My son Chris and I met with the Michigan State Police and Wayne County Detective Cory Williams after this Chapter was published. For this reason I stated in the original Chapter I might publish this addition after the meeting. We had been advised that Sloan was offered freedom under some conditions which were not given to us. We were subsequently advised that Sloan had decided not to accept this offer.
Why would Sloan refuse freedom? First, he may not know anything which would be helpful to solving the murders. Second, he may have been afraid of punishment from any living person he could identify. Third, at age 80 plus he may have preferred three meals a day and a place to sleep. Four, his sense of loyalty to his friends and/or customers supersedes his concerns for the children. Can you think of any other reasons?
While the Oakland County Prosecutor has never told me why Christopher Busch was no longer a suspect in her March 1, 2010 phone call, my degree in bar room psychology has led me to conclude that the Sloan lead replaced Busch as the leading suspect primarily through the use of scientific evidence rather than circumstantial evidence. Remember, the scientific evidence, specifically the mDNA match between a hair in Sloan’s car which matched hairs on two of the victims, was accumulated by the revitalized Task Force after 2005 without any input from Oakland County. It also gave Oakland County an opportunity to hide any of its many possible mistakes or cover up on the Busch involvement.
Item 8. 07/14/2011: I have difficulty understanding why my statement to a third party is a meeting. I did not know at that time Jessica Cooper, at her request, was not receiving reports (Chapter 53), that she would share documents and information with the media and not the victims (Chapters 38-40), that the Oakland County Prosecutor had no evidence exonerating Busch (Chapter 63) or that on October 28, 2008 the Oakland County Prosecutor, the Wayne County Prosecutor and the Michigan State Police all believed Christopher Busch was the best suspect when they filed the search warrant affidavit.
Item 9. 07/17/11: On this date Cooper publicly requested information on the possible involvement of Archibald Sloan in the OCCK murders. The Task Force had determined there was a mDNA match between hairs found on the bodies of both Mark Stebbins and Tim King with a hair found in the car of Sloan. I later learned that the investigating officers requested Cooper to go public because they had no facts to charge Sloan other than the mDNA match (Chapter 64). As a courtesy MSP Lieutenant Denise Powell and FBI Agent Sean Callaghan advised my son Chris and I an hour prior to the announcement. I believed then, and I still believe, Sloan could be a good lead. However, the Task Force has not discovered any facts to identify this unknown suspect. On the other hand, the information my daughter Cathy provided the Task Force did result in an identified suspect which Cooper will not discuss with me.
Item 10. 07/18/2012: See my response to the two previous dates.
Item 11. 08/29/2012: When Jessica Cooper would not discuss the Christopher Busch involvement with me I wrote Sheriff Michael Bouchard requesting a meeting with his chief investigator. Bouchard offered to attend but I advised him this was not necessary. No prosecutor was present and I thought that Don Tullock was with the sheriff’s office.
Item 12. 08/29/12: Attached as Exhibit J is the four page memorandum I dictated on my drive home after the meeting. I referred to Tullock as Phelps and made the handwritten insert after this was brought to my attention. Gary Miller called me upon receiving the memorandum to indicate my reference to the Sloan involvement was perhaps understated. I did not receive any facts exonerating Busch from possible involvement.
* * * *
Trial publicity is discussed in Rule 3.6 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule states “ (a). A lawyer who is a participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. …” Did the TV appearance of Cooper violate this rule?
As I asked you in Chapter 61, how many of these 27 meetings were actually meetings with the Prosecutor?
THIS LIST DELIBERATELY OMITS THE DATE OF JULY 20, 2011 WHEN JESSICA COOPER AND PAUL WALTON ASKED ME TO APPEAR IN COURT WHERE THEY FALSELY ACCUSED ME OF A CRIME. I WILL DISCUSS THIS IN MY NEXT CHAPTER.
My interest in the above matter arose when my friend Judy Dieboldt of the Detroit News called me after Jane Burgess was identified as the attorney for Christopher Busch in his four pedophile convictions. Dieboldt told me that before she was married she socialized with Jessica Cooper and Burgess who were close friends.
The MSP reports which I received on December 15, 2010 further aroused my interest on this friendship. The OCCK Task Force met with Cooper on February 20, 2009, shortly after Cooper took office as the OCP. Present were Cooper and three assistant prosecutors, prosecutors Kym Worthy and Robert Moran from Wayne County, and Cory Williams and Garry Gray from the Task Force. Williams presented the facts and asked Cooper if she would charge anyone in the OCCK murders if the only evidence was circumstantial. I have therefore concluded that the evidence which was being accumulated had not been tested. In conclusion Cooper stated “that the current Task Force can count on the full support of the Oakland County Prosecutors Office”
I also received later oral advice that when Cooper learned Burgess was the Busch attorney Cooper stated her friend Burgess would not represent a pedophile who was charged in four separate cases. Cooper had to be reminded that Burgess pled Busch guilty in all four cases.
The MSP reports also contain an October5, 2009 email from MSP Sergeant Gary Gray to His superior, Captain Harold Love which states:
“7. Oakland County Prosecutor’s haven’t kept up to date on the investigation at their request….”
Did the close personal relationship with Burgess affect Cooper’s judgment? If you were the complaining party in a criminal case would a personal or professional relationship between the prosecutor and the defense attorney concern you? Why and when did the OCP stop receiving reports?
In the first letter I have received from Jessica Cooper is dated November 13, 2009 following the one and only meeting with the Oakland County Task Force on October 27, 2009. In this letter she states as follows:
“In addition, the publicizing of some information, such as that related to polygraphs is actually a crime.”
On November 13, 2009, I had no information that Ted Lamborgine, Christopher Busch or Vince Gunnels had been polygraphed. Therefore, I assumed that the quotation was related to the polygraph that Lawrence Wasser/Christopher Busch which was discussed in Chapter 21. It is my understanding that Wasser never commenced the Busch polygraph. I did not understand why any reference to their conversation was a crime under the polygraph statute. If any prosecutor or criminal lawyer reviewing this chapter has legal authority to the contrary, I would appreciate having this brought to my attention.
Imagine my surprise when I received the Michigan State Police reports on December 15, 2010. The report contained newspaper articles which L Brooks Patterson, then the Oakland County Prosecutor, was quoted as saying that Chris Busch was not a suspect in the Mark Stebbins murder because he had passed a polygraph test. The MSP reports also indicated that Oakland County Chief Assistant Prosecutor, Richard Thompson, was present at Busch’s polygraph presumably to determine if Gregory Greene and/or Busch were involved in the murder of Mark Stebbins, the first victim.
On November 13, 2009 was Cooper warning me that any reference to the Wasser/ Busch polygraph, which was never taken, was a crime while the statute provides some exemption to prosecutors? Am I entitled to an explanation from Jessica Cooper why her office is entitled to publicize polygraph information while I or any other victim is not?
Prior to the March 1, 2010 telephone advice from Jessica Cooper that Busch was not a suspect, my family had requested only two documents concerning Tim’s death. First, after Christopher Busch was identified, Cathy’s attorney friend, Lisa Milton, requested a copy of his suicide report from the Bloomfield Township Police Department on January 24, 2008. The Township replied that the file had been destroyed and therefore could not be produced.
Twenty three months later, on December 3, 2009, Heather Catallo of Channel 7 gave me the suicide report. Interestingly, when I received the Busch file from the Michigan State Police on December 15, 2010, there was a note that the suicide report had been delivered to the Michigan State Police in February 2008.
In 2011, I visited the Township Police Department for an explanation. The Township advised me that it received a call in February from the Michigan State Police and an officer was instructed to locate the file. After a day and a half he determined that the file had been misplaced and delivered it to the State Police. However, the Department took no action to advise Milton. At our office when we destroy a file we add it to a destroyed file list but apparently the Bloomfield Township Police Department does not keep tract of destroyed files. The Township should adopt this practice.
In early November 2009, my secretary also called the Genesee County Circuit Court and asked for the criminal files on Christopher Busch and Gregory Greene. She was advised the Court could not locate the Greene file and that the Busch file was in the archives. She would order the file from the archives and make it available in a few days. When I called the Clerk for the Busch file the Clerk advised me that the file could not be located. On February 17, 2010, Catallo gave me both files.
These are not be the only incidences when the responsible government officials made files available to the media which have been denied to the King family. I will discuss these future media disclosures in later chapters. The victims should be entitled to the same or better treatment as the media.
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.
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 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.
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.
When the Oakland County Prosecutor would not discuss the status of the investigation with me, I wrote Oakland County Sheriff, Michael Bouchard a short note in August 2012 asking for a meeting with his lead investigator. Sheriff Bouchard and I exchanged emails and I met with Deputy Sheriff, Gary Miller on August 29, 2012. Sheriff Bouchard volunteered to attend but I told him that I did not think it was necessary. No prosecutor attended the meeting.
At the meeting, Miller advised me that his office took no further action after the trace evidence at the former Busch residence did not contain anything which might relate to the four children. The Michigan State Police documents delivered to me on December 15, 2010 contain a report that a phone call had been made to the Montmorency County Sheriff dated March 19, 1977 in which a citizen reported that, Christopher Busch, a known pedophile, was at his vacant family cottage in Montmorency County with three small boys. Tim was missing from March 16 to March 22. This supports some comments I have heard over the years that the children may have been taken to a summer cottage because all four deaths took place during cold weather. My family has been further advised that the Busch cottage in Montmorency has been destroyed after April of 2008 and has been replaced by a new cottage. Is this just coincidence?
When I later discussed this matter with one of the investigators, he advised me that he requested the search warrant to be issued for both locations, but he was successful in obtaining only having the search warrant for the former residence.