Photo ci-dessus, Philippe Cabot, l'assassin des chasseurs américains selon Alton Price et à gauche, sa fille MichelineAbove picture of Philippe Cabot, the murderer of the American hunters according to Alton Price and opposite, his daughter Micheline
0001.jpg)
0001.jpg)
0001.jpg)
0001.jpg)
0001.jpg)
0001.jpg)
0001.jpg)
0001.jpg)
0001.jpg)
0001.jpg)
0001.jpg)
0001.jpg)
MÉMOIRE D’ALTON PRICE AU GROUPE DE LA RÉVISION DES CONDAMNATIONS CRIMINELLES (quatrième partie)
ALTON PRICE’S BRIEF TO THE CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS REVIEW GROUP (part fourth)
Je poursuis la publication du mémoire soumis par Alton Price au Groupe de révision des condamnations criminelles, en mai 1998. En cliquant sur les images ci-dessus vous pouvez lire les pages 23 à 33 inclusivement. Alton traite des questions suivantes :
7) LES TÉMOINS DES DÉPENSES DE COFFIN SUR LA ROUTE ET COMMENT LA COURONNE LES A MANIPULÉS.
FAITES CONNAÎTRE VOS COMMENTAIRES.
Pour connaître le rôle que ce groupe joue dans la révision d’une condamnation criminelle, cliquez sur ce lien :
http://www.justice.gc.ca/fra/pi/rc-ccr/index.html
RÉAGISSEZ À CES PROPOS.
I continue publishing Alton Price’s brief to the Criminal Convictions Review Group, in May 1998. Click on the above pictures to read from page 23 to 33 included. He discusses the following topic:
7) ROAD WITNESSES TO MONEY AND HOW THE PROSECUTION HANDLED THEM.
LET YOUR COMMENTS BE KNOWN.
To learn about the role of this group in a criminal conviction review, click on this link:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/ccr-rc/index.html
LET YOUR COMMENTS BE KNOWN
79 commentaires:
Monsieur Price,
Ce ne sera pas facile de prouver que Cabot est le meurtrier des chasseurs américains. Le ouï-dire n'est pas accepté en preuve. Alors, à quoi bon même en parler. Pour moi, c'est Coffin qui a tué les chasseurs américains. Ca ne fait plus aucun doute dans mon esprit. La preuve contre lui est accablante.
G. Daoust
Je partage l'avis de G. Daoust. J'ai toujours été contre la peine de mort et sympathise avec la famille Coffin. Mais Coffin était coupable, je suis convaincu dur comme fer de cela. On peut émettre toutes sortes d'hypothèses, dire que peut-être ceci et peut-être cela, cela ne change rien à la preuve. Le jury a mis une demi-heure pour trouver Coffin coupable, moi une minute m'aurait suffi. C'est triste mais c'est comme ça. Les mensonges de Coffin sont trop gros et trop nombreux.
F. Rivard
Mr. Price,
So far, your arguments you will not convince anyone that Coffin's name should be cleared.
Patrick
The argument goes on as to whether or not Coffin was guilty.
Just as the evidence against Cabot is hearsay, so was the evidence against Coffin. The guilty verdict was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. There was not one shred of absolute evidence that he did the killings.
There has been much made of the document of recent possession. It is my understanding
from some of the posts, that in the eyes of the law, anyone who steals is also capable of murder.
If this is the case, it would be a very sad day for a big percentage of the population. I know of many people who are guilty of pilfering, but none of them have committed murder.
A well known lawyer once commented that if Coffin's trial were held today, it would be thrown out of court because of lack of evidence.
Eva P.
Poor Eva,
Your comments show two things: you don't know what circumstantial means, and you don't know what recent possession means.
Ève
Comment from Alton -
RE THE GADGET KNIFE
Wilbert Coffin had in his possession a gadget knife that he said Richard Lindsey gave him on the voyage back into the woods from Gaspe with the fuel pump on June 10, 1953. He said that he wanted to buy the knife, pointing out that Richard could get another when he went back home. He maintained that Richard then gave him the knife.
When Wilbert came out of the woods on June 10, 1953, he showed the gadget knife to his mother and to his sister Rhoda. He DID NOT show them any of the other items that he had taken from the Lindsey truck.
Richard's mother was certain that he would never have given the knife away because it was a gift from a cousin who was stationed in the Air Force in Japan.
However, in 1990, someone in the Altoona region had a different opinion.
Background:
Mrs. Patricia Davis - Maiden name, Leberfinger, was raised in Holidaysburg, and was the same age as Richard and knew him as a fellow student and friend.
Patricia, her two sisters and her mother were all hunters. Patricia Leberfinger, Willard Campbell Jr. and lawyer Harry Benton had planned to go on the hunting trip with the Lindsey party.
Lawyer Harry Benton told me that he had just been admitted to the bar and some urgent business had come up which prevented him from going.
Patricia and Willard were sixteen years old and probably did not own cars. Were they depending on Harry Benton for transportation? It is obvious that the three were friends of the Lindseys and Fred Claar.
In 1990 Patricia Davis said that Richard was the sort who would have given the knife to someone that he liked. He and Wilbert had spent several hours together and most people found Coffin to be a likeable person. Question: Who knows more about young people, their parents or their friends?
As recently as last week I spoke by phone to Jack Campbell of Holidaysburg who has always been very interested in this case. Since 1990 he has always been very helpful and supportive. In our conversation I mentioned the gadget knife. He said there were plenty of them in their area at that time of the Korean war. Therefore, Richard Lindsey could easily have procured a new knife and his cousin would not have had to know about it.
Jack Campbell was a Korean war veteran and he went on to make a career in the military.
Alton Price
Denison Mills, QC
P.S. - To 'Ti-Jean'. I will be answering your questions shortly.
To Eva P.
Da you know that our law recognizes circumstantial evidence as well as direct evidence?
If circumstantial evidence were not accepted in our courts of law some 85% of criminals would go unpunished. Circumstantial evidence being more difficult to prove, jurist believe that it is safer than direct evidence. One can fabricate one direct evidence but it is a different task to fabricate a full set of tiny pieces of evidence.
B. M. Law student
You're right, Mr. Alton. I also think that Richard gave his knife to Coffin, who was a likeable person. Moreover, I think Big Claar gave his pants to Coffin, knowing that he could get another when he went back home. I think the eggs have also been given to Wilbert. There are many hens in the United States and eggs are easily found. By the way, they can be eaten sunny side up or scramble.
Pants given to Coffin were much too big for him, but Mother Coffin was a seamstress and she could make two regular pairs with a big pair.
Marie D., Montreal
Volé ou donné, le canif ne change rien à la doctrine de la possession récente. Coffin a volé un certain nombre d'autres choses, dont la pompe à gaz, les jumelles, le sirop d'érable, etc. Ce ne sont pas des objets de valeur, mais la question n'est pas là. La question concerne la doctrine légale de la possession récente. Vous ne semblez pas du tout connaître cette doctrine, Monsieur Price. Vous êtes un amateur. Vos arguments sont des arguments d'amateur.
Please stop saying that coffin was a likeable person. He stole clothing and food of young people in the woods, away from home in chilly spring.
M. Mallette
Verdun Qc
And add a brand new gas pump to the cart.
Bob
Eva
You obviously don’t know what hearsay is. You don’t know what the doctrine (your write document) of recent possession is. Ask your well known lawyer if he has ever read the transcripts of the trial. Jacques Hébert wrote three books on the Coffin affair without having read those transcripts. Mr. Fortin, the author of this blog, has explained the ins and outs of the doctrine of recent possession. I suggest you have a look at his archives.
Adam
Mr. Price:
Marie D. forgot to tell you that the hunters gave their fuel pump to the likeable Coffin, knowin' that they could get another when they went back home.
Dr. Hans H., psychiatrist
Monsieur Price,
J'aimerais connaître votre opinion sur la pompe à essence. Coffin s'est rendu l'acheter à Gaspé, pour dépanner les chasseurs. Non seulement elle n'a jamais été installée, mais on l'a retrouvée chez la blonde de Coffin. Essayez d'imaginer Coffin en contre-interrogatoire, en train de s'expliquer là-dessus.
"Pourquoi, monsieur Coffin, n'avez-vous pas aidé les chasseurs à installer cette pompe?"
"Pourquoi ceux-ci, dès votre retour de Gaspé, n'ont-ils pas, comme cela eût été tout à fait normal, procédé à l'installation et à la vérification du bon fonctionnement de cette pompe, pour ensuite poursuivre leur route jusqu'aux camps de chasse?"
"Pourquoi, monsieur Coffin, avez-vous volé cette pompe sur laquelle les chasseurs comptaient tant? Pourquoi êtes-vous subitement passé de bon Samaritain à voleur d'un objet relié directement au bonheur et à la sécurité des chasseurs?"
"D'après vous, monsieur Coffin, comment les chasseurs se sont-ils déplacés du lieu de leur camionnette en panne aux camps de chasse? Ont-ils fait de l'auto-stop? Ont-il pris l'autobus?"
J'attends votre réponse.
Phil Lafrance
Ni Jacques Hébert, ni Stoddard ni Price n'ont jamais parlé de cette pompe à gaz jamais installée et retrouvée chez Mrs. Petrie. Me Fortin a été l'un des premiers à le faire.
C'est un élément clé de l'affaire. Je demande même à Me Fortin de nous montrer de nouveau la photo de cette pompe.
PICTURES DEVELOPED FROM FRED CLAAR'S CAMERA
I will admit that I am guilty of using second hand information when I quoted the late Judge Louis Doiron and Sgt. Pierre-Yves Bourgault.
Sgt. Pierre-Yves Bourgault had another very interesting bit of information passed down to him, but, of course, it is second hand and cannot be used as evidence.
However, we surely got first hand information from M. Deschenes. He worked at the photo department and had seen the photos. He was adamant that the two men in raincoats were strangers. He said in very firm language that they were not local Gaspesians.
M. Deschenes said the last picture was of Coffin with what appeared to be a pistol in his hand, but that when the picture was blown up the 'pistol' became the end of a long belt.
In 'To Build A Noose' I wrote that allegedly Matte threw the picture on the floor. We did not ask M. Deschenes about that, but he was friends with the late Judge Louis Doiron.
Anyway, if he threw the photo on the floor or if he cut it up with scissors, he still had the satisfaction of witnessing Coffin's execution on February 10, 1956.
Who said that the photos were never shown to the defense and to the court? I said it. Pages 28 - 30 of 'To Build A Noose' and 'Tromper le Jury' deals with photos developed from Claar's camera in 1953 and photos taken in 1951.
Maurice Hebert testified that the camera had been posed on No. 6, but that only four pictures had been taken. The public was treated to four photographs, but only two were taken in 1953.
The photo of Eugene Lindsey, sitting down, flanked by the two boys with a bottle beneath his hands and a dead bear at his feet was taken in 1951 and was the gift of the Claar family (source: Evelyn Claar, sister of Fred Claar). The picture of the two boys in front of a camp shows Richard Lindsey sitting and Fred Claar standing. This was taken in 1951 and donated by the Claar family. (source: Evelyn Claar, sister of Fred Claar). Thomas Miller was the guide in 1951 and took both pictures. The boys did not come up in 1952.
Two other pictures were taken in 1953. One photo was of Richard Lindsey, Wellie Eagle, Oscar Patterson, Thomas Patterson and Eugene Lindsey. This photo was taken June 9, 1953 at Indian Fork Brook when these local men pulled Lindsey's truck out of the brook where it had been stuck since the day before.
There is another picture of Thomas Patterson alone on June 9, 1953 with the end of a long belt in his hand. It is called the second picture developed from the film in Fred Claar's camera.
Camera posed on No. 6 and only four pictures taken; Let us apply some logic here. If Maurice Hebert had shown the two photos described by M. Honor Deschenes to the court, the journalists would have had them. The defense team may have been weak, but even they surely would have used the picture of the two strangers in raincoats to support Coffin's account of the two Americans in a jeep.
Anyone would did not know the truth about the two photos taken in 1951 could easily have been fooled into thinking that they were the last two on the film in Fred Claar's camera.
Perhaps someone can find in the trial transcript that Maurice Hebert showed the defense and the court the last two photographs developed from the film. If you can find it, please let us know.
STATION WAGON
W. Coffin never said anything about a station wagon. He described a jeep with a plywood cab.
Lorne Patterson, garage owner in Riviere Madeleine, knew the Coffin family and let them know that two Americans had stopped there sometime in June. Wilbert's mother went to Riviere Madeleine to talk to Lorne Patterson. The vehicle he described was not a jeep, but a station wagon. Lorne Patterson's daughter told me in the early 80's that that her father was at the Brossard Inquiry, but was never called to testify.
Alton Price
Denison Mills, QC
RECENT POSSESSION
Prosecutor Paul Miquelon was on the job with this one, saying, "If you have the thief, you have the murderer".
If he was so confident, it is strange that he had to twist the truth and lie in his plaidoirie to the Jury. He also used second hand rumour.
Page numbers refer to the trial transcript of Coffin versus Regina.
Pages 1326-1327:
Miquelon: "In this case, everything that has been missed that we know of - POSSIBLY A FEW THINGS ARE STILL IN THE BUSH, that's possible, but everything that could be thought of that belonged to the Americans, everything, I say, was traced back to Coffin".
Instead of 'a few things left in the bush', all the items of greater value had never been taken. The four rifles, their sleeping bags, camp stove, camera and Lindsey's binoculars were found by searchers on Page 1328 - paragraph 2.
Miquelon:
"And Coffin, the lucky man of the year, just walked down the road and everything was there for him to pick".
Page 1328 - paragraph 3.
Miquelon:
"If Coffin robbed and he didn't kill, how come he knew exactly where the skeletons were, where the money was, where the binoculars were and where the knife was, in the bush invisible".
The use of the word skeletons is very confusing. They could hardly be called skeletons right after they wee killed.
Money - Miquelon:
"He has money in his pocket, but he doesn't want it known in Gaspe that he has money because he is known there and then he is on his way".
He made this statement IN SPITE OF THE SWORN TESTIMONY of Ernest Boyle, Benny White, and Earl Tuzo.
Amounts Coffin paid in Gaspe: To Ernest Boyle, $ 5.00 - an old beer bill. Benny White, $ 5.00 for beer, Earl Tuzo, $ 10.00 to retrieve his German Luger. He was not afraid to pass a $ 20.00 American bill with Benny White.
This Crown Prosecutor used, not just second hand information, but second hand rumour concerning the night of August 27th, 1953, when Maitre Raymond Maher stole or took the 32/40 rifle from Coffin's camp.
Testimony of Donald Coffin, Jean-Guy Hamel, Raymond Maher at the Brossard Inquiry, 1964. I am paraphrasing their testimony.
Donald Coffin: After the Coroner's Inquest he said that he went home and went to bed because he had a headache. Around 10 p.m., Maitre Raymond Maher and Jean-Guy Hamel came to his home and asked him to guide them to Wilbert's camp.
You are probably aware the Jean-Guy Hamel was Maher's chauffeur and handyman. They went to the camp, Hamel driving. Arriving at the woods gate they simply went around it. Donald testified that at the camp Maher retrieved a rifle that was standing under a spruce tree wrapped in an army gas cape.
Hamel also said that it was a rifle. Raymond Maher however, insisted on calling it a 'package' and said that he put it under the back seat of his car.
When questioned at the Brossard Inquiry about going around the woods gate Maher said the gatekeepers were lazy enough in the daytime and implied they would be hard to rouse at night.
Someone started the rumour that it was Donald Coffin's truck that went around the woods gate. The police did not take plaster casts of the tracks to verify this rumour.
To be continued next post.
Alton Price,
Denison Mills, QC
RECENT POSSESSION Cont'd.
Miquelon - Page 1334,in reference to the stolen rifle:
"The defense might have brought in Coffin's brother to deny being there, to deny that his truck was there, because we were plain about it. We certainly indicated in our evidence that there were on our part that the car or truck that was there was Coffin's brother's. Did you see Coffin's brother in here to deny it?"
These very loose and unfounded accusations on the part of Prosecutor Miquelon would catch up to him at the Supreme Court level in Justice Cartwright's judgement January,1956.
After having used the false hearsay evidence to try to sway the jury, Miquelon tried to play down its importance before the Supreme Court.
Justice Cartwright would see it quite differently and reminded all concerned that the prosecution had stressed this hearsay evidence to the jury and that Judge Lacroix himself had brought this inadmissible evidence to the jury with instructions that they should consider it. He added that after all the importance the Crown attached to this 'hearsay evidence' at the trial, they could not say in December, 1955, that it was not worth and attention it was getting. The Judgements were dated January, 1956.
There was another attempt by Prosecutor Miquelon to sway the jury that could be labeled shameful!
On July 21, 1953, the searchers stopped for lunch at Camp 24. Eugene Lindsey's body had been found close by on July 18, 1953. It had been placed by the Riviere St.Jean on the opposite side from the camp. The bodies of the boys were found on July 23, 1953, at Camp 26, 2-1/2 miles further along.
Back to lunch time; Water was needed to make coffee or tea and Wilbert volunteered to get the water. At the door he paused and asked, "where's the brook?" Two great detectives, Constable Lewis Sinnett and game warden Patrick Adams were convinced that he knew that the remains of the two boys were somewhere near the camp.
In 1990, the former jurist, Roger Rail from Chandler could remember only what Patrick Adams said, which was, "Jesus Christ Wilbert! - you must know where the brook was, you were born around here".
These two simple men, Adams and Sinnett, could be excused, but not Prosecutors and Judges.
Miquelon:
Page 1343, paragraph 2: "But coming to Camp 24, there, he is put in a tight corner. The evidence states that they need water, and without giving any thought to it, Coffin says he will go and get the water. He goes inside and gets the pail, but when he comes out, it comes back to his mind that just in the same direction where the brook was, he had left young Lindsey dead with the rifle beside him and then says, "where is the brook" when you know that two days previous to the crime, or just about, he was at the same camp with his friend MacDonald, building a fire ten feet from that brook. He won't go and in that very same direction where he had to get the water about forty or fifty feet further, later on, the following day or so they found the remains of young Richard Lindsey or Claar. I forgot which of the two".
Earlier in his plea to the Jury HE HAD COFFIN KILLING THE BOYS AT CAMP 26!!
This man was a Superior Court Judge for 15 years!
Prosecutor Noel Dorion was just about as guilty as Miquelon in his plaidoirie, but we may do that another day.
Alton Price
Denison Mills, QC
Mr. Price,
You have not answered Ti-Jean's questions yet.
Bob
You're skating, Mr. Price.
Please answer Ti-Jean's questions.
Jeffrey Patry
Mr.Price,
La doctrine de la possession récente ne tient pas compte du nombre d'objets. Il s'agit qu'il y en ait un et que l'accusé ne puisse pas donner une explication récente de sa possession. Par ailleurs, vous n'avez pas le droit d'accuser gratuitement les gens. Pour ce faire, vous devriez les interroger devant une cour de justice et les faire condamner pour parjure.
Pierre M. étudiant en droit
Il y a eu sûrement des erreurs dans l'enquête et même des choses pas correctes. Mais ça ne change rien à l'essence de la cause. Ce qui a perdu Coffin, ce sont ses mensonges quant aux objets des chasseurs en sa possession. ¨¨ca aurait été si simple pour Coffin de s'expliquer s'il n'avait fait que voler les victimes. L'homme qui cachait quelque chose s'est embourbé et pas à peu près dans ses explications.
N.P.
RECENT POSSESSION -
Ti-Jean has good questions, but this one should probably be addressed by legal experts.
I am more interested in how the Prosecution treated this information or evidence.
Paul Miquelon:- If you have the thief, you have the murderer.
Pages 1326 - 1327 of the trial transcript:
Miquelon:- In this case, everything that we have missed that we know of - possibly a few things are still in the bush, that's possible, but everything that could be thought of, or that belonged to the Americans, everything, I say, was traced back to Coffin.
We know that that was an outright lie! Fast forward to May, 1987, Miquelon's apartment, Samuel Holland Building, Quebec City.
In two hours there were quite a few things discussed or debated. I will deal with one. This was the dialogue:
Alton Price: If Coffin was the murderer, why did he not take the valuable items, the rifles, sleeping bags, camera, Eugene Lindsey's binoculars?
Paul Miquelon: Well, he couldn't come out through Gaspe with ALL THAT!
Alton Price: He didn't have to, he could have gone through Murdochville, and out the Pulp and Paper Company road to the 132 and up the coast.
- This observation was not appreciated.
Now, Mr. Patry, let us see how you can skate.
Alton Price,
Denison Mills, QC
You're skating once again, Mr. Price.
Please answer Ti-Jean's questions.
Jeffrey Patry
In answer to Mr. J. Patry:
Mr. Patry, precisely to which questions are you referring? To my knowledge I have answered Ti-Jean's questions to the best of my ability.
Do not turn this into a courtroom where you can play the grand inquisitor with me.
I am on this Blog by invitation. Me. Fortin has asked me to post, for example, information on Philippe Cabot.
He also asked my permission to post excerpts from my application to the Criminal Conviction Review Group in Ottawa.
Alton Price,
Denison Mills, QC
L’histoire de Coffin est une bien triste histoire. L’histoire d’un homme qui a fait la guerre et qui a été l’une de ses victimes. Il était criblé de dettes. En tirant les chasseurs américains du ruisseau dans lequel ils s’étaient enlisés, il a observé qu’ils n’avaient pas de guide. Eugene Lindsey commençait à bien connaître la forêt gaspésienne et par esprit d’économies, il a cru pouvoir se dispenser d’un guide. En les tirant de l’eau, Coffin a pu observer que Miller ne les guidait pas. Dès le lendemain, il pose un lapin à McDonald et se met à leur recherche. Ils sont en panne. Probablement causée par la trempette de leur camionnette. Coffin inspecte la camionnette. Il décrète que la pompe à essence doit être remplacée alors qu'on apprend par la suite qu'elle n'était pas défectueuse. Eugene Lindsey lui demande d’aller en chercher une neuve à Gaspé avec son fils Richard. Coffin savait que Eugene Lindsey avait de l’argent. Au retour, avec la pompe, Coffin leur offre d’aller les conduire à leurs lieux de chasse. Il leur dit qu’il va réparer leur camionnette et quand elle sera réparée, il ira les chercher. Les chasseurs ont accepté cette offre généreuse de Coffin. Ils se sont laissés conduire et c’est là que Coffin les a descendus avec une carabine que lui avait prêtée son ami Baker. J’explique le fait qu’on a trouvé des objets un peu partout par le comportement de celui qui vient de commettre un crime. Il devient fou. Irrationnel. Il est en état d’ébriété. Il l’est toujours. Pretty well tanked up comme le dit sa maîtresse dans son statement. Pour camoufler son crime, il cache un peu partout les objets des chasseurs qu’il a transbordés dans sa camionnette. Il en oublie, dont la pompe à essence et les grandes culottes de Claar. On retrouve plusieurs objets ayant appartenu aux chasseurs dans l’appartement de sa maîtresse. On lui demande de s’expliquer. Par l’application de la doctrine de la possession récente, on présume qu’il les a volés. Il doit donner des explications satisfaisantes. Non seulement, il n’en donne pas, il ajoute des mensonges à des mensonges. Il devient non seulement le voleur, mais le meurtrier. Voilà!
P. Senécal, Montréal
Senécal,
Vous avez parfaitement raison. C'est une histoire qu'on s'évertue à compliquer avec des ragots. Des histoires de faux détectives.
S. Jodoin
Has anyone heard from Lew?
Looked at Lew's site. Nothing posted since 1st of December.
He has leukemia so he is probably in hospital or taking treatments..
Vous faites erreur, monsieur Senécal. Coffin n'était pas là quand les Américains ont été tirés de l'eau. Il a pu entendre parler de leur mésaventure, mais il n'était pas là. Il les a probablement rencontrés pour la première fois au moment où leur camion était en panne, à quelques milles des camps.
Pour le reste, vous avez tout à fait raison. Les enquêteurs pensent que Coffin a conduit les chasseurs à leurs lieux de chasse.
L'achat de la pompe est sûrement dû au fait que Coffin et les chasseurs ont cru qu'elle était défectueuse. Ce qui a bien servi Coffin, qui a sans doute profité du voyage à Gaspé pour se gagner la sympathie des chasseurs et pour les faire tomber dans son panneau.
Phil Lafrance
Phil Lafrance,
Vous avez tout à fait raison. C'est le garde-chasse Patterson qui les a tirer de là avec sa jeep. Excusez cette imprécision. Vous connaissez bien cette affaire. Mes félicitations.
P. Senécal
Je souhaite à Lew de recouvrer la santé au plus tôt. Il me tarde de lire ses billets intéressants et éclairants sur l'affaire Coffin.
Bob
Je souhaite la santé à M. Stoddard et le retour à son blogue, mais cette fois avec des documents pertinents et une connaissance de la doctrine de la possession récente.
Given all the research Mr. Stoddard has done, he certainly knows what the doctrine of recent possession is all about. Don't you think?
Bill
Bill
Monsieur Stoddard has never said a word about the doctrine of recent possession. Or he does not know it or he likes better not to talk about.
Ti-Jean le Kébécois
Mr. Bill:
Our friend Lewis Stoddard made shrill protest and talked much of Duplessis, Quebec Provincial Police, Raymond Maher, the famous jeep, etc. But I'm listing below some of the things he never talked about:
the legal value of circumstantial evidence;
the legal doctrine of recent possession;
the statutory declaration of Coffin;
the statement of Marion Petrie;
the testimony of Marion Petrie before the Percé jury;
the testimony of Coffin's mother before the Brossard Commission;
the reasons why Coffin's lawyers did not offer a defense;
the binoculars of Clarence Claar, Frederick's father;
the gas pump;
the brand new wallet, identical to that of young Lindsey, that Coffin had in his possession during his journey from ditch to ditch to Montreal;
the chronic alcoholism and fits of violence of Coffin;
the many contradictions in the statement signed by Coffin at the Bordeaux Jail, three months before his death.
Ti-Jean le Kébécois
Proposer une meilleure traduction
Mr. Price is asked to defend his assumptions. To write a text and to defend it are two very different exercises. He get lost in a maze of details that make his text obscure.
Pierre Paradis, Laval
Me Fortin,
Je crois que le sujet a été étiré à son max , il serait amplement le temps de passer à autre chose.
Cà devient emmerdant à la fin de lire les mêmes commentaires ad nauseam.
If you question the Gaspe i beleive you would know it was Russel Patterson who said he got the call that the hunters were missing.It was Thomas Miller that went in search of the hunters and found the truck, and also said he had a good idea where the Lindasy party would be hunting, because he had been their guide in 1951..? It was Thomas patterson who told Thomas miller that coffin had been in Gaspe with the young Richard Lindsay... word of this would have passed around Gaspe after coffin had been seen with Richard Lindsey...from there whoever had a rage for Eugene Lindsey would have the perfect person to frame,for they knew then coffin would be the last one to see hunting party, dont you think? coffin was a theif, not a killer... The killer or killers were smart, and they have baffeled the law forces for over 50 years...the law is not perfect, if this was so there would not be all those innocent sitting in jail, or all those guilty still walking our streets...Right?
Je profite de la relache pour prendre un peu de repos. Je vous reviens dans quelques semaines avec la suite du mémoire d'Alton. Ne manquez pas ce rendez-vous.
It's spring break. I'll be resuming the posting of Alton's brief in a few weeks. Stay tuned.
À l'anonyme du 16 mars,
Vous n'êtes pas obligé de venir vous emmerder sur ce blogue. Tout le WEB vous appartient. Cependant, ce blogue continuera d'exiger que l'Association in Defense of the Wrongly Convicted et le Groupe de la révision des condamnations criminelles produisent leurs rapports au plus tôt. En attendant, allez vous emmerder ailleurs.
Coffin met the hunters and talked with them,and tried to help them...If it was coffins intention to kill those three hunters, do you really think he would have drove around Gaspe with young Lindsey? He was a theif and took a few drinks... hell, he was not crazy! last but not least, you are trying to say that after driving around in the small town of Gaspe with young Lindsey,where everyone knew him,he then went back to the woods and killed the Lindesy party, then..He brought all those stolen things with him and showed them around Gaspe...no...when coffin stole those things he did not know those men were dead....think about it, it does not make commen sense...
I have no idea why everyone is always wondering about the American dollars. Guess the comments are coming from people who are not from the Gaspe, or have never been. In the 50’s and 60’s there was lots of American money in Gaspe. Hello? I had American money. Does that make me guilty? The ash inn had it plastered all over the wall. Does that make Baker guilty? If the law force would have stopped dwelling on American dollars and eggs and fuel pumps, and clothing, they may have solved this case 50 years ago. Coffin broke out from prison, and then returned, does that sound like a guilty person. Stoddard has named three killers. Now there is Cabot? There isn’t even proof of how those hunters were killed. No gun, no bullets, nothing…some don’t even believe they were murdered, they believe it was done by bears…there is no evidence to prove coffin was guilty. Coffin was hanged because he was (assumed) to be the last person to see the hunters, and because he stole the things from the hunters truck… I do not believe that anyone out there would be stupid enough to murder someone and bring home the evidence, knowing you had been seen all over town with the victim... do you? That’s beyond dumb and dumber… As far as am concerned the lawyers, judge and jury must have been intoxicated, or they were of little brain…Just looking over the names of Jury, I can believe this happen…
To the last anonymous,
The fact that Coffin was in possession of American money was one of the circumstances in the long chain of circumstances that lead to his conviction. You should make an effort to understand what circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of recent possession mean instead of insulting those people who have accomplished their duties honestly.
B. Prévost
Mr. Prévost,
You must understand that there are those who cannot understand, those who do not want to understand and those who will never accept that the law prevails over the gossips that have been running in the Gaspé for more than 50 years. This blog has disturbed the mindset of a lot of Gaspé people. You should understand that it is difficult after so many years of title-tattle to accept the truth. The village sorcerers lose credibility and hold on their gullible fellow villagers. As we say in English: “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.”
Bob
Ti-Jean is darn right. Neither Alton Price nor Jacques Hébert discussed all those topics in their books. Obviously, they were not thorough in researching the Coffin affair. They thought that it would help Coffin's case in making a proof of bad character to Eugene Lindsey, Raymond Maher, Maurice Duplessis, etc. Indeed, Stoddard, Hébert and Price did a sloppy job. Coffin could not have had worst defenders.
An observer
To An Observer
It is very easy to be an armchair critic or as you call yourself, an observer.
I cannot comment on some of the researchers of the Coffin case. I can along with many others speak regarding the work of Alton Price.
Mr. Price is not a lawyer but as those who know him and his dedication to this case can tell you he has spent over twenty years of his retirement trying to help clear the name of Coffin.
He has made many trips both in Canada and the U.S. to speak to innumerable people. Every cent spent has been out of his own pocket including publication of his book in both French and English. No grants, no personal donations.
Perhaps his book and submission are not up to your idealistic standards of professionalism but most importantly he SINCERELY BELIEVES and over the years has tried to do something about it which is a lot more than you, who criticize, have done.
Another observer
To another observer,
You’re right! Mr. Price is in a class apart. He’s done a tremendous job for clearing Coffin’s name. Unlike Hébert’s books, his is honest. He should be praised for this.
The observer who observes other observers
De L'emmerdeur du 16 mars,
Tous ces commentaires sont ennuyeux,emmerdants,inutiles et vains. Vous serez probablement mort avant que vienne une décision quelconque du gouvernement ,si jamais elle vient.
Les enfants en grandissant mettent toujours un certain temps à accepter l'idée que le Bonhomme 7 Heures et autres fables ne sont pas vrais
On observe le même phénomène chez tous ceux qui pendant longtemps, ont cru les fables de Jacques Hébert.
Jean-Marc
Et que dire de ceux qui se sont fait bernés à l'os par l'insipide rapport de la Commission Brassard.
Un ramassis de ragots donne la même mesure qu'un rapport tronqué et qui ne rapporte que les propos
qu'il veut bien rendre publiques .
Mordu par un chien ou mordu par une chienne , n'en reste que t'es mordu quant même.
Les enfants en grandissant deviennent ado puis adultes et recrés pour leurs jeunes enfants
ces fables éternelles du Père Noel, de la Fée des dents , et oui,du bon vieux Bonhomme sept heures.
Et il y aura toujours des " smart " pour dire que ce sont des ragots, des histoires à dormir debout,des fables...
Rien de nouveau sous le soleil !!!
Anonyme de 12:11
Il est évident que cet anonyme n’a pas lu le rapport Brossard. Un premier indice saute aux yeux : il écrit Brassard. Il risque fort de se faire mordre.
Bill
Bravo, Bill.
Ce type parle à travers son chapeau. Il parle comme la plupart des puérils et ignares défenseurs de Coffin.
En plus de parler à travers son chapeau il parle comme lew Stoddard. Sans doute un admirateur francophone du grand Lew.
Gilles Masse
Quelle solidarité québecquoise dans vos propos indignes commenteurs,
faites pendre vos mères , violer vos soeurs , torturer vos frères et laissez vos enfants en esclavage , gang de petit Québec cheap fréquenteurs de Walmart.
Cet anonyme méprisant n’a rien compris. Les commentateurs québécois ont une longueur d’avance parce qu’ils ont lu le livre de Fortin L’affaire Coffin : une supercherie. C’est évidemment ce que vous devriez lire plutôt que de les insulter. Vous pourriez après nous entretenir de vos propos éclairés. L'insulte n'est pas un argument convaincant.
P. Dumais, Montréal
Quel argument convaincant ou considéré comme tel serait à opposer à un parti-pris et un entêtement borné comme celui que vous affichez ?
En Anglais on dit " one track mind "
Vous persistez dans l'insulte. Ce n'est toujours pas convaincant.
P. Dumais
Mais de quel "entêtement borné" parlez-vous, mon brave ? On ne vous suit pas, mais pas du tout.
Ce Coffin que vous vous acharnez à défendre sans autre preuve que des fables a été reconnu coupable par 12 de ses pairs, et ce, sur la base de la doctrine légale de la possession récente. Il avait volé. On lui a demandé de s'expliquer. Il ne l'a pas fait. En fait, ses avocats, qui le savaient coupable et mauvais menteur, lui ont fortement suggéré de se la fermer. La poursuite l'aurait mis en pièces.
Ti-Jean le Kébécois
Bien dit, mon ti-Jean.
M.F., Lévis Qc
Ti-Jean est un as. Il a bien compris la doctrine de la possession récente et tous les éléments de l'affaire Coffin.
Pierre P. Rimouski
Messieurs aux idées arrêtées.
Votre propos est indéfendable depuis plus de cinquante ans devant la vindicte de l'opinion publique .
Le jugement et la compréhension des plaidoieries des grands ténors
par ces pauvres 12 pairs pour la plupart illétrés et unilingues est une parodie de justice orchestrée par les puissants corrompus .
Cette doctrine de posssession récente n'est de fait qu'un sauf-conduit, un fourre tout où des accusateurs , ne pouvant justifier leurs accusations , ni surtout les prouver, les y agglutinent , formant ainsi un package deal
qu'une magistrature en collusion
s'entendra à recevoir dans les meilleurs délais pour classer l'affaire à la satisfaction du requérant sans âme.
Ainsi vous y lirez des phrases telle : vous avez le voleur , vous avez le tueur.
Messieurs, tant que tous les témoignages tronqués ou cachés par la Justice et ses sbires ne sera pas divulgués , vous pourrez bien ergoter sur toutes les tribunes , l'opinion publique rejettera vos propos.
Coffin restera non coupable jusqu'à PREUVE DU CONTRAIRE .
Cet anonyme écrit des phrases étonnantes.
P. D'Anjou
P. D'Anjou,
Non seulement étonnantes mais spécieuses. Il formule des accusations, mais n'apporte rien de nouveau au débat. Il s'entête dans ses préjugés. C'est son affaire et je la respecte.
Pierre D. Montréal
 Pierre D ,
Qualifier mon commentaire de spécieux,donc qui n'a qu'une apparence de vérité et de justice m'amène à me demander si nous devrons utiliser ce même adjectif plutôt péjoratif pour qualifier le souhait hautement proclamé de nos deux ministres de la justice et celui du travail relativement aux résultats attendus de l'enquête de la SQ sur l'industrie de la construction .
Ceux-ci,déclarent-ils, devront démontrer clairement une apparence de vérité et de justice vis à vis l'opinion publique .
Dans l'affaire Coffin comme dans l'affaire de l'industrie de la construction tout doit reposer sur l'APPARENCE ,surtout pas la vérité ,mais les temps changent et qui sait qui portera le bonnet d'âne demain .
Cet anonyme est un idéaliste. Il confond la société des hommes avec celle des anges. La société est la somme de ses composantes. Il faut beacoup de sagesse pour accepter cette réalité.
Pierre D.
L'anonyme aux phrases étonnantes connaît tout de son nombril, mais rien au droit.
Ti-Jean le Kébécois
À Pierre D.
Il faut beaucoup de sagesse pour accepter la dure réalité que la société dont nous faisons partie est la somme de ses composantes .
Je retiens "de la sagesse pour accepter" Et je m'insurge devant cet abaissement , cet abandon de l'action pour corriger le corrigeable .
Il est une prière qui sied bien à vos propos , elle dit :
Mon Dieu, donnez moi la sérénité d'accepter les choses que je ne puis changer , le courage de changer les choses que je peux et la sagesse d'en connaître la différence .
Prenez-en pour votre rhume et agissez que Diable .le courage , c'est ce qui manque à votre génération d'humanistes frileux .
Moi, je dirais que cet anonyme confond l'affaire Coffin avec l'affaire Hébert.
Il confond la preuve présentée devant le jury avec les âneries de Lew Stoddard.
Il confond la réalité avec la Gaspésie.
P. Lafrance, Mtl
à P. Lafrance , Mtl,
Je suis parsuadé que ton vecteur de pensée est très étroit.
Un petit conseil à toi le rustre aux idées primaires et ancrées dans la fange que tu percois comme du roc solide , évolue ou comme les dinosaures tu te retrouveras englué dans ta fange qui depuis cinquante ans se solidifie , de plus en plus .
D'ici peu, on utilisera une gouge pour retrouver les vestiges de tes croyances archaïques .
À P Lafrance ,
La preuve présentée devant le jury ne tient pas la route , elle est refusée par l'opinion publique .
Souviens toi Lafrance de la RéVolution de 1789 où la populace comme tu aimes bien nous nommer a fait tomber les têtes de ces bien pensants de l'époque.
Nous sommes restés aussi barbares et assoiffés de sang bleu qu'à l'époque , surtout qu'aujourd'hui tout deviens plus graphique et on peut voir le sang couler et les têtes rouler dans la paille .
Quel discours! Le procès par jury est un rouage important de notre démocratie. Les douze jurés représentent le peuple en rendant leur verdict selon le serment qu’ils ont prêté avant d’assumer cette noble fonction. Ce jury est cependant composé de personnes susceptibles de se tromper. Ce sont les règles communément acceptées dans une société de droit. Tant et aussi longtemps qu’une révolution n’aura pas changé notre ordre social, cette institution demeurera un moyen bien légitime de rendre justice. Jacques Hébert disait à une émission de Radio-Canada « Faites une enquête auprès des gens et vous constaterez que, pour eux, Coffin était innocent. » Bel esprit! Devrions-nous soumettre nos criminels à un sondage populaire pour déterminer leur culpabilité ou leur innocence? Je croyais que seul Jacques Hébert pouvait proposer de telles inepties.
Bob
Bob,
Le début de votre commentaire est judicieux , politically correct.
mais la suite ...
Jacques Hébert, la démagogie,
faut pas charrier , vous y perdez toute votre crédibilité.
L'opinion publique n'est pas la clameur de la populace et c'est justement ce que la classe dirigeante et les bien pensants doivent discerner.`
À défaut de le faire , leurs têtes rouleront sous peu dans la paille car les temps sont durs pour la masse et les intellos-humanistes y laisseront des plumes si ce n'est leur peau .
Il est loin le temps où on pouvait proposer le sort de Jésus contre
celui de Barrabas, et celui de cet empereur de Rome ,ignorant ses sujets, jouant du violon devant sa ville en flamme .
En démocratie , le peuple règne s'il a le coeur de le faire mais,
si ses porte-parole sont des pleutres et des faux , l'histoire nous apprend que les suites sont funestes.
Funestes pour les dirigeants...
Me fortin,
J'aimerais proposer que nous souhaitions à notre vaillant adversaire M.Lew Stoddard, du courage et de la chance ,beaucoup de chance et de courage dans la maladie qui l'accâble ,car c'est une personne de bien.
Sa démarche est noble,il ne sert pas sous notre drapeau , simplement , mais c'est un bon soldat.
Best wishes Mr Stoddard,and may courage and luck be with you .
Fastidious answers in return of this query with solid arguments and telling the whole thing
about that.
my homepage; site ()
Publier un commentaire