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.