Free At Last – Steven Truscott Vindicated

The small town of Clinton, Ontario is shocked by the brutal rape/murder of school girl Lynne Harper in June 1959.  Clinton is home to a tight-knit military base. The Harper and Truscott families both live on the base and know each other well. 

On the evening of June 9, 1959 twelve year old Lynne Harper disappears with her friend 14 year old Steven Truscott apparently being the last known person to see her alive.

Lynne Harper’s body is found June 11, 1959.  She has been brutally raped and strangled to death.  Police removing body.Steven Truscott is taken into custody and charged the next day with the crime.  He is ordered to be tried as an adult.

In September 1959 Truscott’s trial takes place and he is convicted.  The judge as required by law at that time sentences him to “to be hanged by the neck until he is dead”.  He is still the youngest person in Canada to ever be sentenced to death. Police mugshot of Steven Truscott, 1959Later in 1960 his death sentence is commuted to life in prison.  He is 14 years old.

March 24, 1966, Isabel LeBourdais’s book “The Trial of Steven Truscott” is published.  This book shocks the Canadian nation with its claims of Truscott’s innocent.  An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1967 is dismissed.

Meanwhile Truscott, who is now in Collins Bay Penitentiary in Kingston, Ontario (one of the toughest maximum security prisons in Canada), is released on parole October 21, 1969. He is 24 years old.

Lawyers from the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted request that the federal minister of justice review his case. The justice minister concludes in October 2004 that “a miscarriage of justice likely occurred”.  The Ontario Court of Appeal is ordered to hear his case.

Finally on August 28, 2007 the appeal court releases their decision and acquits him of the murder of Lynne Harper. 

Almost 50 years after his youth was taken from him, Truscott receives justice. Unfortunately Lynne Harper has not.  Her killer is still at large. The prosecutors in this case rushed to judgment in 1959 and in 2007 still are not admitting wrongdoing.  Shame on them. This could have been anyone of us who was railroaded into this conviction. It is sad that the justice system refuses to admit errors and worse still continues with the same mindset.

Mr. Truscott is now 62 years of age.  He is married and the father of three children. His family has supported him throughout the ordeal. Steven Truscott is free at last.

Advertisements

10 Responses to Free At Last – Steven Truscott Vindicated

  1. sammcdon says:

    Steven Truscott “Not Innocent”
    The Ontario Court of Appeal also wrote, “Before the Court of Appeal, Truscott sought not only an acquittal but an affirmative declaration of his innocence. The Court declined to issue a declaration of innocence because of …certain immutable facts casting suspicion on Mr. Truscott…in particular, the fact that he was the last person known to have seen Lynne Harper alive, and the fact that he was with her close to the location where she was murdered – made demonstrating his innocence particularly difficult.”

  2. sammcdon says:

    Until Truscott explains why he asked a girl friend into the woods to see calves rather than a boy or his friend George?

    Until someone can explain why Steven Truscott proposed a secret date with Jocelyne Goddette to see calves in the woods and told her not to tell anybody and not to bring anyone?

    Until someone can explain why Jocelyne would be looking for Steven Truscott on the right hand side of the county road if Truscott had not previously told her to meet him there?

    Until Truscott tells why he did not say in his book, “I dropped Lynne Harper off at the highway intersection.” He may have dropped Lynne off, but evidence shows that he did not drop her off at the highway because her body was found near where she was last seen with Truscott.

    Until someone explains why they accept Steven’s story that Lynne wanted a ride to the highway to see ponies and then when she got there decided instead to hitch-hike to who knows where?

    Until someone can explain the above five evidences of guilt, I will have full confidence that Steven Truscott murdered little 12-year-old Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush.

    Until someone can explain why anyone would believe Truscott’s story that Lynne wanted to go 1.2 miles to the highway to hitch-hike alone at 7:30 when she had to be home by 8:30 pm.

    Until someone explains why the Fifth Estate’s biased movie showed Lynne on the handle bars instead of the crossbar as was testified by Steven Truscott and every witness who saw them?

    Until someone can explain why generous good-hearted Steven Truscott, after taking Lynne 1.2 miles to the highway, would not offer to take her .3 miles further to the pony farm?  

    Until someone explains why a decent boy would take a petite 12-year-old girl friend on his bicycle cross-bar and then leave her alone at an isolated intersection one hour before dark.

    Until someone can explain why they believe Truscott’s story of Lynne hitch-hiking when there is absolutely no evidence that she was planning to leave her home and her parents and head east with the first stranger who picked her up.

    Until someone can explain the above five evidences of guilt, I will have full confidence that Steven Truscott murdered petite Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush.

    Until someone can give evidence that this young girl ever indicated the desire or disposition to run away from home.

    Until someone can explain why they accept Truscott’s kindness for taking Lynne to the highway, but forgive him for leaving his friend alone and not having a conversation with her. Truscott always said that he took her there, let her off, and rode slowly back to the bridge,
    just as the 2000 Fifth Estate biased movie shows.

    Until someone can explain why it is that when Truscott sees the girl friend he had just left alone, suddenly get into a stranger’s car, it never occurs to him to mention this tragic event to his friends at the bridge! If this story actually happened, even Truscott would have the maturity and decency to mention the tragedy to someone.

    Until Steven Truscott tells us why he told Mr. Harper only that Lynne wanted a ride to see some ponies and that he rode her to the Highway 8 where he left her unharmed.

    Until Steven Truscott tells us why he did not tell the concerned father that he left his daughter alone at the highway 8 intersection, I will have confidence that Truscott killed Lynne Harper.

    Until Steven Truscott tells us why he did not even tell the worried father that he was sorry for taking his little girl far away and leaving her all alone one hour before dark.

    Until Truscott tells us why he did not tell the worried father his favorite story that he saw her hitch-hiking to who knows where.

    Until Steven Truscott tells us why he did not tell the grieving father that he saw Lynne get into a stranger’s 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and that he saw the car speeding east down highway 8. He saves that story for his first police interview.

    Until someone can explain the above eight evidences of guilt, we should have full confidence that StevenTruscott murdered Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush.

    Until Truscott tells why he would tell his unbelievable story to the police that morning, but not earlier to the grieving father?

    Until Truscott supporters can explain why they believe, without question, his wild unbelievable story that a mysterious stranger picked Lynne up on the highway, rode around with her for hours without feeding her, reversed his direction and returned her, not to the intersection where he picked her up, but to kill her in Truscott’s favorite place in a dark 20 acre bush; all without leaving one piece of evidence that he was there.

    Until someone can explain how it could happen that a driver or passenger on this fairly busy highway did not report seeing a girl or boy, or girl and boy, or a distinct racer bike during the 10 or so minutes that Steven Truscott says they were there.

    Until someone can explain why anyone would believe the made up unbelievable story that the first car to stop for Lynne would happen to be a mysterious stranger who would harm her?

    Until Truscott supporters can explain why they believe, against all odds, that the stranger would also happen to be a pedophile.

    Until someone explains how this brainless pedophile would, in the dark, happen to pick the same woodlot that Truscott said he and Lynne rode by just a few hours earlier.

    Until someone explains how a sex-crazed pedophile would, in the dark 20 acre brush, find Truscott’s favorite area and then kill Lynne in Truscott’s favorite place.

    Until someone can explain the above seven evidences of guilt, we are confident that Truscott murdered Lynne Harper.

    Until Steven Truscott has a believable reason why he had two raw lesions the size of quarters on either side of his penis shaft just days after Lynne’s attempted rape and murder?

    Until Steven Truscott tells us why it was when friends teased him about being in the woods with Lynne, he told them a story about looking for calves in the bush. When police questioned him, he invented a new Chevrolet at the highway. When his penis sores were found his stories changed with every telling.

    Until Truscott explains why he would say, “I was in the woods chasing a cow”, if he had actually taken Lynne to Highway 8.

    Until Steven Truscott tells us that he really did tell the truth to three different police officers that he and Richard Gellanty passed each other before reaching the bush and that he later lied under oath that he did not see Gellanty. Truscott also testified falsely that he never told any police officer that he saw or passed Gellanty.

    Until someone explains why the public accepts every false sound bite about Kalichuk as true, but will not consider evidence and facts that prove he could not be Lynne’s killer. The 900 page file retrieved by Fifth Estate has no hint that Kalichuk showed violence toward anyone. Truscott maintains he saw Lynne get into a new grey Chevy; Kalichuk owned a 1952 yellow Pontiac. 5

    Until someone can explain why Truscott supporters ignore the judgment of Canada’s Supreme Court justices who made it clear that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts, which they found established by 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.

    Until someone can explain each of the above evidences of guilt, I have full confidence that Steven Truscott murdered Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush on June 9, 1959, and that he would then spend the rest of his life fooling with the Canadian people.

    We continue with the proposition that facts don’t lie, so let’s stick with the facts in Steven Truscott’s long journey. (3)

  3. AP Aidan Paris: I believe that there is evidence that you have failed to mention in you comment:

    SDM Samuel Dennis McDonough I thank you Mr Paris for your comments. The following replies marked SDM are excerpts from my book “Steven Truscott and the Murder of Lynne Harper.”

    AP Aidan Paris 1. There were known pedophiles and rapists in the area. One, Alexander Kalichuk, a known pedophile on the base near Clinton, was arrested three weeks before Lynne’s death. He was later released 12 days before her body was found. He was arrested for attempting to lure two little girls into his car. A psychiatrist reported that Mr. Kalichuk was suffering from overwhelming anxiety, tension, depression and guilt. All the evidence points towards the possibility of Mr. Kalichuk being the killer however, the police focused their investigation on Steven Truscott who showed no signs of outward guilt or anxiety. It may be said that Steven is a psychopath however, since his release Steven has had a clean criminal record. If he was a psychopath Steven would be pushed to murder another person, discounting this theory.

    SDM Sam Dennis McDonough
    No evidence was ever found against Kalichuk and he was never arrested or charged. No evidence he was anywhere near Highway 8 and the County Road on June 9, 1959.
    Questioned by authorities, Sergeant Kalichuk always denied involvement in the murder of Lynne Harper. No evidence was ever found against Kalichuk and he was never arrested or charged. L 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 in his car; they would run away after getting his license tag number.

    Lynne Harper lost her life but may have saved other innocent girls from losing their lives. Maybe while in prison Truscott learned to control his tough-boy tendencies. He was never charged with another crime; instead he set his goal to convince himself and everyone else that he was not the killer. The gullible public did him one better—awarded him C$6.5 million dollars for his crime.

    AP 2. The time of death reported to the jury (7:00-7:45 PM) was doctored so that it would incriminate Steven as he was with Harper by his own admission. The pathologist later reported that the actual time of death was 9:00-9:30 PM, meaning that Steven was babysitting his siblings at the time of death.

    SDM The regional pathologist, Dr Penistan, said that most of Lynne’s last meal was still in her stomach and in the early phase of digestion. By that account he reasoned that Lynne died about two hours after eating, which was between 5:30 and 5:45 pm. He was a doctor, a pathologist, who gave his honest opinion in 1959. Later, surrounded by Truscott mania he changed his opinion.
    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 Dr. Penistan’s findings.
    June 29, 2006: Entomologist, Sherah VanLaerhoven, tells the Ontario Court that her review of the evidence suggests that 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 that Harper died before sunset on June 9, 1959.

    Despite testimony of the new defence witnesses, the Crown’s contention that Truscott killed Lynne Harper before 8:00 pm remains viable.

    AP 3. The position of the body was located before the bridge at which Gordon Logan identified both Truscott and Harper. At this point is seemed that Harper was alive and when Truscott returned, Harper was not with him, making it impossible for Truscott to place the body where it was found.

    SDM Gordon “Gord” Logan, who was 12 and family friends of the Truscotts, was fishing in the river. Let’s say that Gord really did see Steven and Lynne on their way to the highway and saw Steven come back alone, stop at the bridge and look back toward the highway. Did Steven say anything to his friend about Lynne getting a ride so quickly, and in a brand new car? Did he say anything at all to Gord?” When he returned to the school did Truscott say anything about Lynne getting a ride quickly and in a brand new car? The evidence is that when he was asked if he fed Lynne to the fish his only reply was that he took her to Highway 8.

    Decision of Supreme Court Justices on the Appeal:
    After a two week hearing before the Supreme Court, Canada’s top judges ruled 8-1 against Truscott getting a new trial; he was returned to prison to serve the remainder of his life sentence. The judges watched, listened to, and questioned Truscott as he testified and it was clear to them that his testimony was vague and confused.
    Steven’s testimony differed from the evidence given by all the witnesses who described his movements at home and on the road between 5:50 and 7:00 pm. Parts of Truscott’s testimony were clearly inaccurate. In some respects, far from assisting Truscott, the 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.” Supreme Court decision, 1967
    Supreme Court Justices watched, listened to, and questioned 26 witnesses, including Steven Truscott and his three friends. It was clear to them that their testimony was no believable. It was also clear to the original jury in1959.

    AP As well, Steven could not have been held partly responsible as Harper asked Steven to give her a ride to the highway, something he did kindly. As Harper has her own volition and Steven did not ask her to get in the vehicle he could not have been held responsible. Besides, Steven could not have done anything as Harper was already getting into a vehicle as he was leaving.

    SDM It appears that people who have not analyzed this case believe every word that Truscott spoke is true and the dozens of other witnesses who testified are liars. The evidence is that Truscott changed his stories several times and lied before the Supreme Court.
    There is absolutely no evidence that Lynne ever said she wanted to go to the highway to hitchhike. This is only Truscott’s story, as unbelievable as it is.
    What are some reasons why Steven Truscott’s hitch-hike story is a lie?

    Lynne would not go 1.2 miles to the highway to hitch-hike at 7:30 pm if she had to be home by 8:30 pm.

    Lynne was wearing only shorts, a sleeveless blouse and loafers. Even on a summer evening this is no outfit for hitch-hiking.

    Lynne’s nearest relative was 80 miles away. It was one hour before dark, she was wearing shorts and a sleeveless blouse, was carrying nothing, and had no money
    Perhaps it was Truscott’s kind heart that caused him to give his young 12-year old girl friend a ride down the road. Unfortunately, this character of kindness was unable to wait a few minutes until the little girl hitched a ride. If he had been with or near Lynne when she got a ride the driver would have known that there would be a witness if anything happened to her.

    AP The account of a key child witness, Jocelyne Gaudet, was incorrect as the timing was incorrect and there was no mention of Steven in her account.
    SDM June 9, Tuesday: Jocelyne Goddette testified before the Supreme Court that Steven Truscott reminded her to meet him on the right side of the County Road “just outside the fence by the woods” at 6:00. He said to keep it quiet and to come alone because Lawson didn’t like a bunch of kids on his property.
    5:50 pm – Goddette testified that Steven called at her house and she told him she could not come out now because they were eating and that she would meet him later. Truscott testified that he did not contact Goddette that evening.

    June 9 – Tuesday Evening: 7:15-7:20 pm – Burns walking behind Gellatly does not see Steven and Lynne pass by on their way to the highway. Had Truscott disappeared with the girl into Lawson’s bush; the same bush where Jocelyne is looking and where Lynne’s body will be found two days later?

    AP As Stamperdad said, you are entitled to your own opinion however, you have overlooked some evidence that points to the innocence of Steven Truscott. Not only is this a miscarriage of justice but, it highlights the tunnel-vision that the investigators fell victim to during the proceedings of their investigation. Steven owes nothing to the Harper’s as all the evidence points to the fact that Steven is innocent, only the destruction of evidence by time prevents the declaration of innocence rather than an In not finding Truscott innocent.

    SDM The Ontario Court of Appeal wrote, “Before the Court of Appeal, Truscott sought not only an acquittal, but an affirmative declaration of his innocence. The Court of Appeal declined to issue the declaration. It was of the view that Mr. Truscott had not, in fact, demonstrated his innocence.”
    “…certain immutable facts casting suspicion on Mr. Truscott – in particular, the fact that he was the last person known to have seen Lynne Harper alive, and the fact that he was with her close to the location where she was murdered – made demonstrating his innocence particularly difficult.”

    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.

    SDM My greatest passion is to search for the truth in real crimes. I first heard about the Truscott – Harper crime in late August, 2010 when it was shown on Discovery ID. The show was interesting but I had a problem with the outcome. As crimes go, this was a simple crime and easy to see who was guilty.

    I was unaware that so many people had such passionate feelings about this incident until I posted on the internet. Everyone is right: a wrong was done in this case. By ignoring half-truths and simple thoughts and by looking objectively at the facts and logical evidence, it is clear that the wrong was done in this case to the victim and her family.
    Like everyone, I hate to see the innocent go to prison and I do not like to see the guilty free to kill again. But even more, I really hate to see a killer get well paid for His crime.
    If you would like to know all the facts in this case, including the crime, the jury trial, the first appeal rejection, the 8 to 1 ruling against Truscott by the Supreme Court of Canada, the books proclaiming Truscott’s innocence, the Ontario Court of Appeal, and the compensation package, please read my book: Steven Truscott and the Murder of 12-year old Lynne Harper. It can be purchased at Lulu.com at a great discount, either print or download.

    Sam Dennis McDonough

  4. Sam McDonough says:

    🙂 If you wish to read all of the evidence and facts go to Lulu.com and look for the newly published “Steven Truscott and the Murder of 12-Year Old Lynne Harper”

  5. sammcdon says:

    IF STEVEN TRUSCOTT’S STORY WERE TRUE:
    Gordon “Gord” Logan, who was 12 and family friends of the Truscott’s, was fishing in the river about 640 feet away from the bridge. Let’s say that Gord saw Steven and Lynne on their way to the highway and saw Steven come back alone, stop at the bridge and look back toward the highway. Did Steven say anything to his friend about Lynne getting a ride so quickly? Did he say anything at all to Gord” Evidently not.
    Perhaps it was Truscott’s kind heart that caused him to give his young 12-year old girl friend a ride down the road. Unfortunately, this character of kindness was unable to wait a few minutes until the little girl hitched a ride. If he 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. (Maybe Steven was in a hurry to meet up with his other girlfriend. It matters not because the real evidence shows that Trescott made up the hitch-hike story.)

    Even if Truscott’s unbelievable story were true he still should be held partly responsible for Lynne’s death because he took her to a vulnerable spot and left her all alone. At the very least he should give the C$6.5 million to the Harper family and consider the ten years in prison as justice deserved.

    This post is dedicated to Mr. 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?”

    A FEW WORDS ABOUT TRUTH, CRITICAL THINKING AND THIS CRIME

    It makes no sense that every kid and adult in this story is a liar except Steven Truscott.

    It makes even less sense that the stranger who happened along within a few minutes after Steven left Lynne Harper all alone–was the one stranger who would happen to kill her.

    It makes absolutely no sense that this stranger who just happened by also just happened to be a pedophile and who just happened to be in his raping, killing mood.

    It makes absolutely no sense at all that this stranger pedophile would drive miles away and then turn-around and bring poor Lynne back to the very area where people are looking for the missing girl and are eyeing every strange movement.

    There he would defy all logic by parking his car near the road, walking or dragging her into the woods, laying out her clothes neatly, raping her, and strangling her, and then throwing her panties 33 feet away—doing it all in the dark and in the very area where people are searching for her. This happens to be in the same area where Steven and Lynne were last seen together and where Lynne’s body will be found.

    The difference between real crime and TV crime is that in real crimes we should think with our heads and not our hearts.

    I would like to point out that the legal system that acquitted Steven Truscott in 2007 made their decision 48 years after the crime was committed. It appears that they were driven to their opinion by Truscott mania.

    On the other hand, the legal system that unanimously found Truscott guilty in 1959 was based on reliable testimonies from real live witnesses who were actually involved in the incident. They were not under duress during their decision making process.

    In 1960, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Steven Truscott’s appeal. Canada’s top judges ruled 8 – 1 against Truscott getting a new trial. The judges found Truscott’s testimony confused and vague. To be fair, Truscott did say that his lawyers (all highly qualified) did not properly prepare him for his testimony before the Court of Appeal. (How much time and effort does it take to prepare yourself to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?)
    In not finding Truscott innocent one court of appeal wrote as follows: “. . . 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.”

    Consider the evidence, dear reader, with an open mind. Picture objectively the only two routes that can be considered. Either Truscott rode Lynne to the highway intersection and left her there alone to an unknown fate or he took her into Lawson’s bush to look for a calf, or whatever. This would be the same Lawson’s bush where Lynne’s body will be found two days later.

    Then consider what the only jury of his peers actually saw and heard from the witnesses directly involved in this incident; the same jury that in 1959 unanimously found Truscott guilty of murder. Among the overwhelming evidence presented was that his own friends and classmates were teasing him about being in Lawson’s bush with Lynne and what may have happened to her. These conversations took place in the days BEFORE Lynne’s body was found.

    Consider every piece of evidence objectively. Especially, do consider that Truscott did see Lynne get into a car and speed off down the highway. Consider the different scenarios and all of the possible psychopaths and pedophiles who could have picked her up within the few minutes of being left alone by Steven. Consider every possibility no matter how unlikely it may be. Then objectively see if it fits into the overall picture of this crime.

    To the minds of many inquisitive Canadians the rendition of events makes Steven Truscott’s innocence highly unlikely. It appears that Truscott’s reduced prison sentence and campaign for innocence were driven mostly by tainted media advocacy.

    The facts of this case implicating Steven Truscott go well beyond preponderance of the evidence, they comprise a moral certainty.

    • stamperdad says:

      You are entitled to your opinion. Appreciate you taking the time to read. I believe he did not kill Lynne.

    • Aidan Paris says:

      I believe that there is evidence that you have failed to mention in you comment:

      1. There were known pedophiles and rapists in the area. One, Alexander Kalichuk, a known pedophile on the base near Clinton, was arrested three weeks before Lynne’s death. He was later released 12 days before her body was found. He was arrested for attempting to lure two little girls into his car. A psychiatrist reported that Mr. Kalichuk was suffering from overwhelming anxiety, tension, depression and guilt. All the evidence points towards the possibility of Mr. Kalichuk being the killer however, the police focused their investigation on Steven Truscott who showed no signs of outward guilt or anxiety. It may be said that Steven is a psychopath however, since his release, Steven has had a clean criminal record. If he was a psychopath Steven would be pushed to murder another person, discounting this theory.

      2. The time of death reported to the jury (7:00-7:45 PM) was doctored so that it would incriminate Steven as he was with Harper by his own admission. The pathologist later reported that the actual time of death was 9:00-9:30 PM, meaning that Steven was baby-sitting his siblings at the time of death.

      3. The position of the body was located before the bridge at which Gordon Logan identified both Truscott and Harper. At this point is seemed that Harper was alive and when Truscott returned, Harper was not with him, making it impossible for Truscott to place the body where it was found.

      As well, Steven could not have been held partly responsible as Harper asked Steven to give her a ride to the highway, something he did kindly. As Harper has her own volition and Steven did not ask her to get in the vehicle he could not have been held responsible. Besides, Steven could not have done anything as Harper was already getting into a vehicle as he was leaving.

      The account of a key child witness, Jocelyne Gaudet, was incorrect as the timing was incorrect and there was no mention of Steven in her account.

      As Stamperdad said, you are entitled to your own opinion however, you have overlooked a some evidence that points to the innocence of Steven Truscott. Not only is this a miscarriage of justice but, it highlights the tunnel-vision that the investigators fell victim to during the proceedings of their investigation. Steven owes nothing to the Harper’s as all the evidence points to the fact that Steven is innocent, only the destruction of evidence by time prevents the declaration of innocence rather than an
      acquittal. Steven Truscott is innocent.

      • stamperdad says:

        Aidan thanks for outlining this in excellent short understandable form. My original post simply meant to bring attention to what I believe was a horrible miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately in a blog post it is difficult to cover all the facts of the case. You have done a fine job of pointing out things that were not known at the time or that were ignored.

        Steve

  6. Cindy says:

    Hi Honey – this story makes me cry

Please feel free to leave a comment. Be kind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: