OCCK

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?

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

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.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

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?

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

In my 57 years of practice, I have no criminal law experience except for a few drunk driving cases early in my career. The Michigan Search Warrant Statute came to my attention when the Oakland County Prosecutor presented the April 29, 2011 orders in both my Michigan State Police and Oakland County Prosecutor FOIA lawsuits. The Order stated basically that no one could have access to the Busch search warrant file in the 48th District Court for the search of the former Christopher Busch residence on October 28, 2008.

The last sentence of Section 9 of the Michigan Search Warrant Statute (Act 189 of 1966) specifically provides that the suppression orders authorized by the statute do not apply in FOIA cases:

(9) On the fifty-sixth day following the issuance of a search warrant, the search warrant affidavit contained in any court file or court record retention system is public information unless, before the fifty-sixth day after the search warrant is issued, a peace officer or prosecuting attorney obtains a suppression order from a judge or district court magistrate upon a showing under oath that suppression of the affidavit is necessary to protect an ongoing investigation or the privacy or safety of a victim or witness. The suppression order may be obtained ex parte in the same manner that the search warrant was issued. An initial suppression order issued under this subsection expires on the fifty-sixth day after the order is issued. A second or subsequent suppression order may be obtained in the same manner as the initial suppression order and shall expire on a date specified in the order. This subsection and subsection (8) do not affect a person’s right to obtain a copy of a search warrant affidavit from the prosecuting attorney or law enforcement agency under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246. MCL 780.651 (9)

SECTION 9 SPECIFICALLY STATES IT DOES NOT APPLY TO MY FOIA CASES AND BOTH THE OAKLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR AND THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT HAVE SUCCESSFULLY REFUSED TO DISCUSS THIS ASPECT OF MY CASE WITH ME.

In addition, Section 9 of the Michigan Search Warrant Statue also contains language suppressing the access to Search Warrant and Search Warrant Affidavits. All of the Search Warrant information is suppressed for 56 days. If the prosecutor wants to extend it beyond 56 days it must file a renewal order within the previous 56 day period. If no 56 day renewal order is entered the information is available to the public on the 57th day. The Statute does not contain any language allowing any public body to file subsequent suppression orders after the first 56 day period expires. I will discuss this further in chapter 11.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

As mentioned in Chapter 3, the King family always thought it was unlikely that a Blue Gremlin was involved in the 1977 abduction of Tim. The information I received from the Michigan State Police on December 15, 2010 and subsequent information described in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 universally support the original King family conclusion.

When you can’t sleep during the night and no one will talk to you, conjecture is the only basis for your conclusions. Chasing the Blue Gremlin lead probably led to a lot of wasted time. There were a lot more Pontiac LeMans on the road than Blue Gremlins in 1977; would this extra follow up be a burden? Did one or more of the leading suspects die, perhaps by murder or suicide, and therefore could not be identified or charged? Why didn’t Oakland County take some action when retired Detective Jack Kalbfleisch contacted officials this century? If you can’t sleep tonight, can you think of any sensible reasons for silence?

Law enforcement not only owes the families of the four victims an explanation for this serious oversight, but also the media and the public. They are entitled to this additional automobile information that could help in solving the most heinous unsolved crime in the State of Michigan.

As I told you in Chapter 2, the two major concerns of the OCCK investigation, which came to my attention after December 15, 2010, were the incorrect automobile information and the attempts by the Oakland County Prosecutor to deny me access to the October 28, 2008 Search Warrant Affidavit for the former Busch residence. I will discuss the second major reason in the following chapters.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

Chapter 3: Blue Gremlin – 1977

The King family has always thought it was highly unlikely that Tim left the Hunter-Maple parking lot in a Blue Gremlin. The only automobile publically identified in the murders of these four children has been a Blue Gremlin.

On the night Tim was abducted his 16 year old brother Chris returned from a babysitting job after 10:00 PM and went looking for him in the neighborhood. When Chris got to the Hunter-Maple parking lot, he noticed 2 or 3 cars including a Blue Gremlin. Because Chris had heard that some of the Blue Gremlins had a special Levi upholstery, he even looked in the car to check the type of upholstery. When the information regarding the Blue Gremlin was made public several days later, Chris advised the police of his observation.

When I mentioned this sighting to Oakland County Chief Assistant Prosecutor, Paul Walton in 2012 or 2013 he advised me that this Blue Gremlin information was not in the original Chris King interview. All members of the King family, including Chris, made statements to the investigators on March 17; the day after Tim was abducted. The information on the Blue Gremlin sighting was in the papers several days later. That is when Chris told police about the Gremlin he saw in the parking lot the night Tim was abducted. Walton has not acknowledged this important time difference.

February 18, 2016

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather