MSP Det. Barry Shuman 1981 Homicide Investigation
 
February 24,

1205
... Ths writer would take the necessary photographs at the scene and that the arson investigators would take the necessary evidence for analysis and there was no need for the crime lab to respond.
          
Inspector Ricker advised that while Det. Jamison went to make the phone call two people arrived on the property, Lionel Cormier of Bangor and Percy Sargent of Monroe. ... Both Sargent and Cormier appeared surprised to see Ricker and departed the scene shortly after telling him(Ricker) who the were. ...


March 4, 1981

1100
Interviewed Mark Ashe.

1130
Interviewed John Clark of Dedham.
 
March 25, 1981
Det. LLoyd Blethan, Bangor Police Department, conducted Polygraph Examination of Paul Pollard. Preliminary results showed Pollard truthful as far as knowledge of who started the fire at the Dupray camp.
    

****
1205
After reading Shuman’s report I wondered why Shuman didn’t want the crime lab. Was that a normal procedure in a homicide? In my last conversation with Shuman in 1989, I asked him about it.
     “How come you said you didn’t need the crime lab? I mean, it was a suspicious death. Why not have the crime lab?”
      “Because there was nothing left”
     “Well, why didn’t you let them [the crime lab] decide that?”
     “Because I’ve been an officer long enough that I know when a crime lab is needed and when it isn’t needed.”
     Shuman knew there was no way of knowing if Mike could have been injured before the fire, yet he continually stated that the fire was the cause of Mike’s death.  
      In CME Dr. Ryan's letter in 1981 he said, “The state of the remains being what they were, the possibility of other injuries is a difficult matter. The severe charring might obscure or eliminate evidence of other injury.” But neither Shuman nor Assistant AG Thomas Goodwin ever mentioned that.
    When Shuman retired and Det. Gerald Coleman was assigned Mike's case in 2001, I asked him what he thought about Shuman saying there was no need for the crime lab. Coleman said he believed the Crime Lab should have been called. He said today it wouldn’t be the crime lab. He named something else and said he was part of it. I see that there is an Evidence Response Team. Perhaps that is what Coleman was referring to.
     September 5, 2006, I got a letter from Deputy AG William Stokes. He said that "On May 17, 2006, Detective Coleman made a presentation of the Micheal Cochran case at the Maine State Police Crime Laboratory to all the commanding officers within the State Police as well as the commanding officers of Portland and Bangor. I was also present as was the Medical Examiner and the Director and Assistant Director of the Maine State Police Crime Lab. Detective Coleman has done outstanding work on this case but there remains tremendous difficulties with prosecuting this case particularly in view of the fact that the "homicide scene" was not treated as such until a significant period of time after your son's death, potentially jeopardizing important evidence in the meantime."
    I cannot help wondering if Shuman's decision to not have the crime lab could have anything to do with "jeopardizing important evidence."
    
In Shuman's Investigation report he says that Fire Inspector Wilbur Ricker advised him of Lionel Cormier and Percy Sargent 's arrival on the arson-murder scene the morning he found Mike's body.  But while interviewing David Harriman, an informant, in 1984, Shuman told him that it was Dickie Sargent and an other guy, he couldn't think of his name, showed up when the fire Marshall was there.
      During my lawsuit against Paul Pollard Ricker's deposition was taken and he told about Lionel Cormier and Percy Sargent's arrival at the scene.  The two men were never questioned. They are the two men Pinkham told me were involved in Mike's murder in March of 1981.
     And Pinkham also told me that the man seen running in the woods away from the fire was Paul Pollard. But yet during Richard Sargent's 1986 robbery trial Shuman testified that he couldn't recall Fire Chief Norman Herrin telling him about seeing an person he thought was wiping his hands while proceeding through the woods. Yet, Shuman said Pollard was not identified.

March 4, 1981

1100
Shuman says he interviewed Mark Ashe. Interview missing from discovery.
     During Lionel Cormier's robbery trial in 1986 Defense Attorney Martha Harris asked to be allowed to question  Mrs. Mark Ashe. When Ashe was asked about Pollard coming to his home, he said he was home and  and no one came. (Page 2) 

1130
Shuman says he interviewed John Clark.  Interview missing from discovery.
During Lionel Cormier's robbery trial in 1986 Defense Attorney Martha Harris asked to be allowed to question Mrs. John Clark. Mrs. Clark said Pollard did come to her house to use the phone but there was no strangeness about his shoe-wear or smell of smoke. (Page 3)  

March 25, 1981

Pollard's polygraph exam: Exam not turned over in discovery.

 June 27, 1910, I sent an email to Darrell J. Ouellette of the Maine State Police asking if the Maine State Police had a polygraph unit in 1981. His response: “I can tell you there was one in 1981. I believe that there was a unit as early as the early 70s.” Why then wasn’t Pollard’s polygraph exam done at the Maine State Police rather than at the Bangor Police Department by an officer in District Attorney David Cox’s jurisdiction?
      When Bangor Police officers Welch and Blethan interviewed informant Sharon Sargent on December 5, 1983 Blethan is listed as an officer at the Bangor PD and Welch as an investigator but Shuman reports in 1981 that Blethan was a detective.
    Martha Harris also asked the court about perhaps lies in Pollard's polygraph test. (Page 3)

Another document not turned over: Carl Buchanan was the investigator for Marshal Stern's office when Stern represented Richard Sargent for the murder of Mike. Buchanan gave me a copy of his 19 page report and in it was a memo to file that says a sheriff told him that Shuman recommended that Paul Pollard's reckless use of firearm (firing 5 bullets into Walter Young's house) be dismissed because Pollard had information on Mike's murder.  Buchanan then says the information was not turned over in either the murder of robbery discovery.
     Marvin Glazier, Pollard's attorney, testified in 1986 that it was Shuman who spoke to him about dismissing Pollard's indictment for reckless conduct with a fire arm.