Since Jessica Copper, the Oakland County Prosecutor, won’t talk to me about the OCCK case, I am setting forth my questions and conclusions regarding the polygraph situation as follows.
1. In Jessica Cooper’s letter on November 13, 2009, was she warning me that she would bring criminal proceedings against me for any publicity on the possible Christopher Busch involvement in the OCCK case as the result of the polygraph by Lawrence Wasser that was never taken?
2. In February 1977 the Oakland County Prosecutor publicly stated that Christopher Busch was not involved in the Mark Stebbins murder because he passed a polygraph test and he gave this information to at least two newspapers.
3. The Oakland County Prosecutor stated under oath that Busch did not pass the February 27, 1977 polygraph when she submitted the search warrant affidavit to the 48th District Court on October 28, 2008.
4. The first person to fail a polygraph test was Ted Lamborgine in 2005 (chapter’s 30 & 31).
5. When Assistant Prosecutor, Thomas Grden reported the failure of Vince Gunnels to pass his July 31 2009 polygraph examination. Jessica Cooper took no action to charge her staff with a crime.
6. If the Oakland County Prosecutor publicly states that a suspect passed a polygraph examination, should any subsequent results to the contrary also be made public?
7. What is the position of Jessica Cooper on enforcing the publication of the criminal provisions of the polygraph statute?
8. Did L. Brooks Patterson violate this statute in 1977?
On June 19, 2012, Kevin Dietz of Channel 4 requested the following information from Jessica Cooper:
“Pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, please accept this request for the following records:
1. A copy of the Christopher Busch CSC file that we reviewed in your office on Monday, June 18th 2012”
Including the standard cover letter the OEP response included 121 pages.”
OBVIOUSLY, THE OAKLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR SHOWED THIS INFORMATION TO KEVIN DIETZ PRIOR TO HIS FOIA REQUEST.
Am I entitled to an explanation from the Oakland County Prosecutor? Were these documents shown to Kevin Dietz prior to his request?
Should the Oakland County Prosecutor explain to the Oakland County Circuit Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals, why this information was made available to Channel 4 while arguing in my FOIA cases that it was exempt information under the Freedom of Information Act? Is it just happenstance that Jessica Cooper was running for reelection in 2012?
In reading my Story, please remember that the government did not provide me with any documents until I received the Michigan State Police reports on December 15, 2010. It was more than 9 months after the March 1, 2010 phone call telling me Christopher Busch and his companions were no longer suspects. It was only after December 15, 2010 that I determined the identification of the blue Gremlin as being incorrect.
It was not until April 1, 2013 when I was finally granted access to the 48th District Court Files that I obtained the information of the abuses by the Oakland County Prosecutor of the Michigan Search Warrant Statute to prohibit my access to this file. In obtaining the Suppression Orders, the Oakland County Prosecutor (a) ignored the statutory provision indicating that the statute was not applicable to FOIA cases, (b) obtained the orders without any supporting testimony or facts, and (c) submitted to the Oakland County Circuit Court two true copies of orders dated April 29, 2011 which were not identical.
Do you agree with the King family that the officials owe me an explanation on the blue Gremlin and search warrant questions?
My Story then discusses the 5 identified suspects in Tim’s murder and most of this background information provided to me after the Michigan State Police Reports were delivered.
The rest of my Story will discuss various subjects that came to the attention of the King family after December 15, 2010. In reviewing these future subjects, please remember that Jessica Cooper told me on March 1, 2010 that the suspects identified by my children were no longer suspects. Thus far we have reviewed no evidence exonerating these suspects. Did she make this determination based on her dictatorial powers as a prosecutor and were other Oakland County personnel also involved in this decision?
When Chris Bush was arrested on the Genesee County charges in Alma MI, on January 28, 1977 and after waving his Miranda rights, Busch made statements to the arresting officers. He admitted that he was a homosexual and liked young boys who tend to be 10-15 years old. Partial results of this interview are summarized in paragraph 3-S of the search warrant affidavit in Chapter 8( Exhibit A) which reads as follows.
“Busch told detectives that he and Greene had discussed and planned how they would kidnap, hold and molest young boys. Busch stated that he and Greene agreed that one would work days and the other nights, so that one of them would always be with the kidnapped child. Busch further described 3 locations where he picked up young boys in the past. These locations are as follows:
• 9 Mile and Woodward are in Ferndale;
• In Royal Oak near 13 Mile Rd and Woodward;
• In the area of 12 Mile and Greenfield Rd, more specifically, Hartfield’s Bowling Alley and the 7-11 party store located directly across the street.
Doan reported that he asked Busch what they intended to do with the child after they were through with him. Doan wrote in his report that Busch could not answer. “
The above locations are where Mark Stebbins, Jill Robinson and Kristine Mihelich were abducted. My judgment is that this location is not coincidental.
In 1976 and 1977 were these locations identified by any other child victims or pedophile suspects?
The OCCK Task Force served an investigation subpoena on both Patrick Coffey and Lawrence Wasser. Coffey flew from California at his own expense. Coffey was advised that giving false testimony in murder cases was a felony. He then gave testimony and, to my knowledge, no one has challenged the truth of his story.
After he was served with the subpoena, Wasser hired James Feinberg as his attorney and sought dismissal of the subpoena. At the hearing, Judge Timothy Kenny and Feinberg had the following exchange:
“The Court: And it is further my understanding based on the arguments that have been made before the Court that Mr. Wasser denies that conversation.
Mr. Feinberg: That’s correct.”
After Wasser was ordered to give the name of his person of interest, he made several public comments denying the truth of the Coffey statements. Coffey then commenced a libel action against Wasser and Feinberg for those alleged false statements. Wasser and Feinberg paid Coffey a sum of money. The Settlement Agreement specifically states that Coffey and Wasser had a different interpretation of their 2006 conversation.
How do you have different interpretation of a conversation which never took place?
I commenced this story with two of my major concerns over the investigation of my son’s death. For 30 years the King family, and to my knowledge, the families of the other three victims, relied on law enforcement to identify the killer or killers. It was more than 33 years after Tim was abducted that the authorities provided me with any information. In response to my FOIA action, the Michigan State Police provided me with 3,411 pages on December 15, 2010.
My first major concern was the automobile identification process. I outlined these concerns in Chapters 3 to 7. There was little or no basis for emphasizing the participation of a blue AMC Gremlin when the files make substantial reference to other automobiles. In particular, a Pontiac LeMans was identified as being involved in three of the murders and the fourth murder even referred to a Pontiac without identifying the brand. This has continued for forty years. Why? Was this tactic deliberate? There were a lot more Pontiac LeMans on the road than there were AMC Gremlins. Is it possible for the current investigating officers to correct my perceived omissions?
My second concern is the lack of information from the Oakland County Prosecutor and the Oakland County authorities. It is my understanding that on October 28, 2008, the date of the Search Warrant, the Oakland County Prosecutor, the Wayne County Prosecutor and the Michigan State Police all believed that Christopher Busch was the best suspect at that time. I was unaware of the Search Warrant Affidavit until the Oakland County Prosecutor went to Court without my knowledge and perhaps the judge’s knowledge of my involvement to deny everyone access to this document. Was this done with a suggestion or cooperation of the Oakland County officials? Why did Jessica Cooper advise me on March 1, 2010 that Busch was no longer a suspect?
In continuing my story, over the next chapters I will discuss the following:
a. Identification of Busch as a suspect
b. Identify, Christopher Busch, Gregory Greene, Vince Gunnels, Ted Lambrogine and Archibald Sloan, the only suspects identified to me by law enforcement, and
c. The chronology of the events leading up to my FOIA lawsuits.
After delivery of the two Suppression Orders to the Oakland County Circuit Judges in my FOIA cases, both judges properly ruled that I could not have access to the Search Warrant information in their courts. If you wish to challenge a court order you are required to go to the judge that entered the order and contest the matter in that court.
When I visited the 48th District Court, the Clerk at the counter did not know what I was talking about. The Suppression Orders did not have a case number, a requirement under the Michigan Court Rules. When she talked to her superior, he told her not to ignore my request.
I then filed a Motion to intervene in the 48th District Court case to get access to the file. In response, Assistant Prosecutor, Paul Walton, filed an Affidavit stating that the Oakland County Circuit Judge, Wendy Potts had already denied me access to the information. Similarly, he had previously told Judge Potts that I was required to bring the matter before the 48th District Court. Michigan Case Law does not allow an attorney to take contrary positions in different lawsuits. I would like an explanation from Walton as to which court had jurisdiction to hear my argument since he denied me jurisdiction in both courts.
After Judge Small denied my motion to intervene, I filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was not acted upon for almost a year. When I wrote the Judge a letter asking for a ruling on my Motion for Reconsideration I received a telephone call from Gary Klein who identified himself as the research attorney for the 48th District Court. Klein agreed to make the information available to me. I visited the Court on April 1, 2013 and was given the Search Warrant information.
In order to obtain the April 29, 2011 suppression orders from the 48th district court, the accompanying Ex Parte Motion to Clarify Order of Suppression of the October 28, 2008 search warrant and affidavit filed by the Oakland County Prosecutor states as follows:
4. That this Court has issued sixteen orders continuing the suppression of the search warrant and affidavit in this matter. The last issued March 23, 2011, and to continue to in force to May 18, 2011.
The expiration date on the fifteenth Order of Suppression expired on March 7, 2011, 840 days after October 28, 2009 Search Warrant Affidavit was issued. The sixteenth Order was not issued until March 23, 2011. Obviously, one or more of the 15 orders of suppression were issued after the expiration date of a 56 day period. Whenever the first order was not renewed within the 56 day period it can no longer be suppressed. This occurred all subsequent orders of suppression were improperly entered. The statute contains no provisions allowing the prosecutor to obtain ex parte orders once the 56 day renewal period is breached. Is my interpretation correct? Did the Oakland County Prosecutor advise the 48th district court of this interpretation when the order was entered?