Tuesday, June 9, 2009

If Steven Truscott didn't kill Lynne Harper, who did?








On a warm summer evening half a century ago, June 9, 1959, 12-year-old Lynne Harper (left) of Clinton, Ontario, quarrelled at home with her parents, Leslie and Shirley, before setting off after dinner toward a nearby school playground. There she met a slightly older schoolmate, who had his bicycle. She asked for a ride to a nearby highway. Steven Truscott (right) agreed. Lynn clambered onto the handlebars of the 14-year-old boy's bike and they pedalled off. It was a brief ride that would set in motion a 48-year-long chain of events that shattered two families; that horrified a community; that subverted justice and forced a country to question its morality and the virtuousness of its criminal justice system.

Lynne's partially nude body was found in a small stand of bush in a nearby farmer's field two days after the fateful bicycle ride. She had been sexually assaulted and strangled to death. The community, and it seemed the entire province, was overcome with bloodlust borne of vengeance. The Attorney General offered a reward of $10,000 for the killer, "dead or alive." It was an amount and an expression never seen before in Ontario. Almost immediately, investigators fixated on 14-year-old Steven Truscott as the likely killer, though there was no physical evidence linking him to the murder and no witnesses. He had the misfortune of having been the last person to see Lynne alive.

Two days after her body was found, Steven was charged with murder and a judge ruled he could be tried as an adult. His fate already was sealed.

The trial lasted 15 days. It answered none of the troublesome questions about the murder – the scene, the timing, the evidence – that seemed to exculpate Steven. With precision that would later be proved faulty, doctors fixed Lynne's time of death at a period when Steven had admitted to giving her the bike ride. He willingly told police what he had done that night and when accused, maintained his innocence. Known as a gentle and kind boy and an excellent school athlete, no one could imagine him a perverted sex killer. He was found guilty, with a plea for mercy from the jury. Justice R.I. Ferguson passed sentence on Sept. 30, 1959:
Steven Murray Truscott, I have no alternative but to pass the following sentence upon you. The jury have found you guilty after a fair trial. The sentence of this court upon you is that be taken here to the place from whence you came and there be kept in close confinement until Tuesday, the 8th day of December 1959, and upon that day and date you be taken to the place of execution, and that you there be hanged by the neck until you are dead, and may the Lord have mercy on your soul.

The intention of the Canadian government to hang a 14-year-old boy horrified many. The Guardian newspaper in England called the sentence "a shocking thing." If the execution were carried out on the appointed date, Truscott would have been the youngest person ever put to death in Canada. Secret cabinet minutes (embedded below), since declassified, reveal that the prime minister of the day, John Diefenbaker, was immediately horrified that a child had been sentenced to death and he had no intention of allowing the execution to take place.

Four months after Truscott's conviction, the federal cabinet commuted his sentence to life in prison. In 1966, a meticulously researched book was published, The Trial of Steven Truscott, by Isabel LeBourdais, that asserted a miscarriage of justice had taken place. The book catalogued inconsistencies in the Crown's case, investigative oversights and a trial process that appeared to have abandoned any presumption of innocence. The book sparked a rare reference from the federal government to the Supreme Court of Canada. The high court upheld Truscott's conviction, with dissent from one judge, who concluded there were "grave errors" at the trial.

Truscott was released from Collins Bay penitentiary in Kingston, Ontario, on October 21, 1969, and he began a secret, seven-month life in Kingston under an assumed name. He lived with Mac Stienburg, the prison chaplain who had befriend him at Collins Bay and who believed in his innocence.

Forty-eight years after the murder, on August 28, 2007, Truscott was acquitted of the murder in a decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The court ruled that Truscott's conviction was a miscarriage of justice. It stopped short of declaring him innocent. The case shook the foundations of justice in Canada, shattering public confidence in a system thought to be beyond reproach.
  • No 14-year-old child had been convicted of murder as an adult in Canada since 1875, until Truscott's conviction.
  • Had he been executed on schedule, he would have been the youngest person put to death in Canada.
  • The outcome sparked a national outcry that refocused the country's attention on the controversial use of capital punishment. It was eventually abolished in 1976.
  • The relentless efforts of a few people to prove Truscott's innocence exposed the frailty of a criminal justice system whose actors were willing to go to any lengths to secure the conviction of a suspect that they were convinced was guilty, despite the absence of evidence.
The government apologized and gave Truscott $6.5 million in compensation. The murder of Lynne Harper will likely never be solved.

A vast catalogue of resources exists online about the Truscott case. Here a few:
» The most complete, single source may be the Fifth Estate's excellent archive, based on its documentaries about the case.
» Click here for a 1959 television report about the murder and conviction
» Julian Sher's book about the case, Until You Are Dead, is complemented by this rich archive
» This CBC page features a compendium of mostly legal documents
» This CBC page has an archive of video from Truscott's 2007 appeal

The secret cabinet deliberations
Below are minutes from four separate meetings, October 1, 1959, October 6, 1959, October 21, 1959, and January 21, 1960, when the cabinet formally made the decision to commute Truscott's death sentence to life in prison.

Labels: , , ,

Read it all

24 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

steven truscott murdered lynn harper. THINK ABOUT IT.
her body was found along the path where truscott had taken her on his bike.
if she was picked up in a car as truscott says she was, why would the killer come back to the place he picked her up, pull her out of the car, take her into the woods and murder her....THINK ABOUT IT.
and the nerve of truscott's wife saying how this has affected her family. WHO THE HELL TOLD THE WOMAN TO MARRY A KILLER. IDIOT WOMAN. and they got 6 million dollars. sounds like an O.J. Simpson's dream team case. i have not seen or heard about the truscotts since they got the money.
sure would have been nice if they donated a portion of that money to who this is really about. LYNN HARPER AND HER FAMILY. maybe they could have set up a scholarship in lynn harper's name.
but then again, killers don't do things like that. i totally laugh at the number of foolish people who believe this guy is innocent.
in fact, the original jury foreman still believes that STEVEN TRUSCOTT IS GUILTY.

October 9, 2009 12:11 PM  
Blogger Rob said...

You're right, it's not clear that Truscott is innocent.

The court did not go that far in its decision in his case.

But, the big problem remains timing. The original forensic opinions about time of death were proved to be false or perhaps even fabrications, meant to place Truscott with Lynne at time of death.

As to your question about why a killer would return to the spot where he picked her up, and dump her body: I've covered enough murder cases to know that most killers don't behave in rational/logical ways. They do dumb/crazy/illogical things.

In the current case in Kingston in which police allege four women were murdered who were found in a submerged car in a canal - the killers – if you believe police – did something remarkably illogical. They chose one of the most physically strange/challenging/bizarre locations in the area to stage a car accident with a vehicle in the water. The geography and physical layout of the area immediately made investigators suspicious.

Why would a killer do that?

Hard to say, except that killers do strange things that often never fit a pattern of rational or logical thinking, when reviewed in the light of hindsight.

October 9, 2009 12:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you guys are clearly inductive thinker

October 15, 2009 4:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe they got the wrong boy!

The fact is a girlfriend of lyn harpers was looking for her when she came to the bush another boy was leaving the scene where lyn was found dead.
This boy also lied in court so much they could not use him any longer for prosecution.

October 19, 2009 2:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe they got the wrong boy!

The fact is a girlfriend of lyn harpers was looking for her when she came to the bush another boy was leaving the scene where lyn was found dead.
This boy also lied in court so much they could not use him any longer for prosecution.

October 19, 2009 2:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Try reading Ann-Marie's MacDonald's book, T"he Way the Crow Flies". It's really good, and gives you a different perspective on the Truscott Case.
Try reading it!

October 19, 2009 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a response for The first comment. Have you considered the fact that maybe that if there really is someone that came in a car, maybe they brought the girl back to the farm because it would make the Truscott look guilty. They (car people or person) probably saw the two and when Truscott dropped Lynn Harper off, they took advantage of it.

October 20, 2009 9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dont think did it, i think its kind of fucked up to accuse a 14 year old of rhaping and murdering someone,

October 26, 2009 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the first post: sorry but your details are not accurate. the route they took on the way to the highway was a road, the path where the body was found runs off the road and was NOT the route used by them.

As to why a killer would dump a body in the woods ...in your own words: THINK ABOUT IT. It happens all the time, even nowadays, AND local to the murder site, it is not so unusual.

It's ironic that you are so suprised at not hearing about this case now. Why would you? After over 40 years of fighting for innocence the goal of their entire fight was to have the ordeal put behind them, not to become a the newest host a the next TV reality series.

Finally, your argument about the original jury foreman. He will not admit he was wrong, and nor would I say that he would even have to given the (bogus) facts that they were supplied with at the time - i think you've missed the point as to why this whole case dragged on as long as it did - that original trial presented its jurors with faulty or misleading information at every other turn.

Instead of just thinking about it, READ ABOUT IT. There is a weatlh of information that you've missed in your assessment.

November 5, 2009 8:48 PM  
Blogger I AM LAWYER said...

the OPP had little evidence except that he was last seen with lynne . they also ignored many of the legal principles such as the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, habeas corpus (look em up)and they ignored the fact that one of the pilots at the air base was a previous sex offender and had the same gray 59 cheverolet steven said he saw lynne get into, and why would the guy who picked her up rape her in the fores... think what else is he gonna do with a body of course hes gonna ditch it in a forest, its not like hes gonna keep it at his house. like f@ck sake!

November 5, 2009 10:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not believe Stpeve Truscott murdered Lynne Harper.

There were two witnesses that saw Truscott and Harper head over the bridge (which was past the bush where her body was found) and one witness who saw Truscott come back over alone.

The police stated that Lynn Harper fought her attacker. When people saw Truscott after he returned there was no blood on him, no scratches and they noted that he didn't look unsettled or troubled.

There was one man who was never a suspect but, in my opinion, should have been looked into. Sgt. Kalichuck had a known history of sexual offenses. Three weeks before Harper's death, he was charged with attempting to lure a 10 year-old girl into his car with the promise of new underwear. He even owned a car (which he actually sold after Harper's death), that fit the description Truscott gave.

THINK ABOUT IT. The murder and assualt of such a young girl had the communtiy in an uproar, and the police needed someone to blame. The evidence the Crown used was contradictory and unreliable.

Here's a valid website if anyone's interested in more information on the defense of Steven Harper.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/truscott/index.html

November 15, 2009 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read 2 very good books about this back in 1979. In the second one, someone had actually confessed to murdering Lynne. He lead police to her book bag and had the same type car that some of the witnesses had described seeing. Everyone covered it up. There where also swabs of his bodily fluids that were matched to her body. Of course, DNA testing was nothing back then compared to where it is now. HOW COME, NO ONE HAS RETRIEVED THOSE SPECIMENS AND EITHER PROVED OR DISPROVED STEVEN'S INNOCENCE???
Oh yeah...right...they refused to let the guy confess publicly and covered it up...I guess you won't find those samples anywhere!!! Steven if you read these, I believe you. This has been a big miscarriage in justice and no amount of money can ever replace what they took from you all these years. Justice...yeah...what a joke!!

December 4, 2009 10:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who gives a flying fuck ... it was over a half century ago god dam it!

December 11, 2009 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THINK ABOUT IT. You're idiots. He's innocent. Read a fucking book for once.

December 13, 2009 6:48 PM  
Blogger Rockyriver said...

you people out there who think Steven Truscott is guilty are stupid, and should learn how to understand what you read. that Sgt. Kalichuck had a history of sexual offenses and commited one 3 weeks before the death of Lynne Harper could have likely done it cause he was hanging around there as well as he was seeing some Doctor in nearby Seaforth town over his mental health and drink problem at the time as he was travelling from St Thomas back in forth to his Dr apps,there also were a couple of maintenance guys who were travelling around area at the time and they were from Toronto to do repair on gas stations and one of them had talked about the other who had showed him the body that look as presume the girl in the photo (Lynne Harper)thou at time the other guy had been dead at the time and the Investegator didn't think it was credable information cause the guy had some kind on mental problem, also the case fell in the wrong hands in which to think a police officer, or officers may have had done it which is strongly beleived cause they knew the nature of the area,aslo could been another Air force officer or officers, I think at that time in some what someone knew of Sgt. Kalichuck,s problem and committed the crime thinking it would be pined on Sgt. Kalichuck although the police were aware of Sgt. Kalichucks problem with drink and pedophilia, police knew what was going on cause their told what to watch for its their job,and also for a 14 boy to do all that to Lynne Harper at that age, not a chance in my mind.***** you all think on that and I would like to hear from anyones opinion of what I said. see ya around :)

December 31, 2009 10:02 PM  
Blogger Rockyriver said...

On the evidence that were gathered from the crime scene, DNA, underwear, all lost, if we had it,the case would have been solved a longtime ago,cause it was lost makes it seems like an Police Officer may have done it,the police around London had an idea that Sgt. Kalichuck may have had something to do with the murder of little Susan Cadeau and a few other little girls in the London area, they around the ages of 5, and 6, all cases that have gone cold it generally all seems to follow where ever Sgt. Kalichuck had landed, the evidences were lost and it means. Steven Truscott is innocent always was innocent if you can't see that, you've got a problem.....

December 31, 2009 10:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There have been few, if any, 14 year olds convicted of sexual assault and murder by strangulation after Lynn Harper.

On March 9, 1959, exactly three months before Lynn was murdered, another 12 year old girl, Patricia Lupton, was murdered in Toronto in much the same way.

Lynn was strangled with a piece of her clothing, as was Patricia. Patricia's murder remains unsolved to this day.

I believe it is more than just Kalichuk was seeing a doctor in the area, he was stationed in Clinton previously, was known to be a pedophile, and KNEW Lynne's father (who was also stationed at Clinton.)

The person who abducted Susan Cadieux in 1956 and assaulted her was wearing an aviator's hat. Kalichuk was in the air force but never realized his goal of being a pilot. Prior to Susan's murder, at least six girls between 5-8 were molested in the same general area as Susan lived, those crimes were never solved either.

Kalichuk was known by the air force to be a pedophile but kept that information to themselves.

There is more evidence pointing to Kalichuk right now than there ever was pointing to Steven. This type of quick arrest and conviction happened a lot in the 50s and 60s only to see the convicted found not guilty after 20 or 30 years.

People, it takes a strong person to strangle a person to death, it takes minutes, many minutes and that is not something a 14 year old would do. Any 14 year old (up to about age 19) do not strangle, they stab, hit over the head or shoot, they do not strangle.

Most killers who both rape and strangle are sexually sadistic psychopaths. This is not Steven Truscott. I believe, if not Kalichuk, there was a serial killer roaming the London/Toronto area around that time and may have claimed victims in the area, particularly London, until about 1968/69. He has never been caught.

January 28, 2010 7:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Google the best SE!
http://www.google.com
[url=http://www.google.com]Google[/url]
Google!

January 31, 2010 7:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[url=http://buyviagrapills24h.com/]buy viagra pills[/url]

February 11, 2010 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Im trying to decide on which [url=http://hubpages.com/hub/before-buy-baby-quasar?rss]baby quasar[/url] will work well for acne. Open to any advice .

beth:)
[img]http://www.babyquasar.com/templates/baby_quasar/images/top_menuBackground.jpg[/img]

February 14, 2010 1:39 PM  
Blogger Bethany said...

Im trying to decide on which [url=http://hubpages.com/hub/before-buy-baby-quasar]baby quasar[/url] will work well for acne. Open to any advice .

beth:)
[img]http://www.babyquasar.com/templates/baby_quasar/images/top_menuBackground.jpg[/img]

February 15, 2010 1:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to thank the blogger very much not only for this post but also for his all previous efforts. I found cancrime.com to be very interesting. I will be coming back to cancrime.com for more information.

February 21, 2010 7:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I grew up in the village where this took place (just outside of Clinton) and actually walked the grounds of Lawsons Bush!

February 24, 2010 12:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how do you know he did just think about it

March 5, 2010 1:34 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home