Canadian cleared of 1959 murder

[demoleft]

Source: BBC

The youngest Canadian ever to face a death sentence has been acquitted of rape and murder, 48 years after he was sentenced to hang at the age of 14.

The Ontario court unanimously ruled that the conviction of Steven Truscott, now aged 62, was "a miscarriage of justice, and must be quashed".

Mr Truscott was convicted of raping and killing Lynne Harper, 12, in southern Ontario, in 1959.
...

However, the appeal court heard that pathology evidence showed the time was "scientifically untenable", and that Lynne Harper could have died as much as a day later, when Mr Truscott was in school.



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6968587.stm

---

So much for death penalty arguments and discussions. The "government apologies" were offered to Mr. Truscott (now 62).

[Kagemusha]

1. Well isn't that ironic... the death penalty was abandoned just in case he was innocent

but they kept him all this time, just in case he was guilty.

[Minstrel Boy]

2. wrong

He was paroled in 1969.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/truscott/

[Kagemusha]

3. ...Wow, I'm sorry. All of the excerpts about the case I'd seen omitted that.

I found that very odd but the media acted like he'd been kept behind bars all this time. My apologies for being misinformed.

[JenniferJuniper]

4. He's still the most likely suspect

[demoleft]

5. A living "suspect" is better than a hanged one!

I don't know the case so I don't question.
But the court decision proves that death penalty would have been a mistake.

[Canuckistanian]

6. Sez who?

You're obviously not Canadian if you think he's a likely suspect. This has been a famous case of injustice here ever since the early 1960's. The arrest and conviction of Steven Truscott has been protested as a travesty of justice ever since I was a child. I'm almost 50 now.

Truscott was convicted on evidence from extremely shoddy police work, a questionable autopsy report and suppressed exculpatory evidence at his trial.



Even the justice system knows he's innocent - the only delay here is basically admitting that they were wrong.

Read about it here:
http://www.injusticebusters.com/04/Truscott.shtml

And as for being the most likely suspect? I beg to differ. There WAS another, more likely suspect:

Kalichuk: Possible suspect?
Sgt. Kalichuk was a troubled man, a heavy drinker with a history of sexual offenses. He lived in a farmhouse less than a 20 minute drive from the Clinton base. He worked as a supply technician there until 1957. He transferred to another base, in Aylmer, about a one hour drive away, but made frequent trips back to Clinton ... where Lynn Harper's father was the senior supply officer.

Had attempted to lure a young girl to his car
Just about three weeks before Lynn Harper's murder, he stopped three young farm girls on a country road outside St. Thomas, Ontario. He tried to lure one of them, a 10-year old, into his car - offering a gift of new underwear. He left when he saw the girl's father approaching ... but was later arrested by the OPP and charged.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/truscott/file.html

So, what information do you have?

[JenniferJuniper]

8. Sez me

I know quite a bit about the case, and I'm not suggesting I agree with the original verdict. I completely concur that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction, and most certainly not for a death sentence. But there is a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty".

He remains a suspect for several reasons, however, not the least of which being that he was the person last known to be with her.

[daleo]

9. If he is really a "suspect", they would re-try the case

But they won't, so it isn't fair to use terminology like that.

By that reasoning Jackie Kennedy was the most likely suspect in the JFK case - after all, she was the last person to see him alive, and nobody was ever tried and convicted for the murder.

[JenniferJuniper]

10. I'm sorry

but that is not a good analogy. Jackie Kennedy was one of several people with her husband and the event was witnessed by scores more. And filmed. This is an entirely different situation.

You may not like it, but "suspect" is the correct word. Someone killed that poor child and the case has never been solved. This boy was with her just before she went missing. He's a suspect.

[daleo]

13. There are many other possible suspects

In fact, he is the only one that has been tried and acquitted, so it is not reasonable to call him the "most likely suspect". In that sense he is the "least likely suspect".

[Canuckistanian]

12. Who's suspecting him?

The police? The police work involved has been discredited by many, many experts, especially the autopsy report, which was almost a work of pure fiction. And his conviction was based largely on that evidence.

The police themselves admit that they ignored several avenues of investigation. Any cop who still thinks Truscott guilty is deluding themselves. This was a rushed arrest based on little or no evidence, probably under great pressure from officials at the time. Hardly anything to be proud of.

And the fact that he was the last seen with Lynne Harper before she died means nothing by itself.

Lastly, there's motive. Why would he kill a friend and classmate? By all accounts, he was a normal, active boy from a good family. And he served his sentence as a model inmate, never once showing any signs of mental disturbance or admitting to the murder. He even submitted himself to psychiatric tests to help clear his name.

After all this, I'd say the only people to suspect him still are the ones trying to cover their own asses or to try and recover from their mistakes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/truscott/

[TrogL]

14. OK, so what are the rest of them?

It's been awhile since I've read "The Trial of Stephen Truscott" but I seem to remember the most damning piece of evidence being blisters on his penis, which can easily be caused by tight jeans (typical on a growing boy) or wanking off.

[Spazito]

7. Really?? Based on what? If you had followed the case for years

as most Canadians have, you would not make that statement. Have you followed the case? If you have not, here might be a good place to start:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/truscott/

[HuffleClaw]

11. and it only took 'em what? 20 years?

to finally admit his innocence?