For all the facts about this case go to Lulu.com and look for "Steven Truscott and the Murder of 12-Year Old Lynne Harper" You can buy the book at discount or you can download for less than $5. Everything from both sides is in the book.
Or you can order from:
Liberal England: The acquittal of Steven Truscott
Sunday, March 27, 2011
STEVEN TRUSCOTT AND THE MURDER OF LYNNE HARPER
DEDICATION
This post is dedicated to Steven Murray Truscott who very wisely said:
"I'm not asking for the world. Go over all the information. Investigate. Let the people know all the evidence, and let them judge for themselves. I'm not afraid of that. Why are they?"
STEVEN TRUSCOTT AND THE MURDER OF
12-YEAR OLD LYNNE HARPER
On a cold September day in 1959 a 14 year old Canadian schoolboy, in just his first encounter with the police and in a crime of passion, was sentenced to hang until dead.
It is sad when any young boy is punished more harshly than should be for his crime. Fortunately, common sense prevailed and after four months the penalty was reduced to a life sentence. Six years later a journalist would write about this boy who, sentenced to be hanged, had always claimed he was innocent.
In the early evening of Tuesday June 9, 1959, 12-year-old Lynne Harper disappeared near Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Clinton, an air force base just south of Clinton, Ontario, Canada. Around 11:20 that evening, Lynne's father reported her missing. She was last seen with Steven Truscott.
Steven Murray Truscott (born January 18, 1945 in Vancouver, British Columbia) was a 14 ½ year old schoolboy in the same classroom as Lynne Harper, Grades 7 & 8 at the A.V.M. Hugh Campbell School on the air force base.
Steven Truscott acknowledged being with Lynne the evening she was killed. He was seen with her on his bicycle after 7:00 pm in close proximity to Lawson’s Bush, a 20 acre woodlot where her body would be found two days later.
After dinner and wearing only blue shorts, white sleeveless blouse and loafers, Lynne walked over to the school grounds near her home and cheerfully helped Mrs. Nickerson with the Junior Girl Guides. Mrs. Nickerson said that Steven came cycling on the pathway towards them shortly before 7:00 pm, stopped nearby and sat on his bicycle. Lynne went over to him and sat on the front finder of his bike.
Steven’s story is that he met Lynne at the Brownies and that she was in a chatty, presumably happy mood. He said she asked for a ride to Highway 8 so she could hitch a ride to a pony farm. He further stated that we pushed the bicycle between us across the school grounds to the county road. There I got on the seat; she mounted the crossbar and we took off.
The Disappearance of Lynne Harper
Steven Truscott has maintained since 1959 that he took Lynne Harper to the intersection of the county road and Highway 8. Truscott maintains that he left her unharmed and that when he arrived at the Bayfield Bridge he looked back toward the intersection where he had dropped Lynne off and observed that a 1959 grey Chevrolet Bel Air with a lot of chrome and a yellow tag had pulled in off the highway and she got in the front seat.
Upon Truscott’s return to the school, just after 8 pm, there was some curiosity among Steven’s classmates about what had happened to Lynne Harper. Several children had seen him leave with her. He came back alone. When asked by the police whether they made any comment to him or whether there was any conversation with them, he replied: “I believe one of them asked me—they said, ‘What did you do with Harper, feed her to the fish?’ and I replied that I had taken her and let her off at Highway No. 8.” Truscott did not mention the car or Lynne getting a ride to anyone on his return to the school.
Arnold (Butch) George, one of Truscott’s closest friends, testified that they had a conversation at Steven's house the day after Lynne disappeared but before her body was found. Steven said to George that he had told the police that they saw each other down at the river. I didn’t think there would be any harm then, so I just told them I saw Steve and Lynne on his bicycle at the river around 7:30.
At first George lied but after her body was found he told the police the truth, that he had not seen Steven. His testimony under oath has not varied from that statement. Truscott has maintained that at no time did he ever ask George to lie to the police about seeing him at the bridge.
Lynne Harper’s Body Found
1959 June 11: Two days after Lynne disappeared, RCAF searchers found her partially nude decomposing body 90 feet into a grove of ash, elm and maple trees known as Lawson's Bush. Someone had strangled her by winding her blouse tightly around her neck and securing it with a knot.
There is no doubt about the place of death. The position of her body, the scuff marks, a footprint at the foot, and the flattening of the vegetation between her legs, indicate that the act of rape or attempted rape took place where the body was found.
The leaves around her body were undisturbed, with no piles of dirt, scraped earth, or broken branches to suggest a violent struggle. Three branches from an ash tree lay across her body are the only signs of panic, and they are signs from the killer, not the victim.
All of her clothing was near where the body lay. Most of her clothing was removed and neatly piled up— near her corpse. Her brown loafers were placed side by side, her blue shorts zipped, and her socks neatly rolled up. Her panties were found later 33 feet away.
The almost eerie neatness of the crime scene, with its carefully laid-out clothes, and a lack of bruising on the body, certainly suggest some degree of compliance.
There was a small amount of blood on the ground. The wounds were consistent with having been made by twigs scattered around the ground. There were several puncture wounds on her back and shoulders, some of which were caused before death and some after death. A small quantity of blood was found on the dandelion leaves at the fork of the body. Under Lynne’s left shoulder was a button from her blouse. It appears that this button was ripped from her blouse when forming the ligature used to strangle her.
The local coroner said that intercourse took place “while the child was dying, when the heart had stopped or had almost stopped beating”. His reason for this conclusion was that although the injuries to the parts were severe, the bleeding from them was small.
The Arrest of Steven Truscott
1959 June 12: Dr. J. A. Addison examined Steven and found minor scratches on the boy’s torso and he found on each side of Steven’s penis, “a brush burn of two or three days duration the size of a 25-cent piece.” One possibility is that these lesions were the result of a pre-existing skin condition that was aggravated by an act of intercourse.
Shortly after 7:00 pm Steven Truscott was taken into custody.
June 13: Around 2:30 am Steven Truscott was charged with first degree murder under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Jury Trial: Death for 14-Year Old Boy--- Hang Until Dead
1959
June 29: Truscott was ordered to be tried as an adult; an appeal was dismissed.
July 14: Steven Truscott is committed to stand trial for capital murder.
September 16: Jury trial begins at the Ontario Superior Court in Goderich.
September 30: After 15 days and listening to 74 witnesses, the 12-person Huron County jury returned a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder, with mercy. The jury found that Lynne Harper died where she was found in Lawson’s bush and that she was not picked up at the intersection and subsequently brought back by anyone. Mr. Justice Ronald Ferguson, as was then required by law, sentenced 14 year-old Truscott to be hanged.
Some of the Evidence before the Jury
Jocelyne Goddette was supposed to meet Steven Truscott (in the same bush where Lynne
Harper was found) for a secret date. Goddette testified that Steven had arranged to meet her on the right-hand side of the county road just outside the fence by Lawson’s woods at 6 pm on Tuesday to show her a new born calf. When asked by a judge if there was any more conversation between you and Truscott, Goddette replied, “Well, he just kept on telling me to ‘don’t tell anybody to come with you’ and that is all.” She says that he called at her house about 5.50 pm and she told him that she could not come out now because they were sitting to eat and that she would meet him later if possible. Truscott has always denied that he made such an arrangement or that he called at the house.
The time that Steven and Lynne left the school grounds was fixed with reasonable certainty by Mrs. Nickerson and Mrs. Bohonus at earlier than 7:15, probably 7:10 pm.
Then on his own admission, Truscott said he met Richard Gellatly between the school yard and Lawson’s bush. He was not seen by Philip Burns, Butch George, or his girl friend Jocelyne as he should have been if he had continued on his way to the highway and back. They knew his red pants and green bicycle well and were actively looking for him. The jury’s conclusion was that after passing Richard Gellatly and before Burns, Goddette and George had an opportunity to see him, Truscott had disappeared with the girl into Lawson’s bush.
Sentence Commuted to Life
1960 Jan 20: A five-judge Ontario Court unanimously dismisses Truscott's appeal.
1960 Jan 21: Amid much controversy about the serious sentence, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Diefenbaker commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. Since his arrest Truscott had been under a death sentence for less than four months at the Huron County jail in Goderich. He is transferred to the Kingston Penitentiary.
1960 February: Truscott was incarcerated at the Ontario Training School for Boys in Guelph from February 1960 to January 1963.
1961 Between 1892 and 1961, the penalty for all murders in Canada was death by hanging. A new act of Parliament divides murder into capital and non-capital categories.
At the Supreme Court: the 1960s
1960 February 24: Appeal of his conviction denied by the Supreme Court of Canada.
1963 January 14: At age 18 Steven Truscott is transferred to Collins Bay Penitentiary.
1966 March 24: The first public interest in the Truscott case came when journalist Isabel LeBourdais published The Trial of Steven Truscott, the first document to raise serious questions about the case and its outcome. LeBourdais questioned the quick police investigation and the trial procedures and believed that Truscott was innocent. The biased 240-page volume rekindled public debate and interest in the case and incensed many at how badly the justice system treated Truscott. Her argument that the court had erred and sentenced an innocent teen to death made front-page headlines and sparked public demonstrations. The public outcry and resulting uproar in Parliament led Lester Pearson's Liberal government to order a Supreme Court review.
1966 April 26: The Canadian Government refers Truscott’s case to the Supreme Court of Canada over concerns that his conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice.
1966 October 5: The Supreme Court of Canada decided to hear the Truscott case; not to determine Truscott's innocence or guilt but simply whether or not he deserved a new trial.
1967, May 4: New forensic evidence was presented on his behalf, and Truscott testified before the Supreme Court of Canada and got a chance to tell his story for the first time. Truscott and 25 other witnesses testified, telling their stories to the best of their abilities.
Some of the new forensic evidence concerned digestion of the stomach’s contents. Since LeBourdais’s book was being published in London, the British publisher sent two premier pathologists, Professor Keith Simpson for the Crown and Professor Francis Camps, who testified for Truscott. Simpson was cool, organized and way more prepared than Camps who was flashy and thought to be untrustworthy. Simpson thought LeBourdais had indulged herself “in unfounded, biased criticism of the Canadian police, their pathologists, and the Canadian courts.” Meanwhile Camps relied on the evidence in LeBourdais’s book that death could have occurred at any time from one to ten hours after eating. Both, however, said that death could have occurred before 8:00 that evening.
Testimony Before the Supreme Court by Steven Truscott and 25 Other Witnesses
Jocelyne Goddette was supposed to meet Steven Truscott (in the same bush where Lynne Harper’s body was found) for a secret date. Jocelyne Goddette’s story was that Steven had arranged to meet her on the right-hand side of the county road just outside the fence by Lawson’s woods at 6 pm on Tuesday to show her a new calf. When asked by the Court if there was any more conversation between you and Truscott, Goddette replied, “Well, he just kept on telling me to ‘don’t tell anybody to come with you’ and that is all.” She says that he called at her house about 5.50 pm and she told him that she could not come out now because they were sitting to eat and that she would meet him later if possible. Truscott denied that he arranged to meet Jocelyne or to go looking for newborn calves. He denied under oath that he called at her house on June 9.
Truscott said that Lynne wanted to go to a place where there were a few ponies. He told the police that Lynn sat on his crossbar and they took off. He said that on the way down he had waved to Arnold George, who was swimming in the river. Then he cycled on to the highway where he dropped Lynne off, and headed back. He stopped once at the small flat Bayfield bridge to look back towards the highway to see if she'd found a ride. At that very moment he saw Lynne with her arm out hitch-hiking, and then a car stopped and she got in and the car sped away. The bridge is 1,300 feet from the highway intersection. He estimated the time to be near 7:45 pm.
He said he saw a grey 1959 Bel Air Chevrolet with whitewall tires and a yellow license plate stop, and he watched Lynne get in and the car speed east down the highway. She could have walked because the pony farm was only about 500 yards east of where Steven left her.
And all the while, her stomach contents are in the early phases of digestion. It is a process that is as natural today as it was then. The time of Lynne’s death was established by a regional pathologist who testified that most of Lynne's last meal was still in her stomach; therefore time of death was likely between 7:15 and 8:00 pm. She ate at 5:30 – 5:45 pm.
Timeline Between Disappearance and Discovery of Lynne Harper’s Body:
TESTIMONY BY WITNESSES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
JUNE: (dates are accurate; times are approximate because no child had a timepiece. Also times are not precise as the events of that day were meaningless at the time.)
June 8 Monday: Jocelyne Goddette testified that Steven wanted to meet her at Lawson’s bush Monday to show her two new born calves. She says she told Steve that maybe she could on Tuesday. They arranged to meet at Lawson’s bush at 6 pm on Tuesday. Truscott testified that this conversation never happened.
June 9 Tuesday:
Goddette testified that Steven told her again to meet him on the right-hand side of the County Road “just outside of the fence by the woods” at 6:00. He told her to keep it quiet and to come alone because Mr. Lawson did not like a bunch of kids on his property.
5:50 pm - Goddette testified that Steven called at her house and she told him that she could not come out now because they were sitting to eat and that she would meet him later if possible. Truscott testified that he did not contact Goddette that evening.
6:25 – 6:40 pm - On the way down from the school area to the bridge Kenneth Geiger and an adult saw Truscott. He was riding his bike kind of in circles, with an impatient look on his face. He was right in front of the dirt road opposite the “tractor trail”, which is on the northerly limit of the bush. As they passed, Steven said to Kenneth that Mrs. Geiger was at the bridge. Truscott denies that he ever saw or spoke to Kenneth.
6:55 – 7:05 – Mrs. Nickerson, who was conducting a meeting of Junior Girl Guides testified that Truscott came along shortly before 7 p.m. and that Lynne Harper went over to speak to him and sat on his bicycle fender.
7:00 -7:10 pm - Mrs. Nickerson saw Steve and Lynne leave together in a northerly direction around the west side of the school with Steven pushing his bike and Lynne walking alongside. Steven says her time is incorrect; that he left at 7:30 pm.
7:10 pm – Steven and Lynne pass Richard Gellatly prior to reaching Lawson’s Bush.
7:15 - 7:20 pm - Burns, Goddette and George, walking and riding behind Gellatly do not see Steven and Lynne pass by on their way to the highway. Had Truscott disappeared with the girl into Lawson’s bush? Jocelyne looks for Steven near their meeting place.
7:25 pm – Farmer Bob Lawson said Jocelyne was at his barn and told him she had been looking for Steven. After a few minutes she returned to Lawson’s bush to look again.
7:10 – 7:45 pm - Not one person has reported seeing Steven or Lynne at County Road and Highway 8 around this time. Not even the boy who rode by that intersection on his way to the river around 7:10 pm and return home around 7:45 pm.
7:30 – 7:55 pm - Jocelyne was again at Lawson’s bush looking for Steven (this was around the same time Steven says he was on his bike with Lynne). Also Philip Burns was looking for Steven. Shortly thereafter Butch George joined in the search. When Butch says Steven took Lynne into Lawson’s Bush they both began calling for Steven and Lynne. They failed to find any sign of either.
8:10 pm – When Steve Truscott returned to the school, classmate Warren Hatherall asked him, “What did you do with Harper, throw her to the fish?” and Truscott says that he replied, “No I just let her off at the highway like she asked”.
Tuesday Evening:
8:45 pm - Butch visits his best friend Steven and says, “I heard you were in the bush with Lynne.” Truscott replied, “No, we were on the side of the bush looking for a cow and calf.” Truscott denies making such a statement or that Butch was at his house that night.
11:20 pm: Lynne's father reported her missing. She was last seen with Steven Truscott.
June 10 Wednesday morning - Tom Gillette testified that during recess Truscott told him that he was in Lawson’s bush on Tuesday evening looking for a calf.
Wednesday noon - George Archibald testified that he asked Truscott what he was doing in the woods with Lynne. Truscott replied, “I wasn’t in the woods with Lynne, was I, Butch?” Butch hesitated for a moment and then said, “No, I guess it was somebody else.” Archibald testified that Truscott added, “I was chasing a cow.”
Wednesday evening: Bryan Glover also hears Truscott say that he was in Lawson’s bush on the day Lynne disappeared. Truscott denies he ever said such things.
Wednesday evening - Butch George testified that they had a conversation at Steven's house the day after Lynne disappeared but before her body was found. Steven said to George that he had told the police that they saw each other down at the river and I didn’t think there would be any harm then, so I just told the Police the next morning that I saw Steve and Lynne on his bicycle at the river around 7:30.
June 11 Thursday afternoon - searchers discover Lynne’s partially nude body in a nearby farm woodlot known as Lawson’s Bush. She had been strangled by someone winding her sleeveless blouse tightly around her neck and securing it with a knot.
June 12, Friday – Two doctors examined Truscott and found minor scratches on the boy’s torso and found on each side of Steven’s penis, “a brush burn of two or three days duration the size of a 25-cent piece.” Shortly after 7:00 pm he was taken into custody.
June 13, Saturday - at about 2:30 a.m. Steve Truscott was charged with first degree murder under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Incredibilities and Denials
Truscott denied that on the trip to the river between 6 and 7 pm he met Ken Geiger.
Truscott denied that he had seen Mrs. Geiger or Paul Desjardine during the course of that trip and said that he did not remember any of them giving evidence at his trial.
Truscott denied any conversation with Geiger about his mother being at the river.
The above are all people who gave evidence that they met him and described his movements on the road between 6.30 and 7.00 pm
Truscott denied that he had met Gellatly on the highway. He also said that he did not remember telling the police that he had met Gellatly.
Truscott in his oral evidence denied that there was ever any such visit on June 9th from Arnold George or any such conversation. This was the occasion when George said that he had heard that Steven was in the bush with Lynne and when Truscott had replied he was only on the side of the bush looking for a cow and a calf.
Truscott denied that he had any conversation with Arnold George the evening after Lynne’s disappearance. This is the occasion when George said that he had agreed with Steven to tell the police that he, George, had seen Truscott at the bridge on Tuesday evening. But when Lynne’s body was found, the boy came to a realization that to protect a friend can go just so far, and later he gave a right and true statement.
Truscott has always maintained that he and Lynne were only near Lawson’s bush but never in the bush. But the truth is her body is found at Truscott’s favorite place in the 20 acre wooded area
The case would go to the jury with five witnesses saying that they did not see Truscott and Lynne on the road. Two of these were actively looking for him. Trescott testified that he did not see Burns, Goddette, George, or Vandendool on the County Road as he and Lynne made their way north. He said he waved to George in the river as he crossed the bridge with Lynne.
Truscott has maintained that he was with Lynne, but claims they split up and he saw her getting into a car after he rode to the bridge and looked back. However, his statements before this court do put him in or near Lawson’s Bush on Tuesday evening. They thus support the contention that he was not being candid in describing his whereabouts in his various statements to the police following Lynne’s disappearance.
The Supreme Court was asked to determine how it would have decided an appeal by Truscott, on the basis of the existing judicial record and any other evidence it received.
The Joint opinion of Canada’s Supreme Court Justices:
After a two week hearing before the Supreme Court, Canada’s top judges ruled 8-1 against Truscott getting a new trial and he was returned to prison to serve the remainder of his life sentence. Those eight judges watched and listened carefully to Steven Truscott as he gave his testimony and it was clear to them that his testimony was vague and confused. His testimony differed from the evidence given by all those witnesses who saw him on the road before 7 pm. and described his movements. Parts of Truscott’s testimony were clearly inaccurate. In some respects, far from assisting Truscott, these inaccuracies tended to contradict the defence position.
“The verdict of the jury, read in the light of the charge of the trial judge, makes it clear that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts, which they found to be established by the evidence which they accepted, were not only consistent with the guilt of Truscott but were inconsistent with any rational conclusion other than that Steven Truscott was the guilty person.
The lone dissenting voice came from Justice Emmett Hall. He said that having considered the case fully, he believes that the conviction should be quashed and a new trial directed. His view was that the trial was not conducted according to law and that even the guiltiest criminal must be tried according to law. He also said that does not mean that I consider Truscott guilty or innocent; that determination is for the jury and for the jury alone.
Truscott explains this bad performance before the court by saying that his lawyers did not “adequately prepare” him for his testimony. In the most notorious criminal case in Canadian history, an unprecedented hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada after an eight year public battle, the best criminal lawyers in the country, all this new expert evidence on human digestion that will exonerate wrongly convicted Steven Truscott – yet no one on the crack defense team thinks to prepare their star client for his testimony!
The Court ruled 8-1 that it would indeed have upheld the conviction on the basis that the conduct of the provincial trial was fair and legal. There would be no new trial.
Justice Minister Pierre Truduea personally reviewed the case and refused to order a new trial or overturn Truscott’s conviction.
1990s: Truscott might have remained unheralded had not the Canadian legal system been battered all through the 1990s by a barrage of high-profile miscarriages of justice, with compensation payouts soaring to the $10 million level. Suddenly, judicial blunders were big news for millions of readers and viewers, and there were media profits to be made.
1997 August 15: The Ffith Estate, a CBC documentary program, decided to revisit Canada’s greatest mystery and do a story on Truscott’s case and how his life had been since his release on parole in 1969.
2000 March: For nearly three years Julian Sher worked with CBC TV’s The Fifth Estate to produce an explosive documentary based on her book, "Until You Are Dead.” Truscott is interviewed in the documentary and vows to do everything in his power to clear his name. The program unveils what they claim is new evidence to suggest that police may have been too hasty in pinning the murder on Truscott. After the broadcast public clamor to clear Steven Truscott's name grew rapidly sparking a Truscott craze across the country and questions in Parliament. James Lockyer, the Toronto lawyer who helped overturn the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin for the death of Christine Jessop in 1984, takes on Truscott's case.
2001 November 28: Lawyers for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted file a 700-page brief with the federal justice minister to have Truscott's case reopened, as the public outcry against the original jury decision grows into Truscott mania.
2002 January 24: The justice minister appoints retired Quebec judge Fred Kaufman, to assess the case under Section 690 of the Criminal Code. Kaufman can recommend that the case be retried or reviewed by an appellate court or that a pardon be issued.
2004 October 28: Justice Minister Irwin Cotler sends the case to the Ontario Court of Appeal to consider if new evidence would have changed the outcome of the 1959 trial.
2005 November 29: The justice minister releases the Kaufman Report. The 700-page report, dated April 19, 2004, says there was probably a miscarriage of justice in the Truscott case, but not enough new evidence to exonerate him.
2006 April 6: Lynne Harper's remains are exhumed from her grave in southwestern Ontario with her family's consent. The order to exhume was made by the Attorney General of Ontario to test for DNA evidence and hopefully to bring closure to the case.
2006 April 10: Ontario's chief coroner announces that medical examiners are unable to find any useable DNA evidence on the exhumed body of Lynne Harper.
2006 June 14: An Ontario judge orders journalists Julian Sher, Theresa Burke and CBC to hand over videotapes of two people interviewed for 2000 documentary about Truscott.
Ontario Court of Appeal Reviews Truscott’s Conviction
June 19, 2006: The Court of Appeal decides to review Truscott's conviction. Ontario's chief pathologist Michael Pollanen casts doubt on the exact time when Lynne Harper died. An original autopsy concluded that Lynne died in the early evening but Dr. Pollanen testified there wasn't enough evidence to draw that conclusion. He said she could have died during the time Truscott says he was with her or the following day.
June 21, 2006: Pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz testified that Dr. John Penistan, the original pathologist who looked at Harper's autopsy in 1959, was advanced, but said, "Maybe he was wrong." But at the end of the day, Spitz testified he stood behind Penistan's findings.
June 22, 2006: Retired Ontario Provincial Police Superintendent Harry Sayeau told the court that he and his police colleagues did not seek out other suspects in 1959. Mr. Sayeau testified they didn't inquire about existing sexual predators with other nearby Ontario Provincial Police, Crown offices, or the Royal Canadian Air Force.
June 26, 2006: Two experts present conflicting evidence using entomology, which uses the larval development of bugs to estimate the time of a person's death.
Dr. Neal Haskell, a forensic entomology professor from Purdue University, told the court larvae must have been deposited on Harper's body before sunset on June 9, 1959, sometime between 9 and 9:30 pm He said that means that Harper could have died anywhere between 7:15 and 9:30 pm
Elgin Brown, a biologist working at the Ontario attorney general's crime lab at the time of the murder, testified that maggots found on Harper's body 47 years ago were in the first stage of development and probably hatched at 2:30 pm on June 10, 1959. Brown's lab notes from the time indicated he believed the eggs were laid the next morning.
June 28, 2006: Sandra Stolzman and Elizabeth Hulbert testified that Jocelyn Goddette, a key child witness in Truscott's 1959 murder trial, admitted to a group of fellow resident nurses in Montreal in 1966 that she had lied under oath.
June 29, 2006: Forensic entomologist, Sherah VanLaerhoven, tells the Ontario Court of Appeal her review of the evidence suggests insects started laying eggs on Harper's body between 11 am, June 10, 1959 and 8 am the following morning. But VanLaerhoven admits she couldn't rule out the possibility Harper died before sunset on June 9, 1959.
June 30, 2006: Bob Lawson, the farmer who owns the property where Harper's body was found, testifies he saw a strange car parked near his fence line about 10:00 pm the night the 12-year-old disappeared. Lawson told the court he went to the guardhouse at the Royal Canadian Air Force Base in Clinton, to report the incident, but the officer on duty was not interested. (Lynn’s father reported his daughter missing at 11:20 pm)
July 5, 2006: For the Crown, Karen Jutsi, who was nine years old when she testified in Truscott's trial, said her original statement was reported incorrectly. At the murder trial, Jutsi, whose maiden name is Daum, said she was on the bridge when she saw Steven and Lynne on the county road sometime after 7 pm on June 9, 1959. She told the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2006 that she was not on the bridge when she saw Truscott, but near Lawson's bush where Harper's body was later found. Jutsi said she was shocked when she read her statement years later, because it was wrong.
July 6, 2006: During the final day of testimony at the Ontario Court of Appeal, renowned United Kingdom Pathologist Bernard Knight calls into question the key forensic evidence used to convict Steven Truscott in 1959. The retired professor, who wrote a standard textbook for pathologists, criticized coroner Dr. John Penistan's use of stomach content analysis to estimate the time of Lynne Harper's death
Dr. Nicholas Diamant, Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto, told the court that emotional stress can stop digestion for several hours and that in a normal person it can take up to six hours for food to leave the stomach. Since there was still food in her stomach the defence pathology evidence shows only that the window of opportunity extended to darkness on June 9. The Crown’s contention is that Truscott killed Lynne Harper before he returned to the school grounds and that claim remains viable.
2007 Jan. 31 – Feb 14: Lawyers for Steven Truscott and Ontario's Attorney General make their final arguments before the five appeal court judges overseeing the case. To satisfy the biased public, television cameras are allowed into the appeal court for the first time and the proceedings are broadcast live until they end two weeks later. The lawyers and each judge can now be seen, heard and evaluated individually by the public.
Steven Truscott Acquitted by the Ontario Court of Appeal
2007 Aug. 28: More than 48 years after the crime and every previous court denying the appeals, the Ontario Court overturns Truscott's conviction, declaring the case "a miscarriage of justice" that "must be quashed." Michael Bryant, Ontario's attorney general, tells reporters the Crown has no plans to appeal and offers Truscott an apology.
The court is satisfied that the fresh evidence and the new material before this court have significantly undermined the strength of each of the Crown’s four factual pillars:
First, on the issue of the time of Lynne Harper’s death, the pathology evidence that we have admitted as fresh renders the medical evidence heard in prior judicial proceedings, to the effect that Lynne must have died before 8 pm on June 9, scientifically untenable.
As for the second pillar of the Crown’s case, in the “Burns-Gellatly” cornerstone the archival material suggests that a credible case could be made that Philip Burns and Richard Gellatly did not leave the bridge at the same time and proceed in tandem south bound on the County Road. The archival material suggests a credible alternative theory that is consistent with the Court’s position that the appellant left the school around 7:20 pm and took Lynne on his bike along the County Road to the Highway 8 unseen.
As for the third pillar of the Crown’s case, in the County Road evidence, that pillar could be significantly weakened by the archival material which provides support for the claim that the appellant could reasonably believe that he saw the color of the license plate on the vehicle while standing on the bridge 1300 feet away.
The fourth pillar of the Crown’s case, the penis lesions evidence that so vividly demonstrated the appellant’s guilt at trial has been weakened to the extent that it is virtually no evidence at all.
For these reasons we have concluded that, while it cannot be said that no jury acting judicially could reasonably acquit, we are satisfied that if a new trial were possible, an acquittal would clearly be the more likely result.
Having regard to the highly unusual circumstances of this Reference, we have determined that the most appropriate remedy is to enter an acquittal. Accordingly, in the words of
[s. 696.3(3) (ii) of the Criminal Code] the appeal is allowed, the conviction for murder is set aside and an acquittal entered.
Finally then as now, the crime scene continues to support the Crown’s theory as to how this crime was committed. The evidence does not exclude the possibility that Truscott was the killer.
In not finding Truscott innocent the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote: ". . . certain immutable facts cast some suspicion on Mr. Truscott. He was the last known person to see the victim alive and was with her at a location very close to where she was murdered.” Therefore the judges concluded that "the court is not satisfied that the appellant has been able to demonstrate his factual innocence."
Compensation for Steven Truscott
2008 April 16: Guelph Member of the Provincial Parliament (MPP) Liz Sandals tables a private members' motion for compensation for Truscott. It is supported by all parties.
2008 July 7: The Ontario government announces it will pay Truscott $6.5 million in compensation for his ordeal. Michael Bryant, former Ontario Attorney General, tells reporters the Crown has no plans to appeal and offers Truscott an apology.
As for Attorney General Michael Bryant's statement on the case, Truscott commented, "I know he apologized on behalf of the government. But I don't really feel that the apology was sincere."
Chris Bentley, Ontario's Attorney General said, "We are doing what we can to bring to the conclusion this remarkable aspect of Mr. Truscott's life's journey." Bentley went on to say that Ontario is paying it in full for now to ensure Truscott gets his compensation quickly.
Truscott is calling the Ontario government's C$6.5 million compensation package for his murder conviction "bittersweet." He says money will never truly pay back the years of his life lost while in prison. Truscott’s wife received C$100,000 and the federal/province paid C$990,000 in legal aid bills.
This post is dedicated to Steven Murray Truscott who very wisely said:
"I'm not asking for the world. Go over all the information. Investigate. Let the people know all the evidence, and let them judge for themselves. I'm not afraid of that. Why are they?"
STEVEN TRUSCOTT AND THE MURDER OF
12-YEAR OLD LYNNE HARPER
On a cold September day in 1959 a 14 year old Canadian schoolboy, in just his first encounter with the police and in a crime of passion, was sentenced to hang until dead.
It is sad when any young boy is punished more harshly than should be for his crime. Fortunately, common sense prevailed and after four months the penalty was reduced to a life sentence. Six years later a journalist would write about this boy who, sentenced to be hanged, had always claimed he was innocent.
In the early evening of Tuesday June 9, 1959, 12-year-old Lynne Harper disappeared near Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Clinton, an air force base just south of Clinton, Ontario, Canada. Around 11:20 that evening, Lynne's father reported her missing. She was last seen with Steven Truscott.
Steven Murray Truscott (born January 18, 1945 in Vancouver, British Columbia) was a 14 ½ year old schoolboy in the same classroom as Lynne Harper, Grades 7 & 8 at the A.V.M. Hugh Campbell School on the air force base.
Steven Truscott acknowledged being with Lynne the evening she was killed. He was seen with her on his bicycle after 7:00 pm in close proximity to Lawson’s Bush, a 20 acre woodlot where her body would be found two days later.
After dinner and wearing only blue shorts, white sleeveless blouse and loafers, Lynne walked over to the school grounds near her home and cheerfully helped Mrs. Nickerson with the Junior Girl Guides. Mrs. Nickerson said that Steven came cycling on the pathway towards them shortly before 7:00 pm, stopped nearby and sat on his bicycle. Lynne went over to him and sat on the front finder of his bike.
Steven’s story is that he met Lynne at the Brownies and that she was in a chatty, presumably happy mood. He said she asked for a ride to Highway 8 so she could hitch a ride to a pony farm. He further stated that we pushed the bicycle between us across the school grounds to the county road. There I got on the seat; she mounted the crossbar and we took off.
The Disappearance of Lynne Harper
Steven Truscott has maintained since 1959 that he took Lynne Harper to the intersection of the county road and Highway 8. Truscott maintains that he left her unharmed and that when he arrived at the Bayfield Bridge he looked back toward the intersection where he had dropped Lynne off and observed that a 1959 grey Chevrolet Bel Air with a lot of chrome and a yellow tag had pulled in off the highway and she got in the front seat.
Upon Truscott’s return to the school, just after 8 pm, there was some curiosity among Steven’s classmates about what had happened to Lynne Harper. Several children had seen him leave with her. He came back alone. When asked by the police whether they made any comment to him or whether there was any conversation with them, he replied: “I believe one of them asked me—they said, ‘What did you do with Harper, feed her to the fish?’ and I replied that I had taken her and let her off at Highway No. 8.” Truscott did not mention the car or Lynne getting a ride to anyone on his return to the school.
Arnold (Butch) George, one of Truscott’s closest friends, testified that they had a conversation at Steven's house the day after Lynne disappeared but before her body was found. Steven said to George that he had told the police that they saw each other down at the river. I didn’t think there would be any harm then, so I just told them I saw Steve and Lynne on his bicycle at the river around 7:30.
At first George lied but after her body was found he told the police the truth, that he had not seen Steven. His testimony under oath has not varied from that statement. Truscott has maintained that at no time did he ever ask George to lie to the police about seeing him at the bridge.
Lynne Harper’s Body Found
1959 June 11: Two days after Lynne disappeared, RCAF searchers found her partially nude decomposing body 90 feet into a grove of ash, elm and maple trees known as Lawson's Bush. Someone had strangled her by winding her blouse tightly around her neck and securing it with a knot.
There is no doubt about the place of death. The position of her body, the scuff marks, a footprint at the foot, and the flattening of the vegetation between her legs, indicate that the act of rape or attempted rape took place where the body was found.
The leaves around her body were undisturbed, with no piles of dirt, scraped earth, or broken branches to suggest a violent struggle. Three branches from an ash tree lay across her body are the only signs of panic, and they are signs from the killer, not the victim.
All of her clothing was near where the body lay. Most of her clothing was removed and neatly piled up— near her corpse. Her brown loafers were placed side by side, her blue shorts zipped, and her socks neatly rolled up. Her panties were found later 33 feet away.
The almost eerie neatness of the crime scene, with its carefully laid-out clothes, and a lack of bruising on the body, certainly suggest some degree of compliance.
There was a small amount of blood on the ground. The wounds were consistent with having been made by twigs scattered around the ground. There were several puncture wounds on her back and shoulders, some of which were caused before death and some after death. A small quantity of blood was found on the dandelion leaves at the fork of the body. Under Lynne’s left shoulder was a button from her blouse. It appears that this button was ripped from her blouse when forming the ligature used to strangle her.
The local coroner said that intercourse took place “while the child was dying, when the heart had stopped or had almost stopped beating”. His reason for this conclusion was that although the injuries to the parts were severe, the bleeding from them was small.
The Arrest of Steven Truscott
1959 June 12: Dr. J. A. Addison examined Steven and found minor scratches on the boy’s torso and he found on each side of Steven’s penis, “a brush burn of two or three days duration the size of a 25-cent piece.” One possibility is that these lesions were the result of a pre-existing skin condition that was aggravated by an act of intercourse.
Shortly after 7:00 pm Steven Truscott was taken into custody.
June 13: Around 2:30 am Steven Truscott was charged with first degree murder under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Jury Trial: Death for 14-Year Old Boy--- Hang Until Dead
1959
June 29: Truscott was ordered to be tried as an adult; an appeal was dismissed.
July 14: Steven Truscott is committed to stand trial for capital murder.
September 16: Jury trial begins at the Ontario Superior Court in Goderich.
September 30: After 15 days and listening to 74 witnesses, the 12-person Huron County jury returned a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder, with mercy. The jury found that Lynne Harper died where she was found in Lawson’s bush and that she was not picked up at the intersection and subsequently brought back by anyone. Mr. Justice Ronald Ferguson, as was then required by law, sentenced 14 year-old Truscott to be hanged.
Some of the Evidence before the Jury
Jocelyne Goddette was supposed to meet Steven Truscott (in the same bush where Lynne
Harper was found) for a secret date. Goddette testified that Steven had arranged to meet her on the right-hand side of the county road just outside the fence by Lawson’s woods at 6 pm on Tuesday to show her a new born calf. When asked by a judge if there was any more conversation between you and Truscott, Goddette replied, “Well, he just kept on telling me to ‘don’t tell anybody to come with you’ and that is all.” She says that he called at her house about 5.50 pm and she told him that she could not come out now because they were sitting to eat and that she would meet him later if possible. Truscott has always denied that he made such an arrangement or that he called at the house.
The time that Steven and Lynne left the school grounds was fixed with reasonable certainty by Mrs. Nickerson and Mrs. Bohonus at earlier than 7:15, probably 7:10 pm.
Then on his own admission, Truscott said he met Richard Gellatly between the school yard and Lawson’s bush. He was not seen by Philip Burns, Butch George, or his girl friend Jocelyne as he should have been if he had continued on his way to the highway and back. They knew his red pants and green bicycle well and were actively looking for him. The jury’s conclusion was that after passing Richard Gellatly and before Burns, Goddette and George had an opportunity to see him, Truscott had disappeared with the girl into Lawson’s bush.
Sentence Commuted to Life
1960 Jan 20: A five-judge Ontario Court unanimously dismisses Truscott's appeal.
1960 Jan 21: Amid much controversy about the serious sentence, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Diefenbaker commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. Since his arrest Truscott had been under a death sentence for less than four months at the Huron County jail in Goderich. He is transferred to the Kingston Penitentiary.
1960 February: Truscott was incarcerated at the Ontario Training School for Boys in Guelph from February 1960 to January 1963.
1961 Between 1892 and 1961, the penalty for all murders in Canada was death by hanging. A new act of Parliament divides murder into capital and non-capital categories.
At the Supreme Court: the 1960s
1960 February 24: Appeal of his conviction denied by the Supreme Court of Canada.
1963 January 14: At age 18 Steven Truscott is transferred to Collins Bay Penitentiary.
1966 March 24: The first public interest in the Truscott case came when journalist Isabel LeBourdais published The Trial of Steven Truscott, the first document to raise serious questions about the case and its outcome. LeBourdais questioned the quick police investigation and the trial procedures and believed that Truscott was innocent. The biased 240-page volume rekindled public debate and interest in the case and incensed many at how badly the justice system treated Truscott. Her argument that the court had erred and sentenced an innocent teen to death made front-page headlines and sparked public demonstrations. The public outcry and resulting uproar in Parliament led Lester Pearson's Liberal government to order a Supreme Court review.
1966 April 26: The Canadian Government refers Truscott’s case to the Supreme Court of Canada over concerns that his conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice.
1966 October 5: The Supreme Court of Canada decided to hear the Truscott case; not to determine Truscott's innocence or guilt but simply whether or not he deserved a new trial.
1967, May 4: New forensic evidence was presented on his behalf, and Truscott testified before the Supreme Court of Canada and got a chance to tell his story for the first time. Truscott and 25 other witnesses testified, telling their stories to the best of their abilities.
Some of the new forensic evidence concerned digestion of the stomach’s contents. Since LeBourdais’s book was being published in London, the British publisher sent two premier pathologists, Professor Keith Simpson for the Crown and Professor Francis Camps, who testified for Truscott. Simpson was cool, organized and way more prepared than Camps who was flashy and thought to be untrustworthy. Simpson thought LeBourdais had indulged herself “in unfounded, biased criticism of the Canadian police, their pathologists, and the Canadian courts.” Meanwhile Camps relied on the evidence in LeBourdais’s book that death could have occurred at any time from one to ten hours after eating. Both, however, said that death could have occurred before 8:00 that evening.
Testimony Before the Supreme Court by Steven Truscott and 25 Other Witnesses
Jocelyne Goddette was supposed to meet Steven Truscott (in the same bush where Lynne Harper’s body was found) for a secret date. Jocelyne Goddette’s story was that Steven had arranged to meet her on the right-hand side of the county road just outside the fence by Lawson’s woods at 6 pm on Tuesday to show her a new calf. When asked by the Court if there was any more conversation between you and Truscott, Goddette replied, “Well, he just kept on telling me to ‘don’t tell anybody to come with you’ and that is all.” She says that he called at her house about 5.50 pm and she told him that she could not come out now because they were sitting to eat and that she would meet him later if possible. Truscott denied that he arranged to meet Jocelyne or to go looking for newborn calves. He denied under oath that he called at her house on June 9.
Truscott said that Lynne wanted to go to a place where there were a few ponies. He told the police that Lynn sat on his crossbar and they took off. He said that on the way down he had waved to Arnold George, who was swimming in the river. Then he cycled on to the highway where he dropped Lynne off, and headed back. He stopped once at the small flat Bayfield bridge to look back towards the highway to see if she'd found a ride. At that very moment he saw Lynne with her arm out hitch-hiking, and then a car stopped and she got in and the car sped away. The bridge is 1,300 feet from the highway intersection. He estimated the time to be near 7:45 pm.
He said he saw a grey 1959 Bel Air Chevrolet with whitewall tires and a yellow license plate stop, and he watched Lynne get in and the car speed east down the highway. She could have walked because the pony farm was only about 500 yards east of where Steven left her.
And all the while, her stomach contents are in the early phases of digestion. It is a process that is as natural today as it was then. The time of Lynne’s death was established by a regional pathologist who testified that most of Lynne's last meal was still in her stomach; therefore time of death was likely between 7:15 and 8:00 pm. She ate at 5:30 – 5:45 pm.
Timeline Between Disappearance and Discovery of Lynne Harper’s Body:
TESTIMONY BY WITNESSES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
JUNE: (dates are accurate; times are approximate because no child had a timepiece. Also times are not precise as the events of that day were meaningless at the time.)
June 8 Monday: Jocelyne Goddette testified that Steven wanted to meet her at Lawson’s bush Monday to show her two new born calves. She says she told Steve that maybe she could on Tuesday. They arranged to meet at Lawson’s bush at 6 pm on Tuesday. Truscott testified that this conversation never happened.
June 9 Tuesday:
Goddette testified that Steven told her again to meet him on the right-hand side of the County Road “just outside of the fence by the woods” at 6:00. He told her to keep it quiet and to come alone because Mr. Lawson did not like a bunch of kids on his property.
5:50 pm - Goddette testified that Steven called at her house and she told him that she could not come out now because they were sitting to eat and that she would meet him later if possible. Truscott testified that he did not contact Goddette that evening.
6:25 – 6:40 pm - On the way down from the school area to the bridge Kenneth Geiger and an adult saw Truscott. He was riding his bike kind of in circles, with an impatient look on his face. He was right in front of the dirt road opposite the “tractor trail”, which is on the northerly limit of the bush. As they passed, Steven said to Kenneth that Mrs. Geiger was at the bridge. Truscott denies that he ever saw or spoke to Kenneth.
6:55 – 7:05 – Mrs. Nickerson, who was conducting a meeting of Junior Girl Guides testified that Truscott came along shortly before 7 p.m. and that Lynne Harper went over to speak to him and sat on his bicycle fender.
7:00 -7:10 pm - Mrs. Nickerson saw Steve and Lynne leave together in a northerly direction around the west side of the school with Steven pushing his bike and Lynne walking alongside. Steven says her time is incorrect; that he left at 7:30 pm.
7:10 pm – Steven and Lynne pass Richard Gellatly prior to reaching Lawson’s Bush.
7:15 - 7:20 pm - Burns, Goddette and George, walking and riding behind Gellatly do not see Steven and Lynne pass by on their way to the highway. Had Truscott disappeared with the girl into Lawson’s bush? Jocelyne looks for Steven near their meeting place.
7:25 pm – Farmer Bob Lawson said Jocelyne was at his barn and told him she had been looking for Steven. After a few minutes she returned to Lawson’s bush to look again.
7:10 – 7:45 pm - Not one person has reported seeing Steven or Lynne at County Road and Highway 8 around this time. Not even the boy who rode by that intersection on his way to the river around 7:10 pm and return home around 7:45 pm.
7:30 – 7:55 pm - Jocelyne was again at Lawson’s bush looking for Steven (this was around the same time Steven says he was on his bike with Lynne). Also Philip Burns was looking for Steven. Shortly thereafter Butch George joined in the search. When Butch says Steven took Lynne into Lawson’s Bush they both began calling for Steven and Lynne. They failed to find any sign of either.
8:10 pm – When Steve Truscott returned to the school, classmate Warren Hatherall asked him, “What did you do with Harper, throw her to the fish?” and Truscott says that he replied, “No I just let her off at the highway like she asked”.
Tuesday Evening:
8:45 pm - Butch visits his best friend Steven and says, “I heard you were in the bush with Lynne.” Truscott replied, “No, we were on the side of the bush looking for a cow and calf.” Truscott denies making such a statement or that Butch was at his house that night.
11:20 pm: Lynne's father reported her missing. She was last seen with Steven Truscott.
June 10 Wednesday morning - Tom Gillette testified that during recess Truscott told him that he was in Lawson’s bush on Tuesday evening looking for a calf.
Wednesday noon - George Archibald testified that he asked Truscott what he was doing in the woods with Lynne. Truscott replied, “I wasn’t in the woods with Lynne, was I, Butch?” Butch hesitated for a moment and then said, “No, I guess it was somebody else.” Archibald testified that Truscott added, “I was chasing a cow.”
Wednesday evening: Bryan Glover also hears Truscott say that he was in Lawson’s bush on the day Lynne disappeared. Truscott denies he ever said such things.
Wednesday evening - Butch George testified that they had a conversation at Steven's house the day after Lynne disappeared but before her body was found. Steven said to George that he had told the police that they saw each other down at the river and I didn’t think there would be any harm then, so I just told the Police the next morning that I saw Steve and Lynne on his bicycle at the river around 7:30.
June 11 Thursday afternoon - searchers discover Lynne’s partially nude body in a nearby farm woodlot known as Lawson’s Bush. She had been strangled by someone winding her sleeveless blouse tightly around her neck and securing it with a knot.
June 12, Friday – Two doctors examined Truscott and found minor scratches on the boy’s torso and found on each side of Steven’s penis, “a brush burn of two or three days duration the size of a 25-cent piece.” Shortly after 7:00 pm he was taken into custody.
June 13, Saturday - at about 2:30 a.m. Steve Truscott was charged with first degree murder under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Incredibilities and Denials
Truscott denied that on the trip to the river between 6 and 7 pm he met Ken Geiger.
Truscott denied that he had seen Mrs. Geiger or Paul Desjardine during the course of that trip and said that he did not remember any of them giving evidence at his trial.
Truscott denied any conversation with Geiger about his mother being at the river.
The above are all people who gave evidence that they met him and described his movements on the road between 6.30 and 7.00 pm
Truscott denied that he had met Gellatly on the highway. He also said that he did not remember telling the police that he had met Gellatly.
Truscott in his oral evidence denied that there was ever any such visit on June 9th from Arnold George or any such conversation. This was the occasion when George said that he had heard that Steven was in the bush with Lynne and when Truscott had replied he was only on the side of the bush looking for a cow and a calf.
Truscott denied that he had any conversation with Arnold George the evening after Lynne’s disappearance. This is the occasion when George said that he had agreed with Steven to tell the police that he, George, had seen Truscott at the bridge on Tuesday evening. But when Lynne’s body was found, the boy came to a realization that to protect a friend can go just so far, and later he gave a right and true statement.
Truscott has always maintained that he and Lynne were only near Lawson’s bush but never in the bush. But the truth is her body is found at Truscott’s favorite place in the 20 acre wooded area
The case would go to the jury with five witnesses saying that they did not see Truscott and Lynne on the road. Two of these were actively looking for him. Trescott testified that he did not see Burns, Goddette, George, or Vandendool on the County Road as he and Lynne made their way north. He said he waved to George in the river as he crossed the bridge with Lynne.
Truscott has maintained that he was with Lynne, but claims they split up and he saw her getting into a car after he rode to the bridge and looked back. However, his statements before this court do put him in or near Lawson’s Bush on Tuesday evening. They thus support the contention that he was not being candid in describing his whereabouts in his various statements to the police following Lynne’s disappearance.
The Supreme Court was asked to determine how it would have decided an appeal by Truscott, on the basis of the existing judicial record and any other evidence it received.
The Joint opinion of Canada’s Supreme Court Justices:
After a two week hearing before the Supreme Court, Canada’s top judges ruled 8-1 against Truscott getting a new trial and he was returned to prison to serve the remainder of his life sentence. Those eight judges watched and listened carefully to Steven Truscott as he gave his testimony and it was clear to them that his testimony was vague and confused. His testimony differed from the evidence given by all those witnesses who saw him on the road before 7 pm. and described his movements. Parts of Truscott’s testimony were clearly inaccurate. In some respects, far from assisting Truscott, these inaccuracies tended to contradict the defence position.
“The verdict of the jury, read in the light of the charge of the trial judge, makes it clear that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts, which they found to be established by the evidence which they accepted, were not only consistent with the guilt of Truscott but were inconsistent with any rational conclusion other than that Steven Truscott was the guilty person.
The lone dissenting voice came from Justice Emmett Hall. He said that having considered the case fully, he believes that the conviction should be quashed and a new trial directed. His view was that the trial was not conducted according to law and that even the guiltiest criminal must be tried according to law. He also said that does not mean that I consider Truscott guilty or innocent; that determination is for the jury and for the jury alone.
Truscott explains this bad performance before the court by saying that his lawyers did not “adequately prepare” him for his testimony. In the most notorious criminal case in Canadian history, an unprecedented hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada after an eight year public battle, the best criminal lawyers in the country, all this new expert evidence on human digestion that will exonerate wrongly convicted Steven Truscott – yet no one on the crack defense team thinks to prepare their star client for his testimony!
The Court ruled 8-1 that it would indeed have upheld the conviction on the basis that the conduct of the provincial trial was fair and legal. There would be no new trial.
Justice Minister Pierre Truduea personally reviewed the case and refused to order a new trial or overturn Truscott’s conviction.
1990s: Truscott might have remained unheralded had not the Canadian legal system been battered all through the 1990s by a barrage of high-profile miscarriages of justice, with compensation payouts soaring to the $10 million level. Suddenly, judicial blunders were big news for millions of readers and viewers, and there were media profits to be made.
1997 August 15: The Ffith Estate, a CBC documentary program, decided to revisit Canada’s greatest mystery and do a story on Truscott’s case and how his life had been since his release on parole in 1969.
2000 March: For nearly three years Julian Sher worked with CBC TV’s The Fifth Estate to produce an explosive documentary based on her book, "Until You Are Dead.” Truscott is interviewed in the documentary and vows to do everything in his power to clear his name. The program unveils what they claim is new evidence to suggest that police may have been too hasty in pinning the murder on Truscott. After the broadcast public clamor to clear Steven Truscott's name grew rapidly sparking a Truscott craze across the country and questions in Parliament. James Lockyer, the Toronto lawyer who helped overturn the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin for the death of Christine Jessop in 1984, takes on Truscott's case.
2001 November 28: Lawyers for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted file a 700-page brief with the federal justice minister to have Truscott's case reopened, as the public outcry against the original jury decision grows into Truscott mania.
2002 January 24: The justice minister appoints retired Quebec judge Fred Kaufman, to assess the case under Section 690 of the Criminal Code. Kaufman can recommend that the case be retried or reviewed by an appellate court or that a pardon be issued.
2004 October 28: Justice Minister Irwin Cotler sends the case to the Ontario Court of Appeal to consider if new evidence would have changed the outcome of the 1959 trial.
2005 November 29: The justice minister releases the Kaufman Report. The 700-page report, dated April 19, 2004, says there was probably a miscarriage of justice in the Truscott case, but not enough new evidence to exonerate him.
2006 April 6: Lynne Harper's remains are exhumed from her grave in southwestern Ontario with her family's consent. The order to exhume was made by the Attorney General of Ontario to test for DNA evidence and hopefully to bring closure to the case.
2006 April 10: Ontario's chief coroner announces that medical examiners are unable to find any useable DNA evidence on the exhumed body of Lynne Harper.
2006 June 14: An Ontario judge orders journalists Julian Sher, Theresa Burke and CBC to hand over videotapes of two people interviewed for 2000 documentary about Truscott.
Ontario Court of Appeal Reviews Truscott’s Conviction
June 19, 2006: The Court of Appeal decides to review Truscott's conviction. Ontario's chief pathologist Michael Pollanen casts doubt on the exact time when Lynne Harper died. An original autopsy concluded that Lynne died in the early evening but Dr. Pollanen testified there wasn't enough evidence to draw that conclusion. He said she could have died during the time Truscott says he was with her or the following day.
June 21, 2006: Pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz testified that Dr. John Penistan, the original pathologist who looked at Harper's autopsy in 1959, was advanced, but said, "Maybe he was wrong." But at the end of the day, Spitz testified he stood behind Penistan's findings.
June 22, 2006: Retired Ontario Provincial Police Superintendent Harry Sayeau told the court that he and his police colleagues did not seek out other suspects in 1959. Mr. Sayeau testified they didn't inquire about existing sexual predators with other nearby Ontario Provincial Police, Crown offices, or the Royal Canadian Air Force.
June 26, 2006: Two experts present conflicting evidence using entomology, which uses the larval development of bugs to estimate the time of a person's death.
Dr. Neal Haskell, a forensic entomology professor from Purdue University, told the court larvae must have been deposited on Harper's body before sunset on June 9, 1959, sometime between 9 and 9:30 pm He said that means that Harper could have died anywhere between 7:15 and 9:30 pm
Elgin Brown, a biologist working at the Ontario attorney general's crime lab at the time of the murder, testified that maggots found on Harper's body 47 years ago were in the first stage of development and probably hatched at 2:30 pm on June 10, 1959. Brown's lab notes from the time indicated he believed the eggs were laid the next morning.
June 28, 2006: Sandra Stolzman and Elizabeth Hulbert testified that Jocelyn Goddette, a key child witness in Truscott's 1959 murder trial, admitted to a group of fellow resident nurses in Montreal in 1966 that she had lied under oath.
June 29, 2006: Forensic entomologist, Sherah VanLaerhoven, tells the Ontario Court of Appeal her review of the evidence suggests insects started laying eggs on Harper's body between 11 am, June 10, 1959 and 8 am the following morning. But VanLaerhoven admits she couldn't rule out the possibility Harper died before sunset on June 9, 1959.
June 30, 2006: Bob Lawson, the farmer who owns the property where Harper's body was found, testifies he saw a strange car parked near his fence line about 10:00 pm the night the 12-year-old disappeared. Lawson told the court he went to the guardhouse at the Royal Canadian Air Force Base in Clinton, to report the incident, but the officer on duty was not interested. (Lynn’s father reported his daughter missing at 11:20 pm)
July 5, 2006: For the Crown, Karen Jutsi, who was nine years old when she testified in Truscott's trial, said her original statement was reported incorrectly. At the murder trial, Jutsi, whose maiden name is Daum, said she was on the bridge when she saw Steven and Lynne on the county road sometime after 7 pm on June 9, 1959. She told the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2006 that she was not on the bridge when she saw Truscott, but near Lawson's bush where Harper's body was later found. Jutsi said she was shocked when she read her statement years later, because it was wrong.
July 6, 2006: During the final day of testimony at the Ontario Court of Appeal, renowned United Kingdom Pathologist Bernard Knight calls into question the key forensic evidence used to convict Steven Truscott in 1959. The retired professor, who wrote a standard textbook for pathologists, criticized coroner Dr. John Penistan's use of stomach content analysis to estimate the time of Lynne Harper's death
Dr. Nicholas Diamant, Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto, told the court that emotional stress can stop digestion for several hours and that in a normal person it can take up to six hours for food to leave the stomach. Since there was still food in her stomach the defence pathology evidence shows only that the window of opportunity extended to darkness on June 9. The Crown’s contention is that Truscott killed Lynne Harper before he returned to the school grounds and that claim remains viable.
2007 Jan. 31 – Feb 14: Lawyers for Steven Truscott and Ontario's Attorney General make their final arguments before the five appeal court judges overseeing the case. To satisfy the biased public, television cameras are allowed into the appeal court for the first time and the proceedings are broadcast live until they end two weeks later. The lawyers and each judge can now be seen, heard and evaluated individually by the public.
Steven Truscott Acquitted by the Ontario Court of Appeal
2007 Aug. 28: More than 48 years after the crime and every previous court denying the appeals, the Ontario Court overturns Truscott's conviction, declaring the case "a miscarriage of justice" that "must be quashed." Michael Bryant, Ontario's attorney general, tells reporters the Crown has no plans to appeal and offers Truscott an apology.
The court is satisfied that the fresh evidence and the new material before this court have significantly undermined the strength of each of the Crown’s four factual pillars:
First, on the issue of the time of Lynne Harper’s death, the pathology evidence that we have admitted as fresh renders the medical evidence heard in prior judicial proceedings, to the effect that Lynne must have died before 8 pm on June 9, scientifically untenable.
As for the second pillar of the Crown’s case, in the “Burns-Gellatly” cornerstone the archival material suggests that a credible case could be made that Philip Burns and Richard Gellatly did not leave the bridge at the same time and proceed in tandem south bound on the County Road. The archival material suggests a credible alternative theory that is consistent with the Court’s position that the appellant left the school around 7:20 pm and took Lynne on his bike along the County Road to the Highway 8 unseen.
As for the third pillar of the Crown’s case, in the County Road evidence, that pillar could be significantly weakened by the archival material which provides support for the claim that the appellant could reasonably believe that he saw the color of the license plate on the vehicle while standing on the bridge 1300 feet away.
The fourth pillar of the Crown’s case, the penis lesions evidence that so vividly demonstrated the appellant’s guilt at trial has been weakened to the extent that it is virtually no evidence at all.
For these reasons we have concluded that, while it cannot be said that no jury acting judicially could reasonably acquit, we are satisfied that if a new trial were possible, an acquittal would clearly be the more likely result.
Having regard to the highly unusual circumstances of this Reference, we have determined that the most appropriate remedy is to enter an acquittal. Accordingly, in the words of
[s. 696.3(3) (ii) of the Criminal Code] the appeal is allowed, the conviction for murder is set aside and an acquittal entered.
Finally then as now, the crime scene continues to support the Crown’s theory as to how this crime was committed. The evidence does not exclude the possibility that Truscott was the killer.
In not finding Truscott innocent the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote: ". . . certain immutable facts cast some suspicion on Mr. Truscott. He was the last known person to see the victim alive and was with her at a location very close to where she was murdered.” Therefore the judges concluded that "the court is not satisfied that the appellant has been able to demonstrate his factual innocence."
Compensation for Steven Truscott
2008 April 16: Guelph Member of the Provincial Parliament (MPP) Liz Sandals tables a private members' motion for compensation for Truscott. It is supported by all parties.
2008 July 7: The Ontario government announces it will pay Truscott $6.5 million in compensation for his ordeal. Michael Bryant, former Ontario Attorney General, tells reporters the Crown has no plans to appeal and offers Truscott an apology.
As for Attorney General Michael Bryant's statement on the case, Truscott commented, "I know he apologized on behalf of the government. But I don't really feel that the apology was sincere."
Chris Bentley, Ontario's Attorney General said, "We are doing what we can to bring to the conclusion this remarkable aspect of Mr. Truscott's life's journey." Bentley went on to say that Ontario is paying it in full for now to ensure Truscott gets his compensation quickly.
Truscott is calling the Ontario government's C$6.5 million compensation package for his murder conviction "bittersweet." He says money will never truly pay back the years of his life lost while in prison. Truscott’s wife received C$100,000 and the federal/province paid C$990,000 in legal aid bills.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
STEVEN TRUSCOTT AND THE MURDER OF 12-YEAR OLD LYNNE HARPER
Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu. |
<a href="http://www.lulu.com/commerce/index.php?fBuyContent=10071579"><img src="http://static.lulu.com/images/services/buy_now_buttons/us/book_blue2.gif?20110118130137" border="0" alt="Support independent publishing: Buy this book on Lulu."></a>
DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to Steven Murray Truscott who very wisely said:
I'm not asking for the world. Go over all the information. Investigate. Let the people know all the evidence, and let them judge for themselves. I'm not afraid of that. Why are they?"
STEVEN TRUSCOTT AND THE MURDER OF
12-YEAR OLD LYNNE HARPER
FACTS
On a cold September day in 1959 a 14 year old Canadian schoolboy, in just his first encounter with the police and in a crime of passion, was sentenced to hang until dead.
It is sad when any young boy is punished more harshly than should be for his crime. Fortunately, common sense prevailed and after four months the penalty was reduced to a life sentence. Six years later a journalist would write about this boy who, sentenced to be hanged, had always claimed he was innocent.
In the early evening of Tuesday June 9, 1959, 12-year-old Lynne Harper disappeared near Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Clinton, an air force base just south of Clinton, Ontario, Canada. Around 11:20 that evening, Lynne's father reported her missing. She was last seen with Steven Truscott.
Steven Murray Truscott (born January 18, 1945 in Vancouver, British Columbia) was a 14 ½ year old schoolboy in the same classroom as Lynne Harper, Grades 7 & 8 at the A.V.M. Hugh Campbell School on the air force base.
Steven Truscott acknowledged being with Lynne the evening she was killed. He was seen with her on his bicycle after 7:00 pm in close proximity to Lawson’s Bush, a 20 acre woodlot where her body would be found two days later.
After dinner and wearing only blue shorts, white sleeveless blouse and loafers, Lynne walked over to the school grounds near her home and cheerfully helped Mrs. Nickerson with the Junior Girl Guides. Mrs. Nickerson said that Steven came cycling on the pathway towards them shortly before 7:00 pm, stopped nearby and sat on his bicycle. Lynne went over to him and sat on the front finder of his bike.
Steven’s story is that he met Lynne at the Brownies and that she was in a chatty, presumably happy mood. He said she asked for a ride to Highway 8 so she could hitch a ride to a pony farm. He further stated that we pushed the bicycle between us across the school grounds to the county road. There I got on the seat; she mounted the crossbar and we took off.
The Disappearance of Lynne Harper
Steven Truscott has maintained since 1959 that he took Lynne Harper to the intersection of the county road and Highway 8. Truscott maintains that he left her unharmed and that when he arrived at the Bayfield Bridge he looked back toward the intersection where he had dropped Lynne off and observed that a 1959 grey Chevrolet Bel Air with a lot of chrome and a yellow tag had pulled in off the highway and she got in the front seat.
Upon Truscott’s return to the school, just after 8 pm, there was some curiosity among Steven’s classmates about what had happened to Lynne Harper. Several children had seen him leave with her. He came back alone. When asked by the police whether they made any comment to him or whether there was any conversation with them, he replied: “I believe one of them asked me—they said, ‘What did you do with Harper, feed her to the fish?’ and I replied that I had taken her and let her off at Highway No. 8.” Truscott did not mention the car or Lynne getting a ride to anyone on his return to the school.
Arnold (Butch) George, one of Truscott’s closest friends, testified that they had a conversation at Steven's house the day after Lynne disappeared but before her body was found. Steven said to George that he had told the police that they saw each other down at the river. I didn’t think there would be any harm then, so I just told them I saw Steve and Lynne on his bicycle at the river around 7:30.
At first George lied but after her body was found he told the police the truth, that he had not seen Steven. His testimony under oath has not varied from that statement. Truscott has maintained that at no time did he ever ask George to lie to the police about seeing him at the bridge.
Lynne Harper’s Body Found
1959 June 11: Two days after Lynne disappeared, RCAF searchers found her partially nude decomposing body 90 feet into a grove of ash, elm and maple trees known as Lawson's Bush. Someone had strangled her by winding her blouse tightly around her neck and securing it with a knot.
There is no doubt about the place of death. The position of her body, the scuff marks, a footprint at the foot, and the flattening of the vegetation between her legs, indicate that the act of rape or attempted rape took place where the body was found.
The leaves around her body were undisturbed, with no piles of dirt, scraped earth, or broken branches to suggest a violent struggle. Three branches from an ash tree lay across her body are the only signs of panic, and they are signs from the killer, not the victim.
All of her clothing was near where the body lay. Most of her clothing was removed and neatly piled up— near her corpse. Her brown loafers were placed side by side, her blue shorts zipped, and her socks neatly rolled up. Her panties were found later 33 feet away.
The almost eerie neatness of the crime scene, with its carefully laid-out clothes, and a lack of bruising on the body, certainly suggest some degree of compliance.
There was a small amount of blood on the ground. The wounds were consistent with having been made by twigs scattered around the ground. There were several puncture wounds on her back and shoulders, some of which were caused before death and some after death. A small quantity of blood was found on the dandelion leaves at the fork of the body. Under Lynne’s left shoulder was a button from her blouse. It appears that this button was ripped from her blouse when forming the ligature used to strangle her.
The local coroner said that intercourse took place “while the child was dying, when the heart had stopped or had almost stopped beating”. His reason for this conclusion was that although the injuries to the parts were severe, the bleeding from them was small.
The Arrest of Steven Truscott
1959 June 12: Dr. J. A. Addison examined Steven and found minor scratches on the boy’s torso and he found on each side of Steven’s penis, “a brush burn of two or three days duration the size of a 25-cent piece.” One possibility is that these lesions were the result of a pre-existing skin condition that was aggravated by an act of intercourse.
Shortly after 7:00 pm Steven Truscott was taken into custody.
June 13: Around 2:30 am Steven Truscott was charged with first degree murder under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Jury Trial: Death for 14-Year Old Boy--- Hang Until Dead
1959
June 29: Truscott was ordered to be tried as an adult; an appeal was dismissed.
July 14: Steven Truscott is committed to stand trial for capital murder.
September 16: Jury trial begins at the Ontario Superior Court in Goderich.
September 30: After 15 days and listening to 74 witnesses, the 12-person Huron County jury returned a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder, with mercy. The jury found that Lynne Harper died where she was found in Lawson’s bush and that she was not picked up at the intersection and subsequently brought back by anyone. Mr. Justice Ronald Ferguson, as was then required by law, sentenced 14 year-old Truscott to be hanged.
Some of the Evidence before the Jury
Jocelyne Goddette was supposed to meet Steven Truscott (in the same bush where Lynne
Harper was found) for a secret date. Goddette testified that Steven had arranged to meet her on the right-hand side of the county road just outside the fence by Lawson’s woods at 6 pm on Tuesday to show her a new born calf. When asked by a judge if there was any more conversation between you and Truscott, Goddette replied, “Well, he just kept on telling me to ‘don’t tell anybody to come with you’ and that is all.” She says that he called at her house about 5.50 pm and she told him that she could not come out now because they were sitting to eat and that she would meet him later if possible. Truscott has always denied that he made such an arrangement or that he called at the house.
The time that Steven and Lynne left the school grounds was fixed with reasonable certainty by Mrs. Nickerson and Mrs. Bohonus at earlier than 7:15, probably 7:10 pm.
Then on his own admission, Truscott said he met Richard Gellatly between the school yard and Lawson’s bush. He was not seen by Philip Burns, Butch George, or his girl friend Jocelyne as he should have been if he had continued on his way to the highway and back. They knew his red pants and green bicycle well and were actively looking for him. The jury’s conclusion was that after passing Richard Gellatly and before Burns, Goddette and George had an opportunity to see him, Truscott had disappeared with the girl into Lawson’s bush.
Sentence Commuted to Life
1960 Jan 20: A five-judge Ontario Court unanimously dismisses Truscott's appeal.
1960 Jan 21: Amid much controversy about the serious sentence, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Diefenbaker commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. Since his arrest Truscott had been under a death sentence for less than four months at the Huron County jail in Goderich. He is transferred to the Kingston Penitentiary.
1960 February: Truscott was incarcerated at the Ontario Training School for Boys in Guelph from February 1960 to January 1963.
1961 Between 1892 and 1961, the penalty for all murders in Canada was death by hanging. A new act of Parliament divides murder into capital and non-capital categories.
At the Supreme Court: the 1960s
1960 February 24: Appeal of his conviction denied by the Supreme Court of Canada.
1963 January 14: At age 18 Steven Truscott is transferred to Collins Bay Penitentiary.
1966 March 24: The first public interest in the Truscott case came when journalist Isabel LeBourdais published The Trial of Steven Truscott, the first document to raise serious questions about the case and its outcome. LeBourdais questioned the quick police investigation and the trial procedures and believed that Truscott was innocent. The biased 240-page volume rekindled public debate and interest in the case and incensed many at how badly the justice system treated Truscott. Her argument that the court had erred and sentenced an innocent teen to death made front-page headlines and sparked public demonstrations. The public outcry and resulting uproar in Parliament led Lester Pearson's Liberal government to order a Supreme Court review.
1966 April 26: The Canadian Government refers Truscott’s case to the Supreme Court of Canada over concerns that his conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice.
1966 October 5: The Supreme Court of Canada decided to hear the Truscott case; not to determine Truscott's innocence or guilt but simply whether or not he deserved a new trial.
1967, May 4: New forensic evidence was presented on his behalf, and Truscott testified before the Supreme Court of Canada and got a chance to tell his story for the first time. Truscott and 25 other witnesses testified, telling their stories to the best of their abilities.
Some of the new forensic evidence concerned digestion of the stomach’s contents. Since LeBourdais’s book was being published in London, the British publisher sent two premier pathologists, Professor Keith Simpson for the Crown and Professor Francis Camps, who testified for Truscott. Simpson was cool, organized and way more prepared than Camps who was flashy and thought to be untrustworthy. Simpson thought LeBourdais had indulged herself “in unfounded, biased criticism of the Canadian police, their pathologists, and the Canadian courts.” Meanwhile Camps relied on the evidence in LeBourdais’s book that death could have occurred at any time from one to ten hours after eating. Both, however, said that death could have occurred before 8:00 that evening.
Testimony Before the Supreme Court by Steven Truscott and 25 Other Witnesses
Jocelyne Goddette was supposed to meet Steven Truscott (in the same bush where Lynne Harper’s body was found) for a secret date. Jocelyne Goddette’s story was that Steven had arranged to meet her on the right-hand side of the county road just outside the fence by Lawson’s woods at 6 pm on Tuesday to show her a new calf. When asked by the Court if there was any more conversation between you and Truscott, Goddette replied, “Well, he just kept on telling me to ‘don’t tell anybody to come with you’ and that is all.” She says that he called at her house about 5.50 pm and she told him that she could not come out now because they were sitting to eat and that she would meet him later if possible. Truscott denied that he arranged to meet Jocelyne or to go looking for newborn calves. He denied under oath that he called at her house on June 9.
On the day of her disappearance, at about 6.35 pm, Lynne Harper went to the school where she assisted a Mrs. Nickerson, who was conducting a meeting of Junior Girl Guides. Mrs. Nickerson said that Steven came cycling on the pathway towards them shortly before 7 pm, stopped nearby and sat on his bike. Lynne went over to him and sat on his front wheel. They were talking. After a few minutes, Mrs. Nickerson saw them leave together in a northerly direction around the west side of the school with Steven pushing his bike and Lynne walking alongside. Mrs. Nickerson puts the time between 7.00 and 7.10 pm. Truscott says the ladies are mistaken, that he left at 7:30 pm.
Truscott said that Lynne wanted to go to a place where there were a few ponies. He told the police that Lynn sat on his crossbar and they took off. He said that on the way down he had waved to Arnold George, who was swimming in the river. Then he cycled on to the highway where he dropped Lynne off, and headed back. He stopped once at the small flat Bayfield bridge to look back towards the highway to see if she'd found a ride. At that very moment he saw Lynne with her arm out hitch-hiking, and then a car stopped and she got in and the car sped away. The bridge is 1,300 feet from the highway intersection. He estimated the time to be near 7:45 pm.
He said he saw a grey 1959 Bel Air Chevrolet with whitewall tires and a yellow license plate stop, and he watched Lynne get in and the car speed east down the highway. She could have walked because the pony farm was only about 500 yards east of where Steven left her.
A regional pathologist testified that most of Lynne's last meal was still in her stomach and in the early phase of digestion. It is a process that is as natural today as it was then. The time of Lynne’s death was likely between 7:15 and 8:00 pm. She ate at 5:30–5:45.
Bob Lawson, a close friend of Truscott, reported seeing a car near his farm about 10 pm the night of Lynn’s disappearance. A man and maybe a girl were inside. It was very dark. Is it possible that the pedophile that picked her up earlier had now brought her back so that the blame for the murder would be put on Truscott? But why not leave her or her body near the highway intersection instead of walking 90 feet into the dark woods to Truscott’s hideout? And how would he know where in to place her body in the 20 acre woodlot? This scenario, like others involving a stranger does not follow a logical path.
Timeline Between Disappearance and Discovery of Lynne Harper’s Body:
TESTIMONY BY WITNESSES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
JUNE: (dates are accurate; times are approximate because no child had a timepiece. Also times are not precise as the events of that day were meaningless at the time.)
June 8 Monday:
Jocelyne Goddette testified that Steven wanted to meet her at Lawson’s bush Monday to show her two new born calves. She says she told Steve that maybe she could on Tuesday. They arranged to meet at Lawson’s bush at 6 pm on Tuesday. Truscott testified that this conversation never happened.
June 9 Tuesday:
Goddette testified that Steven told her again to meet him on the right-hand side of the County Road “just outside of the fence by the woods” at 6:00. He told her to keep it quiet and to come alone because Mr. Lawson did not like a bunch of kids on his property.
5:50 pm - Goddette testified that Steven called at her house and she told him that she could not come out now because they were sitting to eat and that she would meet him later if possible. Truscott testified that he did not contact Goddette that evening.
6:25 – 6:40 pm - On the way down from the school area to the bridge Kenneth Geiger and an adult saw Truscott. He was riding his bike kind of in circles, with an impatient look on his face. He was right in front of the dirt road opposite the “tractor trail”, which is on the northerly limit of the bush. As they passed, Steven said to Kenneth that Mrs. Geiger was at the bridge. Truscott denies that he ever saw or spoke to Kenneth.
6:55 – 7:05 – Mrs. Nickerson, who was conducting a meeting of Junior Girl Guides testified that Truscott came along shortly before 7 p.m. and that Lynne Harper went over to speak to him and sat on his bicycle fender.
7:00 -7:10 pm - Mrs. Nickerson saw Steve and Lynne leave together in a northerly direction around the west side of the school with Steven pushing his bike and Lynne walking alongside. Steven says her time is incorrect; that he left at 7:30 pm.
7:15 pm – Steven and Lynne pass Richard Gellatly prior to reaching Lawson’s Bush.
7:20 pm - Burns, Goddette and George, walking and riding behind Gellatly do not see Steven and Lynne pass by on their way to the highway. Had Truscott disappeared with the girl into Lawson’s bush? Jocelyne looks for Steven near their meeting place.
7:25 pm – Farmer Bob Lawson said Jocelyne was at his barn and told him she had been looking for Steven. After a few minutes she returned to Lawson’s bush to look again.
7:10 – 7:45 pm - Not one person has reported seeing Steven or Lynne at County Road and Highway 8 around this time. Not even the boy who rode by that intersection on his way to the river around 7:10 pm and return home around 7:45 pm.
7:30 – 7:55 pm - Jocelyne was again at Lawson’s bush looking for Steven (this was around the same time Steven says he was on his bike with Lynne). Also Philip Burns was looking for Steven. Shortly thereafter Butch George joined in the search. When Butch says Steven took Lynne into Lawson’s Bush they both began calling for Steven and Lynne. They failed to find any sign of either.
8:10 pm – When Steve Truscott returned to the school, classmate Warren Hatherall asked him, “What did you do with Harper, throw her to the fish?” and Truscott says that he replied, “No I just let her off at the highway like she asked”.
Tuesday Evening:
8:45 pm - Butch visits his best friend Steven and says, “I heard you were in the bush with Lynne.” Truscott replied, “No, we were on the side of the bush looking for a cow and calf.” Truscott denies making such a statement or that Butch was at his house that night.
11:20 pm: Lynne's father reported her missing. She was last seen with Steven Truscott.
June 10 Wednesday morning - Tom Gillette testified that during recess Truscott told him that he was in Lawson’s bush on Tuesday evening looking for a calf.
Wednesday noon - George Archibald testified that he asked Truscott what he was doing in the woods with Lynne. Truscott replied, “I wasn’t in the woods with Lynne, was I, Butch?” Butch hesitated for a moment and then said, “No, I guess it was somebody else.” Archibald testified that Truscott added, “I was chasing a cow.”
Wednesday evening: Bryan Glover also hears Truscott say that he was in Lawson’s bush on the day Lynne disappeared. Truscott denies he ever said such things.
Wednesday evening - Butch George testified that they had a conversation at Steven's house the day after Lynne disappeared but before her body was found. Steven said to George that he had told the police that they saw each other down at the river and I didn’t think there would be any harm then, so I just told the Police the next morning that I saw Steve and Lynne on his bicycle at the river around 7:30.
June 11 Thursday afternoon - searchers discover Lynne’s partially nude body in a nearby farm woodlot known as Lawson’s Bush. She had been strangled by someone winding her sleeveless blouse tightly around her neck and securing it with a knot.
June 12, Friday – Two doctors examined Truscott and found minor scratches on the boy’s torso and found on each side of Steven’s penis, “a brush burn of two or three days duration the size of a 25-cent piece.” Shortly after 7:00 pm he was taken into custody.
June 13, Saturday - at about 2:30 a.m. Steve Truscott was charged with first degree murder under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Incredibilities and Denials
Truscott denied that on the trip to the river between 6 and 7 pm he met Ken Geiger.
Truscott denied that he had seen Mrs. Geiger or Paul Desjardine during the course of that trip and said that he did not remember any of them giving evidence at his trial.
Truscott denied any conversation with Geiger about his mother being at the river.
The above are all people who gave evidence that they met him and described his movements on the road between 6.30 and 7.00 pm
Truscott denied that he had met Gellatly on the highway. He also said that he did not remember telling the police that he had met Gellatly.
Truscott in his oral evidence denied that there was ever any such visit on June 9th from Arnold George or any such conversation. This was the occasion when George said that he had heard that Steven was in the bush with Lynne and when Truscott had replied he was only on the side of the bush looking for a cow and a calf.
Truscott denied that he had any conversation with Arnold George the evening after Lynne’s disappearance. This is the occasion when George said that he had agreed with Steven to tell the police that he, George, had seen Truscott at the bridge on Tuesday evening. But when Lynne’s body was found, the boy came to a realization that to protect a friend can go just so far, and later he gave a right and true statement.
Truscott has always maintained that he and Lynne were only near Lawson’s bush but never in the bush. But the truth is her body is found at Truscott’s favorite place in the 20 acre wooded area
The case would go to the jury with five witnesses saying that they did not see Truscott and Lynne on the road. Two of these were actively looking for him. Trescott testified that he did not see Burns, Goddette, George, or Vandendool on the County Road as he and Lynne made their way north. He said he waved to George in the river as he crossed the bridge with Lynne.
Truscott has maintained that he was with Lynne, but claims they split up and he saw her getting into a car after he rode to the bridge and looked back. However, his statements before this court do put him in or near Lawson’s Bush on Tuesday evening. They thus support the contention that he was not being candid in describing his whereabouts in his various statements to the police following Lynne’s disappearance.
The Supreme Court was asked to determine how it would have decided an appeal by Truscott, on the basis of the existing judicial record and any other evidence it received.
The Joint opinion of Canada’s Supreme Court Justices:
After a two week hearing before the Supreme Court, Canada’s top judges ruled 8-1 against Truscott getting a new trial and he was returned to prison to serve the remainder of his life sentence. Those eight judges watched and listened carefully to Steven Truscott as he gave his testimony and it was clear to them that his testimony was vague and confused. His testimony differed from the evidence given by all those witnesses who saw him on the road before 7 pm. and described his movements. Parts of Truscott’s testimony were clearly inaccurate. In some respects, far from assisting Truscott, these inaccuracies tended to contradict the defence position.
“The verdict of the jury, read in the light of the charge of the trial judge, makes it clear that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts, which they found to be established by the evidence which they accepted, were not only consistent with the guilt of Truscott but were inconsistent with any rational conclusion other than that Steven Truscott was the guilty person."
The lone dissenting voice came from Justice Emmett Hall. He said "that having considered the case fully, he believes that the conviction should be quashed and a new trial directed. His view was that the trial was not conducted according to law and that even the guiltiest criminal must be tried according to law. He also said that does not mean that I consider Truscott guilty or innocent; that determination is for the jury and for the jury alone."
Truscott explains this bad performance before the court by saying that his lawyers did not “adequately prepare” him for his testimony. In the most notorious criminal case in Canadian history, an unprecedented hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada after an eight year public battle, the best criminal lawyers in the country, all this new expert evidence on human digestion that will exonerate wrongly convicted Steven Truscott – yet no one on the crack defense team thinks to prepare their star client for his testimony!
The Court ruled 8-1 that it would indeed have upheld the conviction on the basis that the conduct of the provincial trial was fair and legal. There would be no new trial.
Justice Minister Pierre Truduea personally reviewed the case and refused to order a new trial or overturn Truscott’s conviction.
Steven Truscott Released From Prison
1967 May 7: Truscott was transferred to the Farm Annex of Collins Bay Penitentiary.
1969 October 21: Ten years after Steve Truscott was sentenced to hang by the neck, he was released on parole. He had an unblemished institutional record.
The Death Penalty for Murder Abolished in Canada
1976 July 14: The House of Commons passed Bill C-84 on a free vote, abolishing capital punishment from the Canadian Criminal Code and replacing it with a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole for 25 years for all first-degree murders. Before this date the only method used in Canada for capital punishment in nonmilitary contexts was hanging. Until now 1,481 people have been sentenced to death, with 710 executed between 1867 and 1962. Of those executed, 697 were men and 13 were women. The last execution in Canada was on December 11, 1962 when 2 men were hanged at Toronto's Don Jail. Between 1879 and 1960, there were 438 commutations of death sentences.
Canadian Journalist’s Efforts to Clear Steven Truscott’s Name
The first public interest about this case was in the spring of 1966 when journalist Isabel LeBourdais published The Trial of Steven Truscott, the first document to raise serious questions about a young boy who had been sentenced to hang.
In 1971, Bill Trent's The Steven Truscott Story causes renewed interest in the crime. The many things Truscott could not remember when questioned by the Justices of the Supreme Court he now clearly remembers for Bill Trent’s book.
1979: Who Killed Lynne Harper? Steven Truscott emerges from obscurity to coauthor his own account of the crime. After a brief flurry of publicity, the case fades once again.
1990s: Truscott might have remained unheralded had not the Canadian legal system been battered all through the 1990s by a barrage of high-profile miscarriages of justice, with compensation payouts soaring to the $10 million level. Suddenly, judicial blunders were big news for millions of readers and viewers, and there were media profits to be made.
1997 August 15: The Ffith Estate, a CBC documentary program, decided to revisit Canada’s greatest mystery and do a story on Truscott’s case and how his life had been since his release on parole in 1969.
2000 March: For nearly three years Julian Sher worked with CBC TV’s The Fifth Estate to produce an explosive documentary based on her book, "Until You Are Dead.” Truscott is interviewed in the documentary and vows to do everything in his power to clear his name. The program unveils what they claim is new evidence to suggest that police may have been too hasty in pinning the murder on Truscott. After the broadcast public clamor to clear Steven Truscott's name grew rapidly sparking a Truscott craze across the country and questions in Parliament.
James Lockyer, the Toronto lawyer who helped overturn the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin for the death of Christine Jessop in 1984, takes on Truscott's case.
2001 November 28: Lawyers for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted file a 700-page brief with the federal justice minister to have Truscott's case reopened, as the public outcry against the original jury decision grows into Truscott mania.
2002 January 24: The justice minister appoints retired Quebec judge Fred Kaufman, to assess the case under Section 690 of the Criminal Code. Kaufman can recommend that the case be retried or reviewed by an appellate court or that a pardon be issued.
2004 October 28: Justice Minister Irwin Cotler sends the case to the Ontario Court of Appeal to consider if new evidence would have changed the outcome of the 1959 trial.
2005 November 29: The justice minister releases the Kaufman Report. The 700-page report, dated April 19, 2004, says there was probably a miscarriage of justice in the Truscott case, but not enough new evidence to exonerate him.
2006 April 6: Lynne Harper's remains are exhumed from her grave in southwestern Ontario with her family's consent. The order to exhume was made by the Attorney General of Ontario to test for DNA evidence and hopefully to bring closure to the case.
2006 April 10: Ontario's chief coroner announces that medical examiners are unable to find any useable DNA evidence on the exhumed body of Lynne Harper.
2006 June 14: An Ontario judge orders journalists Julian Sher, Theresa Burke and CBC to hand over videotapes of two people interviewed for 2000 documentary about Truscott.
Ontario Court of Appeal Reviews Truscott’s Conviction
June 19, 2006: The Court of Appeal decides to review Truscott's conviction. Ontario's chief pathologist Michael Pollanen casts doubt on the exact time when Lynne Harper died. An original autopsy concluded that Lynne died in the early evening but Dr. Pollanen testified there wasn't enough evidence to draw that conclusion. He said she could have died during the time Truscott says he was with her or the following day.
June 21, 2006: Pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz testified that Dr. John Penistan, the original pathologist who looked at Harper's autopsy in 1959, was advanced, but said, "Maybe he was wrong." But at the end of the day, Spitz testified he stood behind Penistan's findings.
June 22, 2006: Retired Ontario Provincial Police Superintendent Harry Sayeau told the court that he and his police colleagues did not seek out other suspects in 1959. Mr. Sayeau testified they didn't inquire about existing sexual predators with other nearby Ontario Provincial Police, Crown offices, or the Royal Canadian Air Force.
June 26, 2006: Two experts present conflicting evidence using entomology, which uses the larval development of bugs to estimate the time of a person's death.
Dr. Neal Haskell, a forensic entomology professor from Purdue University, told the court larvae must have been deposited on Harper's body before sunset on June 9, 1959, sometime between 9 and 9:30 pm He said that means that Harper could have died anywhere between 7:15 and 9:30 pm
Elgin Brown, a biologist working at the Ontario attorney general's crime lab at the time of the murder, testified that maggots found on Harper's body 47 years ago were in the first stage of development and probably hatched at 2:30 pm on June 10, 1959. Brown's lab notes from the time indicated he believed the eggs were laid the next morning.
June 28, 2006: Sandra Stolzman and Elizabeth Hulbert testified that Jocelyn Goddette, a key child witness in Truscott's 1959 murder trial, admitted to a group of fellow resident nurses in Montreal in 1966 that she had lied under oath.
June 29, 2006: Forensic entomologist, Sherah VanLaerhoven, tells the Ontario Court of Appeal her review of the evidence suggests insects started laying eggs on Harper's body between 11 am, June 10, 1959 and 8 am the following morning. But VanLaerhoven admits she couldn't rule out the possibility Harper died before sunset on June 9, 1959.
June 30, 2006: Bob Lawson, the farmer who owns the property where Harper's body was found, testifies he saw a strange car parked near his fence line about 10:00 pm the night the 12-year-old disappeared. Lawson told the court he went to the guardhouse at the Royal Canadian Air Force Base in Clinton, to report the incident, but the officer on duty was not interested. (Lynn’s father reported his daughter missing at 11:20 pm)
July 5, 2006: For the Crown, Karen Jutsi, who was nine years old when she testified in Truscott's trial, said her original statement was reported incorrectly. At the murder trial, Jutsi, whose maiden name is Daum, said she was on the bridge when she saw Steven and Lynne on the county road sometime after 7 pm on June 9, 1959. She told the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2006 that she was not on the bridge when she saw Truscott, but near Lawson's bush where Harper's body was later found. Jutsi said she was shocked when she read her statement years later, because it was wrong.
July 6, 2006: During the final day of testimony at the Ontario Court of Appeal, renowned United Kingdom Pathologist Bernard Knight calls into question the key forensic evidence used to convict Steven Truscott in 1959. The retired professor, who wrote a standard textbook for pathologists, criticized coroner Dr. John Penistan's use of stomach content analysis to estimate the time of Lynne Harper's death
Dr. Nicholas Diamant, Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto, told the court that emotional stress can stop digestion for several hours and that in a normal person it can take up to six hours for food to leave the stomach. Since there was still food in her stomach the defence pathology evidence shows only that the window of opportunity extended to darkness on June 9. The Crown’s contention is that Truscott killed Lynne Harper before he returned to the school grounds and that claim remains viable.
2007 Jan. 31 – Feb 14: Lawyers for Steven Truscott and Ontario's Attorney General make their final arguments before the five appeal court judges overseeing the case. To satisfy the biased public, television cameras are allowed into the appeal court for the first time and the proceedings are broadcast live until they end two weeks later. The lawyers and each judge can now be seen, heard and evaluated individually by the public.
Steven Truscott Acquitted by the Ontario Court of Appeal
2007 Aug. 28: More than 48 years after the crime and every previous court denying the appeals, the Ontario Court overturns Truscott's conviction, declaring the case "a miscarriage of justice" that "must be quashed." Michael Bryant, Ontario's attorney general, tells reporters the Crown has no plans to appeal and offers Truscott an apology.
The court is satisfied that the fresh evidence and the new material before this court have significantly undermined the strength of each of the Crown’s four factual pillars:
First, on the issue of the time of Lynne Harper’s death, the pathology evidence that we have admitted as fresh renders the medical evidence heard in prior judicial proceedings, to the effect that Lynne must have died before 8 pm on June 9, scientifically untenable.
As for the second pillar of the Crown’s case, in the “Burns-Gellatly” cornerstone the archival material suggests that a credible case could be made that Philip Burns and Richard Gellatly did not leave the bridge at the same time and proceed in tandem south bound on the County Road. The archival material suggests a credible alternative theory that is consistent with the Court’s position that the appellant left the school around 7:20 pm and took Lynne on his bike along the County Road to the Highway 8 unseen.
As for the third pillar of the Crown’s case, in the County Road evidence, that pillar could be significantly weakened by the archival material which provides support for the claim that the appellant could reasonably believe that he saw the color of the license plate on the vehicle while standing on the bridge 1300 feet away.
The fourth pillar of the Crown’s case, the penis lesions evidence that so vividly demonstrated the appellant’s guilt at trial has been weakened to the extent that it is virtually no evidence at all.
For these reasons we have concluded that, while it cannot be said that no jury acting judicially could reasonably acquit, we are satisfied that if a new trial were possible, an acquittal would clearly be the more likely result.
Having regard to the highly unusual circumstances of this Reference, we have determined that the most appropriate remedy is to enter an acquittal. Accordingly, in the words of [s. 696.3(3) (ii) of the Criminal Code] the appeal is allowed, the conviction for murder is set aside and an acquittal entered.
Finally then as now, the crime scene continues to support the Crown’s theory as to how this crime was committed. The evidence does not exclude the possibility that Truscott was the killer.
In not finding Truscott innocent the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote: ". . . certain immutable facts cast some suspicion on Mr. Truscott. He was the last known person to see the victim alive and was with her at a location very close to where she was murdered.” Therefore the judges concluded that "the court is not satisfied that the appellant has been able to demonstrate his factual innocence."
Compensation for Steven Truscott
2008 April 16: Guelph Member of the Provincial Parliament (MPP) Liz Sandals tables a private members' motion for compensation for Truscott. It is supported by all parties.
2008 July 7: The Ontario government announces it will pay Truscott $6.5 million in compensation for his ordeal. Michael Bryant, former Ontario Attorney General, tells reporters the Crown has no plans to appeal and offers Truscott an apology.
As for Attorney General Michael Bryant's statement on the case, Truscott commented, "I know he apologized on behalf of the government. But I don't really feel that the apology was sincere."
Chris Bentley, Ontario's Attorney General said, "We are doing what we can to bring to the conclusion this remarkable aspect of Mr. Truscott's life's journey." Bentley went on to say that Ontario is paying it in full for now to ensure Truscott gets his compensation quickly.
Truscott is calling the Ontario government's C$6.5 million compensation package for his murder conviction "bittersweet." He says money will never truly pay back the years of his life lost while in prison. Truscott’s wife received C$100,000 and the federal/province paid C$990,000 in legal aid bills.
Friday, October 22, 2010
THIS POST DEDICATED TO STEVEN TRUSCOTT
STEVEN TRUSCOTT AND THE MURDER
OF 12-YEAR OLD LYNNE HARPER
This post is dedicated to Steven Truscott who very wisely said:
"I'm not asking for the world. Go over all the information. Investigate. Let the people know all the evidence, and let them judge for themselves. I'm not afraid of that. Why are they?"
Why did Steven Truscott propose a secret date with Jocelyne Goddette to see calves in the woods and then tell her not to tell anybody and to bring no one?
If Truscott wanted someone to see calves with he could ask his best friend, Butch George, or any other boys his age. He arranged to meet Jocelyne on the right-hand side of the county road just outside the fence by Lawson’s woods at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9, 1959 to show her a new calf, or whatever little boys and girls do far into the woods.
Why is it that when Jocelyne could not meet Steven until later?
She was about to eat a late supper and she may have been playing hard to get.
Why did Steven ride around aimlessly until he found Lynne Harper at the school?
Truscott was waiting anxiously and looking for Jocelyne for their meeting to see calves.
Why did Truscott bike back to the school and seek out Lynne Harper?
At a party the previous Friday 12-year old Lynne showed a lot of interest in Steven and asked him to dance, which they did for a short time.
Why was Lynne in a friendly, chatty mood while riding on the crossbar of Steven’s bike?
She was thrilled that a popular, athletic 14-year old boy would pay attention to her.
Why was Lynne Harper the victim in this case?
If it were not for the murder, the incident would mean no more than the fact that Steven had a tentative date arranged with Jocelyne Goddette. He wanted a date with a girl that day and he took Lynne Harper when Jocelyne was not available.
Why did Butch George tell kids looking for Steven that he saw him go into the bush with Lynne?
He did see them go into the bush and told Jocelyne and others who were looking for him.
When Truscott returned to the school why did a classmate ask him, “What did you do with Harper, feed her to the fish?”
The classmate was curious as to why Steven did not bring Lynne back from the bush.
Why did Truscott deny or call incorrect the statements and testimony of nearly every kid and adult witness in this case?
Truscott’s story was that he took Lynne to the Highway 8 intersection. Everyone else could be called a liar but that was his story and he was sticking to it. It makes no sense that ever kid and adult in this story is a liar except Steven Truscott.
Why did Mike George, a teenage relative of Butch George, tell Joyce Harrington, one of the mothers on the base, that Lynne Harper has been raped? This happened the day before Lynne’s body would be found in the bush.
It was the topic of conversation among most of Truscott’s classmates.
Why was it that Steven Truscott was found guilty of the murder of Lynne Harper by the original jury after watching and listening carefully to 74 witnesses?
The case would go to the jury with five witnesses saying that they did not see Truscott and Lynne on the road. Two of them were actively looking for him. So, even before Lynn’s body would be found several schoolmates were saying that Steven had gone into Lawson's Bush the evening she was murdered.
This may be what the original jury was thinking when they found Steven Truscott guilty of Lynne Harper’s murder: Steve Truscott did not take Lynne to Highway 8. Instead they left the county road before reaching the bridge over the Bayfield River. That is what most witnesses have maintained all along. Steve and Lynne crossed over a barbed wire fence and walked over 90 feet into 20 odd acres of wooded area beside the county road known as Lawson's Bush. There they did what many young boys and girls do in the woods and bushes to become better acquainted. Lynne took off her brown loafers and set them side by side, removed her socks and rolled them up with care, zipped up her blue shorts and laid them out neatly as they later would be found. She may have teased too much and gone too far; then tried to get Steven to stop. Now Truscott was too passionate and in no mood to stop. She may have said she would tell on him for trying to rape her. This and his frustration about his penetration may have caused him to strangle her, which he did so with her blouse. Lynne’s panties would be found in the woods 33 feet away.
Why was Steven Truscott’s statement about taking Lynne to the highway where he saw her hitch a ride not considered a true story by the jury?
The jury considered Truscott’s story not true for the following reasons:
The mysterious stranger who happens along within a few minutes after Steven left Lynne Harper all alone—would have to be the one stranger who would happen to kill her. (If Steven had been with Lynne when she got a ride the driver would have known that there would be a witness if anything happened to her.)
This mysterious stranger who just happens by the intersection must also happen to be a pedophile.
This stranger pedophile who just happens by must also happen to be in his raping, killing mood.
After being with a little 12-year old girl for several hours and not feeding her, this beat all-odds killer would reverse direction and return to the intersection where he picked up his victim. He would bring poor Lynne back to the very area where people are probably looking for the missing girl and are eyeing every strange movement.
But this pedophile without brains does not leave her out at the intersection. This hypothetical stranger goes a lot further. He turns and parks along the county road or turns left at the tractor trail and drives onto the 20-odd acre woodlot. There he stops the vehicle, opens the door, gets out, and leads his victim to Steven Truscott’s favorite spot.
There he rapes and strangles Lynne with her own blouse. He picks up her panties as a souvenir but drops them 33 feet away instead of taking them to his car.
This happens to be in the same bush area where Steven and Lynne were last seen together and where Lynne’s body will be found two days later.
What kind of person can act normally within hours after killing someone—a person who can kill one hour and party normally with friends the next?
The answer is: A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse and who is unable to feel guilt for such acts. In one word a psychopath
Why would anyone think this 14-year old boy could have killed his 12-year old classmate and still be calm and collected about it when he returned to his friends at the school?
Young Steven was a tough, cool kid. Today Mr. Truscott is a clever, devious man. Anyone who can convince authorities and the public to reduce his sentence from hanging until dead to ten years and freedom, and then rally tax-payers to give him C$6.5 million for a crime he committed and found guilty is capable of raping and killing a little 12 year old girl. O Canada has been duped, hoodwinked, and swindled by a smart, gutsy guy.
Why on Jan 20, 1960 did a five-judge Ontario Court unanimously dismiss Truscott's appeal?
The original trial was fair and in accordance with the law.
Why did the Canada Supreme Court rule 8-1 against Truscott getting a new trial?
After a two week hearing before the Supreme Court, Canada’s top judges ruled 8-1 against Truscott getting a new trial and he was returned to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. Those eight judges watched and listened carefully to Steven Truscott as he gave his testimony and it was clear to them that his testimony was vague and confused. Parts of the Truscott’s testimony were clearly inaccurate. In some respects, far from assisting Truscott, these inaccuracies tended to contradict the defence position. [2] The Supreme Court stated that “There were many incredibilities inherent in the evidence given by Truscott before us and we do not believe his testimony”
“The verdict of the jury, read in the light of the charge of the trial judge, makes it clear that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts, which they found to be established by the evidence which they accepted, were not only consistent with the guilt of Truscott but were inconsistent with any rational conclusion other than that Steven Truscott was the guilty person.
The lone dissenting voice came from Justice Emmett Hall. He said that having considered the case fully, he believes that the conviction should be quashed and a new trial directed. His view was that the trial was not conducted according to law and that even the guiltiest criminal must be tried according to law. He also said that does not mean that I consider Truscott guilty or innocent; that determination is for the jury and for the jury alone.
The Court ruled 8-1 that it would indeed have upheld the conviction on the basis that the conduct of the provincial trial was fair and legal. There would be no new trial.
Why did Truscott not blame his deplorable performance before the Supreme Court on himself?
Truscott believes he can do no wrong; other people are always the ones at fault. Steven
Truscott explains his deplorably bad performance by saying that his lawyers did not “adequately prepare” him for his testimony. Think about that one for a moment. Here we have the most notorious criminal case in Canadian history, an unprecedented hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada after an eight year public battle, the best criminal lawyers in the country, all this new expert evidence on human digestion that will exonerate wrongly convicted Steven Truscott – yet no one on the crack defense team thinks to prepare their star client for his testimony? How much preparation is required to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Why does the above explanation not smack of the very “incredibilities” those Supreme Court judges talk about?
It does.
Why is it that the public was bombarded with books, TV shows, magazine and newspaper reports supporting Truscott’s claim of innocence?
Three main reasons are money, sympathy, and fame.
Why did the Ontario Court of Appeal decide to review Truscott's conviction?
Two primary reasons are to satisfy the media and appease the public:
1. A media blitz to keep the Truscott story going, thereby increasing sales and profits.
2. Truscott mania by a public that prefers sound bytes and sympathetic statements instead of facts, logic, and critical thinking
Why did the Canadian government give Steven Truscott C$6.5 million in compensation?
Two primary reasons were to satisfy the media and appease the public.
Why was 14-year old Steven Truscott kept on death row for years waiting to be hanged?
He was not. Amid much controversy about the serious sentence, the Conservative government of Prime Minister Diefenbaker commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. Since his arrest Truscott had been under a death sentence for less than four months at the Huron County jail in Goderich.
Why was Steven Truscott imprisoned until he was 55-years old?
He was not. He served 10 years for killing Lynne Harper and released at age 24.
Why wasn’t that pedophile killer Sgt. Alexander Kalichuk arrested since his brand new car matched Truscott’s description?
It did not match. Truscott said he saw Lynne get into a grey 1959 Chevrolet Belair which he was able to recognize from the fins and the cats' eye shape to the tail lights. He was able to see it from 1300 feet away. Kalichuk’s car was a 1959 canary yellow Pontiac Stratochief
Why was that pedophile killer Sgt. Alexander Kalichuk not arrested for Lynne’s murder?
Questioned by Truscott’s lawyers, he always denied involvement in the murder of Lynne Harper. No evidence was ever found against Kalichuk and he was never arrested or charged. Kalichuk’s sexual offenses consisted of indecent exposure and of trying to get young girls into his car. There is no evidence that he ever got a girl into his car; they would run away after getting his license tag number.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)