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

Christopher Busch was involved in the murder of my son Tim. “Tell ‘em what you gonna to tell ‘em, tell ‘em and then tell ‘em what you told ‘em” (Chapter 2). This is a short summary of what I have told you in the previous Chapters 66 to 71.

Once Busch died he could not be tried or convicted. The facts presented to me do not contain information exonerating him. After his death both Oakland County and the original Task Force essentially closed the door on the OCCK murders for almost 30 years. Presumably, they could then reopen the case if any other suspect was identified.

Four of the major factors supporting my conclusion are the non-evidentiary facts set forth in Chapter 67. After the Task Force was revitalized in 2005 Richard Thompson, the Oakland County Prosecutor responsible for the case from the beginning, told the Michigan State Police Busch was guilty. Four unrelated persons advised the King family the murderer was the son of a GM or automobile executive. On October 19, 2009, the Task Force told the family of Kristine Mihelich that Busch and his companions were the leading suspects. After Jessica Cooper became the Oakland County Prosecutor on January 1, 2009, she told the Michigan State Police not to provide her with OCCK information. Why did she do this unless she had been advised that the case was closed?

Chapters 68 to 70 set forth 24 questions to the Oakland County Prosecutor. The King family has additional areas of discussion if Cooper would only take time to meet with us. There can be a number of reasons why a prosecutor chooses not to charge a suspect. If the reasons are professional it is common to explain this to the public. How often have you read that two mutual deaths were the result of a murder-suicide? Cooper advised the media that she would not charge the Northland Mall representatives who killed a customer because they had no intent to kill him, a professional conclusion. Without an adequate explanation the King family cannot eliminate the possibility the reasons are personal (Busch’s father was a friend of the prosecutor?), political (the Busch family was a major contributor to the election campaigns?), previous mistakes (Busch was allowed to plead guilty in his four pedophile cases rather than trying him?), power and control (we cannot allow Wayne County to solve the case?) or other alternatives.

Three years ago Cooper referred to me as an 82 year old senile attorney. Her conclusion is interesting because she has never talked with me. If you agree with her I apologize for taking up your time. If you decide her judgment on my senility is incorrect or her failure to answer the questions from the King family is improper, please vote for her opponent Mike Goetz this November.

There will be post scripts to this Story but this is the final Chapter on my analysis of the investigation into Tim’s murder. One footnote will request the legislature to include new laws to require victim information in future cases.

Thank you for your patience if you have read all or any of my 73 Chapters.

Barry King.

Footnote: You can access this Story at “afathersstory.occk.com”. You can locate specific Chapters by adding “/chapter-xx”. Another source is “afathersstory-OCCK.wordpress”.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
OCCK

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.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather