OCCK

“Cooper, who was elected in 2008, says members of her staff have responded to all of King’s queries over the years. Her chief assistant, Paul Walton spoke at length with King in 2012. King also met with Gary Miller, then- Oakland County deputy sheriff.” From A Father’s Story by Deborah Holdship published in Michigan Today, April 25, 2016

This statement is at best misleading and at worst incorrect. For instance, one of the Assistant Prosecutors advised me that he had been instructed not to talk to me.

The June 25, 2012 meeting with Walton is summarized in Chapter 64 of my story of my son’s murder, A Father’s Story-OCCK. Prior to this meeting on June 19, Kevin Dietz of Channel 4 sent a FOIA request to Cooper for the documents she had shown him yesterday and received 121 pages concerning the Busch investigation. This was during the same time period that Cooper told both the Oakland County Circuit Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals that this information was exempt and not available to me in my FOIA cases. Walton gave us less than ten pages at the June 25 meeting (Chapter 38). At this same meeting Walton also told us that he had no evidence exonerating Busch from participation in these murders.

Cooper and Walton asked me to come to court on July 20, 2011. When I appeared they falsely told Judge Martha Anderson that I had committed the crime of disclosing the existence of the Oakland County Grand Jury. When I asked him who provided his office with this false information at the June 25, 2012 meeting, he responded Kevin Dietz. Dietz had previously delivered to his office a statement that I was not the source of his TV program announcing the existence of the Oakland County Grand Jury (Chapter 65, Exhibit K).

The meeting with Gary Miller was arranged with Sheriff Michael Bouchard and no prosecutor was present. My summary of the meeting is at Chapter 64, Exhibit J.
Cooper called on March 1, 2010 to tell us that Busch was no longer a suspect. On June 25, 2012 Walton tells us the Oakland County Prosecutor has no evidence exonerating him. The only person who can give us the basis for her March 1 phone call is Cooper. Hopefully before the November 8 election someone in the media will ask her to explain why she called me on March 1 to tell me Busch was no longer a suspect.

Footnote: You can access my Story at “afathersstory-occk.com”. You can locate specific Chapters by adding “/chapter-xx”.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

As discussed in Post Script Three the Oakland County Prosecutor reported in February 1977 that Christopher Busch had passed a lie detector test but refused to report later readings from three other polygraphers who ruled otherwise. The inconsistent positions taken by the Oakland County Prosecutor on the publication of polygraph examinations needs clarification. The following is my timeline on the publication results of the lie detector tests of two of the OCCK suspects, Christopher Buach and Vince Gunnels.

January 28, 1977: The OCCK Task Force takes the polygraph examination of Busch in Genesee County. An Oakland County Prosecutor was present because Busch was a suspect in the murder of Mike Stebbins, the first victim (Chapter 22).

February 1977: Oakland County Prosecutor L Brooks Patterson concludes that Busch was not a suspect in the murder of Stebbins, the first victim, because he had passed a lie detector test. This information was published in two newspaper articles which were in the Michigan State Police reports which I received on December 15, 2010. Tim was abducted and killed one month later in March, 1977.

November 13, 2009: After my October 27, 2009 meeting with the Task Force Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper wrote me a letter advising me that publication of lie detector tests is a crime (Chapter 62, Exhibit J).

December 15, 2010: This is the date I received the Michigan State Police reports on Busch. It was after this date that I read two newspaper articles stating that Busch was not involved in the Stebbins case because he passed a lie detector test.

November 20. 2012: In response to my third FOIA request Oakland County Assistant Prosecutor Thomas Grden delivered to me a copy of the complete polygraph test of Vince Gunnels taken on July 30, 2009 including the questions, the answers and the conclusions (Chapter 42). This information had been redacted in the MSP reports I received on December 15, 2010. Has Jessica Cooper taken any action to charge or discipline Gredn for this statutory violation?

April 1, 2013: Almost two years after I filed suit to review the October 28, 2008 search warrant on the Busch residence the 48th District Court gave me access to its search warrant file. The search warrant affidavit prepared by the Oakland County Prosecutor and signed by the Michigan State Police discloses that three experienced polygraphers concluded that Busch either failed or did not pass the January 28, 1977 lie detector test (Chapter 8, Exhibit A). The Oakland County Prosecutor publicly states in February 1977 that Busch passed the test and then refuses to give me access to the contrary readings. What is good for the goose is good for the gander! No prosecutor should have authority to state the earlier results and then deny victims or suspects access to the contrary answers.

October 2013: The police reports delivered to me at this time stated that more than 300 suspects had passed polygraph tests until Ted Lamborgine failed his test in 2005. Was a polygraph test the sole basis used to locate Tim’s killer? Has any prosecutor ever been accused of a crime when the statute is violated? Should Cooper and/or Grden be charged now?

If the courts do not clarify this problem the legislature should confer with the prosecutors and the criminal bar association to clarify procedures after anyone publishes lie detector results.

Footnote: You can access my Story at “afathersstory-occk.com”. You can locate specific Chapters by adding “/chapter-x”).

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

No public body should have the right to publish favorable news and then assert the exemption provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when contrary results arise. We may see examples of this between now and the November 8 elections. In 1977 the Oakland County Prosecutor publicly announced that Christopher Busch did not kill Mike Stebbins, the first victim, because he passed a lie detector test. In 2008 the Oakland County Prosecutor refused to release the conclusions of three subsequent polygraphers who arrived at contrary opinions after reading the same test results.

The King family requests the Michigan legislature to amend FOIA to eliminate her dictatorial decision to deny the family of Tim King any explanation of why she eliminated Christopher Busch as a suspect (Chapter 35). FOIA places both the burden of proof and the burden of going forward on the public body and not on the citizen plaintiff (Chapter 16). In my two FOIA cases both the Oakland County Circuit Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals have upheld the position of Cooper that victims in this 40 year old OCCK case are not entitled to any information on why she called me on March 1, 2010 to tell me Christopher Busch was no longer a suspect (Chapter 35). The victims, the judges and the public do not know if the Busch case was closed for professional, publicity, power and control, political or some other reason.

Many times a prosecutor will tell the public why a suspicious criminal cannot or will not be charged. Jessica Cooper has made these announcements. For instance Cooper publicly announced that she would not charge the Northland Mall officers who killed a customer because that was not their intent, a professional reason. When he was prosecutor l. Brooks Patterson made disclosures in February 1977 for not charging Busch (Chapter 41). Patterson gave a professional reason to support his conclusion. Cooper, who has not prepared or tried a case for almost four decades, has not given any reason for advising me on March 1, 2010 that Busch was no longer a suspect. FOIA does not and should not grant prosecutors dictatorial discretion in the publication of these conclusions. The prosecutor should explain the reason for this decision, especially when the police have contrary opinions.

If a prosecutor decides not to charge any suspect for a nonprofessional reason the victim currently has no remedy. For instance, if the suspect is related to the prosecutor or is a major political donor is silence proper? In Tim’s case was Oakland County upset that Wayne County may have identified the murderers (Chapter 56)? If publication shortly before an election could affect the election result a prosecutor should not have discretion to talk to the media while at the same time asserting she is under no obligation to give the same information to the victims or the judiciary (Chapters 38 to 40). This paragraph could continue for several more pages with questions and examples all of which discuss my conclusion that prosecutors should open the entire file when they tell anyone of their decision not to charge a suspect. The FOIA statute should clarify this issue!

Footnte: You can access my Story at “afathersstory-occk.com” You can locate specific Chapters by adding “/Chapter-xx “. Another source is “afathersstory-occk.wordpress”.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

As I mentioned in Chapter 2, one of my two major initial concerns was the improper use of the search warrant statute by Jessica Cooper, the Oakland County Prosecutor. These concerns are outlined in Chapters 8 to 17. The following are a list of questions Cooper should answer not only to me but to the court system:

1. Since the suppression order provisions of the search warrant statute specifically states that it is not applicable to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) cases, why did you use this statute to obtain the orders from the 48th District Court (Chapter 9, Exhibits B and C) which you filed with Judges Colleen O’Brien and Wendy Potts in my FOIA cases against the Michigan State Police and your office?

2. Why are the copies of the Order Clarifying Orders of Suppression of Search Warrant and Affidavit dated April 29, 2011 and marked “A True Copy” which you filed in my two FOIA cases not identical (Chapter 9, Exhibits B and C)?

3. Why is the only copy of the above order in the 48th District Court files undated (Chapter 9, Exhibit D)?

4. Were all the renewal orders filed in the 48th District Court within 56 days of the previous order? If they were not filed within 56 days, why were any subsequent orders valid (Chapter 11)?

5. Since you obtained the April 29, 2011 order(s) from the 48th District Court in an ex parte proceeding, did you violate Rule 3.3 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct which requires you to advise the court of the factual and legal positions of your opposing litigant? In this regard the 48th District Court has advised me there was no hearing or affidavit.

6. Are the facts in Chapters 8 to 17 and the accompanying exhibits true? If not, identify the untrue facts and state the basis for your contrary conclusions.

If you believe Cooper is correct in her legal positions, vote for her. If you believe the families of the victims are entitled to these answers, vote for her opponent, Mike Goetz. He has agreed to make the Oakland County files available to the King family.

Footnote: you can access this blog at “afathersstory-occk.com’. You can access specific Chapters by adding “/chapter-xx”.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

As Cathy Broad reported in her Letter to the Editor, Chapter 21, the initial unidentified suspect resulted from a discussion between Patrick Coffey and Lawrence Wasser at a national polygraph conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. The lead was the result of the request by Jane Burgess, the attorney for the unidentified suspect, to conduct a polygraph examination. I had no experience in polygraph law and I did not have any understanding why a defense attorney would ask for a polygraph examination if the results were not admissible in court.

Two of my lawyer friends advised me that in negotiating certain plea agreements, the prosecutor would require that the defendant pass a polygraph examination. To be certain that the defendant could pass, the defense attorney first arranges an appointment with a polygrapher to determine the result. If the defendant does not pass, they do not accept this plea agreement. If the defendant does pass the plea agreement is accepted.
It is my understanding that the unidentified suspect advised Wasser that he has passed a polygraph test for the OCCK case. Wasser did not complete the scheduled polygraph examination.

Later in this Story I will discuss two pedophile cases in which Busch received probation when the pretrial documents indicate probation would not be allowed.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

Ex Parte proceedings do not require you to give any notice to interested parties. Section 9 of the search warrant statute regarding warrant suppression orders allows the Oakland County Prosecutor to obtain the search warrant suppression order without notice to any other persons or their attorneys.

When the Oakland County Prosecutor filed the Motion for Entry of the Clarification of the October 20, 2008 original order of suppression, her office knew of my pending FOIA cases against the Michigan State Police and the Oakland County Prosecutor. The comments to Rule 3.3 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct contain the following instructions regarding the obligation of an attorney in ex parte proceedings:

“Ordinarily, an advocate has the limited responsibility of presenting one side of the matters that a tribunal should consider in reaching a decision; the conflicting position is expected to be presented by the opposing party. However, in an ex parte proceeding, such as an application for a temporary restraining order, there is no balance of presentation by opposing advocates. The object of an ex parte proceeding is nevertheless to yield a substantially just result. The judge has an affirmative responsibility to accord the absent party just consideration. The lawyer for the represented party has the correlative duty to make disclosures of material facts that are known to the lawyer and that the lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to an informed decision.”

When I was given access to the court file on April 1, 2013, I noticed the motion filed by the Oakland County prosecutor was not supported by an affidavit. When I ordered a transcript of the proceeding, I was advised that there was no hearing. I will discuss my concerns over a court saying orders without a supporting testimony in the following chapters.

What did the Oakland County Prosecutor tell Judge Kimberly Small? If you were served with a suppression court order suspending your driver’s license and could not obtain any background information on the entry of the order, I assume you would be as disturbed as I am about the legal basis of the Order. It bothers me more as a lawyer than as a father. Am I entitled to an explanation? How did the OCP obtain this order without competent testimony?

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

Prologue

My eleven-year-old son, Timothy, was abducted in Oakland County on March 16, 1977, and his body was found in Wayne County in a roadside ditch on March 22, 1977. In response to my Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) lawsuit against the Michigan State Police, I learned after December 15, 2010 that Tim had been sexually abused. Furthermore, Tim had been suffocated by someone who held both his nose and mouth shut. Tim died in his hands. I cannot imagine a more heinous death.

After the death of Kristine Michelich, the third victim, my children recall a discussion I had with Tim. He was told not to accept a ride from a stranger. If anyone tried to force him to enter a car, he was instructed to drop anything he was carrying, run and scream. During the six days he was alive, I am certain he knew what would happen.

In July 2007, Tim’s sister, Cathy Broad, advised the Livonia Police Department in Wayne County of an unidentified suspect. Detective Cory Williams of the Livonia Police Department, and Detective Sergeant Garry Gray of the Michigan State Police, identified this suspect as Christopher Busch on November 30, 2007. Williams and Gray later identified the possible participation of two of Busch’s companions, Gregory Greene and Vince Gunnels. Thereafter the King family received encouraging reports on the Busch involvement from law enforcement. To my surprise, my friend, Donald Studt, now Birmingham Chief of Police, called me on March 1, 2010 at the request of Jessica Cooper, the Oakland County Prosecutor, to advise me that Christopher Busch and his companions were no longer suspects. When no one would tell me the basis for this conclusion, I commenced FOIA lawsuits against both the Michigan State Police and the Oakland County Prosecutor. Jessica Cooper and her staff have refused to talk to me about the March 1, 2010 conclusions. Thus far her silence has been supported by the Oakland County Circuit Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals.

The King family and the families of Mark Stebbins, Jill Robinson and Kristine Mihelich, the other three OCCK victims, deserve an explanation from the responsible public officials regarding the investigation of these murders. In particular, your local prosecutor should not have dictatorial powers to close investigation of valid suspects without explanation. The Michigan Constitution states that crime victims have a right to confer with the prosecutor (Article I, Section 24). Why should anyone submit a valid suspect to law enforcement if the local prosecutor can refuse to take action for undisclosed reasons? If the reasons are professional, even Jessica Cooper has gone public to explain her reasoning. However, if the reasons are political, personal, power in control or other nonprofessional reasons, all of which may be present in the OCCK case, silence does not protect the victims or the public. I welcome your thoughts and responses but request that you complete the entire story before making interim replies.

In 2008, both Wayne and Oakland County identified Christopher Busch as the best suspect the system had produced in over 30 years. The Christopher Busch lead was the result of the phone call my daughter made to the Livonia Police Department in 2009 with information on an unidentified suspect. Cory Williams of the Livonia Police Department and Gregory Greene of the Michigan State Police identified this suspect as Christopher Busch.

My Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Michigan State Police resulted in the delivery of 3,411 pages on the Christopher Busch investigation. However, the legal system has told me that the Oakland County Prosecutor has no responsibility to provide information supporting her March 1, 2010 phone call.

Last summer I decided to use social media to tell my story. This was awkward because of my limited knowledge of this new communication system. I would like to thank those youngsters (age 60 and under) for the education provided to me regarding this publication.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather