There are several things missing about the case.First,one thing I learned is about lesions on Truscott's body that seemed to be caused by rape,but could have also been caused excessive self-pleasure.Another thing that is odd is that rapists/murderers usually have a criminal background but Truscott didn't.Plus,because of this,Truscott never got a chance to fully live life because he was incarcerated and seen as a criminal.
I think it's cool that technology of the 90's freed a man wrongfully convicted of raping and murdering a 12-year-old girl in the 1950's. The sucky thing is the fact that it nearly five decades for Canada to prove he was innocent...and they have the nerve to call us Americans stupid. Isn't it funny how a wrongfully convicted man can bounce back and make a whole country feel stupid? You go, Mr. Truscott!
@joshuabrooks21 at least Canadians don't impose the death penalty in ANY of their provinces. You can declare a dead man innocent but that doesn't mean he's coming back to life...
@TheFreeThinkingMan Yeah, so what if it takes us a few years to find someone innocent of a crime they didn't commit, but 48 years is way too long to do so...Stupid Canadians!
@joshuabrooks21 you are right! However to say stupid canadians is not fair, Lets look at the U.S and all the innocent people still in jail shall we, Darlie Routier, Jeff macdonald to name a few but i am sure the list goes on and on and on at least the Canadians did finally exanerate him which is more then i can say for the States legal system who just throw innocent people in Jail all the time and let murderers walk around
@kylas124 I take it you're Canadian? If so, good for you. Oh yeah, I'm sorry I called our neighbor to the north stupid. In all honesty, I'm an American citizen, but I visited your country when I was young. Thanks for being a good neighbor.
he was aquitted therefore i believe his innocence, literally since the day of his conviction he has said he was innocent, i know i could not keep saying i was innocent for the amount of time he did if i were convicted of something!
Peter Demeter has proclaimed his innocence since 1973...are you saying that he was innocent? Charles Manson has proclaimed since 1969...are you saying he was innocent as well?
the bicycle path, no way of telling how long they had been there which they couldn't prove, they also questioned him alone which is totally unfair, 14 year old kid vs some officers, they strip searched him and everything, and Truscott has said of his innocence since 59, not saying that makes him innocent, but it would be hard to say it that long if you did not mean it, but ya i know ppl can lie don't worry :P he could have done it, i dont know, innocence looks more likely to me though
lol ya i said it wrong :p like the tractor path, they had no way of telling that the tire tracks were made the day of the murder or a month earlier, im not gonna argue though, i can honestly say i have no clue, nor does anyone for sure :P its a really good case and i enjoyed researching it :)
Yes it was a good case and the arrest was justifiable. Some people make the conviction ridiculous when it wasn't. I honestly believe the case became "big" because Truscott was given the death penalty. Everyone in Canada knew that the sentence would be commuted to life in prison. As for the compensation Trusott received, why didn't he offer to take a polygraph test? If he was actually innocent, he had nothing to worry about.
@lolitathebitch i havent heard if a polygraph test was ever offered to steven. to my knowledge one wasnt submitted to court , has any one asked anyone if he was offered one or not.
@malscott Truscott's legal team said from the beginning that their client would NOT be taking a polygraph. So, not it wasn't offered. But, the question is "Why didn't Truscott offer to take a polygraph test if he was so innocent? I mean what did he have to lose? The last thing the OPP wanted to do was arrest a 14 year old kid. That guaranteed legal problems for them. I read the 1966 review of his case and his guilt to me is crystal clear.
@lolitathebitch well if i were a 14 year old boy living in the 50s as steven did. i dont think i would be sophisticated enough to offer to take one without it being offered. in the 80s 90s or 00s ya sure maybe i would
@malscott when was the polygraph offered that made the defence team say they would not submit if it was offered a long time down the road it could hardly be accurate wouldnt you agree?
Did you not understand the decomposition evidence in the review that said that the death could have occurred anywhere from sunset of the day of to well into the next day?
They aren't reliable, which is why they aren't admissable in court.
Anyone with the most basic of upper level military training is taught how to beat a polygraph, and most of what we were taught can be found online, and in your kitchen cupboard.
I would think that if Truscott were guilty, after so many years of proclaiming innocence and having many support that stance he probably would have registered a false negative, anyway.
There are still police officers who believe Truscott was guilty, and for good reason. At least 4 four different governments refused to review his case. Liberal, Conservative and NDP. This is because they all had access to information that never came out at trial. Truscott killed Lynne Harper and there are many people aware of the inside story.
"they all had access to information that never came out at trial." Why did all of this evidence pointing to his guilt not came out in court? If you think he wasn't railroaded, then you haven't read a single printed word on the case...am I right? The is an 'inside story' is there? The true 'inside story' is that the OPP screwed up every facet of this case, and refused to even look at anyone other than Truscott...there were several sex offenders on the base that were never scrutinized....
Perhaps if you had some knowledge of "the law" you would know why some evidence could not be presented at the trial. His confession was ruled inadmissable because a parent wasn't present, even though the confession contained details known only to the killer. There was also forensic evidence (pubic hair, semen) that was not allowed because of a procedural error by the crown. Inspite of this, he was still found guilty by a jury. If the truth ever comes out during a trial it's usually an accident.
It wasn't a "confession", but it was just like one. The police found some bicycle tracks near the body. They told Truscott that they were going to check his tires and analyze the similarities. That's when Truscott said they he was there and saw the Harper's dead body. He said he got scared and rode away. That admission was ruled inadmissible because an adult wasn't -present when he made that statement. Truscott definitely knew something about Harper's murder.
Hypothetically, he drops Harper off at the crossroads, doubles back, rides a bit, looks back and sees her getting into the strange car, that was reported by others in the area. Being a kid and being late, home is his main objective but a sense of responsibility hits him later that night or early the next day, when everyone else is out looking, and he returns to where he last saw her and searches the area coming across the body. He said he saw the body, not that he killed her.
one...public hair and semen would have been useless to collect back then, there was not way to match it until the early 90's. Those samples most likely wernt taken, especially since they exhumed the body.
two... if they had been disclosed as evidence, i doubt it would be dismissed for the raper/murder of a 12 year old girl because of "crown procedural error"...that would throw the administration of justice into disrepute....although its been there anyway since the dawn of the charter.
They had comparitive hair tests and they could blood type semen, if the donor was a secreter, in the 1950's. It doesn't make it any more likely that they would have collected or retained those samples, as they pretty much had Truscott fingered from the night it happened, but it wouldn't have made the collection of them "useless", as you said.
The cops in this case were lazy and just wanted a quick resolution to the murder. Truscott was the last person seen with the girl, so they thought he had to be guilty, and he was easy to railroad because he didn't really know his rights and he was ignorant of police tactics.
I first read of his case about 1973, and even then, a lot of things about it didn't sit well with me -- it was clear that the cops wanted a scapegoat and to them Truscott fit the bill.
Hmm also, the term sex offender encompasses a lot. Its one of those phrases that can be thrown around and people automaticlly assume guilt. Objectively speaking a sex offender could simply just be a guy who flashed people, which is a far strech from doing what truscott is acused of. We would need to know his criminal record.
Kelichuk (mentioned in the docu) had tried, 2 weeks prior to the murder, to lure a young girl into his car...while on holiday out west, 2 weeks after the murder, he sold his brand new car...a car he only purchased a few months prior to the murder... he had been in trouble many time for 'lewd" conduct with minors....was he even questioned about the murder? Take a wild guess......
It is unbelieveable that something like this could happen. There was a known sex offender not even 5 miles away from the crime sceen, yet police did not even question him and deliberatly went after truscott.
ok....why is the Narrator trying to do a half assed impersonation of Alan Rickman?
Honewsgirl 2 weeks ago
he was inniocent its not ru=ight on the justice system to do that
mystiesdream 5 months ago
hah this is like some ghetto school project
joerush25 1 year ago
what a life eh..
Jbomb8 1 year ago
There are several things missing about the case.First,one thing I learned is about lesions on Truscott's body that seemed to be caused by rape,but could have also been caused excessive self-pleasure.Another thing that is odd is that rapists/murderers usually have a criminal background but Truscott didn't.Plus,because of this,Truscott never got a chance to fully live life because he was incarcerated and seen as a criminal.
cooljohn55 1 year ago
I think it's cool that technology of the 90's freed a man wrongfully convicted of raping and murdering a 12-year-old girl in the 1950's. The sucky thing is the fact that it nearly five decades for Canada to prove he was innocent...and they have the nerve to call us Americans stupid. Isn't it funny how a wrongfully convicted man can bounce back and make a whole country feel stupid? You go, Mr. Truscott!
joshuabrooks21 1 year ago
@joshuabrooks21 at least Canadians don't impose the death penalty in ANY of their provinces. You can declare a dead man innocent but that doesn't mean he's coming back to life...
TheFreeThinkingMan 1 year ago
@TheFreeThinkingMan Yeah, so what if it takes us a few years to find someone innocent of a crime they didn't commit, but 48 years is way too long to do so...Stupid Canadians!
joshuabrooks21 1 year ago
@joshuabrooks21 you are right! However to say stupid canadians is not fair, Lets look at the U.S and all the innocent people still in jail shall we, Darlie Routier, Jeff macdonald to name a few but i am sure the list goes on and on and on at least the Canadians did finally exanerate him which is more then i can say for the States legal system who just throw innocent people in Jail all the time and let murderers walk around
kylas124 1 year ago
@kylas124 I take it you're Canadian? If so, good for you. Oh yeah, I'm sorry I called our neighbor to the north stupid. In all honesty, I'm an American citizen, but I visited your country when I was young. Thanks for being a good neighbor.
joshuabrooks21 1 year ago
Whats with this narrators voice?
SkInHoUnD 2 years ago
@SkInHoUnD it is a bit odd isnt it? :)
malscott 1 year ago
he was aquitted therefore i believe his innocence, literally since the day of his conviction he has said he was innocent, i know i could not keep saying i was innocent for the amount of time he did if i were convicted of something!
xXtommymusicmanXx 2 years ago
Peter Demeter has proclaimed his innocence since 1973...are you saying that he was innocent? Charles Manson has proclaimed since 1969...are you saying he was innocent as well?
lolitathebitch 2 years ago
the bicycle path, no way of telling how long they had been there which they couldn't prove, they also questioned him alone which is totally unfair, 14 year old kid vs some officers, they strip searched him and everything, and Truscott has said of his innocence since 59, not saying that makes him innocent, but it would be hard to say it that long if you did not mean it, but ya i know ppl can lie don't worry :P he could have done it, i dont know, innocence looks more likely to me though
xXtommymusicmanXx 2 years ago
I was referring to the tire tracks found at the scene of the crime. Not the bicycle path.
lolitathebitch 2 years ago
lol ya i said it wrong :p like the tractor path, they had no way of telling that the tire tracks were made the day of the murder or a month earlier, im not gonna argue though, i can honestly say i have no clue, nor does anyone for sure :P its a really good case and i enjoyed researching it :)
xXtommymusicmanXx 2 years ago
Yes it was a good case and the arrest was justifiable. Some people make the conviction ridiculous when it wasn't. I honestly believe the case became "big" because Truscott was given the death penalty. Everyone in Canada knew that the sentence would be commuted to life in prison. As for the compensation Trusott received, why didn't he offer to take a polygraph test? If he was actually innocent, he had nothing to worry about.
lolitathebitch 2 years ago
@lolitathebitch i havent heard if a polygraph test was ever offered to steven. to my knowledge one wasnt submitted to court , has any one asked anyone if he was offered one or not.
malscott 1 year ago
@malscott Truscott's legal team said from the beginning that their client would NOT be taking a polygraph. So, not it wasn't offered. But, the question is "Why didn't Truscott offer to take a polygraph test if he was so innocent? I mean what did he have to lose? The last thing the OPP wanted to do was arrest a 14 year old kid. That guaranteed legal problems for them. I read the 1966 review of his case and his guilt to me is crystal clear.
lolitathebitch 1 year ago
@lolitathebitch well if i were a 14 year old boy living in the 50s as steven did. i dont think i would be sophisticated enough to offer to take one without it being offered. in the 80s 90s or 00s ya sure maybe i would
malscott 1 year ago
@malscott when was the polygraph offered that made the defence team say they would not submit if it was offered a long time down the road it could hardly be accurate wouldnt you agree?
malscott 1 year ago
@lolitathebitch
Did you not understand the decomposition evidence in the review that said that the death could have occurred anywhere from sunset of the day of to well into the next day?
thegirl44 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lolitathebitch
"why didn't he offer to take a polygraph test"
They aren't reliable, which is why they aren't admissable in court.
Anyone with the most basic of upper level military training is taught how to beat a polygraph, and most of what we were taught can be found online, and in your kitchen cupboard.
I would think that if Truscott were guilty, after so many years of proclaiming innocence and having many support that stance he probably would have registered a false negative, anyway.
thegirl44 1 year ago
i forgot why his death penalty was lowered to life imprisonment?
mariedumpling 2 years ago
There are still police officers who believe Truscott was guilty, and for good reason. At least 4 four different governments refused to review his case. Liberal, Conservative and NDP. This is because they all had access to information that never came out at trial. Truscott killed Lynne Harper and there are many people aware of the inside story.
HondaSMM 2 years ago
"they all had access to information that never came out at trial." Why did all of this evidence pointing to his guilt not came out in court? If you think he wasn't railroaded, then you haven't read a single printed word on the case...am I right? The is an 'inside story' is there? The true 'inside story' is that the OPP screwed up every facet of this case, and refused to even look at anyone other than Truscott...there were several sex offenders on the base that were never scrutinized....
joeyvader 2 years ago
Perhaps if you had some knowledge of "the law" you would know why some evidence could not be presented at the trial. His confession was ruled inadmissable because a parent wasn't present, even though the confession contained details known only to the killer. There was also forensic evidence (pubic hair, semen) that was not allowed because of a procedural error by the crown. Inspite of this, he was still found guilty by a jury. If the truth ever comes out during a trial it's usually an accident.
HondaSMM 2 years ago
Who did he 'confess' to? What details did he give that would be known only to the killer?
joeyvader 2 years ago
It wasn't a "confession", but it was just like one. The police found some bicycle tracks near the body. They told Truscott that they were going to check his tires and analyze the similarities. That's when Truscott said they he was there and saw the Harper's dead body. He said he got scared and rode away. That admission was ruled inadmissible because an adult wasn't -present when he made that statement. Truscott definitely knew something about Harper's murder.
lolitathebitch 2 years ago
@lolitathebitch
Hypothetically, he drops Harper off at the crossroads, doubles back, rides a bit, looks back and sees her getting into the strange car, that was reported by others in the area. Being a kid and being late, home is his main objective but a sense of responsibility hits him later that night or early the next day, when everyone else is out looking, and he returns to where he last saw her and searches the area coming across the body. He said he saw the body, not that he killed her.
thegirl44 1 year ago
one...public hair and semen would have been useless to collect back then, there was not way to match it until the early 90's. Those samples most likely wernt taken, especially since they exhumed the body.
two... if they had been disclosed as evidence, i doubt it would be dismissed for the raper/murder of a 12 year old girl because of "crown procedural error"...that would throw the administration of justice into disrepute....although its been there anyway since the dawn of the charter.
SkInHoUnD 2 years ago
@SkInHoUnD
They had comparitive hair tests and they could blood type semen, if the donor was a secreter, in the 1950's. It doesn't make it any more likely that they would have collected or retained those samples, as they pretty much had Truscott fingered from the night it happened, but it wouldn't have made the collection of them "useless", as you said.
We had criminology method before DNA came along.
thegirl44 1 year ago
Does anyone know if the first trial transcript of the Truscott case is available on line somewhere. I've looked but can't find it.
Thanks
wedsprfmj 2 years ago
The cops in this case were lazy and just wanted a quick resolution to the murder. Truscott was the last person seen with the girl, so they thought he had to be guilty, and he was easy to railroad because he didn't really know his rights and he was ignorant of police tactics.
I first read of his case about 1973, and even then, a lot of things about it didn't sit well with me -- it was clear that the cops wanted a scapegoat and to them Truscott fit the bill.
WpgLwr007 2 years ago
Hmm also, the term sex offender encompasses a lot. Its one of those phrases that can be thrown around and people automaticlly assume guilt. Objectively speaking a sex offender could simply just be a guy who flashed people, which is a far strech from doing what truscott is acused of. We would need to know his criminal record.
Ryantube007 3 years ago
Kelichuk (mentioned in the docu) had tried, 2 weeks prior to the murder, to lure a young girl into his car...while on holiday out west, 2 weeks after the murder, he sold his brand new car...a car he only purchased a few months prior to the murder... he had been in trouble many time for 'lewd" conduct with minors....was he even questioned about the murder? Take a wild guess......
joeyvader 2 years ago
It is unbelieveable that something like this could happen. There was a known sex offender not even 5 miles away from the crime sceen, yet police did not even question him and deliberatly went after truscott.
Ryantube007 3 years ago