DUPLESSIS DIT NON AU MARIAGE COFFIN-PETRIE DUPLESSIS SAYS NO TO COFFIN-PETRIE'S MARRIAGE

DUPLESSIS A-T-IL ÉTÉ ODIEUX DE REFUSER QUE WILBERT COFFIN ET MARION PETRIE SE MARIENT?

En septembre dernier, je désirais vous présenter un billet pour souligner le cinquantième anniversaire du décès de Maurice Duplessis. Mais avant, je voulais relire le livre de John Edward Belliveau The Coffin Murder Case. Par l’entremise de ma bibliothèque municipale, j’ai demandé, en août dernier, qu’on le fasse venir de Bibliothèque et archives nationales. Je l’attends toujours.
Par bonheur, en causant avec Alton Price, il m’a offert gentiment de me faire parvenir le sien. Je viens de le recevoir. Merci Alton.
On en a voulu beaucoup à Maurice Duplessis de n’avoir pas permis au couple Coffin-Petrie de s’épouser avant le jour fatal. Dans les piles de documents que j’ai lus sur cette affaire, je cherchais toujours une réponse à cette question. Je n’en ai trouvé qu’une seule. C’est John Edward Belliveau qui la donne dans son livre The Coffin Murder Case. Ses explications m’apparaissent vraisemblables.
En cliquant sur les images ci-dessus, vous pouvez lire les extraits pertinents.

Vos commentaires...

WAS DUPLESSIS ODIOUS IN REFUSING WILBERT COFFIN PERMISSION TO MARRY MARION PETRIE ?

Last September, I had planned to underline the 50th anniversary of the passing away of Maurice Duplessis. But before doing so, I ordered, for a second reading, a copy of John Edward Belliveau’s The Coffin Murder Case, from Bibliothèque et archives nationales through my municipal library. I’m still awaiting that book.
Fortunately, while talking with Alton Price about this matter, he offered graciously to send me his copy. I just received it. Thank you, Alton.
A lot of people were angry at Maurice Duplessis for not having allowed Coffin and Petrie to marry before the fatal day. In the stacks of papers that I have read on this matter, I kept looking for an answer to this question. I have only found one. John Edward Belliveau gives a plausible answer in his book The Coffin Murder Case.

Click on the above pictures to read Belliveau’s explanations.

Please leave your comments...

POURQUOI LES AVOCATS DE COFFIN N'ONT PAS PRÉSENTÉ DE DÉFENSE (TROISIÈME ET DERNIÈRE PARTIE)

POURQUOI LES AVOCATS DE COFFIN N'ONT PAS PRÉSENTÉ DE DÉFENSE

EXTRAIT DU RAPPORT BROSSARD
PARTIE IV
LA PREUVE DÉLAISSÉE, IGNORÉE OU.. ABSENTE
Chapitre 2
POURQUOI LA DÉFENSE S’EST TUE

Me FRANÇOIS DE B. GRAVEL, autre défenseur de Wilbert Coffin, fut lui aussi longuement interrogé devant cette Commission. Son témoignage qui dura plusieurs jours ne fut ni le plus clair, ni le plus serein, ni le plus persuasif, ni le plus satisfaisant des témoignages reçus par cette Commission ; il en fut même, à maintes reprises, le plus décevant surtout lorsqu’il porta sur des faits qui touchaient directement ou indirectement aux allégations contenues dans l’affidavit de son client Coffin, aux circonstances qui entourèrent l’obtention de la preuve documentaire dont le Ministère de la Justice fut saisi et sur les renseignements qu’il aurait pu communiquer lui-même à Hébert pour la préparation de son premier ouvrage. Sur tous ces points, son témoignage fut malheureusement rempli d’explications boiteuses, de tergiversations, d’hésitations, de prétendues nécessités de référer à son dossier et à ses « offices mémos », de faux-fuyants, de tangentes en direction de faits ne relevant nullement des questions qui lui étaient posées et, malheureusement aussi, de contradictions. La partie de son témoignage afférente à la décision qui fut prise de ne pas faire entendre Coffin ou des témoins en sa faveur ne fut pas elle-même exempte de « ces faiblesses2. Plus particulièrement :
Sont plus que boiteuses ses explications quant à son affirmation qu’était vraie la déclaration de Coffin « I twas my personal desire to testify for my own defence » ; ce n’est qu’après beaucoup d’hésitation qu’il consent à admettre ne pas croire que Coffin « aurait souvent voulu intervenir pour confondre un témoin qui entraînait le jury sur une fausse piste» ni savoir que Coffin aurait supplié son avocat de le laisser parler.
Sur des questions plus que suggestives de M. Hébert, Me Gravel déclare qu’à plusieurs reprises Coffin lui aurait manifesté le désir de témoigner au procès ; mais il affaiblit la force de l’affirmation précédente en déclarant que dans ses entrevues avec sont client, au sous-sol du Palais de Justice à Percé (pendant le procès) « on he discutait pas du tout d’une possibilité de témoigner, mais on discutait des témoignages rendus».
Après avoir déclaré que Wilbert Coffin lui a demandé de témoigner, à la question qui lui fut posée pour savoir s’il en avait discuté avec son collègue, Me Maher, il répond : « Il y a eu plusieurs discussions entre Wilbert Coffin et moi-même et après, M. Maher et moi-même, seuls, ou M. Maher, Louis Doiron et moi-même».
Il admet, à regret, qu’il a pris connaissance des procédures de l’enquête préliminaire ; (en fait, la preuve démontre qu’il s’en était fait venir des copies peu de temps après avoir produit sa comparution en septembre 1953, plusieurs mois avant le procès).
Il se serait écoulé à peine vingt-quatre heures entre le moment où la Couronne a fini sa preuve et celui où Me Maher a fait sa déclaration « the defence rests ».
Me Gravel fait de la haute voltige pour tenter de faire retomber sur Me Maner seul la responsabilité de la décision de ne pas faire de défense, et ce, en faisant des distinctions subtiles entre le mandat qu’avait Me Maher de conduire l’enquête et de son mandat exclusif à lui de ne s’occuper que des questions de droit, en laissant entendre qu’il n’était pas au courant des témoins qu’il y aurait possibilité de faire entendre. (La preuve a révélé le contraire en ce qui a trait aux témoins relatifs à la jeep Arnold, à la prétendue jeep Lorne Patterson, et en ce qui a t rait aux membres de la famille de Wilbert Coffin ; elle a révélé aussi que Me Gravel a contre-interrogé un certain nombre de témoins de la Couronne).
Me Gravel laisse entendre qu’il avait été avisé par Me Maloney de faire entendre Coffin comme témoin, alors que nous savons par le témoignage de Me Maloney que ses conseils sur ce point ne furent que conditionnels et sous toute réserve.
Enfin, Me Gravel admet que lorsque Me Maher déclara « the defence rests », il n’a fait aucune déclaration et s’est contenté de se taire.
Fut plus particulièrement caractéristique de l’attitude de Me Gravel devant cette Commission la réponse suivante qu’il fit à une question que lui posa le Président du Tribunal pour savoir s’il se rappelait avoir entendu son père lui dire, au vestiaire du Palais de Justice de Québec, en lui montrant le volume de M. Hébert : « voilà ton livre » : « Avant le début de cette enquête, M. le président, jamais, au meilleur de mon souvenir. Je serais très surpris. Permettez-moi de réitérer : Sûrement non ». (Or, nous savons aujourd’hui par la preuve subséquente que cette remarque de Me Gravel, père, fut véritablement faite à son fils.)
Sont également caractéristiques de l’attitude ambiguë de Me Gravel d’une part ses déclarations que la défense avait déjà tous les éléments nécessaires pour présenter une défense « positive» ( ?) et que les éléments de cette défense « positive » résultaient exclusivement des conversations qu’il avait eues avec son client et nullement de témoignages de l’extérieur, et d’autre part sa déclaration subséquente que, lorsqu’il déclara (devant la Commission) que la défense était prête (à faire entendre des témoins), il n’avait pas dit que Coffin était prêt à témoigner et que la défense reposerait surtout sur le témoignage éventuel de Coffin.
Me Gravel s’est réfugié derrière le secret professionnel pour refuser de mentionner les noms des témoins sur lesquels il pouvait compter et dont des listes auraient été dressées ; puis, il finit par donner des renseignements qui tendent à établir qu’il était parfaitement au courant des témoins auxquels Me Maher songeait relativement à l’affaire de la jeep Arnold.
C’est avec beaucoup de réticences et d’hésitations que Me Gravel admet qu’il avait pris connaissance du dossier de l’enquête préliminaire; prié par Me Noël Dorion de dire s’il a vérifié si l’affidavit de Coffin (d’octobre 1955) était conforme à sa déclaration « statutaire » d’août 1953, il refuse de répondre directement à la question et se réfugie derrière Me Maloney dont il dit qu’il a eu tout le dossier complet en sa possession.
Comment, dans les circonstances, accorder beaucoup de force à toute cette partie du témoignage de Me Gravel et tout simplement à cette partie de son témoignage qui se réfère à la question de la décision de ne pas faire entendre Coffin ?
Après s’être réfugié une fois de plus derrière le secret professionnel pour refuser de répondre à des questions portant sur la décision qui aurait été prise par lui et ses collègues de ne pas faire entendre Coffin, mais à la suite de la décision du Président de la Commission de rejeter l’objection formulée par Me Gravel pour le motif que Me Maher et lui-même avaient été relevés de leur secret sur ce point particulier par leur client par suite de l’affirmation contenue au paragraphe 3 de l’affidavit de Coffin à l’effet qu’on ne le laissa pas témoigner bien qu’il eût désiré le faire, Me Gravel donne les renseignements suivants :
Il savait depuis plusieurs jours que Me Maher dirait : « the defence rests ».
S’il n’a pas protesté, c’est parce qu’il croyait, comme il le croit encore, que les procureurs de la défense doivent être unanimes devant les jurés.
Il n’y a jamais eu de décision unanime prise entre lui et Me Maher et Me Doiron.
Le matin du jour où la déclaration fut faite, il savait qu’elle serait faite lorsqu’il s’est rendu à la Cour et il en connaissait les conséquences.
Il se ravise et déclare qu’il croit que c’est le matin même que Me Maher lui a dit ce qu’il dirait.
Il admet que deux jours avant que la Couronne ne termine sa preuve, Me Doiron avait été choisi pour plaider en français (et l’on sait qu’à ce moment Me Doiron savait qu’il parlerait après les procureurs de la Couronne).
Il admet qu’entre le verdict et la sentence, Coffin n’a rien dit et n’a pas répondu à la question du greffier : « Have you something to say before sentence is passed upon you ? »
Il ignore si Me Maher ou Me Doiron ont averti Coffin qu’aucune défense ne serait faite.
Il prétend que lui-même n’en a jamais averti Coffin.
Si l’on tient compte du fait que Me Gravel connaissait, comme Me Maher, la déclaration de Coffin du 6 août 1953, le droit qu’aurait eu la Couronne de produire cette déclaration et de contre-interroger Coffin advenant le cas où il témoignerait, du fait que Me Maher était d’opinion (avec raisons comme nous le verrons plus tard) que cette déclaration contenait des déclarations de Coffin dangereuses pou lui, du fait que Me Maher et Me Gravel logèrent pendant toute la durée du procès dans la même cabine et s’y rencontrèrent tous les jours, de la collaboration et de la coopération que doivent nécessairement s’accorder un avocat et son conseil et qui, aux dires de Me Maher ont été accordées, de la gravité des conséquences de la décision qui fut prise, il est inconcevable que cette décision n’ait pas été discutée, comme l’affirment catégoriquement Me Maher et Me Doiron, entre les trois procureurs de la défense, et que Me Gravel n’y ait pas acquiescé en fin de compte, même si, à l’origine, il avait pu entretenir, comme Me Maher, une opinion contraire. (Fin de ce chapitre)

VOS COMMENTAIRES…

WHY COFFIN'S COUNSELS KEPT SILENT (THIRD AND LAST PART)

EXCERPT FROM THE BROSSARD REPORT
PART IV
PROOF ABANDONED, IGNORED OR… ABSENT
Chapter 2
WHY COFFIN’S COUNSELS KEPT SILENT
(A literal translation by Clément Fortin)

Mtre FRANÇOIS DE B. GRAVEL, another Wilbert Coffin’s counsel, was also lengthily examined before this Commission. His testimony which lasted several days was not the clearest nor the most serene, nor the most persuasive, nor the most satisfying this Commission had received; it was even, on several occasions, the most deceiving, especially when it concerned facts related directly or indirectly to the allegations contained in the affidavit of his client Coffin, the circumstances surrounding the obtainment of documentary proof of which the Department of Justice was seized and on the information he might have himself communicated to Hébert for the preparation of his first book. On all these items, his testimony was unfortunately filled with incomplete explanations, tergiversations, hesitations, pretended needs to refer to his file or to his “office memos”, excuses, to dodge the questions in referring to facts completely irrelevant to that he was being asked and, unfortunately also, with contradictions. The part of his testimony relevant to the decision that was taken not to call Coffin to the stand or witnesses in his favour was not itself exempt of these weaknesses. Most particularly:
His explanations are more than incomplete when affirming that Coffin’s declaration « It was my personal desire to testify for my own defence » was true ; it is only after much hesitation that he admitted to not believing that Coffin « would have wanted to intervene to silence a witness who was leading the jury on a false path” or knowing that Coffin would have implored his lawyer to let him speak.
On questions more than leading from M. Hébert, Mtre Gravel declares that, on several occasions, Coffin would have told him his desire to be called to the stand at trial ; but he lessens the strength of his preceding affirmation in declaring that during interviews with his client, in the basement of the Percé Court House (during the trial) « we did not discuss at all the possibility for him to witness, but we discussed the testimonies rendered”.
After having declared that Wilbert Coffin has asked him to testify, to the question that was posed to him to know if he has discussed with his colleague Mtre Maher, he answers : « There were many discussions between Wilbert Coffin and myself, and afterwards, Mtre Maher and myself, alone, or Mtre Maher, Louis Doiron and myself”.
He admits, with regrets, that he went through the proceedings of the preliminary enquiry ; (in fact, the proof shows that he had sent for copies a short time after having filed his appearance in September 1953, several months before the trial).
Barely twenty-four hours would have passed between the moment the Crown rested its case and that where Mtre Maher made his declaration « the defence rests ».
Mtre Gravel is flying high to attempt to lay on Mtre Maher alone the responsibility to not submit a defence, and in so doing, he makes subtle distinctions between the mandate that Maher was given to lead the trial and the one he had which was an exclusive mandate whereby he was to look after matters of law, and leading us to believe that he was not aware of witnesses who could have possibly been heard. (The proof has revealed the contrary with reference to the witnesses regarding the Arnold jeep, the would-be Lorne Patterson jeep, and in reference to members of the Coffin family ; it has shown also that Mtre Gravel has cross-examined a certain number of Crown’s witnesses).
Mtre Gravel leads us to believe that he had been advised by Mtre Maloney to call Coffin to the stand, while we know from Mtre Maloney’s testimony that his advice on this point was conditional and under reserve.
Finally, Mtre Gravel admits that when Mtre Maher declared « the defence rests », he has not made any declaration and he was satisfied to keep silent.
Before this Commission, Mtre Gravel’s attitude was more particularly characteristic when he gave the following answer to a question the President of the Commission asked him if he recalled having heard his father saying to him, in the locker room at the Québec Court House, while showing him M. Hébert’s book : « here’s your book » : « Before the beginning of this enquiry, Mr. President, never, to the best of my recollection. I would be surprised. Allow me to repeat : Surely not ». (Then we know today with the subsequent proof that this remark from Mtre Gravel, senior, was really made to his son.)
Are also characteristic Mtre Gravel’s ambiguous attitude, on the one hand, his declarations according to which it had already all the necessary elements to present a « positive » defence ( ?) and that the elements of this « positive » defence resulted exclusively from conversations he had had with his client and not at all on testimonies from the outside, and, on the other hand, his subsequent declarations that, when he declared (before the Commission) that the defence was ready (to call witnesses to the stand), he had not said that Coffin was ready to testify and that the defence would lay above all on Coffin’s possible testimony.
Mtre Gravel took refuge behind the professional secret to refuse to mention the names of the witnesses on whom he could count and for whom lists might have been made ; then, he gives information which tends to establish that he was well aware of the witnesses Mtre Maher thought of with reference to the Arnold jeep.
With much reticence and hesitation, Mtre Gravel admits that he has examined the dossier of the preliminary enquiry ; asked by Mtre Noël Dorion if he had verified if Coffin’s affidavit (of October 1955) was consistent with his « statutory » declaration of August 1953, he refuses to answer directly the question and takes refuge behind Mtre Maloney of whom he says that he has all the dossier in his possession.
Under the circumstances, how is it possible to grant much strength to that part of Mtre Gravel’s testimony and only to this part of his testimony which concerns the decision to not call Coffin to the stand ?
After having, once more, taken refuge behind professional secret to refuse to answer questions concerning the decision which might have been taken by him and his colleagues to not hear Coffin, but following the decision of the President of the Commission to reject the objection raised by Mtre Gravel for the reason that Mtre Maher and himself had been released of their professional secret following the declaration contained in paragraph 3 of Coffin’s affidavit according to which he was not allowed to testify even although he had so wished, Mtre Gravel gives the following information :
He knew for several days that Mtre Maher would say : « the defence rests ».
If he has not objected, it is because, he believed, as he still believes, that the defence counsels have to be unanimous before the jurors.
There never was a unanimous decision taken between him, Mtre Maher and Mtre Doiron.
On the morning where that declaration was made, he knew that it would be made when he went to the Court and he knew the consequences.
He changes his mind and declares that he believes that it was on the same morning that Maher told him what he would say.
He admits that two days before the Crown rested its case that Mtre Doiron had been chosen to plead in French (and we know at that moment Mtre Doiron knew that he would talk after the Crown’s counsels)
He admits that between the verdict and the sentence, Coffin has said nothing or answered the clerk’s question : « Have you something to say before sentence is passed upon you ? »
He ignores if Mtre Maher or Mtre Doiron have informed Coffin that no defence would be made.
He pretends that he, himself, has never informed Coffin.
If we take into account the fact that Mtre Gravel knew, as well as Mtre Maher, Coffin’s declaration of August 6th 1953, the right that the Crown had to adduce in evidence this declaration and to cross-examine Coffin in the event Coffin would testify, the fact that Mtre Maher was of the opinion (with reasons as we shall see later) that this declaration contained declarations made by Coffin dangerous for him, the fact that Mtre Maher and Mtre Gravel shared for the whole duration of the trial the same cabin, and met every day, the collaboration and the cooperation that must necessarily take place between a lawyer and his counsel and that, according to Mtre Maher were granted, the gravity of the consequences of the decision that was taken, it is unconceivable that this decision was not discussed, as affirms categorically Mtre Maher and Mtre Doiron, between the three defence attorneys, and that Mtre Gravel has not agreed to, at the end, even though, at the onset, he might have had, as well as Mtre Maher, a contrary opinion
In other respects, if one takes into account Coffin’s attitude during the trial, his silence, his non intervention, specially, his attitude and his countenance when fateful words were pronounced « the defence rests », Mtre Maher’s categorical declarations that this decision was taken after numerous consultations between him and his client Coffin, the absence of intervention on the part of members of the Coffin family during and after the trial until the Fall 1955, the fact that none of them was invited, during the fateful months of September 1955 to February 1956, to attest that Coffin had expressed to them the desire to be heard, lastly, Coffin’s own silence after the verdict was rendered and before the sentence was pronounced and from there until October 1955, it appears, not only undeniable that it was to his knowledge and with his acquiescence that no defence be presented, but above all that the contrary declaration in his affidavit of 9th October 1955 was only made because he realized, for whatever reason, that it was indispensable a) to explain his original silence and his prolonged silence during the months that followed the Percé verdict and b) to give rise to all subsequent declarations in his affidavit as to the proof that he might have submitted, so he pretended, and the explanations that he would have given if he had testified at trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the reasons for the decision Mtre Maher communicated to this Commission, the proof submitted by the Crown at trial, Coffin’s declaration of the 6th August 1953, the other declarations reported at trial and those who were not, namely the declaration of the 27th July 1953, during the Coroner’s inquest, I believe that I am justified to express to you, without hesitation, the opinion that the decision to not submit a defence was a wise decision, under the circumstances, and above all it was not taken against the will of Wilbert Coffin.
I shall, however, venture to express, also, the other following opinion : Contrarily to what has affirmed Mtre Maher, the proof that was submitted to us, allows us to say that it is not because there had been doubts as to the merits of Appeal Courts’ decisions establishing that « the Crown had proven its case » that the present royal enquiry was instituted, but because doubts have been, after these decisions were rendered, cleverly raised, created or suggested with the allegations of facts different than those that had been proven at trial.
I therefore report to you, in my humble opinion, that the decision not to call Coffin to the stand and to not call witnesses in his favour was not taken against his will, that it was taken, on the contrary, to his knowledge and with his acquiescence, on the common agreement of all defence counsels, for wise and serious reasons relating to his behaviour and to avoid the risk almost fatal to have to call him to the witness stand.
For these reasons, and by means of suggestion, I therefore come to the conclusion that the allegations in paragraph 3 of Coffin’s affidavit are false and that the declarations made to the same effect than those of that paragraph 3 of Coffin’s affidavit, made by Mr. Belliveau and Mr Hébert in their books, are also false.
To the preceding reasons, allowing us to conclude to that falsehood, I must add the reasons deriving from the following facts established before this Commission :
a) The proof made before this Commission that the majority of the other affirmations contained in Coffin’s affidavit were inexact, in all or in major part, and based on facts which, for the most part, Coffin might not have had personal knowledge of and which have been themselves shown to be wholly or partly false;
b) Specially, specially, the proof made before us that it is upon Coffin’s instructions that, the same night he was accused of murder, Mtre Maher went to Coffin’s camp to pick a package where Coffin had (as he admits in paragraph 32 of his affidavit), hidden Eagle’s rifle, that this package contained effectively Eagle’s rifle, that the fact of that removal was, before the trial, discussed with Coffin by Mtre Gravel, and that no effort seems to have been made subsequently by the defence attorneys or by Coffin’s parents to find that Jack Eagle’s rifle, the whole as I shall discuss more at length hereafter. The fact that Coffin complained of the silence that might have been imposed on him at trial against his will after more than a year following his condemnation.
I consider, therefore, that they were extremely unjust towards Mtre Maher, in particular, and towards the other two Coffin’s counsels, the blames addressed, in brutal and injurious terms, especially by Mr. Hébert, to the defence attorneys.
I do not believe opportune, otherwise, to engage in a discussion of juridical character on the justness (or unjustness) of the right that is granted to anyone accused, whether to be heard in defence or not to be heard, whether he deems it useful to his cause, justness about which M. Hébert seems to have doubts. (The end of this chapter)

YOUR COMMENTS...

ALTON PRICE'S REPLY TO LEW STODDARD REGARDING MARIE COFFIN'S PHOTO

Alton Price Lew Stoddard

Voici un commentaire que vient de m'adresser Alton Price au sujet

de la photo de Marie Coffin que j'ai affichée sur mon blogue.

Vous pouvez prendre connaissance de l'opinion de Monsieur

Lew Stoddard à ce propos en cliquant sur le lien suivant:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20366972&postID=5716540617927757443

Vous pouvez lire aussi, à la fin, les courriels que James Coffin et moi avons échangés sur cette question.
You may also read, at the end, the emails that James Coffin and I have exchanged on this issue.

ALTON PRICE'S RESPOND TO STODDARD

With reference to the photograph of Marie Stewart and Raynald Blais:

In a recent telephone conversation with Marie we discussed, amongst other things, the photograph and Marie said, "I don't see any harm in it". Marie always thinks before she speaks.

In the fall of 1988 I was introduced to Marie, her husband, Leigh, her son, Ronnie and niece Judy Reeder. That was a memorable day for me and I never looked back.

Since then, Marie and I have shared all the information pertaining to the case. After my submission to the Criminal Conviction Review Group in 1998, she received all correspondence
sent and received by me to the CCRG, AIDWYC, M.P.'s and other concerned parties.

In our telephone conversations she always boosted my morale no matter how bleak the situation seemed. Marie showed great courage in going public and earned the admiration and respect of many people.

This year before I began to lobby M.P.'s, I asked her permission. Obviously she was in complete agreement.

In a recent posting someone, I believe, has compared a certain person to a certain part of a 'horse's anatomy'.

I have owned horses all my life and anyone else who has horses can confirm that a great deal of power is generated from the rear quarters, whether the horse is jumping, racing or pulling a load.

Therefore, no matter if the person using this comparison is obnoxious, treacherous, bullying, or majorly egotistical, I would never insult my horse or any other horse by referring to anyone as 'a horse's rear end'.

Alton Price
Quebec

Voici l'échange de courriels entre James Coffin et moi-même à ce sujet.
Here are the emails James Coffin and I exchanged with regard to this issue.

----- Original Message -----
From: Clément Fortin
To: james coffin
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 4:35 PM
Subject: Re:


A few days ago, I had a chat with Alton Price. He had spoken earlier with your aunt Marie. He told me that she had no objection to see her photograph on my blog. And let me tell you that it is out of kindness that I removed your picture from my blog. I could have left it there. Don't push too hard.

----- Original Message -----
From: james coffin
To: clementf@sympatico.ca ; Christine Aspinall
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 4:25 PM


Hi Mr Fortin I see you have not removed my Aunt Marie's picture from your site we will be in contact with our lawyer to send you a letter to have it taken down as well please remove as soon as possible

James Coffin