WILBERT COFFIN'S BROTHER DONALD TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION

DONALD, LE FRÈRE DE WILBERT

COFFIN, TÉMOIGNE DEVANT LA COMMISSION BROSSARD

À VENIR LA SEMAINE PROCHAINE

COMING NEXT WEEK

WILBERT COFFIN'S MOTHER TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION (CONTINUED)

AVANT DE CONTINUER LE TÉMOIGNAGE DE LA MÈRE DE COFFIN DEVANT LA COMMISSION BROSSARD, JE VOUS RAPPELLE CE QUE WILBERT COFFIN A DÉCLARÉ À LA POLICE

Dans sa déclaration statutaire, assermentée devant un juge de paix, le 6 août 1953, Wilbert Coffin n’a pas mentionné avoir vu une STATION WAGON. Voici la description que Wilbert Coffin a donnée de la JEEP qu’il a vue :

BEFORE PURSUING THE TESTIMONY OF COFFIN’S MOTHER BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION, LET ME REMIND YOU WHAT WILBERT COFFIN DECLARED TO THE POLICE.

In his statutory declaration, sworn before a justice of the peace, on August 6th 1953, Wilbert Coffin did not mention having seen a STATION WAGON.
Here is Wilbert Coffin’s description of the JEEP he saw:

“THEN WE WERE RIGHT STRAIGHT BACK IN THE WOODS, WHERE WE ARRIVED AT AROUND 4.00 O’CLOCK P.M. AND THERE WAS A JEEP THERE WITH TWO MORE AMERICANS.
IT WAS LIKE A BOXED-IN JEEP, WITH A COVER IN THE BACK, DARK COLOUR.”

WILBERT COFFIN’S MOTHER TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION (continued)

MR. JACQUES HÉBERT:
Q. When you say your daughter and her husband, whom do you mean?
A. Mr. and Mrs. Stewart.
Q. What happened there ? What did you do?
A. We went to Mr. Patterson, to the garage, and he said that, as far as he knew, he remembered such a station wagon. It was two men in it, two Americans and they had stayed all night at the hotel… I don’t know what hotel; I am not familiar with Madeleine.
Q. Did he give you a description of the station wagon?
A. Well he said it was practically the same as what I had mentioned, with a plywood box. There was nothing, no paint, or anything on it. It was just like natural colour.
Q. No, paint on it?
A. No, nothing. It was just a natural colour of plywood.
Q. Did he say anything else about this station wagon and these Americans?
A. Well, they had been at his garage and they had asked and inquired about bear hunting. They knew nothing about bears, out there.
Q. Did these people come back the next morning after?
A. Well, the next morning he seen them, they drove west, on… That would be towards Murdochville, I suppose.
Q. Now, how is it, that you remember those facts so precisely?
A. I have never done anything like that before, so it stuck in my memory.
Q. You had never done…
A. I had never done any investigation like that.
Q. That is why it stuck in your memory,
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what did you do with this information?
A. We gave it to Mr. Maher.
Q. Yes, and what happened?
A. He did not seem to be very much interested. Mr. Patterson was never subpoenaed to appear but at the time the trial was taking place, my son Leslie telephoned him and asked him “would he come and testify” and he came, but there was nobody called.
Q. Did you introduce him to Mr. Maher, or did someone else do it?
A. I don’t remember whether I introduced him or whether it was my son. I don’t remember that part.
Q. But they met?
A. They met, yes.
Q. Where was that?
A. In the courthouse.
Q. Outside of the courthouse?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember what Mr. Maher decided about this?
A. Well, as far as I remember, he just told him, if he needed him, he would call him.
Q. And did he not call him?
A. No, not at all.
THE COURT:
Q. You were not yourself called to testify, were you?
A. No.
Q. And you did not testify about the facts on which you have just spoken, this afternoon, at the trial?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember at what time, what day exactly his return from his trip to Montréal and up north, you son would have spoken to you about this?
A. He told me that evening he arrived at home, that evening about six o’clock (6:00).
Q. The very evening he arrived?
A. The evening he arrived and while he was eating his lunch we were talking about it, and he said that.
Q. That would have been before he actually reported to the police?
A. Yes, he did not report until the next day, to the police. It was about six o’clock (6:00) in the evening when he came home.
Q. And did you know afterwards that your son had not spoken to the police about the station wagon, but he had spoken about a jeep. Do you remember that?
A. He always called it a station wagon, in my hearing. I don’t know what he called it when he was speaking to somebody else.
Q. He really mentioned a station wagon?
A. Yes, he mentioned a station wagon.
Q. Do you know that, to the police, he spoke of a jeep and not of a station wagon?
A. I don’t know that for I was not present.
Q. You were not informed of that?
A. I was not present when he spoke to the police.
Q, When you told Mr. Maher about this conversation which you had had with your son what did Mr. Maker tell you?
A. Oh, he said, he just went like this… (raising her shoulders)
Q. Did he himself mention the fact that what your son had said was that he had seen a jeep, not a station wagon?
A. I don’t know… I don’t think he mentioned it at all to me.
Q. Mr. Maher did not mention that?
A. I don’t think he mentioned to me either a jeep or a station wagon.
Q. But he did not ask you to come and testify?
A. No.
THE COURT:
If I may, I think he was wise! That’s all, as far as I am concerned.
ME JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C.
Legal Counsel to the Commission
I have just a small thing My Lord,
Q. Do you recall distinctly Mrs. Coffin what were the exact words, which your son used in that conversation when he came back from Montréal?
A. I told him that the police said that he had been the last one that had seen the men and he said: “When I left them, this station wagon was there with two Americans.”
Q, Are you sure, that he had used the expression “station wagon”?
A. Yes, he used the expression “station wagon” and then he described it.
Q. You are positive that he said “the station wagon”?
A. I am positive.
Q. Do you know if your son had any experience in automobile or truck, or things of the kind?
A. Well, yes he had driven one for several years and he had worked at his brother’s garage.
Q. He had worked in a garage?
A. Yes.
Q. In the weeks or the months, or the years before, would you remember your son having ever used in front of you, the word “jeep”?
A. Well, yes he used it because he was overseas in the war.
Q. So, he knew very well what a jeep was?
A. Yes.
Q. And you remember that, at times, he would have used that word “jeep” in front of you?
A. Yes, because, of course he knew a jeep. Anybody who had been in the war knew a jeep.
Q. And yet when he came back from Montréal, he did not speak of a jeep, but he spoke of a station wagon?
A. A station wagon, yes.

AND FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT

I, the undersigned, Claire Delaney, Official Reporter, of the Superior Court, District of Montréal, hereby certify under my oath of office, that the foregoing is and contains a true and faithful transcript of my notes.
And I have signed,
Claire Delaney
Official Reporter

WILBERT COFFIN'S SON PUTS OFF TILL NEXT YEAR HIS WALK FROM VANCOUVER TO OTTAWA

On February 29th 2008, James Coffin left a message on my blog. You may read it under the title CORONER’S INQUEST. He was announcing that he would start walking from Vancouver in May and arrive in Ottawa on the 23rd September. The purpose of his walk was to raise funds for AIDWYC and bring his father’s case to the attention of the Canadian public. He just told me today that his walk has been postponed till next year. Read below his answer to my e-mail.

LE FILS DE WILBERT COFFIN REMET À L’AN PROCHAIN SA MARCHE DE VANCOUVER À OTTAWA

Le 29 février 2008, James Coffin a publié un commentaire sur mon blogue. Je vous invite à le lire sous la rubrique CORONER’S INQUEST. Il annonçait qu’il allait marcher de Vancouver à Ottawa dans le but d’amasser de l’argent pour AIDWYC et de porter à l’attention des Canadiens la cause de son père. Il m’a informé aujourd’hui que cette marche a été remise à l’année prochaine. Lisez ci-dessous sa réponse à mon courriel.

Marie, Wilbert Coffin’s sister, has sent AIDWYC a bank draft of $10,200.00 to carry on the work of rehabilitating her brother’s name. She took about two years to raise these funds.

Marie, la soeur de Wilbert Coffin, a fait parvenir un chèque de 10 200 $ à AIDWYC pour lui permettre de continuer de travailler à la réhabilitation du nom de son frère. Elle a mis deux ans à ramasser cet argent.

----- Original Message -----
From: jim coffin
To: Clément Fortin
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:56 AM
Subject: RE: Your walk from Vancouver to Ottawa

Hi James Coffin here the walk has been postponed till next year there was far more things that needed to be done to get the walk going but everything will be in place for the walk next year thank you for taking the time to get in touch with me James Coffin

From: clementf@sympatico.ca> To: jimca1@hotmail.com> Subject: Your walk from Vancouver to Ottawa Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 05:46:37 -0400

Sir,
A few months ago, you posted on my blog that you would walk from Vancouver to Ottawa to raise funds for AIDWYC. You mentioned that you were to leave in May to arrive in Ottawa on September 23rd. I would like to update this information on my blog. Would you be kind enough to keep me posted. Thanks
Clément Fortin http://fortinclement.blogspot.com >

NEWS FROM WILBERT COFFIN'S SON

Jimmy Coffin



----- Original Message -----
From: jim coffin
To: Clément Fortin
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:56 AM
Subject: RE: Your walk from Vancouver to Ottawa
Hi James Coffin here the walk has been postponed till next year there was far more things that needed to be done to get the walk going but everything will be in place for the walk next year thank you for taking the time to get in touch with me James Coffin
> From: clementf@sympatico.ca> To: jimca1@hotmail.com> Subject: Your walk from Vancouver to Ottawa> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 05:46:37 -0400> > Sir,> A few months ago, you posted on my blog that you would walk from Vancouver > to Ottawa to raise funds for AIDWYC. You mentioned that you were to leave in > May to arrive in Ottawa on September 23rd. I would like to update this > information on my blog. Would you be kind enough to keep me posted. Thanks> Clément Fortin> http://fortinclement.blogspot.com >

COFFIN'S MOTHER TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION

LA MÈRE DE COFFIN TÉMOIGNE DEVANT LA COMMISSION BROSSARD

WILBERT COFFIN’S MOTHER TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION

Inquiry Commission transcripts, volume 30, pages 6240-6243 – 01R-/131_06_1914 -1917

On this second (2nd) of June, Anno Domini nineteen hundred and sixty-four (1964), personally came and appeared at Percé, MRS. ALBERT COFFIN, being called as witness herein, and WHO, having been duly sworn, doth depose and say as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION
Q. Your maiden name, please?
A. Jessie Languedoc.
Q. Your husband’s name?
A. Widow of Albert Coffin.
Q. Your age?
A. Seventy-six (76)
Q. Your occupation?
A. Housewife.
Q. Your address?
A. York Centre
Me JULES DESCHÊNES, Q.C., Legal Counsel to the Commission:
Q. Mrs. Coffin, I have only one question to ask from you and I wish to state, before I do, that I am sorry to have to come back over events of so many years ago. I do not want to insist.
There is only one thing, which I would like to know, and I think you are the only person who can give me the information.
I am going to quote to you from a book which was written by Mr. Belliveau[1] and I am going to quote the first paragraph at page 143, which reads as follows:
“In the afternoon and evening before his execution Wilbert Coffin busied himself preparing his will and writing two letters. One was for his family and it bore a secret, something, which they alone may know. The other was to his chaplain. What the letters contain is, of course, known only to recipients.”
Do you know anything about such a letter written by Wilbert Coffin shortly before his death?
A. No, I don’t know anything about it.
Q. You have not received any such letter?
A. No.
Q. And did your husband ever speak to you about such a letter?
A. No. I am quite confident he never received any.
Me Jules Deschênes, Q.C., Legal Counsel to the Commission.
That is all Mrs. Coffin, thank you.
AND FURTHER DEPONENT SAID NOT
[1] John Edward Belliveau, THE COFFIN MURDER, Toronto, 1956.


CANADA INQUIRY COMMISSION
PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC THE COFFIN AFFAIR

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

On this fifth (5th) day of June, Anno Domini nineteen hundred and sixty-four (1954), personally came and appeared, at Percé,

MRS. ALBERT COFFIN

Being recalled as a witness herein,

BY THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION

THE COURT:
Q, Mr. Hébert has just told us that you have expressed possibly the desire of being heard.
A. Well…
Q. Do you wish to be heard?
A. If you wish to hear what I have to say.
Q. Well, if you wish to be heard, we will hear you.
A. It was me that had gone – it was me that went and saw Mr. Lorne Patterson.
Q. All right. I think that perhaps it would be more regular if Mr. Hébert put questions to you. He knows exactly the points on which you would like to be heard.

MR. JACQUES HÉBERT

Q. Mrs. Coffin, do you remember, or do you recall that, at some time, your son Wilbert gave you some description of a vehicle he would have seen in the bush?
A. It was after he came from up north.
Q. After he came from up north. What do you mean by “up north”?
A. He was up north after he went to Montréal.
Q. Yes, you mean…
A. When he came home from the northern trip, he asked why it was the police wanted to see him about their disappearance of these men and I said that they had said: “he was the last man to see them” and he said: «I was not the last man because,” and he said: «When I left them there was a station wagon there with two Americans in it.
Q. Do you say a jeep or a station-wagon?
A. A station wagon. I made a mistake in speaking – station wagon, he told me.
Q. Do you know, yourself, the difference between a station wagon and a jeep?
A. No, I just merely know the difference between a car and a truck.
Q. And do you recall precisely that he mentioned a station wagon?
A. A station wagon with a home-made box. By “home-made box,” I mean it was not made in a factory.
Q. Home-made box?
A. Of plywood.
Q. Of plywood?
A. By “home-made”, I mean it was not made in a factory.
Q. Now, did you hear any rumour about the existence of this station wagon with the same Americans?
A. We had heard a rumour that such a station wagon had passed through Madeleine. As we know Mr. Lorne Patterson had a garage there, I thought that I had better go out and see him. My daughter and her husband took me out to see him.
THE COURT
Q, When was that?
A. I don’t know the exact date, but it was before the trial in nineteen fifty-four (1954), sometime before the trial.
(TO BE CONTINUED NEXT WEEK)

OTHER SITES ON THE COFFIN AFFAIR I SUGGEST YOU VISIT

CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME OF YOU BELIEVE, I CREATED THIS BLOG FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF BRINGING OUT THE FACTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AT PERCÉ, AND TO THE ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE COFFIN AFFAIR.

YOU MAY HOWEVER NOT AGREE WITH THESE FACTS. THEN I SUGGEST YOU VISIT OTHER SITES ON THE COFFIN AFFAIR:

WIKIPÉDIA
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Coffin

LA MÉMOIRE DU QUÉBEC
http://www.memoireduquebec.com/wiki/index.php?title=Qu%C3%A9bec_(province)._Scandales._Affaire_Coffin

HUMAIN RIGHTS IN CANADA
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/70mile.asp

THE ASSOCIATION IN DEFENCE OF THE WRONGLY CONVICTED
http://www.aidwyc.org/cases/

THE GAZETTE
WAS THE WRONG MAN HANGED?
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/onlineextras/news/story.html?id=5c9ac7d5-69b9-46a9-afdf-5422194f1467

LEW STODDARD ON LINE
http://stoddardsviews.blogspot.com/

MRS. EUGENE LINDSEY'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE PERCÉ JURY

LE TÉMOIGNAGE DE MADAME EUGENE LINDSEY DEVANT LE JURY DE PERCÉ

The 19th day of July, in the year fifty-four, came and appeared MRS. EUGENE HUNTER LINDSEY, born Mary Luverne, domiciled at 323 Walnut Street, Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., aged 45, being duly sworn upon the Holy Evangelists doth depose and say:
Examined by Mr. Paul Miquelon, Q.C. for the Prosecution.
(Excerpt from page 479 of the Court of Queen’s Bench transcripts)

Q. Well, tell us the amount.
A. I know my husband took 650$ from our savings for his trip and could have had more.
Q. Do you know if your son had money apart from that?
A. No, he was still in school, he did not have any money.

COFFIN'S MOTHER TESTIFIES BEFORE THE BROSSARD COMMISSION

LA MÈRE DE COFFIN TÉMOIGNE DEVANT LA COMMISSION BROSSARD

COMING SOON

À VENIR

EUGENE LINDSEY - UN USURIER? AFFAIRE COFFIN

CLIQUEZ SUR CES IMAGES

POUR LIRE LE TÉMOIGNAGE

DE ROBERT RITZ.

CHAPITRE 3 (Rapport Brossard, volume 2, pages 432-435)


L’ARGENT QUE M. LINDSAY, PÈRE AVAIT EN SA POSSESSION


Au procès de Coffin, la Couronne établit une relation entre les argents dépensés par Wilbert Coffin lors de son voyage de Gaspé à Montréal entre le 12 et le 15 juin et le montant que pouvait avoir sur lui M. Lindsay, père, lorsqu’il fut assassiné ; à ces fins, elle fit entendre madame Lindsay qui fournit le renseignement que, d’après elle, son mari devait avoir une somme d’environ six cent cinquante dollars (650.00$) lorsqu’il quitta Hollidaysburg à destination de Gaspé. Il n’y a pas de doute que cette preuve fut l’un des facteurs incriminants pour Coffin. La Couronne savait, à l’époque, que Coffin avait déclaré dans son affidavit du 6 août 1953 que lorsqu’il partit pour Montréal, il n’avait sur lui que $50.00 à $60.00, mais cet affidavit ne fut pas produit pour les raisons que nous connaissons ; l’eût-il été, la preuve que Lindsay portait sur lui une somme de $650.00 et celle des dépenses faites par Coffin au cours de son voyage en auraient été d’autant plus incriminantes.
MM. Belliveau et Hébert ignoraient sans aucun doute l’existence de cette déclaration assermentée de Coffin en date du 6 août 1953. C’est probablement la raison pour laquelle, l’un et l’autre se sont tellement efforcés dans leurs volumes de créer l’impression que M. Lindsay pouvait avoir sur lui une somme beaucoup plus considérable ; balayant d’un coup de main facile le témoignage de madame Lindsay qui était, sans aucun doute, la personne le plus susceptible de savoir combien son mari avait sur lui lorsqu’il quitta, ils ont échafaudé, sur le papier, une preuve basée en majeure partie sur de prétendues déclarations de journalistes tout spécialement sur une déclaration qu’aurait faite M. Robert Ritz, père du gendre de M. Lindsay, à Edwin Feeney, journaliste du Toronto Star.
Voici ce qu’affirmait à la page 39 de son livre M. Edward Belliveau :
« What the trial court, nor any of all those courts through which Coffin’s case was at length to move, never knew was the story of Lindsey’s son-in-law, Ronald Ritz. During an investigation of the crime by newspapermen, Ritz told a reporter in Pennsylvania that Lindsey’s with his habit of flashing money, had a sum more like $2,600 than $600 when he left home. Ritz made the remark after Mrs. Lindsey had told the reporter her husband had carried about $500.”
Monsieur Jacques Hébert, de son côté, fait dans son second volume les déclarations suivantes :
Page 27 :
« Mme Lindsay a toutefois déclaré à des journalistes que son mari avait pu apporter plus de $650 : « He could have had more ». Mais cela n’intéressait ni la Police provinciale ni la Couronne.
Le 24 juillet 1953, Edwin Feeney avait publié dans le Toronto Star le témoignage de Robert Ritz, un membre de la famille Lindsey qui connaissait fort bien Eugène Lindsey : « Je crois, déclara Ritz, que Lindsey avait plutôt $2,000 que $600. Eugene venait de vendre une flotte d’autobus. Ceux qui l’ont achetée lui versaient régulièrement des centaines de dollars. J’ai vu son porte-monnaie ; il éclatait littéralement tellement il était rempli de gros billets de banque. Un jour Eugène Lindsey m’a dit : « If anyone ever tries to get my money, it will be over my dead body”.
Dans l’entourage des Lindsey, on est plutôt de l’avis de Robert Ritz que de Mme Eugene Lindsey qui, au chapitre des finances, n’était pas dans les confidences de son mari. »
On voit par ce qui précède que ce qui fait le fondement des hypothèses émises par MM. Belliveau et Hébert serait une déclaration qui aurait été faite par un M. Ritz (Belliveau dit Ronald, Feeney et Hébert disent Robert) apparemment à Gaspé à M. Feeney du Toronto Star qui l’aurait reproduite dans le numéro du 24 juillet 1953 de ce journal, reproduction dont MM. Belliveau et Hébert se sont emparés, l’on comprend avec quelle joie, pour en faire une preuve « irréfutable » laquelle aurait dû être soumise par la Couronne au jury de Percé qui, aux dires de MM. Belliveau et Hébert, aurait dû connaître.
Or, cette Commission a voulu aller à la source ; à ces fins, elle a pu obtenir de M. Robert Ritz, qui ne voulait pas se déplacer et que la Commission ne pouvait pas obliger à venir témoigner, une déclaration assermentée. Dans cette déclaration, M. Robert Ritz nous a donné les renseignements suivants : (Cliquez sur les images pour lire cette déclaration et après l’avoir lue, lisez la conclusion du juge Brossard qui suit :)

Voilà donc à quoi se résume cette preuve des sommes énormes et à tout événement supérieures à la somme indiquée par madame Lindsay que son mari aurait portée sur lui lors de son départ pour la Gaspésie : du ouï-dire, essentiellement du ouï-dire. Il paraît manifeste qu’à l’exception de ceux qui entouraient M. Lindsay au moment de son départ pour son expédition de chasse, personne, personne, je répète, n’eut été en mesure de dire combien il portait alors sur lui ; madame Lindsay était la seule personne le plus susceptible de le savoir. D’ailleurs, une somme de $650.00 est en soi un montant substantiel pour quelqu’un qui a l’intention d’aller vivre dans le bois pendant une quizaine de jours ; vaquer à ses affaires dans un centre civilisé et faire la chasse dans le bois sont, tout de même, des conditions de vie différentes ; seul un imbécile ou un imprudent aurait pu s’aviser d’apporter avec lui un montant de $2,000.00 pour un voyage de ce gendre ; or, si l’on en juge par les qualités que M. Robert Ritz reconnaît à Eugene Lindsay, celui-ci ne paraît pas avoir été ni un imbécile ni un imprudent.

Wikipédia dit ceci au sujet d'Eugene Lindsey: "un petit usurier de 45 ans...)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Coffin

La Mémoire du Québec rapporte au sujet d'Eugene Lindsey qu'il est: "...un mécanicien et usurier..."

http://www.memoireduquebec.com/wiki/index.php?title=Qu%C3%A9bec_(province)._Scandales._Affaire_Coffin

EUGENE LINDSEY - A USURER? - COFFIN AFFAIR

CLICK ON THESE PICTURES

TO READ ROBERT RITZ'

TESTIMONY.

CHAPTER 3 (Brossard report, volume 2, pages 432-435)

( A literal translation by Clément Fortin)
MONEY THAT MR. LINDSEY, SENIOR, HAD IN HIS POSSESSION


At the trial of Coffin, the Crown established a relation between the monies spent by Coffin during his trip from Gaspé to Montréal, between the 12th to the 15th of June, and the amount that Mr. Lindsay, senior, might have had on him when he was murdered; to this end, it called to the stand, Mrs. Lindsay who informed that, according to her, her husband could have had the sum of approximately six hundred and fifty dollars ($650.00) when he left Hollidaysburg for Gaspé. There is no doubt that this proof was one of the incriminating factors for Coffin. The Crown knew, at that time, that Coffin had declared in his affidavit of the 6th of August of 1953, that when he left for Montréal, he only had $50.00 to $60.00, but this affidavit was not filed in court for the reasons that we know of; if it had been, the proof that Lindsay had on him the sum of $650.00 and that of expenses made by Coffin during his trip, it would have been all the more so incriminating
Messrs. Belliveau and Hébert ignored, without doubt, the existence of this sworn declaration that Coffin made on the 6th of August 1953. It is probably the reason why, they tried so hard in their books to give the impression that Mr. Lindsay might have had on him a sum much more important; sweeping with and easy blow of hand the testimony of Mrs. Lindsay who was, without doubt, the person the most likely to know how much her husband had on him when he left; they constructed, on paper, a proof based mostly on would-be newspapermen’s declarations, specially on a declaration that Mr. Robert Ritz , father of Mr. Lindsay’s son-in-law, made to Edwin Feeney, newspaperman with the Toronto Star.
Here is what Mr. Edward Belliveau affirmed in his book at page 39 :
« What the trial court, nor any of all those courts through which Coffin’s case was at length to move, never knew was the story of Lindsey’s son-in-law, Ronald Ritz. During an investigation of the crime by newspapermen, Ritz told a reporter in Pennsylvania that Lindsey’s with his habit of flashing money, had a sum more like $2,600 than $600 when he left home. Ritz made the remark after Mrs. Lindsey had told the reporter her husband had carried about $500.”
Mr. Jacques Hébert, for his part, wrote in his second book what follows :
Page 27 :
« Mrs. Lindsay declared however to newspapermen that her husband might have brought more than $650.00: « He could have had more ». However, this was of no interest either to the Police or to the Crown.
On the 24th of July 1953, Edwin Feeney published, in the Toronto Star, Robert Ritz’ testimony, a member of the Lindsey family who knew well Eugene Lindsey: « I think, said Ritz, that Lindsey had rather $2,000$ than $600.00. Eugene had just sold a fleet of buses. Those who had bought it were paying him regularly hundreds of dollars. I saw his wallet; it was literally bursting so much it was filled with big bank notes. One day Eugene Lindsey told me: « If anyone ever tries to get my money, it will be over my dead body”.
In the Lindsey’s family circle, they are more readily of Robert Ritz’ opinion than that of Mrs. Eugene Lindsey’s who, in matters of finance, was not her husband’s confident. »
We see from what precedes that the hypotheses constructed by Messrs. Belliveau and Hébert would be based on a declaration that one Mr. Ritz (Belliveau says Ronald, Feeney and Hébert say Robert) would have made apparently at Gaspé to Mr. Feeney of the Toronto Star who would have quoted it in the issue of the 24th of July 1953 of that newspaper, a quotation that Messrs. Belliveau and Hébert grabbed, we understand with so much joy, to make of it an “irrefutable” proof which should have been submitted by the Crown to the Percé jury who, according to Messrs. Belliveau and Hébert, ought to have known.
This Commission went to the source ; to this end, it was able to obtain from Mr. Robert Ritz, who did not want to travel and that this Commission could not oblige to come and testify, a sworn declaration. In this declaration, Mr. Robert Ritz has given us the following information : (Click on the pictures to read this declaration and after having read it, read the following justice Brossard’s conclusion.)


Here is what boils down to this proof of enormous sums of money and, at any event, superior to the sum indicated by Mrs. Lindsay, that her husband might have carried with him when he left for the Gaspé peninsula : hearsay, essentially hearsay. It appears manifest that, except for those surrounding Mr. Lindsay at the time of his departure for his hunting party, no one, no one, I repeat, could have been able to say how much he carried with him ; Mrs. Lindsay was the only person the most likely to know about it.

PERRY MASON ENQUÊTE SUR L'AFFAIRE COFFIN

Photo de Perry Mason (Erle Stanley Gardner) au travail

Cliquez sur ces images pour lire une lettre envoyée par Perry Mason (Erle Stanley Gardner) à la Commission Brossard.

Chapitre 2 (Rapport Brossard, volume 2, page 405 à 409)

THE COURT OF LAST RESORT

Il existe aux États-Unis un organisme qui s’est donné pour but de signaler au public américain ce qu’il considère être les faiblesses du système judiciaire américain en tentant de refaire les enquêtes et les procès des causes importantes qui auraient pu donner lieu à une erreur judiciaire. Cet organisme est surtout connu au Canada et en cette province par la publicité que lui a donnée l’auteur des romans policiers bien connu Erle Stanley Gardner et dans une moindre mesure par la publicité qu’il a reçue de la part de la revue américaine « Argosy » qui publie des articles autour et au sujet de certaines enquêtes entreprises par l’organisation susdite.
Il appert que cette Court of Last Resort se serait intéressée pendant quelque temps à l’affaire Coffin. À proprement parler, il n’entrait pas dans les cadres de notre propre enquête de nous intéresser ou de nous enquérir sur les activités de cette Court of Last Resort autour et au sujet de l’affaire Coffin ; si nous l’avons fait, c’est parce que MM. Belliveau et Hébert en ont parlé dans leurs volumes, et parce que Me Gravel et M. Hébert ont insisté sans relâche auprès de cette Commission pour qu’elle fasse entendre Erle Stanley Gardner et pour qu’elle s’enquière des informations que la Court of Last Resort aurait pu recueillir.
Dans son livre publié en juin 1956, M. Belliveau ne fit pas allusion à une intervention qui aurait pu déjà s’être produite de la part de The Court of Last Resort ; il se contenta d’exprimer en termes voilés l’espoir que cette intervention-là se produirait.
Or, on nous a appris, par la copie d’une lettre datée du 13 mars 1956 transmise par Me Gravel au secrétaire de l’American Bar Association, que depuis déjà quelques semaines Me Gravel était en correspondance avec cette Court of Last Resort ; nous ignorons si M. Belliveau était au courant de cette correspondance lorsque son volume fut mis sur le marché.
Dans son volume « J’accuse les assassins de Coffin », M. Hébert, aux pages 114 et 115, traite assez longuement de cette institution américaine en termes louangeurs comme prémisse à la citation d’extraits d’un article publié par M. Stanley Gardner dans la revue « Argosy » d’avril 1957. Le passage le plus important de l’article de M. Gardner cité par M. Hébert est le suivant :
In the Coffin case it would certainly seem that new evidence was uncovered which might have been favorable to the defendant, if presented to the trial Jury or at a new trial.
Or, dans une lettre qu’il nous faisait tenir en date du 11 mai 1964, M. Gardner nous informait qu’il ne s’était nullement occupé personnellement de l’affaire Coffin et qu’il avait confié à un M. Steeger de la revue « Argosy » le soin de la suivre.
Précédemment, en date du 31 mars 1964, Me Jules Deschênes, conseiller juridique de cette Commission, avait écrit à l’éditeur de « Argosy » pour lui demander, entre autres choses : « I would also like to know whether the Court of Last Resort made any field investigation concerning this case and, in the affirmative, whether the record and findings could be made available to me for examination ». Le 1er mai, il recevait de M. Steeger le télégramme laconique suivant: “The material you requested is not available.”
Or, la Commission avait déjà pu mettre la main sur un numéro de juin 1956 de la revue « Argosy », où dans un article anonyme on faisait un récit de la cause Coffin en y ressassant, dans leur essence, les renseignements et les hypothèses émises par M. Belliveau et par M. Hébert dans leurs volumes respectifs. Il n’y avait absolument rien dans cet article qui n’eût pas déjà été porté à la connaissance des autorités canadiennes. Les principaux faits, sinon les seuls, qui n’avaient pas été portés à la connaissance des membres du jury de Percé ou qui n’avaient pas été discutés devant eux étaient ceux qui se référaient à de prétendues traces de jeep dans les bois de la Gaspésie et à la prétendue présence, dans ces bois, de jeeps dont l’une aurait été celle qu’avait vue Wilbert Coffin.
M. Steeger ou ses aides avaient-ils eux-mêmes conduit une enquête ? La réponse laconique du ler mai 1964 nous porte à croire qu’il n’en fut rien ; à tout événement, il ne paraît ni de l’article de la revue « Argosy », ni de celui de M. Stanley Gardner, ni de la lettre de ce dernier du 11 mai 1964, qu’une telle enquête ait été faite et poussée par The Court of Last Resort. Mais nous avons d’un post-scriptum à la lettre de M. Gardner du 11 mai que la revue « Argosy », après avoir annoncé en août 1956 qu’un article faisant suite à celui du mois de juillet 1956 serait incessamment publié, n’en publia pas et que « the subject was dropped ».
Pour faire ressortir le peu d’importance qu’il fallait à l’époque attacher à cette intervention de The Court of Last Resort, intervention que, pour des fins intellectuelles plus ou moins honnêtes, M. Hébert a cherché à rendre importante, convient-il de souligner l’information suivante qui nous a été communiquée par M. Belliveau : peu de temps après l’exécution de Wilbert Coffin, se forma, à Toronto, un comité de cinq ou six personnes y compris M. Belliveau lui-même, dont le but était de tenter de réhabiliter, si possible, la mémoire de Wilbert Coffin. Il semblerait que la majorité, sinon la totalité des membres de ce comité, s’il faut en croire M. Hébert, était opposée à la peine de mort, comme M. Gardner d’ailleurs qui nous l’a déclaré formellement dans la lettre qu’il nous a transmise. Or, ce comité constitué à Toronto ne s’est réuni qu’une seule fois. Il avait cependant demandé à M. Belliveau d’être un intermédiaire entre lui et The Court of Last Resort ; après plusieurs entrevues avec un M. Schindler, de la Court of Last Resort, M. Belliveau « was sorrily disenchanted and disillusioned ». Le comité ne paraît plus s’être intéressé davantage à l’affaire Coffin… à moins que certains de ses membres n’aient porté une attention particulière à notre enquête.
Ainsi doit retourner dans les brumes de l’imagination et de l’oubli une autre tentative d’induire le public en erreur en portant à son attention des découvertes qui ne paraissent pas avoir été faites et dont, à tout événement, aucune preuve ne paraît exister.

PERRY MASON INVESTIGATES THE COFFIN AFFAIR

Photo of Perry Mason (Erle Stanley Gardner) dictating in his office.

Click on the above pictures to read a letter sent by Perry Mason to the Brossard Commission.



Chapter 2 ( Brossard Report, volume 2, pages 405-409)

THE COURT OF LAST RESORT
(A literal translation by Clément Fortin)
An organism in the United-States devotes itself to bringing to the attention of the American public what it considers weaknesses of the American judiciary system and attempts to reopen investigations and reviews trials, which might have given rise to miscarriages of justice. This organism is particularly known in Canada, and in this province, from publicity that Erle Stanley Gardner, a well-known author of detective novels, and, to a lesser degree, from the publicity that it received from the American magazine « Argosy ». This magazine publishes articles about investigations led by the Court of Last Resort.
It appears that this Court of Last Resort would have been interested, for a while, in the Coffin affair. Strictly speaking, it was not within the purview of our own inquiry to investigate into the activities of this Court of Last Resort around and about the Coffin affair. If we have done so, it is because Messrs. Belliveau and Hébert have talked about it in their books, and because Mtre Gravel and Mr. Hébert insisted, without respite, that this Commission called Erle Stanley Gardner to testify and that it inquired about the information that The Court of Last Resort might have gathered.
In his book, published in June 1956, Mr. Belliveau did not allude to an intervention, which might have taken place from The Court of Last Resort ; he contented himself in expressing, in veiled terms, the hope that such an intervention would take place
We have learned, from the copy of a letter dated the 13th of March 1956, transmitted by Mtre Gravel to the secretary of the American Bar Association, that, for several weeks already, Mtre Gravel was in correspondence with this Court of Last Resort ; we do not know if Mr. Belliveau knew about this correspondence when his book was published.
In his volume, « I Accuse the Assassins of Coffin », Mr. Hébert, at pages 114 and 115, deals at length with this American institution and is loud in his praises of it by way of introduction to quoting excerpts of an article published by Mr. Stanley Gardner in the magazine « Argosy » in April 1957. The most important passage of Mr. Gardner’s article quoted by Mr. Hébert is the following :
In the Coffin case, it would certainly seem that new evidence was uncovered which might have been favorable to the defendant, if presented to the trial Jury or at a new trial.
In his letter, which he has sent us on the 11th of May 1964, Mr. Gardner informed us that he did not at all looked personally in the Coffin affair and that he had entrusted Mr. Steeger of the magazine “Argosy” with the follow up. (See Mr. Gardner’s letter in clicking on the images above.)
Previously, on the 31st of March 1964, Mtre Jules Deschênes, legal adviser to this Commission, had written to the publisher of “Argosy” to ask him, among other things: « I would also like to know whether the Court of Last Resort made any field investigation concerning this case and, in the affirmative, whether the record and findings could be made available to me for examination ». On the 1st of May, he received from Mr. Steeger the following laconic telegram: “The material you requested is not available.”
The Commission had already been able to lay hands on the issue of the June 1956 magazine “Argosy”, where, in an anonymous article, a description was made of the Coffin affair, in reviewing, in substance, the information and hypotheses submitted by Mr. Belliveau and by Mr. Hébert in their respective books. There was absolutely nothing in this article that had not been brought to the attention of Canadian authorities. The main facts, if not the only ones, which had not been brought to the attention of the Percé jury or which had not been discussed before them, were those referring to jeep tracks in the Gaspé bush and to the would-be presence, in this bush, of jeeps, one of which might have been the one that Wilbert Coffin had seen. Had Mr. Steeger or his assistants led, themselves, an investigation ? The laconic answer of the 1st of May 1964 leads us to believe that nothing was done ; in any event, it does not show neither from the article of the magazine “Argosy”, nor from that of Mr. Stanley Gardner, nor from the letter of the latter of May 11th 1964, that an investigation had been led and pushed by The Court of Last Resort. However, we know from a post-scriptum to the letter of Mr. Gardner of 11th of May that the magazine « Argosy », after having announced in August 1956 that an article following that of the month of July 1956 would be published shortly, none was published and that “the subject was dropped”.
To bring out the little importance that one should have given to this intervention of The Court of Last Resort, intervention, which for intellectual purposes more or less honest, Mr. Hébert has tried to render important, we should point out the following information which has been communicated to us by Mr. Belliveau : a short while after the execution of Wilbert Coffin, a committee of five or six persons including Mr. Belliveau himself, was formed, in Toronto, for the purpose of rehabilitating, if possible, the memory of Wilbert Coffin. It would seem that the majority, if not the totality of the members of that committee, if we believe Mr. Hébert, were opposed to capital punishment, as Mr. Gardner has otherwise himself declared formally in the letter he transmitted to us. This committee formed in Toronto only met once. However, it had asked Mr. Belliveau to act as intermediary between it and The Court of Last Resort ; after many interviews with one Mr. Schindler, of the Court of Last Resort, Mr Belliveau « was sorrily disenchanted and disillusioned ». The committee does not seem to have taken active interest in the Coffin affair… unless some of its members had focussed their attention on our enquiry.
Thus, must be sent back, to the haze of imagination and oblivion, another attempt to mislead the public, in bringing to his attention discoveries, which do not appear to have been made, and for which, at any event, no proof seems to exist.

EUGENE LINDSEY'S PICK UP DRIVEN BACK TO PENNSYLVANIA

Click on the opposite image to

read a letter from captain

Matte, dated 29th August 1953,

authorizing the handing over

of Eugene Lindsey's truck to

Mr. RITZ, Mrs. Eugene Lindsey's

son-in-law.

PERRY MASON INVESTIGATES THE COFFIN AFFAIR - ENQUÊTE SUR L'AFFAIRE COFFIN

À VENIR: PERRY MASON ENQUÊTE SUR L'AFFAIRE COFFIN

COMING SOON: PERRY MASON INVESTIGATES THE COFFIN AFFAIR

En attendant, cliquez sur le lien suivant et visitez un site intéressant.
http://andrepronovost.com/MainFrameset7.htm

BILL BAKER'S PICK-UP - GMAC HAD A LIEN

On the 17th of September 1953, Claude Poirier, of

the Credit Department of GMAC, informed the

Attorney General that it had a lien of $1,282.05
on Baker's pick-up truck. The same pick-up Baker

had lent his partner Wilbert Coffin.
Click on the above image to read that letter.

COFFIN SUED FOR DEBTS

Whorrell W. Annett poursuit Coffin pour recouvrer $1,188.00 et les frais, le 29 novembre 1951.

Click on these

images.

L'EXÉCUTION DE COFFIN: DANS LES COULISSES

CHAPITRE 12
L’EXÉCUTION DE COFFIN
Rapport Brossard, volume 3, pages 526 à 532

Au tout début de son volume « J’accuse les assassins de Coffin », à la page 15, après avoir fait une description assez émouvante des derniers moments de Coffin et de l’exécution elle-même, monsieur Hébert, avec infiniment de délicatesse et de charité se livre aux commentaires virulents suivants contre le capitaine Matte :

Pages 15 et 16
« Parmi les témoins se trouvait le capitaine Alphonse Matte de la Police provinciale à qui on avait confié la tâche de trouver le meurtrier des trois chasseurs américains assassinés dans les bois près de Percé. Le capitaine Matte décida un jour que Coffin était le coupable ; puis, avec un sadisme qui relève de la clinique psychiatrique, il s’acharna contre son coupable jusqu’à ce qu’il fut condamné à mort.
Son rôle était pourtant terminé le jour où il livra Coffin à Me Noël Dorion et à Me Paul Miquelon, deux réputés chasseurs de têtes qui ne laisseraient sûrement pas s’échapper un bon suspect de la Couronne.
Belles âmes, vous ne connaissez pas encore le capitaine Matte ! Sachez tout de suite que ce policier consciencieux voulut entendre les derniers hoquets de son pendu : c’était sa récompense.
Sans honte, il quitta la prison par la porte principale et se montra aux curieux rassemblés. Il savourait sa victoire. La veille, il avait déclaré aux journalistes : « La Justice a triomphé ! »

Des accusations injurieuses de monsieur Hébert à l’endroit du capitaine Matte, celle-ci s’avère l’une des plus indécentes.
Une preuve dont l’exactitude est incontestable a établi devant nous ce qui suit :
Depuis longtemps, une ligne de conduite suivie au Ministère du Procureur général veut que les policiers qui ont eu charge de l’enquête, à la suite de laquelle un accusé pour meurtre a été trouvé coupable, assistent à l’exécution et soient témoins à l’enquête du Coroner qui la suit ; ce fut sur les instructions du Ministère du Procureur que les capitaines Matte et Sirois se rendirent à la prison de Bordeaux, peu de temps avant minuit, le soir du 9 février 1956, pour assister, à ces fins uniquement, à l’exécution de Coffin. (Cliquez sur l’image ci-haut et lisez la lettre adressée par la Sûreté provinciale aux capitaines Matte et Sirois leur ordonnant d’assister à l’exécution de Coffin.)
À l’hôtel où ils s’étaient retirés avant de se rendre à la prison, les capitaines Matte et Sirois, en attendant le moment où il leur faudrait se rendre à la prison pour accomplir leur pénible devoir, furent invités par une connaissance du capitaine Sirois, rencontrée au cours de l’après-midi, à s’y faire conduire.
Cet ami du capitaine Sirois, un monsieur O’Dowd, a raconté ce qui s’est passé : Ils arrivèrent tous trois, en automobile, vers les 11.15, 11.30 heures du soir, aux grilles qui donnent sur le long chemin intérieur conduisant du boulevard Gouin aux portes de la prison. Il y avait devant les grilles un certain nombre de curieux : sa voiture ayant été admise à passer par des gardes de faction, il alla conduire les deux officiers de police jusqu’à la porte de la prison, revint à l’extérieur des grilles et stationna son véhicule le long du boulevard ; comme il se sentait « jittery », il décida d’aller se promener en attendant l’heure où ses passagers sortiraient de la prison ; il revint lui-même à la sortie de la prison vers les 1 heure moins quart du matin ; peu de temps après, les deux capitaines arrivèrent à pied.
Il y avait alors assez de monde autour de la grille ; il y avait aussi un certain nombre d’automobiles stationnées le long du boulevard Gouin ; dès qu’il aperçut les deux capitaines, il dirigea sa voiture vers l’entrée ; les deux officiers de police montèrent immédiatement dans sa voiture et ils retournèrent à l’hôtel. Il n’a pas eu connaissance que le capitaine Matte et le capitaine Sirois aient parlé à aucune personne : les piétons qui se trouvaient autour de l’entrée de la prison pouvaient être au nombre de 30 à 40 personnes au plus ; ces gens se tenaient là bien paisiblement, comme des curieux. Il y avait à peu près autant de gens lors du départ vers les 1 heures du matin qu’il y en avait eu lors de l’arrivée vers les 11.30 heures. Il n’a pas eu connaissance que lors du retour des deux officiers de police, il y ait eu quelques démonstrations que ce soit ; personne ne paraît les avoir reconnus : ils étaient tous deux vêtus de complets ordinaires.
D’après M. O’Dowd, lorsque ses passagers et lui retournèrent à l’hôtel, le capitaine Matte et le capitaine Sirois étaient « jittery and depressed » et ne parlaient pas. M. O’Dowd suggéra alors à Raoul Sirois d’aller prendre un verre ; « You might feel better » lui dit-il ; Sirois et lui se rendirent alors à un restaurant de l’autre côté de la rue pour y prendre une consommation, mais le capitaine Matte refusa de les suivre et rentra à l’hôtel.
Les capitaines Matte et Sirois confirmèrent le récit fait de leur voyage à la prison par M. O’Dowd, affirmèrent qu’ils n’avaient nullement demandé aux autorités de les envoyer assister à la pendaison, qu’ils n’y étaient pas allés de grande gaieté de cœur et qu’au contraire le spectacle lugubre qui se déroula sous leurs yeux les laissa abattus et tristes.
Ce fut là « la manière cynique dont le capitaine Matte reçut sa récompense en entendant les derniers hoquets de son pendu et se montra aux curieux rassemblés pour savourer sa victoire et le triomphe de la justice. »
Tout ceci est fort triste, mais triste surtout à cause de l’immensité de l’injustice commise par l’auteur sans aucune raison autre que celle de faire courir une plume trempée dans le vitriol.
Aux faits que je viens de décrire se rattache un incident qui s’est produit devant nous au cours de notre enquête.
Pendant que le capitaine Sirois témoignait, Me Gravel lui exhiba une photo qui s’avéra subséquemment être l’une de celles qu’avait publiées un journal de Toronto le lendemain de la pendaison ; cette photo était celle de deux personnes assises sur le banc d’un fourgon ; la légende au bas de la photo disait que l’une de ces deux personnes était « le capitaine Matte, hirsute, assis dans le fourgon qui transportait le cadavre de Wilbert Coffin ». Après que Me Gravel eût demandé au capitaine Sirois de regarder la photo et de lire la légende, le conseiller juridique de la Commission pria immédiatement Me Gravel de déposer cette photo comme exhibit ; celui-ci s’y refusa carrément et retira la photo des mains de M. Sirois, non sans que le témoin ait eu le temps de déclarer que le capitaine Matte n’apparaissait pas sur la photo. Plutôt que d’être obligé de produire cette photo qu’on devait savoir être accompagnée d’une légende fausse, Me Gravel retira alors les questions qu’il avait posées au capitaine Sirois à son sujet.
Dans l’après-midi, plus tard, le conseiller de la Commission produisit lui-même copies de la même photo et du journal dans lequel elle avait paru et procéda à faire la preuve des faits suivants : la même photo avait été reproduite par un journal de Montréal ; quelques jours après cette production, sur mise en demeure du capitaine Matte, ce journal publia une rétractation et des excuses, expliquant qu’à la suite de faux renseignements (ceux sans doute du journal torontois), on avait affirmé erronément que cette photo représentait le capitaine Matte.
Les deux capitaines affirmèrent tous deux qu’effectivement le capitaine Matte n’apparaissait pas sur cette photo, ce qu’il n’était pas nécessaire de démontrer à la Cour, car la photo n’était manifestement pas celle du capitaine.¸
Cet incident de la photo démontre à quels moyens mesquins et petits, cyniques et injustes peuvent recourir certains journaux pour faire de la sensation et à quels moyens non moins petits et cyniques recourent malheureusement parfois certains avocats pour diminuer des témoins ou des parties contre lesquels ils agissent.
De telles méthodes ne sont ni à l’honneur de ces journaux ni à l’honneur de ces avocats.

THE EXECUTION OF COFFIN : BEHIND THE SCENE

(A literal translation of that letter)

Please take note that your presence

is required at the Bordeaux jail, on the

9th February 1956, around 11.30 p.m.,

for the execution of Wilbert Coffin

on the 10th of February 1956.

COFFIN’S EXECUTION
(Rapport Brossard, chapitre 12, volume 3, pages 526 à 531)
(A literal translation by Clément Fortin)

At the very beginning of his book « I Accuse the Assassins of Coffin », at page 15, after having made a touching description of Coffin’s last moments and of the execution itself, Mr. Hébert, with delicacy and charity gives himself up to the following virulent comments against captain Matte :

Pages 15 et 16 :
« Among the witnesses, there was captain Alphonse Matte of the Provincial Police, to whom was entrusted the task of finding the murderer of three American hunters murdered in the bush near Percé. Captain Matte decided one day that Coffin was the guilty one ; then, with sadism, partaking of the psychiatrical clinic, he hounded his culprit until he was condemned to death.
His role ended on the day he handed Coffin over to Mtre Noël Dorion and Mtre Paul Miquelon, two reputed headhunters who would certainly not let go a good Crown suspect.
«Noble souls, you do not know captain Matte yet ! Be informed right away that this conscientious police officer wanted to hear the last gasps of his hanged victim: it was his reward. Without shame, he left the prison through the main entrance and appeared before a crowd of bystanders. He was relishing his victory. The day before, he had declared to newspapermen : « Justice has prevailed » »

Of all Mr. Hébert’s insulting accusations towards captain Matte, this one is the most indecent.
A proof, the exactness of which is unquestionable, has established before us the following :
For a long time, a line of conduct, followed at the Department of the Attorney General, requires that the police officers, who were in charge of an investigation, following which the accused of murder has been found guilty, attend the execution and be witnesses of the following Coroner’s inquest ; it was on the instructions of the Department of the Attorney General that captains Matte and Sirois went to the Bordeaux jail a short while before midnight, the evening of the 9th of February 1956, to attend, for this sole purpose, Coffin’s execution. (Click on the image above to read a copy of the letter from the Quebec Provincial Police ordering captains Matte and Sirois to attend Coffin’s execution.)
At the hotel where they had retired before going to the prison, captains Matte and Sirois, while waiting the moment where they would have to go to the prison to accomplish their painful duty, were invited by an acquaintance of captain Sirois, whom he had met in the afternoon, were invited to be driven to the prison.
This friend of captain Sirois, Mr. O’Dowd has told us what happened : The three of them arrived, in an automobile, around 11.15, 1.30 in the evening, at the entrance gate opening on the long interior way leading to Gouin Boulevard at the prison doors. Before the iron gates, there were some bystanders: his car having been admitted to go in, by guards on duty, he drove the two police officers to the prison door, came back outside the iron gates and parked his vehicle along the boulevard: as he was feeling jittery, he decided to take a walk while waiting the time his passengers would come out of the prison; he came back to the prison around a quarter to one o’clock in the morning; a short time after, the two captains came out on foot. There were some people near the iron gates ; there were also a certain number of automobiles parked along the Gouin Boulevard : as soon as he saw the two captains, he drove with his car towards the entrance ; the two officers got immediately into his car and returned to the hotel. To his knowledge captain Matte and captain Sirois talked to no one: the pedestrians who were near the prison entrance were some 30 to 40 people at the most ; these people kept quiet. There were as many people around one o’clock in the morning than there had been at their arrival around 11.30. He was not aware, when the two officers came back, of any demonstrations ; no one seems to have recognized them : they were all dressed in plain civilian clothes.
According to Mr. O’Dowd, when his passengers and he returned to the hotel, captain Matte and captain Sirois were jittery and depressed and did not talk. Mr.O’Dowd suggested then to Raoul Sirois to go and have a drink ; « You might feel better » said he ; Sirois and him went, then, to a restaurant on the other side of the street for a drink, but captain Matte did not follow them and went back to the hotel.
Captains Matte and Sirois confirmed Mr. O’Dowd’s account of their trip to the prison, and affirmed that they had not at all asked the authorities to send them to attend the hanging, that it was with no light heart that they accepted and that, on the contrary, this gloomy spectacle that took place before their eyes left them depressed and sad.
It was then “ the cynical manner in which captain Matte received his award while hearing the last gasps of his hanged culprit and showed himself to the crowd of bystanders to relish his victory and the triumph of justice”.
All this is very sad, but sad most of all because of the immense extent of the injustice made by the author without any reason other than that of running a pen dipped in vitriol.
To the facts that I just described, an incident is linked up to what happened before us, in the course of our enquiry.
While captain Sirois was testifying, Mtre Gravel showed him a photo which proved subsequently to be one of those that a Toronto newspaper had published the day following the hanging ; this photo was one of the two persons seated on the bench of a van; the legend at the bottom of the photo mentioned that one of those two persons were “captain Matte, hirsute, seated in the van carrying Wilbert Coffin’s corpse.” After Mtre Gravel had asked captain Sirois to look at the photo and read the legend, the legal adviser to the Commission asked immediately Mtre Gravel to file this photo as exhibit; the latter one refused bluntly and withdrew the photo from the hands of Mr. Sirois, but not before the witness had had time to state that captain Matte did not appear on the photo. Rather than having to file this photo that he ought to know it was accompanied by a legend, Mtre Gravel withdrew, then, the questions he had asked captain Sirois about it.
In the afternoon, the legal adviser to the Commission filed, himself, copies of the same photo and of the newspaper in which it had appeared and proceeded to prove the following facts : the same photo had been reproduced in a Montréal newspaper ; a few days after that production, captain Matte summoned the newspaper to retract ; this newspaper published a retractation and excuses explaining that following false information (no doubt from the Toronto paper), they had stated erroneously that this photo represented captain Matte.
The two captains affirmed that effectively captain Matte did not appear on that photo, which it was not necessary to demonstrate to the Court because this photo manifestly was not that of captain Matte.
This incident demonstrates the means, small, cynical and unjust to which may resort to certain newspapers to make sensation and what means, not less petty, cynical and unjust use sometimes unfortunately certain lawyers to diminish witnesses or parties against whom they act. Such methods are neither to the honour of the newspapers nor to that of those lawyers.