Notes
 
#2.   Shuman says it was later that Mike was identified.  The day Mike was found, Feb. 24, 1981, the news reported that a charred body had been found in week-old fire rubble. Shuman told the news that "hopefully we will be making an identification in a day or so." Jamison's fire report states that Shuman left the arson/murder scene at 4:52 pm. He drove from Phillips Lake to Bangor (13.5 miles - 20 minutes) and had Mike's girlfriend, Linda Gray,  inside the Bangor Police Station for an interview at 5:45 pm according to Linda's statement. What did Shuman know that took him directly to Mike's girlfriend if he was hoping "we will be making an identification in a day or so?"
 
#3.  It was 9:30 a.m., the next morning, Feb. 25, before Shuman visited Mike's father at his work place requesting Mike's dental records for identification of a body that had been found in an arson fire.  He doesn't mention he visited Mike's father requesting dental records in his affidavit. The autopsy was started at 10:40 am on Feb. 25 according to the autopsy report.  But yet, D.A. David Cox had dismissed  Mike's escape charge the previous day before the medical examiner's vehicle left the arson/murder scene. Cox's office closes each day at 4 pm and the ME vehicle left the scene at 1640 (4:40 pm) according to Jamison's fire report.
     When Mike escaped the Bangor Daily News reported his escape and the Maine State Police were informed.  Shuman already knew Mike had escaped from the court, Derald didn't need to advise him of it. I believe, Shuman needed to denigrate Mike any chance he got.
    I have documents that I believe show the state police and the Bangor police knew Mike's body was lying under the pile of fire rubble for the six days he lay there. 
 
#4  Shuman says he made arrangements to interview Pollard. He says we met on March 3, 1981. How casual! “We met.” Det. Shuman and Trp. Ronald Graves travelled to Waterville with an arrest warrant signed by MSP Det. Pinkham to arrest Pollard. Pollard was in court in Waterville the morning of March 3, 1981 to answer to a charge of forgery. Shuman was waiting for Pollard when he came out of court. He had been  indicted on March 2 for reckless conduct w/a dangerous weapon (firing 5 bullets into a family residence).  Shuman arrested Pollard and transported him to Bangor where he was arraigned, jailed and segregated from other prisoners. The March 3, 1981 statement Shuman took from Pollard after he was incarcerated at the Penobscot County Jail is a deceptive story about his presence at the cottage at the time of Mike’s murder.  That is how "we met."
     Shuman says Pollard walked to a nearby residence to call for a ride.  Cormier and Pollard went to the Sargent residence after killing Mike and told the family that a body would be found in a camp fire before Pollard went to the John Clark residence to stage a call. 
 
#5.  Shuman says he interviewed Pollard again on March 5, 1981 and his account of the events were consistent with his March 3, 1981 statement.  In Pollard's March 5, 1981 statement he said he heard sounds like logs dropping on the floor (not in his March 3, 1981 statement).  Fire Inspector Wilbur Ricker in his 1989 deposition said if you had enough fire to drop a rafter you would have a temperature that you wouldn't take more than one breath and you would go down just like you were in operating room.
      Ricker was not contacted when Richard Sargent, Roger Johnson and William Myers were indicted for Mike's murder. Ricker said he read about it in the newspaper.
 
#6.  Shuman states that he "interviewed John Clark in an effort to corroborate Paul Pollard's story. Clark ... did state that a young man fitting Pollard's description and wearing only one boot had come to the Clark home to make a phone call the morning of the fire at the Dupray camp."  John Clark's statement was missing from the state's discovery as well as Mark Ashe's statement (The first house Pollard said he went to to call Cormier and said they weren't home.). During the 1986 robbery trials Cormier's attorney Martha Harris spoke  with John Clark's wife and she said there was no strangeness about this individual's shoe-wear and there was no odor of fire or soot on Mr. Pollard.
 
7.  Shuman says on April 3, 1981 (March 25, 1981), Pollard took a polygraph examination. According to PI Carl Buchanan's report "results and/or copy of test questions or graft never turned over with discovery." Buchanan told me that Shuman said they lost Pollard’s polygraph test. This was Shuman's basis for eliminating Pollard as a suspect.  How could Shuman eliminate Pollard as a suspect by saying he passed a polygraph and not produce the polygraph test?
 
8.  Carla Phair's statement was taken at District Attorney David Cox's office. Mike wasn't murdered in Penobscot County, DA Cox's jurisdiction. He died in Dedham, Hancock County. Yet, Cox was controlling Mike's murder investigation.  Cox was involved in the Feb. 17-18, 1981 drug sting the morning Mike was murdered.
 
9.  In David Dupray's Feb. 24, 1981 statement he told Shuman that he was afraid of Percy Sargent. He said that Percy wanted him to save him. He wanted lawyer money because he was facing rape charges and needed money. Dupray said he did not give any money to Percy,  but he lost a substantial amount of money from the trunk of his car while it was parked at the racketball club in Bangor.
     Shuman took another statement from Dupray on Mar. 3, 1981. Shuman doesn't mention this statement in his affidavit. Dupray had an attorney with him for this meeting with Shuman. According to the Dupray's statement "Percy Sargent confronted him at the Racketball club.  Percy threatened David with bodily harm that would probably cost him $10,000. Percy told Dupray 'I had a dream and in this dream you get severely beaten up.'" Dupray stated that "he feels it was Percy that ripped off the $3.800 that was in the trunk of his car." ...    "Bob Rideout [a police informant]  told Dupray that he received a call from Percy. Rideout thought that Percy had been drinking and he thought Percy said they planned to teach David a lesson." 
 
10.  Richard Sargent
 
11.   Shuman says that "[A}t this stage of the investigation it seemed clear to him that the arson/homicide of Micheal Cochran was related to his connections and activities in the drug underworld and our investigation in the arson/homicide was making little progress in view of the fact that few people in the drug underworld would cooperate with us."
     I find this very offensive.  I believe that Shuman and Pinkham were unethical officers of the law.  And I also believe they obstructed justice when they refused to interview witnesses who had information about Mike's murder. To cover for their unethical behavior they blamed Mike for his own murder saying he was so deep in the drug underworld that they couldn't investigate his murder.  I requested another investigator be assigned to Mike's murder,  but the state refused to assign another investigator. 
     The following are people Shuman and Pinkham never contacted during their abysmal investigation:
1.  Percy Sargent was living in Dupray’s cottage and had harbored Mike.  Percy was in jail when Bangor PD Lt. Roger Bryce visited David Dupray and his mother at Bangor District Court on the morning of February 18 to tell them their cottage burned early that morning. They told Bryce that Percy Sargent was staying in their cottage. Neither Bryce, Pinkham nor Shuman went to the jail to speak with Percy Sargent.
     Fire Marshal Wilbur Ricker surprised Percy Sargent and Lionel Cormier when they arrived at the murder scene the morning he found Mike. Ricker told Shuman that the two men need to be looked at.  Neither Lionel Cormier nor Percy Sargent were ever questioned.
     Percy told Derry “you want to be sure to tell Thomas Goodwin that not one person has ever asked me about this whole case, you know; no DA, no cop, nothing.” He also said “nobody’s ever investigated me or asked me any questions about this or anything, you know." Derry told Shuman and Goodwin that Percy wanted to speak with them. Percy was never contacted.

2. According to Percy’s mother Frances Sargent and his sister Linda Harriman, Cormier and Pollard arrived at the Sargent residence approximately four hours after Mike’s murder and told the family to watch the news because they’re going to find a body in a camp in Dedham. Neither Frances Sargent nor Linda Sargent Harriman were ever questioned.  

3. Robert Smith testified that he bailed Pollard from jail and loaned Cormier his car so Cormier, Percy, and Pollard could flee the State of Maine after they murdered Mike. Smith was never questioned.

4. Pollard said he went to his girlfriend, Karen Murray’s residence in Rhode Island to hide after he fled the state—Murray was never questioned. 

6. In Paul Pollard’s February 12, 1985 statement he said after he fled the state he called his pseudo father, Owen Pollard, to tell him a man had died. He said Owen told him to come home and they would take care of it. Owen Pollard was never questioned. 
     That makes 7 people who had information about Mike’s murder and were never questioned.
#12-#13-#14-#15-#16-#17 is Shuman's story of his investigation of Mike's murder.  Shuman  had only one informant and she had a criminal record and was in jail when he spoke with her. Three men were indicted on her information but the indictments against the men were dismissed when she accused Shuman of giving her the information she told the grand jury. The FBI later investigated the Maine State Police officer who arrested the three men she accused of Mike's murder. The MSP officer was dismissed from the Maine State Police for perjury and having a sexual relation with his informant, Sharon Sargent. 
 
18.  Shuman says that on November 5, 1984  "Harriman told me that Percy Sargent told him that he believed Micheal Cochran had 'set him up.'" And "Harriman also informed me that Percy Sargent told him that he made a phone call to his brother, Richard Sargent, that night.  First read the excerpt from Shuman's Oct. 16, 1984 (which Shuman doesn't mention) interview with Harriman.  Then read the excerpt from Shuman's Nov. 5, 1984 interview with Harriman. The initials HS: is Herbert Shuman and initials DH: is David Harriman
 
 
An excerpt from Shuman's interview with David Harriman on Nov. 5, 1984. The initials S: is Shuman and initials H: is Harriman
 

Richard Sargent's Private Investigator Carl Buchanan mentions this in his 19 page Investigative Report on page 12 and 13.
 
 
19.  Shuman says "[A] number of the details [Sharon Sargent] related concerning the arson/homicide were corroborated by statements of other individuals who were interviewed by me and other members of the Maine State Police who were investigating this crime. Such details included her knowledge of Cochran's arrest and escape ..."
   What other sources corroborated her information?  If they had additional information why didn't they product it when the state was "forced" to dismiss the indictments against Richard Sargent, Roger Johnson and William Myers?  Furthermore, Sharon Sargent accused Shuman of giving her the information she told the grand jury and asked the state to order Shuman to have no with contact her because she feared him.
      I know for a fact that Linda Gray, Mike's girlfriend, helped him escape from the courthouse and she was the only one who helped him. She came to my home and told me she had hid Mike and wouldn't say where she had taken him. She said because she promised him she wouldn't tell anyone. A report by the county sheriff says that when Mike was using the phone in the Clerk of Courts office that morning that his girlfriend was with him.  Linda was with Mike for the 77 days that he was hiding. Linda told Shuman in her March 3, 1981 statement that Mike stayed in different places and she visited him every day. 
 
20- 21.  Shuman says he consulted regularly with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Goodwin. I can believe that because Goodwin's responses were always the same as Shuman and Pinkham's:  "Paul Pollard is not guilty. He ran because someone was trying to kill him. Pollard didn't hear Richard Sargent, Roger Johnson and William Myers tramping through the cabin pouring gas because he was deaf in one ear."  Goodwin was prepared to put three innocent men in prison. When Sharon Sargent came forward to expose Shuman Goodwin still tried to hang on to his arson/murder case against the men but the state was forced to dismiss the indictments.
 
22.  Shuman says Michael Pratt arrested Richard Sargent but he doesn't say that Pratt was having a sexual affair with Sharon Sargent, his informant. He committed perjury when he testified about his and Sharon's affair.  He was fired from the Maine State Police.
 
23.  Shuman says "certain aspects of Sharon Sargent's information could not be corroborated and in some aspects additional investigation tended to contradict the information she had previously given to us.  ... At no point did I ever put any pressure on Sharon Sargent to provide any information or to testify in any particular way."  Sharon Sargent said he did and in David Harriman Oct. 16, 1984 (3 months after Shuman's interview of Sharon Sargent) Harriman said that he did not hear Percy say that Mike had set him up and he didn't hear Percy say that he had sent a call to his brother, Richard Sargent.  But in his November 5, 1984 interview (The only interview Shuman uses in his affidavit) Harriman says that he did hear Percy say that Mike had set him up and that he made a call to his brother, Richard. What causes Harriman to change his information within three weeks?
 
24.  When the case could not go forward with Sharon Sargent as the key witness why didn't Shuman and Pinkham use the other corroborating statements from other individuals they claimed they had. 
 
25.  Shuman says "At all times, I conducted my investigative activities in good faith and without malice ..."   I do not agree.  I don't believe Shuman acted in good faith and without malice during his investigation of my son's murder. I believe he obstructed justice while assigned primary investigator in my son's death.  I believe he covered up facts and committed perjury while testifying at the robbery trials in 1986.  I believe it was with malice when he threatened me with charges during a meeting I had with him in March of 1981. I met with him to get information on my son's murder but I left that meeting in fear of him and fearing I would be charged for something I was not guilty of.  And  I also don't think he was being very professional when I called him to ask a question about the investigation of my son's murder and he hung upon me.