During Richard Sargent's
trial, his defense attorney asked Shuman "Did you have any understanding with
him—Pollard—about his being free from prosecution in the murder?” Shuman's
response was that he
“didn’t make those indications. I had to talk with the District Attorney
[David Cox] before any type of bargain was made.” |
During Cormier's trial, Shuman testified that he didn't arrest Pollard in Waterville—that it was the Waterville police who arrested him for a traffic violation. Ms. Harris showed his testimony to be false when she produced a document that showed Shuman arrested Pollard in Waterville for reckless conduct. And he also falsely testified that he didn't know about the armed robberies until Pollard told him in 1985.
Attorney Harris also exposed many of Pollard’s criminal activities before and immediately after Mike’s murder and his association with Det. Shuman:
1) Under questioning by Cormier's attorney Shuman admitted that Pollard WAS a suspect in Mike’s murder in1981 in opposition to what Shuman, Pinkham, and AAG Goodwin told me. Shuman had testified during Richard’s July trial: “I don’t believe I ever indicated to Mr. Pollard that he was a suspect.”
2) Pollard admitted that he WAS a suspect in Mike’s murder in 1981. How did he know if Shuman never told him that he was a suspect?
3) Pollard admitted that he lied to Shuman in his March 3, 1981 statement.
4) Pollard admitted that he was indicted for reckless conduct with a firearm—shooting at somebody’s house.
5) Pollard admitted that he had a .357 Smith and Wesson at the camp and had it on him the morning he fled the murder scene.
6) Pollard admitted he was still armed with the .357 Smith and Wesson during the second robbery of Charles Dolan, 37 days after Mike’s murder.
7) Pollard admitted that he fled the state within a couple of days after Mike’s murder.
8) Robert Smith testified that Pollard had been arrested for Mike’s murder, and that a day or so after the murder, Pollard and Cormier stopped at his house to borrow his car to get Pollard out of state. And that he provided the bail for Pollard to get out of the Penobscot County Jail for that incident.
9) Glazier testified that he represented Pollard for a reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon and that he and Shuman discussed dismissing the indictment.
10) Shuman testified that, with assistance from District Attorney David Cox, the reckless conduct indictment was dismissed against Pollard.
11) Glazier testified that Pollard told him that he had stolen firearms and dynamite in his apartment in Massachusetts and asked for his assistance in disposing of them. Pollard drove the stolen firearms and dynamite across three state lines, from Massachusetts to Maine. The cache was unloaded into Glazier vehicle and with approval from DA Cox Glazier transported the firearms and dynamite to the Bangor Police Department.
12) Shuman testified that he went to Waterville to pick Pollard up after the Waterville Police arrested him for a traffic violation. Harris showed him a copy of an indictment for the reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon on the day he went to Waterville. He said he didn’t learn till afterwards that Pollard was under indictment for the reckless conduct with a dangerous weapon but evidence showes that Shuman arrested Pollard for the reckless conduct and transported him to Bangor where he was jailed.
13) Armed with a .357 pistol, Pollard committed two armed robberies and profited $13,000.
Attorney Harris’ motion to question Pollard about his crimes revealed many serious crimes that Pollard had committed. Harris also revealed that Pollard's statements to Shuman in 1981 concerning his actions during and after Mike’s murder was contradicted by Fire Chief Norman Herrin, Blanch Clark (The residence Pollard said he went to to call Cormier to pick him up), and Mark Ashe (The residence Pollard said he went to and found no one home). Harris wanted to use this information to show that Pollard was not a credible witness; but it was denied. No doubt Pollard’s half-brother, Lionel Cormier, gave Harris the information about Pollard’s (and his) crimes.
After the trials were over I decided to search for any information I could find on Paul Pollard. Shuman testified that Pollard was arrested for a traffic violation in Waterville, Maine, I contacted the Waterville District Court and asked for a copy of Paul Pollard’s traffic violation record. I was told there was no traffic record on Paul Pollard there. I then called the Penobscot County District Court for Pollard’s traffic record and was told the same thing. They referred me to the Maine Motor Vehicle Division in Augusta. The only thing on Pollard’s Driving Record Report was an accident in Somerville, Maine in 1985.
The report states, “No conviction records.” But yet Shuman had testified under oath that (1) “... shortly after the fire. Mr. Pollard was arrested for a traffic violation. (2) “I didn’t arrest him. He was arrested I think by Waterville police, police department, on an unpaid fine down there in Waterville.” (3) “I believe it was a traffic fine.” This was all false testimony.
I wondered if there was anything on Pollard’s State Bureau of Identification (SBI) record and sent for a copy of his record. The only charge on his SBI report was a forgery in Waterville.
I then drove 57 miles south to Kennebec County District Court in Waterville and requested any and all records on Paul Daniel Pollard. I was given a file that contained only documents regarding the forgery charge. There was a Complaint for Violation of 17A MRSA § 703, dated January 26, 1979, that states:
Paul Pollard with intent to defraud, falsely signed a paper, to wit, an application/signature card in order to obtain services and credit under the name of Edward Dow at the Depositor’s Trust Company on Main Street in Waterville, Maine, knowing that the name Edward Dow was false and not his true name.
| There was also an
Affidavit and Request for Warrant of Arrest dated February 5, 1979,
by Det. Richard A. Tompkins, a Waterville PD officer.
The file also contained a Bangor PD Arrest Report issued by Lt. Roger Bryce at 1130 hours on February 24, 1981 that states: “On 2–24–81 this investigator (Bryce) arrested Paul Daniel Pollard, DOB 11–1–59 on a Bench Warrant for forgery for Waterville, Maine Police Department. Bryce was involved in every aspect of Mike’s murder.
At the bottom of Pollard's 3-3-81 statement Shuman added a note in reference to Pollard's 2-2-24 arrest at the Bangor PD. “On Friday, February 20, 1981, Pollard went to Bangor Police Department to see if he could get the rental car back that was impounded the night Percy was arrested [This happened on February 24 not February 20] That same Friday, Pollard took a bus to Augusta, came back Tuesday and got arrested on an old traffic summons out of Waterville at the Bangor Police Station [Pollard got arrested when he went to get the rental car on February 24] .” This is a falsehood Shuman started in 1981. And five years later, he puts the same lie in Pollard's February 12, 1985 statement. It says “While at the Police Department, I got arrested on an old traffic ticket and bailed myself out.”
After receiving the arrest report on Pollard by Lt. Bryce, I went to Bangor Superior Court, and asked for any and all files on Paul Pollard and Lionel Cormier. I was told that there was no file for Paul Pollard but there was a file for Lionel Cormier. The only information in Cormier’s file was a voluntary statement by Cormier that said “refused statement.” But, there were many documents in Cormier’s file on Paul Pollard.
Cormier’s file contained an Incident Report, by Penobscot County Sheriff Glenn Ross concerning reckless conduct (Attorney Harris questioned Shuman about the reckless conduct in August 1986) that occurred on January 23, 1981 at a Walter Young residence and states that shots were fired at house. There was a Diagram of the Scene and a Voluntary Statement from Walter Young, also on January 23, 1981 stating that “... there were 2 shots fired outside my home, followed quickly by 3 more shots closer together.”
Young followed the vehicle and got the vehicle plate number. Vehicle registered to Paul Pollard—included was a Progress Report that states: “Attempted to reach Paul Pollard at McCard Rd., but Carla Phair stated that he was gone for three weeks working, but she did not know where. Will have officer check area for auto attached and if in area, subject will be questioned.
Also in the file was a voluntary statement Ross took from Paul Pollard on February 19, 1981, the day after Mike was murdered.
Pollard told Ross that he owned a .357 Smith & Wesson handgun that had been given to him by his mother at some point in late January.
Mike had already been lying under the pile of burned rubble for one day at the time Ross interviewed Pollard. The reckless conduct happened on Jan. 23. What brought Ross to see Pollard one day after Mike was murdered, nearly one month after the reckless conduct incident?
Included in Cormier’s file was a March 2, 1981 Indictment for Reckless Conduct with Use of a Dangerous Weapon stating, “Paul Pollard did recklessly create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to Walter Young with the use of a dangerous weapon, to wit, a firearm.” And also a March 3, 1981, Warrant of Arrest on Paul Pollard for Reckless Conduct with Use of a Dangerous Weapon, signed by Ralph Pinkham, Maine State Police.
Pollard’s two crimes—forgery and reckless conduct with use of a dangerous weapon—collided on the morning of March 3, 1981 when Pollard showed up in Waterville District Court to answer to the charge of forgery and the Det. Shuman and Trp. Ronald Graves showed up at the Waterville court with a warrant of arrest for Paul Pollard for reckless conduct signed by Maine State Police Det. Ralph Pinkham.
Shuman and Graves arrested Pollard in Waterville and transported him to Bangor where a statement was taken from Pollard at the Penobscot County Jail. He told an unbelievable story about hearing a buzzing noise that woke him between 3:00 and 4:00 am. He went outside but didn't have anything on his feet so he went back inside to get his boots but dropped one. He then wrapped a shirt around the undressed foot. He then heard the fire trucks coming so he took off into the woods and stayed in the woods until day light (February in Maine is a very cold month to stay in the woods for hours not fully dressed.) He was arraigned at Penobscot County Court and an Order of Commitment for Inability to Furnish Bail, dated March 3, 1981, was issued. Hand written at the bottom of the statement it says “Defendant shall be segregated from other prisoners.” On March 6, 1981 Penobscot County Assistant DA Hilary Billings and Marvin Glazier, Pollard’s newly appointed attorney, were present for a bail review. Also on March 6, 1981 an appearance bond was issued and Pollard was bailed by Robert Smith's wife. She signed the bail document as Smith's mother Deborah Smith. Linda Smith told me this when I visited Robert Smith at the Correctional Center where he was incarcerated. There was also a docket sheet of each days occurrence after Pollard was indicted on March 2, 1981. There was also a copy of an indictment dismissal by Penobscot County District County David Cox (DA who found us in default on our murdered son's bail bond) and Assistant Attorney General Pasqual Perrino. The reason for the dismissal was that "Governmental fair play demands that complaint be dismissed."
After reading about the drive-by shooting at the Young residence, I contacted Mrs. Young and she willingly spoke with me. She told me that one bullet hit a wall only a couple of feet over a bed where a child was sleeping. What was fair play about that?
Mrs. Young said her understanding was that something was bargained away and that they were too scared to pursue it any further because they were told that the men were dangerous.
During Cormier’s August 1986 trial, Attorney Harris asked Shuman “[Y]ou had some involvement, did you not, with that charge against Mr. Pollard up here and the subsequent dismissal of that?”
“Which charge was that? The reckless conduct that you just showed me?”
“Reckless conduct, yes.”
“I believe I did."
Cormier’s file also contained a report on stolen “firearms and some dynamite” during burglaries. It was a report on an unnamed client. The only way I knew who the perpetrator of the burglaries were was from hearing Cormier's attorney questioning Paul Pollard’s attorney, Marvin Glazier, about the incident.
The documents say that Bangor Attorney Marvin Glazier made an arrangement with Penobscot County DA David Cox to allow an unnamed client to transfer a load of rifles, shotguns and dynamite, stolen during burglaries, across three state lines (Massachusetts, New Hampshire and two hundred miles across Maine) and get rid of them at the Bangor Police Department with no consequences.
To what extent would District Attorney David Cox and Maine State Police Detectives Shuman and Pinkham go to protect Paul Pollard? And how many attorneys’ would get involved in helping a client get rid of stolen rifles, shotguns and dynamite? What type of service would that come under? How much would an attorney charge for getting involved in helping a client cover up his crime of stealing rifles, shotguns and dynamite during burglaries?
If I hadn't heard Attorney Glazier testify in court during his voir dire as to who brought the firearms, rifles and dynamite to him, I wouldn't have known the unnamed client was Paul Pollard because neither Paul Pollard nor Owen Pollard were named anywhere in the four page report.
In Pollard’s February 12, 1985 Massachusetts statement it states that “[A]round New Years of 1982 I called Owen and told him about the guns. Owen told me to get rid of the stuff. I called my lawyer, Marvin Glazier he said to deliver the stuff to him and he would give it to the police.” Owen Pollard took responsibility for transporting the stolen rifles, shotguns and dynamite from Massachusetts, across the state of New Hampshire and 200 across the state of Maine before reaching his and Paul's attorney in Bangor, Maine.
Also in this statement Pollard said after they [Cormier and Percy Sargent had taken Pollard out of state to hide] had dropped him off and left " I called Owen, my father [not his father] from Rhode Island and told him about the fire and that someone had died in it and that I was scared, Owen told me to come home and we would take care of it."
I now had five crimes that Pollard had committed:
(1) February 1979—Forgery—He was charged $250 for the 1979 forgery. He paid $100 of the fine on February 25, 1981 which was applied toward a bail. This left a balance of $150 which was paid on April 6, 1981. (Apparently Pollard was jailed on February 24, 1981 when Bryce arrested him for the forgery at the Bangor PD, but no one would ever admit this.)
(2) November 1980—armed robbery — Immunity by District Attorney Christopher Almy in 1986.
(3) January 23, 1981—Reckless Conduct w/Dangerous Weapon (5 bullets fired into Walter Young's residence)—indicted—indictment dismissed by District Attorney David Cox and Assistant Attorney General Pasqual Perrino.
February 18, 1981 — Cover-up of Micheal Cochran murder — During Richard Sargent's July 1986 trial Shuman was asked, “Did you have any understanding with him [Pollard]about his being free from prosecution in the murder?” Shuman's response was that “I didn’t make those indications. I had to talk with the District Attorney [Christopher Almy] before any type of bargain was made.”
(4) March 1981—armed robbery—Immunity by District Attorney Christopher Almy in 1986.
(5) January 1982—Rifles, shotguns, & dynamite stolen during burglaries— Transported from Mass. to Maine and unloaded at Bangor PD with approval by DA David Cox — no charges filed. In the report Pollard is called an unnamed client.
My last wish before I die is to know why law officials of the State of Maine protected Paul Pollard. To the extent that they would cover-up my son's murder. Does Pollard have something on them? I know that the men who killed Mike will never be charged for his murder. But I would like to know what happened that would cause the Maine State Police and the Maine Attorney General's Office to protect a criminal like Paul Pollard.
Shuman tried to frame three innocent men for Mike's murder by using a drug addict with a criminal record to have Mike's case solved and recorded in Maine's solved homicide cases. He would be rid of it then. But Sharon Sargent finally exposed him. She said Shuman fed her the story she told the grand jury and asked the state to not allow him to contact her because she feared him.
I think about Mike being sentenced to six years in Maine State Prison for $2,000 in drugs and paraphernalia found in an apartment he was sharing with others. Penobscot County DA David Cox tried to take our home for the bail bonds we had on our murdered son. Where is the justice in all this? District Attorney Christopher Almy told the jury in his closing statement that “All the participants, except Paul Pollard were connected with the drug world and have a history of violence.” Pollard had no criminal history because it had all been wiped clean for him.
After Lionel Cormier and Richard Sargent's trials were over, I closely watched the BDN for any information concerning their appeals. Since Maine Assistant AG Thomas Goodwin told the BDN in June of 1985: “The investigation into the case will continue ... the investigation ... is far from being over,” there had not been one thing more mentioned about the investigation of Mike’s murder. But on October 2, 1986, I noticed a small article by A. Jay Higgins that said Cochran Case Warms Up. I eagerly began to read the article thinking that something positive was happening concerning Mike’s murder, since it said the case was warming up. But my hopes were absolutely dashed since all it did was smear Mike.
"New information has surfaced in the five-year-old investigation of the Micheal Cochran murder case, but a state prosecutor said Wednesday [Oct. 1, 1986] that Maine State Police do not anticipate any arrests in the near future.
"Thomas Goodwin, an assistant attorney general, said he could not elaborate on the specific nature of the information received by the police nor could he speculate on the likelihood of a breakthrough in the lengthy investigation. ‘We are still actively involved in this case,’ said Goodwin. ‘Our investigation has never been closed out.’
"In their investigation of the case, state police uncovered evidence that Cochran was associating with other drug traffickers during his fugitive period and that he may have been involved in some plans to steal quantities of cash and drugs from other narcotics dealers."
As I lay the newspaper down, I was shaking. Those dirt bags! What were Shuman and Goodwin trying to do now—connect Mike to Cormier and Pollard’s armed robberies? Mike was in court on November 26, 1980, concerning his drug charge, when the first armed robbery of Charles Dolan occurred. And Mike was dead on March 27, 1981 when Lionel Cormier, Paul Pollard, and Robert Smith carried out the second armed robbery. Percy Sargent, Lionel Cormier and Paul Pollard had killed him before they did the second armed robbery.
What really was the purpose of Goodwin releasing to the public that Cochran’s case warms up if the State Police did not anticipate any arrests in the near future. I believe that the only purpose of the article was to smear Mike, the victim. They refused to do a competent investigation of Mike’s violent murder, but they could smear him after he was murdered and wasn’t able to answer their slander. I believe that Shuman and Goodwin knew what they were doing when they released slanderous information like this to the public against Mike. Who would care if the unsolved murder of this fugitive (he had tried to turn himself in to the authorities but was rejected), who was planning to rob drug dealers, ever got solved? And I believe they intended to make it as difficult as they could for me to find out what had happened to Mike.
I thought of all the crimes that I had just uncovered that Pollard had been involved in. Forgery; armed robberies; drive-by shooting, and transporting a load of stolen firearms, shotguns, and deteriorating dynamite across three state lines to dump at the Bangor Police Department—while it was all taken care of by the law officials who were slandering Mike.
For what it is worth, Richard Sargent gave me a recorded conversation of him and his brother, Percy Sargent, talking while Percy was in state prison. Percy told Richard that Cormier and Pollard talked to Mike about the robberies and Percy said Mike told him he wanted nothing to do with it.
Was it a coincidence that Goodwin gave this information to the BDN shortly after I contacted Dr. Ryan, and Deputy AG LaRochelle trying to find out if Mike was shot? Goodwin’s slanderous statement against Mike brought back what Shuman told me the fall of 1983 (when Pinkham hid behind the door) when I visited him at the Maine State Police barracks to ask if they had any new information about Mike’s murder. Shuman told me that Percy had Mike killed because he and Mike had planned a $20,000 rip-off (the amount taken in the first Dolan armed robbery) and when Percy was arrested he feared Mike would tell about the rip-off (that never happened) and had him killed and because Mike’s murder was drug related, he didn’t think it would ever be solved.
The first time I met Shuman he accused me of knowing Mike's whereabouts and not reporting it and threatened to bring charges against me. I told him if I had known where Mike was I wouldn’t have left him lying under a pile of burned fire rubble for six days. Shortly after this meeting, DA Cox found us in default on our murdered son’s bail bonds which was our home. Each time I contacted the authorities concerning Mike’s murder it seemed like they tried to punish me.