It took far too long to acquit Truscott of a murder he did not commit. What happened to Truscott could happen to anyone of us and is an indictment of the Canadian police, prosecutors and the courts. His is not an isolated case. Remember Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, David Milgaard, Thomas Sophonow, James Driskell and others?
Truscott Acquitted
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
The judge says truscott may not be elligible for compensation usually awarded to the wrongly convicted because Truscott was acquiited but not declared innocent.
Truscott’s lawyer, James Lockyer, says his client should get “every penny he can” out of the government for the 48 years he spent as a convicted murderer.
I wonder if the compensation will be a set amount per Ass Raping or a lump sum for ass damage.
Truscott’s lawyer, James Lockyer, says his client should get “every penny he can” out of the government for the 48 years he spent as a convicted murderer.
I wonder if the compensation will be a set amount per Ass Raping or a lump sum for ass damage.
Its disgusting that he should get nothing while that terrorist guy gets the millions for claims of bad treatment that has never been proven. 
Rockslinger said:
I haven't taken the time to read a transcript of the court proceedings, and I'm not likely to, but based on news accounts the decision appears to rest on "new" evidence not available at the trial. In fact, the evidence is described as having been discovered in the last 10 years, long after his release from prison.
The most significant new evidence was improved scientific analysis relating to the window of time surrounding the death. There is no suggestion that this improved scientific analysis was available at the time of trial.
In short, while the current court was persuaded based on updated science that the original stomach contents evidence was not determinative, there is no suggestion that it was unreasonable for the trial court to have acted on the evidence at trial based upon the science of the day.
The reasoning of the current court invalidates the evidence the Crown chose to rely upon at the trial. However, the court does not conclude that Truscott was innocent, nor does it conclude that condemning evidence based on modern forensic science was not available at the time. I'm sure that in 20 years, someone will discover scientific flaws in the evidence used to put away every killer convicted today!
It comes down to whether we should all pay Truscott because the science of the day is now considered unreliable. I think he should just count his lucky stars that he has been able to clear his record. Nothing short of positive proof of innocence should support payment of compensation.
Last edited:
LancsLad said:Its disgusting that he should get nothing while that terrorist guy gets the millions for claims of bad treatment that has never been proven.
I agree 100% but I'm sure he will get something.
His crime by the way could have been punishable by a death sentence.
I found the whole thing a little disturbing, in that my reading of the evidence makes it seem likely that he really did do it. Not having enough evidence to convict is not the same as him really not doing it. The brother and father of the victim continue to believe that he was the killer. Just because some of the evidence used at the trial was questionable, does not mean he did not do it, it is not like they found the real killer.
In particular, he claimed to have ridden her on his bike to the road, where a car picked her up. But her body was found back where he claimed to have ridden past. So the real killer drove her away, then brought her back to dump the body? There were a number of witnesses who claimed that he did it, and asked them to lie. Their testimony was later discredited because they changed their stories, but changing stories does not mean that the time they said he did it was the lie.
I certainly do not have enough evidence to convict him, there probably isn't enough now. And he was 14 when he allegedly did it, and served 10 years, where now he would serve maximum 4. So even if he did do it, he did not get away with it. But I would be reluctant to say he was innocent at this point.
In particular, he claimed to have ridden her on his bike to the road, where a car picked her up. But her body was found back where he claimed to have ridden past. So the real killer drove her away, then brought her back to dump the body? There were a number of witnesses who claimed that he did it, and asked them to lie. Their testimony was later discredited because they changed their stories, but changing stories does not mean that the time they said he did it was the lie.
I certainly do not have enough evidence to convict him, there probably isn't enough now. And he was 14 when he allegedly did it, and served 10 years, where now he would serve maximum 4. So even if he did do it, he did not get away with it. But I would be reluctant to say he was innocent at this point.
There never was any evidence to charge him, let alone convict him. The lazy cops had tunnel vision, just picked up the first guy without an alibi and considered their job done.
It turned out there was a sex offender in the area they never questioned.
A guilty man got away with rape and murder thanks to the police and courts.
A good thing that arose is that people realized this could happen to anyone and the death penalty was abolished largely because of this case.
It turned out there was a sex offender in the area they never questioned.
A guilty man got away with rape and murder thanks to the police and courts.
A good thing that arose is that people realized this could happen to anyone and the death penalty was abolished largely because of this case.
just wanted to add,
that although, new evidence due to scientific analysis played a role in the decision, a series of mistakes made by the police, the prosecution, and more than one judge, played a significant role in this too.
Eyewitness testimony that supported his version of events was surpressed, it seems, in the case.
He was a young teenage boy at the time. He had to live through his prison sentence. He had to live through the threat of hanging. God, I hate you people who support capital punishment....
that although, new evidence due to scientific analysis played a role in the decision, a series of mistakes made by the police, the prosecution, and more than one judge, played a significant role in this too.
Eyewitness testimony that supported his version of events was surpressed, it seems, in the case.
He was a young teenage boy at the time. He had to live through his prison sentence. He had to live through the threat of hanging. God, I hate you people who support capital punishment....
trisket said:
Exactly.
Just like David Milguard, Donald Marshall, and especially Guy Paul Morin.
In each and EVERY case, the cops framed the guy they figured "did it". In each case, DNA evidence cleared them years after the fact.
Milguard spent almost 30 years in the slammer for a murder he didn't commit.
In Morin's case, he was charged with killing a little girl - Christine Jessop. The cops HAD EVIDENCE that would have cleared him, yet they buried it. Even the crown was aware of it, and they continued to prosecute him, not once, but twice.
Imagine being on trial for killing a child and you are screaming that you didn't do it and no-one is listening AND they convict you.
I'd would HATE to ever have to put my faith in a bunch of cops who have an IQ of about 95.
I don't think Truscott did it. They exhumed Lynne Harper's body a few years ago to test for DNA but the body was too badly decomposed. Truscott was the one pushing for that. If he was guilty, he'd have been really stupid to push for that.
If all of that had happened now, they cops would have spent about an hour asking him questions likely in his home, and nothing else would ever have been done. Anyone see the Fifth Estate (?) show on the case? That poor fuck got convicted on next to nothing, and none of what they saw as "evidence" was fact or material based, all circumstantial, and a real reach with most of that!!
Just unbeliveable. That guy has been viewed as a murderer for my entire lifetime. He deserves MINIMUM mid 7 figures. That will at least set his family up for a generation or two if he cant get a lifetime out of it.
Just unbeliveable. That guy has been viewed as a murderer for my entire lifetime. He deserves MINIMUM mid 7 figures. That will at least set his family up for a generation or two if he cant get a lifetime out of it.
Last edited:
TQM said:
Agreed. Check this out - shocking
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/children/4.htm
1959 Ontario = 2007 Texas
Using that logic, you might just as well argue that every single person who was alive and in Canada at the time of the murder has not been "proven" innocent. The fact is that innocence is supposed to be presumed by default until proven otherwise.C Dick said:
How exactly is this relevant?
Bereved relatives almost always dispute overturned convictions. They almost always believe in the guilt of the first person acused. They want their villain and they want their closure in order to make some sense of the tragedy that happened to them. That's understandable and we can't hold it against them, but bereved relatives should not play play any role whatsoever in the judicial process. Their emotional needs should be addressed by therapists, not the justice system.
While the most recent review of the conviction was prompted by DNA evidence, the case has been analyzed by activists and lawyers for decades and even when I was in high school 18 years ago there was a strong body of opinion that the trial was not fair.
danmand said:
Calm down there o saviour of the downtrodden masses.
The Feds let themselves get all caught up in the PC media frenzy to appear contrite. Royal commission, give me a break!! They may call him Canadian but we don't.
