I do not believe Steven Truscott's case has ever been on UM. But in many ways it is unsolved.

For those of you that live in Canada and especially Ontario you have likely heard the story of him. In 1959 a 12 year old girl named Lynne Harper was found dead. Truscott was 14 at the time and was basically convicted of the murder because he was the last person who had been seen with her riding on his bike. He has always maintained to this day that Lynne got off his bike and he saw her get into a 1959 Ford (I believe that was the make). He was sentenced to hang back when Canada actually had a spine and had the death penalty.

He didn't get executed. Instead he served 10 years in prison and was released in 1969. It makes me think the judge realized how circumstantial the prosecution's evidence was and this is why he got the sentence he got.

Truscott met a woman while in prison, married her and I believe now has two grown sons. Truscott will be 65 in 2010. To this day he has never changed his story. In fact, when his name surfaced a few years ago despite living a normal life he went all the way to the top of the Canadian government to be fully exonerated for his prison time. This was 35 years after he was released from prison and he went to GREAT lengths to clear his name, not just being content on being free.

In Canada for those that know this case most if not all will agree that this was a case where the justice system failed and a truly innocent boy was jailed. With the exception of Lynne's remaining family who recently spoke out against him being exhonerated, there isn't a single person who I have ever heard complain about his innocence.

Does anyone have an opinion on this case if you are familiar with it?

I believe he's innocent. The last doc the CBC did after he was released pretty much convinced me. I feel for the guy really.

It doesn't sound familiar, so it was probably never featured on UM.

It doesn't sound familiar, so it was probably never featured on UM.

Too bad really - it was a fascinating story. A lot of people always thought he was railroaded for that one - and so young too.

Too bad really - it was a fascinating story. A lot of people always thought he was railroaded for that one - and so young too.

I don't think the evidence was there to convict him, but I would tend to think he is guilty.

I can't recall the details right now, but it seemed like the victim and place of death were highly coincidental with Truscott's plans for the evening.

I do think his case was kind of a railroad job though.

I don't think the evidence was there to convict him, but I would tend to think he is guilty.

I can't recall the details right now, but it seemed like the victim and place of death were highly coincidental with Truscott's plans for the evening.

I do think his case was kind of a railroad job though.
That's where this CBC special was really good though - it clearly showed a good possibility of it being someone else at the same time. I think the guy is now dead tho and that's where it makes it really tough to prove. Even with DNA testing now. I think that's still the missing ideal evidence left to go. I know they gave him a load of money and did clear his name, but hell, all those years in jail and with that stigma attached to him. He never did get a good work record because of it.

All I can say is thankfully we now have DNA testing - otherwise Paul Bernardo could well be a free man still.

That's where this CBC special was really good though - it clearly showed a good possibility of it being someone else at the same time. I think the guy is now dead tho and that's where it makes it really tough to prove. Even with DNA testing now. I think that's still the missing ideal evidence left to go. I know they gave him a load of money and did clear his name, but hell, all those years in jail and with that stigma attached to him. He never did get a good work record because of it.

All I can say is thankfully we now have DNA testing - otherwise Paul Bernardo could well be a free man still.

I saw the Fifth Estate bit. It was well done, but highly speculative imo.

The Baltovich case is interesting.

I saw the Fifth Estate bit. It was well done, but highly speculative imo.

The Baltovich case is interesting.
Baltovich? Not sure if I know 'bout that one. Do tell...

I don't think the evidence was there to convict him, but I would tend to think he is guilty.

I can't recall the details right now, but it seemed like the victim and place of death were highly coincidental with Truscott's plans for the evening.

I do think his case was kind of a railroad job though.

I read about this case in a crime book years ago and came to the same conclusions. Despite the public support for Truscott's innocence, at this point I don't think it can be conclusively established (any DNA evidence having been destroyed or degraded years ago) and I believe he is guilty of the crime. For those who feel he is innocent, Wiliam Heirens' case in Illinois is an interesting comparison.

From what I recall, Truscott's friends placed him at and around Lawson's Bush (where Harper's body was found) on the night of the murder, there were recent abrasions on his arms, elbows and knees and lesions on his genitals that were never explained. Add to this Truscott's claim that Harper was picked up by a passing motorist, the debate over his statements and the actual time of her death and it would have made a interesting Final Appeal segment.

Damn double post.....

Hmmm, interesting analysis. To be honest I have almost never heard anyone claim Steven is guilty. It is almost unanimous for people to believe he is innocent. There was a minister in the prison who took Steven in after his prison sentence was up. He lived with him and his family and it never crossed the minister's mind that he had murdered anyone. I know it is only one man's opinion, but still.

Plus the thing about Steven is that while I might get this wrong, I believe it was him who came out of seclusion in 2000 and tried to clear his name. He wasn't intent on letting sleeping dogs lie. This I found perplexing. Do you see Larry Gibson going out of his way to clear his name and get completely exhonerated? No, because his story is so freakin unbelievable that he knows better to just quietly hope for Tommy's body to show up and not draw attention to himself.

There is just something about a free man with SO much to lose going out on a limb to clear his name when he really could carry on himself and no one would bother him

Plus the thing about Steven is that while I might get this wrong, I believe it was him who came out of seclusion in 2000 and tried to clear his name. He wasn't intent on letting sleeping dogs lie. This I found perplexing. Do you see Larry Gibson going out of his way to clear his name and get completely exhonerated? No, because his story is so freakin unbelievable that he knows better to just quietly hope for Tommy's body to show up and not draw attention to himself.

There is just something about a free man with SO much to lose going out on a limb to clear his name when he really could carry on himself and no one would bother him

I'm not even about to try to sway your opinion, but will mention that individuals such as Sam Sheppard and James Hanratty also repeatedly fought to overturn their murder verdicts. Sheppard's son, even after his father's legal exoneration (in a second trial) and death, is still trying to clear his name. Hanratty's case is interesting in that recent DNA tests determined that Hanratty was, in fact, guilty all along of the crime. In the Sacco and Vanzetti case, repeated ballistics tests proved that Sacco's pistol was used in the crime, but some elements of the media, ninety years on, still portray Sacco as an innocent man.

Many intelligent, credible people believed at the time (and some still do) in their innocence. Some cases get clouded with political/social overtones (such as the death penalty for a juvenile in Truscott's case) and the media plays its part in public perception.

It could even be said that at this point (with most of the original investigators and medical examiners deceased and the high probability that any evidence would have been destroyed or degraded years ago), that Truscott wasn't really going too far out on a limb in an attempt to clear his name at this point. This court (unlike previous ones) just decided in his favor.

Thanks for starting this topic, it prompted me to do some online research on this case. I had no idea that his conviction had been quashed and that he'd received a financial settlement. I also had never heard of Alexander Kalichuk as a suspect (although it doesn't seem he was ever conclusively linked to the area or to the victim). It makes me regret some of the interesting cases that UM didn't profile.

Baltovich? Not sure if I know 'bout that one. Do tell...
Google Robert Baltovich. Interesting case with a Bernardo angle. You can learn way more on search than from my inaccurate recollections.

There is a very good book on it.

How was the killing? Was it sloppy? I am not sure if this guy did this or did not. But I will say people that are that age when they kill tend to be rather sloppy killers. That is not to say they always are sloppy but more often than not they are. But then again, there was a guy in Washington State who in the late 70's, early 80's, he had murdered someone and he was gosh, 14 or 15 and the girl he murdered was 12 or 13. Anyway, he had always been a suspect but was never charged, he got away with it for over 20 years. He was charged when the cops tricked him into licking an envelope (he did not know the cops were behind the envelope getting sent to him) and his DNA matched DNA found on the dead girl's body. To be honest, if he had admitted he had sex with her, he probably would not have been charged. But he denied ever having sex with her, so he got caught in a huge lie.

In terms of Canada, well I do not think the lack of a death penalty indicates a lack of a spine. The death penalty is archaic and is certainly nothing to be proud of and does not make any state or nation that has it 'tough' because they have it nor is it a sign of weakness to not have it. Crime rates are substantially lower in Canada even though they do not have the death penalty. Crime rates are also substantially lower in the states that do not have the death penalty as opposed to those that do have it. So regardless if your views I do not think it is a strength or weakness issue.

In terms of Canada, well I do not think the lack of a death penalty indicates a lack of a spine. The death penalty is archaic and is certainly nothing to be proud of and does not make any state or nation that has it 'tough' because they have it nor is it a sign of weakness to not have it. Crime rates are substantially lower in Canada even though they do not have the death penalty. Crime rates are also substantially lower in the states that do not have the death penalty as opposed to those that do have it. So regardless if your views I do not think it is a strength or weakness issue.

We'll have to disagree on that one. There are too many cases in Canada where the courts are too lenient. Sometimes I catch myself saying "If they only committed that crime in California, Florida, Texas........"

Paul Bernardo is alive today thanks to no death penalty in Canada. That alone is enough reason for me to wish we still had it. While his victims, two schoolgirls and his OWN sister in-law are dead. God Bless Canada! :rolleyes:

Well, I guess I don't see the big deal with him being alive? I mean, what would be gained by killing him? Would it bring those people he killed back? At least the victims families know where he is and are not sitting around thinking for years or for decades about how he will someday MAYBE be executed. He would still be alive if in California too although he would have got either death or LWOP. Florida he would still be alive too. Although there too he would have got death or LWOP. Texas, he might be dead but then again maybe not. But I consider 25 to life hardly lenient. It is not like he is going anywhere. You act like he got pled out to manslaughter. Now, his wife did get a slap on the wrist when she too should have got 25 to life. I would agree there, pleading her out to manslaughter was a huge mistake.

Now, just for the record, before things get taken out of context. I am not saying murders are not a big deal, I am not saying punishment regardless of what it is, is not a big deal. I just do not understand why people think that by killing someone else that it somehow makes it better what happened? I am not pretending to know what victims and their families go through. I frankly have no idea, and will not pretend to know because I do not. If I were in their shoes, maybe I would want the person to be dead too? It would certainly be a natural human reaction to want that. However I have noticed more and more victims families turning against the death penalty as well.

We'll have to disagree on that one. There are too many cases in Canada where the courts are too lenient. Sometimes I catch myself saying "If they only committed that crime in California, Florida, Texas........"

Paul Bernardo is alive today thanks to no death penalty in Canada. That alone is enough reason for me to wish we still had it. While his victims, two schoolgirls and his OWN sister in-law are dead. God Bless Canada! :rolleyes:

David Milgaard Guy Paul Morin are also alive thanks to no death penalty in Canada. Would you take their deaths as part of the equation?

Plus the thing about Steven is that while I might get this wrong, I believe it was him who came out of seclusion in 2000 and tried to clear his name. He wasn't intent on letting sleeping dogs lie. This I found perplexing.
There is just something about a free man with SO much to lose going out on a limb to clear his name when he really could carry on himself and no one would bother him

I don't find it too perplexing, considering he managed to get a 6.5 million dollar settlement from the government out of it. Truscott came out of hiding mere months after the Milgaard settlement of 10 million, so I am sure it crossed his mind at that time that "hey, I could cash in on this. Cha-ching!".

Paul Bernardo is alive today thanks to no death penalty in Canada. That alone is enough reason for me to wish we still had it. While his victims, two schoolgirls and his OWN sister in-law are dead. God Bless Canada! :rolleyes:

Not much of a life, in my opinion. Notwithstanding the old "prisoners eat like kings and are practically having a party in there". Not my idea of a good party.

And how many innocent men would have been killed had we not done away with the death penalty? Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, James Driskell, David Milgaard, etc. I could go on - the list is quite lengthy. When it comes to wrongful convictions, Canada is the posterchild. Until we learn to stop convicting the innocent of first-degree murder, as we all-too often do in this country, reinstituting the death penalty should be the last thing on our minds. "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer".

For once you and I agree Wamisto.

Not much of a life, in my opinion. Notwithstanding the old "prisoners eat like kings and are practically having a party in there". Not my idea of a good party.

And how many innocent men would have been killed had we not done away with the death penalty? Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, James Driskell, David Milgaard, etc. I could go on - the list is quite lengthy. When it comes to wrongful convictions, Canada is the posterchild. Until we learn to stop convicting the innocent of first-degree murder, as we all-too often do in this country, reinstituting the death penalty should be the last thing on our minds. "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer".

I bet Canada has no greater rate of wrongful convictions and railroad jobs than most jurisdictions. What cases like Morin, Marshall etc. do tell us is that when such an injustice is done, Canada openly seeks to understand why and prevent it from happening again. That is commendable.

For once you and I agree Wamisto.

:thumbsup:

David Milgaard Guy Paul Morin are also alive thanks to no death penalty in Canada. Would you take their deaths as part of the equation?

I believe in the death penalty in certain circumstances. If there is conclusive video footage, if there are countless eyewitnesses, if there is an admission of guilt and/or if the evidence is "out of this world" conclusive. If 1st degree murder has any or all of these points then I believe it is conclusive that the murder occured beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Paul Bernardo should be dead. Why? Justice. Punishment. And the fact that he does not deserve life because he robbed young girls of their own. Not to mention the evidence against him.

Steven Truscott should have never had the death penalty dangled above him. There was and is to this day too much doubt on whether he was responsible for Lynne Harper's death. This was sloppy, sloppy police work and assumptions in 1959 that led to this.

Tommy Ziegler, Jeffrey MacDonald, etc are people that should never be facing the chair. I lean towards Ziegler being guilty but certainly not conclusive enough to be executed.

If/when the young couple that abducted and murdered young Tori Stafford (a recent case in Ontario) gets convicted IMO they deserve the chair. They will never get it in Canada. But there is conclusive evidence of Tori being taken at her school by her abductor who also was part of the Bloods and Crypts gang. They deserve death and it would not be a mistake.

But that is not, to me anyway, is not good enough Clockwork. You can't have it both ways. Oh, well I feel Zeigler and MacDonald should not have been facing execution. Okay. What draws you to that conclusion yet you say on the other hand, well I support execution for so and so? To me it simply does not make a whole lot of sense. If you support the death penalty fine but do not give us this malarkey of oh, well I support it in certain instances. Either you support the death penalty and have the utmost faith in it or you do not. It is not hard. I personally do not support the death penalty under any circumstance and do not have any problem in saying that or expressing that. At least folks that support the death penalty outright at least admit their position and a stance on the issue.

But that is not, to me anyway, is not good enough Clockwork. You can't have it both ways. Oh, well I feel Zeigler and MacDonald should not have been facing execution. Okay. What draws you to that conclusion yet you say on the other hand, well I support execution for so and so? To me it simply does not make a whole lot of sense. If you support the death penalty fine but do not give us this malarkey of oh, well I support it in certain instances. Either you support the death penalty and have the utmost faith in it or you do not. It is not hard. I personally do not support the death penalty under any circumstance and do not have any problem in saying that or expressing that. At least folks that support the death penalty outright at least admit their position and a stance on the issue.

Not sure where you get the idea that I don't support the death penalty outright. I just don't support it when there is doubt cast upon a suspect. A first degree murderer deserves it, without a doubt. Why do Ziegler and MacDonald not deserve it? Well, that's the thing, they just might. But look around on here, people are torn on their guilt/innocence. I wouldn't want either one of them to fry and then 5 years down the road there is proof they were truly innocent.

You see, you can get out of jail, get a substantial sum of money like Milgaard or Truscott and that is a mistake that can be forgiven.........or you at least get your life back. With the death penalty you are gone forever.

Bottom line is the death penalty should be given to 1st degree murderers. I do not waiver from that at all. If Ziegler had footage against him actually doing the shootings he'd be charcoal by now. Since there are doubts this is why he and others are able to appeal time and time again.

Paul Bernardo had overwhelming evidence against him including his wife who gave her tell all testimony in exchange for a lighter sentence. There is no doubt in anyone's mind he is guilty. That is grounds for the electric chair IMO. But I would have a hard time flipping the switch if it were Ziegler, MacDonald etc..............for now.

Not sure where you get the idea that I don't support the death penalty outright. I just don't support it when there is doubt cast upon a suspect.

So you believe that if someone kills another, he should have his life taken. However, you only want this for first degree murder, and this only when we know for sure that they are guilty.

The problem is that you will only be putting to death possibly 5 percent of all murderers, if that. So you are content with the other 95 percent of murderers getting life in prison. I would think that would be a very frustrating position to hold.

I think this just reinforces to me that full justice cannot be served in this life. Even family members of murder victims will tell you that the death penalty does not really satisfy their thirst for justice. It just doesn't put them at peace (albeit they are at more peace, but they always ache for something more - the punishment just never seems to be enough to balance the scales).

Paul Bernardo had overwhelming evidence against him including his wife who gave her tell all testimony in exchange for a lighter sentence.

I wouldn't trust Karla Homolka as far as I could throw her.

The video tape evidence is the testimony I rely on - not hers. Which is why I think they should not have cut her a deal - they should have locked her away for life too. But she had the justice officials eating out of her hands.

Well yes, they should have locked her up for life. She would have been convicted of first degree murder had she gone to trial. The prosecutors themselves later admitted it was a mistake to plead her out to manslaughter for a 12 year sentence, of which she served what, 6 or 7 years? But the prosecutors have no one to blame but themselves for pleading her out. She was not credible in the least and they cut her a deal. She played up the act well, portraying herself as a victim. She is a very good actor. Yes Paul Bernardo beat on her but she knew full well what she was doing and she was not in fear for her life like she claimed.

Clockwork, where I got the idea that you were not for the death penalty in all instances was based off of your own words. You say you are for it in 'all' instances and then you contradict yourself and say that you are only for it in certain instances if there is 'total proof' that a person did what they were accused of. I also am curious why you support the electric chair? Is it somehow more of a punishment to kill a person by electric chair than by an injection?

Again, I just do not see why this is such a personal case to you? Bernardo is in prison for life, where he belongs and that to me is good enough. I would not blame people that were actually personally involved in this case if they felt differently on that, but I have always found it out how some people get so involved that it bothers them that deeply that someone did not get executed?

The tide is slowly moving against the death penalty in this country. In fact, looking at it, the odds of any one convict in this country getting executed are slim. The majority, in fact most first degree murder cases even where death is sought do not end in a death sentence they end in a life sentence. Of the people that do get death, the odds of them ever actually being executed are small. I actually read only about 3 percent of people that get sentenced to death are ever actually executed.

Heck, look at California, 700 people on the row out there. Only 7 or 8 are completely out of appeals. Even they cannot be executed right now as the state is blocked from carrying out death sentences until they get their lethal injection procedure sorted out. In California, a lot of inmates looking at first degree murder actually want a death sentence, knowing it is basically an LWOP sentence they will be serving and on the row they get their own individual cells, the only place in the state where prisoners get a regular cell to themselves. If I was going to be convicted of murder 1 in California, I would want a death sentence too because being on death row, with the individual cells is a whole heck of a lot better than serving LWOP and getting thrown in general population.

As to the appeals, while that is true in some ways what you said, in other ways the issue gets misinterpreted. Different states have different laws. The reason why Texas's execution rate is so high and so fast, on average people live on Texas's death row 6 or 7 years. But it is because the Texas State Courts deny basically all appeals. From time to time the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals might grant a new penalty phase, but a new trial, it is practically unheard for them to do that. It does happen once in a while but it is rare. But in Texas like any other state, the inmates get the same amount of appeals. They get a direct appeal. Then they get a habeas corpus appeal in state court. Then they get a habeas corpus appeal in federal court.

Now, in California, the reason their system is so slow is mostly because, well first off there are just a ton of people on the row, the courts are backlogged. Second reason is, California is in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th is by far the most liberal federal appeals court in the country. If I were on death row, I would want to be on the 9th since they overturn so many death sentences and they grant more new trials than anyone else too. Even if you get death again, your appeals start all over again and thus prolongs your life by years, in California's case, decades. In fact, average weight time is about 25 years on California's death row before appeals run out. Of the 7 or 8 men completely out of appeals in California, all have been there 25 years or longer.

It is a tough issue and an emotional one. People tend to have strong feelings about it either way. But the argument that if someone is 'for sure' guilty that they should be led off to execution bothers me. The reason for that is that we are a country, a society, of laws. There have been appeals for a long, long time. It used to be more quick yes because you only had a direct appeal and you only had one habeas corpus. Thus it was not unusual for appeals to run out in 3 or 4 years. After the Furman decision that temporarily ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in this country in 1972, in fact the big reason it was ruled that was because the appeals process itself was ruled unconstitutional. That is when it was expanded. So you went from having one habeas corpus to having multiple habeas corpus petitions.

That is why Tommy Zeigler for instance had more than one habeas petition. However with AEDPA, the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 curtailed habeas petitions, in terms of federal habeas petitions to one for each prisoner. It also restricted the grounds on which a habeas petition could be granted by a federal court. However most appeals have to do with legal issues and not actual innocence. That is what is looked at in most appeals is was the law interpreted correctly in the case? Sometimes it is not and the only way to remedy that is by having a new trial.

I wouldn't trust Karla Homolka as far as I could throw her.

The video tape evidence is the testimony I rely on - not hers. Which is why I think they should not have cut her a deal - they should have locked her away for life too. But she had the justice officials eating out of her hands.

Tell me about it.................:confused:

So you believe that if someone kills another, he should have his life taken. However, you only want this for first degree murder, and this only when we know for sure that they are guilty.

The problem is that you will only be putting to death possibly 5 percent of all murderers, if that. So you are content with the other 95 percent of murderers getting life in prison. I would think that would be a very frustrating position to hold.

I think this just reinforces to me that full justice cannot be served in this life. Even family members of murder victims will tell you that the death penalty does not really satisfy their thirst for justice. It just doesn't put them at peace (albeit they are at more peace, but they always ache for something more - the punishment just never seems to be enough to balance the scales).

Well it isn't that complicated. For example:
A man comes home and finds his wife in bed with a man. He snaps and kills him or her. Not first degree murder. I can live with that guy not getting the death penalty.

Two men have a few drinks and get into a fight at a bar. Punches are thrown. One man falls hard and hits his head on the ground. He dies. That's manslaughter. Certainly worth prison time, but not the death penalty.

Karla Homolka - Deserves to be hung
Paul Bernardo - ditto
Ted Bundy - ditto

Also child kidnappers would have no compassion from me. Whoever killed Jacklyn Dowaliby, Rachel Runyan, Katherine Korzillus (if that's a homicide) should be executed. That was clear pre-meditation to kidnap them and they had ample time to let them go and not murder them. Another example I said was Tommy Ziegler. A situation like his that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt deserves the death penalty considering it was planned to a tee with a seemingly clear mind.

Almost all of the bizarre murders on UM would warrant the death penalty if the culprits were caught.