16 avril 2008

LA SCÈNE DU CRIME - THE CRIME SCENE - COFFIN





Ci-haut, une vue aérienne de la scène du crime et plus bas, le plan préparé par Maurice Hébert, technicien de la Sûreté provinciale
Centre d'archives de la Gaspésie/Musée de la Gaspésie. P123 Fonds Georges-Étienne Blanchard. Boîte 1.

BAnQ, Centre d'archives de Rimouski, Fonds Cour du Banc du Roi/de la Reine, Greffe de Percé (TP9, 84), no 251, Plan détaillé de la Gaspésie situant les camps des chasseurs, 31 cm x 99 cm, 11 juillet 1953. Cliquez sur ce plan.


Maurice Hébert, technician for the Québec Provincial Police, testified on the 21st of July 1954, before the Court of Queen's Bench in Gaspé and filed this plan. Click on it!

Unfortunately, I cannot show you, on this blog, a readable plan. However, to give you an idea of what it shows, here is some of the information that it contains:

LEGENDS
A- Road Canadian International Paper Co
B- “ near lake York
C – Bridge swept away re: Indian Fork Brook.
D – Remains “E.H. Lindsay” camp 24
E – Rifle “ “ “
F – Remains “Richard Lindsay” camp 26
G – Rifle “ “
H - Remains “Fred Claar” “
I – Rifle “ “
J – Hollow stump re: leather jacket; binoculars etc.

DISTANCES
Gaspé to Coffin’s camp : 14 miles
“ to “A” : 36 miles
“ to “B” : 58 miles
“A” to Camp 24 : 24 miles
“B” to “ 26 : 8.5 miles
Camps 21 to 24 : 3 miles
“ 24 to Luggage : 1.2 miles
“ 24 to 26 : 2.5 miles
Pick-up truck to camp 21 : 1.3 miles
“ “ “ 24: 4.3 miles
Gaspé to camp 24
(via “A”) : 60 miles
I invite you to read my book L'affaire Coffin: une supercherie? published by Wilson & Lafleur. I explain in detail the Coffin affair.

28 commentaires:

Anonyme a dit...

M.Fortin

Je me demande , pourquoi Mr Stoddard , qui dit savoir depuis au moins une année , l'identité des véritables responsables des meurtres des trois chasseurs américains , encourage t-il la marche , de ce fait inutile , du fils de Coffin , du B C à Ottawa ?
La divulgation de ces noms ne repartirait-elle pas une nouvelle enquête judiciaire et du fait même l'exonoration de Coffin ou
son implication véritable ?

Anonyme a dit...

Excellente question.
À Mr Stoddard d'y répondre. Et d'y répondre clairement, avec des preuves à l'appui, pas avec des racontars.
R.Boisclair

Anonyme a dit...

J'ai visité le blog de Lou Stoddard au commencement mais je me suis vite aperçu que ce n'était pas un individu sérieux. La pluspart des gens qui lui écrivaient n'arrêtaient pas de l'encenser. Les réactions n'étaient pas très saines. Rarement on le confrontait ou on lui posait des questions intelligentes.

Anonyme a dit...

This is a very strange case i have to say.Guess thats why it never got solved.There is not much evidence against mr. coffin, except for a theft of a few items of no value, things one could pick up anywhere.. Those three hunters were friends so they no doubt hunted together, yet their bodies were found in different spots. the hunters were all armed with guns, but never fought back, why was this? the strangest part of all, is the gaspe forest with all the other hunters, game wardens, forest wardens,and local workers roaming the woods and not one person saw anything, many people had ran into them before the murder took place. they all left those three bodies lay on the forest floor being eaten up by the wild animals...did Gaspe hope that all the evidence would be gone by the time family reported them missing?I beleive either the murders moved the bodies, or maybe the animals drug them around.then there are the camps, are we all to assume those camps were empty in june and july??were they??? Mr. stoddard did say he would name the three murderes, he also said in one posting that there was a woman involved, and her name was to be posted, and also her involvment in this case. I have not saw this posting. although i beleive mr. stoddard could be 100% right with that therory.
the three hunters had little of nothing of great value with them, so this leads one to beleive there was another motive for this crime.

Clément Fortin a dit...

Let me remind you that the sole purpose of my blog is to present to everyone interested in the Coffin affair the facts that have been proven before our courts in accordance with the Canada Evidence Act and the Canadian Criminal Code. I leave it to you to interpret them the way you wish or construct your own theories.

Anonyme a dit...

Mr Fortin:
I have been told that according to our code circumstantial evidence can be as strong as direct evidence.
Is it true?

Anonyme a dit...

Me Fortin ,
Prenant pour acquis que Mr Stoddard prétend connaître depuis plus d'une année ,l'identité des
vrais tueurs,suite à des révélations,des déductions
savantes,vieilles de quarante-
trois ans en arrière,émanantes
d'un quidam quelconque,et dont le dévoilement créera un héros ,
nous est-il loisible de croire
qu'il en a transmis l'info à la famille Coffin? Probable , mais
alors pourquoi attendent-ils encore le Messie ? ou horreur !
il ne leur en a pas dit un traitre mot !!! Alors , c'est
un sadique qui s'excite à garder
ces pauvres gens , rivés à son blog d'où surgiront,après de longs mmois d'attente ,encore à
venir,les noms,de trois personnes
ayant joué un rôle actif dans les meurtres des chasseurs américains.

Anonyme a dit...

M. Stoddard fait beaucoup de tort a la famille Coffin si vous voulez mon point de vue. Je crois qu'il profite du fait que c'est une famille rendue vulnérable par ce qui leur ai arrivé. Il se prend pour le Messie, oui c'est bien dit.

Clément Fortin a dit...

It is a moot question. In this regard, a miscarriage of justice that happened in France is given as an example. It is known as the Lyon courier affair. Many witnesses testified having seen the thief and the murderer. Years later, they realized they had made a mistake: they had condemned his look-alike. Direct evidence had failed. Personally, I think that circumstantial evidence is as good as direct evidence, and, in my opinion, even better, since it is difficult to make and therefore to fabricate

Anonyme a dit...

mr. fortin,
you say circumstantial evidence is as good as direct evidence? those are heavy words sir.I am very sure a lot who has been wrongly accused would differ with you. I beleive it would take a good law force to sort out the difference, mr. coffin never had this. but my hat is off to you sir, you do print every comment, or thought people have about this case, no matter what their opinion is.

Anonyme a dit...

J'ai lu votre livre, Me Fortin. La preuve circonstancielle y est longuement et clairement expliquée. Le juge l'a d'ailleurs expliquée au jury lors du procès de Coffin. Une preuve circonstancielle est une série d'éléments qui, pris individuellement, peuvent être dus au hasard et donc ne rien vouloir dire. Sauf que le hasard qui se répète n'est plus du hasard, comme nous l'enseignent les mathématiques. La preuve circonstancielle contre Coffin reposait sur une série d'éléments (vol, mensonges, témoignages incriminants, contradictions dans les déclarations à la police et surtout dans les déclarations statutaires)qui, additionnés, ne pouvaient pas, mathématiquement parlant, relever du hasard.
Un autre exemple, plus prosaïque, pour bien comprendre la preuve circonstancielle : un casse-tête. Plus on en assemble les pièces, plus on voit la figure finale.

Anonyme a dit...

Excuse my not very good English. I want to add to the last but one comment. Me Fortin welcomes all comments because he has nothing to hide. Mr. Stoddard, on the contrary, hided a lot of very important things, beginning with the OVERWHELMING TESTIMONIES at the Coffin's trial. He also hided the statutory declarations of both Coffin and Petrie, the fuel pump at Petrie's, the young Linday's brand new wallet, the Baker's pick up truck episode, the Coffin's lies to his mother, to his sister and to Petrie. Not only Stoddard never said a word about the erratic behavior and habitual drunkenness of Coffin, but he always stressed his kind-hearted side. I don't say that erratic behavior and alcool could make someone a criminal : I just say that Stoddard did'not say everything about the case.
When Stoddard is confronted, non only he replied with his old song Duplessis, Duplessis, Duplessis, but he dared to tell us that he knows the identity of the real killers. Judging from what Stoddard writes, everybody is corupted in Québec : government, police, men of law, Brossard Commission, etc.

Anonymous in La Belle Province a dit...

Bonjour Mr. Fortin,

Commenter number 11, "marked anonymous of course", expresses himself/herself in the exact terminology that you write in. That is absolutely astounding. Obviously, another great mind out there in our midst.

My compliments to you for a great work, you are such a thorough investigator.

Anonymous in La Belle Province

D Mason a dit...

Dear Mr. Fortin,

I am posting this to you on both your site and the Stoddard Online site, as you may decide not to publish it if I only direct it to you on your site.

You owe it to the people to explain why there was no comparison with your version of events dealing with American intervention in the Coffin affair when in fact after just finishing reading Mr. Stoddards documented account of the same topic, it doesn't even compare closely.

His version is obviously accurate as he has documented it from government files. His account goes right to the root of the story element. As far as I can see you went no further than what we have all heard for years about the tourist industry. That story has always been there. The question and answer thing that you show is nothing new.

Again my question, why did you not provide the details of the same story. It appeared the you simply chose to walk away, rather than get involved into something that you could not provide the answers to from these transcripts that you talk about.

I am awaiting your answer on this and I hope that others will be asking you the same thing.

D Mason
Ottawa Valley

Donna S a dit...

Mr. Fortin,

Where are all these special reports that you were going to show us. You know those ones that were sealed for 100 years and you were going to be the only one to see them and then you would share them with us all.

Do we all have to wait until we are 100 years old to get a peek at them. Well, you did promise to have them over a month ago and the clock is ticking.

Donna S
Gaspe' coast

Vinho a dit...

Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Vinho, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://vinho-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.

Clément Fortin a dit...

Ms. Donna S. of Gaspé coast,
First, I never promised anything on this blog. As far as the transcripts of the testimonies of witnesses heard behind closed doors, the Commission d’accès à l’information authorized me to consult them, but Bibliothèque et archives nationales du Québec appealed from that decision and the Attorney General of Québec intervened. The appeal will be heard before the Cour du Québec on the 12th of November 2008. I have only been working on this affair for the last 3 years. I first wrote a 384 page book titled L’affaire Coffin: une supercherie? that I suggest you read since my blog is the continuation of my book. Moreover, you should also appreciate the fact that reproducing and translating those documents on my blog is not an easy task. I wonder why all those who have been working on this affair for many years have never thought of pushing further this research. I also remind you that my blog has only been in operation for 5 ½ months. Reading and understanding 2250 pages of transcripts of the Percé trial, more than 16000 pages of transcripts of the Brossard Commission and more that 4000 pages of police files take time and patience.

Clément Fortin a dit...

Mr. or Ms. D. Mason, Ottawa Valley
I repeat once again that the sole purpose of my blog is to present to everyone interested in the Coffin affair the facts that have been proven before our courts and the Royal Commission of Investigation in the Coffin Affair in accordance with the Canada Evidence Act and the Canadian Criminal Code. I am not carrying a police investigation. This is beyond my competence. The Honorourable Justice Roger Brossard heard 214 witnesses and received 436 exhibits. You will understand that it is not possible to publish all those documents on my blog. I leave it to you to interpret what I publish the way you wish or to construct your own theories.

Anonyme a dit...

Is it possible you could list the evidence used against coffin at the perce trial, the documented evidence. I know there was a gas pump, pocket knife,and suit case, was the suit case entered in as evidence at the perce trial also? what other evidence was there?

Clément Fortin a dit...

... clothes, towels, binoculars, etc. I refer you to my book L'affaire Coffin: une supercherie? wherein I explain in detail the proof by witnesses and the exhibits that were filed with the court record.

Anonyme a dit...

Maître Fortin,
Je souhaite que votre livre soit traduit en anglais, car beaucoup de gens de langue anglaise s'intéressent à l'affaire Coffin d'après ce que je vois. La lecture de votre livre les aideraient, car leur pensée sur l'affaire Coffin a été très déformée par les livres du sénateur Hébert et par les théories abracadabrantes du blogger Stoddart.
Michel Bastien
Laval

Clément Fortin a dit...

Monsieur Bastien,
Vous avez raison. C'est ce que je remarque aussi. Moi, je veux bien qu'il soit traduit en anglais. Il faudrait convaincre Wilson & Lafleur de le faire ou un autre éditeur.

Anonyme a dit...

when will your book be available in english? I am intrested to know the documented evidence at the trial of coffin.

Anonyme a dit...

I would like to know if the overheard conversation between mr. coffin and his father was presented as evidence in the court. there was a statement overheard as to(don't worry, there not man enough to break me) as this sentence could have many different meanings. if the person hearing it was telling the truth, or did they make it up to get attention.

Clément Fortin a dit...

If it only depended on me, my book would have been translated into English many months ago. You should direct your question to my publisher Wilson & Lafleur, in Montréal.

Clément Fortin a dit...

Yes, it was presented as evidence. A few witnesses testified to that effect. Neither Wilbert nor Albert Coffin objected to this proof. I explain this matter in detail in my book L’affaire Coffin: une supercherie?

Anonyme a dit...

could you answer me a question? would a good lawyer not have objected to using this conversation in court as evidence? it was just hearsay, a repeated conversation, unknown to its truths.?

Clément Fortin a dit...

A proof of voir dire was made to the satisfaction of the Court. It was not hearsay evidence. I refer you to my book, pages 298-300.