In 2015 I received a phone call from a police officer who was convinced that Christopher Busch was involved in the Oakland County Child Killings. We talked for over an hour. A summary of this telephone discussion is in my files but I do not wish to disclose most the information at this time. Because the officer is still on active duty, no identification was given to me. I did not ask for his name or current position. The officer was convinced that Busch was involved in these murders and wanted to be certain that I have received all of the information regarding his suicide report.
This phone call is another example of the difference of opinion among many of the foot soldiers and their superiors in the police force as well as other political personnel.
If I disagreed with the conclusions of a young lawyer in my office, we would discuss the differences of opinion. While the final decision would be mine, it is improper to ignore other opinions. Does the police administration follow the same procedure? If the Chief of Police disagrees, does he throw the file in waste basket or sit down with the investigating officers to explain why this action is being taken. Similarly, if the police authorities submit a case to the prosecutor, does the prosecutor follow a similar procedure regarding the waste basket or education?
When Christopher Busch was identified as a possible suspect in November of 2007, the only members of his immediate family then surviving were a brother, Charles, and two nephews, Brent Busch and Scott Busch. As previously noted in the Search Warrant Affidavit, Christopher Busch had pedophile sexual experiences with both of his nephews. In 1977 or 1978, Brent Busch asked his uncle where Tim King was abducted and Christopher Busch drove him immediately to the site and showed him the location. Brent Busch advised the investigators that you do not forget things like that.
Charles Busch was originally reluctant to talk to the investigators. However, he finally agreed to meet with the FBI. Before beginning the interview Charles Busch requested that the FBI to place both of his nephews into “witness protection program” if his statement led to further investigative action. To my knowledge no one has asked him for an explanation why he made this request.
Charles Busch also told the FBI that his brother was arrested in Birmingham for sexual activity with a young boy he met through the Big Brother program. This is the only information I have on this crime.
Richard Lawson, a convicted murderer and pedophile activist in the Detroit Cass Avenue Corridor, wrote me a letter and asked for a meeting to discuss the OCCK case. I had met Lawson previously and had little respect for him. Dave Binkley of my law firm agreed to visit with him. Binkley was under instructions not to talk to him about anything other than the Christopher Busch involvement. Lawson advised Binkley that his associate Bobby Moore, used to take young boys to visit with H. Lee Busch, the father of Christopher Busch. Lawson has subsequently died and I am not aware as to whether or not the Task Force followed up on this information.
IF CHARLES BUSCH FEARED THAT SOME HARM MIGHT COME TO HIS NEPHEWS, THIS HARM WOULD COME FROM SOMEONE WHO WAS STILL ALIVE. SHOULD THE TASK FORCE ASK CHARLES BUSCH TO CLARIFY THIS REQUEST?
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.
I could not have written this Story unless Tim’s sister, Cathy, and brother, Chris had not obtained a lead on an unidentified suspect in July 2006. In 2010, Downtown Publications, a new monthly newspaper in the Birmingham-Bloomfield Hills area, in its original issue described the Oakland County Child Killer Case including quotations from Oakland County officials. This prompted Cathy to write the attached letter to the editors dated September 30, 2010 concerning the origination of the Christopher Busch lead. Rather than provide you with second hand information, I am attaching her 6 page letter (Exhibit E) which summarizes the identification of Busch as the principal suspect. The King family is convinced that if Cathy had not called the Livonia Police Department with information on this unidentified suspect, none of this information would have been publicized. Her actions led to the title to this Chapter which I copied from a popular fiction novel publicized several years ago.
Please note that her letter is dated before my family received any documents form the public authorities regarding Tim’s murder.
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?
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?
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.
Attached are the following copies of the Orders of Suppressions referred to in the previous chapters.
1. Exhibit B: A “true copy” of an Order Suppressing Motion to Clarifying Orders of Suppression of Search Warrant and Affidavit dated April 29, 2011 from the 48th District Court denying everyone including me access to that Court’s file on the October 28, 2008 Search Warrant for the former residence of Christopher Busch which was delivered to Judge Coleen O’Brien in my FOIA case against the Michigan State Police.
2. Exhibit C: A “true copy” of an Order Clarifying Orders of Suppression of Search Warrant and Affidavit dated April 29, 2011 from the 48th District Court denying everyone including me access to that Court’s file on the October 28, 2008 Search Warrant for the former residence of Christopher Busch which was delivered by the Oakland County Prosecutor to Judge Wendy Potts in my FOIA lawsuit against the Oakland County Prosecutor.
3. Exhibit D: The 48th District Court copy of this Order of Suppression which was delivered to me by the 48th District Court on April 1, 2013, more than two years after the delivery of Exhibits B & C.
IT WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER APRIL 1, 2013 THAT I NOTICED THAT “TRUE COPY” EXHIBITS B & C WERE BOTH DATED APRIL 29, 2011 BUT WERE NOT IDENTICAL. FURTHERMORE, EXHIBITS B & C ARE DATED AND ARE NOT TRUE COPIES OF THE UNDATED COPY IN THE COURT 48th DISTRICT COURT FILE (EXHIBIT D).
In my two lawsuits against the Oakland County Prosecutor, I was forbidden any discovery and both these cases were closed prior to April 1, 2013. Perhaps somebody from the media can check with the 48th District Court for an explanation of these inconsistent documents.
Tim’s mother died in 2004 and I married her friend, Janice Bollinger in 2008. Janice told me that her friend, Doug Wilson, was hypnotized by the Task Force. After a lengthy search, she located him and he is now employed by a Japanese automobile company in La Jolla, California.
When I contacted Wilson, he told me an interesting story. Wilson had visited the Hunter-Maple parking lot the night of the abduction and recalled seeing Tim. After some encouragement from his wife and friends, Wilson agreed in June 1977 to be hypnotized and tell the FBI what he had seen.
He recalled seeing Tim on a skateboard in the parking lot and even identified the place in the wall where his skateboard had hit the building. The Task Force located some orange markings at the spot he identified.
Wilson also identified two gentlemen. One was a young man who was running back and forth with no apparent goal. The other was an older gentleman in a Pontiac Lemans which drew his suspicions. Wilson even tried to remember the license plate on the Lemans but could only remember the digits 222.
Wilson then wrote me a letter which concluded as follows:
“When the session ended I had thought maybe only 15-20 minutes had elapsed, but when I looked at my watch I was shocked to see that 4 hours had passed. The agents were very excited about my observations. I was able to confirm the possibility that two men were involved. This was information that the FBI had only speculated on. From my description the sketch artist was able to get a pretty good likeness of each man. But, the most important information was my identification of the car that the older man was sitting in. It was a 1973 Pontiac Le Mans 2/door coupe.
It turns out that they already knew the make of the car. When the previous victim had been dropped off, the car had backed into a snow bank and left a perfect impression of the car’s rear bumper. As for the car’s license number, I could only remember the last three numbers: the three 2’s. For some reason the phrase I had made to remember the preceding 3 letters was not retrievable. To this day I still cannot remember it. I can only surmise that numbers are stored in a different part of the brain than the phrase would be.”