I've always kept an open mind about Steven Truscotte, never quite sure of his innocence but far from convinced of his guilt in the 1959 murder of Lynne Harper. His account of picking her up on his bicycle and giving her a ride to the highway where she got into a car always sort of troubled me. It didn't seem to make a lot of sense.
It makes sense now.
Four decades of prosecutorial and police misconduct concealed evidence that made Truscotte's highway explanation entirely plausible. Evidence that showed that the 12-year old girl had a hot temper. That she'd been known to hitchhike. That she'd stormed out of her home, slamming the door behind her, furious that she'd not been allowed to go swimming. That, in light of her past conduct, her disappearance was treated as just another runaway incident.
Worst of all is the revelation that the Crown, at trial, had claimed the Harper girl was in a relatively good mood when she left home that night and wasn't known to hitchhike.
The Crown is going to argue Truscotte's guilt today. Sounds to me that they have the wrong person on trial. It should be the Crown defending its conduct.
No comments:
Post a Comment