brossard Inquiry was not an inquiry extension dealing with the guilt or innocence of Wilbert Coffin. Pure and simple, it was nothing short of a group of good old boys doing an inquiry on themselves, and headed up by one of their own by the name of John Charles Vanhoutte. The agenda was simple, make the judiciary of Quebec look honest, trustworthy, and transparent in the eyes of the public.

A few days ago I told you of an interview that I had just conducted with a long time Gaspe peninsula resident. His name was Gilles Bastien. He was the former Quebec Provincial Police officer whose job it was, to prevent Wilbert Coffin talking with his legal team during his trial. You will recall, on the day of that posting I alluded to another Gaspe' businessman whom I discovered on the coast and was willing to talk to me about the Wilbert Coffin affair. This gentleman, like Gilles Bastien, is still very much alive and pleased to talk to me. I shall now introduce him to you. His name is Michel Pouliet.

Mr. Pouliet is a pilot. During the early 1950's Mr. Pouliet owned a firm called Air Gaspe'. He had his runway, office, and service centre at Haldimand on the peninsula coast. Being the first and only air service in the peninsula region, Mr. Pouliet came into contact with many people from many walks of life.

I found Mr.Pouliet's story to be most interesting. For the most part it displays congruency with what Gilles Bastien had told me earlier in the week. You will recall that Mr. Bastien had explained his role in causing Wilbert Coffin to be unable to meet up with his legal counsel during the trial at Perce'. Mr. Pouliet was now ready to relate to me his role in preventing Wilbert Coffin from speaking with his counsel prior to the trial, when he was being transported between Quebec City and Gaspe'.

Mr. Pouliet owned four aircraft. Prior to transporting Mr. Coffin, Captain Alphonse Matte, or John Charles Vanhoutte would contact Mr. Pouliet by telephone. Their instructions were simple. They had a passenger going to Quebec. He would not be boarding the aircraft at the hangar. Mr. Pouliet was advised to taxi an aircraft to the end of the runway prepared for flight. The passenger would emerge from the bushes in the accompaniment of the police officers. They would then board the aircraft and receive flight instructions from the officers. Mr. Pouliet recognized the passenger as Wilbert Coffin. This arrangement was never to be discussed with his lawyer, Mr. Alphonse Garneau.

On the day of the wrap-up of the trial, and after the verdict was announced, Mr. Pouliet experienced a very unusual happening with his small aircraft company. Earlier in the day, he received an unusual request from a gentleman. The gentleman had a question. How many planes do you own? Mr. Pouliet informed him that he owned four airplanes. The next question was, "how much to rent a plane for all day?" The answer was $500.00 per aircraft. The gentleman said he wanted all four of them but would only be using one of them. The remaining three would remain at Haldimand, and the fourth plane would fly a reporter from Haldimand to Dalhousie, New Brunswick. They must get there in time to be able to transmit a picture of Wilbert Coffin to New York as he emerged from the court house at Perce. The same rules would apply whether Wilbert was found to be innocent or guilty. This reporter was from "The New York Times" newspaper, and they wanted to be the first across North America to publish the Wilbert Coffin story.

I am told that all things in life eventually work out to a common good. You may recall that since I have been writing and investigating this story, I am constantly on the lookout for this person or that person and eventually they come forward. It is usually after several people have informed me that the person I am looking for has entered eternity.

This week has been no different. I received information on a gentleman that I have been looking for. He is a former police officer from the 1950's and he worked on the Wilbert Coffin case. The best part is, he is willing to talk to me. Indeed, I am looking forward to later in the week when I will have the opportunity to ask my questions of this person. It does pay to be persistent.

The next posting will cover the forensic and ballistics portion. This will be a most important part, as it is this section that actually controlled the whole affair. You will see and understand, that had saner heads prevaled from the onset, the Wilbert Coffin case would have been a routine murder case, the perpetrators could have been brought to justice, and I believe that Wilbert Coffin could have lived out his life to old age.

Lew Stoddard

This manuscript is covered by copyright. Reproduction in part, or in whole, by whatever means, or for whatever reason, is not permitted without the express written consent of the author, Lew Stoddard

2008-03-18T11:33:00.004-07:00

SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE

Throughout history it can be proven time and time again that false and erroneous communication sets the stage for a misguided path of belief. Perhaps this is the result of folks taking the path of least resistance, or maybe, taking the path as laid out by an action or statements attributed to someone who is trusted and relied upon to be correct, only to discover later the problem still exists. Either way, the end result remains the same, the problem still exists.

Specifically, I am talking here about the Wilbert Coffin case. From the genesis, this case has been riddled with false claims and statements, adding to the complexity of events as they truly happened.

There is not a single week that passes that is void of someone approaching and asking me to clarify this or that. It is usually the result of someone voicing their opinion in such a way to appear that it is fact, and in doing so, manages to sway someone else from the truth. As I have stated to you many times, every care and caution is put into place before anything is published as fact on this site. It simply has to be that way, otherwise we are only adding fuel to a fire that has already burned out of control.

The most recent revelation that has come to me by way of two separate readers of this site concerns stuff they have read elsewhere on the internet, and for one reason or another made a bad choice.

I must admit, my time is generally consumed by my own website, ensuring its accuracy, while investigating and researching new clues, therefore, usually I do not have the time to peruse all that may be being said on other sites. However, this latest one tweaked my interest enough to take a few moments and do some window shopping.

One of my readers had alluded to a posting on this other web page that concerned the charge of murder, more specifically, the murder of Richard Lindsey. By now we should all know that three persons were murdered in the Gaspe' bush. However, only one charge was ever laid, that being for the murder of Richard Lindsey, laid against the defendant, Wilbert Coffin.

Upon checking this particular site that I was guided to, my reader was 100% correct. On March 13, 2008 the author of this site states and I quote, " By the Criminal Code, a person can only be charged with one murder." Unless there has been a mysterious revision of the Criminal Code, that statement is not accurate. I will cite you some examples. Please read on.

By now, all of the world is probably aware of the first case that I shall refer to. In the province of British Columbia, and to be more exact, in the city of Port Coquitlam where I reside, we just witnessed the largest mass murder case in the history of Canada. William Robert Picton was accused of killing 49 women. He was charged with killing in excess of 40 of these women. In January of 2008, the initial trial concluded. His trial had proceeded with the first 6 murders with the trial for each one held simultaneous with the other five. He was convicted, and the crown made the decision to not proceed on the next 20 charges, due to the fact that concurrent sentences would apply. It is to be noted, the crown was prepared to proceed, and it was quite within the parameters of the C C of C (Criminal Code Of Canada) to do just that.

The next example is that of Clifford Robert Olson. Olson was charged with the murders of 11 youngsters in British Columbia in the early 80's. As in the case of Picton, he too was charged with multiple murders.

Let us not forget the charming couple from St. Catherines, Paul Bernardo, and Karla Holomoka. They were both charged with the double murders of two Ontario school girls. Holomoka escaped the wrath of judgement on a murder charge by cutting a deal with the attorney general of Ontario. Bernardo was found guilty of both counts.

To sum up, there is no limitation on the number of murders that a defendant can be charged with. The way that it is normally done, and this should have been related to my reader by the author of the other blog in his comment. Let us use Picton as the example here. He was charged separately with each murder. In the first six charges, it would have been read out to him someting like this, "Robert William Picton, Count one against you is for the charge of first degree murder of Jane Doe in violation of the applicable section of the Criminal Code Of Canada, How do you plead?" The next one would be count two and so on until all charges are exhausted. The same rules would have applied in the other two examples cited above as well.

Charges are brought about in this manner to avoid a double jeopardy situation, and as well, by doing it this way, it is possible to find guilt or innocence on any one of the charges without influencing the remaining ones.

For someone who is supposedly a lawyer, it simply is not good enough to merely explain to a reader that Wilbert Coffin was not charged purely because it would violate the Criminal Code if the murder of Fred Claar and Eugene Lindsey were included. Make no mistake about it, Wilbert Coffin was not charged for those two murders for one reason and one reason alone, that reason being, because the crown had no evidence to support the charge. In a distorted way, by suppressing evidence, and tampering with other evidence, coupled with wining and dining a jury, made from a pool of half English and half French, they did manufacture a guilty verdict.

In a couple of days, I shall be presenting my findings on the autopsy and forensic aspects of this trial. We shall also be into ballistics in a big way. I have no reservations whatsoever, that if you read this report and study it, you will quickly see that Wilbert Coffin should never have been convicted on the basis of what was presented.

Thank you so much. I juat wanted to set the record straight again on a couple of things. While looking at that site today, I noticed three other areas that need to be dealt with as well. I shall get to those, one at a time, in the very near future.

Lew Stoddard

Host of "Stoddard Online"

This manuscript is protected by copyright. Reproduction in whole or in part, by any means, for whatever reason is not permitted without the express written permission by the author, Lew Stoddard.

2008-03-03T11:48:00.015-08:00

COFFIN TRIAL. . A FLAWED PROCESS

In the last posting we were taking a look at the trial process of Wilbert Coffin. We were making a determination as to whether Wilbert Coffin actually received a fair process from the judiciary of the day.

You will recall that we reviewed the inquest process conducted by Doctor Lionel Rioux. You will further recall the scenario leading up to and including the changing of the inquest verdict to reflect one of responsibility on the part of Wilbert Coffin. This was done subsequent to the jury having already delivered a verdict of non-responsibility on Mr. Coffin's part. This was done on directions from the Ministry of Justice of the province of Quebec.

It is important to note here that the directive from the justice ministry was swift and absolute. They simply stated that they were going to charge Wilbert Coffin with murder anyway, whether or not the inquest jury found him responsible. In spite of the directive from the ministry, the decision to change the verdict was not unanamous. Two of the responsible businessmen from the Gaspe' area saw fit to hold out and not go with the directive. They were Whorrel Annett and Gabriel Bernard. The government got their wish in the form of a majority vote, with the two dissenters remaining intact.

To the surprise of many, Gabriel Bernard is still alive at this writing and confirms this revelation. He is also willing to convey this information to a court of enquiry. I have personally spoken with Mr. Bernard and he has assured me that he was never convinced that Wilbert Coffin was guilty of this crime, and as well, feels badly with respect to the ministry of justice promoting a change in verdicts.

I have reviewed these things simply to display to you the illegal happenings which took place, as it is important to remember that it was these events that laid the frame work for the upcoming trial. There is an important question here that needs to be answered. The question is simple, it is the answer that is complex.

The question is simply, "Is it proper and prudent that a court of law be allowed to flourish and make a determination on a first degree murder charge, when the very venue of determination is laced with illegal procedures? In my view, I do not believe that it is. I know of no other court system in the land that would permit this to happen.

For the past few months I have been working on an aspect of this trial process that has never been worked in the past. That is not to say that it shouldn't have been investigated. If the trial judge had done his work properly at the onset of the trial it would have been discovered. More importantly, if the defense legal team headed up by lawyer Raymond Maher had done his job the crown would not have got away with it either. The whole scene emits a stench of complicity on the part of both the crown and the defense. I ask that you read and re-read the following few paragraphs before you form an opinion.

In order to fully understand the gravity of the situation that I am going to describe to you it is important that we fully understand and appreciate the laws governing our court system and the rights of individuals caught up in the workings of the judiciary of Canada. It is also important to note that Canada received her Charter Of Rights And Freedoms in 1982. Prior to this date, as a nation we were subject to the laws and rules of Great Britain. As a result, persons charged with an offence were covered by certain rules, which enabled a fair exposure to the justice system.

Subsequent to 1982, in a more refined and defined structure, certain laws and rules remained intact. In other words, since the original confederation there were always some rules governing the handling of an accused. Without doubt, that set Canada apart from many other regimes of the world who offered much less.

An important consideration is the fact that under both the British regime and our current charter, the rights and freedoms of a citizen is a very precious and fragile component, especially to those who may find themselves falling within the net of a judicial proceeding against them. That is why the application of our rules are entrusted to those in authority, to make certain that those less fortunate are treated equally to those who may be in a higher social status.

During the course of my investigation of the Wilbert Coffin affair, it has always been in my mind as to whether Wilbert Coffin received the full benefit of protection as would have been provided by law. Early on my question was partially answered when I learned of the changing of the verdict at the Inquest. My feelings were that if this was an example, there would be others. I did not know where, but I was determined to find them. I am glad that I am not one to give up easily.

Fair exposure to the justice system includes a competent legal defense. That is not just my interpretation, that is laid out clearly in both the old system under British law and our new system, falling under the current Charter Of Rights And Freedoms. Without that principle in place, clearly there would be no equality within the parameters of law. In simple terms, "the law for the poor, and the law for the rich" would be the order of the day. Unfortunately, to the peril of an accused, if justice is allowed to be meted out by the wrong hands, then the scales of justice are name only, and meaningless. I invite you to read on.

The tale that I am now going to relate to you is true. I know that because I personally researched it, and conducted interviews. It is an ugly, chilling tale, mostly because it happened here in Canada, a place where this sort of thing could never happen. I should tell you now, this did not happen by accident. It was a planned, calculated strike against a citizen of Canada, charged with an offence. His name was Wilbert Coffin of Gaspe', Quebec.

In order that one do an indepth study of this affair as I have done, immediately one asks themselves the question, "Was Wilbert Coffin adequately defended?" From the time of his arrest until trial, much of his time was spent without the services of a lawyer. There is documented proof that in the beginning he was denied legal representation. There is also proof that as pre-trial time continued, his defense planning time with a competent lawyer could at best be described as sparce.

Prior to being moved to the Quebec City jail for "more professional" interrogation as it was described by Captain Alphonse Matte, his local lawyer in Gaspe' had been denied access to him. His brother and father had arranged for a young local lawyer by the name of Mr. Garneau to look after him, but it was evident that Garneau was no match for the big guns sent down from Quebec on the part of the prosecution and investigation.

During his time spent being interrogated at Quebec jail for nearly three weeks, I can find no recorded time spent with a defense lawyer. On the other hand, I can find records of hours of torturous treatment meted out by Captain Alphonse Matte and others in an effort to gain a confession, of which they were never able to extract. This evidence is supported in statements by the late Eugene Letourneau, the Quebec City jailer and staff.

It was because of these things that caused me to "look outside the box" in order to enhance my investigation of this case. I asked myself, "If a qualified, competent defense lawyer existed during this time for Wilbert Coffin, would that person in their professional capacity have stood idly by and allowed these things to take place, considering the fact that they were dealing with the most celebrated legal case in Quebec history?" Instantly, common sense told me of course they would not. At that point, I knew that I was on the right track with respect to the legal defense of Wilbert Coffin. It simply did not exist. The crown would argue during this period that Wilbert Coffin was not being denied counsel to defend a charge, because he had not been officially charged and that he was only a suspect.

You will recall some months back that I put out the call for any police officers who may be still alive that took part in some way with the Wilbert Coffin affair. I was assured by a couple of people that my search was fruitless as each and everyone were now deceased. Each time that I was assured they were all deceased, I was encouraged me to look more thoroughly. I encouraged anyone who had a Grand Dad or Great Grand Dad, great uncle or family friend, or associate in any way, who might be able to help to please conact me.

Once again the search paid dividends a few weeks ago.Through a third party, I was assured that a former police officer who worked on the case was very much alive. I made an effort and was able to locate this former officer. Prior to contacting him, I was able to determine that he was French Canadian. I was prepared to do an interview with him providing he would discuss the situation with me. I was further prepared to utilize the services of an interpretor, as I do not speak French.

This former officer's name is Gilles Bastien, a current resident of the Gaspe' coast. Upon contacting Mr. Bastien, I discovered that he was most willing to discuss the matter with me, and to simplify matters, Mr. Bastien is most fluent in both English and French.

During the course of my discussion with Mr. Bastien he was able to enlighten me, and in many ways corroborate what others had been able to tell me about the course of events leading up to and including the trial time at Perce'. Specifically, I am referring to the defendant, Wilbert Coffin and his inability to speak with his legal counsel, brought on by the actions of the solicitor general and attorney general of Quebec.

In this particular affair, we have only heard of the actions of the prominent players such as Captain Alphonse Matte, Sgt. John Charles VanHoutte, and the head of the Quebec Provincial Police traffic division, Captain Raoul Sirois. It is important to note that any orders coming down the pipe from Captain Sirois, were merely being passed on from Solicitor General Antoine Rivard and his cohert the Attorney General, Maurice Duplessis who just happened to be the premier of the province as well.

Captain Matte had been in touch with Raoul Sirois and requested assistance in manpower. He stressed the importance of keeping Wilbert Coffin distant from legal counsel during down time from the trial. He requested that some officers from the traffic division be re-assigned their duties during the trial, just as Constable Lewis Sinnett had done previous to the trial. It would be these officers who were charged with the responsibility of keeping Wilbert Coffin on the move to avoid dialogue with counsel.

The story now will focus in the direction of former Quebec Provincial Police officer Gilles Bastien. I asked Mr. Bastien to describe to me in his own words as to who appointed him, his role, and the territory covered. Here is his response to my questions.

"I was a traffic officer on the Gaspe' coast with the Quebec Provincial Police, stationed in the Chandler area. The head office for the traffic division for the Quebec Provincial Police was in Quebec City and was headed up by a Captain Raoul Sirois. It was from the Quebec head office that all decisions were made with respect to each individual office.

Captain Alphonse Matte made a request to the Quebec office for some officers to carry out a special detail. I was one of the officers selected to go to Gaspe' for this duty. This duty involved the Wilbert Coffin murder trial. Captain Matte would outline my duties and give verbal instructions as to what the expectations were. My instructions were simple. During time when the trial was not actually in progress, I was to prevent Wilbert Coffin from being able to have discussions with his lawyers. This would include time spent to and from the court house, stand downs for lunch, and other breaks in the trial.

In restaurants and coffee shops, I was to control his talking to staff. It was not uncommon to place dark glasses on his face so that he would not be recognized. This was all part of the orders from Captain Matte.

We travelled to nearly every community along the coast during the course of the trial. We travelled all the way to Rimouski, always trying to mask his identity. On other days we travelled to Matane, Mont-Joli and many other places. He was handcuffed at all times except when we would go into a restaurant. I would then remove the cuffs. He never made any attempt to run away. He was always friendly and cheerful with me. He was aware of what we doing and why. He did not blame me, he knew that I was only following orders.

Wilbert Coffin would get upset when sometimes he would spot something in a newspaper and it was written in French as he did not understand. I would translate for him.

Upon arrival back at the court house, it was always pre-arranged for him to arrive immediately prior to the beginning of the days proceedings. This way there would be no time for discussions with Mr. Maher or the rest of his legal team. These actions were the order of the day for the duration of the trial".

Mr. Bastien's statement is very important to this case. It magnifies the fact that Wilbert Coffin was very much a victim of a very flawed process, and yet that same flawed process set the stage for his eventual hanging at Bordeaux Jail in Montreal.

This complete scene is directly opposite to what both the English system of law and our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees us as citizens. That guarantee tells us that as citizens we have a right to legal representation to defend a charge, and an equal right to a fair and unbiased trial. Wilbert Coffin was a citizen of this country, so why did the system fail him?

It failed Wilbert Coffin because our governments allowed it to happen. The government of Quebec and the government of Canada could have easily not allowed these events to happen. Obviously, both levels of government were determined to bring this case to conclusion as expeditiously as possible. That is evident by the judiciary of Quebec resorting to a bunch of thugs doing the police work for a very corrupt system from top to bottom.

Since beginning to write this particular posting to the Wilbert Coffin investigation, I have had the good fortune of being pointed in the direction of another gentleman who is very much alive and willing to talk. He was a businessman on the Gaspe' coast at the time of the Wilbert Coffin affair, and he has an interesting story to tell as well that ties in with the control of Wilbert Coffin and the prevention of him being not allowed to speak with his legal counsel. I shall be including this gentleman's account in the next posting.

As you can see, there are many examples of Wilbert Coffin not being treated fairly in the justice system. It is also interesting to note that these events that I am telling you about here are well documented. They are not based on opinion. They are based on factual accounts, facts brought to the table by the players themselves, not through a third party.

If you are thinking that some of these tales are horrendous, wait until we get into the trial itself. That is where the trickery, the manipulation, the lies and the deceit rear their heads. I beg forgiveness for my tardiness, and I do promise to speed the process. You are a great audience, and I want you to post your comments. That is what makes the site successful. I will be back real soon. God Bless you one and all.

Lew Stoddard

This manuscript is protected by copyright. Reproduction in whole, or in part, by whatever means, and for whatever reason is prohibited without the express written permission of the author, Lew Stoddard.

2008-02-14T23:45:00.008-08:00

TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT

The time has arrived to get down to some serious business and set the record straight on a few very important aspects of this case. This case is not based on some fictional story with a setting in some unknown land. It is a case that has its roots right here in the country of Canada, in the province of Quebec, and as history books will prove, it took shape in modern times. This is what makes it scary, because it did happen in relatively modern times, the question that must be answered is simply, "could it happen again?"

Though fifty years have passed with much better tools to work with today, an unattended judiciary in the hands of a select few individuals bent on a personal agenda, as was the case in the Coffin affair, indeed raises serious concerns. I shall attempt to point that out in an understanding way to you in the next few paragraphs.

Prior to digesting what we are talking about, it is important that you consider that which makes an enquiry necessary in the first place. In no way am I suggesting that every court decision be the subject of an after enquiry, or an indepth scrutiny. It is necessary though when the original court process is so skewed that it hinges on illegalities.

It would be wrong at this point to suddenly pull a specific instance completely out of context from a court process and disect it with the intention of using it as a means of autopsy on the complete affair. Clearly, I do not believe that it can be done in this manner, nor should it be done in this way.

In order to study the Wilbert Coffin affair, it is necessary to go back in time, back into a time previous to the actual trial at Perce'. It is my contention that if rules were not followed during this preparation time, then serious questions were being created with reference to the actual trial. I believe that to be a fair statement. Consider if you will for a moment, how is it possible that a proceeding can be put together to form a legal process such as a first degree murder trial from proceedings that violated laws and freedoms of the accused?

It is therefore paramount that the trial be looked at and studied from the very genesis of the complete affair. This particular trial when talked about is often referred to as a particularly long affair. I do not believe that it was. The trial duration in this case was nineteen days including preambles and summations. Over the years I have attended many legal ramblings that surpassed this trial in total time. A number of years ago, I attended a trial in New Westminster that was taken to court and challenged by a driver charged with speeding on a photo radar charge. That particular trial reached into the fourth day before a legal conclusion could be reached on a test case for photo radar.

In spite of whether nineteen days was of short or long duration, I am troubled by the ratio of trial length and the length of deliberation time by the jury on conclusion. The total deliberation time was thirty one minutes. In simple arithmetic that equates to one minute and twenty-one seconds of deliberation time for each complete day of trial. In my opinion, that is absolutely incredible and astounding, comparing only to a proceeding whereby a defendant has more or less admitted guilt to a charge.

In the case of Regina versus Coffin, Wilbert Coffin of Gaspe', Quebec was charged with the first degree murder of Richard Lindsey of Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania, USA. Three cases of murder had been committed, although Wilbert Coffin was charged with one case only, with the other two cases remaining unlitigated to this day.

In the beginning it must be understood that Wilbert Coffin was out of town at the commencement of proceedings. It is generally accepted that he was in Montreal when he was called back. In reality, he was not in Montreal. He was in Abitibi, Quebec. The private inquest had been held by local coroner, Lionel Rioux. The finding of the inquest panel was simply that the three victims had been killed at the hands of a person or persons unknown.

Information arose that indicated Wilbert Coffin had been seen in and around Gaspe' with one of the victims prior to the murders. They were attempting to secure a new fuel pump for Eugene Lindsey's truck. To the authorities, Sgt. Henri Doyon of the Quebec Provincial Police and others it appeared prudent to talk to Wilbert Coffin, as at this point, Wilbert Coffin appeared to have been the last person to have seen these people alive.

Sgt. Doyon would then contact Wilbert Coffin's family to learn of his present whereabouts. I believe the following revelation speaks volumes as to Wilbert Coffin's innocence of this crime. In all honesty, we must ask ourselves the following question. If you were in Wilbert Coffin's shoes at this point and you were guilty of murder, would you be in a rush to get back to Gaspe' to face the music? You must consider the fact that you would not know if the police possessed something that would draw the net tight over you. What would you do at this point? I tend to think that it would be time to get out of Dodge.

Now another question, was Sgt. Doyon concerned that Wilbert Coffin would use this time to slip away into obscurity? Absolutely not, because it was his belief from the start that Wilbert Coffin was innocent. A few hours later, right on queue, Wilbert Coffin arrives back at his Mum's house in Gaspe'. He is informed that the police were still wishing to speak with him. What does he do? He heads directly to the police station to meet up with Sgt. Henri Doyon.

A few days later the tables would turn on Wilbert Coffin. The word was out from the authorities, if this man was the last known person to see these people alive, then pursue him relentlessly, he was to be their man.

A public inquest is announced with a panel of jurors made up of prominent area businessmen. At the conclusion the verdict is the same as the private inquest. The three hunters are killed at the hands of a person or persons unknown. This inquest is different. The coroner, Dr. Lionel Rioux has strict orders to not question Wilbert Coffin. He is not to be put on the witness stand at the inquest. This is where Quebec justice 1950's style under the direction of premier Maurice Duplessis who also doubled as the attorney general would show its true colours.

Doctor Rioux, being the weak individual that the authorities knew that he was, would be an easy prey for the smooth, sleazy, manipulative team from Quebec City. I am ashamed to have to admit that the next set of circumstances took place in my country and were a large part of the framework that managed to hang a man until he was dead. The special prosecutor and police sent to gaspe' for this inquest simply approached the bench and informed the coroner that he was to order the jurors to go back to the jury room and return with a finding of responsibility on the part of Wilbert Coffin. Like a flock of lost sheep, their master, Doctor Lionel Rioux gave them the order, "go back to the jury room, change the verdict and return."

From the panel of jurors, two held out and would not go along with the change. These jurors were Gabriel Bernard and Whorrel Annett. Unfortunately, the majority followed direction and decided that it was alright to thwart justice. I found this part of this whole story very sickening. I was determined to locate anyone who might still be alive that served on this jury. I was ready to give up, when suddenly, through a third party I was asked if I might like to speak with one of the jurors from the Coffin inquest. That jurors name was Gabriel Bernard and he confirmed what I just told you. Mr. Bernard is also willing to convey his story to investigators looking at overturning this case.

From this account, you have now been introduced to the sleaze, manipulation, and dirty tricks which prevailed during this time. You can now see how the very corner stone was put together to gain a conviction in this case. This is all so evident and we haven't even touched the court room yet.

I know that it has been covered in the past, but it is necessary to talk again about the actual locating of the remains in the forest, how they were handled, by whom, and where they were transported to. The subsequent autopsies, and the autopsy reports are in need of being scrutinized in court in a much more subtle way than what was actually done.

Another area that was literally taken for granted was the ballistic reports, or in this case, the lack of a proper report. These are all things that were never examined in depth at trial and yet form such an important aspect leading to a final determination of the case.

I shall be presenting to you examples of the crown cross examining their own witness, which is strictly prohibited. You will see examples of fabricated evidence, you will see examples of evidence that was submitted, but never brought forth during the trial. You will see examples of evidence being sworn for trial with "convenient parts only" being pre-extracted by the crown. More alarming still, is the stifling reports of police officers being censured concerning their account of certain activities.

We shall be looking in depth at the behaviour of court officials such as prosecutors and police. We will learn what it is like to go out on the town as a jury member and be treated to a movie, dinner and booze.

When you consider all these things it is a bit difficult as to how someone can run all over the country screaming about the fair trial that Wilbert Coffin received. Now that we are entering the court room, the case will go quite quickly, so I encourage all to join with me over the course of the next few days.

I hope to see you again in the next few days, but little by little these are things that we should know. I thank you for making that possible.

Lew Stoddard

This manuscript is protected by copyright. Reproduction, by any means, in part or in whole is not permitted without the express written consent of the author, Lew Stoddard.

2008-02-11T05:12:00.000-08:00

A SPECIAL POSTING TO THE CASE

Sometimes it is necessary to reach out from the norm and change directions prematurely. I have reached the decision to do that after viewing my own web page in the past couple of days. It is difficult sometimes to comprehend the mentality of some supposedly sane adult individuals.

I simply cannot understand the display of rudeness in a quest to out-do each other when I look at the name calling and remarks in general. It is little wonder that this case went to the dumps. From what I see, I ask myself, is this an example of what has been involved here for the past five decades? Seriously, are we not sharing a common goal? If we are, this is the wrong route to achieve success.

I have dedicated the use of my web site for the past two years to the express purpose of finding out what happened in this case by arriving at the truth. The site is wide open for all to use and build a data base. I ask for little in return. I grant respect to all those who take part, and conversely, I ask for your respect.

If I were to visit your home, it is expected that I would respect your rules, and the same would apply in reverse if you were to visit mine. From the onset, I have stated many times there are certain rules that I expect adherence to should you decide to contribute to my site. That does not mean coming in today and respecting the rules of the site and then coming back tomorrow expecting a free for all. I will not allow that to happen.

Two of those rules are as follows and are without compromise;

1) No profanity

2) No maligning of an individual

For the past week I have watched the site from a distance hoping that what I was seeing was an isolated example. I was wrong. It got worse. It got much worse. Specifically, and I am certain that most of you know as to what I refer, I am speaking about a former police officer from the Gaspe' region, the late Constable Lewis Sinnett.

Let us begin with the question, Who was Lewis Sinnett, and why such a furor surrounding him at this late date? Lewis Sinnett was a traffic officer with the Quebec Provincial Police in the 1950's. I single out traffic officer because Lewis Sinnett was not permanently employed as part of the investigative team of the police in the Gaspe' area. That team was headed by the late Sgt. Henri Doyon.

Constable Sinnett knew the people of the region well and the people knew him. He was very familiar with the topographical aspects of the region based on his hunting, fishing, and hiking in the region. Additionally, one of his greatest attributes was his knowledge, and fluency, of both English and French in both the written and spoken word. Thus, he would be a natural for highway patrol work considering the influx of English speaking tourists on the road especially during the summer months.

Whenever an investigation of serious magnitude was eminent, it was not uncommon for Sgt. Doyon to contact headquarters in Quebec City securing permission for Constable Sinnett to work with him on these cases based on his abilities. Such was the case in the Wilbert Coffin affair.

Prior to the emergence of the Coffin affair, Sgt. Doyon had requested that Constable Sinnet go directly to St. Anne De Monts to investigate and quell a miners disturbance before it escalated to larger proportions. The date was June 13, 1953. Knowing the area well, Constable Sinnett was able to travel the woods roads to minimize travel time.

In film footage that I have in my possession, Constable Sinnett tells it in his own words. He states emphatically that he came across a "car" on the forest road containing two individuals. It was not a jeep, not a truck, but a "car." This car had two individuals inside. The shirt of one individual was stained with blood. He asked why. He was informed that these two individuals had shot a moose, which he explained to them was out of season. He "does not" state that he did not obtain their names, nor did he say that he did not record their licence number. He merely said in the interview that he was not sure at that point where the plates were from, or who these individuals were.

At this point of time Constable Sinnett would have been forced to do what most police officers do dozens of times during their career. Simply, he was forced to make a judgment call. He would have been faced with obeying orders and continuing on his way to the mine disturbance, or negating that order and processing the moose story. Understandably, he would have chosen to continue because of the gravity of the situation.

I can honestly declare that during the course of my investigation and study of events for this whole affair, never have I come across documentation stating that Constable Sinnett did not make a full account and report of his findings in the woods that day. For any of you out there who have been arguing that he did not report it, now is the time to come forward with your information. I implore you to do that right now, rather than stand back and make a lot of accusations which have no basis, while hiding under a veil of secrecy and the anonymity game.

I can tell you this though and you should pay attention. I do have in my possession a statement from Officer Sinnett stating that he did report what happened in the woods with regards to the men in the car. Do I have a date on that? No, I do not. To the anonymous person who accused that he didn't report it and that it aided in the finding of guilt against Wilbert Coffin, I ask you to now come forward and we shall compare our actual proof. You do not have anything that will prove what you are saying. These are reasons why people such as yourself remain anonymous, because at best, it is easy for you to stand back and sling mud and never have to face the challenge of producing.

Officer Sinnett states that he turned this information over to Captain Alphonse Matte of the Quebec Provincial Police long before the trial of Wilbert Coffin. Guess what! Captain Matte informed him to keep it quiet and to say nothing, as was done with a lot of evidence that should have gone to trial but never made it to the court. Sgt. Henri Doyon was aware of what Officer Sinnett had witnessed in the woods. He stated that it was too bad that somehow Officer Sinnett couldn't open the whole thing for the big picture, but it was impossible. The reason being was that all the questions for Officer Sinnett were structured by the police and prosecutors, with the old "answer only what you are asked routine." Again I stress to you. Come forth now with your evidence. Don't just stand there with a wagging tongue.

It is important to note that when the forest incident took place with Officer Sinnett, there was no report of missing hunters. At that point, of course he did not tie these two people in the car with the missing hunters. He had no way of knowing. The problem here is comprehension. This has all been covered in the report on the affair at least once, and in some cases two or more times. Some of you excell in skimming what is written, but lack the necessary retention skills to grasp the story.

Another aspect of the story was the account of Lewis Sinnett with Wilbert Coffin at Camp 26. He spoke of having a nap. Some of you questioned that. Again, this was covered in the writings on my story. You labelled him a poor police officer because they had a nap in the old camp. You must remember, they left Gaspe' at daybreak. You must also remember that they were told to wait at the camp for Sgt. Henri Doyon to arrive. Sgt. Doyon was late in getting there because he had some telephone calls to take care of before he left the area. Another important aspect that some of you missed entirely was the fact that this trip was repeated on another occasion. You are mixing the events of one trip from those of another. Again, this is the result of not paying attention.

Some of you have questioned the distance travelled by Wilbert Coffin, Lewis Sinnett, and Sgt. Henri Doyon between the area where the skeletal remains of Eugene Lindsey, and those of his son Richard and Fred Claar were found. You make reference to the fact that they travelled approximately two miles. You did not read that in my story. You chose to accept that from one of the many erroneaus newspaper stories of the day, written by some over zealous reporter. What you would have discovered in my writings was the fact that the ravine between the two areas was approximately sixty feet. That evidence comes from Lewis Sinnett who was there, not some armchair journalist investigator seeking sensationalism.

I am also in possesion of material from Lewis Sinnett where he clarifies questions pertaining to notes that were found near the Lindsey vehicle. Again, the authorities preached the wrong sermon with reference to the so called note. What they purposely did not tell the public was the fact that not one, but two notes had been found. The police reported the one written by Thomas Miller, which was nothing more than a note to anyone finding it, would direct them to the area that he had moved to. The one that they did not reveal was the one reportedly written by Richard Lindsey. It was dated June 13, 1953. It was particularly damaging to the crown because it was written after Wilbert Coffin had left the area to travel to Montreal. As it turned out though, it presented no damage to the crown's case at all, simply because they did not declare it as an evidence exhibit. The crown would deny it's existence. Constable Sinnett on the other hand confirmed it's existence. Constable Sinnett saw the note in detail on the desk of Captain Alohonse Matte, when Matte left the room.

We should remember that it was Constable Sinnett who would report the collusion between the jury and the crown at the trial. The jury was taken out and treated to drinks and a movie, clearly in defiance of the rules of jurisprudence. In my possession, I can also produce evidence from Constable Sinnett reporting a photograph that Captain Matte kept on the wall during the Perce' trial. It was a photo of Wilbert Coffin. Someone had taken a felt pen and drawn a noose around Mr. Coffin's neck in the photo. The crown would deny it's existence. Others, including Lewis Sinnett would confirm it's existence.

During the course of trial it was noticed that Wilbert Coffin was wearing his military button on his jacket. Constable Sinnett was given the menial task of going to the front of the court room and removing the button. It could sway a jury, the crown said. If that would sway a jury, make no mistake, a night of drinking and a movie would have done the job as well.

I point out these things because we should take a long hard look at Constable Sinnett before we condemn him. Constable Sinnett played a very important role in the Wilbert Coffin affair. The administration of justice in Quebec portrayed him as a fool. They did this because by putting him down, they looked stronger. It was a case of the two very lowest cogs on the wheel, Constable Lewis Sinnett, and Sgt. Henri Doyon shouldering the cause for a very deep rooted, cheap, manipulative administration headed by Maurice Duplessis.

To suggest that Lewis Sinnett helped send his friend to the gallows is nothing short of a real cheap shot. Again, here is an example of someone spouting off with no regard for the real facts. Lewis Sinnett tried repeatedly to speak with the Canadian Minister Of Justice in Ottawa by telephone to tell his story. The Quebec administration learned of this and told him that it would do no good and that it would be left to the province. Whether it would have or not, I cannot say. I can say though, here was another example of influence peddling from the top cog down to the lowest cog in the wheel. The important thing is that Lewis Sinnett tried. If your brother, Dad, or uncle, or whoever in your family was in Wilbert Coffin's predicament, would you have felt better knowing that he was at least trying? I think that you would have. To those of you out there, who on a daily basis make your rude comments, you should think about that.

I am not saying that it is wrong to ask questions. I am merely pointing out the fact that there is a humane way of doing it. At the end of each day those of us who still remain have to co-exist in this old world.

It is important to remember what happens to those who opposed the rule of Duplessis in 1950's Quebec. Sgt. Henri Doyon was thrown into an insane asylum, and then promptly fired three short months before his official retirement to avoid paying him his provincial pension. He was thratened, his wife and children were forced into hiding in the Eastern Townships, their home was ransacked. Constable Sinnett had a large family as well. He knew what the capabilities of this regime were. He feared for the safety of his wife and family as well. He was under teriffic pressure to conform.

There are rumors that Constable Sinnett perhaps drank a bit too much. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. That is the duty of someone more qualified than myself to make that determination. Did alcohol affect the daily decisions of Constable Sinnett? Again, I do not know the answer to that question. I do know this much though. If Constable Sinnett's judgment was affected by alcohol based on his consumption, then the whole Gaspe' coast should have taken stock of themselves as alcohol appeared to be the order of the day.

I can understand the reluctance of the Sinnett family to talk about this case for all these years. No one needs to be trodden on in any walk of life. It all comes back to the fact that we all have to live in the community in one way or another. I also ask you, the reader, to be a bit more cordial in the wording of some of your comments and questions, and consider, you are dealing with human beings here who are entitled to the same respect that you are.

Those of you out there who are finding constant fault with Constable Sinnett, I suggest that you are not looking very hard for his strong points. As I pointed out, Constable and Mrs. Sinnett had a large family. It was not just another large peninsula family, it was a family that expressed love to each other and the community. Let us remember that.

Lew Stoddard

2008-01-30T05:57:00.000-08:00

A NECESSARY DELAY

In order that I deliver you the most up to date information possible on wrongful convictions, it is necessary to delay the posting for 24 hours. This decision was made necessary based on information that I received late yesterday pertaining to the rules of justice in Canada from the 1950's. When this is all put together, you will see that the rules back then under the British system were not all that different than those of today, especially those rules that applied to the application of a free and impartial trial.

It is common place today to hear reference made to the Wilbert Coffin case as a case that happened prior to our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, and therefore, certain aspects pertaining to the rules of law did not apply. This is nothing short of an excuse. Indeed, it is not a reason. It is celebrated cases such as the Coffin affair that have evolved as a playground for members of the legal profession. As Canadian citizens, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was assembled by our governing body for the protection of all, not just a group of swelled heads attempting to make a name for themselves.

Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was heavy with the term "ordinary Canadians." I am not sure exactly as to what an ordinary Canadian consists of in our society. Within the depths of my Webster, I note that ordinary simply means, and I quote, "not exceptional or unusual, and undistinguished." The closest that I can muster for an opposite word is "out of the ordinary" and accordingly, Mr. Webster defines that word as "unusual, exceptional, and remarkable." Getting back to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I am no longer certain as to which category that I fall within.

I look forward to hearing from you in the next few days. I want to hear your thoughts, and read your comments on this important aspect of the case. You will also recall that I indicated there would be a special piece on police officer Lewis Sinnett. This is a necessary element of this case, I have always maintained that. The person that I have alluded to in the past month who is touting his own agenda of the Wilbert Coffin affair has made some very rude and uncomplimentary remarks with reference to the late officer Sinnett. This person is attempting to re-write history from the worn out pages of the transcripts of trial, and the Broussard Commission. The Broussard Commission was not at all about Wilbert Coffin. It was totally dealing with the late Jacques Hebert and his no nonsense approach to the goverment of Quebec and Maurice Duplessis.

Lew Stoddard

2007-12-20T05:44:00.000-08:00

MERRY CHRISTMAS

JOYEUX NOEL.

Normally, this would be my most favourite time of the year. Sadly, I can no longer say that. Oh sure, we still live in the greatest country on earth, but in my opinion, we have done a terrible job of looking after it. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that we are victims of our own stupidity.

Canada is a special land. Let us project it as a giant book shelf of some eight thousand kilometres, claiming British Columbia and Newfoundland as the book-ends. We are so huge that it takes three oceans to wrap around three of our boundaries.

The make-up of the people of Canada are as diverse as the terrain itself. Canada is made up of big cities and little cities, big towns and little towns, with a generous sampling of every flavour of rural community imaginable. These are all elements that make us uniquely Canadian.

I have travelled to a few places in this old world and I can tell you, we may not be perfect, no place ever is, but the bottom line is simply that on our very worst day, we are still miles ahead of most other places on their best day. Why do you think that the United Nations have voted us the number one place to live on the planet? They have given us that distinction twice in the past few years. Little wonder that we are attractive when deciding a country to emigrate to. Before you jump to conclusions, no I am not against immigration. We need immigration, but we also need to respect our own traditions and fundamentals.

Canada is fast falling prey to special interest groups. You don't believe me? Then I suggest that you take a look around. Since the year is now winding down, let us focus on Christmas. Be careful though because we have allowed that to become a bad word at this time of year in many circles.

Let us look at a few examples. A couple of weeks back I entered a large store in Vancouver to purchase some greeting cards. Specifically, I wanted Christmas cards. I was emphatic, it is Christmas so I wanted my cards to say "Merry Christmas." The selection was deplorable. I spoke to the sales manager of the department. His statement was that "with the exception of a few, their cards reflect "Seasons Greetings." I asked him why. He stated "that was now the trend, something to do with political correctness" he said.

Purchasing a tree is another matter. You do not purchase a "Christmas Tree." You now purchase a "Gifting Tree." If you are in the mall at lunch time, you may want to listen to one of the choirs that travel around this time of year. Don't expect to hear any old time favourite Christmas Carols, because simply, you won't. I am told that many new comers to our shores could be offended, so the selections offered no longer reflect Christmas as we have known it for so many years.

The manger scenes have all but disappeared from public areas. Again, perish the thought, but we might get someones knickers in a knot. School concerts are totally watered down to rid us of traditional values. The agenda is obvious. All reference to Christianity is slowly being removed from this season of the year. I do not like that. I am within my rights to not like it, and I shall voice my opinion accordingly.

I suspect there may be many here who would be quick to jump up and down and tell me that I am biased in favour of Christianity. Well guess what, I am. Again, I am justified in my thoughts and opinions. I am entitled to them, and I have a right to express mine, just the same as you have yours. I do not though have the right to toss out your ideas and opinions, just because I may not approve of them. At the same time, you do not have the right to tamper with and force me to alter my thoughts and beliefs. We share the right to co-exist within our boundaries, as long as we are carrying on in a legalized fashion.

Occasionally over the years when I discuss this topic, I get branded a variety of things. I get asked often if I would admit to a belief in God. Quick answer, yes I do. Am I trying to ram my belief down your throat? Not at all. In simple terms, I couldn't care less if you choose to worship the south goal post in B C Place Stadium. Just don't try to shovel it in my direction. The bottom line here is simple. As my fundamental and traditional beliefs and customs are allowed to erode by special interest groups, it is being shoved down my throat and I do not approve of it, nor will I sit back on my butt and keep my mouth shut.

As a Canadian citizen, you should be aware of the date April 17, 1982. Not that many years ago huh? You see it was on this date in Canadian history that the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens from coast to coast were enshrined into our "Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms." True, our confederation was formed in 1867, but it was this late date in April, 1982 that we truly gained our independence from Great Britain. It granted us, as an independent nation, the right to adopt and enact our own laws, and as well, preserve our fundemental and traditional customs and beliefs as we see fit.

If you have never had the opportunity to read the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, I would encourage you to do so. You can obtain a free copy by sending your federal member of parliament a note requesting it. You can find the members e-mail address by clicking on the link on the "Stoddard Online" web site.

With reference to what I say about Christianity, God, and our country, you may find the first line in the preamble of our Charter quite interesting. It says, and I quote "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognizes the supremacy of God, and the rule of law."

In fairness to all concerned, the time has arrived when we must learn what is happening. I do not believe for a moment that the erosion of Christmas was created by the new immigrants on a personal basis. It goes much deeper. On a daily basis I am in contact with new Canadians, and I have yet to hear one utter words speaking out against Christmas. As a matter of fact, as recently as yesterday I had the opportunity to speak at length to a middle aged taxi driver as he transported me across the city. This gentleman was from Durban, South Africa. Within two minutes of entering his taxi, he was expressing to me his disappointment at the diminishing sights of Christmas in downtown Vancouver.

In summation, who are these special interest groups? Are they the politicians themselves? Are they our new immigrants? I suggest that our merchants, especially the large ones, are a chief factor in the equation. After all, the two weeks preceeding Christmas Day is the period that spells success or failure for the rest of the year. Perhaps we need to put some pressure on. Perhaps a boycott of shopping at these stores on the last shopping day before Christmas just might encourage some of these "Big Box" operations to get back to basics.

In closing, I want to take this opportunity to wish you and yours a very "Merry Christmas" and I encourage each and everyone to take a moment over the holiday time and pick up the telephone and call someone and tell them the same thing. It is also fitting at this time of year to let the members of our armed forces, police, and other emergency agencies know that we are behind them and thinking of them as they perform duties that most of us, thankfully will never get to see first hand.

As usual, feel free to leave your comments on the web site, and as well, feel free to send a short Christmas greeting to others who read the site. I will be back immediately after Christmas with a further update on the Wilbert Coffin case.

Lew Stoddard