.jpg)
Bill Baker’s pick-up truck that he had lent to Coffin. From Montreal to Gaspé, it when from one ditch to another, to finally run into a tramway.
Centre d'archives de la Gaspésie/Musée de la Gaspésie. P123 Fonds Georges-Étienne Blanchard. Boîte 1.
8 avril 2008
LA CAMIONNETTE QUE BILL BAKER A PRÊTÉE À COFFIN
.jpg)
La camionnette que Bill Baker a prêtée à Coffin. D'un fossé à l'autre, de Gaspé à Montréal, elle a été finalement emboutie par un tramway.
Centre d'archives de la Gaspésie/Musée de la Gaspésie. P123 Fonds Georges-Étienne Blanchard. Boîte 1.
3 avril 2008
INTERVENTION DES ÉTATS-UNIS DANS L'AFFAIRE COFFIN
.jpg)
POUR LIRE CES DOCUMENTS, CLIQUEZ
SUR LES IMAGES.jpg)
.jpg)
Voici la déclaration faite sous serment par
Ernest de W. Mayer, le Consul des États-Unis
à Québec,à l'été 1953, lorsque les ossements
des trois chasseurs américains furent
trouvés.
.jpg)
Lettre adressée, le 30 juillet 1953, à Van Zandt, membre du Congrès américain par le Département d'État des États-Unis..jpg)
EXTRAIT DU RAPPORT BROSSARD
PARTIE VII, VOLUME 2, PAGES 410 ET SUIVANTES
SUR CERTAINS INCIDENTS MAJEURS DE L’AFFAIRE COFFIN
PRÉLIMINAIRES
La Commission a étudié, à ce jour, cette partie importante de la preuve touchant directement aux événements reliés aux meurtres des chasseurs et aux moyens invoqués à la défense de Coffin par ses défenseurs, avocats et autres : elle étudiera maintenant certains incidents majeurs de l’affaire.
Chapitre 1
LES «INTERVENTIONS ÉTRANGÈRES »
Et
LE CHOIX DES REPRÉSENTANTS DE LA COURONNE
Dans son deuxième ouvrage « J’accuse les assassins de Coffin », monsieur Hébert a reproché en termes assez durs aux administrateurs provinciaux d’avoir été, dans le choix des policiers et avocats chargés respectivement des enquêtes policière et judiciaire, guidés par des mobiles politiques, mesquins et peu honorables. Je cite les passages suivants du chapitre 2 du livre :
Page 19
« le gouvernement provincial était plus soucieux de réparer en vitesse les dégâts causés par l’affaire à l’industrie touristique que de chercher la vérité. Pour M. Duplessis, il ne s’agissait pas d’un meurtre ordinaire, mais d’un attentat contre une source de revenus importante de la Province. Enfin, mes enquêtes récentes m’ont fourni la preuve que le gouvernement provincial a subi de très fortes pressions américaines, les unes venant même du State Department. »
p. 20 « Pour limiter les dégâts, il fallait - n’était-ce pas la moindre des choses ? – trouver rapidement le coupable de cet horrible meurtre, le punir comme il convenait en lui faisant payer de sa vie le triple assassinat. »
L’industrie touristique ne fut pas représentée au procès par un témoin à charge officiellement délégué par un syndicat d’initiative, une association d’hôteliers ou le ministère des Finances, mais l’ombre de ce témoin absent a certes plané sur le petit palais de justice de Percé. »
p. 21 « Ainsi, on n’a rien su dans le Québec des pressions, faites par la Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Club qui comptait plus de 200 00 membres, dont plusieurs fréquentaient assidûment les lacs et les bois du Québec, dont les autres étaient susceptibles de venir un jour ou l’autre semer leurs dollars dans la province de M. Duplessis.
Cette puissance association connaissait son prestige auprès des autorités provinciales : dès qu’elle apprit la mort tragique de trois chasseurs de Pennsylvanie dans la brousse gaspésienne, elle n’hésita pas à intervenir et à faire savoir au procureur général qu’elle voulait de « l’action ».
p. 22 « Au cours de l’enquête, Van Zandt avait rendu publique une lettre que venait de recevoir du consul américain à Québec l’assistant du Secrétaire d’État John Foster Dulles. »
Voyons ce qui en fut de ces différentes questions.
Interventions étrangères
Les autorités judiciaires de la province subirent-elles des pressions étrangères quant à l’enquête policière sur la disparition des trois chasseurs américains ?
Il y eut certes quelques interventions, mais elles furent peu nombreuses et de caractère tout à fait normal et régulier.
Inquiétés par l’absence prolongée de leur fils, M. et Mme Claar communiquèrent, pour une première fois, avec la Sûreté provinciale à Gaspé le 5 juillet 1953, un mois par conséquent après le départ des trois chasseurs pour Gaspé. N’ayant pas reçu d’informations avant le 9, ils se mirent de nouveau en communication avec, cette fois, non pas la Sûreté, dont le sergent Doyon était en charge à Gaspé, mais avec une personne qu’ils savaient avoir déjà agi comme guide pour M. Lindsey, puis, partirent eux-mêmes pour Gaspé où ils se trouvèrent vers le 12 juillet et les jours suivants.
Apparemment, à la suite de nouvelles publiées dans les journaux locaux d’Altoona, Blair County Unit Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs d’Altoona, Pennsylvanie, d’où étaient partis les chasseurs, s’avisa d’envoyer, le 22 juillet, à la Canadian National Sportsmen’s Show de Toronto, un télégramme comportant, entre autres, la demande suivante : « It was resolved that we appeal to you to lend support in any way you think possible in the efforts of the police and other searchers in solving the mystery of our three missing Pennsylvania hunters ; any efforts on the part of your organization in helping to bring quick action in clearing the mystery and seeing that justice is done will be greatly appreciated”.
Le 24 juillet, la Canadian national Sportsmen’s Show répondait à l’Association d’Altoona, entre autres choses, ce qui suit :
« While we will be only too glad to assist your Association in any way possible, we do not belive that our entry into the complicated situation in Québec would be proper, nor do we think that it is in any way necessary… In addition, we feel that the administration of these matters in the province of Quebec is in the hands of wese and capable officials, and while there might appear to be some confusion at the present time, we believe that you can rely upon them entirely for proper investigation and action and that adequate justice qill be handed out for any worongs or criminal actions that may have occurred. We believe that, in the long run, you will be quite satisfied with Québec and Canadian activities with reference to this entire situation.”
Le même jour, la Canadian National Sportsmen’s Show transmettait à M. Georges Léveillé, Directeur du Bureau provincial du tourisme, copie du télégramme reçu d’Altoona et copie de sa réponse à ce télégramme ; elle ajoutait :
« I do think that their wire was caused by a certain amount of hysteria and requires no action, but felt that you should be informed in this matter.”
Cette correspondance était transmise en date du 31 juillet 1953 à l’honorable Antoine Rivard, Solliciteur général. Il y avait déjà au-delà d’une semaine que les officiers supérieurs de la Sûreté de Québec étaient rendus sur les lieux.
Me C. E. Cantin nous déclara que sa décision à lui d’attacher une importance majeure à la cause Coffin ne fut pas le moindrement dictée, en aucun temps, par le Procureur général ou le Solliciteur général ni par des pressions exercées par la Pennsy.vania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, le Consul américain, Ernest de W. Mayer, et un M. Van Zandt, membre du Congrès représentant la Pennsylvanie ; sa décision fut prise à raison du fait que l,affaire avait, sous la conduite du sergent Doyon, mal démarrée, que les cadavres n’ayant été découverts qu’un mois après la disparition de chasseurs et après leur assassinat probable éteint dans un état de décomposition excessivement avancée et que, de plus, c’était la première fois qu’on avait une preuve que des ossements avaient été déplacés et brisés par des ours, par des animaux sauvages. Cette décision de Me Cantin fut d’ailleurs prise avant l’échange de correspondance dont il a été ci-haut question et avant des démarches, apparemment par téléphone, d’ailleurs bénignes du Consul américain à Québec.
Quant à ces démarches du Consul américain, la Commission a obtenu de lui les informations suivantes :
À la suite d’une demande adressée par un M. Van Zandt, « house representative for Pennsylvanis », en date du 24 juillet 1953, le Départment du Secrétaire d’État aux États-Unis s’enquit de l’affaire auprès de son Consul à Québec et informa, M. Van Zandt en date du 30 juillet ainsi que suit :
« The Department has also been informed by the American Consul that the case is being closely followed by Sollicitor General Rivard and other high provincial officials who are confident that they will solve the crime despite the difficulties arising from the time lapse between the deaths on June 11 or 12 and the discovery of the bodies a month later. The Consul has been assured that this confidence is based on clues or evidence which cannot be presently disclosed.”
Quels étaient précisément les renseignements obtenus par le Consul et dans quelles circonstances?
Monsieur Mayer ne pouvant, à titre d’ancien consul, venir témoigner devant la Commission, nous avons obtenu de lui une déclaration assermentée, dans laquelle il nous a fait part des renseignements suivants :
A. « I am not sure that I learned of their (hunters) disappearance before learning of their death. If I did, it was throught newspaper reports.”
…
A. “I remember inquiring only once about the case of Québec Provincial officials…”
…
A. “To the best of my recollection, no special report about the matter was made at the time by me personally or by my office, but possibly routine forms entitled “Report of the Death of an American Citizen” were forwarded to the Department of State.”
…
A. “ I did not at any time bring such pressure to bear on the Government of the Province of Québec, or any of its representatives or police officers in order to find and bring to trial the party responsible for the death of the three American hunters.”
…
Q.”What did you do, when you learnt that one Wilbert Coffin had been arrested and charges with the murder of one of the hunters? Will you file all correspondence bearing on that subject, either with the Government of the Province of Québec and its officials, or with the U.S. State Department or the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs?
A. “ I took no action at that time or subsequently.”
D’autre part, nous avons reçu du Secrétariat d’État aux affaires extérieures du Canada, en date du 14 avril 1964, copie d’une note de l’Ambassade des États-Unis se rapportant à l’affaire Coffin dans laquelle l’Ambassade précise ce qui suit :
« The United States Government has, of course, assured the Commission, throught the United States Consul General at Quebec, that United States authorities made no more than the normal representatios regarding the welfare of United States citizens. The United States Government would like to avail itself of this opportunity to state this assurance again.”
Voilà donc les fameuses pressions qui ont été exercées par le State Department des États-Unis sur l’honorable Maurice Duplessis, son gouvernement, le Solliciteur général, le Département du Procureur général et les policiers, voilà donc les piaffements d’impatience de la Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs sur lesquels l’auteur s’est basé pour attribuer à ces responsables de l’administration de la justice dans la province des mobiles mesquins, utilitaires et imaginaires ; je dis « imaginaire » car l’auteur n’a jamais été en contact, avant la rédaction de son livre, avec aucun des officiers que j’ai nommés ci-haut.
La dernière mesquinerie est la référence que fait l’auteur (Hébert), à l’appui de ses suppositions, à un article du magazine « Liberty » publié plusieurs mois après l’exécution de Coffin, en avril 1956. Comme si les sentiments et opinions personnelles d’un quelconque chroniqueur de ce magazine pouvaient représenter les opinions des administrateurs de la justice du Québec.
PARTIE VII, VOLUME 2, PAGES 410 ET SUIVANTES
SUR CERTAINS INCIDENTS MAJEURS DE L’AFFAIRE COFFIN
PRÉLIMINAIRES
La Commission a étudié, à ce jour, cette partie importante de la preuve touchant directement aux événements reliés aux meurtres des chasseurs et aux moyens invoqués à la défense de Coffin par ses défenseurs, avocats et autres : elle étudiera maintenant certains incidents majeurs de l’affaire.
Chapitre 1
LES «INTERVENTIONS ÉTRANGÈRES »
Et
LE CHOIX DES REPRÉSENTANTS DE LA COURONNE
Dans son deuxième ouvrage « J’accuse les assassins de Coffin », monsieur Hébert a reproché en termes assez durs aux administrateurs provinciaux d’avoir été, dans le choix des policiers et avocats chargés respectivement des enquêtes policière et judiciaire, guidés par des mobiles politiques, mesquins et peu honorables. Je cite les passages suivants du chapitre 2 du livre :
Page 19
« le gouvernement provincial était plus soucieux de réparer en vitesse les dégâts causés par l’affaire à l’industrie touristique que de chercher la vérité. Pour M. Duplessis, il ne s’agissait pas d’un meurtre ordinaire, mais d’un attentat contre une source de revenus importante de la Province. Enfin, mes enquêtes récentes m’ont fourni la preuve que le gouvernement provincial a subi de très fortes pressions américaines, les unes venant même du State Department. »
p. 20 « Pour limiter les dégâts, il fallait - n’était-ce pas la moindre des choses ? – trouver rapidement le coupable de cet horrible meurtre, le punir comme il convenait en lui faisant payer de sa vie le triple assassinat. »
L’industrie touristique ne fut pas représentée au procès par un témoin à charge officiellement délégué par un syndicat d’initiative, une association d’hôteliers ou le ministère des Finances, mais l’ombre de ce témoin absent a certes plané sur le petit palais de justice de Percé. »
p. 21 « Ainsi, on n’a rien su dans le Québec des pressions, faites par la Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Club qui comptait plus de 200 00 membres, dont plusieurs fréquentaient assidûment les lacs et les bois du Québec, dont les autres étaient susceptibles de venir un jour ou l’autre semer leurs dollars dans la province de M. Duplessis.
Cette puissance association connaissait son prestige auprès des autorités provinciales : dès qu’elle apprit la mort tragique de trois chasseurs de Pennsylvanie dans la brousse gaspésienne, elle n’hésita pas à intervenir et à faire savoir au procureur général qu’elle voulait de « l’action ».
p. 22 « Au cours de l’enquête, Van Zandt avait rendu publique une lettre que venait de recevoir du consul américain à Québec l’assistant du Secrétaire d’État John Foster Dulles. »
Voyons ce qui en fut de ces différentes questions.
Interventions étrangères
Les autorités judiciaires de la province subirent-elles des pressions étrangères quant à l’enquête policière sur la disparition des trois chasseurs américains ?
Il y eut certes quelques interventions, mais elles furent peu nombreuses et de caractère tout à fait normal et régulier.
Inquiétés par l’absence prolongée de leur fils, M. et Mme Claar communiquèrent, pour une première fois, avec la Sûreté provinciale à Gaspé le 5 juillet 1953, un mois par conséquent après le départ des trois chasseurs pour Gaspé. N’ayant pas reçu d’informations avant le 9, ils se mirent de nouveau en communication avec, cette fois, non pas la Sûreté, dont le sergent Doyon était en charge à Gaspé, mais avec une personne qu’ils savaient avoir déjà agi comme guide pour M. Lindsey, puis, partirent eux-mêmes pour Gaspé où ils se trouvèrent vers le 12 juillet et les jours suivants.
Apparemment, à la suite de nouvelles publiées dans les journaux locaux d’Altoona, Blair County Unit Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs d’Altoona, Pennsylvanie, d’où étaient partis les chasseurs, s’avisa d’envoyer, le 22 juillet, à la Canadian National Sportsmen’s Show de Toronto, un télégramme comportant, entre autres, la demande suivante : « It was resolved that we appeal to you to lend support in any way you think possible in the efforts of the police and other searchers in solving the mystery of our three missing Pennsylvania hunters ; any efforts on the part of your organization in helping to bring quick action in clearing the mystery and seeing that justice is done will be greatly appreciated”.
Le 24 juillet, la Canadian national Sportsmen’s Show répondait à l’Association d’Altoona, entre autres choses, ce qui suit :
« While we will be only too glad to assist your Association in any way possible, we do not belive that our entry into the complicated situation in Québec would be proper, nor do we think that it is in any way necessary… In addition, we feel that the administration of these matters in the province of Quebec is in the hands of wese and capable officials, and while there might appear to be some confusion at the present time, we believe that you can rely upon them entirely for proper investigation and action and that adequate justice qill be handed out for any worongs or criminal actions that may have occurred. We believe that, in the long run, you will be quite satisfied with Québec and Canadian activities with reference to this entire situation.”
Le même jour, la Canadian National Sportsmen’s Show transmettait à M. Georges Léveillé, Directeur du Bureau provincial du tourisme, copie du télégramme reçu d’Altoona et copie de sa réponse à ce télégramme ; elle ajoutait :
« I do think that their wire was caused by a certain amount of hysteria and requires no action, but felt that you should be informed in this matter.”
Cette correspondance était transmise en date du 31 juillet 1953 à l’honorable Antoine Rivard, Solliciteur général. Il y avait déjà au-delà d’une semaine que les officiers supérieurs de la Sûreté de Québec étaient rendus sur les lieux.
Me C. E. Cantin nous déclara que sa décision à lui d’attacher une importance majeure à la cause Coffin ne fut pas le moindrement dictée, en aucun temps, par le Procureur général ou le Solliciteur général ni par des pressions exercées par la Pennsy.vania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, le Consul américain, Ernest de W. Mayer, et un M. Van Zandt, membre du Congrès représentant la Pennsylvanie ; sa décision fut prise à raison du fait que l,affaire avait, sous la conduite du sergent Doyon, mal démarrée, que les cadavres n’ayant été découverts qu’un mois après la disparition de chasseurs et après leur assassinat probable éteint dans un état de décomposition excessivement avancée et que, de plus, c’était la première fois qu’on avait une preuve que des ossements avaient été déplacés et brisés par des ours, par des animaux sauvages. Cette décision de Me Cantin fut d’ailleurs prise avant l’échange de correspondance dont il a été ci-haut question et avant des démarches, apparemment par téléphone, d’ailleurs bénignes du Consul américain à Québec.
Quant à ces démarches du Consul américain, la Commission a obtenu de lui les informations suivantes :
À la suite d’une demande adressée par un M. Van Zandt, « house representative for Pennsylvanis », en date du 24 juillet 1953, le Départment du Secrétaire d’État aux États-Unis s’enquit de l’affaire auprès de son Consul à Québec et informa, M. Van Zandt en date du 30 juillet ainsi que suit :
« The Department has also been informed by the American Consul that the case is being closely followed by Sollicitor General Rivard and other high provincial officials who are confident that they will solve the crime despite the difficulties arising from the time lapse between the deaths on June 11 or 12 and the discovery of the bodies a month later. The Consul has been assured that this confidence is based on clues or evidence which cannot be presently disclosed.”
Quels étaient précisément les renseignements obtenus par le Consul et dans quelles circonstances?
Monsieur Mayer ne pouvant, à titre d’ancien consul, venir témoigner devant la Commission, nous avons obtenu de lui une déclaration assermentée, dans laquelle il nous a fait part des renseignements suivants :
A. « I am not sure that I learned of their (hunters) disappearance before learning of their death. If I did, it was throught newspaper reports.”
…
A. “I remember inquiring only once about the case of Québec Provincial officials…”
…
A. “To the best of my recollection, no special report about the matter was made at the time by me personally or by my office, but possibly routine forms entitled “Report of the Death of an American Citizen” were forwarded to the Department of State.”
…
A. “ I did not at any time bring such pressure to bear on the Government of the Province of Québec, or any of its representatives or police officers in order to find and bring to trial the party responsible for the death of the three American hunters.”
…
Q.”What did you do, when you learnt that one Wilbert Coffin had been arrested and charges with the murder of one of the hunters? Will you file all correspondence bearing on that subject, either with the Government of the Province of Québec and its officials, or with the U.S. State Department or the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs?
A. “ I took no action at that time or subsequently.”
D’autre part, nous avons reçu du Secrétariat d’État aux affaires extérieures du Canada, en date du 14 avril 1964, copie d’une note de l’Ambassade des États-Unis se rapportant à l’affaire Coffin dans laquelle l’Ambassade précise ce qui suit :
« The United States Government has, of course, assured the Commission, throught the United States Consul General at Quebec, that United States authorities made no more than the normal representatios regarding the welfare of United States citizens. The United States Government would like to avail itself of this opportunity to state this assurance again.”
Voilà donc les fameuses pressions qui ont été exercées par le State Department des États-Unis sur l’honorable Maurice Duplessis, son gouvernement, le Solliciteur général, le Département du Procureur général et les policiers, voilà donc les piaffements d’impatience de la Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs sur lesquels l’auteur s’est basé pour attribuer à ces responsables de l’administration de la justice dans la province des mobiles mesquins, utilitaires et imaginaires ; je dis « imaginaire » car l’auteur n’a jamais été en contact, avant la rédaction de son livre, avec aucun des officiers que j’ai nommés ci-haut.
La dernière mesquinerie est la référence que fait l’auteur (Hébert), à l’appui de ses suppositions, à un article du magazine « Liberty » publié plusieurs mois après l’exécution de Coffin, en avril 1956. Comme si les sentiments et opinions personnelles d’un quelconque chroniqueur de ce magazine pouvaient représenter les opinions des administrateurs de la justice du Québec.
UNITED STATES INTERVENTION IN THE COFFIN AFFAIR
.jpg)
.jpg)
CLICK ON THESE IMAGES TO READ THEM
Sworn statement made by Ernest de
W. Mayer who was the United States
Consul at Québec City in the Summer
of 1953 when the bodies of three American
hunters were found in the Gaspé bush.
Letter addressed to Van Zandt, member of
Congress, from the Department of State on
July 30th, 1953.
.jpg)
.jpg)
CLICK ON THESE IMAGES TO READ THE DOCUMENTS.
EXCERPT FROM THE BROSSARD REPORT
PART VII, VOLUME 2, PAGES 410 AND FOLLOWING
ON CERTAIN MAJOR INCIDENTS IN THE COFFIN AFFAIR
PRELIMINARIES
(A literal translation by Clément Fortin)
The Commission has studied, up until this day, this important part of the proof related directly to the events connected to the murder of the hunters and to the means set forth in Coffin’s defence by his counsels, lawyers, or others : it will now study certain major incidents of the affair.
Chapter 1
FOREIGN INTERVENTION
And
THE SELECTION OF CROWN REPRESENTATIVES
In his second book “I Accuse the Assassins of Coffin” Mr. Hébert blamed in hard words the provincial administrators for having been, in the choice of police officers and lawyers entrusted with the carrying out of the police and judicial investigations, guided by political reasons, mean and not honourable. I quote the following passages from chapter 2 of the book: Page 19
« the provincial government was more anxious to repair hastily the damages caused by the affair to the tourist industry than to seek the truth. For Mr. Duplessis, it was not an ordinary murder, but an attack on an important source of revenue for the Province. Lastly, my recent investigations have given me the proof that the provincial government has undergone strong American pressures, some of them even coming from the State Department. »
p. 20 « To control damages, it was necessary – was it not the lesser things to do? – to find quickly someone guilty of this horrible murder, to punish him rightly and have him pay with his life for this triple murder. »
The tourist industry was not represented at the trial by a witness for the prosecution officially delegated by a syndicate, a hotel keepers association or the minister of Finance, but the shadow of this absent witness has certainly overhung the little Percé courthouse. »
p. 21 « Therefore, no one has known in Québec of the pressures made by the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Club which has a membership of more than 200 000, some of whom frequented assiduously Québec lakes and bushes, some others were likely to come one day or other spend their dollars in Mr. Duplessis’ province.
This powerful association knew the high reputation it had with the provincial authorities : as soon as it learned the tragic death of three hunters from Pennsylvania in the gaspesian bush, it did not hesitate to intervene in this case and let the Attorney General know that it wanted that some “action” be taken.
p. 22 « In the course of the investigation, Van Zandt had made public a letter that he had received from the American Consul in Québec City the assistant of the Secretary of State John Foster Dulles.”
Let’s get to the bottom of these different questions.
Foreign intervention
Have the judicial authorities of the province undergone foreign pressures in the police investigation on the disappearance of three American hunters ?
There were indeed a few interventions, but they were not numerous and were of a normal and regular character.
Worried by the prolonged absence of their son, Mr. and Mrs. Claar communicated, for the first time, with the Provincial police in Gaspé on the 5th of July 1953, a month after the departure of the three hunters for Gaspé. Having not received information before the 9th, they communicated again with, this time, not the police, of which sergeant Doyon was in charge in Gaspé, but with someone they knew had been Mr. Lindsey’s guide, then, they left for Gaspé where they arrived around the 12th of July and the following days.
Apparently, following news published in Altoona local newspapers, Blair County Unit Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Pennsylvania, from where the hunters had left, took upon itself to send, on the 22nd of July, a telegram comprising, inter alias, the following request: « It was resolved that we appeal to you to lend support in any way you think possible in the efforts of the police and other searchers in solving the mystery of our three missing Pennsylvania hunters ; any efforts on the part of your organization in helping to bring quick action in clearing the mystery and seeing that justice is done will be greatly appreciated”.
On the 24th of July, the Canadian National Sportsmen’s Show answered the Altoona Association, among other things, what follows:
« While we will be only too glad to assist your Association in any way possible, we do not believe that our entry into the complicated situation in Québec would be proper, nor do we think that it is in any way necessary… In addition, we feel that the administration of these matters in the province of Quebec is in the hands of wise and capable officials, and while there might appear to be some confusion at the present time, we believe that you can rely upon them entirely for proper investigation and action and that adequate justice will be handed out for any wrongs or criminal actions that may have occurred. We believe that, in the long run, you will be quite satisfied with Québec and Canadian activities with reference to this entire situation.”
On the same day, the Canadian National Sportsmen’s Show transmitted to Mr. Georges Léveillé, Director of the Provincial Tourist Bureau, a copy of the telegram received from Altoona and copy of his answer to this telegram ; it added :
« I do think that their wire was caused by a certain amount of hysteria and requires no action, but felt that you should be informed in this matter.”
This correspondence was transmitted on the 31st of July 1953 to the Honourable Antoine Rivard, Solicitor General. Superior police officers of the Provincial police were already on the spot for more than a week.
Mtre C. E. Cantin declared to us that his decision to attach importance to this case was neither dictated by the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General nor by pressure exerted by the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, the American Consul, Ernest de W. Mayer, and Mr. Van Zandt, member of Congress, representing Pennsylvania ; his decision was taken because the affair had, under sergeant Doyon’s command, ill-started, that the bones of the hunters having been discovered only one month after their disappearance and after their likely murder were in a state of decay excessively advanced and that, moreover, it was the first time they had a proof that bones had been displaced and broken by bears, by wild animals.
As to the steps taken by the American Consul, the Commission has obtained from him the following information :
Following a request made by Mr. Van Zandt, house representative for Pennsylvania, on the 24th of July 1953, the Department of the United States Secretary of State requested information about the affair from its Consul in Québec City and informed Mr. Van Zandt on the 30th of July as follows:
« The Department has also been informed by the American Consul that the case is being closely followed by Solicitor General Rivard and other high provincial officials who are confident that they will solve the crime despite the difficulties arising from the time lapse between the deaths on June 11 or 12 and the discovery of the bodies a month later. The Consul has been assured that this confidence is based on clues or evidence which cannot be presently disclosed.”
What was that information obtained by the Consul and in what circumstances?
Mr. Mayer being not able, as former Consul, to come and testify before the Commission, we have obtained from him a sworn declaration in which he gives us the following information :
(NOTE: BY CLICKING ON THE PICTURES AT THE TOP OF THIS WRITING, YOU MAY READ THE FORMER CONSUL’S SWORN DECLARATION TO THE BROSSARD COMMISSION.)
A. « I am not sure that I learned of their (hunters) disappearance before learning of their death. If I did, it was through newspaper reports.”
…
A. “I remember inquiring only once about the case from Québec Provincial officials…”
…
A. “To the best of my recollection, no special report about the matter was made at the time by me personally or by my office, but possibly routine forms entitled “Report of the Death of an American Citizen” were forwarded to the Department of State.”
…
A. “ I did not at any time bring such pressure to bear on the Government of the Province of Québec, or any of its representatives or police officers in order to find and bring to trial the party responsible for the death of the three American hunters.”
…
Q.”What did you do, when you learned that one Wilbert Coffin had been arrested and charged with the murder of one of the hunters? Will you file all correspondence bearing on that subject, either with the Government of the Province of Québec and its officials, or with the U.S. State Department or the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs?
A. “ I took no action at that time or subsequently.”
On the other hand, we have received from the Secretary of State for Canadian external affairs, on the 14th of April 1964, copy of a note from the United States Embassy in connection with the Coffin affair in which the Embassy states precisely what follows:
« The United States Government has, of course, assured the Commission, through the United States Consul General at Quebec, that United States authorities made no more than the normal representations regarding the welfare of United States citizens. The United States Government would like to avail itself of this opportunity to state this assurance again.”
There they are those famous pressures that were exerted by the United States Department on the honourable Maurice Duplessis, his government, the Solicitor General, the Department of the Attorney General and police officers, there it is the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs fidgeting impatiently on which the author took, as a basis to attribute to those responsible for the administration of justice in the province, petty motives, utilitarian and imaginary; I say “imaginary” because the author has never been in contact, before the writing of his book, with any of the afore-mentioned officers.
The last pettiness is the reference that the author (Hébert) makes, in support of his assumptions, to an article in the magazine « Liberty » published several months after the execution of Coffin, in April 1956. As if the feelings and opinions of some chronicler of this magazine could represent the opinions of the Québec administrators of justice. (To be continued)
29 mars 2008
LES DERNIÈRES VOLONTÉS ET LE TESTAMENT DE WILBERT COFFIN COMMENT LE TORONTO DAILY STAR LES A-T-IL OBTENUS?
LES DERNIÈRES VOLONTÉS ET LE TESTAMENT DE WILBERT COFFIN - COMMENT LE TORONTO DAILY STAR LES A-T-IL OBTENUS?
EXTRAIT DU RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION BROSSARD
PARTIE VII, VOL. III
SUR CERTAINS INCIDENTS MAJEURS DE L’AFFAIRE COFFIN
Chapitre13 : LES DERNIÈRES VOLONTÉS DE WILBERT COFFIN – COMMENT UN JOURNAL LES CONNUT
PARTIE VII, VOL. III
SUR CERTAINS INCIDENTS MAJEURS DE L’AFFAIRE COFFIN
Chapitre13 : LES DERNIÈRES VOLONTÉS DE WILBERT COFFIN – COMMENT UN JOURNAL LES CONNUT
Dans le dernier chapitre de son volume intitulé « Last Will and Testament », l’auteur Belliveau écrivit ce qui suit :
Page 152
« On the last day of his life, Wilbert Coffin wrote his will in the Bordeaux death cell in the presence of François Gravel, Rev. Sam Pollard and three police witnesses. He asked that this and a sworn statement he had made to lawyers in jail some months earlier be published by the Toronto Star because of its sympathetic and accurate coverage of his long case.
This was the will:”
Suit le texte de ce qui aurait constitué ce « Last Will and Testament » et le texte d’un « codicille » par lequel Coffin laissait « everything I have or may have to my dear son James ». À la fin du deuxième texte ainsi reproduit, on lit les mots suivants : « Copyright, Toronto Daily Star 1956 ». Ce document ne pouvait manifestement constituer une disposition testamentaire légale ni être l’objet d’un Copyright dans les conditions où il fut remis au Toronto Star dans les circonstances que nous allons examiner.
Au tout début de cette enquête, monsieur Belliveau, interrogé au sujet des circonstances dans lesquelles lui ou son employeur le Toronto Daily Star auraient obtenu possession de ce document et l’autorisation de le reproduire ne put le faire par suite du maintien par le président de cette Commission d’une objection formulée contre la légalité de cette preuve à ce stade de l’enquête.
Lorsque monsieur Belliveau revint témoigner lors de l’une des dernières séances tenues par la Commission, la preuve de ces circonstances fut permise pour le motif qu’elles étaient de nature à permettre à la Commission de juger des agissements de monsieur Gravel avant l’exécution de Coffin.
Ce ne fut pas sans difficulté que la Commission réussit à obtenir de Me Gravel la production d’un document original dont des reproductions étaient censées avoir été données tant dans le Toronto Daily Star du 10 février 1956, après l’exécution de Coffin, que dans le volume de monsieur Belliveau.
Le document produit par Me Gravel, sauf la signature de Wilbert CVoffin et ses initiales au bas de chaque page, fut entièrement écrit de la main de Me Gravel ; il comportait plusieurs ratures, un certain nombre de mots étaient parfaitement illisibles.
Une comparaison de ce document avec ce qui était censé en être une reproduction dans le livre de monsieur Belliveau, a révélé, entre le document original et la reproduction, les différences suivantes :
Dans le paragraphe relatif au refus essuyé par Coffin sur sa demande de se marier à sa « common law wife » Marion Petrie, les mots « due to Québec Authorities » furent remplacés par « due to a Government order ».
Dans le paragraphe relatif aux injustices dont Coffin se plaignait, les mots « I never had a fair deal » furent remplacés par les mots « I was not fairly treated. »
Le paragraphe suivant de l’original : « It is my express and firm wish that a statement I made to Mr. Gravel and Maloney in October 1955, be divulged to the public by my attorney François de B. Gravel, the whole at his own discretion” fut remplacé par ce qui suit: “It is my express and firm wish and desire that a statement which I made to my attorneys, Arthur E. M. Maloney of Toronto and François de B. Gravel of Québec City, when visiting me last October at the Bordeaux jail, be divulged to the public”.
Un paragraphe illisible de l’original dans lequel un mot seulement peut-être déchiffré semble avoir été reproduit par ce qui suit : « I greatly thank all those who worked in my defence ».
Le paragraphe original se lisant comme suit : « I will like express my thanks Maloney and Gravel and it is hard for me to tell them all my gratitude » a été remplacé par ce qui suit : « I would like to express my most sincere thanks to my counsels, François Gravel and Arthur Maloney, for all the work they have given my case… I am sorry to say that it is very hard for me to express all my gratitude”.
Les trois paragraphes suivants qui apparaissent dans le texte original n’apparaissent pas dans la reproduction du texte:
« I would like an allowance to son as victim of an unjust trial »
“Ask Marion to look after the child I would”
“Allow François to write for public a true story of my case”.
Devant cette Commission, monsieur John Edward Belliveau a donné les explications suivantes des circonstances dans lesquelles ce document signé par Coffin a été obtenu aux fins de reproduction dans le Toronto Daily Star.
À cause de la rivalité qui existait entre le Toronto Daily Star et le Toronto Telegram, chacun de ces deux journaux s’intéressa vivement aux derniers événements et développements de l’affaire Coffin. Belliveau était à Montréal avec un nommé John Gail, un reporter photographe, le matin du 9 février 1956 ; ils devaient se rendre à la prison tous deux pour s’y informer, entre autres choses, de la question de la commutation de la sentence et de la question du mariage possible entre Coffin et Marion Petrie.
Ils rencontrèrent Me Gravel le même matin; celui-ci devait lui aussi se rendre à la prison pour rendre une dernière et pénible visite à son client. Me Gravel, M. Belliveau et M. Gail firent route ensemble. M. Belliveau croit qu’au cours de ce voyage en automobile, il aurait dit à Me Gravel « that if coffin made any statement, any dying statement, or any statement before his death, of that character, that we would want it ».
Lorsque Me Gravel sortit de la prison, il leur parut fort affaissé.
Belliveau revit Me Gravel le même soir et croit que « they were together alone for a good deal of that time, a good deal of the evening », il croit que c’est à ce moment “that the question of the Last Will and Testament came up for discussion”.
Pour plus d’exactitude, je citerai certaines déclarations de M. Belliveau ou les résumerait en langue anglaise :
I may have asked Gravel to specifically see if there was anything that the accused man would say for publication, such discussions would have taken place, I imagine, some time on the 9th.
He supposed he would have learned about the Last Will and Testament during the evening from Gravel; he then asked him for the content of the document.
He thinks it was then that he also learned about the long affidavit of October; it was during that same evening that Gravel agreed to give him the content of these two documents.
He recalls that he made some conditions which would give the Toronto Daily Star the exclusive rights to the first use of this information.
There was a discussion of financial considerations along the line that the family had been put to a very great deal of expenses during the original trial and the various appeals and that Gravel had, in his association, gotten little or nothing from the family or any other source and that we might be assisting the family in some way, if we could make some financial consideration…
Ce serait au cours de la nuit qui suivit l’exécution de Coffin, cependant, que les tractations entre lui et Me Gravel, mais surtout entre Me Gravel et les représentants du Toronto Star à Toronto, par téléphone, au sujet d’une rémunération pour Me Gravel, se firent et que la transmission des textes, de Montréal à Toronto fut effectuée.
M. Belliveau ne croit pas avoir vu l’original du testament ou à tout événement avoir pu le lire en entier, car : « He has a feeling that, for some reason or other, Gravel did not let him see the entire document ». M. Belliveau ajoute : « I am quite certain that Mr. Gravel, in a room in the Mount Royal Hotel in Montréal, read this to me or read from a document that he had in his possession ».
M. Belliveau croit que, lorsqu’il transmit à son journal par télétype ou par téléphone le texte du testament qui lui avait été dicté par Me Gravel, il était au courant qu’une entente s’était conclue entre Me Gravel et ses employeurs.
Quant aux divergences entre l’original et la reproduction, M. Belliveau explique : « It seems possible that an attempt was made to provide a readable document. The changes, basically are changes in a language which make this into common English ».
Quant aux omissions que nous avons soulignées plus haut, M. Belliveau les attribue au fait que Me Gravel ne les lui a pas dictées. Il ne croit pas qu’elles soient imputables à l’ « Editorial Staff » du Toronto Daily Star, quoique cela soit toujours possible.
Monsieur Belliveau n’a pas vérifié sur l’original si le testament comportait véritablement une autorisation de publier soit le dernier testament, soit un affidavit antérieur, celui du 9 octobre 1955 ; il suppose qu’il y avait eu discussion entre lui et Me Gravel, antérieurement, quant à la possibilité pour Me Gravel d’obtenir une autorisation de son client à la publication de son affidavit ou de son testament et que cette discussion a dû prendre place le jour qui a précédé l’exécution, très probablement, le matin, durant le voyage à la prison.
Quant à l’affidavit du 9 octobre 1955, qui fut aussi reproduit dès le lendemain matin par le Toronto Star, les explications de M. Belliveau qu’il a dû obtenir une copie de cet affidavit de Me Gravel en même temps qu’il obtenait connaissance du dernier testament, sont beaucoup moins claires et concluantes. De cette partie du témoignage de monsieur Belliveau, il est permis de se demander si, en fait, cet affidavit n’était pas en la possession du Toronto Daily Star depuis avant l’exécution de Coffin et dans ce cas, qui aurait pu le lui remettre. On ne peut d’autre part constater qu’avec un certain étonnement la rapidité avec laquelle se serait effectuée, au cours de la nuit qui a suivi l’exécution de Coffin, la transcription du testament en une langue lisible, sa transmission au Toronto Daily Star à Toronto, la transmission d’une photocopie de la cédule « A » annexée au testament, la transmission du long affidavit du 9 octobre 1955 que Me Gravel aurait eu en sa possession, à Montréal, le jour de l’exécution, le tout en temps utile pour être reproduit dans la première édition du Toronto Star du lendemain avant-midi ; il a fallu que tout ceci se fasse avec grande rapidité peu de temps après le moment de l’exécution de Coffin.
Dans son contre-interrogatoire de monsieur Belliveau comme d’ailleurs dans son propre témoignage subséquent à celui de monsieur Belliveau, Me Gravel a tenté, sans succès quant à nous, d’établir que tout ce qui a trait à la communication par lui à monsieur Belliveau du testament de Coffin, aux ententes relatives à la reproduction de ce testament dans le Toronto Star, avec un prétendu droit de « Copyright », s’est exclusivement passé au cours de la nuit qui a suivi l’exécution.
Eu égard aux déclarations formelles de monsieur Belliveau, aux désirs exprimés par celui –ci, avant la visite à la prison le matin du 9, eu égard surtout aux dispositions qui ont été insérées dans le testament de Coffin, rédigé comme nous l’avons vu par Me Gravel et écrit de sa main, afin de donner à Me Gravel, et à lui seul, le pouvoir absolument discrétionnaire de publier son affidavit du 9 octobre 1955 et d’écrire « A true story of my case » et au soin pris par Me Gravel d’insérer dans le « testament » une clause à l’effet qu’il était fort difficile pour Coffin d’exprimer à ses deux avocats toute sa gratitude, il ne me paraît pas faire de doute que le matin du 9 février 1956, lorsque fut rédigé et exécuté ce « dernier testament », Me Gravel songeait déjà à l’utilisation possible de ce testament pour lui permettre de compenser par une somme à être reçue du Toronto Daily Star les honoraires professionnels auxquels il avait indubitablement droit, mais que ni Wilbert Coffin ni sa famille n’étaient en mesure de lui payer.
J’ajoute que, d’après la preuve, Me Gravel a touché quelques jours après l’exécution de Coffin du Toronto Daily Star une somme de $3,000.00.
Tout ceci n’est guère édifiant.
Je me dois de souligner que non seulement aucune preuve ne nous a été offerte à l’effet que ce testament aurait été signé en la présence du Rév. Sam Pollard, le chapelain de la prison de Bordeaux, et de trois officiers de police, comme l’affirme monsieur Belliveau dans son volume, mais qu’au contraire, il appert du témoignage qu’a rendu devant nous Me Gravel et du document qu’il nous a produit qu’il était seul avec son client Wilbert Coffin lors de l’exécution de ce testament. Je crois devoir souligner également l’inexactitude de l’affirmation de monsieur Belliveau que Coffin avait demandé que son testament et son affidavit d’octobre soient publiés dans le Toronto Star « because of its sympathetic and accurate coverage of his long case ». C’est un moyen pour le moins peu élégant d’effacer des pages du Toronto Star les « indélicatesses » qui furent commises au moins le lendemain de l’exécution de Coffin.
Se rattache à ce qui précède le passage suivant de l’ouvrage de monsieur Belliveau :
« 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 the recipients.
It is believed that the family letter contained information concerning Coffin’s mining claims, about which he talked much on the last day. He wanted his brother to look after his maps and his ore samples so that one day his son might profit by what they would bring, for he had willed them to the boy.”
Or, nous avons interrogé à ce sujet tous les membres de la famille Coffin qui ont comparu devant nous; ni madame Albert Coffin, ni sa fille madame Stanley, ni ses fils Leslie and Donald, ni son gendre Weston Eagle, ni madame Marion Petrie, ni le frère de cette dernière n’ont reçu de lettres qui leur auraient été écrites par Wilbert Coffin peu de temps avant son exécution ou n’ont eu connaissance de telles lettres.
Questionné à ce sujet, monsieur Belliveau nous a déclaré que sa seule source d’informations lui serait parvenue de Me François Gravel ; celui-ci nous a déclaré, pour sa part, n’avoir jamais eu connaissance que de telles lettres aient été écrites et transmises par son client, et il ne se souvient pas d’avoir fait de déclarations dans ce genre à monsieur Belliveau.
La mention de ces lettres était peut-être touchante, mais elle n’était sûrement pas un exemple frappant de l’objectivité et de la probité intellectuelles dont doivent faire montre les journalistes. (Fin de ce chapitre)
LA SEMAINE PROCHAINE, J'AFFICHERAI "LES INTERVENTIONS ÉTRANGÈRES"
Quelle influence le U.S. State Department a-t-il exercée sur le gouvernement Duplessis?
COFFIN'S LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT HOW THE TORONTO STAR KNEW ABOUT IT
WILBERT COFFIN'S LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT - HOW THE TORONTO DAILY STAR KNEW ABOUT IT
EXCERPT FROM THE BROSSARD COMMISSION REPORT
PART VII, VOL. III
ON CERTAIN MAJOR INCIDENTS OF THE COFFIN AFFAIR
Chapter13 : WILBERT COFFIN’S LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT – HOW THE TORONTO STAR KNEW ABOUT IT
PART VII, VOL. III
ON CERTAIN MAJOR INCIDENTS OF THE COFFIN AFFAIR
Chapter13 : WILBERT COFFIN’S LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT – HOW THE TORONTO STAR KNEW ABOUT IT
(A literal translation by Clément Fortin)
In the last chapter of his book titled « Last Will and Testament », the author Belliveau writes what follows :
Page 152
« On the last day of his life, Wilbert Coffin wrote his will in the Bordeaux death cell in the presence of François Gravel, Rev. Sam Pollard and three police witnesses. He asked that this and a sworn statement he had made to lawyers in jail some months earlier be published by the Toronto Star because of its sympathetic and accurate coverage of his long case.
This was the will:”
Follows the text that might have been that « Last Will and Testament » and the text of a “codicil » according to which Coffin bequeathed « everything I have or may have to my dear son James ». At the end of the second text so reproduced, one reads the following words: « Copyright, Toronto Daily Star 1956 ». This document could not obviously constitute a legal testamentary disposition nor be the object of a Copyright under the conditions it were sent to the Toronto Star and in the circumstances that we shall examine.
At the very beginning of this enquiry, Mr. Belliveau, examined on the circumstances he and his employer, the Toronto Daily Star, might have obtained possession of this document and the authorization to reproduce it, but could not do so because an objection to the legality of this proof, at this stage of this enquiry, was granted by the chairman of this Commission.
When Mr. Belliveau came back to the stand, in the course of one of the last sittings of this Commission, the proof of these circumstances were permitted for the reason that they were likely to allow the Commission to judge the doings of monsieur Gravel before Coffin’s execution..
It was not without difficulty that the Commission succeeded in obtaining from Mtre Gravel the filing of an original document, the reproduction of which was supposed to have been given to the Toronto Daily Star on the 10th of February, after Coffin’s execution, as well as to Mr. Belliveau for his book.
The document filed by Mtre Gravel, except for Wilbert Coffin’s signature and his initials at the bottom of each page, was entirely hand written by Mtre Gravel ; there were many words crossed out and a certain number of words were perfectly unreadable.
A comparison of this document with what was supposed to be a reproduction in Mr. Belliveau’s book, has revealed, between the original document and the reproduction, the following differences :
In the paragraph concerning the refusal Coffin received to his petition to marry his “ common law wife » Marion Petrie, the words « due to Québec Authorities » were replaced by « due to a Government order ».
In the paragraph concerning the injustices Coffin was complaining of, the words « I never had a fair deal » were replaced by the words « I was not fairly treated. »
The following paragraph of the original : « It is my express and firm wish that a statement I made to Mr. Gravel and Maloney in October 1955, be divulged to the public by my attorney François de B. Gravel, the whole at his own discretion” was replaced by what follows: “It is my express and firm wish and desire that a statement which I made to my attorneys, Arthur E. M. Maloney of Toronto and François de B. Gravel of Québec City, when visiting me last October at the Bordeaux jail, be divulged to the public”.
An unreadable paragraph of the original in which a word only may be difficult to read seems to have been reproduced by what follows : « I greatly thank all those who worked in my defence ».
The original paragraph read as follows : « I will like express my thanks Maloney and Gravel and it is hard for me to tell them all my gratitude » was replaced by what follows : « I would like to express my most sincere thanks to my counsels, François Gravel and Arthur Maloney, for all the work they have given my case… I am sorry to say that it is very hard for me to express all my gratitude”.
The following three paragraphs which appear in the original text do not appear in the reproduction of the text:
« I would like an allowance to son as victim of an unjust trial »
“Ask Marion to look after the child I would”
“Allow François to write for public a true story of my case”.
Before this Commission, Mr. John Edward Belliveau has given the following explanations of the circumstances in which this document, signed by Coffin, was obtained for reproduction purpose in the Toronto Daily Star.
Because of rivalry that existed between the Toronto Daily Star and the Toronto Telegram, these two newspapers became eagerly interested in the last events and developments in the Coffin affair. Belliveau was in Montréal with a man of the name John Gail, a reporter photographer, the morning of the 9th of February 1956 ; they were to go to the Bordeaux jail, both of them, to inquire about, among other things, the matter of commutation of the sentence and of the possible marriage between Coffin and Marion Petrie.
They met Mtre Gravel the same morning ; he too was supposed to go to the Bordeaux jail, to pay a last and painful visit to his client. Mtre Gravel, Mr. Belliveau and Mr. Gail went together. Mr. Belliveau believes that in the course of this trip in an automobile, he might have said to Mtre Gravel « that if coffin made any statement, any dying statement, or any statement before his death, of that character, that we would want it ».
When Mtre Gravel came out of the jail, he appeared to them much depressed.
Belliveau saw Mtre Gravel the same night and believes that « they were together alone for a good deal of that time, a good deal of the evening », he believes that it is at that moment “that the question of the Last Will and Testament came up for discussion”.
For more accuracy, I shall quote certain statements made by Mr. Belliveau or summarized them in the English language :
“I may have asked Gravel to specifically see if there was anything that the accused man would say for publication, such discussions would have taken place, I imagine, some time on the 9th.
He supposed he would have learned about the Last Will and Testament during the evening from Gravel; he then asked him for the content of the document.
He thinks it was then that he also learned about the long affidavit of October; it was during that same evening that Gravel agreed to give him the content of these two documents.
He recalls that he made some conditions which would give the Toronto Daily Star the exclusive rights to the first use of this information.
There was a discussion of financial considerations along the line that the family had been put to a very great deal of expenses during the original trial and the various appeals and that Gravel had, in his association, gotten little or nothing from the family or any other source and that we might be assisting the family in some way, if we could make some financial consideration…
It would be during the night that followed Coffin’s execution, however, that dealings between him and Mtre Gravel, but above all between Mtre Gravel and the representatives of the Toronto Star in Toronto, by telephone, about Mtre Gravel’s remuneration, were made and that the transmission of the texts, from Montréal to Toronto were made.
Mr. Belliveau does not believe having seen the original testament or, at any event, having been able to read it in whole, because: « He has a feeling that, for some reason or other, Gravel did not let him see the entire document ». Mr. Belliveau adds : « I am quite certain that Mr. Gravel, in a room in the Mount Royal Hotel, in Montréal, read this to me or read from a document that he had in his possession ».
Mr. Belliveau believes that, when he transmitted to his newspaper, by teletype or by telephone, the text of the testament that Mtre Gravel had dictated to him, he knew that an agreement had been concluded between Mtre Gravel and his employers.
As to the differences between the original and the reproduction, Mr. Belliveau explains : « It seems possible that an attempt was made to provide a readable document. The changes basically are changes in a language which make this into common English ».
As to the omissions that we have underlined sooner, Mr. Belliveau attributes them to the fact that Mtre Gravel has not dictated them to him. He does not believe that there are imputable to the « Editorial Staff » of the Toronto Daily Star, although it is always possible.
Mr. Belliveau has not verified the original to find out if the testament comprised truly an authorization to publish either the last testament or a prior affidavit, the one of the 9th of October 1955 ; he supposes that a discussion had taken place between himself and Mtre Gravel, previously, as to the possibility for Mtre Gravel of obtaining an authorization from his client to publish his affidavit or his testament and that this discussion might have taken place the day before the execution, most probably, in the morning, during the trip to the jail.
As to the affidavit of the 9th October 1955, which was also reproduced the next morning by the Toronto Star, the explanations of Mr. Belliveau that he must have obtained a copy of this affidavit from Mtre Gravel at the same time he obtained knowledge of the last testament, are less clear and conclusive. From this part of Mr. Belliveau’s testimony, one may ask if, in fact, this affidavit was not already in the possession of the Toronto Daily Star even before Coffin’s execution and in this case, who might have remitted it to it. We may, on the other hand, observe with a certain astonishment the speed with which it was made, during the night that followed Coffin’s execution, the transcription of the testament in a readable language, its transmission to the Toronto Daily Star in Toronto, the transmission of a photocopy of the schedule « A » joined to the testament, the transmission of the long affidavit of the 9th October 1955 that Mtre Gravel might have had in his possession, in Montréal, the day of the execution, every thing arriving on time to be reproduced in the first edition of the Toronto Star the next day before noon; this must have been done at great speed a little time after Coffin’s execution.
In Mr. Belliveau’s cross-examination as well as in his own testimony subsequent to the one of Mr. Belliveau, Mtre Gravel has attempted, without success with regard to us, to establish that everything concerning the communication by him to Mr. Belliveau of Coffin’s testament, to the agreements pertaining to the reproduction of this testament in the Toronto Star, with would-be right to « Copyright », occurred exclusively during the night that followed the execution.
Having regard to Mr. Belliveau’s formal statements, to the desires expressed by him before his visit to the jail, the morning of the 9th, having regard, above all, to the dispositions that have been included in Coffin’s testament, drafted, as we have seen, by Mtre Gravel and written with his own hand, in order to give Mtre Gravel, and to him alone, the absolute and discretionary power to publish his affidavit of the 9th October 1955 and to write « A true story of my case » and to the care taken by Mtre Gravel to include in the « testament » a clause saying that it was much difficult for Coffin to express to his two lawyers all his gratitude, there is no doubt in my mind that on the morning of the 9th February, when that “last testament” was drafted and executed, Mtre Gravel was thinking already of the possible use of that testament that would allow him to be compensated with a sum of money received from the Toronto Daily Star the professional fees to which he was no doubt entitled, but that neither Wilbert Coffin nor his family could afford to pay him.
I add, that according to the proof, Mtre Gravel has received a few days following the Coffin’s execution from the Toronto Daily Star a sum of $3,000.00
All this is but little edifying.
I must underline that not only no proof was offered us showing that this testament had been signed in the presence of Rev. Sam Pollard, the chaplain of the Bordeaux jail, and of three police officers, as affirms Mr. Belliveau in his book, but on the contrary, it appears from the testimony given to us by Mtre Gravel and from the document that he has filed with us that he was alone with his client Wilbert Coffin when this testament was drafted. I must also underline the inaccuracy of Mr. Belliveau’s statement that Coffin had asked that his testament and his affidavit of October be published in the Toronto Star « because of its sympathetic and accurate coverage of his long case ». It is a way, little elegant to say the least, to erase pages of the Toronto Star’s « indelicacies » that were committed, at least, the day following Coffin’s execution.
Is connected to what precedes the following passage from Mr. Belliveau’s book :
« 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 to the recipients.
It is believed that the family letter contained information concerning Coffin’s mining claims, about which he talked much on the last day. He wanted his brother to look after his maps and his ore samples to that one day his son might profit by what they would bring, for he had willed them to the boy.”
On this matter, we have examined all the members of the Coffin family who appeared before us; neither Mrs. Albert Coffin, nor his daughter Mrs. Stanley, neither his sons, Leslie and Donald, neither his son-in-law Weston Eagle, nor Mrs. Marion Petrie, nor the brother of the latter have received letters written by Wilbert Coffin a little time before his execution or obtained knowledge of these letters.
Examined on this matter, Mr. Belliveau has stated that his sole source of information was from Mtre François Gravel ; the latter has declared to us, for his part, having never had knowledge of such letters written and transmitted by his client, and he does not remember having made such declarations to Mr. Belliveau.
To make mention of these letters was probably moving, but it was not for sure a striking example of objectivity and intellectual honesty which newspapermen must show. (The end of this chapter)
In the last chapter of his book titled « Last Will and Testament », the author Belliveau writes what follows :
Page 152
« On the last day of his life, Wilbert Coffin wrote his will in the Bordeaux death cell in the presence of François Gravel, Rev. Sam Pollard and three police witnesses. He asked that this and a sworn statement he had made to lawyers in jail some months earlier be published by the Toronto Star because of its sympathetic and accurate coverage of his long case.
This was the will:”
Follows the text that might have been that « Last Will and Testament » and the text of a “codicil » according to which Coffin bequeathed « everything I have or may have to my dear son James ». At the end of the second text so reproduced, one reads the following words: « Copyright, Toronto Daily Star 1956 ». This document could not obviously constitute a legal testamentary disposition nor be the object of a Copyright under the conditions it were sent to the Toronto Star and in the circumstances that we shall examine.
At the very beginning of this enquiry, Mr. Belliveau, examined on the circumstances he and his employer, the Toronto Daily Star, might have obtained possession of this document and the authorization to reproduce it, but could not do so because an objection to the legality of this proof, at this stage of this enquiry, was granted by the chairman of this Commission.
When Mr. Belliveau came back to the stand, in the course of one of the last sittings of this Commission, the proof of these circumstances were permitted for the reason that they were likely to allow the Commission to judge the doings of monsieur Gravel before Coffin’s execution..
It was not without difficulty that the Commission succeeded in obtaining from Mtre Gravel the filing of an original document, the reproduction of which was supposed to have been given to the Toronto Daily Star on the 10th of February, after Coffin’s execution, as well as to Mr. Belliveau for his book.
The document filed by Mtre Gravel, except for Wilbert Coffin’s signature and his initials at the bottom of each page, was entirely hand written by Mtre Gravel ; there were many words crossed out and a certain number of words were perfectly unreadable.
A comparison of this document with what was supposed to be a reproduction in Mr. Belliveau’s book, has revealed, between the original document and the reproduction, the following differences :
In the paragraph concerning the refusal Coffin received to his petition to marry his “ common law wife » Marion Petrie, the words « due to Québec Authorities » were replaced by « due to a Government order ».
In the paragraph concerning the injustices Coffin was complaining of, the words « I never had a fair deal » were replaced by the words « I was not fairly treated. »
The following paragraph of the original : « It is my express and firm wish that a statement I made to Mr. Gravel and Maloney in October 1955, be divulged to the public by my attorney François de B. Gravel, the whole at his own discretion” was replaced by what follows: “It is my express and firm wish and desire that a statement which I made to my attorneys, Arthur E. M. Maloney of Toronto and François de B. Gravel of Québec City, when visiting me last October at the Bordeaux jail, be divulged to the public”.
An unreadable paragraph of the original in which a word only may be difficult to read seems to have been reproduced by what follows : « I greatly thank all those who worked in my defence ».
The original paragraph read as follows : « I will like express my thanks Maloney and Gravel and it is hard for me to tell them all my gratitude » was replaced by what follows : « I would like to express my most sincere thanks to my counsels, François Gravel and Arthur Maloney, for all the work they have given my case… I am sorry to say that it is very hard for me to express all my gratitude”.
The following three paragraphs which appear in the original text do not appear in the reproduction of the text:
« I would like an allowance to son as victim of an unjust trial »
“Ask Marion to look after the child I would”
“Allow François to write for public a true story of my case”.
Before this Commission, Mr. John Edward Belliveau has given the following explanations of the circumstances in which this document, signed by Coffin, was obtained for reproduction purpose in the Toronto Daily Star.
Because of rivalry that existed between the Toronto Daily Star and the Toronto Telegram, these two newspapers became eagerly interested in the last events and developments in the Coffin affair. Belliveau was in Montréal with a man of the name John Gail, a reporter photographer, the morning of the 9th of February 1956 ; they were to go to the Bordeaux jail, both of them, to inquire about, among other things, the matter of commutation of the sentence and of the possible marriage between Coffin and Marion Petrie.
They met Mtre Gravel the same morning ; he too was supposed to go to the Bordeaux jail, to pay a last and painful visit to his client. Mtre Gravel, Mr. Belliveau and Mr. Gail went together. Mr. Belliveau believes that in the course of this trip in an automobile, he might have said to Mtre Gravel « that if coffin made any statement, any dying statement, or any statement before his death, of that character, that we would want it ».
When Mtre Gravel came out of the jail, he appeared to them much depressed.
Belliveau saw Mtre Gravel the same night and believes that « they were together alone for a good deal of that time, a good deal of the evening », he believes that it is at that moment “that the question of the Last Will and Testament came up for discussion”.
For more accuracy, I shall quote certain statements made by Mr. Belliveau or summarized them in the English language :
“I may have asked Gravel to specifically see if there was anything that the accused man would say for publication, such discussions would have taken place, I imagine, some time on the 9th.
He supposed he would have learned about the Last Will and Testament during the evening from Gravel; he then asked him for the content of the document.
He thinks it was then that he also learned about the long affidavit of October; it was during that same evening that Gravel agreed to give him the content of these two documents.
He recalls that he made some conditions which would give the Toronto Daily Star the exclusive rights to the first use of this information.
There was a discussion of financial considerations along the line that the family had been put to a very great deal of expenses during the original trial and the various appeals and that Gravel had, in his association, gotten little or nothing from the family or any other source and that we might be assisting the family in some way, if we could make some financial consideration…
It would be during the night that followed Coffin’s execution, however, that dealings between him and Mtre Gravel, but above all between Mtre Gravel and the representatives of the Toronto Star in Toronto, by telephone, about Mtre Gravel’s remuneration, were made and that the transmission of the texts, from Montréal to Toronto were made.
Mr. Belliveau does not believe having seen the original testament or, at any event, having been able to read it in whole, because: « He has a feeling that, for some reason or other, Gravel did not let him see the entire document ». Mr. Belliveau adds : « I am quite certain that Mr. Gravel, in a room in the Mount Royal Hotel, in Montréal, read this to me or read from a document that he had in his possession ».
Mr. Belliveau believes that, when he transmitted to his newspaper, by teletype or by telephone, the text of the testament that Mtre Gravel had dictated to him, he knew that an agreement had been concluded between Mtre Gravel and his employers.
As to the differences between the original and the reproduction, Mr. Belliveau explains : « It seems possible that an attempt was made to provide a readable document. The changes basically are changes in a language which make this into common English ».
As to the omissions that we have underlined sooner, Mr. Belliveau attributes them to the fact that Mtre Gravel has not dictated them to him. He does not believe that there are imputable to the « Editorial Staff » of the Toronto Daily Star, although it is always possible.
Mr. Belliveau has not verified the original to find out if the testament comprised truly an authorization to publish either the last testament or a prior affidavit, the one of the 9th of October 1955 ; he supposes that a discussion had taken place between himself and Mtre Gravel, previously, as to the possibility for Mtre Gravel of obtaining an authorization from his client to publish his affidavit or his testament and that this discussion might have taken place the day before the execution, most probably, in the morning, during the trip to the jail.
As to the affidavit of the 9th October 1955, which was also reproduced the next morning by the Toronto Star, the explanations of Mr. Belliveau that he must have obtained a copy of this affidavit from Mtre Gravel at the same time he obtained knowledge of the last testament, are less clear and conclusive. From this part of Mr. Belliveau’s testimony, one may ask if, in fact, this affidavit was not already in the possession of the Toronto Daily Star even before Coffin’s execution and in this case, who might have remitted it to it. We may, on the other hand, observe with a certain astonishment the speed with which it was made, during the night that followed Coffin’s execution, the transcription of the testament in a readable language, its transmission to the Toronto Daily Star in Toronto, the transmission of a photocopy of the schedule « A » joined to the testament, the transmission of the long affidavit of the 9th October 1955 that Mtre Gravel might have had in his possession, in Montréal, the day of the execution, every thing arriving on time to be reproduced in the first edition of the Toronto Star the next day before noon; this must have been done at great speed a little time after Coffin’s execution.
In Mr. Belliveau’s cross-examination as well as in his own testimony subsequent to the one of Mr. Belliveau, Mtre Gravel has attempted, without success with regard to us, to establish that everything concerning the communication by him to Mr. Belliveau of Coffin’s testament, to the agreements pertaining to the reproduction of this testament in the Toronto Star, with would-be right to « Copyright », occurred exclusively during the night that followed the execution.
Having regard to Mr. Belliveau’s formal statements, to the desires expressed by him before his visit to the jail, the morning of the 9th, having regard, above all, to the dispositions that have been included in Coffin’s testament, drafted, as we have seen, by Mtre Gravel and written with his own hand, in order to give Mtre Gravel, and to him alone, the absolute and discretionary power to publish his affidavit of the 9th October 1955 and to write « A true story of my case » and to the care taken by Mtre Gravel to include in the « testament » a clause saying that it was much difficult for Coffin to express to his two lawyers all his gratitude, there is no doubt in my mind that on the morning of the 9th February, when that “last testament” was drafted and executed, Mtre Gravel was thinking already of the possible use of that testament that would allow him to be compensated with a sum of money received from the Toronto Daily Star the professional fees to which he was no doubt entitled, but that neither Wilbert Coffin nor his family could afford to pay him.
I add, that according to the proof, Mtre Gravel has received a few days following the Coffin’s execution from the Toronto Daily Star a sum of $3,000.00
All this is but little edifying.
I must underline that not only no proof was offered us showing that this testament had been signed in the presence of Rev. Sam Pollard, the chaplain of the Bordeaux jail, and of three police officers, as affirms Mr. Belliveau in his book, but on the contrary, it appears from the testimony given to us by Mtre Gravel and from the document that he has filed with us that he was alone with his client Wilbert Coffin when this testament was drafted. I must also underline the inaccuracy of Mr. Belliveau’s statement that Coffin had asked that his testament and his affidavit of October be published in the Toronto Star « because of its sympathetic and accurate coverage of his long case ». It is a way, little elegant to say the least, to erase pages of the Toronto Star’s « indelicacies » that were committed, at least, the day following Coffin’s execution.
Is connected to what precedes the following passage from Mr. Belliveau’s book :
« 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 to the recipients.
It is believed that the family letter contained information concerning Coffin’s mining claims, about which he talked much on the last day. He wanted his brother to look after his maps and his ore samples to that one day his son might profit by what they would bring, for he had willed them to the boy.”
On this matter, we have examined all the members of the Coffin family who appeared before us; neither Mrs. Albert Coffin, nor his daughter Mrs. Stanley, neither his sons, Leslie and Donald, neither his son-in-law Weston Eagle, nor Mrs. Marion Petrie, nor the brother of the latter have received letters written by Wilbert Coffin a little time before his execution or obtained knowledge of these letters.
Examined on this matter, Mr. Belliveau has stated that his sole source of information was from Mtre François Gravel ; the latter has declared to us, for his part, having never had knowledge of such letters written and transmitted by his client, and he does not remember having made such declarations to Mr. Belliveau.
To make mention of these letters was probably moving, but it was not for sure a striking example of objectivity and intellectual honesty which newspapermen must show. (The end of this chapter)
TO BE POSTED NEXT WEEK: Foreign intervention
What pressure the U.S. State Department exerted on the Duplessis government?
26 mars 2008
COMMENT COFFIN A AIDÉ LES TROIS CHASSEURS AMÉRICAINS
.jpg)
.jpg)
Ci-contre, une photo de la camionnette d’Eugene Lindsey. Lloyd Annett, un mécanicien de Wakeham, a constaté qu’on n’avait pas touché à la pompe à essence. Il a posé une batterie neuve et l’a conduite jusqu’à Gaspé. À droite, en haut, une photo de la pompe à essence que la police a trouvée à l’appartement de Marion Petrie, la concubine de Coffin, à Montréal, et, ci-contre, le couteau que Coffin aurait censément reçu en cadeau pour avoir aidé les trois chasseurs américains
Centre d'archives de la Gaspésie/Musée de la Gaspésie. P123 Fonds Georges-Étienne Blanchard. Boîte 1.
Le jeune Richard Lindsey, l’un des trois chasseurs américains, dont les ossements furent trouvés dans la forêt gaspésienne en juillet 1953, aurait donné à Coffin ce couteau de poche à usage multiple pour les avoir aidés à réparer leur camionnette. Ce couteau était un cadeau qu’il avait reçu à sa collation de grade d’un parent au service des forces aériennes des États-Unis, au Japon. Coffin avait diagnostiqué que la pompe à essence était défectueuse. Le jeune Lindsey a accompagné Coffin à Gaspé pour en acheter une neuve. Ils en ont vraiment acheté une neuve que la police a trouvée plus tard dans l’appartement de la concubine de Coffin à Montréal.
Cette affaire vous intéresse ! Vous aimerez lire mon livre L’affaire Coffin : une supercherie ?
Le jeune Richard Lindsey, l’un des trois chasseurs américains, dont les ossements furent trouvés dans la forêt gaspésienne en juillet 1953, aurait donné à Coffin ce couteau de poche à usage multiple pour les avoir aidés à réparer leur camionnette. Ce couteau était un cadeau qu’il avait reçu à sa collation de grade d’un parent au service des forces aériennes des États-Unis, au Japon. Coffin avait diagnostiqué que la pompe à essence était défectueuse. Le jeune Lindsey a accompagné Coffin à Gaspé pour en acheter une neuve. Ils en ont vraiment acheté une neuve que la police a trouvée plus tard dans l’appartement de la concubine de Coffin à Montréal.
Cette affaire vous intéresse ! Vous aimerez lire mon livre L’affaire Coffin : une supercherie ?
S'abonner à :
Messages (Atom)
