Stephen Truscott Acquited!

Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of all this is why it took so long. Truscott’s case had been superbly presented in the book, The Trial Of Stephen Truscott, by Isabel LeBourdais, published in 1966. Many Justice Ministers and the Supreme Court have always refused to see what was obvious to many – that Stephen Truscott was innocent of murder.

Congratulations, Mr. Truscott!

Story here.

And here.

29 responses to “Stephen Truscott Acquited!

  1. I am so proud of you Mr. Truscott, now you can sleep at night and enjoy your life, as you should have….. Way to go!!!!

  2. Mr. Truscoot, you make Canadians proud! Your speech on your acquittal was truly awesome. May you enjoy many years of peace, you truly deserve them. I read the book “Who Killed Lynne Harper” when I was 14 & I knew then you were not guilty. When the latest book came out, I was so angry that you had spent so many years under the shadow of her death, when it was so obvious that you should never have been convicted.
    I wish all the very best for you and your family.

  3. I lived on the beach at Ipperwash where my father travelled that road that lynne Harper was murdered on many many times. He is a much more likely suspect than Stephen Truscott. He was a drunken child molester who wore a uniform. He was a huge man with a car very simular to the one stephen described. He molested two of his own daughters and made open attempts to molest the girls I played with at approx. the same age as lynn was when she died.I was a little girl of only two at the time of lynn’s death. I vaguely remember bringing home the book about his innocence when I was in grade school and my father told me outright that they had convicted the wrong person and to get that book the “hell out of the house.” He was stationed at the army base in Ipperwash and I heard stories of him coming home with blood on his cloths and strange goings on over the years. I was pushed out of my family home by my mother and father when it became apparent that I was going to let the world know what my father was doing to me. Many years later after going into recovery I realized he must have done it to more than just me. I thought for many years that I had imagined the whole thing. I got treated like a leaper by my mother as she was so afraid the world was going to find out that the Howards were not a normal family living the good life on the same street as Johnny Cash’s manager in London Ontario. Just recently I saw a girl I grew up with and she relayed to me that my father had attempted to feel all the neighborhood girls crotches while they were in our swimming pool when we were all about 10 or eleven years old. I can remember thinking I had done something terrible back then because all of a sudden no one was aloud to come to my house any more. My oldest sister finally told me I was not losing my mind, that my thoughts were real not imagined. I confronted my mother after my father passed and Her reply startled me. It was,”not his own children” He couldn’t have” I understand now she new he had done it to some one but never thought he could hurt his own children. She is gone now so my telling this story can not hurt her. She was a victim of his to. She was afraid of his gun in his sock drawer and the bullets in his hanky drawer just as much as I was. He is probably responsible for things the army covered up because he was honourably discharged in 1967 but was put in hospital for what we were told was a back injury. He should be my hero. He fought in WW2 as a Canloan Officer at the age of 17. He went to Korea and we lived in Germany for three years. I imagine the fact that we moved constantly helped him hide his fetish for young girls really well. I have nightmares every night now thinking he could be responsible for that girls death and many other unsolved crimes. He was so bold as to do this in our swimming pool with six girls in the pool. Imagine what he did in countries where the women were helpless to do anything. He was a monster and I have it in my heart that Stephen is innocent and someone should look into Eric Howard a paratrooper who would have travelled that exact road to the airforce base from ipperwash. The army doesn’t give out the records of their men without alot of good reason and paperwork. I am the youngest daughter and although my sister has helped me by teilling me it happened to her almost daily when he was home, she doesn’t go into any detail. Also she recently told me she has not forgiven him yet. I have forgiven my mother as she as me to but I truly believe he did more on this earth than just destroy my sister and I. I have a middle sister who is right out of her mind and lives in some fantasy land, believes that my mother had an affair and she is not his child. She has never spoke of anything he did to her,she has it in her head that someone molested her but isn’t sure who. I think she is blocking it out as I did for many years. I wish someone would look into where my father was the day that poor girl died. I have always felt terrible for Mr. Truscott. He is not a man who could do this thing. I know what a man is like who can do this thing. I was raised in his crazy violent incestuous world and men who murder and rape don’t just do it once and never again. Raping young girls and strangling them takes a very special type of man. Not a fourteen year old boy who never touched another women in a harmful way again. My father was a prejudiced, violent drunk who took what he wanted when he wanted and the consequences never mattered to him. He hit the boy across the street over the head with a hammer knowing full well the kids father was a councillor at my school. Our neighbors all knew what he was doing and were so afraid of him they did nothing. They knew we were in terrible danger and I know this for sure now as the girl who told me she had been hurt in the pool told her parents and all the other parents stopped their kids from coming around me. I have contacted another girl I was best friends with until the pool incident and she wants nothing to do with that part of our lives. but did verify for me that it was nothing for me to worry about know and not to feel to blame for what he had tried with her and mary. Mary also told me not to feel like it had affected her life in any terrible way. She even said also that it wasn’t my fault. My councillor lived across the street, could hear my father bellowing and hitting us and his own son and Mr. McCarther did nothing. I was on a bus one day at the age of thirty-five and the women who lived across the street from us, Mrs. Masseo asked me If I was alright now, did I ever get help for what happened to us. I couldn’t believe my ears. She too did nothing. No wonder Lynn harper is dead and her killer is still either dead or free. I think he died twenty years ago at the ripe old age of 62. This man lived in the world she lived in and no one even looked in his direction. Even if he didn’t do it, he was a much more likely suspect than that young man. My father used to tell stories about ringing the necks of those little nips,I assume he was talking about the koreans and I was and still am disgusted by this horror I had to hear everyday. He enjoyed strangling people. He was extremely intelligant and this is how he got away with what he did. he was six foot two and huge. His intelligance and the fear he instilled in people kept him free. I am disgusted that all those people around us knew and just left us to our own defenses. I hope someday they find out if he or someone like him did this so Mr. Truscott can be totally free of this. I have a picture of my mom and dad and sister with a car in the background at aprox. that time period. It looks like the car stephen describes. Someone should check the Ipperwash police records back then. Something in my memory says that something went on in the bowling alley next door to our house. It got torn down in 63 and changed to the Sands restaurant but the Hyrans and I am not spelling that right, owned it. Just maybe someone should look in another direction. A child molester who would have business at the airforce base because he was a paratrooper would make more sense to me that Stephen. I know for sure he is a child molester because my sister and I and my neighborhood friends all know how much he liked 10 to 12 year old girls. I have a friend I can’t find named Adrienne Whiley and I hope she was not his last victim. I ran away from home at a young age so their is a time period in the early seventies that I had no contact with any of the people from where I grew up. When my dad realized I was no longer that afraid of him he told my mother I was no longer welcome in their home. I only kept my mouth shut because my mother and my brother still had to live with him, or so I thought.

  4. That is a very sad story. Have you contacted the police? I do not know if the case is “re-openable” but you seem to be offering profound evidence. Perhaps you should contact someone in the media ?

  5. I have emailed the london police but the story sounds so vague I think they are just ignoring it or there is nothing we can do about it now. Steven truscott could not find any DNA to help his case, I was hoping that I could use mine to prove a relative of mine did it so Mr. Truscott would not just be acquitted but proven innocent. My father is probably responsible for three other similar murder rapes in london Ontario, in 56 Susan Cadieux, my parents lived in London with my two sisters just before I was born in 57, then when he was returned from Cypress he was discharged from the army and Jackie English and Jackie Dunleavy were murdered. We lived very close to the Dunleavy’s and she went to the same school as my older sister. The dates of all these murders coincide with him being there at that exact time. the listing of these murders on another blog site recently just jumped off the page at me when I saw it. It is breaking my heart to think that there is absolutely nothing I can do to help their families, even if my father was innocent, I feel terrible for them. My father was doing strange things to all three girls at home everyday, I was just so young I thought all fathers examined their daughters like he did to make sure they were dried properly. I pray to God every night for guidance, to tell me what to do to take my guilt away for keeping quiet as a child and as an adult. I Hope for the parents and sisters and brothers of those girls, that they find peace in their hearts. I wish I could prove who did these horrible things, as I know what it is like to survive them, so I know how their families feel. My father turned three intelligent girls into a complete disaster. We are all extremely smart, but wasted most of our lives just trying to forget and survive. He is dead and somehow he is still hurting people, because the memories of what he has done has run my life for the last 40 years. The other cases I mentioned are even more likely to have been my father, and I am hoping now that I have made my beliefs about them public that no matter what happens, I can feel free of it. I wish I had of realized about the London murders sooner, It really hit it home when I saw the dates. Of course the Susan in56 date is one I am not positive of the exact date my parents lived in London just before I was born, but the others I know it was like a madhouse at home during those times, his drinking was out of control, he was threatening us with his big hands and screaming and breaking things, My mother thought if she was out of the picture he wouldn’t have anyone to fit with so during these really bad times with him she would go to work and then straight to bingo. She was wrong, he just took it out on us. Being discharged was what we thought had sent him over the edge. well I truly hope these families find the peace they deserve, and even though we like to think that closure will make everything better, I truly believe sometimes it is better not to know the whole truth. Instead of wondering, I will probably hate myself even more for hurting them. But I want it out where the world can see that if people would speak to someone about what is going on around them, it could save lives.

  6. A FEW WORDS ABOUT TRUTH, COMMON SENSE 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 take 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 her into the woods, laying out her clothes neatly, raping her, and strangling her—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 Lynn’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.

    The Clue Master SDM

  7. I first heard about this crime about two weeks ago when it was shown on Discover ID. As crimes go, this was a simple crime and easy to see who was guilty. I did not know that Canadians had such strong feelings about this incident until I posted my article.

    I search for the truth in real crimes. The same as you, 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 hate to see a killer get well paid for his crime.

    No, I will not let it go. You are right about one thing. It makes no sense to believe Steven Harper was guilty. But there is a ton of logical evidence that Steven Trescott strangled poor Lynne to death.

    IF STEVEN TRUSCOTT’S STORY WERE TRUE:
    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.

    The Clue Master SDM

  8. That’s a crazy way to look at it, I guess you would like to see children do time for thought crimes as well. Let it go, dude. Justice was done. You seem like you are just trying to find opportunity in taking a different view for whatever personal gain.

  9. 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. And they were not under duress during their decision making process.

    In 1960, new forensic evidence was presented on his behalf, and Truscott himself took the stand before the Court of Appeal for Ontario and got a chance to tell his story for the first time. Canada’s top judges ruled 8-1 against Truscott getting a new trial and he was sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. Those eight judges listened carefully to Steven Truscott as he gave his testimony and it was clear to them that his testimony was vague and confused–and they didn’t believe a word he said.
    To be fair, Truscott did say that his lawyers (all highly qualified) did not “adequately prepare” him for his testimony before the Court of Appeal. How much time and effort is required to prepare yourself to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

    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 see objectively 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.

    Thoughtful Readings:
    http://www.statementanalysis.com/truscott1/
    A FEW THOUGHTS ABOUT AN INNOCENT MAN

  10. As crimes go, dear reader, this is a simple crime. We have only two choices in this case. Either Steven Truscott took Lynne Harper 90 feet into Lawson’s bush and strangled her at his favorite spot or a stranger pedophile picked her up after Truscott left her all alone, drove around for several hours, and then returned her in the dark, not at the intersection but 90 feet into Lawson’s bush at Truscott’s favorite spot–the same place where Lynne’s body would be found two days later.

    This is not rocket science folks; just searching for truth and justice using critical thinking.

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

  11. I lived in a place where violence was every second of my life, Mr. Truscott did ten years in prison, his trial was a farce, that is why he has been acquited, the did not give the child a fair trial. He has the same rights as all human beings, a fair trial, at least canadian human beings. They did not do justice, the question of who killed Lynne harper is never going to be answered, as I have checked with every person involved and the evidence of clothing etc, dna are all gone. The man was not given a fair trial and that is the only reason he was acquitted, he was quite willing to have Lynne dug up and do the DNA, but there was nothing left, he could not have known that they would not find anything. I was trying to find the other physical evidence and it was lost many years ago in the 60′s. They could have taken Epithelials (sorry about the spelling) from her blouse, as it was used to strangle her. It would not help steven but it might show another human beings DNA from their skin flaking off as they strangled her. But to no avail. The evidence was conveniently disposed of . They would likely find Stevens dna as he helped her on and off the bike, but a strangers dna should not be found on her cloths other than her mom dad and steven. I was so hoping Steven could finally have a not guilty decision but without the clothing or shoes or her necklace that can never happen for him. He has never been found not guilty, but we took away his life, in a trial that was a very bad joke, They had no proof of anything except that he was the last person seen with Lynne Harper, we all know today that is just not enough to say because I was the last person seen with someone that I killed them. His guilt or innocence had nothing to do with his acquital, I was trying to prove he didn’t do this, and the best way to do that is prove who did, but I contacted many police and writers, experts on the case and no one has any idea what happened to lynne’s belongings, so the truth will never be found. I wish I could find Lynne’s brother to see if maybe the belongings were given back to the family. I have a good suspect, he was my father, he admitted to the crime when I was 10 or eleven, I am 52 now. I gave my Dna to police to see if they had anything to compare it to, but they checked and they have nothing left. My father was a very sick peydophile, and we have proof of that, and we lived very close to the murder site, he was army, not airforce, but he was a paratrooper so alot of his work was done at the airforce base. I have forgiven my father, for what he did to me, and I am very proud of all the men and women who fight for my freedom, he went through two wars and lost his mind in the process, he began to behave like his enemies. I am never going to excuse his behavior to me or my young friends back then but I had to forgive him when I saw his military file and saw the horrors he lived through for our freedom. I believe Steven Truscott is innocent because my father told me he was innocent. He said ” how could the cops be so stupid, how could a 14 year old boy rape and kill a girl almost his own size and not get a scratch. she fought like a tiger, they are just a bunch of JD’s( Jimmy the dunce’s) his favorite name for his children also, Then he took the book out of my hands(book from school about the murder) screamed that they should be teaching me math and typing, not this history crap, and threw the book out the front door and then told me Don’t ever bring that stupidity in my house again, got it.” slammed the door, and left this 10 year old so confused I couldn’t move for about 10 minutes. He was capable of murder, he was used of death and killing and he was a peydophile. He molested my neighbors kids in our pool, he molested both my sister and I. He is just as likely a suspect as the air force Sgt. MY fathers military file has a huge lie in it, it says we live in Rivers manitoba from 1958 to 1961, we left Rivers in early 59, I have many photo’s of us in Ipperwash in 1959 and his entire medical records for 59 60 are removed from the file. the rest of his 21 year career with RCR has 5 pages of info for every sniffle he ever had while in the military. not one record of any kind for 59 and 60. hmmmm. where would they go. Also we have proof my sister was enrolled in school in Forest ontario, that is a long walk to school from Rivers Manitoba. They don’t want blotches on the military, and it is still happening today. Russ Williams has a perfect record, and that is impossible, no one is perfect. so they just kept covering up his flaws until he did something so horrible, two dead women and two who probably, like me, wish they were dead also. The police were at the shack we lived in on the beach in Ipperwash, I remember my sister talking about it over and over through the years. When I decided to give my DNA, she agreed that it is quite possible he could have done this, but really didn’t want it all brought back up “again” what she means by ” again” she won’t tell me. Eileen Howard Fralick

  12. Ms. Fralick, would you email me please? I have researched the Truscott case thoroughly and what you have to say rings a bell. I might be able to make connections in some of the clues.
    I will identify myself fully to you , once you contact me.
    Email me at: pdlsteel at gmail.com
    Thank You!

  13. STEVEN TRUSCOTT’S INNOCENCE

    IN HIS OWN WORDS

    ST: “I rode to the school where I met a group of Brownies. After, I followed the county road to the bridge, stopping briefly here and there. I went back to the school then, where I met Lynne. We chatted a while about….. Well, who remembers what we talked about? She was in a chatty mood and did most of the talking.”

    SDM: Did Truscott remember but didn’t want to say that he and Lynne talked about personal things and about going to see a calf in Lawson’s Bush?

    ST: “I believe one of them asked me, ‘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.” “I replied that I had taken her and let her off at Highway No. 8.”

    SDM: When the police asked Truscott whether his schoolmates made any comment to him or whether there was any conversation with them after his return to the school, he replied in the following words: “I believe one of them asked me, ‘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.”

    ST: “The first knowledge I had that something unusual had happened to Lynne was the morning after our bicycle ride.”

    SDM: By using the pronoun “our” the bicycle ride now becomes more personal than just giving her a lift. By describing it as “our bicycle ride” he is telling us this ride meant something to him and perhaps to her.

    ST: “he was in the woods chasing a cow.”

    SDM: Wednesday noon, one day before Lynne’s body is found, Butch George asks Steven what he was doing in the woods with Lynne. Steven denies being with Lynne, but then says he was in the woods chasing a cow.

    ST: “Yesterday evening I heard a calf in the woods and I went in to investigate.”

    SDM: Wednesday evening Truscott tells his school friends, including Tom Gillette that he heard a calf in the woods the prior evening and he went in to investigate.

    ST: “I hardly knew the girl I kept trying to tell them. We were classmates but she was not among my friends. What she did outside school, and inside it, too, for that matter, had never interested me.”

    SDM: In talking to the police, Truscott down plays his relationship with Lynne Harper.

    ST: “This was the first news I received that a stay of execution had been ordered. I was dazed and it was some time before the full significance of what had occurred got through to me. That I wasn’t going to die!”
    Perhaps there would be yet another miracle “an appeal, a new trial, even an acquittal.”

    SDM:An innocent person would consider a stay of execution the right thing to do, not a miracle.

    ST: “In the space reserved for my personal comments, I wrote that if I were released I would not be in trouble again.”
    “In August 1964, a little more that five years after my arrest, the Parole Board had sent me a notice in the mail informing me that I was eligible for parole and saying that I could apply for one on a form available through the classification department of the penitentiary. I secured a form, filled it out, and in desperation to gain my freedom, I did something very stupid, I wrote that if I were released I would not be in trouble again.”

    SDM: It is also possible that since Truscott knew he had killed someone he stated he would not get into trouble again.

    ST: “I have paid five years of my life but this has taught me that crime does not pay, so all I ask is please grant me one chance to make a success of my life and prove that one dreadful mistake does not mean that I will ever make another one.”
    Quote from Steven Truscott’s parole application filled out in August 1964, a little more that five years after his arrest. Asked why write this if he was innocent, he replied, “To get out.”

    SDM: His pragmatic attitude infuriated the Canadian press and many staunch defenders of his cause now turned on him. But not Isabel LeBourdais, whose loyalty never flickered.

    ST: “My lawyers did not ‘adequately prepare’ me for my testimony before the Court of Appeal.”

    SDM: 1966 October 5: New forensic evidence was presented on his behalf, and Truscott now a 21 year-old man, 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 to the best of their abilities before the Court. Parts of his testimony were clearly inaccurate. Sometimes, far from assisting Truscott, these inaccuracies tended to contradict the defence position. 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”

    Steven Truscott explains this pitiful 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? Does this sort of explanation not smack of the very “incredibilities” those Supreme Court judges talk about?

  14. :) 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”

  15. 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.

    Sam Dennis McDonough

  16. wow, sam, we here in ontario have read all the info you are pushing us to read, and some of us lived through it, to bad you just stopped by 48 years after the incident. all that info is old news here. We know how to read in ontario and many experts have reread every tidbit they could find. The facts are clear. No one will ever know who killed Lynne Harper. I, in my heart know who did it, but we can’t prove it so I must let it go. and you might want to accept that other people may know more about this case than you do. If I could prove Stevens innocence I would, and did everything I could to do that, but with no physical evidence, that will never be. so to each his own beliefs, move on. and Mr. Truscott was paid for his time in jail because no one proved then he murdered someone, and it is really hard for me to believe, a murderer comes out of jail and should be angry as hell, as murderers often are, and never break any law ever again. My father was a criminal, and he could not stop himself from breaking the law over and over, he just never got caught, at least not until I threatened him, with opening my mouth, then he died of his anurism, instead of having it removed, he left that huge clot inside him well aware it would kill him in a very short time. I told him I was going to open my mouth about my life and my sisters life with him, and he chose to die before I landed his sick mind in jail. He knew if I opened up, the truth would come out from all the young girls in my neighborhood, and my sister would come out. so he left us, as he knew he would not survive without his freedom. Mr. Truscott was not the murderer rapist type, unless he lost his mind for 2 hrs one day in 1959. He would have acted out again. jail does not teach rapists anything. Murderers who murder for lust, always do it again unless they die before they get around to doing it again. He was not her killer, or he would have acted out again. She fought her attacker, so it wasn’t an accidental murder, it was a murder done by a person who lusted for young girls and watching them die. that much was obvious from the facts of her death. If Stepen was the killer he would have done it again in his life. and believe me, he never touched anyone but his wife and loved his family. this is not the life of a rapist murderer

  17. Stephen also was a child, he probably did lie, and say the wrong things, he was being given advice from adults, he was supposed to do as he was told, and he got really bad advice. but at 14 you assume the older people telling you what to say know best. All the kids were confused, not knowing what to say, and hoping in some cases that if they lied or told the truth, it would help their young friend. Kids, all kids make mistakes including Stephen Truscott, but he was being prompted by adults and all he should have been told, is to tell the truth. For his parole, he did the right thing, he knew it was the only way to get out of jail, was to admit he was sorry, and I can assure you, he was very sorry that he was the last person seen with Poor lynne, and very sorry she was dead, not sorry he had killed her. Just think, how confused you would be, if you were in the worst of jails, at 14. I would have said whatever it took to get me out of there. I have spent 4 months in a prison, and 22 days in maximum security prison, I was an adult and if they told me to say anything that would get me out of there I would have said I murdered Jesus, if it got me out of Gananoqua prison, Quinte. I was scared to death and almost 30 years old. So stop pouring over what a 14 year old boy said. Until you have done time and I only did 22 days in that max prison, I was threatened to die, over answering a trivial pursuit question correctly. I would have said anything if it would get me out. He spent 10 years in a much worse place and he was 14 not 30.

  18. Dear Eileen, If you wish to read new clues that have not been in print before, please read my book, “Steven Truscott and the Murder of 12-Year Old Lynne Harper.” Those clues are a “gotcha” for any objective investigator.

    I am certain that the 12 jurors and nine Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada know more about this case than you and I will ever know. It is logic and critical thinking that separates the innocent thinkers from those who know Truscott to be guilty.

    SDM

  19. Stevem Triscptt Steven Truscott was 22 years old when he testified before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Judges found Truscott to be vague and confusing and did not believe his testimony. Most of his unbelievable stores have been told after he was 20; not when he was 14.

    • I am only going on the fact that I lived with the man who murdered lynn and admitted he did it, what stephen said in court has never crossed my ears, I am going on the fact my father new things about the murder only the murderer could know, or at least one who was at the scene. could care less how vague or confused stephen trusccott was, he didn’t do it. and of this I am sure. you have no idea what it is like to know something and not be able to prove it. the facts of the case are these, he did not do it, and his testimony is fague cause he has been told what to say at 14 and then as he grew he had a difficult time seperating what he did that day with what he had been told to say. you are going on what you read about, none of it is very accurate, not even the court transcripts are accurate, and I am going on having lived through my life with the man who did do it. you were not at his trial, at 22 or 14 or any of it, you are reading about it. I lived it.

  20. Hey there Eileen! How are things with you? Do you have any news for me? How about we do lunch again in the new year?
    Bent

    • These comments are for all Canadians, especially Mr. B, CS, and EFNH:
      This is for those who don’t like to be confused by facts, but who are willing to think logically and with critical thinking about this case.
      I first heard about this crime in September, 2010 when it was shown on Discovery ID. As crimes go, this was a simple crime and easy to see who was guilty. I did not know that Canadians had such strong feelings about this incident until I posted my article.
      I search for the truth in real crimes. The same as you, 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 hate to see a killer get well paid for his crime. There is a ton of logical evidence that with objective reasoning and critical thinking shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven Truscott strangled poor Lynne to death.

      SOURCES FOR THE INFORMATION IN MY BOOK, “Steven Truscott and the Murder of Lynne Harper.”
      1. Magistrate’s Court Preliminary Hearing, 1959
      2. Court of Appeal for Ontario, Vol 5, The Appellant’s Compendium, June 12-15, 1959
      3. Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada Re: Steven Murray Truscott, [1967] S.C.R. 309 Date: 1967-05-04
      4. Canada National Parole Board, File C-K-6730, October 22, 1968.
      5. Court Of Appeal for Ontario, Citation: Truscott (Re), 2007 ONCA 575 Docket: C42726 Date: 20070828

      In the early evening of Tuesday June 9, 1959, 12-year-old Lynne Harper (born in Moncton, New Brunswick) disappeared near Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Clinton, an air force base just south of Clinton, Ontario. She was last seen with Steven Truscott.
      Steven Murray Truscott (born January 18, 1945 in Vancouver, British Columbia) was a 14 ½ year old boy in the same classroom as Lynne Harper, Grades 7 & 8 at the A.V.M. Hugh Campbell School on the air force base.

      NOTE: Ordinary type is from actual court testimony from witnesses under oath. Italic type shows comments from SDM.
      NOTE: Every clue is from testimony under oath before a Canadian Court. For easier reading the following is in conversational wording; Example: “said” = “testified”.
      June 9, Tuesday, Tuesday: Jocelyne said that Steven 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. When asked by the Court if there was any more conversation between you and Truscott, Goddette testified, “Well, he just kept on telling me to ‘don’t tell anybody to come with you’ and that is all.” If Steven only wanted someone to see calves with he could ask his best friend, Butch George, or any other boys his age.

      Obviously, Steven did tell Jocelyne to meet him on the right-hand side of the County Road at Lawson’s Bush because Jocelyne’s subsequent actions between 7:15 and 8:00 show that she was looking for Steve at their meeting place in the bush area and did not find him. There was no other reason for Jocelyne to be searching for Steven at that time in that place.

      6:55 – 7:05 – Mrs. Nickerson, who was conducting a meeting of Junior Girl Guides, said that Truscott came cycling on the pathway towards them shortly before 7 pm and that Lynne Harper went over to him and sat on his bicycle fender. Did Truscott bike back to the school and seek out Lynne Harper because he was tired of waiting for Jocelyne. At a party the previous Friday, Lynne showed a lot of interest in the popular Steven and asked him to dance, which they did for awhile.

      7:10 pm – Richard Gellatly on his bike passes Steven and Lynne before they reach the bush.
      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?
      Several children had seen Steven leave with Lynne. He came back alone. When the police asked if they made any comment to him, he replied: “I believe one of them asked me, ‘What did you do with Harper, feed her to the fish?’ I replied I had taken her and let her off at Highway 8.”
      At his first police interview, Truscott tells his story about seeing Lynne hitch-hiking and getting into a 1959 Chevrolet Bel-Air, for the first time.

      June 10 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 Arnold George saw him crossing the bridge with Lynne heading toward Highway 8. Now he knows that it was not George, but his friend Gordie Logan. Steven was afraid the police might check so he asked Butch to say that he did see Steven at the river.

      Butch George said I didn’t think there would be any harm then, so I just told the police the next morning that I saw Steven and Lynne on his bicycle at the river about 7:30. In fact, for a few days George did tell the police that he had seen Steven and Lynne cross the bridge on their way to Road 8. He later decided he could go only so far for a friend and told police the truth. Butch George has always testified that he did not see Steven or Lynne at the bridge.

      June 12, Friday – Dr. J. A. Addison and a military doctor examined Steven and found a cut on his leg, scratches on his torso and on his 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.
      September 30, 1959: 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. They concluded 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. “Towards the very end of the trial the learned Judge recharged the jury in these words: ‘Let me repeat to you, and it is a matter of fact for you to decide, if you think that this evidence is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion, you should convict. But if this evidence or any part of it, whether adduced by the Crown or by the defense, raises a doubt in your mind, a reasonable doubt in your mind, you must acquit him. The matter is entirely for you.’” Mr. Justice Ronald Ferguson, as was then required by law, sentenced 14 year-old Truscott to be hanged.

      Some reasons why the jury did not believe Truscott’s hitch-hiking story:
      1. 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.
      2. Lynne was wearing only shorts, a sleeveless blouse and loafers. Even on a summer evening this is no outfit for hitch-hiking.
      3. Perhaps it was Truscott’s kindness that caused him to give his young girl friend a ride. 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. Maybe Steven was in a hurry to meet up with his other girlfriend. It matters not because the evidence shows that Truscott made up the hitch-hike story.
      4. Gordon “Gord” Logan, who was 12 and family friends of the Truscott’s, 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. Testimony is that Steven did not say anything to his friend about Lynne getting a ride so quickly, or that it was in a brand new 1959 car. The simple fact is Truscott was never at the bridge.
      5. The evidence is that when he was asked if he fed Lynne to the fish his soft reply was that he took her to Highway 8. When he returned to the school did calm and cool Truscott say anything about Lynne hitch-hiking or getting a ride quickly in a brand new car? No!
      6. The classmate’s who did not see anything unusual about Truscott’s behavior, also did not see the green grass stains on the red trousers or tears at the knees. The stains and tears were still there after washing that same night.
      7. Steven told the police that Lynne wanted a ride to the pony farm. After taking his friend on his crossbar for 1.2 miles, why not take her .3 miles further to the farm.
      8. Another Truscott story was that Lynne told him she was upset with her mother and she wanted to hitch a ride to a relative. But adults said Lynne was cheerfully helping them, and even Steven said she was in a chatty mood riding on his bicycle.
      9. 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.
      10. The mythical stranger who happens along within a few minutes after Steven leaves Lynne all alone—would just happen to be the one stranger who would happen to kill her.
      11. This mythical stranger who just happens by the intersection must also happen to be a pedophile.
      12. This stranger pedophile that just happens by must also happen to be in his raping, killing mood.
      13. After being with a little girl for several hours and not feeding her, this beat all-odds killer would have to reverse direction and return to the very intersection where he picked up his victim.
      14. He would bring poor Lynne back to the very area where people are looking for the missing girl and are eyeing every strange movement.
      15. There he would rape and strangle 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.
      16. How about this for luck!? In complete darkness this stranger happens to pick the same bush area where Steven and Lynne were last seen and where Lynne’s body will be found two days later.
      17. The evidence is that in the 10 to 15 minutes Steven says they were at or near Highway 8, not one person driving by on this fairly busy highway reported seeing a boy or girl near the intersection.
      18. Even classmate Teunis Vandenpool did not see anyone at the intersection around 7:15 and 7:45 pm on his way to the river and on his return trip home. No random passerby on this fairly busy highway reported seeing anyone at the intersection that day.
      19. If even one person passing by that intersection had seen a boy or girl there would be no reason to doubt Steven and he never would have been accused of this crime. If even one Truscott supporter had contacted the police to say they saw a boy or girl at or near the intersection there would be no reason for me to search for truth because now there would be real reasonable doubt. Steven or Lynne was not seen on the county road simply because they were in the bush.
      20. Taking the contrary view, let’s say that on this fairly busy Highway 8, that in a one-in-a-million chance, the only car to come by at this time was the Chevrolet driven by a pedophile. And let’s assume further that the pedophile happens to be in his rape and murder mood. So he picks up little 12 year old Lynne and takes her somewhere down the road. He drives around for awhile, feeds her nothing, and decides to take her back where he picked her up, even though there are probably people searching for her who are suspicious of anything unusual in the area. This mindless pedophile does not leave her at the intersection where he picked her up. No!
      21. This mystical pedophile without brains goes a lot further. He parks along the County Road or turns left at the tractor trail and drives onto the 20-odd acre woodlot in the dark. There he stops his car, opens the door, gets out, and leads his victim in the unfamiliar dark woods where he rapes and kills Lynne at Steven Truscott’s favorite place in the woods.
      22. Consider what the jury of his peers actually saw and heard from the witnesses directly involved in this incident; the jury that in 1959 unanimously found Steven 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.
      23. Finally, Lynne did not have the disposition or desire to run away from home.
      1960 Jan 20: A five-judge Ontario Court unanimously dismisses Truscott’s appeal on all grounds
      1967 May 4: New forensic evidence was presented on his behalf and Truscott now a 22 year-old man, testified before the Supreme Court of Canada and told his story for the first time. Truscott and 25 other witnesses testified to the best of their abilities before the Court. The Justices watched and listened carefully to Truscott as he testified; it was clear to them that his testimony was vague and confused.

      Truscott’s answers differed from the evidence given by most witnesses who described his movements on the County Road. Parts of his testimony were clearly not accurate. In some respects, far from helping Truscott, these inaccuracies tended to contradict the defence position. The Supreme Court stated that “There were many incredibility’s inherent in the evidence given by Truscott before us and we do not believe his testimony.”

      22 Year Old Steven Truscott’s Denials Under Oath Before the Supreme Court Justices
      Truscott denied every conversation with Goddette about making an appointment to look for newborn calves.
      Truscott denied calling at Goddette’s house about 5:50 pm to confirm their appointment.
      Truscott denied seeing Ronald Demaray who waved to him at the bridge around 6:30 pm. Truscott denied he met Ken Geiger and Robb Harrington on his way down to the river between 6 and 7 pm.
      Truscott denied that he had seen Mrs. Geiger or Paul Desjardine that afternoon.
      Truscott denied any conversation with Geiger about his mother being at the river.
      The above are all people who testified and gave evidence that they met Truscott at home or on the road and described his movements between 5:50 and 7.00 pm
      Truscott denied meeting Gellatly on the County Road, but Truscott’s first statement to the police was that he and Lynne did meet Gellatly. It appears that Steven Truscott lied to the police from day one and all through the Supreme Court hearing.

      Truscott denied that he had any conversation with Arnold George the evening after Lynne disappeared. 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 realized that protecting a friend can go just so far, so he later gave a right and true statement.
      Truscott denied seeing Burns, Jocelyne or Vandendool as he and Lynne rode north on the County Road.

      The case went to the jury with five witnesses saying they did not see Truscott and Lynne on the road beyond the bush area; and two were actively looking for him.
      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 the Supreme Court do put him in or near Lawson’s Bush on Tuesday evening. They support the contention that he was not candid in describing his whereabouts in his various statements to the police after Lynne disappeared.

      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 his testimony were clearly inaccurate and far from assisting Steven the inaccuracies contradicted defence position.69
      The verdict of the jury, read in the light of the charge of the trial judge, makes it clear that the Judges 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 Truscott is the guilty person.
      Decision of Supreme Court Justices on the Appeal: The Supreme Court had been asked to determine how it would have decided Truscott’s appeal, on the basis of the existing judicial record and any other evidence received.

      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 Truscott explained this pitiful performance by saying his lawyers did not “adequately prepare” him for his testimony. Reflect on 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?

      Truscott denied or called incorrect the testimony of nearly every kid and adult witness.
      Truscott’s story was that he took Lynne to the Highway 8 intersection. He could call everyone else a liar but that was his story and he was sticking to it.

      When friends tease him, he makes up a story about looking for calves in the bush. When the police question him, he invents a car at the highway. When his penis sores are found his stories change drastically with every telling.

      1967 -2006: Off and on for the next 39 years a Canadian Media Blitz keeps the Truscott story going, thereby increasing sales and profits. The media uses sound bytes and simple sympathetic statements instead of facts and logic to fuel the Truscott mania.

      2007 Jan. 31–Feb 14: Lawyers for Truscott and Ontario’s Attorney General make their final arguments before the five appeal court judges. To satisfy the public, television cameras are allowed into the appeal court for the first time and the proceedings are broadcast live. The lawyers and each judge can now be seen, heard and evaluated individually by the public.

      (Quotes from the Ontario Court of Appeal versus comments by SDM)

      2007 Aug. 28: More than 48 years after the crime and every previous court denying the appeals, the Ontario Appeal Court overturns Truscott’s conviction, declaring the case “a miscarriage of justice” that “must be quashed.” 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.

      We are 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 crucial issue of the time of Lynne Harper’s death, the pathology evidence that the Court has admitted as fresh evidence renders the expert medical evidence heard in the prior judicial proceedings, to the effect that Lynne must have died before 8 pm on June 9, 1959, scientifically untenable. SDM: Not one pathology or entomology expert testified that Lynne Harper could not have been killed before 8:00 pm when Steven Truscott was with her. Finally then as now, the crime scene continues to support the Crown’s theory as to how this crime was committed. The bug evidence does not in any real way exclude the possibility that Truscott was the killer.

      Both the prosecution and the defense presented pathology and entomology experts. Some backed up Dr. Penistan’s original findings; some refuted them and the methods he used. But the trial and three court appeals had credible evidence presented before them that Lynne most likely died before 8:00 pm. That means she died within 2 ½ hours after eating a small supper; the most likely time of her death.
      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 area of the bridge at the same time and proceed in tandem southbound on the County Road. At the same time, the archival material suggests an alternative theory that is consistent with the Court’s position that Truscott left the school around 7:20 p.m. and took Lynne on his bike along the county road to highway 8.
      SDM: Witnesses testified that Steven and Lynne left the school between 7:00 and 7:10 while Truscott says they left at 7:30. The Ontario Court Justices found that 7:20 pm would best satisfy Truscott’s story of taking her to the highway and was seen only by his friends. But the Ontario Court has judged that Truscott, and therefore his classmates, can see the color of a license plate 1300 feet away. Therefore, every child and adult on the road would have seen Truscott and Harper riding double on his distinctive green bike, if only they were there
      SDM: If Truscott actually continued north on the County Road to the bridge after passing Gellatly, Burns would have seen Truscott riding double with his arms around Lynne. Even more tellingly, how could Goddette who was looking for Truscott at the same time, have failed to see him if in fact he was on the County Road north of Lawson’s Bush?

      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 Truscott could reasonably believe that he saw the color of the license plate on the vehicle while standing on the bridge 1300 feet away. SDM: Following the reasoning by the Ontario Appeal Judges, Truscott’s classmates would have seen a tall boy with red pants riding double with Lynne on his distinctive green bike from more than 1300 feet away. Therefore, critical thinking concludes that every boy, girl and adult on the County Road would have seen Steven and Lynne riding toward the intersection, if only they were there. They had vanished, as if into thin air, only to find out later that one returned and the other would soon be found dead. SDM: Not one of the bright eyes, including Truscott’s three witnesses, ever reported seeing Steven or Lynne at or near the intersection. No driver passing by has ever reported seeing a girl hitch-hiking or a girl and boy standing at or near the intersection during the time Truscott says they were there.

      The fourth pillar of the Crown’s case, the penis lesions evidence that so vividly demonstrated Truscott’s guilt at trial has been weakened to the extent that it is virtually no evidence at all.
      SDM: Over the years, Truscott explains the injuries to his penis:
      - First he says it was from his zipper.
      - Then suggests excessive masturbation.
      - Then in his own 1979 book he claims it was something that started about six weeks earlier and much smaller than the doctors claimed.
      - Then in the 2000′s Truscott claims there were not any marks ever. Evidently, he forgot that two doctors who examined Steven the day after Lynne’s body was discovered had found on each side of Steven’s penis, “a brush burn of two or three day’s duration the size of a 25-cent piece.” 77

      It makes no sense that every kid and adult in this story is a liar except Steven Truscott. Only public hysteria fueled by a media blitz would convince these very capable Ontario Court judges of an acquittal in this simple crime. Perhaps that is why the judges wrote that “the court is not satisfied that the appellant has been able to demonstrate his factual innocence.”

      The Court of Appeal then went on to say: “. . . 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.”
      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.

      In not finding Truscott innocent 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.” 81

      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. 82

      In a high profile case such as this one, the killer would feel a need to brag to the world that he killed Lynne Harper and he is smarter than the police because he got away with it. 84

      Finally, since no one in 55 years of this highly publicized crime has come forward with any real evidence that someone other than Truscott killed Lynne Harper, the passing of time makes it even more evident that Steven Truscott is the guilty person. This clue is in addition to the ton of logical evidence presented above.

      My educated Canadian relatives and friends read my book until they become disturbed at the truths that differ from what they were led to believe over the years by the Canadian media. After hearing a great deal about the superior Canadian intelligence and their logical thinking, It is disappointing to see that many of my Canadian friends cannot or will not use critical thinking to see the truth in this very simple case.

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

      It appears that about 90% of Canadians believe that Steven Truscott is innocent of killing Lynne Harper while the 10% of critical thinking Canadians, including the Canadian Supreme Court Justices in 1967, were certain of his guilt. He was “not found innocent” by the Ontario Court of Appeal because Stephen Truscott was the last person to see Lynne Harper alive and her body was found near to where they were last seen together. Beliefs are not truths; Facts are truths.

      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 in this case the wrong was done, and continues to be done, to the victim and her family.

      There is an unconscious desire on the part of many to find greater meaning in the trial and appeals of Steven Truscott than is possible based upon the historical case. And so for them, there will always be an innocent Truscott. It simply has to be, no matter what.

  21. I am from Ontario. I have looked at the Truscott case repeatedly and each time I have come to the conclusion that he was guilty as charged.

    It is just too bad that they waited so long to try and review the case when all the physical evidence was destroyed in 1967.

    Truscott knew this when they were going to test for his DNA. The only shot at DNA that was left was to dig up Lynn Harper’s body and see if any of his DNA was ther. A long, long shot by any standard.

  22. There is one thing that has always stood out in this case in my opinion, stands out so enormously that it gets easily overlooked for some reason. How many small town 14 year old boys have been convicted of murdering a girl they knew in the 50 years prior to the Prescott case and in the near 50 years since? I think the pedophile in the area theory is still the most likely answer to this whole ordeal.

  23. Fourteen year old boys kill girl friends and mothers of girl friends every year. Most are caught, as was Truscott, because of their immaturity and inexperience. My book clearly presents the case against Truscott as being the killer and it is highly unlikely that anyone else could have killed her under the circumstances presented by Truscott himself.

Leave a Reply

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