Steven Truscott Innocent? Bull****!

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.bigpond.com/news/world/conte ... 018633.asp

Murdering SOB gets off scott-free from killing Lynne Harper. Stupid court, what evidence is there that he isn't guilty?

Odd. Presumably DNA tests determined that some crucial evidence didn't belong to him... but why wouldn't they say so?

I've little faith in the courts anymore. Here in the US at least. I know a guy who was sentenced to a year in prison for stealing a $200 item, yet because of a clerical error my son's father was in prison for a mere two months, after countless assaults, death threats, and an attempted drowning. Go judges. It's not pleasant to be aware that what passes for "justice" is actually lawyers playing chess.

Poker, more like.

Scarier still.

At one of the trials, I remember the lawyers congratulating each other at the end, because the lawyer who had stepped in at the last minute to defend him had a keen eye and had discovered said clerical error (which consisted of a judge's absent-minded failure to initial the bottom of one page of a vital document). All the evidence against him was suddenly worthless, because of that document. I don't think I've ever felt more incredulous in my life, having previously believed that so long as I never did anything wrong, my country would protect me from those who did. It was just a game to them, they didn't care what happened to anybody, or what was fair or just or true. Just winning the game.

We're safe now, but it still makes me angry to think about that trial. I don't even get angry about the crimes themselves, but it is simply terrifying to know how the justice system works. Ignorance was bliss.

I hope that this man who was released really is innocent.

And people wonder why there is so much opposition to the death penalty. >_>

Oh, Truscott didn't deserve to die. Neither did Lynne Harper for that matter, but Steven Truscott just deserved to rot in prison for the rest of his natural. Or at least 20 years. So, if there's no evidence really for his guilt, then is he innocent? I think not. His story to the police was a BS story. At the very least, he's guilty of covering for someone else.

I mean, justice is like a goddamned game to these people.

It's already bad when they wager other people years of life but lives?

f**k no.

Especially when he was so young, when the crime was committed. I know that those types tend never to straighten themselves out anyhow... but I always wish they would.

I don't think he did it. Did you see Fifth Estate (Canada) last night? They said the 2 big things against Truscott were the time of the girl's death (proven false) and the possible existence of a man with car (testified by another girl). I wish Mom had lived to see this - she believed he was innocent, I remember her saying so back in 1960. There are a lot of creeps who should be locked up, but I don't think Truscott is one of them.

Using stomach contents to define TOD is contentious, but Dr Penistan was one of the best. Even Francis Camps (who was hired by the defence in the second trial after touting his services) had to admit that. And his story about seeing a car from as far back as he was, at that time of day, was proven to be BS. I don't believe he intended to be a murderer. A Question of Evidence provides an interesting scenario. He may not have intended to be one, but he ended the day as one. Next thing, you'll say that OJ Simpson was innocent, and JFK wasn't shot by Oswald.