Justice really IS blind!

Back in 1959 there was a 14 year old kid here in rural Ontario who was convicted of killing a girl he knew and sentenced to hang.

Since he was only 14, his appointment with the executioner was changed to life in prison.
Outrage over his conviction from some area locals who knew that he was really innocent grew to such an extent that he was paroled about ten years later.

Ever since he has been trying to clear his name and has been blocked at every turn by the Crown (prosecuting) lawyers whose job it was to convict him in the first place.


We now also know the police got it into their heads that he did it, and evidence was "gathered" that supported that view!

It also became known, in the decades since, that a pedophile lived in the area but this information was not presented. (He was later arrested for the rape and murder of another young girl.)

Truscott's case is being heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Toronto and I'll let you read a condensed version of what is going on now before giving a few thoughts of my own!

(CBC News) Crown lawyers put forward their case Thursday against Steven Truscott, saying there's no fresh evidence that would have changed the guilty verdict against him almost 50 years ago.

Rosella Cornaviera took the opening swipe at the new evidence, arguing that the rules that governed disclosure of information to the defence in 1959 differ from today.

"In our submission, the application of those rules to the proposed fresh evidence compels the conclusion that the verdict remains unaffected by the fresh evidence and the conviction remains valid," she said.

In 1959, Truscott, then a 14-year-old school boy, was convicted of raping and murdering his 12-year-old classmate, Lynne Harper, near Clinton, Ont.

He was sentenced to hang and that was later commuted to a prison term.

He was paroled in 1969.

For days, Truscott's lawyers have argued before the Appeal Court that new evidence casts doubt on the credibility of evidence used to convict him.

They have claimed that the evidence undermines the coroner's testimony about the timing of Harper's death and contradicts the testimony of some child witnesses who claimed they saw Truscott along the county road with Harper at an incriminating time.

But, Crown lawyer Greg Tweeney argued Thursday that the new revelations aren't enough to acquit Truscott.

"To put it bluntly, there's nothing new here," Tweeney said.

"What's being advanced as fresh evidence either isn't new — it was known to the defence at trial and wasn't used — or couldn't have impacted on the proceeding.

"It's our submission the proposed fresh evidence does not affect timing and couldn't have been used at trial as a way to undermine the verdict," Tweeney said.

But, the sitting Judges challenge lawyer's arguments and took Tweeney to task on several points.

"Even if undisclosed information wouldn't affect the outcome, there's an issue of fairness of trial," Justice Karen Weiler said.

Justice Michael Moldaver pointed several times to inconsistencies in the Crown's case, including testimony by a 13-year-old boy who admitted to initially lying to police, then went on to discredit other witnesses.

Moldaver also said there appeared to be an inconsistency on the crucial matter of when key witnesses said they saw Truscott and Harper along the county road.

He also criticized the Crown for suggesting the times given by some young witnesses were approximations.

"You come to us and say, 'Don't fuss with the particular times,'" Moldaver said, noting the Crown at trial went to "great pains" to trace the time line of events. "I'm not sure you can play this both ways."

The Crown will continue its arguments for several days.

The judges could acquit Truscott, order a new trial, dismiss the appeal or halt the proceedings.

Even if new evidence about the pedophile can't be used after-the-fact, it is a disgrace that prosecutors don't give a shit about guilt or innocence, but rather only care about their "CONVICTION"!

This proves to me that our legal system is seriously flawed.

Trail lawyers couldn't care less about guilt or innocence. Prosecutors will go after a guilty verdict no matter what the cost and defense lawyers will defend their clients regardless of the facts of the matter.

Anything that can be done to further their particular agenda will be done, while things that hinder it are ignored or suppressed.

In other words, guilt or innocence is a sham since they are not really trying to get at the TRUTH, but rather just further their own cause.

In the long run this means the guy with the best lawyer wins! The guy with the most money has the best chance. Just look at O.J. Simpson!



And, it also means that Justice really IS blind!





Your "just the facts, ma'am" scribe;

Allan W Janssen