What happened to the discussion of the Truscott case?

I have been following it recently and wanted to throw out some thoughts related to the forensic evidence at the Court of Appeals but the thread seems to have vanished. Has it been censored or something?

Russ W.

OK, I didn't know how it works. I'm glad I saved that information about getting the Kaufman report. I've read the various books (not recently) but am more interested in implications of some of the newer material before the court. I will post some tentative thoughts later (at work right now) and see if anyone else is interested in exploring those avenues. Thanx, Russ W.

Does anyone know how much it costs to get a copy of the Kaufman report?

Mesda, I will find out the cost of getting the Kaufman brief and report back. I want to read it myself.

I do not intend to post "arguments" about innocence or guilt (as far as I am concerned the matter is before the courts and I want to see how they deal with it). Perhaps those who wish to pursue such can join Matthew2 in his new thread about "Truth."

My interest is in some of the details, mainly in the newer forensic evidence, and exploring the possibilities of where those implications might lead. I first was introduced to entomology by a university roommate who went on to become a professor of entomology in the USA. Too bad we have not kept in touch, but he tweaked my interest at the time . I was studying anthropology and he told me how insect evidence was used to date archeological finds, ancient tombs, etc. I found it fascinating. I now have a healthy respect for the cockroach, which is so adapted for survival it is likely to thrive even after a nuclear war. So when the various entomologists testified last summer I followed their evidence closely. BTW, does anyone know of a source for the evidence introduced at that time? I saved the reports I could find and went down and listened myself on two occasions.

The insect ev idence, which was complex, generally points to a time of death early on June 10 (though I seem to remember one expert opinion that even early a.m. on June 11 was a possibility, as well as one who argued that before sundown on June 9 was also possible). So a range of time was posited by most with a balance tending towards a.m. on June 10. If one hypothesizes that Lynne's death occurred on June 10, many other questions also arise. Was she assaulted in the bush, or elsewhere, or (conceivably), both? Where did she encounter the killer ? There were unverified reports of her being seen in Seaforth that evening. It is possible that the driver who picked her up when she was allegedly hitch-hiking dropped her off at another destination and that she met her assailant thereafter. Was the perpetrator a stranger, or someone known to her, even if only slightly?

Some other details that factor in here: there was no report as far as I know of insect bites. Since I spent all my summers as a kid in an area much like the scene of the crime, I know you cannot go into the bush -- or near it -- on a summer evening without being chewed alive by mosquitoes within seconds. I cannot imagine that Lynne was in the bush around dusk without getting covered with mosquito bites. Perhaps someone more familiar with the medical details can comment? Another detail, although the news constantly mentions that Lynne was raped, there appears to be no conclusive evidence of this (one of the expert pathologists testified to this effect, I recall). It was not an unreasonable assumption at the time given the other circumstances, but still is an assumption, not a proven fact. The motive of the killing was clearly sexual but in point of fact many pedophiles do not rape their victims. Since this is a family-oriented site I will not elaborate on what they do instead. Another detail, I don't remember the source for this, is that some of Lynne's clothes were damp when found -- despite the drought and heat of the previous few weeks. This is puzzling but suggests some other lines of inquiry.

I have some other questions and thoughts about possible scenarios but will share them later if others are interested. I am not arguing for what did or didn't happen, but am interested in what might have happened given certain facts and details.

Russ

Russell,

Entomology is a great tool to be used in these matters but as it stands, 48 years later, the parsing of words just won't cut it. It creates confusion and doubt and that is all the defense desires. FACT was being clouded in the recent Ontario Court of Appeals submissions.

It is futile to keep bringing new questionable issues to light just to have the other side argue their opposing views when the issues really carry no weight, but only to create confusion and doubt. Once again this is what the Appellent wishes.

Cheers, M.

These lines of inquiry interest me as well. I also went to the Court last summer and heard some of the testimony. I would really need to read and study much of the information to understand it thoroughly, but it did seem that the balance of evidence (not excluding that presented by the Crown) supported a later time for Lynne's death, with most estimates (including Dr. Penistan's) being around midnight-8 a.m. June 10. I believe the time factor will be a major one in the court's ultimate findings.

My question (and I don't know who would have the answer, if there is one) would be about what a behavioural scientist would be able to tell us about the likelihood of various scenarios. We all know from TV about crime scene profiling (which would not be applicable in this case because of the contamination of the scene from the first), but behaviour scientists can make very astute generalizations about characteristics of the likely suspect(s) from a variety of features surrounding the event, and by now there is a large database. Besides "M.O." an offender also leaves a "signature" (sometimes called "personation") and "staging." Lynne's murder had evidence of the latter (in the placement of the tree branches, for instance) and the seldom-mentioned fact that the killer cut a square out of Lynne's blouse (and presumably took it with him, perhaps as a trophy) is one aspect of a "signature." Geographic factors are also important.

I know a fair bit about behaviour science but not so much about its applications to criminal behaviour, and would be interested in what one who studied the original photographs, reports, etc. might make of the facts given today's understanding of such crimes. According to one of the FBI experts in such matters, about 75% of murders are situational. I'm sure that an experienced investigator would have some insights into the characteristics of Lynne's killer. In the event the Court of Appeals exonerates Truscott, I hope the matter is not dropped . Not only Lynne's family, but the public as well, deserves a full investigation.

Suzanne

Suzanne, I have done some inquiries regarding profiling. The answers are varied. I for one would love to have a crime scene profiling done. It would only be accurate up to the point of letting the profiler do his analysis from the pictures and written descriptions. Fifty years and less than perfect photos tend to wreak havoc on a good profile.

Also there is some suggestion that what we see in the photos is less than a pristine crime scene. One thing to think about here: Lynne's body was found at 1:50 pm. The photos were taken starting at 4:30 pm. There had been dozens upon dozens of people walking all over and who knows how well they preserved the scene.

One thing we do know is that oral descriptions of the crime scene did sometimes not match with the story that the pictures told. But if there is that one slim chance of bringing us that one step closer, we should be all for it.

Bent

Richard, I am thoroughly ticked that you would jump to point the finger at me for having the other thread pulled!! How dare you write something like that without the proof to back it up!! I had nothing to do with it being pulled and will try my hardest to find out what happened!!

Lesley

Lesley,

As I stated on my thread I do apologize for the haste in judgement with respect to the pulling of the former "thread". I think that the premise was that the originator and the site managers have the ability to pull the threads.

Cheers, M.

Bent,

You are quite the character. You are just so 'bent' on refracting everything. Place the blame on the other guy, it can't be Truscott. On your recent submission, you now target the integrity of the crime scene. Why don't you invest more time in analyzing the factual evidence? Things that we do or reasonably do know with respect to this case. The more you and others keep throwing conspiracy theories out there the further we move from the truth.

Truscott was convicted in a court of law at the age of 14 years. I can assure you that no law enforcement officer let alone any prosecutor would want to unjustly point the finger at such a young suspect. There was overwhelming compelling circumstantial evidence of which 12 jurors found Truscott guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The 1966 supreme court appeal hearing upheld the verdict by a vote of 8 to 1.

There were never any legal issues surrounding the verdict.

The medical experts will always be jousting over the medical evidence so you can conclude a stale mate on those grounds.

How can the testimonies of several children and adults witnesses being so wrong. To point the finger at the Crown's 2 key witnesses and say that they are lying just doesn't cut it when you look at their supporting testimonies. These kids also know what a GUILTY verdict would do to their friend. It also appears to me that Godette tried her best to protect Truscott not condemn him.

Anyhow, I am quite tired and need to sleep.

Cheers, M.

"or alternatively, you can try another website at www.steventruscott.ca"

Ah, but just beware if you happen to be defending Truscott, rather than his conviction. The owner of that site, isn't all that tolerant of Truscott supporters.

God Bless,

Carolyn.

Hello Matthew,

The reason why the 1966 Court Appeal upheld the murder verdict was because evidence was with held by Prosecutors from the Defence. Example: Dr. Penistan's "Agonizing Reappraisal" of his analysis of Lynne Harper's stomach contents.

Just what makes you so certain that police investigators & prosecutors would want to point a finger a "person of such a young age?" I just got the book "Until You Are Dead," by Julien Sher, for my birthday a few days ago, & from the way it looks so far, it would appear that was exactly what investigators wanted to do!!!!

Lesley, I hope your father will finally be exonerated.

God Bless,

Carolyn.

Carolyn,

All the information that Truscott's current legal team hold was available to the 1966 defence team. Nothing was withheld in 1966, it just wanted used and probably due to no merit.

It would be a lot easier for the Crown to build a case around an older adult because the general consensus is that a boy of such an age is not capable of such a heinous act. I would infer by rhetoric I am reading out there that the sentiment still holds. I really hope that you enjoy Sher's work it really is fitting for you. Your claim that meeting Truscott was an honor says a lot for you. Truscott was a convicted murderer and was never exonerated and you already go out there and proclaim your meeting an honor.

When the blinds open you will find the truth so near. Sher is not going to help, it is only going to confuse the truth that much more.

Cheers, M.

Hello Matthew,

On the contrary, simply pinpointing the sex slaying on the last person whom Lynne Harper was seen alive with, rather than doing a thorough investigation would have been far more easier thing for police & prosecuters to do.

Yes, it is quite possible(albeit very rare)for children to commit murder. However, it is the police's job to collect concrete evidence of the guilty party. Not just go after someone just because it just so happens that someone was the last person seen with the victim when she was alive.

You say that the fact that I was honoured to meet Steven Truscott says alot about me. Well, the fact that you come to a topic thread created by Steven Truscott's daughter & call him a sex killer, says alot about you also.

God Bless,

Carolyn.

"It's called "Truscott Case" It is a public forum."

a)I don't dispute that this is a public forum.

b)When I mentioned to Matthew about "posting on a topic thread created by Steven Truscott's daughter" I was referring the topic thread which was recently deleted. It was created by Lesley Truscott.

"Nice try, Carolyn."

Nice try to you too, Free_Thinker.

Carolyn, When have I ever stated that law enforcement targeted Truscott due the fact that he was the last person seen with Lynn? You really have to be careful in the words you choose. Law enforcement focused in on Truscott once Lynn's body was discovered as his statements simply weren't consistent with where she was found and with other witness statements. The investigators found difficulty in his statements which led them to further suspect him, hence the physical examination held on Friday June 12, 1959 which revealed the penis sores along with the other scratches and sores. I would say that law enforcement had a pretty good hunch with this one. Wouldn't you agree? Or is this to be dismissed as coincidence? You state, "it is the police's job to collect concrete evidence of the guilty party." Are you implying that the police should have circumvented Truscott just because you hold the crystal ball and you believe that he was not the guilty party? Is this a biased statement because you deem your encounter with Truscott "an honour"? Law enforcement have a job to do and that is to find the perpetrator. Are they infallible? Absolutely not, BUT you can be assured that they did not elect to pin a Capital murder on a 14 year old boy just to meet their monthly quota.

Here is recent testimony by Crown counsel... "The premise of the Appellant's position appears to be that it is never appropriate for the police to focus upon a particular individual as a "prime" suspect. On that view, the police are obliged perpetually to look for "bad people" in order to rule them out as suspects, even if they have strong evidence linking one particular individual to the crime. The Appellant's status as a "suspect" properly crystallized when the body was found in Lawson's Bush, not far from where the Appellant was seen with Lynne. The location of the body did not accord with his story to the police. The story itself was inherently inconsistent and inconsistent with other information that had come to their attention." Why do you keep referring to the investigation not being thorough? The police and other investigators followed up on literally hundreds of leads before and after Lynn's body was found and throughout the years that followed the trial.

Why would law enforcement not be obliged to direct there energies towards Truscott's if the evidence was conducive thereof? I don't ever remember labelling Truscott a sex killer, in fact you keep referring to the act as being a sex slaying or a killing. I have labelled him a convicted murderer which once again is FACTUAL. Lesley is a big girl and has read a lot of submissions pro and con over the last 6 years so I don't think my submissions are any shock to her. Your fixation or infatuation with Truscott is only hindering your ability to clearly reason the FACTS. Cheers, M.

"I would say that that the law enforcement had a pretty good hunch on this one. Wouldn't you agree?"

No. I think they could have followed up on other leads, before jumping on Truscott.

I came to the conclusion that Truscott was wrongfully convicted a few years ago. I even created a topic about him on a message forum about Capital Punishment(I oppose it)on another website(the topic is still there, albeit not too many posts on it). I didn't just decide he was innocent because I met him in person last month.

"BUT you can bet they did not elect to pinpoint a Capital murder on a 14 year old boy to meet their monthly quota."

Well they certainly ran to judgement. That's for sure.

The only direct evidence the police had linking Truscott with Lynne Harper was that she was last seen alive in public, on the handle bars of Steven Truscott's bike, & there were witnesses who saw the both of them north of the trail leading into Lawson's Bush.

There was plenty of reason to check out other leads, rather than focusing squarely on Truscott.

Thanks you, Lesley, for clarifying. I appreciate your contributions here. In fact I was puzzled by the accusations that you were responsible for removing the previous thread. As far as I can tell only someone with administrative rights on the board can remove anything but their own posts. I started this thread but do not have the power to delete anything but what I have written.

I'm not that familiar with this message board but on others I know of posts are sometimes deleted for issues of courtesy and respect. Remember that many more people read the discussions than participate (about 15:1 ratio I understand). It is possible that there were complaints that the previous thread contained too much name-calling, ad-hominem attacks and even remarks offensive to religious faith for a community bulletin board, and that is why the thread was removed. I do not think it was because of any opinion we expressed since various opinions were expressed from the start (2002 or whenever).

I want to return to a point made by Carolyn. If we hypothesize a later time of death in the case, what are some likely scenarios. She offered the suggestion that Lynne's assailant was a stranger, not someone from the base. I am of two minds about this. A case for stranger abduction can be made. The killer need not have been the driver who first picked Lynne up, though that is more probable than the alternate possibility, that Lynne first went elsewhere (Seaforth?) and encountered her killer there. I think the evidence favours the contention that Lynne was first assaulted in another location and then transported to Lawson's Bush, and was likely still alive but unconscious when finally taken there. The amount of blood at the scene did not correspond with the severity of her injuries. Other details suggest the assault occurred elsewhere. Had she been struggling with the killer in the bush during daylight hours she would certainly have been covered with mosquito bites.

I think the killer was familiar with the area, was either a local or someone employed at the base or regularly visiting there. Even in 1959 flashlights were available. I don't think it impossible that someone familiar with the area could have driven up the tractor trail in the dark, removed Lynne from the car, carried her into the bush a short distance. A flashlight would have been enough light to break the saplings and cover the body in a ritualistic way. I syspect the killer may have asphyxiated Lynne manually (rather than with her blouse) and then, after cutting the blouse for a trophy, put it back on her body in the awkward way in which she was found. Her arm would have interfered with asphyxiation the way the blouse was knotted.

The question is, who is a stranger? I saw an interesting documentary about perception of "strangers" and school aged children of about ages 9-12. It was fascinating and surprising. I will explain more in another post.

Russell

Thanks you, Lesley, for clarifying. I appreciate your contributions here. In fact I was puzzled by the accusations that you were responsible for removing the previous thread. As far as I can tell only someone with administrative rights on the board can remove anything but their own posts. I started this thread but do not have the power to delete anything but what I have written.

I'm not that familiar with this message board but on others I know of posts are sometimes deleted for issues of courtesy and respect. Remember that many more people read the discussions than participate (about 15:1 ratio I understand). It is possible that there were complaints that the previous thread contained too much name-calling, ad-hominem attacks and even remarks offensive to religious faith for a community bulletin board, and that is why the thread was removed. I do not think it was because of any opinion we expressed since various opinions were expressed from the start (2002 or whenever).

I want to return to a point made by Carolyn. If we hypothesize a later time of death in the case, what are some likely scenarios. She offered the suggestion that Lynne's assailant was a stranger, not someone from the base. I am of two minds about this. A case for stranger abduction can be made. The killer need not have been the driver who first picked Lynne up, though that is more probable than the alternate possibility, that Lynne first went elsewhere (Seaforth?) and encountered her killer there. I think the evidence favours the contention that Lynne was first assaulted in another location and then transported to Lawson's Bush, and was likely still alive but unconscious when finally taken there. The amount of blood at the scene did not correspond with the severity of her injuries. Other details suggest the assault occurred elsewhere. Had she been struggling with the killer in the bush during daylight hours she would certainly have been covered with mosquito bites.

I think the killer was familiar with the area, was either a local or someone employed at the base or regularly visiting there. Even in 1959 flashlights were available. I don't think it impossible that someone familiar with the area could have driven up the tractor trail in the dark, removed Lynne from the car, carried her into the bush a short distance. A flashlight would have been enough light to break the saplings and cover the body in a ritualistic way. I syspect the killer may have asphyxiated Lynne manually (rather than with her blouse) and then, after cutting the blouse for a trophy, put it back on her body in the awkward way in which she was found. Her arm would have interfered with asphyxiation the way the blouse was knotted.

The question is, who is a stranger? I saw an interesting documentary about perception of "strangers" and school aged children of about ages 9-12. It was fascinating and surprising. I will explain more in another post.

Russell

I received this from Guelph.com today.

Hello Rick - there was an error on our site that caused some discussions to be deleted. Guelph.com will try to rectify however there are no promises. As for Leslie Truscott no she did not request any changes from Guelph.com Guelph.com would like to apologize for this matter. Regards, The Guelph.com Team 01/03/2007

Lesley, I properly should have included "and/or Guelph.com has closed...etc." In my experience thread originators and webhost sites have administrator rights over content. I do apologize for the distress my suggested reason for your thread deletion caused you. No insult was intended.

Sincerely,

Richard Brown

Russell, I think your points are very generalized and you overlook many details. If you want to make a case for the stranger then at least season it with a little reasoning. The stranger premise...You haven't reasoned as to why any stranger would have returned Lynn home. The evidence is not conducive of the rape occurring anywhere other than the woods (remember the crepe-sole shoes prints aligned with the position the rapist would have posed, the blood droplets on the foliage below the vaginal region, and the rather large gash under Lynn's right shoulder which was conducive of the wooden debris of which she was found). There were abrasions to the underside of Lynn's (more so on the buttocks) body that failed to haemorrhage, and this is conducive to Lynn dying prior to or shortly after the rape commenced. How much blood would you expect to of been at the scene? There never was a violent struggle, that is apparent. (I surmise that the 3 scratches observed on Truscott's arm occurred outside of the bush while Lynn was being rendered unconscious. This is more than likely where her laryngeal was broken.) There were abrasions found on Truscott's arm, along with abrasions found on his knees and elbows. The physical evidence was conducive to Lynn being dragged to the location, raped and inevitably dying where she was found. Would one not reason that Lynn would have screamed should the perpetrator had chosen to drag her while she was conscious? On this premise we can imply that she was more than likely rendered unconscious and dragged to the location. On your premise that the perpetrator could have been an adult male returning her home there are several problems to this scenario. Firstly, how does the stranger or local get to the tractor field from the road (the field is surrounding by barbed-wire fencing. Why would the stranger not elect to carry Lynn into the woods, remember it is dark and no one can see? Carrying her would appear to be more plausible. Dragging would only occur if the body is too heavy to carry OR should lifting the body expose the body to others view. In line with your theory of the local, it would simply be an unreasonable and stupid task to commit such an act and then take her home. It just doesn't flow Russ. Nice try. You are better off with the stranger. The flashlight...First of all you are assuming that the perpetrator had a flashlight in his vehicle. Lynn's body was dragged into the woods, not carried. There was also barbed-wire to contend with. If we are to afford you merit with respect to your theory, then we would have to accept that the perpetrator found a way into Lawson's field around the barbed-wire and drove hundreds of metres through the field to the tractor trail entrance right where Godette is looking for Truscott; the perpetrator then pulls an unconscious Lynn from the vehicle elects to drag her 24 metres in to the woods while holding the flashlight. (I don't see how he is able to manipulate the flashlight and pull Lynn with 2 arms simultaneously, it would make more sense to carry Lynn); the perpetrator would have to return to the car to get her clothes (why were Lynn's shoes and socks removed in the car?); the perpetrator would have to of been wearing crepe-soled shoes (which Truscott wore that evening); after the perpetrator rapes her and ties her shirt in a simple reef knot (which Truscott was familiar with) around Lynn's neck he then rises in the dark and commences to snap 3 branches from a tree and to be placed over Lynn's body for some twisted ritualistic reason. All this being, done the dark with a flash of light being moved about and the relatively loud snapping occurring with the branches. If only one could be so bold and stupid. HOLD ON, we forgot the necklace. The perpetrator then elects to leave the woods and instead of immediately driving away he elects to run a couple hundred metres to hang his trophy on the barbed-wire fence (which would put the perpetrator along side the road). MOSQUITOES DON'T BITE DEAD BODIES...Even if Lynn was bitten by mosquitoes, the reactions would have halted if death occurred shortly thereafter. Secondly, one cannot compare the soil or dampness in the forest today with the conditions 48 years back. Conditions change. The hitchhiking...The theory on multiple hitching by Lynn that evening won't fly...Truscott alleges that target destination was the white house with the ponies (only 300 metres up the road) but she was never seem there that night by the owners. She knew the owners so one would surmise that they would have been aware of her presence if she was there. This means that she would of had to of been taken further and even assuming that she manages to get out of this first vehicle, she would have been terrified and too terrified to jump into another vehicle. If we look at only one vehicle, then we would assume that the alleged perpetrator was aware of her home. With the intention of driving east and being conscious of where he picks up Lynn, it only appears logical that the perpetrator would find an alternate location to do his dirty deeds and that would be further east. It is a reasonable premise that having criminal intent doesn't make you stupid, but only more cautious of what you do and say. The lack of plausibility and reasoning dismisses your scenario. It appears that your position is in support of Truscott and I respect that opinion, however, with simple reasoning and assessment of the FACTS there will be only one conclusion. Cheers, M.

The question of Steven Truscotts innocence or guilt will always be open to speculation no matter how the courts rule. There are just to many unanswered and unprovable items in this case. It really will boil down to no one knows for sure what happened that night. But Mr. Truscott as well as experts and the police have said things that are damaging to Mr. Truscott. I cannot shake my belief that he is guilty, but that is what the courts are for. Some suggested that I reread the books, and that the last book that was supposed to be Mr. Truscotts own story. The problem now, it is suggested that the author of his book used his own words, not necessarily Mr. Truscotts words. If this is so why didn’t Mr. Truscott say so or try to stop publication beforehand? I have however gone to a website that goes back to the beginning in the Ontario Court of Appeals. I realize that I am only taking out portions. These would be the portions that raise questions for me. The site is http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/court_of_appeal/truscott/af/FAPVolume1F2.pdf for reference to my comments. Starting with PART 111 THE WHEREABOUTS OF STEVEN TRUSCOTT AND LYNNE- HARPER JUNE 9, 1959 –TRIAL AND REFERENCE EVIDENCE. This section deals with the vechile and the lisence plate and number that Mr. Truscott describes as having picked Lynne Harper up that night. He said he saw a man and a woman in the car. Several times he repeated the lisence plate number. When confronted by police that the lisence plate number did not match the description of the car, Mr. Truscott then said he may have gotten the first 3 numbers mixed up. When confronted with the fact that there was a car in the community that had a combination of the lisence given by him his description then it becomes a late model Chev and could have been Bellaire edition. Also that he could not see anyone in the back of the car. This was at 9:30 am in an interview with P.C. Hobbs. Then at 12:30 the same day in an interview with P.C Trumbley, Sgt. Johnson, Trumbley testified that it was a 1959 Chev Bellair and that he was sure. He goes on to say he was certain and then that it was something like a Bel-Air. Further down after it having been suggested that perhaps Steven was mistaken because of the local man driving the grey car matching his plate and description had been at his home earlier, his mother says no Steven did not see the car when the man paid a visit. An issue becomes on the color of the lisence plate. Mr. Truscott is now saying he didn’t discern the number of the plate only the color? Is this after specifically mentioning the number of the plate several times? The next thing that raises questions for me is the testimony of Mr. Truscott’s mother, Vol. 4A, 1629/15 to 1631/10; 1649/15, number 170 in the report. She asked him where he had been and he told her that he had been "riding down past the river and up at the school with the kids". He does not mention Lynne Harper or the Lawson farm. Since that was the main thing he did during that time I wonder why he doesn’t mention that. Now moving on to 180, The Conversation at the River. On Wednesday evening, several boys were at the bridge fishing and swimming. Those present were Steven Truscott, Paul Desjardine, Bryan Glover, Tom Gillette and Arnold George.Lynne's disappearance was raised by Paul Desjardine. The question is whether or not Arnold George said he saw Steven and Lynne go into Lawson Bush. Then a bit later in the conversation Steven says he did go into the bush. He was in the woods looking for a cow and calf along the north side of the woods. In cross-examination of Desjardine, the defence brought out that the part of this conversation wherein Desjardine testified Steven had gone into the woods to look for a cow and a calf had not been recalled by Desjardine when he testified at the preliminary hearing. Then Bryan Glover pretty much confirms this conversation. Then Thomas Gillette recalled Arnold George was underneath the bridge at the time of the conversation. He testified: A: Arnold George said he had seen Lynne going into the bush with Steve and Steve said: "What was that again, Butch?" and Steve said - - or Butch said: "I saw you going into the bush with Lynne." Q. Anything more said? A. And he said: "I didn't go into the bush with Lynne". Q. How close were you to Steven when he said that? A. About ten feet. Q. Did you notice anything about Steve's manner when he said what was said? A. He sounded as if he was threatening him. Q. Threatening whom? A. Arnold George. There is more on this so please check the site to see the rest. Especially 184 which is Mr.Truscotts response to these converstaions. Leaves me wondering, who was covering what up? It continues down to 187 which is also very suspect. Please read it. You will see what I am getting at. Now the biggest question of all, did young Steven know what he did and then slipped and realized his mistake. You have to read 210 where Steven admits he was in the bush but is very vague. It shook me to see that. When you see this it will shake you as well. Trial Evidence of Dr. Addison, (voir dire) Vol. 2B, 813/5 to 815/5. This continues down to 213. From this point down to 218 there is a statement made by Mr. Truscott to the appeal board where he asks to prove that one mistake doesn’t mean he will ever make another one. Mr Truscott said that he needed to tell them what they wanted and that he was tired of fighting and it was working against him, so he told them what they wanted to hear.Personally I think he occasionaly slipped and told the truth. But regardless when people say Mr. Truscott has steadfastly held to his innocence, I must beg to differ, and it is in the court records. From 226 to the end is Mr. Truscott’s Psychiatric profile, and is worth the read. Again I point out there will always be questions and only the courts can make a decision, that deals with the legality of the matter, but the people who believe Mr. Truscott is innocent will do so no matter what truth is placed in front of them as will those who believe he is guilty.

Matthew 2, You raise some very interesting issues. It seems bizzare to me how angry some people get because not everyone is convinced of Mr.Truscotts innocence. I personaly think the facts speak for themselves. I did go to the Ontario court of appeals and read it. Many questions arose from that as well. Ofcourse there will likely be many angry responses to my point of view, but I have tried to back it up with the facts. I am totally amazed by how you bring it all together and very insightful views. I wonder did Steven perhaps realize he had the necklace got nervous and took it back, and that is why he went into such detail and an unimportant issue?Conjecture I know but just wondering. Thanks for you feedback. Debra

Debra,

You sound like a wise and clearly open-minded person. Your submissions should be commended because you are one of the few who support there arguments with FACT. That's all I have ever tried to get out of the Truscott supporters. Base your arguments on the facts NOT rhetoric so widely disseminated throughout the internet.

I think I may have to correct you on one of the testimonies you quote. I don't recall any of the boys testifying that anyone saw Truscott go in the woods with Lynn (although there is strong evidence that Godette or George did see something). If I recall the testimonials were all along the line of "I heard you were in the bush with Lynn OR What were you doing in the bush with Lynn?" I could be wrong BUT you may want to check it out.

The necklace...You said it best, the facts speak for themselves. Although some brush off the necklace as a "half-baked" theory, I see this as one of the most incriminating pieces of the puzzle. Necklaces represent intimacy and this challenges Truscott's stance with respect to his alleged indifference to Lynn. The mere fact that the one piece of her dressing he mentions is the necklace, the one thing missing from Lynn's person becomes very suspect. You may be correct in surmising that Truscott gets cold feet and plants the necklace on the barbed-wire fence. However, I take a slightly different stance. The fact that Truscott details the necklace appears to imply that he is trying to direct the investigators to search. In Truscott's mind the search will pull the attention away from himself. Now I am not sure of the exact location where the necklace was found but I suspect it would have been north of the tractor trail. As to why Truscott took the necklace, well it may very well have been a trophy. We don't know.

If you view Dr. Addison's "voir dire" testimony at the trial, you will see what is no doubt an admission of guilt by Truscott. His responses to Dr. Addision clearly show how messed up he was at that time.

Cheers, M.

Debra,

You sound like a wise and clearly open-minded person. Your submissions should be commended because you are one of the few who support there arguments with FACT. That's all I have ever tried to get out of the Truscott supporters. Base your arguments on the facts NOT rhetoric so widely disseminated throughout the internet.

I think I may have to correct you on one of the testimonies you quote. I don't recall any of the boys testifying that anyone saw Truscott go in the woods with Lynn (although there is strong evidence that Godette or George did see something). If I recall the testimonials were all along the line of "I heard you were in the bush with Lynn OR What were you doing in the bush with Lynn?" I could be wrong BUT you may want to check it out.

The necklace...You said it best, the facts speak for themselves. Although some brush off the necklace as a "half-baked" theory, I see this as one of the most incriminating pieces of the puzzle. Necklaces represent intimacy and this challenges Truscott's stance with respect to his alleged indifference to Lynn. The mere fact that the one piece of her dressing he mentions is the necklace, the one thing missing from Lynn's person becomes very suspect. You may be correct in surmising that Truscott gets cold feet and plants the necklace on the barbed-wire fence. However, I take a slightly different stance. The fact that Truscott details the necklace appears to imply that he is trying to direct the investigators to search. In Truscott's mind the search will pull the attention away from himself. Now I am not sure of the exact location where the necklace was found but I suspect it would have been north of the tractor trail. As to why Truscott took the necklace, well it may very well have been a trophy. We don't know.

If you view Dr. Addison's "voir dire" testimony at the trial, you will see what is no doubt an admission of guilt by Truscott. His responses to Dr. Addision clearly show how messed up he was at that time.

Cheers, M.

Free Thinker,

If the necklace was found south of the trail then I suspect it may have been placed when he emerged from the field on the evening of the June 9th, 1959. This is all conjecture and on the premise that Truscott was the perpetrator, but I am attempting to reason the placement. I don't foresee Trustee arbitrarily placing the necklace south of the tractor trail due to his getting cold feet after the fact. Should the necklace have been placed after the finding of Lynn's body it seems more plausible that it would have been placed north of the trail. Anyhow, thanks for the input. Are you certain of the location? Where is this info available?

I am not sure of Dr. Addison's character. He was a general practioner (I believe working in the town of Clinton). He tended to the Truscott's on a few occasions. In fact, Truscott's father requests that Dr. Addison be present for the physical examination. So his father had some reverence for him. The inference you get from Dr. Addison's "voir dire" testimony is that he wasn't convinced of Truscott's innocence. Both Dr. Addison and Truscott's father couldn't get a proper explanation from him in regards to the penis sores. Dr. Addison stated that Truscott's statement did not "jibe" and was not consistent.

Dr. Addison stated that Truscott "did not deny" the suggestion that he was responsible for the Lynn's death. Dr. Addison also states that Truscott's tone was not convincing. I have posted a partial summary of what Truscott divulges to Dr. Addison on my thread, Steven Truscott - Weighing the Truth.

Cheers, M.

Free Thinker,

If the necklace was found south of the trail then I suspect it may have been placed when he emerged from the field on the evening of the June 9th, 1959. This is all conjecture and on the premise that Truscott was the perpetrator, but I am attempting to reason the placement. I don't foresee Trustee arbitrarily placing the necklace south of the tractor trail due to his getting cold feet after the fact. Should the necklace have been placed after the finding of Lynn's body it seems more plausible that it would have been placed north of the trail. Anyhow, thanks for the input. Are you certain of the location? Where is this info available?

I am not sure of Dr. Addison's character. He was a general practioner (I believe working in the town of Clinton). He tended to the Truscott's on a few occasions. In fact, Truscott's father requests that Dr. Addison be present for the physical examination. So his father had some reverence for him. The inference you get from Dr. Addison's "voir dire" testimony is that he wasn't convinced of Truscott's innocence. Both Dr. Addison and Truscott's father couldn't get a proper explanation from him in regards to the penis sores. Dr. Addison stated that Truscott's statement did not "jibe" and was not consistent.

Dr. Addison stated that Truscott "did not deny" the suggestion that he was responsible for the Lynn's death. Dr. Addison also states that Truscott's tone was not convincing. I have posted a partial summary of what Truscott divulges to Dr. Addison on my thread, Steven Truscott - Weighing the Truth.

Cheers, M.

Matthew, I think that emotion is not enough and I appreciate that someone else gets that. There are facts that can be followed up on.Thank you for your kind words, the emotion without facts is pointless,and like you I would like to see more of that. We do need to realize that there are people who have grown to love Steven Truscott and so in the face of that kind of emotion it is so difficult to deal with facts that don't work for us. I do not blame them, and I think they should stand firm in their convictions of the love for the man the way they know him, but accept that he may once have not been the man they now know. They on the other hand have to accept that this will be tried in the court on facts and they will also be victims of this crime. I once met a mother whose son murdered a woman and set her on fire to hide the crime. My heart went out to her because she so obviously loved her son and knew beyound a doubt that he did it. If Steven is guilty he should be man enough to tell his family the truth. Again because that isn't happening (whether it is because he is innocent or not I don't know), but it would be a huge sin for him to allow them to suffer this way if he did do it. Hopefully the evidence will reveal the truth. I think it is possible the police and the court moved very fast on this case in 1959, but what about the appeals that supported the original outcomes? Hopefully more people will research the trial documents for their evidence. I went back to the Ontario court appeals and this is what I found,its possible that I am misunderstanding what I am reading so I have taken out all the extra questions and just focused on the ones that made me believe that someone did say they saw Steve and Lynne go into the bush.It would be helpful to me if you go into the website and read that part and correct me if I am misunderstanding it. Here is what I was left with...

182. Thomas Gillette recalled Arnold George was underneath the bridge at the time of the conversation. He testified:

A: Arnold George said he had seen Lynne going into the bush with Steve

and Steve said: "What was that again, Butch?" and Steve said - - or Butch said: "I saw you going into the bush with Lynne."

Arnold George's version of the conversation was quite different. He testified:

A. "I heard you had Lynne up in the bush with you". And he said: "No, I didn't, did I,Butch?"

And I said: "No, he had her at the side of the bush."

Q. Repeat that?

A. "You had her at the side of the bush looking for the cow and the calf.

Q. Who said that?

A. Me.

Q. Yes. What did Steven Truscott say?

A. He didn't say anything after that.

Trial Evidence of Arnold George, Vol. 2A, 582/15 to 583/5 184.

Steven was asked about this group conversation at the Reference. He remembered that he was asked by one of the boys "I heard you had Lynne in the bush". Steven asked the boy who had told him this and he replied that Arnold George had.

I went over and asked Arnold George and he said he had never told anybody that.

Steven described the conversation as "more or less kidding with each other".

Reference Evidence of Steven Truscott, 151/5; 190/40

As for the necklace I think you also point out that there is a personal sense of Lynne in the necklace and it may very well hold the signifigance that you mention. It actually makes a lot of sense that Steven may have been trying to direct attention away from himself.

Any one who questions how clever we are making Steven seem as a 14 year old boy, ask anyone what lengths and ingenuity a 14 year old will go to when he has done something that will get him in trouble when caught. My own son once stole my car at 15 and I knew that confronting him would be a lesson in futility. We simply told him we knew someone stole our car and we were going to have to police investigate it and the person would be charged. Talk of inventive and ingenious, came up with all the reasons why he might be falsely fingered. We never let on and heard him tell his cohort that they were going to go to jail. Finaly he came and confessed. Trust me I have dealt with enough teens to know that they will say whatever they have to, to save themselves until they know they are cornered and have no way out. Steven's father coached him and told him they couldn't do anything without proof. Steven obviously believed him. I did read Dr. Addison's "voir dire" testimony at the trial and I also saw that is no doubt and admission of guilt as well. So I guess he didn't steadfastly maintain his innocence as some suggest. We can only hope that others will search this out and see what it tells them, because as we know the courts based there decision on this information. I hope people will read this testimony as well as it says a lot about Steven back then.

The Appellant was examined at the Mental Health Clinic in London after his arrest. The report of the Director of the Clinic, Dr. Jenkins, dated June 26,1959, two weeks after the Appellant's arrest,

Steven's parents and other adults who have known him over a period of years indicate he has always been a quiet boy. He did not relate closely enough that they felt they knew him very well. His mother often felt she could not know his thoughts in the same degree as she knew those of her other children. Steven was always well behaved and made no trouble in school where he was, although not a good scholar, normally intelligent.

Ouch this all gets so complicated it almost hurts. None the less it has been a passion of mine for a long time. I hate to see a crime go unpunished, but I hate to see the wrong person found guilty even more. Having said that I still feel he is guilty as charged. Respectfully, Debra

Matthew, I applaud your search for truth based on FACT, as well as the "flow" of events making sense. Based on this criteria, I have noted a few items in your comments that I feel should be challenged.

A) "Crepe-soled shoeprints aligned with the position the rapist would have posed" The "crepe-soled shoe prints" were actually described as "scuff marks" by Cpl. Erskine (district identification officer for the OPP), too indistinct to get a measurement on. There was no shoe print mentioned in any police report. The shoeprint in question was brought to light be flying officer Glen Sage at trial, but there was no clear photograph (nor any other documented evidence) of the footprint to back up his story.

B) "...blood droplets on the foliage below the vaginal region..." Again, not blood droplets, but "smears" (as described by Dr. Penistan). Also, the lab report results on this sample state "The blood on the twig is type 'A'- human blood. Blood on leaves is human - insufficient to group. Tests for seminal fluid yielded negative results." If her vagina had, in fact, contained "...large amounts of prostatic phosphatase, indicitave of the presence of semen.", don't you find it odd that the 'droplets', as you call them, contained none? (All of the information here (B) is taken from "The Harper Autopsy" by J.L. Penistan. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, Vol.2, No.3, September 1969.)

C) ..."large gash under Lynn's (sic) right shoulder which was conducive of the wooden debris of which she was found." There was no wooden debris under her shoulder when she was found, only a "pool of fluid blood about 3" in diameter" under her LEFT shoulder (the one with the injury). Her undershirt was soaked with blood, there was NO perceptible blood on the blouse she was strangled with, yet there is a 3" pool of FLUID blood under her shoulder? Wouldn't this have soaked into the ground and dried, had she bled there some 42 hours earlier? The same could be asked about the "droplets" on the foliage. After 42 hours, it would likely not be "wet and glistening".

D)"If you view Dr. Addison's 'voir dire' testimony at the trial, you will see what is no doubt an admission of guilt by Truscott." I have viewed that testimony, and I see what is no doubt the ramblings of an over tired, stressed-out 14 year old, at 2:00 in the morning, after hours of relentless questioning by police. Sorry, Matthew, but your statement has no basis in FACT.

God is in the details, Matthew.

BTW, Vol.1 pg.132, para.351 of the Kaufman Report states that the locket was found approx. 300ft. south of the tractor trail. If you don't have access to this resource, let me know and I would be happy to supply an exact quote.

Nola

Debra, I followed up on the testimonies of Glover & Gillette and you are correct. Gillette's was very damning. Glover holds a similar account of what transpired but with gaps. Truscott later acknowledges the conversation but places it in a different context, as if some kids were just kidding around. The fact that the finger is being pointed to Arnold George with respect to seeing Truscott going into the woods with Lynn really supports my belief that George or Godette saw something. Godette's own submission (over the telephone) with Kaufman is that the Truscott affair is her "deep, dark secret" It doesn't seem reasonable that Godette would resist testifying on Truscott's behalf if she could clearly exonerate him. If Godette is feeling overwhelmed by the constant hounding by media and investigators, then why not exonerate Truscott and move forward. I premise that she know's something and more so the truth. What she saw or George saw we may never know? I'm not sure if you are aware of the rape statement taken from a woman on the base a day prior to Lynn's body being discovered. Michael George a relative of Arnold's was staying with Arnold's family at the time of the murder. He was reported as asking this woman, "Did you know that Lynn was raped?" This was found in one of the police reports. Now if one takes the testimonies of the boys and marries them up, this becomes quite eerie. You are quite correct when you refer to the actions of teens. I humbly admit that I was involved in a few lies in my time (as a young teen) and believe me the more serious the incident, the more one holds to the lie. I was reading a submission from an anonymous woman and it really saddened me. She knew both Lynn and Truscott. She shared the same classroom. She talked about how innocent they were and that Lynn was still playing with dolls. She also remembers the grief on Mr. Harper's face at the funeral. But she also goes on to say, "Don't go feeling sorry for Steve because he did it. He is just another murderer claiming his innocence". This submission had quite an impact on me. If Truscott was truly innocent of this heinous act then it would be more reasonable that his facts would flow and furthermore flow with plausibility. On the premise that Truscott was culpable for the rape/murder of Lynn Harper, I would like to see him punished for his contemptuous actions towards the justice system and his immoral redefining of the truth. Cheers, M.

Free Thinker, The necklace...Found by 10 year old Sandra Archibald. She was picking strawberries along the tractor trail which runs around Lawson's Bush. She finds the necklace on the barbed wire fence along County or Township Rd. The chain is hanging on either the bottom or the 2nd from the bottom barbed wire line. We know it is low as it was also hanging in the grass. The chain was hanging on the inside of the field and the locket was hanging (open) on the side facing County Rd. Sandra was uncertain as to the exact location when giving her testimony. Sandra does say that Truscott's father takes her there on several occasions to go over where she finds the necklace. The necklace was found on June 19th and was handed to her mother just before 5pm the same day.

Nola,

A. I will concede to your first challenge as the marks being noted as scuffs. I will however recall there being some testimony with respect to the identification of specific markings characteristic to those of crepe-soled shoes. These assertions are followed up with the Crown's cross-exam of Doris Truscott.

B. The droplets stated was a quick mention of the insignificant amount of blood found on the twig and the foliage. Irregardless of the exact words there was very little found but there was blood. I disagree with your assumption that due to the amount of "acid phosphatase" there would have to be seminal fluid mixed with the blood below. Should the blood have originated from the outer regions of the volva or vagina them it is easily plausible to not find seminal fluid in the respective location. In addition, it is also factual that Lynn died at that location. I concur with Penistan that death most likely occured during the rape. This is evident, firstly due to the multiple abrasions on Lynn's underside, more so on her buttocks. These abrasions due not hemmorage. This is indicative of the heart stopping prior to the conclusion of rape. Secondly, the insignificant amount of blood found below the vaginal region in comparison to the damage inflicted to the external and internal vaginal region.

c. I am unaware of any testimony that there was no solid debris located in the region underneath Lynn's right shoulder. The only thing I recall is that there was no grass and if I remember correctly no rocks.

You are speculating that the blouse was removed subsequent to the rendering of the gash under the right shoulder. It is more conceivable that Lynn was dragged to the location unconscious or perhaps partially conscious. (there is significant evidence indicating that Lynn was dragged to the respective location). The motive is indicative of the rape. More plausibly the perpetrator commenced removing her clothes when Lynn became conscious of what was happening and started to panic, this conceivably would be the trigger which alarms the perpetrator. This is when the blouse could have been taken and knotted around Lynn's neck. Only Lynn's right arm was left in the sleeve of the blouse, not her shoulder. This also makes it more plausible that the perpetrator was in the act of removing her clothes when something alarms him.

Blood can stay moist for days depending on the relative dampness. The testimony dictates that it was damp in the area where Lynn was discovered. As Penistan also states blood has the ability to clot and later moisten. The blood found under Lynn's right shoulder had pooled on foliage not soil. The blood relatively large blood proteins would inhibit absorption through cellulose. You have showed me nothing here other than I should be more precise in my wording.

d. I'm sorry Nola but there is a plethora of facts on this one. Firstly, he lists specifics here, Lynn wanting to look for thistles. Truscott also speaks of walking by the river. He places himself in the field. He goes further to state specifically that the thistles were behind the bush. He specifies climbing back over the fence to his bike. He specifically mentions leaving the field 2 telephones up in the middle of the field. When Truscott places himself in the field Addison poses the question, "Do you think that you could have done this thing to Lynn?" Truscott's responds with, "I don't know, I might have but I don't know"

Nola, I was 14 at one point, and I assure you that if someone was to accuse me of Capital murder there is no way I would concede any fault. I don't care if they had Truscott up to 10 in the morning. Now if they were tortuing him then we are speaking definite duress. To take it further, Dr. Addison states further that Truscott failed to deny his involvement in the murder of Lynn. His tone was lifeless. One must infer that Truscott is scared and has run out of options.

Truscott goes further to state that he had the sores on his penis for 4 to 5 weeks, and they have gradually got worse. Are we to infer that Truscott is that stupid? A young teen amidst puberty watching his penis drastically infect over 4 to 5 weeks and not tell his father or even his doctor. We have to infer that Truscott is not being forthright here.

Dr. Brooks also stated that Truscott was apethetic and did not take interest as I thought he should.

How many 14 year old boys are that stupidly tired at 2am on a Friday night?

Truscott places himself in the field. The other children place him in the field. Taken in context this is quite damning.

Anyhow, you got me on the first point. Keep me in check.

Cheers, M.

Matthew,

Finally, the debate I have been roaming these sites looking for! You make some great points, and I will rebut just as soon as I have time.

Thank you for your respectful and thought-provoking response.

Matthew, My point B (no seminal fluid in blood under her crotch), makes it unlikely (in my reasoning) that she was, in fact raped where she was found. Since there was only a small abrasion on her vulva (which, by Penistan's accounts, did not hemmorage), I think we can safely assume that the blood was not from that wound. That leaves the blood coming from her vagina. Since there was a large amount of prostatic acid phosphatase found in her vagina, it seems odd to me that the blood under her crotch would not contain any. My theory is that the blood under her crotch seeped out of the shoulder wound, and was smeared by her body being dragged over it. I'm not arguing that the rape did not occur, I just think it odd that, if it happened in that location, there was no seminal fluid found near her body.

Point C (no solid debris under her shoulder), my logic is thus: If there had been foliage or other solid debris under her left shoulder, it should have been gathered as evidence, as it would, without question, have had had blood on it. If her shoulder wound bled to the degree that it soaked her undershirt, and formed the 3" pool of blood under her shoulder (soaking into the soil, NOT on foliage), I am assuming that there was nothing of significance in the way of the blood. Also, if there was a piece of debris beneath her shoulder that was conducive to that kind of injury, it would have almost certainly have been retained as evidence (as the blood-soaked soil was). Since there was no article of evidence that would support the gash on her shoulder, I feel it would be safe to assume that the shoulder injury was received elsewhere.

As well,in regard to the blouse; I am arguing that the blouse was removed PREVIOUS to the gash on her shoulder being sustained. If the bloody injury had occured before the blouse was removed, it would have shown evidence of blood, which it did not. Since the right side of the undershirt was also soaked with blood, I cannot rectify how the blouse could have been on her person the whole time, and not show any blood staining. I believe the evidence shows that the blouse was removed before the gash was obtained.

As for the blood, I can see your point about the relative moisture allowing the blood to stay wet on the foliage for a prolonged period, however, the "pool" of blood on the ground directly below the wound should have soaked into the earth below it, or dried in the "pool", had it sat there for 42 hours. Also, the clotting and remoistening idea was actually brought up as an example of how wounds can bleed post-mortem, not that clotted blood outside of the body can "re-moisten". This theory (still questioned in the medical field) shows that Lynne could have been taken into the bush dead, and the wound could plausibly have continued to seep re-liquified blood onto the ground due to the force of gravity.

On point D, I have re-read the interview with Addison, and I think you may have taken a little license with it, in your inferences. I agree that some of the statements may seem damning, but in arguing this, need to remember that this "statement" was inadmissible as evidence, and therefore warrants very little discussion. However, in the interest of debate, I will rebut. The only real question I have is, IF she stepped on a thistle (or got a prickle) or whatever, why was that injury not noted in the autopsy?

I understand your views on the "if I were Truscott" scenario, but I think we need to remember that times were different then, as well, he was never told (nor was he really aware, IMO) that he was suspected of Lynne's murder. If he normally went to bed by 9 or 10 at night, and after 7 hours of questioning, poking and prodding, I can see him being that stupidly tired (ask me about my 14yo nephew, who is that "stupid" even when he's NOT tired...).

You've got me on the penis sores. I have no idea why someone would leave something that nasty...unless they were exaggerated by the examining physicians. Remember two things about this: A) Neither doctor who examined him recalled if he was circumcised, and B) The examining physician at the jail noted "No irregularities" in regard to Truscott's penis. I can't imagine how the Doctor at the jail could have missed such huge, raw, stagnantly-oozing sores, or how Brooks and Addison could not know whether he was circumcised or not, considering the depth of their examination.

Just as an extra little question (fodder for further debate), why do you think her socks and shoes were removed prior to her being dragged into the bush? I would like your insight on this.

Anyone can join in on this, not necessarily only Matthew.

Regards, Nola

Truscott's time on the bridge...

He claims that when her returned to the bridge after dropping Lynn off @ Hwy 8 that he stands of the east side and looks down for fish for 1.5 minutes. He then proceeds to the west side of the bridge and peered down looking for fish for 2 to 3 minutes.

The first concern I have is with his times. I did a timing myself to see the extent of how long Truscott searches for fish. Hearing 1, 3 and 4 minutes in a temporal sense would sound believable but it does not take more than a minute to scan the waters for fish. This is a small river.

Would there not have been others swimmers taking note of Truscott standing up on the bridge alone? It's not like he was lost in a crowd of spectators. Very suspect.

While standing up on the bridge Truscott alleges that Arnold George waves. Where is the dialogue? Such as, "Are you coming in?" or "Where's Lynn?" or "Where were you?"

With Arnold George waving wouldn't it have struck curiously in others to look?

I find it amusing that Truscott alleges to stand on the east side of the bridge for only 1.5 minutes (the witnesses would have been on this side). He claims to spend most of his time standing on the other side away from the witnesses.

Too suspect.

Cheers, M.

I began following this case (I had heard the name before, but never studied the case) on February 1st, and devoted 32 days to trying to figure this one out. I watched/listened to the closing arguments of the attorneys for the Appellant and for the Crown. When I was done with that, I wondered how the jury could have convicted, so I read the 1959 trial transcript in its entirety. I then read the factums for the Appellant and for the Crown. I also read the 1966 Supreme Court decision. By the time I had finished reading the Appellant's factum, I was convinced that our system of justice had gone completely off the rails on this one.

In fairness, I read the Crown's factum, wondering before I did so what they could possibly say to refute the case made by the Appellant. I was to discover that they had a lot to say. Much of it sounded like bleating. I did not accept the Crown's contention that all of the witnesses who testified against the Appellant are telling the truth, and all of the witnesses testifying on behalf of the Appellant are lying. I did not accept the Crown's contention that all of the witnesses who testify against the Appellant have good and clear memories, despite the passage of time, while all of the witnesses who testify on behalf of the Appellant have had their memories distorted by the passage of time. You just can't have it both ways.

By the time I got about halfway through the Crown's factum, I was still convinced that something was terribly wrong here, and had written up a draft posting for this forum to that effect. I pressed on, and by the time I got to the end of the Crown's factum, I had begun to see the Crown's point of view. I had hoped to reach some difinitive conclusion as a result of this research, but found the question to end in a stalemate. This case for me, has the flavour of the JFK assassination, in that the absolute truth may never be known.

I have started to read some of the discourse in this forum, and have gleaned from that some ideas that had not occurred to me. There was some discussion about the necklace, and this is an extremely incriminating point. There really was no reason to bring it up, the point being relevant only if the necklace was known to be missing. The only person who would have known that it was missing was the person who took it. My hat is off to Matthew2, for having thought of this one when I hadn't.

There has been much discussion and debate about the evidentiary value of the lesions. Some physicians have come forward to state that such lesions would not be caused by this type of assault. That is patent nonsense. I have learned from my own experience, given that my wife and I have reached that stage in our lives where we can no longer take lubrication for granted. If we are not careful, I experience a burning sensation in the exact spot as described by Drs. Penistan and Brooks. There was some discussion about the size differential and the virginal condition of the victim, but more relevant than that is the fact that it would have been extremely unlikely that the victim would have been 'in the mood'. This would have made possible the friction burn as seen by the doctors.

Having considered all the information I have been able to obtain thus far, I believe that the jurors and the appellate courts got it right, although I do concur that the trial was not exactly fair, as stated by Hall, J, the desenting justice. The cops and the prosecutor did play fast and loose with this case.

I am, however, still troubled by this case. As in the JFK assassination, there are some unanswered questions. I am troubled by the information that has come to light about some of the other possible suspects. I am troubled by the fact that one of them sold a nearly new car shortly after the crime. I am troubled by his psychological state during that time. I am troubled by the information brought forth by the Townsends. On balance of probability, the Appellant would seem to be guilty, but I wouldn't want to have been one of those jurors.

On June 9th, 1959, sunset was at 9:19, and it would have been dark at 9:44, perhaps a little earlier in Lawson's bush. The new moon was on the 8th, so there would only have been a sliver of moon on the 9th. If someone had taken Lynne there at 9:30, they would have had just enough light to commit this crime. I wonder if there would have been anyone on the county road at that time. I've never been to the county road, so I don't know if it would have been possible to take a car down the tractor trail. Perhaps someone could enlighten me on that.

Terry,

Very honest submission.

I will response further later. Nola is keeping me busy.

Cheers, M.

Terry, Welcome to the debate!

I applaud your perseverance in reading all that information in such a short time. I did much the same thing. I have read that and more, and although interesting, it can get very dry at times, as well as entirely confusing.

I have been earnestly researching this case for over a year now, but read everything I could get my hands on in a very short period of time. It does get addictive, doesn't it?

To comment on your post...

I agree with your take on this, that it is much like the JFK assassination. Every time you seem to get an answer, it brings up another question.

I see the locket evidence with an opposite viewpoint, that I can't figure out why Truscott would have mentioned it if he knew it was missing. Had he just omitted it, the police would likely have ignored it, and the locket found by Sandra Archibald would have been meaningless. Why draw attention to something that would likely have been ignored?

I understand your point on the lesions, as well. Obviously, this point has been argued to the ends of the earth, and remains inconclusive. Of course, I tend agree with Dr. Berkeley Brown, who testified that "...the penis is rarely injured in rape..." and that "When it is injured, it is usually a tearing injury confined to the head of the organ...". In my opinion, the lesions were not caused by rape, but by a pre-existing skin condition. That said, I can't, for the life of me, figure out why a kid whose penis is that sore, would neglect to mention it to anyone, unless the extent of the penis lesions was highly exaggerated by the examining physicians. I will reiterate that the Doctor who examined Truscott at the jail a day later found "no irregularities" in Truscott's genitals.

If the information about other "persons of interest" troubles you, I think you should know that Alexander Kalichuk, the favourite suspect of the CBC, is, in my opinion, one of the LEAST likely suspects. In my research, I have uncovered information on some of the others that, in my mind, seems much more incriminating than the vague innuendoes about Kalichuk. For privacy reasons, I will not go into detail here.

As for the tractor trail/county road, I've never been there, so I can't say.

Again, welcome to the debate.

Nola

Hi Terry, Wow! That's a lot of work in 32 days! You found the 59 trial transcript that readily? I must commend you on your quick way of grasping things. I will try to shed some light on some questions you had. I will quote you for better context:

"There really was no reason to bring it up, the point being relevant only if the necklace was known to be missing. The only person who would have known that it was missing was the person who took it. My hat is off to Matthew2, for having thought of this one when I hadn't." The only person who would have known it was missing is NOT the person who took it off, in my submission. Lynne's parents were questioned the same day she was found: What did her last meal consist of..What was she wearing...What did she have for jewelery etc. So the cops compare the parent's statement to what they see on the body..and they see at autopsy or earlier..that her necklace (locket)is missing. Truscott did not at any time during questioning allude to any knowledge of the locket being missing. He had only told the police what he had observed on her.

The penis lesions: You mentioned burning in the same spot etc. Also the doctors said of Steve's penis that it had 2 large oozing sores the size of a quarter or the size of your thumb nail: At approx 1:00 am saturday morning. I see this totally askew with what the examining doctor observed when he inspected Truscott's privates at approx 3:00 pm saturday afternoon when he wrote something like: No lesions or abnormalities(not exact quote but close) The point being: could sores of that magnitude heal in 14 hours? To illustrate: Addison/Brooks described them as raw, oozing, oozing stagnant, the size of my thumbnail.

"On June 9th, 1959, sunset was at 9:19," Actually from what I read through the years, the sun set at 9:08 "and it would have been dark at 9:44," It was quite dark at 10:00 "perhaps a little earlier in Lawson's bush." Yes. By 9:30 it would start to get dark in the bush. These sunset/dark times might be splitting hairs but those are the times as I have observed them. "The new moon was on the 8th, so there would only have been a sliver of moon on the 9th. If someone had taken Lynne there at 9:30, they would have had just enough light to commit this crime." Agreed..if the crime was committed there. "I wonder if there would have been anyone on the county road at that time. I've never been to the county road, so I don't know if it would have been possible to take a car down the tractor trail." We never know for sure of course, but the general consensus is that this road is pretty well deserted after dark,except for the odd vehicle. Yes, it is quite possible to drive,or back up for that matter, down the tractor trail. I have done it both ways, in darkness and light.

Nola,

Thank you for welcoming me to the discussion. I appreciate the kind comments. I would like to respond to your reply to my submission, and will put your comment in quotes.

"I can't figure out why Truscott would have mentioned it if he knew it was missing". My point was this: the necklace was in my humble opinion, planted in the location where it was found. That fact and that fact that it was mentioned to the police go hand in glove to reinforce one another in terms of being incriminating.

"Had he just omitted it, the police would likely have ignored it, and the locket found by Sandra Archibald would have been meaningless". Exactly, but he did mention it, when it was not a salient point which would have been helpful in discovering the whereabouts of Lynne. Mentioning it was an obvious attempt at misdirection. I say again, the point is relevant only if there is a reason for it to be relevant, i.e. 'she had been wearing a necklace, which is not on her person' (my quotes). The only person who could have known (other than the investigators) that it was missing was the person who took it.

" Dr. Berkeley Brown, who testified that "...the penis is rarely injured in rape..." " This is unsupportable testimony. A physician's knowledge comes from his learning and experience. There is precious little if any empirical data upon which to give such testimony. I can't imagine that a rapist, having injured himself in an attack going to a doctor and saying, "Well, doc, it's like this... I was raping this girl, see? and now I have these sores..."

"I have uncovered information on some of the others that, in my mind, seems much more incriminating than the vague innuendoes about Kalichuk". I cannot dispute your point on this, as I do not know what you have uncovered. You are quite right about some of the others. I have read that as well. However, I'm still troubled over this because of his previous behaviour, his having sold a nearly new car after the event, (you take a terrible depreciation loss when you trade in a car that is a year old, trust me...) and his psychological distress. These are three 'coincidences' with which I am uncomfortable.

Thank you kindly, for your comments.

Terry

Hello Bent,

Thank you for your comments and elucidation. I will respond to them, placing your comments in quotes for clarity.

"Wow! That's a lot of work in 32 days! You found the 59 trial transcript that readily? " As a retired person, I have the time. I found the 1959 trial transcripts as a result of having telephoned the CBC and commenting on their absence in their website. They did add them shortly thereafter.

"The only person who would have known it was missing is NOT the person who took it off, in my submission. Lynne's parents were questioned the same day she was found: What did her last meal consist of..What was she wearing...What did she have for jewelery etc. ". You are quite right, the cops knew. What I meant was, other than the cops no one else should have known, other than the person who removed it. There was no reason to mention the locket unless it was relevant to her disappearance. Knowing that she was wearing a necklace would in no way help the police to find her. The fact that it was later planted made it relevant.

"could sores of that magnitude heal in 14 hours? " Absent any microbial reason for them not to, I believe it is possible. Ever had a sore in your mouth that seemed to linger on (a chancre sore is a case in point), then to disappear suddenly?

"Actually from what I read through the years, the sun set at 9:08" I calculated the time of sunset from a Canadian Civil Twilight chart. Keep in mind that Clinton is located at 43 deg 45' N x 81 deg 30' W, which is 6 1/2 degrees west of the prime meridian for the Eastern time zone. You must add 4 minutes for each degree west of the prime meridian. I don't know where the 9:08 sunset time comes from, but I believe it to be in error.

"Agreed..if the crime was committed there" Lynne bled at the scene, so the murder was certainly committed there. The markings in the ground indicate that the sexual assault was also commited there.

Terry

Having made the comments that I have made, I must add that there were comments that I had made in the draft that I had alluded to in my first comment. There are still some things about this case which give me pause.

There was considerable debate over whether or not the Appellant would have been able to see the car with the yellow licence plate. The Crown contends that the tests proved equivocal, in that the testers were not able to see the colour of the plates with consistent accuracy, and this is where he falls flat on his face. The evidence offered at trial was that Steven saw a car with yellow licence plates. The statement was not offered for the truth of the statement, but is what the Appellant believes that he saw. Whether or not the plates actually were yellow is irrelevant, and the case for the defence does not collapse because they may not have been. The fact remains that it was possible to see the colour of the plate in some instances. The benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. This is a most egregious attempt to mislead the court of appeal.

Another thing that I find egregious occurred during trial. The crown presented the testimony of Arnold George, alluding to the suggestion that the fact that the witness 'came clean' is evidence that the other witnesses who saw the Appellant and Lynne cross the bridge must also be lying. The unanswered question was, and is, did he lie in his first two statements, or did he lie in his third statement, or is he not in fact just a chronic and habitual liar? To use the 'recantation' of a liar to accuse others of lying is a very dangerous precept. That the Crown should have taken this tack is something I find particularly odious.

Another telling issue in this case, is the presence of mosquitoes in Lawson's bush. During the early evening of any day in June, the bush would be aswarm with them. Matthew2 was probably correct when he suggested that mosquitoes would not bite a dead body, but I would have thought that by the time this crime was committed, his a$$ would have looked like a pepperoni pizza, and there was no mention of that during his trial.

Just some troubling thoughts that occurred to my feeble mind. Here I go, debating with myself. Surely that is a sign of a sick mind...

Terry

Hi Terry, I like quick responses.

"As a retired person, I have the time." We're in the same boat. How's this for a retirement "hobby?"

"I found the 1959 trial transcripts as a result of having telephoned the CBC" Could you post the link?. I had to get them the hard way...1999 at the National Archives.

"There was no reason to mention the locket unless it was relevant to her disappearance."

I guess maybe I am dense here. Of course there was reason to mention her locket. Since he was asked about other identifiers, Steve volunteered the locket. It woul dnot only be the perp who would have mentioned it. Even Mrs Nickerson mentioned that Lynne was playing with something around her neck. Are you saying that because Steve mentioned it that this makes it suspicious?

" The fact that it was later planted made it relevant." Relevant to guilt in Steve or relevant to what? I guess you'll have to spell it out.

" Ever had a sore in your mouth that seemed to linger on (a chancre sore is a case in point), then to disappear suddenly?"

I get chancres all the time... It's fine for months, then I seem to get an attack of them. They persist. Nothing helps heal them because I think it's a virus that has to take it's own time. They take forever to go away. They do not disappear suddenly..how can I say that, since I know they persist for more than a week. It's not a here today,gone tomorrow type thing.

Also an interesting side note to this penis lesion thing is that the 2 doctors who claimed to have observed in such minute detail, the scrapes and cuts on Steven as to explain it in fine detail at trial (especially Brooks), did not even know after this minute examination whether or not Truscott was circumcised...Brooks had to dispatch a doctor to the jail cell to find out.

"I calculated the time of sunset from a Canadian Civil Twilight chart." I concede. You have done your homework on this one. 9:19 it is. I got that figure from the LeBourdais book, and , I believe, from the 59 trial transcript. I do know it is quite dark by 10 pm. regards Bent

I haven't read any of the books on this subject.

I wonder if any of the books on this subject are worth reading. It seems to me that when one reads a book, one gets only the point of view of the author, and these are often one-sided.

Terry

Hi Bent,

"Could you post the link?. " It is http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/truscott/documents.html

"Steve volunteered the locket. It would not only be the perp who would have mentioned it. Even Mrs Nickerson mentioned that Lynne was playing with something around her neck." Point taken. It seemed suspicious to me because it was in fact planted, at some point. Had it never been planted, then it would have taken on much less significance.

"I get chancres all the time..." Echinacea/Goldenseal tincture helps with this, especially if you put it on soon enough (before the thing really takes hold).

"It's not a here today,gone tomorrow type thing". No, they sure aren't. What I meant was, they seem to linger until the virus is gone, then they seem to heal quickly once the pain stops.

"Also an interesting side note to this penis lesion thing is that the 2 doctors who claimed to have observed in such minute detail, the scrapes and cuts on Steven as to explain it in fine detail at trial (especially Brooks), did not even know after this minute examination whether or not Truscott was circumcised..." Now that is a puzzler.

"I got that figure from the LeBourdais book, and , I believe, from the 59 trial transcript." The erroneous figure probably came from the time at Toronto, the nearest significant met station. The distance from Toronto to Clinton would account for the error.

"I do know it is quite dark by 10 pm". Agreed. With only a one day sliver of moon, it would have been black as the ace of spades that night.

Regards,

Terry

Bent,

Oops, missed one...

"" The fact that it was later planted made it relevant." Relevant to guilt in Steve or relevant to what? I guess you'll have to spell it out.

Ok, let me see if I can say this coherently... If the necklace had not been planted, it would have been an innocent observation. The fact that it was brought up, described in detail, (when it would not have helped the police to discover the whereabouts of a living Lynne, only perhaps to lead them to search the bush and thus find the body if the necklace were subsequently found where it was found), coupled with the fact that it did become significant in that it was found where it was found, makes it suspicious. It's the two in combination, that makes it appear as an attempt to misdirect the police.

Regards,

Terry

Nola, PARA 1...On the premise of your theory, the shoulder gashes occur in a location other than the site in which Lynn's body is discovered. One also would reason that the blouse had to of been removed prior to the gash occurrence, as you point out in your para 3. One has to then question why Lynn's right arm would be placed back into the blouse sleeve prior to strangulation. Your theory has failed on the basis of reason but not plausibility. I suspect that you may want to revisit your theory. Here is a more plausible scenario...The perpetrator after rendering the victim partially or fully unconscious drags her to the respective site. (evidence points to victim being dragged at some point) The perpetrator starts to remove the victims clothes and while on top of the victim removing the blouse she becomes conscious of whats happening and starts to panic. This alarms the perpetrator and he proceeds to knot the blouse around the victims neck (this is where the button falls). As the victim is asphyxiating the perpetrator commences violently thrusting into a reasonably tight opening (a piece of skin is torn off from outer vulva region) One can reason that the vaginal region would NOT have been lubricated. Now we have tight friction. Seminal fluid would take some time to start seeping due to the lack of lubrication. The vaginal region is ruptured and starts to bleed. At this point, the victim has succumbs to the asphyxiation. Death. The pump has ceased. No pressure. No bleeding. Death occurs at the site in which Lynn Harper is discovered. (as per the testimony of Dr. Penistan who was never cross-examined on this point) The perpetrator continues to thrust while placing each of his hands on the victims shoulder. The mass of the perpetrator in conjuction with the dynamics of thrusting create a pump. Hence, further bleeding occurs in the shoulder regions due the gashes created by the twigs. (trial exhibit photograph illustrates that the ground was congested with twigs of all sizes. The referenced link can be found on one of my earlier submissions) The thrusting has forced the perpetrators feet to pry or wedge at the soil (hence the "scuff" marks). The scuff marks measure 33.5 inches up to the crotch of the victim. The length of the scuff marks measure 11 inches. These measurements are in line with that of Truscott. PARA 2...I assure you that the soil under Lynn Harper was inundated with twigs of all sizes. The trial exhibits reflect this. The Crown prosecutor, during their final submission to the jury states, "The area where the body was found was littered with twigs. Pictures will show you that." I have referenced the link to the exhibit on my earlier submission. There really would be no requirement to collect the twigs. The photos are indicative of the ground cover. PARA 3...I concur. But you have now contradicted yourself. I will let you find the problem in your statements. PARA 4...I don't want to get into the science of forensic serontology. This is not my expertise. However, I am aware that there are several variables which may contaminate and impact the properties of blood. Dampness and temperature are a couple. Quite possibly the pressure created due to rigor mortis along with gravitational pull played a role in keeping the blood oozing for some time after death. I really don't know. The facts don't reason for Lynn dying anywhere but where her body was discovered. PARA 5...WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! All of Dr. Addison's testimony was made under oath and in a court of law. You are under the premise that because the information was not made in the presence of the jury, that it falls short of credible. That is absolutely FALSE. The only variable here is that the jury did not get to evaluate all of the "voir dire" submissions of Dr. Addison. The judge disallowed some of the "voir dire" testimony on a technical grounds, not factual. The bottom of the foot is designed to be tough but sensitive. I have stepped on many a prickle and have yet to witness any bleeding. This is not to say that there are no prickles that can puncture the skin of the underfoot. Thistles grow high to approx 4 ft., not low. PARA 6...I agree that teens nowadays differ from teens of the 1950's, but not fundamentally. Teens in the 1950's still snuck out bedroom windows and out back doors during late hours. Adolescense did not commence in 2007. The concept of teens wanting to conduct their activities during hours in which adults sleep didn't commence yesterday. Being 14 in 1959 did not mean going to bed at 9 or 10 on a Friday night. I suspect that the interrogation was doing anything but tiring Truscott. As I stated earlier, my reasoning tells me that he was scared and out of options. The fear alone would prevent the fatique. I also suspect that his mind was crying for a way out of this situation. His inability to respond to reasonable questions and his disinterest and lifelessness depict that of a trapped animal. PARA 7...Both Dr. Addison and Brooks, as well as Dan Truscott were present during the physical examination. Dan Truscott was also present and assisting in some of the questioning of Truscott. If there was an issue with there testimony then the defence counsel would certainly have challenged and rightly so. We also have to look at who is testifies to the lesions. These are 2 medical doctors. They are both familiar with the Truscott's. What reasonable cause would they have to condemn a 14 year old boy? More so, knowing that his father bares witness to what they have testified. The fact that they don't remember whether Truscott is circumcised is irrelevant to me. We should not be examining what they didn't observe BUT what they had. If they didn't observe something, then more plausibly it bore no significance in their minds. (Hockey fights have been known to defer attention away from more relevantly, goals) PARA 8...Abrasion running straight down the left thigh, down the left tibia and along the top of the left foot (a shoe surely would have prevented the injury to the foot). The tops of the feet were also noted as being significantly dirty. Cuts on knees. Dirty shorts. If we infer that Lynn was the one who steps on the prickle (voir dire testimony of Dr. Addison) then the puzzle starts to piece together. Nola, Regarding the source of the necklace information. Review Constable Hobbs testimony and the Crown's final submissions to the jury. I reason that Truscott wants to defer the focus of the investigation. The premise can be made that when Truscott states Lynn had a necklace on in his company but is found without it, that this would create a distraction and a diversion elsewhere.(necklace specifics are given in order that others can support his claim, and this gives credibility to Truscott). You really don't know if Cpl Sayeau searched that specific spot. Another fact is that the necklace was found submersed in taller grass. I agree that the necklace evidence is not the key to solving the crime but taken in conjunction with all the other credible evidence, this becomes damning. This piece of evidence, in relative theory, links Truscott to the crime scene. Cheers, M.

Terry,

LeBourdais also directs accusations at Dr. Brooks as a possible perpetrator. This book has no credibility, unless your intention is find some.

As one can see, the specifics of the necklace have raised a lot of attention. Does it not seem reasonable that this piece of evidence appears so suspect by several viewers because perhaps there is a problem here?

Cheers, M.

Terry,

LeBourdais also directs accusations at Dr. Brooks as a possible perpetrator. This book has no credibility, unless your intention is find some.

As one can see, the specifics of the necklace have raised a lot of attention. Does it not seem reasonable that this piece of evidence appears so suspect by several viewers because perhaps there is a problem here?

Cheers, M.

Nola,

The crepe-soled impressions was taken from the testimony of Flying Officer Sage.

Cheers, M.

Terry, Read the La Bordais book, The Trial of Steven Truscott. It is the most factual (but written with bias), and outlines the errors of the trial. The other books are interesting, but IMO, are too biased to help in any research you may be doing.

Matthew, Thanks for your well-thought-out reply. I will get back to you when time allows.

BTW, I DID say that the crepe-soled impression was found by Sage. :-)

Regards, Nola

Hi Terry, "(when it would not have helped the police to discover the whereabouts of a living Lynne, only perhaps to lead them to search the bush and thus find the body if the necklace were subsequently found where it was found), coupled with the fact that it did become significant in that it was found where it was found, makes it suspicious. It's the two in combination, that makes it appear as an attempt to misdirect the police."

Suspicious towards Steve? Or just suspicious towards perp in general? If you say towards Steve, then you'll have to explain some more.

I agree that the removal and alleged planting of the locket makes the locket scenario suspicious, but not towards Steve. I might go out on a limb here but I'll throw it at ya and see what you say. Police did what they called a fine comb search of the area the day Lynne's body was found. One thing they found was a black comb on the bush floor north of the body. Since they at that point were not sure where the perp had brought Lynne in, we can be sure they did not restrict the search to the immediate few feet around the body, but fanned out and searched the field north of the bush as well as at least 300 feet in a southerly direction. Scrapes on Lynne's leg would dictate that they also examined the barb wire fences..both the one running e to w along the TT as well as n to s along the county road. I still contend that IF the locket had been on the fence at that time it likely would have been found. But they might have missed it.

FF to June 18. Sayeau was dispatched to collect soil samples. He testified that he took a sample along the n/s fence no more than 4 feet from where that locket was found the next day. He claims to not have noticed it, despite the fact that he took these samples around 4 pm, when the sun would have been in a position to shine more or less directly on the locket and chain which was gold colored and likely gleaming in the sun. The question then has to be asked: Was the necklace really there on June 18? This of course is a question we will never be able to answer. In the very least this is a 'reasonable doubt' issue.

Then, Sandra and her sister finds the necklace on June 19.

"What I meant was, they seem to linger until the virus is gone, then they seem to heal quickly once the pain stops." Could be, but this has little or no relation to Truscott. In his case the sores were the size of a quarter, raw, oozing, oozing stagnant at 1:00am. Then 14 hours later they were not there any more. (could you explain to me how can a sore be oozing and oozing stagnant at the same time?)

Thanks for the tincture advice. I'll try it out. I'll answer another posting of yours in a new post. Bent

Terry, "Another telling issue in this case, is the presence of mosquitoes in Lawson's bush. During the early evening of any day in June, the bush would be aswarm with them. Matthew2 was probably correct when he suggested that mosquitoes would not bite a dead body, but I would have thought that by the time this crime was committed, his a$$ would have looked like a pepperoni pizza, and there was no mention of that during his trial."

That the mosquitoes would not bite a dead body is partially correct. As long as there is fluid blood, the mosquitoes go for it. But the bite will not leave the telltale evidence of a swelling. Once a person dies, swelling stops. There is no reaction left in the cells to make the swelling. So there would be no evidence of mosquito bites.

The other thing you write, about the bush being full of mosquitoes.is accurate to a T. I can vouch for that, as I was in that bush on June 9/10, 2005. I deliberately went into the bush without any 'OFF!' despite warnings from Bob Lawson. I wanted to see what it was like. Did I ever get to see that! I was wearing a tshirt. In the course of 10 minutes, the whole experiment became unbearable. My face and arms were attacked, as well as getting bitten through the tshirt. Anybody in that bush with a bare a$$ would have had 1000s of bites all over it and the rest of his body. Interestingly, when I returned to the bush at 11 pm, well after dark, the mosquitoes were gone. Studying the entomology evidence---the flies and maggots--this evidence tends to exonerate Steve. The mosquitoes certainly do their part in this part of the exoneration. Steve would have been eaten alive. The conditions were the same as in 1959: Temp within 2 deg C Hot, muggy, hazy. There had been a small heat wave prior to the 9th, just like in 1959.

"There was considerable debate over whether or not the Appellant would have been able to see the car with the yellow licence plate."

I have also done this experiment under identical conditions to 1959: I have seen with my own eyes that you can see a yellow colour on a plate from the bridge to the highway.

But...to give the crown the 'benefit of the doubt' I also did this in 2000: On an overcast day in February, I brought a lady with me up to the bridge. Her eyesight was less than 20/20..in fact she wore thick 'coke bottle' lenses. I left her at the bridge and drove down to the highway and parked the car. I had 3 pieces of bristol board cut to the size of a licence plate. One green, one, red, one yellow. My car is black. I flashed these 3 cards for about 3 seconds over my rear license plate. In every instance the lady identified the colors correctly.

Document from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/court_of_appeal/truscott/CrownFactumApplication.pdf

Terry,

Bent is stuck on his mosquito theory. I certainly hope he can do better than that. He has taken conditions in that location of the woods today in order to evaluate conditions of yesterday.

My earlier statement stands and that is that one cannot base ones current findings with that of findings 50 years ago. Conditions change due to variables in climate and succession.

There were several law enforcement personal at that site conducting investigations and I hadn't heard any talk of mosquitoes.

I guess when one finds no fish to bite, one tries different bait.

Although Nola's views contrast mine, she is a thinker with an open mind. I do value her submissions. Some others, no names mentioned, have minds that are vaulted closed.

Cheers, M.

As to the LeBourdais book, if she accuses Dr. Brooks, then I don't believe the book is worth reading. This sounds like a flight of fancy to me.

Bent, as to the necklace, I don't know how else I can put it. I guess my command of the Queen's English fails me.

Matthew, I see your point, but I don't believe that assuming that there were mosquitoes there 50 years ago is an unsafe assumption. I remember when I was a kid, that the darn things were in any bush area. We had a place up north, and the blasted things spoiled my enjoyment of summers.

I have to admit that this case has me completely bewildered and befuddled. About the only thing I can say with any degree of confidence is the following:

The investigation and trial were fundamentally unfair. Both the police (surprise) and the Crown played fast and loose. Their conduct was egregious.

That the trial was unfair was noted by the dissenting Justice Hall at the Supreme Court reference. It pains me that the other eight justices did not see this, but does not suprise me, in light of other Supreme Court rulings over the years. I do not wish to open another can of worms, so I shall not elucidate upon whereof I write.

The appeal on reference to the Supreme Court should have been allowed. There should have been a new trial, then. All evidence in the possession of the Crown should have been disclosed. I do not buy the premise that some material was not disclosed because of the lack of technology. They spent a fortune on that reference, so it would not have broken the bank to have a typist duplicate all documents in the Crown's possession.

I agree with the current posision of the Crown that the fact that something was not brought up by the defense is not de-facto proof that it was not disclosed, but given the behaviour of the Crown at the trial and at the reference, I would be willing to bet a dollar against a doughnut that the results of the tests where it was possible to identify the colour of plates from the bridge were not revealed to the defense.

A new trial in 1966/7 would have laid this matter to rest forty years ago, at a time when it was possible to verify the facts, much more so than is possible today.

I don't believe this matter should be before the courts now, when all that remains is supposition and conjecture. Those cork sackers at the CBC have really opened up a can of worms, and ought to be obliged to pay for the costs of this exercise in futility. Although, upon reflection, that would come out of our pockets anyway.

Terry

Nola,

I would be grateful if you could let me know on what basis Isabel has reached the conclusion that Dr. Brooks did it.

Terry

Terry,

There is no basis for that conclusion, if you would even call it a conclusion. The best she does in the book is hint at the idea that Brooks may have been involved (in much the same way Julian Sher and the CBC have hinted at Kalichuk being a possible suspect). I don't think this should deter you from reading the book. It goes through the trial, step by step, and points out the inconsistencies and problems with it. The Brooks stuff is more of an afterthought. This book is, IMO, a must-read, as I believe it was instrumental in getting him the reference to the Supreme Court, which you and I agree was called for.

Innocent or Guilty, I think he got screwed by the courts. I feel that the reference to the Supreme Court was a political, rather than judicial move (in response to public pressure brought about by LaBordais' book). I agree with you that the justices were blind to the errors of the trial, and ruled inappropriately. How much easier would this have been, had they not tried to save face in '66 and admitted the faults of the trial. But, had he been re-tried then, what would we with sick minds have to talk about today?

Regards, Nola

"This book is, IMO, a must-read, as I believe it was instrumental in getting him the reference to the Supreme Court, which you and I agree was called for." I may end up reading all the books, just to give me something to do. It will keep me away from the Micro$oft Flight Simulator.

"How much easier would this have been, had they not tried to save face in '66 and admitted the faults of the trial. But, had he been re-tried then, what would we with sick minds have to talk about today?" So true, so true.

regards,

Terry

WOW, Matthew!

Excellent rebuttal. I've had to take a few minutes to digest it all...mostly because you don't believe in dividing your thoughts into paragraphs. ;-)

I have no real rebuttal here, just a few comments.

Firstly, I appreciate your theory on how the whole thing could have happened. I have been looking for someone who thinks Truscott is guilty to use the physical evidence and show me how it could have been done, and you have been successful. Of course, I do have a few problems with your scenario.

"The perpetrator, after rendering the victim partially or fully unconscious, drags her to the respective site." So, what you are saying here, is that Truscott got off his bike and left it somewhere, took Harper into the field (after she removed her socks and shoes), where she "got a prickle", then renedered her unconscious, dragged her through barbed wire into the bush (across the tractor trail, where Butch and Jocelyne are actively looking for one or both of them), raped and killed her, folded her clothes, 'covered' her body with broken trees, took her locket for a souvenier, all without being seen or heard? Oh, don't forget that he would have had to drag her shoes and socks as well, since they were removed before the dragging...and they DID end up in the bush.

"...he proceeds to knot the blouse around the victim's neck (this is where the button falls)." Good, but the button ends up UNDER the victim, in the "pool" of blood under her shoulder. I'm not sure why the button wouldn't have been caught in the dense foliage (by your accounts), or how it got UNDER her. Somehow, the guys who gathered the evidence managed to miss it, is well, so it must have been under that shoulder pretty far (or the crime scene guys were incompetent, which I wouldn't have too much trouble believing).

Other, general comments... My paragraph 3-I understand where you could have seen a contradiction. My problem with your scenario is twofold. One, even if the blouse was tied around her neck as a ligature, the blood that soaked down the right side of her undershirt should have transferred onto the right armhole of the blouse, unless the blood was dry by the time the ligature was applied. Two, Had the ligature had been applied before the wound was received, she would have lost appreciable blood pressure, and I'm not sure that the perp's "thrusting action" (kung-fu grip?) would have supplied the necessary pump.

My paragraph 5-I only stated that Addison's "voir dire" testimony was not admissable as evidence, not that it lacks credibility. My point was that, if it was not submitted to the jury for deliberation, Judge Ferguson made the judgement that it was not relevant to the outcome of the case. I'm not saying it was a good judgement. That said, I personally believe that it does lack credibility, as the interview was not transcribed in it's entirety, and therefore, Truscott's ramblings were taken out of context.

The "evidence of prickle" argument was lame on my part, but I thought I'd throw it in to see your response.

As far as the penis lesions go, I'm still not buying Brooks and Addison's description 100%. If the lesions were as big as a quarter, he would have been pretty unbelievably endowed for a fourteen year old. Secondly, I can't see them being missed by the examining physician the following day, considering that they would have pretty much enveloped his entire penis.

"These are 2 medical Doctors. They are both familiar with the Truscotts. What reasonable cause would they have to condemn a 14 year old boy?" They thought he was guilty, and as stated by Brooks in his most recent interview (sworn statement) with Kaufman, they crossed over the line of Doctor to Investigator.

As for the necklace, I'm done with that. I don't think Truscott mentioning it makes him look culpable, at all.

As for the mosquitoes, to say that mosquitoes may not have been present in the bush in 1959 is just crazy. Why would the police mention it? Come on. I think we can safely surmise, regardless of the passage of time, that had Truscott been in the bush naked and sweaty, he would have had more than a few bites. Would Brooks and Addison have noticed? Not likely, since his enormous, stagnantly oozing penis (the fight) would have diverted their attention from the mundane (yet required) task of physical examination and inventory of lesions, etc.(the goal).

"Although Nola's views contrast mine, she is a thinker with an open mind. I do value her submissions." Thanks for the compliment. I have made it a point to try to view the evidence with an open mind, regardless of my belief in Truscott's innocence. I'm glad to see you think it's working.

Regards, Nola

Terry, Be warned that once you begin, it will surpass Flight Simulation for addiction value. I haven't played Mahjong in over a year.

You should read all of the books. The Trent book ("Who Killed Lynne Harper?" is "The Steven Truscott Story" with extra info) will make you think (just because it's soooo sloppily written). You will likely end up with all kinds of questions when you're done with it.

The Sher book, Until You Are Dead, is very biased, but a very interesting read nonetheless.

Of course, The Trial of Steven Truscott, by Isabel LaBordais, is the BIBLE on this case, highlighting the egregious errors on the part of the Canadian legal justice system. It's no wonder Judge Ferguson lobbied to have her prosecuted. It is the most unbiased book of them all.

Have fun, and remember, you've been warned.

Nola

Terry, There are some other variables to consider. One being that some people are more alluring to mosquitoes. i.e., my wife and I sit in the same location on the deck and she is targeted severely. Where she receives 10 bites, I receive only 1. How do we know Truscott wasn't bitten? Remember, mosquito bites were not the first thing on the investigation agenda on Wed June 10, 1959. Truscott did not become a suspect until Lynn's body was discovered. Lynn Harper is out of the question as mosquitoes (female only) don't target carnage. Even so, why would mosquito bites be significant to the autopsy? They would not have been indicative to the cause or time of death. I think if one is to drive up Bent's road, then one must dismiss reason. Reason being that Lynn Harper was raped and murdered at the discovery site during daylight hours. This location was only chosen by the perpetrator due to no other option. Why is the victim dragged? I can think of 2 reasons to drag. One being that the victim is too heavy to carry and the other being that during daylight hours the body is kept low in the grass to avoid witnesses. There should be no inhibitions to carry the body during the darkness of night. One would also reason that an adult male would have the strength to carry a 100 lb female (it would certainly be quicker) The fact that the victim is found in a bush and not on Main St. is the basis for reasoning that the perpetrator is hiding the act and the evidence. Upon this foundation, why visit the concept of a stranger returning Lynn home just to hide her in a bush. If the perpetrator was so stupid as to return his victim home late on a school night with mental sirens telling him that someone is to be looking for this girl, then once again we defy reason. One would also surmise that if one was so humanly deficient in common sense that there would be some form of evidence available to track and apprehend this person. Let's quickly review some of the incriminating evidence and then total the aggregates. Date set w/ Godette for Tuesday evening on County Rd by the bush to search for calves. Date set in secrecy. (This is supported by the fact Godette is seeking Truscott, 3 witnesses) Someone calls on Godette at 5:50pm (supported by Godette's father). Godette is late having dinner and has to defer the meeting. Truscott seen riding his bike in circles at the specified date location @ 6:25pm (2 witnesses) Truscott sees Lynn and waits for her attention (Truscott is quite aware of Lynn's infatuation with him, 2 witnesses) Truscott claims to have rode Lynn to Hwy 8 at 7:30pm and lists 3 witnesses who see him (1 witness was out of town at the time, a second initially lies for him and then recants upon the finding of Lynn's body, the third the Crown has placed him as seeing Truscott @ 6:30pm NOT 7:30pm. The latter witness also refused to sign the police statement). Let's back up a bit and review some more reasoning. Throughout Truscott's statements and until today, Truscott has always played indifferent to Lynn Harper and has always attempted to distance himself from her. Why then does he see her behind the school and wait on her? Why does he elect to give her his time and allegedly ride her over one km down to the highway? Keep in mind the Godette date and his circling on the road by the tractor trail at 6:25pm.

Two of Truscott's classmates, intent on finding him don't see Truscott while on County road from bush down to Hwy 8 from 7:28 through to 7:35 or so. Truscott's states that Lynn Harper had a desire to hitch hike to see some ponies 300 metres up the road. (Lynn never gets to see the ponies, witness testifies) Truscott identifies in detail a mysterious vehicle which whisks Lynn eastward on Hwy 8. Two days later Lynn is found raped and murdered in Lawson's bush. (why does Lynn not walk to the ponies? why would the abductor return Lynn home after doing his dirty deeds?) Truscott and Lynn become the talk of the schoolyard. Children enquire with Truscott on what he was doing with Lynn in the woods, prior to Lynn's body being discovered (several witnesses). Arnold George testifies that Truscott asks him to tell police that he saw him on the bridge that evening. Godette goes to north side of Lawson's bush seeking Truscott (3 witnesses support her search for Truscott) On Thursday June 11, Truscott mentions, in detail, the necklace Lynn was wearing. (This necklace is the one piece of inventory missing from Lynn's person and ONLY the perpetrator would have known that the necklace was missing). The necklace is found hanging on a fence 300 metres south of the tractor trail on June 19, 1959. Using deduction we can eliminate the trophy theory. Now we want to question, why would any adult male want to bother with such an insignificant trinket more so when he has other motives? Why would a stranger return once again to the investigation site and plant the necklace? On Friday June 12, Truscott is given a physical examination in the presence of his father, and 2 doctors. 2 large lesions are found on his penis of which Truscott states had been present for and getting worse for a period of 4 to 5 weeks. Abrasions found on Truscott's arms and knees. A patterned impression found on Truscott forearm, conducive to where one may have secured Lynn in rendering her unconscious. The impressions (scuffs) in the soil below Lynn Harper's feets were identified as those from crepe-soled shoes. Truscott was wearing crepe-soled footwear that evening. (Witness testified seeing Truscott wearing such shoes on the respective evening) Doris Truscott claims that Truscott had similar shoes but they have been discarded and then she acknowledges that her son had the shoes on June 9, 1959. The impressions (scuffs) were measured 33.5 inches down from the crotch of Lynn Harper and the length of the scuffs being 11 inches. These dimensions were in line with Truscott. Truscott tells to Dr. Addison that he was in the field that evening. When Dr. Addison asks Truscott if he did these things to Lynn Harper, he responds, "I don't know, I might have but I don't know". Truscott never outright denies culpability. There is much more compelling evidence which points to Truscott's culpability in the rape/murder of Lynn Harper. Denying GUILT does not exonerate one of the GUILT, it only creates doubt and sentiment towards the accused. Cheers, M.

Bent's experiment with the license is indicative of his simplicity. He places a woman with (sub 20/20 vision) on the bridge and stands at Hwy 8 with his BLACK car. He then proceeds to flash the 3 colored pieces of bristol board (RED, YELLOW, GREEN) against a BLACK background of the car. Every time the woman correctly identified the color of the respective bristol board. There are obviously flaws with this unqualified experiment. First of all sub 20/20 vision does not deem one color blind. When looking at the colors involved you have significant contrast. You also have a woman specifically focused on a task. It was not Truscott's duty make out the details of some random vehicle. The alleged grey color would also have had a completely different impact on perception. I am not implying that one cannot make out colours from the given perspective. I have stood on the bridge and viewed a vehicle at the intersection of Hwy 8. I have 20/20 and have never failed a color-blind test. I will tell you that yes you can see a vehicle from the this perspective however, the plate is so small that there would have to be contrast. When one reasons on how a vehicle would have pulled over to pick up Lynn, we infer that one would see the side of the car NOT the rear, and this would have prevented Truscott from viewing the colored plate (there is a road shoulder at the corner of Hwy 8). I boldly submit from my observations that Truscott's story is a complete farce. This farce was only concocted to remove Lynn from area, because the perpetrator didn't have the means to do so. Cheers, M.

Nola, I'm not certain that you have a good orientation of the respective area. I have never stated that Truscott "takes" Lynn Harper into the field. Her entry into the field was voluntary. This field is clearly open to the view of the road as is the tractor trail leading to the bush trail.

Yes, Truscott would have put his bicycle somewhere. Where is extremely speculative as I hesitate to premise that his intention was to rape/murder Lynn prior to entering the field (I will outline my theory of what transpired shortly)

The only immediate reason Truscott would have hidden his bicycle is so others, such as Godette would not interfere in his time with Lynn. Yes, Lynn would have removed her socks voluntarily outside of the bush. I have never stated from where the body was dragged, NOLA is inferring across the tractor trail. I never said that the necklace was taken as a souvenir, NOLA said this. I never said that they were never heard or seen, NOLA said this. I fail to see how socks and shoes could not be carried. I think that your 4th para is very weak and filled with inferences of your own, NOT Matthew's.

PARA 5...You left out something very important. Something alarms the perpetrator. The button was seen VISIBLY by Cpl Sayeau and therefore it falls to reason that the button falls into a reasonable position. Under the shoulder does not infer that the button is lodged under the weight of the shoulder but simply under the respective covering. You are trying to hard to predict the dynamics of a fallen button. If you put into reason that the blouse was knotted around the neck of the victim and understanding its close proximity to the shoulder, then finding the button in the respective location is not unreasonable. I suspect you are simply trying too hard.

PARA 6...You are still trying too hard. The body was found with the forearm still in the arm hole, and the arm was (obviously) placed upward so the elbow drew a right angle. The right hand being pulled inward towards the head of the victim. I fail to see how this positioning of the arm and blouse would pick up any blood. Pumping at the shoulders while the wounds are being inflicted on the underside of body, will definitely release further blood. This is the same physics behind that of the heart. In addition, gravity becomes a player.

PARA 7...You stated that the "voir dire" testimony warrants little discussion. There is no diminishment of credibility, however, I do agree that Dr. Addison transcribes a portion of the interview after the fact. Precise wording is missed but the gist of the conversation is gainful enough. TRUSCOTT PLACES HIMSELF IN THE FIELD THAT EVENING AND FAILS TO DENY CULPABILITY IN LYNN'S DEATH WHEN DIRECTLY QUESTIONED. Regardless, your point is taken.

PARA 9...A quarter is no more than one inch across. So you figure this would have to make him a well endowed teen. Well that is your call. The physician's exam the following day is contradictory BUT as the evidence shows Dan Truscott was present with both doctors during the initially examination. You are inferring that two doctors in the medical profession have elected to conspire with the courts to have Truscott lynched. And for what gain.

Secondly, don't get caught up in the size of the lesions. The fact that the lesions were there is incriminating. PARA 11...You can't see reason in that Truscott has linked himself to the crime scene by bringing to the attention of the investigators that there should have been a necklace on Lynn's neck? Lynn is executed around the neck. Not stabbed or shot or poisoned but asphyxiated due to strangulation. Once again Truscott notes in detail, even mentioning the plastic detail. Suddenly, the necklace ends up in location close to where Mr. Lawson reports seeing the vehicle.

PARA 12...I'm not saying that mosquitoes were not present in the woods in 1959. I question his assumption that there would have been on that respective evening. I also question the relevance. The investigation did not commence as a quest to identify mosquito bites. Even if Truscott did have some bites why would investigators have deemed this suspicious. When Lynn's body was found it was midday and there would not have been the noted infestation.

Nola you haven't swayed me but you do try to think. You have a tendency to make simple facts more complicated than they need to be.

I will leave you with one thing. Matthew boldly states that Lynn was possibly never taken in the woods via the path off of the tractor trail. This I assert. However, she was dragged into the woods.

Cheers, M.

Wow! Lots to ponder / catch up on.

M, you mentioned links which yield descriptions of the scene, or perhaps photos of the twigs, ground etc. Sorry if I missed it....damn, 3 threads!!! Could you please repost those links?

I know this is terrible, but I need to see crime scene photos. How can I do this?

Wow! Lots to ponder / catch up on.

M, you mentioned links which yield descriptions of the scene, or perhaps photos of the twigs, ground etc. Sorry if I missed it....damn, 3 threads!!! Could you please repost those links?

I know this is terrible, but I need to see crime scene photos. How can I do this?

Free Thinker,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/truscott/pdf/TrialVolume7-Exhibits.pdf

When the site loads, click on pages (left side) and view page 18. I will also forewarn you that page 46 is rather unsettling.

Now you can see for yourself how inundated the ground was with twigs.

Cheers, M.

Free Thinker,

Those photos are such poor quality...they are even in reverse video. In fact you cannot make out what is a twig and what is a green plant stem.I would suggest the only way for you to see the originals would be to apply to the Court of Appeal. I was successful in obtaining some viewing last April. But at the hearing last summer, I think I heard that the photos would be withheld from the public. Your only chance would be to give them a call. Bent

Matthew,

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I can't argue with much of it. Like I said originally, I do believe that the jury and the appellate courts got it right. Just a few nagging doubts.

I'll be curious to see what this court says. My guess is they'll leave it in limbo, by ordering a new trial, unless they bow to public pressure.

I'm in the process of reading the Ontario Court of Appeal hearing. Gee... I must have time on my hands...

Regards,

Terry

Bent, I do agree that the photos are dark in contrast however, twigs are twigs and they are clearly there. Free Thinker,

Free Thinker, What debris would one expect to find as ground cover in woods? There would have to of been twigs and foliage covering the soil. Trees are naturally groomed via weathering and wind. From what I've always understood gravitational pull is downward NOT up. When you view the photos I'm certain that you will have a good idea as to who is being honest and factual.

Cheers, M.

Terry, I stand firm in my position but that doesn't mean I can't be shaken. Just show me some credible evidence. I was reviewing the 5th estate article on line and what I found were a few deceptions...

1. The article has the Crown using the time of 7:25pm as to when Truscott & Lynn arrive at the tractor trail. By using this time, the article reasons that Godette & George would of been on the road prior to Truscott, and that Burns would have already of been home. In reading the Crown's final summation to the jury one will find that 7:15pm is the time in which the Crown reasons Steve & Lynn reach the tractor trail. 7:15 and 7:25 were the temporal thresholds offered by the Crown based on the variances in times given by Nickerson, Bohonus and Carew as to when they left the school. Carew estimates the time to be about 7:00 (possible variance 10 minutes either way) when he sees Truscott & Lynn leaving the school. Gellatly stated that Steven was riding at a fairly quick speed. I think that the Crown's position of 7:15 is very reliable.

The police timing places Philip Burns at the tractor at 7:16pm. Philip Burns places the sighting of 2 people pushing a green bike at the north corner of the bush. Burns would have been in a position to see Truscott & Lynn (I hesitate to give merit to a witness changing prior statements BUT if there was ever a smoking gun, here it is) The question is credibility.

Thistles...Field...River (noted in Dr. Addison's "voir dire" testimony. The far north side of the bush extends towards the river. I won't take it any further than here at this time.

2. Here is a statement given by Truscott to MacIntyre..."No marks, no dirt, no blood, nothing. She had a big cut down her leg, marks on her back. To do all that out here without anybody seeing you because the road is just back to the side here ... it was impossible to have happened."

He starts of by painting himself as having no marks, no dirt and no blood on his person...We know this statement is false because he had abrasions on his knees and elbows and arms. He also had what is deemed a "pattern" on his forearm. We know he had blood on the fly of his underwear and of course the lesions. However, the injuries occur in the woods. Very deceptive.

The "big cut" down Lynn's leg is an exaggerated statement. It was a superficial abrasion. No haemorrhaging. It would have more than likely of happened in the bush. Marks on her back were more plausibly caused inside the bush and Truscott is aware of this so he doesn't have to consciously lie.

Finally, the impossibility of Truscott assaulting Lynn in this field may have some merit and only because it may have occurred on the other side of the bush, towards the river. The impossibility of the act having merit is false. The murder happened, the question is how. I will offer a plausible layout of these events shortly.

I do have a question to readers. What was the extent of the barbed-wire fence enclosing Lawson's Bush in 1959? From where to where?

Cheers, M.

Matthew2, "Bent, I do agree that the photos are dark in contrast however, twigs are twigs and they are clearly there."

This is getting frustrating.

Twigs are twigs yes. But are they "clearly" there? No. The photo is of such a poor quality that no useful info can be derived.The only things that can possibly be identified are the leaves which are maybe trillium? I even hesitate to state that as "clear"

Also, when you say twigs, the first thing that comes to mind is a twig that is bendable and pliable, and therefor quite useless in our discussion. We need something stiff..and sharp.

As to "twigs"..if you mean by that word stiff sticks that are sharp at the ends. And for these items to have punctured Lynne's skin and even caused bleeding, is quite a stretch. Remember, the twigs were laying down flat on the ground. Ok;some movement, what you describe as pumping? by the perp, would hardly make those sticks stand up and puncture her flesh at several locations: Two the size of 3/8" diam above her buttocks,and at least one had been bleeding. One, the same size on the outside of her right thigh..described as a "stab wound" in Dr. Brooks' handwritten autopsy notes. The well known "ragged laceration to the back of her left shoulder, deep into the inner tissues". Can these injuries possibly be caused by soft or hard twigs that might or might not have been laying there? And caused by the perp's "pumping"?(..or whatever word you used)

Do the experiment yourself. Have someone apply weight to your naked body while you are lying on a bush floor and see the results. The flat-lying twigs will stay flat on the ground and not do much damage other than maybe a few superficial scrapes. They will certainly not stand up and create a round lesion that bleeds, nor will they create a ragged laceration deep into the inner tissues on the back of your shoulder.

And what about the lesion to the outside of the thigh? If, as Penistan said, that Lynne was raped while dead or dying, how did that lesion appear? Remember..The perp was "pumping" while she was on her back.

As to your question about the fence: The fence along the tractor trail running E/W was barb wire 3 or 4 strands. It was broken down; posts were loose and floppy. Bob Lawson was asked by the police to add a new strand in order to make the bush less accessible. The Fence that ran along the bush/county road was a 5-strand barb wire of somewhat better quality as best I can remember.

Bent

Bent,

All I can state about the twigs is look at the photo. What does on expect to find on the forest floor, jelly beans?

Your quivelling over soft and hard twigs is only adding confusion for the other readers. My goal to clear the path to the truth.

Free Thinker can share his thoughts later.

The specified lesion may have occurred any time during the act as a whole. Veering thoughts to one side lesion is not the answer just a deferral. You are only creating confusion .

I understand that you are proud as you have spent years in your quest to exonerate Truscott.

Remember the words "counter-productive".

Anyhow, it's always good to battle it out over words in contrast to violence.

Thanks for the fence info. I do however, need to know whether the bush fence extends around the far north side of the bush along the east-west frontier.

Cheers, M.

In Sher's book there is a clear photo and a lot of very healthy twigs by Lynne's feet. Hard to imagine them only being at her feet.

Thank you for the link, M. I'd really like to see more crime scene stuff....these branches really intrigue me. I know it's horrible stuff, but, here we are....

I have resolved just how Lynn gets the linear abrasion down her left thigh, shin and the top of her foot.

The injury could not have occurred by Lynn voluntarily entering through the barbed-wire. The physics just don't correlate. One can be certain that Lynn would not have voluntarily entered the woods barefooted.

The injury could not have occurred by someone attempting to pull Lynn over or through the barbed-wire as it would be just too cumbersome and secondly the mass of her leg would have ceded a significant flesh wound.

Lynn was pulled under barbed-wire with the perpetrator on the inside of the woods to the right of Lynn. This allows for a lighter grazing of the barb which would yield a shallow abrasion.

Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers, M

Matthew2.

It is nice to see how quickly you have resolved this problem. Some of the smartest investigators and lawyers have not yet resolved the problem of how Lynne got into the bush. Would a more 'careful' word than "resolve" suffice? How about"suggest"? Because, really, that is all it is..a suggestion among several, and certainly not a resolution.

That said, sure, I will go along with the under barb wire theory as I have touched on that one in my mind also. However, after learning of the broken-down condition of the fence, we have to remember that the strands were slack, thereby less of a chance to create downward pressure on the leg. Also, note that the scratches were severe and deep enough to produce blood.

I agree that Lynne did not voluntarily enter the bush barefooted.In fact, I opine that Lynne did not walk after her socks came off, hence the clean condition of the soles of her feet, and hence the mud smears on top of one foot.

This smear is important in my view and we must not lose sight of it. That is because there was no mud in the bush or TT or immediate vicinity. When the pathologist describes it as "markedly muddied" we can be quite sure that she had dried mud on top of her foot, not just dry earth rub-off.

Now that this is "resolved" how about you go on to explain how Lynne's shorts ended up getting chlorophyll on them, both inside and out. It was not a stain that had transferred through from one side of the material to the other, but rather was rubbed onto the material on both sides. Cheers Bent