LECTURE DE VACANCES

Je me permets de vous faire quelques suggestions de lecture pendant vos vacances.

Vous pouvez vous procurer ces livres chez Wilson & Lafleur

http://www.wilsonlafleur.com/
http://www.wilsonlafleur.com/WilsonLafleur/default.aspx?Action=Detail&CodeCat=340.471

May I suggest that you read my books on your vacation. You may order them from Wilson & Lafleur.

Voici quelques commentaires que des journalistes ont fait au sujet de mes livres:

Here are some comments that were made about them. The literal translation is mine.

L'Affaire Coffin, une supercherie?, dissipe tout soupçon quant aux assertions de certains dont le sénateur Hébert selon lesquelles le procès a été bâclé et que Coffin a été condamné, car le jury était formé de Gaspésiens ignorants. On a fait entendre au jury des dizaines de témoins qui ont rassemblé les éléments d'une preuve circonstancielle écrasante contre Coffin. (L’affaire Coffin : une supercherie ?, clears up all suspicion about the assertions made by some, senator Hébert is one of them, purporting that the trial was botched and that Coffin was condemned because the jury was formed with ignorant Gaspesians. Dozens of witnesses were heard who brought together the elements of an overwhelming circumstantial evidence against Coffin.)
David Santerre, Le Journal de Montréal

Dans un minutieux travail de reconstitution du célèbre procès, l'avocat Clément Fortin en arrive à une brutale conclusion.(In a meticulous work of reconsituting the famous trial, the lawyer Clément Fortin reaches a brutal conclusion.)
Bryan Miles, Le Devoir

Le juge Brossard avançait que les propos de Jacques Hébert étaient sans fondement. Pour sa part, Clément Fortin fait valoir que n’eût été le brûlot de Jacques Hébert clamant l’innocence de Coffin, l’affaire Coffin serait oubliée depuis belle lurette, et le public n’aurait pas si longtemps douté du bon déroulement du procès. (Justice Brossard put forward that Jacques Hébert’s remarks were unfounded. Clément Fortin explains that without Jacques Hébert’s pamphlet crying out Coffin’s innocence, the Coffin affair would have been forgotten a long time ago.)
Rollande Parent, Le journal du Barreau


Contrairement aux livres à succès de feu Jacques Hébert, celui de M. Fortin s’appuie sur une documentation solide. Il démonte la thèse de l’erreur judiciaire, sans pour autant prendre parti clairement. (Unlike Jacques Hébert’s bestsellers, Mr. Fortin’s book relies on a solid documentation. He takes to pieces the miscarriage of justice thesis, without however taking a clear stand.)
Yves Boisvert, La Presse

Loin d'être un pamphlet, L'affaire Coffin : une supercherie? s'attarde avec patience aux faits présentés aux jurés. L'auteur se garde quelques pages à la fin de son bouquin pour donner ses conclusions, sans plus. Quelques commentaires qui suffisent toutefois à faire comprendre que toute la controverse sur la non-culpabilité de Coffin a longtemps vogué sur une vague de ouï-dire, de sensationnalisme et d'intérêts politiques. (Far from being a pamphlet, L’affaire Coffin : une supercherie ? patiently lingers over the facts submitted to the jurors. The author reserves for himself a few pages at the end of his book to give his conclusions. A few comments are sufficient however to realize that the whole controversy on the non-guiltiness of Coffin has drifted for a long time on a wave of hearsay, sensationalism and political interests.)
Éric Nicol, Le Journal de la Vallée

Clément Fortin n’a pas ménagé ses efforts afin de reconstituer le plus fidèlement possible les éléments de ce drame. (Clément Fortin has spared no effort to reconstitute as faithfully as possible the elements of this drama.)
Jean Larrivée, L’Estuaire

Pas l’ombre d’un doute : ce fascinant docu-roman porte un dur coup à la thèse de Jacques Hébert. Il résume les 2 250 pages de transcriptions sténographiques et de procédures du procès de Wilbert Coffin, à Percé, en 1954. Loin des ragots, il s’en tient aux faits mis en preuve devant la Cour du banc de la reine. (Without the shade of a doubt, this docu-novel strikes a hard blow at Jacques Hébert’s thesis. It summarizes the 2 250 page short-hand transcripts and proceedings of Wilbert Coffin’s trial, at Percé, in 1954. Far from gossips, he sticks to the facts which were proven before the Court of Queen’s Bench.)

http://andrepronovost.com/Nouvelles.htm

L'AFFAIRE POISSON ET LES AMOURS DU PIED-DE-LA-CÔTE

L’auteur fait revivre l’affaire Poisson dans un docu-roman. En 1954, au Collège de Matane, le frère Oscar Lalonde est tué à coups de marteau. Trois étudiants sont écroués et traduits en justice. Un bon suspense judiciaire…

The author brings back to life the Poisson affair. In 1954, at the Collège de Matane, Brother Oscar Lalonde was murdered with blows of hammer. Three students were imprisoned and prosecuted. A good suspense…”

« Un avocat retraité en fait une solide étude de cas dans On s’amuse à mort au collège de Matane… » (A retired lawyer makes of it a solid case study in On s’amuse à mort au Collège de Matane…”
Michel Auger, Le Journal de Montréal

« Un véritable reportage où l’on voit deux avocats en vue se livrer à une lutte acharnée pendant les 23 jours que dura le procès : Jean Bienvenue pour la poursuite et René Letarte pour la défense. Le mobile du crime? Un simple geste gratuit inspiré du film américain The Rope! Pas si gratuit que ça, le geste : la discipline de fer des Clercs de Saint-Viateur était terriblement pesante… « (A real report wherein we see two renown attorneys indulging in a fierce battle during the 23 days of the trial; Jean Bienvenue for the prosecution and René Letarte for the defence. The crime motive? A simple gratuitous gesture inspired by the American film The Rope! Not so gratuitous than that, that gesture: the iron discipline of the Clercs de Saint-Viateur was terribly heavy…) Didier Fessou, Le Soleil

« Il [Clément Fortin] a eu la bonne idée de reprendre sous nos yeux le procès pour une affaire de meurtre authentique qui s’est passée à Matane en 1964. Me Fortin nous fait revivre cette histoire des annales judiciaires.... « (He (Clément Fortin) has had the good idea to take up before our eyes the trial for a real murder that happened in Matane in 1964. Me Fortin brings back to life this murder affair.)
Daniel Rolland, Culture Hebdo.com

Le manuscrit de ce roman historique dont l’action se déroule au début du siècle dernier, principalement à Matane, a obtenu une mention d’honneur à titre de finaliste du concours La plume d’argent édition 1997. (The manuscript of this historical novel whose action takes place at the beginning of the last century, mainly in Matane, has received a mention of honour as finalist in the literary contest La plume d’argent édition 1977.)

Clément Fortin raconte Matane dans un roman. (Clément Fortin recounts Matane in a novel.)
Romain Pelletier, La Voix du dimanche

« Voilà une œuvre majeure, où l’on décrit avec vérité une petite ville de chez nous, et son peuple que l’on regarde vivre, évoluer pendant un siècle. » (Here is a major work, where one describes with truth a small town and its people whom one watches living during a century.)
Marcel Séguin, ancien président de la Société des écrivains canadiens, section de Montréal (Past president of the Society of Canadian Writers, Montréal section)

L’écriture historique exige précision et objectivité. Le roman laisse plus de latitude et s’accommode bien de la fantaisie. Le roman historique, en se situant entre ces deux pôles, impose à son auteur la tâche peu facile de jouer sur les deux plans. Clément Fortin réussit avec brio cet exercice dans Les amours du Pied-de-la-Côte. (Historical writings require precision and objectivity. Novels leave more liberty and adapt well to fantasies. Historical novels, while being located between these two poles, impose on its author the uneasy task of playing on both plans. Clément Fortin succeeds brilliantly in this exercise in Les amours du Pied-de-la-Côte.
Robert Fournier, Au pays de Matane

JACQUES HÉBERT TÉMOIGNE DEVANT LA COMMISSION BROSSARD

CANADA
PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC

DISTRICT OF QUÉBEC

COMMISSION D’ENQUÊTE DANS L’AFFAIRE COFFIN

PRÉSENT : L’HONORABLE ROGER BROSSARD, J.C.S.
Le vingt-quatrième jour de février, l’an mil neuf cent soixante-quatre, a comparu comme témoin :
Monsieur JACQUES HÉBERT, éditeur, domicilié à 220, rue Mont Prévert, Beloeil, P.-Q., âgé de 40 ans, lequel étant dûment assermenté sur les Saints-Évangiles, dépose et dit ce qui suit :
INTERROGÉ par Me JULES DESCHÊNES, C.R.,
Conseiller juridique de la Commission :
Q Monsieur Hébert, j’ai produit, plus tôt ce matin, un volume comme pièce numéro 13, qui est intitulé « J’accuse les assassins de Coffin. » Pourriez-vous dire à la Commission si c’est bien vous qui en êtes l’auteur ?
R Oui, j’en suis l’auteur.
Q Maintenant, je constate également que ce volume a été publié par les soins de Les Éditions du Jour, Montréal. Pourriez-vous dire à la Commission si vous êtes l’un des intéressés dans cette entreprise des Éditions du Jour ?
R Oui, je suis le président et le directeur général de cette compagnie.
Q Est-ce que vous avez assisté au procès de Coffin, en mil neuf cent cinquante-quatre (1954), à Percé ?
R Non.
Q Est-ce que j’ai raison de présumer que dans les circonstances, vous n’aviez probablement pas assisté non plus soit à l’enquête du Coroner, soit à l’enquête préliminaire, l’année précédente ?
R Non plus.
Q Est-ce que vous pourriez nous dire à peu près vers quelle période de temps vous avez commencé à vous intéresser à l’affaire de Coffin ?
R C’était peu de temps avant la pendaison.
Q Ah bon !
R Au moment où à peu près tous les sursis semblaient terminés ; je crois que c’est quelques semaines avant.
Q Maintenant, vous connaissez également, je comprends, un journaliste de Toronto du nom de John Edward Belliveau ?
R Oui
Q Vous êtes au courant, sans doute, que monsieur Belliveau avait également publié un volume, en mil neuf cent cinquante-six)1956), au mois de juillet mil neuf cent cinquante-six (1956) ?
R Oui.
Q Également sur l’affaire Coffin, intitulé « The Coffin Murder Case » ?
R Oui, en effet.
Q Je suppose que vous avez dû le lire, à un moment donné, le volume de monsieur Belliveau ?
R Oui, sûrement, j’en ai pris connaissance au moment où mon premier volume était déjà écrit, mais il m’a été utile pour compléter des renseignements dans mon premier volume, mais il n’a pas été à la base ou l’origine de mes renseignements.
Q Monsieur Belliveau sera entendu, évidemment, à son tour, et il verra à produire une copie de son volume. Est-ce que je peux vous demander, pour les fins de votre second volume, celui qui a été produit ce matin, si vous avez eu l’occasion de vous inspirer du volume de monsieur Belliveau ?
R Non, dans le second volume, j’ai rencontré monsieur Belliveau, j’ai eu des conversations très longues avec lui, mais je n’ai même pas ouvert son volume en préparant mon deuxième volume.
Q Maintenant, est-ce que vous avez eu l’occasion de lire les dépositions du procès Coffin, les dépositions qui ont été produites, ou dont les transcriptions ont été produites ce matin ?
R Des extraits seulement.
Q Est-ce que vous pourriez, de mémoire, si vous le savez, nous dire quels sont les témoignages que vous avez eu l’occasion de parcourir ?
R Des extraits des plaidoiries, en particulier, principalement les extraits qui ont servi à la Cour Suprême, dans les mémoires qui ont servi à la Cour Suprême.
Q Là, vous référez aux argumentations ou les plaidoiries des différents avocats, soit pour la Couronne soit pour la défense ?
R Oui.
Q Est-ce que vous avez, en dehors de ça, eu l’occasion de lire les témoignages des témoins même entendus au procès ?
R Oui, mais pas nécessairement dans le document que vous avez là. – des extraits qui m’ont été fournis par certains témoins.
Q Est-ce que vous pourriez nous dire quels sont les témoignages que vous avez eu l’occasion de parcourir en partie ?
R De mémoire, je pourrais citer celui de l’expert médico-légal, monsieur Bernard Péclet.
Q Excusez-moi – est-ce que monsieur Péclet n’était pas un expert en balistique?
R Un expert en balistique, mais je pense qu’il fait partie du bureau médico-légal.
Q Vous dites que vous avez lu des extraits du témoignage de monsieur Bernard Péclet ?
R Oui, qu’il m’a fourni lui-même.
Q Est-ce que vous avez eu l’occasion de parcourir d’autres témoignages ?
R Certainement. Je ne pourrais pas vous les citer là, mais en d’autres occasions, je pourrai le faire.
Q Est-ce qu’il vous serait possible de vérifier quels sont les témoignages que vous avez parcourus et nous en fournir les noms ?
R Oui, c’est possible.
Q La semaine prochaine ?
R D’accord.
Q Cependant, sans vous en tenir à un chiffre précis, je ne voudrais pas vous en tenir à deux, trois ou quatre témoignages, mais pourriez-vous nous dire, au meilleur de votre mémoire, combien de témoignages vous croyez avoir eu l’occasion de parcourir, en tout, ou tout simplement en partie ?
R Vous parlez des témoignages qui ont été …
Q Donnés au procès Coffin ?
R .. donnés au procès Coffin même ?
Q. Oui.
R. Combien de témoignages ai-je parcourus?
R … de mémoire, non, je ne risquerais pas un chiffre.
Q Est-ce que vous vous souviendriez des noms des témoins dont vous avez pris connaissance des dépositions ?
R Je me souviens, par exemple, du nom de Lewis Sinnett.
Q Oui.
R. Henri Doyon.
Q Oui.
R. Là, pour dire, c’est les deux seuls dont je puis me souvenir.
Q De toute façon, vous ferez la vérification que nous vous demandons, s’il vous plaît, n’est-ce pas ?
R Bien sûr.
Extrait des pages 158 et suivantes :
Q Est-ce que vous avez une idée, que vous n’aviez sans doute pas avant de lire cette partie du dossier conjoint cette semaine, avez-vous une idée maintenant combien de témoins, particulièrement, auraient été entendus au procès Coffin ?
R Une vague idée ; pas précise, mais à peu près précise.
Q Vous vous êtes rendu compte maintenant qu’il y en a eu exactement 80 qui ont témoigné au procès de Coffin ?
R Je ne les ai pas comptés.
Q Êtes-vous prêt à prendre ma parole qu’il y en a eu 80 ?
R Oui, je la prends.
Q. Sur les 80 témoins, il y en a un : Péclet dont vous avez lu tout le témoignage ; deux, Doyon et Sinnett, dont vous avez lu des extraits, et 77 dont vous n’aviez jamais lu le témoignage, au moment de la publication de votre volume.
R Oui, parce que je n’en sentais pas le besoin ; ils ne m’intéressaient pas particulièrement.
Q Alors, nous venons, si vous voulez bien, monsieur Hébert, à un passage de votre témoignage dont il avait été question la semaine dernière, mais c’est peut-être un peu prématuré de ma part, pour continuer dans l’ordre de pensée que j’avais tout à l’heure, on parlait des témoignages que vous aviez lus, ceux que vous n’aviez pas lus, le lendemain de la parution de votre volume, au mois de décembre dernier, vous souvenez-vous d’avoir participé à une émission de télévision au programme Télé-Métro, Canal 10, cinq (5) décembre mil neuf cent soixante-trois (1963) ?
R Oui, je m’en souviens.
Q Vous aviez été interviewé, à ce moment-là par Pierre Nadeau ?
R Oui, je m’en souviens.
Q J’ai devant moi, ici, une transcription de l’émission, et je lis ceci, à la page 2…
Me RAYMOND DAOUST, c.r.,
Procureur de Jacques Hébert:
Si votre seigneurie me permet: Est-ce qu’il n’y a pas erreur? Télé-Métro est sur le canal 10, et Pierre Nadeau est à Radio-Canada.
Me JULES DESCHÊNES, c.r.
Conseiller juridique de la Commission :
Je sais que monsieur Nadeau travaille pour Radio-Canada, mais j’ai ici une transcription d’une émission de Télé-Métro, cinq (5) décembre mil neuf cent soixante-trois (1963), où monsieur Jacques Hébert est interrogé par monsieur Pierre Nadeau.
R Je m’excuse, je n’ai jamais été interrogé par Pierre Nadeau sur le canal 10, jamais.
Q Vous souvenez-vous d’avoir été interrogé par monsieur Pierre Nadeau, à un moment donné, au sujet de la parution de votre volume ?
R Oui, c’était au canal 2.
Q Alors, on vérifiera. J’ai ici le texte de cette entrevue, monsieur Hébert, et à la page 2, je lis la réponse suivante que vous avez donnée, à un moment donné, à monsieur Nadeau, et je cite :
« Je pense que jamais dans l’histoire de la justice au Canada un procès n’aurait jamais été aussi mal mené où la justice aurait été aussi bafouée à mon sens » Fin de la citation.
Est-ce que là, c’est le procès dont vous parlez, dont vous n’aviez pas lu 77 des 80 témoins ?
R C’est exactement ce procès là.
(À SUIVRE)

JACQUES HÉBERT TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION

EXCERPTS FROM JACQUES HÉBERT’S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION (PAGE 41 AND FOLLOWING)

CANADA
PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC

DISTRICT OF QUÉBEC

INQUIRY COMMISSION INTO THE COFFIN AFFAIR
PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE ROGER BROSSARD, J.S.C.
The twenty-fourth day of February, in the year one thousand one hundred and four, personally came and appeared:

Monsieur JACQUES HÉBERT, publisher, domiciled at 220, Mont Prévert Street, Beloeil, P.Q., 40 years old, having duly been sworn on the Holy Evangelists, doth depose and say the following :
EXAMINED BY Me JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.
Legal Counsel to the Commission :
Q Monsieur Hébert, I have filed sooner this morning a book as exhibit number 13 titled « I Accuse the Assassins of Coffin ». Could you tell the Commission if it is you who are the author of that book?
A Yes, I am the author.
Q Now, I also note that this book has been published by Les Éditions du Jour, Montréal. Could you tell the Commission if you have an interest in Les Éditions du Jour ?
A Yes, I am the president and general manager of this company.
Q Have you attended Coffin’s trial in one thousand nine hundred fifty-four (1954), at Percé ?
A No.
Q Am I right to presume that under those circumstances, you probably had not attended neither the Coroner’s inquest nor the Preliminary Enquiry, the year before ?
A Neither.
Q Could you tell us around what time you began being interested in the Coffin affair ?
A It was a short while before the hanging.
Q Ho good !
A At the time when almost all reprieves seemed terminated : I believe it was a few weeks before...
Q Now, you also know, I understand, a newspaperman from Toronto by the name of John Edward Belliveau ?
A Yes.
Q You are aware, no doubt, that Mr. Belliveau had also published a book in one thousand nine hundred fifty-six (1956), in the month of July one thousand nine hundred fifty-six (1956)?
A Yes.
Q Also on the Coffin affair, titled « The Coffin Murder Case » ?
A Yes, in fact.
Q I suppose that you have read that book, at a given time, Mr. Belliveau’s book ?
A Yes, surely, I looked into it when my first book was already written, but it was useful to me to complete the information for my first book, but it was not at the basis or the source of my information.
Q Mr. Belliveau shall be heard, obviously, in his turn, and shall file a copy of his book. May I ask you, if, for your second book, the one that was filed in the court record this morning, you have drawn inspiration from Mr. Belliveau’s book?
A No, in the second book, I met Mr. Belliveau, I had very long talks with him, but I have not opened his book while writing my second book.
Q Now, have you had the opportunity to read the testimonies made at Coffin’s trial, whose transcripts have been filed this morning ?
A Excerpts only.
Q Could you, by memory, if you know, tell us what testimonies you had the opportunity to read ?
A Excerpts from pleadings, in particular, mainly excerpts which the Supreme Court, in the memoranda that were used at the Supreme Court, used.
Q You are referring to argumentations and pleadings of the lawyers involved either on behalf of the Crown or the defence.
Q Beside that, have you had the opportunity to read the testimonies of the very witnesses heard at the trial ?
A Yes, but necessarily in the document that you have there – excerpts that have been given to me by certain witnesses.
Q Could you tell us what depositions you had the opportunity to read in part ?
A If I remember rightly, I could cite that of the medico-legal expert, Mr. Bernard Péclet.
Q I beg your pardon – Mr. Péclet, was he not an expert in balistics ?
A An expert in balistics, but I think he was working with the medico-legal department.
Q You say that you have read excerpts from Mr. Bernard Péclet’s testimony ?
A Yes, that he, himself, gave me.
Q Have you had the opportunity to read other depositions ?
A Certainly. I could not tell you right now, but on other occasions, I could do it.
Q Would it be possible for you to check what testimonies you have read and to give us the names ?
A Yes, it is possible..
Q Next week ?
A All right.
Q However, without giving us a precise figure, within two, three or four testimonies, but could you tells us, to the best of you recollection, how many testimonies you think having had the opportunity to read, in all, or simply in part.
A You are referring to testimonies that have been …
Q Given at Coffin’s trial ?
A ... given at the very trial of Coffin?
Q Yes.
A How many testimonies have I read ?
A … from memory, no, I would not dare give a figure.
Q Would you remember the names of the witnesses of whom you have read the depositions ?
A I remember, for instance, the name of Lewis Sinnett.
Q Yes.
A. Henri Doyon.
Q Yes.
A. It seems, that they are the only two that I can remember.
Q Any way, you will check and give us that information, won’t you ?
A For sure.

EXCERPTS FROM PAGES 158 and following :
Q Do you have an idea, which you no doubt did not have before reading the joint dossier this week, do you now have an idea how many witnesses were heard at Coffin’s trial ?
A A vague idea ; not precise, but almost precise.
Q You realized now that there were exactly 80 witnesses who were heard at Coffin’s trial ?
A I have not counted them.
Q Are you willing to take my word that there were 80 ?
A Yes, I take it.
Q. Out of 80 witnesses, there is one : Péclet whose whole testimony you have read; two, Doyon and Sinnett, of whom you have read excerpts, and 77 whose testimony you never read at the time that you published your book.
A Yes, because I did not feel the need ; they were of no particular interest to me.
Q Then, we go back, if you so permit, Mr. Hébert, to an excerpt of your testimony that was dealt with last week, but, it may be a bit untimely from my part, to continue in this order of thought that I had a while ago, we talked about the testimonies that you had read, those that you had not read, the morning after the publication of your book in the month of December last, do you remember having participated in a television show on Télé-Métro, channel 10, on the fifth (5) December one thousand nine hundred sixty-three (1963)?
A Yes, I remember.
Q You had been interviewed at that time by Pierre Nadeau ?
A Yes, I remember.
Q I have here a transcript of that show and at page 2, I read this…
Me RAYMOND DAOUST, Q.C.
Counsel to Jacques Hébert:
With your permission Your Lordship : Isn’t there an error ? Télé-Métro is on channel 10 and Pierre Nadeau is at Radio-Canada.
Me JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.
Legal Counsel to the Commission :
I know that Mr. Nadeau works at Radi0-Canada, but I have here the transcript of a show of Télé-Métro, fifth (5) December one thousand nine hundred sixty-three (1963) where Mr. Jacques Hébert is interviewed by Mr. Pierre Nadeau.
A I beg your pardon, I have never been interviewed by Pierre Nadeau on channel 10, never.
Q Do you recall having been interviewed by Mr. Pierre Nadeau, at a given time, about the issue of your book ?
A Yes, it was on channel 2.
Q All right, we’ll check. I have here the text of that interview, Mr. Hébert, and at page 2, I read the following answer that you have given, at a given time, to Mr. Nadeau and I quote: “I think that never in the history of justice in Canada has a trial been so mishandled where justice, in my opinion, would have been so held up to ridicule.” End of quote.
The trial you talk about, is it the one you only have read the testimonies of 77 out of 80 witnesses ?
A It is exactly that trial.
(To be continued)

JACQUES HÉBERT TÉMOIGNE DEVANT LA COMMISSION BROSSARD TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION

JACQUES HÉBERT TÉMOIGNE DEVANT LA COMMISSION BROSSARD

Je publierai la semaine prochaine des extraits du témoignage de Jacques Hébert devant la Commission Brossard. Il était assisté des avocats Pierre Elliott Trudeau et Raymond Daoust. En l'absence de ses avocats, le juge Brossard lui avait permis d'interroger des témoins.

JACQUES HÉBERT TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION

I shall post next week excerpts from Jacques Hébert's testimony before the Brossard Commission. His counsels were Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Raymond Daoust. Justice Brossard had granted him the permission to examine witnesses in the absence of his counsels.

RHODA, LA SOEUR DE COFFIN, DEVANT LA COMMISSION BROSSARD COFFIN'S SISTER RHODA TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION (1)

Le témoignage de Wilson McGregor a constitué un élément de preuve important dans la condamnation de Coffin. McGregor avait déclaré devant le jury de Percé qu’il avait vu « the muzzle of a gun », le canon d’un fusil, dans la camionnette que Coffin conduisait au sortir de la forêt en juin 1953.
En 1955, après le rejet de l’appel de la cause de Coffin, on s’est appliqué à trouver d’autres moyens de se porter à la défense de Coffin. C’est ainsi que McGregor a contredit le témoignage qu’il avait rendu devant le jury de Percé. À ce propos, je reproduis le témoignage que Rhoda, la sœur de Coffin, a rendu devant la Commission Brossard.
Cliquez sur les images ci-dessus pour lire deux versions de la déclaration de McGregor.

Wilson McGregor’s testimony was an important element of proof in Coffin’s condemnation. McGregor had declared before the Percé jury that he had seen “the muzzle of a gun” in the back of the pick-up truck Coffin was driving when he came out of the bush in June 1953.
In 1955, after the appeal of Coffin’s case was turned down, members of his family and friends tried to find other means to help him. So it was that McGregor contradicted the testimony he had given before the Percé jury. In this connection, I reproduce the testimony of Rhoda, Coffin’s sister, before the Brossard Commission.
Click on the above pictures to read two versions of McGregor’s statement.

Canada
Province of Québec INQUIRY COMMISSION INTO
District of Gaspé THE COFFIN AFFAIR

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE ROGER BROSSARD, J.S.C.
On this second (2nd) of June, Anno Domini nineteen hundred and sixty-four (1964), personally came and appeared, at Percé,

RHODA COFFIN STANLEY
Being called as a witness herein, and
WHO, having been duly sworn doth depose and say as follows:

THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION:
Q What is your maiden name, please?
A Rhoda Coffin.
Q Your husband’s name?
A Felix Stanley.
Q Your age?
A Thirty-nine (39)
Q Your occupation?
A Housekeeper
Q Your address?
A York Centre
Me JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.,
Legal Counsel to the Commission:
I will ask, My Lord, that during the evidence of Mrs. Stanley, that Weston Eagle and Mrs. McGregor be excluded from the courtroom.
THE COURT:
Will Mr. Eagle…

Me JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.,
Legal Counsel to the Commission :
Mr. Weston Eagle and Mrs. Wilson McGregor…
THE COURT:
Will you please wait in the other room?
Me JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.,
Legal Counsel to the Commission :
Q Mrs. Stanley, I understand that you are a relative of the late Wilbert Coffin?
A That’s right, I am a sister.
Q You are his sister?
A That’s right.
Q Now, do you know Mr. Wilson McGregor who was a witness at your brother’s trial, in nineteen fifty-four (1954)?
A Yes, I know him.
Q Did you come to learn, sometime after the trial that, apparently, Mr. McGregor desired or wished to change something in the evidence which he had given at the trial?
A That’s right, I heard that.
Q. You heard that?
A Yes.
Q Could you tell me exactly what you heard?
A Well, I just heard that Mr. McGregor was – he was not quite sure if it was a rifle he had seen or whether it was a piece of iron.
Q You heard that?
A That is what I heard.
Q Could you tell me about how long after the trial you heard about that?
A Now, I could not say, I don’t know how long.
Q Would you say…
A I think it was the following year, but I am not quite sure. I would not have any idea, I am sorry.
Q Now, let us put it this way. Would you have heard about that in the few weeks immediately following the trial or only several months later?
A I don’t know.
Q You don’t know?
A No.
THE COURT:
Q Haven’t you any idea at all?
A No, sir, I haven’t any idea.
Me JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.,
Legal Counsel to the Commission:
Q Could you not even tell whether you heard about that in the same year the trial had taken place, or in nineteen fifty-five (1955), the following year?
A No, it was not in nineteen fifty-five (1955)… it must have been either… it must have been in fifty-four (1954).
Q So you heard about that, you say, in the same year as the trial had taken place?
A It must have been after the trial was over.
Q. Of course, but if you say you heard about it in nineteen fifty-four (1954), then it was after the trial?
A That’s right.
Q. But in the same year?
A That’s right.
THE COURT:
Q When you speak about the trial, you mean the trial that took place here in Percé?
A That’s right, sir, yes.
Q Because there were other proceedings that took place during the months following the trial?
A That’s right.
Q Now, do you recall that attempts were made to obtain from the Federal Government or the Minister of Justice, a new trial or a change of the sentence? Do you remember that?
A Yes, I remember that, sir.
Q Now, in terms of the period when these attempts were made when exactly did you say that you heard about McGregor or Mr. McGregor having some doubts as to what he had seen?
A Well, I cannot remember the date, sir. I do not remember the year.
Q I am not asking you for a specific date, but would you have heard about Mr. McGregor having such doubts around the time that attempts were being made to obtain a new trial for your brother?
A Possibly, it could have been, yes.
Q It could have been around that time?
A It could have been, yes.
Me JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.,
Legal Counsel to the Commission:
Q You were just telling me, however, a moment ago, Mrs. Stanley, that you thought that “ you had heard about this change of evidence on the part of Mr. McGregor in the same year as the trial had taken place”.
Is it more possible that it would be in the same year or only at the time when efforts were made in order to secure a new trial or a change of sentence?
A Well, I say, like I did first, I don’t remember what time it was.
Q You don’t remember?
A I don’t remember, no
Q Well…
A I don’t remember the date; I don’t remember what year.
Q Not even what year?
A No, I could not even swear positively what year.
Q But it was at a given moment that you heard that. Could you tell us from whom you heard that?
A No, sir, I could not tell you from whom I heard it.
Q. Could you tell us where you heard about that?
A I think it was at my own house, in York Centre, where I heard it.
Q Then, would you have heard that from any of your relatives?
A I must have been some of the family talking it over.
Q Could you give us any idea who brought – or broke the news first at home?
A Well, I believe that first I heard of it was my brother Donald, my brother Leslie and my brother-in-law, Mr. Eagle, talking it over.
Q They would have talked the thing over before you, yourself, had learnt about it.
You learned from them, is that the point?
A Yes, As far as I know, that is the ones I heard it from
A And you had not heard at all about this thing before your brothers brought the news home?
A I heard no rumours outside the house.
Q Now, are you aware of steps being taken at some time, in order to try to obtain a change of sentence, or a new trial for your brother?
A That’s right, yes.
Q You are aware of that?
A Yes.
Q Would you remember at about what time those steps were being taken? Was that in the same year as the trial or in the following year?
A I believe after the trial, they started working immediately on an appeal.
Q Yes…
A But, when it came up at the Court, I don’t know.
Q You don’t know?
A No.
Q Now, in any event, when you heard about those rumours, as you put it … and let us say those were rumours …was that at the time when efforts were made to obtain a new trial for your brother?
A Possibly, because we were trying to do all we could to help him naturally.
Q Well, then, what happened then, when your brothers and your brother-in-law discussed the thing in front of you at home?
A Well, I don’t remember what the conversation was at all.
Q Did you take part in the conversation?
A Well, no doubt I did.
Q Was any decicion reached as to what should be done in that connection or if anything should be done at all?
A I think at the time it was decided that two of them would go to see Mr. McGregor and ask him if it was true.
Q Was it decided who would go to see Mr. McGregor?
A Yes, my brother Leslie and Weston Eagle.
Q Now, do you know how long after that conversation took place they both left and went to see Mr. McGregor?
A No, I am sorry, I don’t know.
Q Did you come to learn about the result of the steps they were supposed to take in that direction?
A Yes, I saw the statement.
Q You saw the statement?
A That’s right.
Q Is it this statement which has been filed before this Commission as exhibit 123, which I am just showing you right now?
A That’s right, it looks like the same one I saw then.
Q I suppose it must be either your brother or your brother-in-law who brought it back home?
A Yes… I don’t remember which one it was, but it was.
Q And they showed it to you?
A That’s right.
Q Was there any discussion at the time at home about that statement being shown to the members of the family?
A Not that I can recall.
Q Well, would you remember whether it was said who had actually drafted the statement?
A No, I don’t remember.
Q There was nothing mentioned about that? Nothing at all?
A It could have been, but I don’t remember, sir.
Q Before your brother and your brother-in-law went to see Mr. McGregor, at the time you discussed the matter with them, was it discussed what kind of a statement should be obtained from Mr. McGregor and what should be written or embodied in that statement?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q No discussion at all? Now, in any event, when they came back and one of them at least had the statement in his hands and showed it to you, what was it decided to do with the statement?
A You mean what would we do once we had it?
Q. Yes.
A If I am not mistaken I think I, myself, sent it to Mr. Gravel, the lawyer.
THE COURT:
I am sorry, Madam, would you mind talking just a little bit louder.
A I will try to, sir.
Q And turning towards me.
A Yes, sir.
Me JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.,
Legal Counsel to the Commission:
Q So, you say that you sent it over to Mr Gravel?
A Yes, sir.
Q Had you, or any members of your family, been in touch with Mr. Gravel before the statement was obtained?
A Well, I believe we had a continual correspondence with Mr. Gravel.
Q But most especially with respect to Mr. McGregor?
A No, I don’t remember, sir, if I wrote and asked him if he wanted me to send him a statement like that or if I just sent it to him and he sent it back saying that “it had to be done before a notary”. I don’t remember which it was.
Q Yes. Do you know whether…
THE COURT:
I am sorry, Mr. Deschênes, I would line to have this last answer read over.
(The following answer is read by the Reporter.)
A “No, I don’t remember, sir, I wrote and asked him if he wanted me to send him a statement like that or if I just sent it to him and he sent it back saying that “it had to be done before a notary”. I don’t remember which it was.”
Me JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.,
Legal Counsel to the Commission:
Q In any event, do you know whether Mr. McGregor was called upon to give another statement, either before a notary, as you say, or before a lawyer?
A I don’t remember, but he certainly must have, but I don’t remember anything about it.
Q You were not instrumental in bringing any new statement from Mr. McGregor?
A No, sir.
Me JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C,
Legal Counsel to the Commission:
It is your witness.
Me François de B. GRAVEL,
Attorney for the Coffin family:
Q I understand that you recognize the affidavit produced as exhibit 123, which was exhibited he by Mr. Deschênes?
A That’s right.
Q I mean the exhibit.
A That’s right.
Q And this is dated the third (3rd) of September, nineteen fifty-five (1955)?
A That’s right.
Q Can you remember if, a few days after, you contacted me by correspondence, or by telephone, to the effect that I was not satisfied by the contents which could have been read to me over the phone and I asked to have this made in a more formal way?
THE COURT:
Don’t you think your question is almost an answer and it is extremely suggestive?
Me FRANCOIS DE B. GRAVEL,
Attorney for the Coffin family:
My Lord, I will change my question.
THE COURT;
I think it should be changed, yes.
ME FRANCOIS DE B. GRAVEL,
Attorney for the Coffin Family:
Q After the third (3rd) of September, nineteen fifty-five (1955), can you remember if it was by telephone or by correspondence, you had with me…
A I cannot remember, sir, because we had a great many telephone conversations and also a great deal of correspondence.
Q But for this, especially this exhibit 123, you cannot say?
A I don’t remember whether it was a letter or whether it was a letter or whether it was a telephone conversation.
Q Do you remember that you have been to Mr. Pidgeon, at Gaspé, concerning another affidavit or statement of Mr. Wilson McGregor, which is produced as exhibit 122 and signed, as you can see, before Mr. Joseph? (Note: Voyez ce document présenté ci-haut. See that document shown above.)
A I don’t think I went to Mr. Pidgeon about that.
THE COURT;
Q You don’t think what?
A I don’t think I went to Mr. Pidgeon with this. I think it was my brother.
Me FRANCOIS DE B. GRAVEL,
Attorney for the Coffin Family:
Q You think it was your brother?
A That’s right.
Q You don’t remember for yourself?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know at what time you informed me that McGregor gave you that statement dated September third (3rd), nineteen fifty-five (1955)?
A I don’t remember the date, but it must have been around the same time.
Q About the same time?
A Either that week or the following week.
Q I understand it is the year after the trial. The trial took place in the summer of nineteen fifty-four (1954)
A That’s right.
Q What you read here, what you can read here on exhibit 123, was it only a few weeks or a few months, or more that that, that you heard about that – about what is said by McGregor?
A I don’t remember what time it was after we heard the rumour that we went to see about it, but it could not have been too long.
Q Can you say about the rumour – let us take, to start, the date of the third (3rd) of September, nineteen fifty-five (1955) – did you hear the first time, the rumour, a month before, or six (6) months before, or a year before, or ten (10) days before? Can you give an approximate date to the Royal Commission?
A No, sir, I cannot give an approximate date, I am sorry.
Q But, can you state that it was after the trial, to the President?
A It was after the trial, here, in Percé, yes.
Q Now, at what time did you meet me for the first time?
A The summer of the trial, that was here at Percé.
Q In the summer?
A That’s right.
Q About how many days before the starting of the trial?
A I cannot remember the date, but I know it was on a Sunday.
Q A couple of days before?
A It was two or three days, I think, before the trial.
Q To your knowledge, did any member of your family meet me before?
THE COURT:
“To your knowledge…” what?
Me GRANCOIS DE B. GRAVEL,
Attorney for the Coffin family:
Q …any member of you family meet me before?
A No, none of us had ever met you before, not to my knowledge.
Q And during the trial, did you have any communication with any of the defence lawyers?
A Well, how do you mean, sir?
Q Did you contact, you or any member of your family, have any communication with any of the defence lawyers?
A I don’t know how you mean that.
Q During the trial, in July nineteen fifty-four (1954)
A Yes.
Q .. and the first days of August, nineteen fifty-four (1954), did you have any communication with any of the lawyer acting for Wilbert’
A Well, yes
Q With whom?
A Mr. Maher.
Me FRANCOIS DE B. GRAVEL,
Attorney for the Coffin family:
That is all, My Lord.
Mr. JACQUES HÉBERT:
Q One question, Mrs. Stanley. To your knowledge, was Mr. McGregor quite willing to give that statement, or if he had been forced in some way?
A He was certainly not forced at all. He was very willing to give it.
THE COURT:
Q How do you know that, Madam?
A Well…
Q On what do you base your statement that “Mr. McGregor was certainly willing to give that statement”?
A …
Q Did you see him sign it? You were not there when it was signed, were you?
A no, sir.
Q Had you spoken to him before it was signed?
A No, sir.
Q So, if you had not spoken to him, it was after the signature of that statement?
A I have never spoken to Mr. McGregor.
Q On what do you base your statement that Mr. McGregor was certainly willing to give that statement and execute it?
A The same as what we base our rumours on, where we had heard it.
Q You are basing it on rumours or on statements that were made to you by your brother and by Mr. Eagle?
A That’s right, sir.
Q And by anyone else?
A No, sir.
Q So, your knowledge of the statement that you have just made is not personal, it is knowledge acquired from statements made to you by others?
A That’s right, sir.
THE COURT:
Will you let me see exhibit 123, please?
(The exhibit is shown to his lordship)
Q Madam, will you please look at this statement which is exhibit 123. Do you remember having seen this statement before it was actually signed? It bears three (3) signatures, I think. (Note: Revoyez ce document ci-haut. Look once more at that document above.)
A That’s right.
Q Is there a signature of Mr. McGregor, Mr. Eagle and your brother?
A That’s right.
Q Do you remember having seen this statement before, without the signatures?
A No, sir.
Q You did not see it before it was signed?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ever see any writing bearing the same words that are written on that statement before this statement was actually signed?
A no, sir.
Q Were you at the house when your brother.. it was Donald, I think, who went with Weston Eagle, isn’t, to Mr. McGregor’s house?
A Leslie and Weston Eagle.
Q Were you at the house when they left to go and see Mr. McGregor?
A I don’t know, sir… it may have been the same evening; it may have been a few days later, I don’t remember.
Q Do you remember whether either of them told you what kind of a statement they were proposing to obtain from Mr. McGregor?
A I don’t remember, sir.
Q There is so much noise around the bench that I can hardly hear you at times.
A I am sorry.
THE COUR (To the Stenographer)
What is the answer to the last question?
(The last answer is read by the Reporter)
A “I don’t remember, sir.”
Q Is that the full answer?
A I guess so.
Q Were you at the house when they came back with the statement?
A To the best of my knowledge, I was, sir.
Q Do you remember what they told you?
A No, sir.
Q Did they mention that they were satisfied with the statement they had obtained?
A I don’t remember, Your Honour, what discussion was made on the subject at all.
Q How about your brother and Mr. Eagle, which one of the two would, to your knowledge, have taken the initiative of obtaining that statement from Mr. McGregor?
A I don’t know, sir.
Q Which one of the two, to your knowledge, seemed to be the more interested in obtaining this statement?
A I don’t know, sir.
Q Which one of the two discussed about that statement more than the other?
A Well, they were all discussing it equally, I would say.
Q Which one of the two spoke most about the rumour that came to your knowledge? Was it Mr. Eagle or was it your brother?
A Well, like I said, sir, I think they were speaking equally about it. I do not really know which would be the most interested.
Q Did both of them seem to know as much about these alleged rumours as the other?
A I believe so.
Q Your brother was as much familiar with these alleged rumours as Mr. Eagle, is that what I must understand?
A Well, to my knowledge, they were, yes.
Q The communications which were made with Mr. Gravel, were they made by you or were they made by Mr. Eagle, or were they made by your brother, or one of your brothers?
A I think they were made by myself, Your Honour.
A By Yourself?
A. Yes.

DONALD, LE FRÈRE DE WILBERT COFFIN, TÉMOIGNE DEVANT LA COMMISSION BROSSARD (SUITE)

DONALD, LE FRÈRE DE WILBERT COFFIN, TÉMOIGNE DEVANT LA COMMISSION BROSSARD (SUITE)

WILBERT COFFIN’S BROTHER DONALD TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION (CONTINUED)

EXTRAITS DU TÉMOIGNAGE DE DONALD, LE FRÈRE DE WILBERT COFFIN, DEVANT LA COMMISION BROSSARD : PAGE 3151 ET SUIVANTES DES TRANSCRIPTIONS DE LA COMMISSION

EXCERPTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DONALD, WILBERT COFFIN’S BROTHER BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION: FROM PAGE 3151 AND FOLLOWING OF THE COMMISSION’S TRANSCRIPTS

CANADA
Province of Québec INQUIRY COMMISSION INTO
THE COFFIN AFFAIR
District of Québec

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE ROGER BROSSARD, J.S.C.

On the 20th day of May 1964, came and appeared:

DONALD FRANCIS COFFIN, welder, domiciled at York Centre, Gaspé, Province of Québec, aged 41, who is being duly sworn upon the Holy Evangelists, doth depose and say:

EXAMINED by Mr. JULES DESHÊNES, Q.C.,
Legal Counsel to the Commission:

(EXAMINATION CONTINUED)

Q. Now, Mr. Coffin, always dealing with about the same period, and that trip of your brother to Montréal, did you happen to see your brother Wilbert in the few weeks before he left Gaspé for Montréal?
A. … yes, I seen him the time that he was up, when this all happened, I seen him I think, twice around that time.
Q. When you say “around that time”, that would be within what period of time?
A. Within a week before he left.
Q. You saw him twice within the week before he left?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you also see him in the two or three or four previous weeks?
A. Well, I used to see him at that time, I was working in a welding shop, I used to seem him a couple of times a week.
Q. Weren’t you prospecting with him, toward the beginning of June?
A. Not at that time, the first week, I suppose, the first part of June, and I went to work with another of my brother in a welding shop.
Q. In any event, you would have seen him at least once a week, and probably a couple of times in the week immediately before he left?
A. Probably.
Q. Would you remember in what state he appeared to be, especially in the last week, before he left?
A. Well, he looked… what exactly do you mean, sir?
Q. I am just asking you whether… I will go direct to it: whether you would not have found that he had been drinking quite heavily, during that week?
A. Not heavily, but I would say he had been drinking, sir.
Q. Would you know over what period of time that would have been going on?
A. … no, I couldn’t say exactly what period of time.
Q. Would it have been a matter of days or weeks?
A. It might have been days, but I wouldn’t say: weeks.
Q. Would it not have been as long as a month and a half, before he left for Montréal?
A. No sir.
Q. You are positive about that?
A. Quite positive, yes.
Q. So, it would have been for what period of time?
A. …..well, say…a week.
Q. A week?
A. A week, I could be sure.
Q. How could you see that?
A. Well, because he was still… he was still prospecting there, and him and Mr. Angus MacDonald had already been up there, one trip, so we were helping buy the supplies, they were still partners, and they had been up, but Mr. MacDonald, he was quite an elderly man, he couldn’t get around in the bush. So, the second time that he went up, he told me he was going up alone, he had quite a distance to walk, and he thought he could get there a lot faster and back out by himself, rather than have Mr. MacDonald with him.
Q. That’s all quite interesting, Mr. Coffin, but I don’t think that’s exactly the point to the question I was putting to you. You told me that you knew, at the time, that your brother had been drinking some for about a week?
A. Yes.
Q. What I am asking from you is: how would you know that? How would that appear to anybody meeting Wilbert at the time?
A. Well, how do you know if anybody has been drinking? You could smell the whisky on him but it didn’t get me, the smell.
Q. Is that the way you came to know that your brother had been drinking for about a week?
A. Yes.
Q. By the smell of his breath?
A. Because I had seen him in that last week more than twice, I had seen him, I don’t know how many times; maybe four or five times.
Q. Maybe four or five times. So, nearly everyday?
A. Nearly everyday. I used to see him then, when he was prospecting in the bush.
Q. Well, was it only then the smell of his breath that told you that he had been drinking, during that week?
A. Yes, because he was quite normal, otherwise.
Q. You knew, I suppose, at the time, sergeant Doyon of the Provincial Police?
A. I knew him to see him yes.
Q. Well, isn’t it a fact that he actually had some discussions or an interview with you while he was investigating the disappearance of the American hunters?
A. Yes, he came to see me.
Q. He came to see you?
A. Yes.
Q. So, he discussed with you, I suppose, the whereabouts of your brother, I suppose?
A. Yes, he wanted to know if I knew where he was.
Q. I am going to quote to you from a report of sergeant Doyon, report which he made on August 20th, 1953, in that very summer.
A. Yes sir.
Q. August 20th 1953, and I am freely translating, but this is the substance of his report. It is drafted in French. Do you read French, Mr. Coffin?
A. No, sir, I don’t.
Q. You don’t. So, I am going to translate, to the best of my ability, and here is what Mr. Doyon writes:
“I recently learned from Donald Coffin, brother of Wilbert, and this, quite recently, that Wilbert had been drinking for about a month and a half before the arrival of the three American hunters. And while he was in that state, Donald added that Wilbert was a very wild guy, to the extent that his brother had to keep watch over him; because, as Donald said, Wilbert then could do anything, and that, since his return from overseas, where he had been at the front for five years.”
A. That is a downright lie.
Q. You say that is a downright lie. Did you say that the whole of what I have read to you is a downright lie?
A. As far as being me telling him that, yes.
Q. So, if I take that back, part by part, if I may say, the first part of Mr. Doyon’s report is that you told him that your brother had been drinking for a month and a half before the arrival of the three American hunters?
A. In the first place, I didn’t know what time the American hunters had arrived in Gaspé, and I certainly anything like that. (sic)
Q. Did you tell, however, Mr. Doyon, that your brother might have been drinking for about a week before he left for Montréal?
A. I probably did, yes.
Q. You probably did. What about the balance of the report? Did you tell Mr. Doyon that in that state your brother was a very wild guy?
A. No sir.
Q. You didn’t use that expression?
A. No sir.
Q. I draw your attention to the fact that in this French written report, Mr. Doyon quotes that in English “very wild guy”.
A. Yes.
Q. Although you have used that very expression yourself?
A. No sir.
Q. You did not?
A. No sir.
Q. Are you positive about that?
A. Quite positive.
Q. Have you spoken to Mr. Doyon about the fact that your brother was subject to being kept watch over since his return from overseas?
Q. That he had to be watched by his brothers since his return from overseas?
A. I never said any such thing, sir.
Q. So, the whole of this paragraph is, according to you, a complete lie?
A. That’s right, sir.
Q. All right. Now, I am going to show to you, Mr. Coffin, another document which has been filed before this Commission as exhibit number 18. Will you take your time, read it through, and tell us if you recognize that statement?
A. ….that’s right, I wrote that, sir.
Q. You wrote it, you said?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you write it from the very beginning to the end?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did anybody dictate that statement to you?
A. No sir.
Q. Could you explain to us under what circumstances you wrote that statement which is dated December 31st 1953?
A. No, I couldn’t be sure of the date, because it is a long time ago, but sergeant Doyon came to my house, and he asked me had I ever – about the facts that is in there. I said I would write it down and send them to him, and that’s what I done.
Q. So you wrote the statement?
A. I wrote the statement and sent it to him.
Q, Well then, I would like to hear the story from you own mouth, Mr. Coffin. The events, which you are referring to in that statement, happened according to you and I am quoting: “During the preliminary hearing of my brother Wilbert Coffin”; end of quote. So, could you tell us exactly what happened during the preliminary hearing of your brother?
A. I will have to try and say it in my own words.
Q. Do, please.
(LE TÉMOIN RACONTE COMMENT IL A AIDÉ RAYMOND MAHER, L’AVOCAT DE SON FRÈRE WILBERT, ET SON ASSISTANT JEAN-GUY HAMEL À ENLEVER LA CARABINE DU CAMP DE WILBERT.)
(THE WITNESS TELLS HOW HE HELPED COFFIN’S LAWYER RAYMOND MAHER AND HIS ASSISTANT JEAN-GUY HAMEL REMOVE THE RIFLE FROM HIS BROTHER WILBERT’S CAMP.) POUR LIRE CE DOCUMENT, CLIQUEZ SUR LES IMAGES CI-DESSUS - CLICK ON THE ABOVE PICTURES TO READ THAT DOCUMENT.

COFFIN'S BROTHER DONALD TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION

CLICK ON THIS PICTURE

SEARCHERS, VICTIMS AND COFFIN

Dans ce témoignage de Donald Coffin devant la Commission Brossard, il est question du paragraphe 45 de la Déclaration que Wilbert Coffin avait faite le 9 octobre 1955. La Commission a analysé chacun des paiements que Coffin a prétendu avoir reçus relativement à son travail de prospecteur. Je vous reproduis ci-dessous ce paragraphe.
Vous pouvez lire sur ce blogue un extrait du rapport Brossard sous le titre CONCESSIONS MINIÈRES ET L’ARGENT DÉPENSÉ PAR COFFIN, 31/01/08 – 10/02/08 – 16/02/08.

In Donald Coffin’s testimony, a reference is made to paragraph 45 of the Statement of Wilbert Coffin, on the 9th October 1955. The Brossard Commission examined each amount listed as having been paid to Wilbert Coffin.
You may read on this blog excerpts from the Brossard report under the title COFFIN’S MINING CLAIMS AND EXPENSES, 31/01/08 – 10/02/08 – 16/02/08.

Here is paragraph 45 from the Statement of Wilbert Coffin on the 9th October 1955:

45. A lot of evidence was given about the money I spent between Gaspé and Montréal and there was some evidence about I lived in Montréal. This is easy to explain. It was my own money paid to me by the following persons for the following amounts and terms for services, I did for them chiefly staking claims:
Greta Miller – May, 1953 $30.00
Iva M. Bryker – “ “ $90.00
Mrs. James Caputo, May, 1953 $40.00
Merryn Annett “ “ $40.00
John E. Eagle “ “ $50.00
Mrs. Marion Petrie Coffin, May 1953 $50.00
P.G. Carey “ “ $60.00
D.H. Coffin “ “ $20.00
Mrs. James Annett “ “ $10.00
Earl Tuzo “ “ $20.00
William H. Petrie June “ $70.00
Donald F. Coffin July “ $50.00
Albert Coffin “ “ $50.00
______
$580.00

EXTRAITS DU TÉMOIGNAGE DE DONALD, LE FRÈRE DE COFFIN, DEVANT LA COMMISSION BROSSARD

EXCERPTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DONALD, WILBERT COFFIN’S BROTHER BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION: FROM PAGE 3151 OF THE COMMISSION TRANSCRIPTIONS

CANADA
Province of Québec INQUIRY COMMISSION INTO
THE COFFIN AFFAIR
District of Québec

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE ROGER BROSSARD, J.S.C.

On the 20th day of May 1964, came and appeared:

DONALD FRANCIS COFFIN, welder, domiciled at York Centre, Gaspé, Province of Québec, aged 41, who is being duly sworn upon the Holy Evangelists, doth depose and say:

EXAMINED by Mr. JULES DESHÊNES, Q.C.,
Legal Counsel to the Commission:
Q. Mr. Coffin, I understand that you are a relative of late Wilbert Coffin?
A. That’s right, Sir.
Q. He was your brother, I understand?
A. That’s right, Sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Coffin, I understand that your brother Wilbert, at some time, used to do some prospecting?
A. That’s right, Sir.
Q. Were you also interested in the same field?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you do any prospecting on your own?
A. Oh, with him, about maybe three months, altogether.
Q. Three months?
A. About three months, yes.
Q. Would you please remind us at about what time you had done that kind of business?
A. In 1953.
Q. In 1953?
A. In the last part of April, May, and part of June.
Q. And part of June 1953?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you actually staked any claims?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. I am going to call upon you to try to refresh your memory through a passage I am going to read to you from a book, which was written by Mr. Jacques Hébert, and I am going to quote to you from the English translation?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Have you read the latest book of Mr. Jacques Hébert?
A. I have, Sir.
Q. In the English translation?
A. Yes sir.
Q. So, it is rather recently that you have read the book?
A. Yes sir.
Q. I suppose you have seen that your name appears at various places in that book?
A. Yes sir.
Q. So, you are not surprised if I am going to use the book to quote passages to you?
A. That’s right.
Q. Right. I am going to quote to you from page 58, at the bottom of the page, where the author writes as follows: “Matte- speaking of Captain Matte, whom you know, of course…”
A. Yes.
Q. “Matte knew that Patterson – that is, Vincent Patterson – you know also Vincent Patterson, don’t you?
A. Yes sir.
Q. “Matte knew that Patterson was at Wilbert Coffin’s camp one night while Donald Coffin, the prospector’s brother, was cleaning his rifle. According to Patterson, Donald warned that if any Americans were to trespass where “our claims” were staked out, he’d go after them with a shot-gun.”
A. That’s not true, Sir.
Q. Do you remember ever having made that statement?
A. Not to the best of my knowledge, no sir.
Q. Are you positive that you never made that statement, or is it only to the best of you knowledge?
A. I am absolutely sure that I never made such a statement.
Q. You never made such a statement?
A. Because I never, at the time, the only gun that I owned was a 22, and as far as I know, I never had it up to where we were staking claims; so I had no rifle to be cleaning, in the first place.
Q. So, you would not even have done that gun cleaning or rifle cleaning which is referred to in that passage?
A. I had no gun there with me, Sir.
Q. All right. Now, you remember, I suppose Mr. Coffin, that during the same summer, towards the middle of June, your brother left Gaspé and actually came to Montréal?
A. That’s right, Sir.
Q. You remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember having, about that period of time, paid to him, or sent to him any amount of money?
A. Yes, shortly before he left, before he left Gaspé, there was some mix-up in the way they were staking claims up there; there is two different ways to stake claims; probably you realise there is surveyed territory, and unsurveyed territory, on Crown property. Most of us, when we first staked there, we had staked the wrong way. We didn’t know. So, Mr. Billy Baker sent $50.00 to me because they were going to stake claims, they wanted to know the right way to have them staked, there. Well, he got approximately $35.00, I suppose, of that, and while he was in Montréal, I had a phone call from him, at the time, I was in town, and I had $15.00 due him, and I wired it up to him in Montréal.
Q. So, do I understand that your brother would have got that $50.00?
A. About, not all of it, but about $30.00, $35.00.
Q. Fifteen dollars ($15.00) from you, as you just stated…
A. Yes personally.
THE COURT:
The witness said he got $30.00 or 35.00 before he left.
A. Before he left, yes sir.
Q. And he got the additional $15.00 once he was in Montréal?
A. That’s right, sir.
Q. You wired the money?
A. That’s right.
MR. JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.,
Legal Counsel to the Commission,
Q. Then, that makes it full $50.00, does it not?
A. That’s right, sir.
Q. Now, whom did he get that $50.00 before he left Gaspé, whom did he get that from?
A. From me, sir.
Q. From you also?
A. Just a minute, sir, I think you are mistaken. I was paying $50.00 to show this… there was two, I forget who they were, how to stake their claims, and he got $35.00 of the $50.00
Q. Well, from whom did he receive that amount?
A. He received it from me, because it was paid to me, and I gave him $35.00 out of it, and I guess the balance…
Q. At about what time was that, Mr. Coffin?
A. …I couldn’t tell you. I am sorry, it could be two or three weeks, maybe, at least, before he left. Q. Before he left?
A. Yes.
Q. Would that be in June or in May?
A. I figure it was somewhere around the last part of May.
Q. And then, once he came to Montréal, you wired him the additional $15.00?
A. That’s right, sir.
Q. Was that at his request?
A. Yes sir.
Q. It was. Since you have read, Mr. Coffin, Mr. Hébert’s book, I suppose that you have read in that book the statement which Wilbert Coffin had given in October 1955, and in which he lists a certain number of payments?
A. That’s right.
Q. Which he says he had received?
A. Yes sir.
Q. At about the time of his trip. Do you have read that?
A. Yes sir.
Q. I am showing you here this statement, and I am drawing your attention to paragraph 45?
A. Right.
Q. In which you see that certain payments are detailed for the month of May 1953?
A. That’s right.
Q. Do you acknowledge that during the month of May 1953, no payment, according to Wilbert Coffin, is supposed to have come from you?
A. That’s right, sir.
Q. Now, where you come in – you are Donald F. Coffin?
A. That’s right.
Q, And the payment, according to Wilbert Coffin, was made in July 1953?
A. In July 1953? There has to be a mistake there, because in July 1953, I only paid him $15.00; I sent $15.00 from the Town of Gaspé to Montréal.
Q. Had you ever given a statement to that effect, Mr. Coffin?
A. No Sir.
Q. Never?
A. Not that I remember.
Q. If I were…
A. Never a sworn statement, anyway.
Q. Oh no, I didn’t ask you whether you had given a sworn statement, I am asking you whether you did give any statement at all?
A. I am sorry, I don’t remember.
Q. Would there have been any difference in the value of you statement, depending upon whether it was sworn or not?
A. No sir.
Q. Then, why the question if it was sworn or not? I am asking you if you gave a statement, period.
A. I don’t know. I am telling you, I am telling you, I couldn’t tell you whether I gave a statement or not.
Q. Well, would you have a look at this document, which is document number 14 in the file of the Department of Justice, and tell us now if you remember having given that statement?
A. … I am sorry, Sir, I just don’t remember. It is my writing, it is a copy of my writing, so I must have given it, but I couldn’t say if I did or not.
Q. But you do recognize your handwriting don’t you?
A. Yes, it is definitely my handwriting.
Q. Would you have any idea how you came about to give that statement?
A. Well, the only thing it says is the address to S.S. Eastern Shell, Toronto. Somebody must have written me to get that statement, and I must have wrote that statement out, and sent it to them.

THE COURT;
Q. Were you working there at the time?
A. Yes sir, I was working at Eastern Shell.
MR. JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.,
Legal Counsel to the Commission;
Q. And, would you remember to whom you addressed the statement, at the time?
A. I am sorry, I don’t remember.
Q. You don’t remember at all?
A. No.
Q. I see. But, I find that in that statement, you do refer, as you have just a moment ago here, to a payment of $15.00, which you sent through the C.N.R. telegraph, to Mr. Harold Petrie’s address in Montréal?
A. That’s right.
Q. So, do I have to conclude that when your brother mentioned a payment of $50.00 from you in July 1953, in his sworn statement here, he was mistaken?
A. In July, yes.
(TO BE CONTINUED NEX WEEK)