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

OAKLAND COUNTY CHILD KILLER

A FATHER’S STORY

Chapter 46: North Fox Island

The Michigan State Police reports contain one small paragraph reference to Christopher Busch having a suitcase of pornographic photographs on North Fox Island. Since Busch was apparently not indicted for his possession of these pictures this prompted my inquiry of this location.

The King Family learned that North Fox Island was an island in Traverse Bay, outside of Traverse City, Michigan. Someone, using an assumed name, had purchased the Island and put in an airplane runway. The Island was then used as a camp for young boys from Detroit who were flown to the island and then sexually abused. The owner was later identified as Francis Sheldon from Grosse Pointe, Michigan, who moved to the Netherlands. He was never extradited or indicted before he died. There were reports that Busch and his pornographic films were delivered to Flint, Michigan, but that no further action was taken against him.

An amazing part of the North Fox Island story is the lack of media coverage over this horrendous operation at that time. It should be a lesson to all of us that people in high places were involved in pedophile activity in the 1970s. North Fox Island was not purchased by a high school coach or a police officer. It should also be a lesson that Christopher Busch was involved in major pedophile activities in addition to his four (4) convictions.

What is the relationship to North Fox Island to the OCCK murders? I have seen no direct connection between these two (2) situations. However, it is a lesson to us that in the 1970s there was substantial pedophile activity which involved many wealthy people and no publicity. It also supports my conclusion that these people in high places were involved in pedophile activity and they did not procure their victims themselves. Don’t forget that four adults called me after the Busch photo was published with reports that he tried to pick them up. Does Charles Busch have any recollection of his brother’s North Fox Island activities?

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, Uncategorized

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.

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

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

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