Talk:Vanastra, Ontario

Untitled
Although I continue to believe that the current version is unnecessarily provocative and simplistic, I will refrain from re-editing the entry at this point in time, rather then engage in what I regard as a pointless back and forth contra editing situation. The fact that the case is currently under review by an Ontario court that is legally empowered to over turn Truscott's conviction, surely suggests that the 1960's Federal Supreme Court decision that this versions author seems to feel is in some way the 'final word' in terms of Truscott's case, is only one step in the continuing history of this matter.

If Truscott is exonerated by the current legal proceedings, I believe that that would constitute a strong argument to suggest that the current version of this article is inadequate in terms of describing the circumstances of this case and should be altered to reflect those changed circumstances. 70.49.32.147 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, very big IF there. IF he is exonerated, then of course the article will be changed. but seeing how the current ruling stands, and the fact that he waited until the coroner was dead before claiming innocence and demanding an overturn is very suspicious.  It is very suspicious that Truscott waits until all the expert witnesses who put him away die of old age before he claims innocence, in what could result in millions of dollars in compensation if it is overturned.


 * --Jadger 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, now Jadger. Do I detect just a hint of personal bias in your position? :)

Your claim that Truscott "waited until the coroner was dead before claiming innocence" is in fact not correct. Truscott has maintained his innocence of the crime from the first day he was questioned by the police. Actually, in the light of history, your apparent certainty of the facts in this case appear even greater than Dr. John Penistan, the coroner who helped conduct the initial investigation. Initially at trial, utilizing the autopsy results as he interpreted them at the time, he pinpointed the murder as having occurred between 7:30 and 7:45 PM on June 9, 1959. In 1966, after seven years of thought regarding the matter, he wrote a letter to Harold Graham, a police officer who had been involved in that initial investigation and had subsequently become assistant commissioner of the OPP. In that letter, he in effect recanted his intitial certainty of the time of Lynn Harper's death and stated that his initial determination may have have been as much as 24 hours too narrow.

http://www.randomhouse.ca/features/steventruscott/reappraisal.html

Few people doubt that the strength of the Crown's case in this matter was heavily dependent on Dr. Penistan's tight definition and apparent certainty at trial of when Harper's death actually took place. Keep in mind that this, at least partial, retraction of his testimony was not made available to the Supreme Court justices who reviewed Truscott's case in the mid 1960's. Even Penistan's assistant at Lynne Harper's autopsy, Dr. Brookes, years later questioned their "objectivity" at the time of the investigation and trial. In terms of the allegation that Steven Truscott deliberately "waited" for decades before attempting to launch an appeal in the hope of reaping a large settlement, it's been reported in the media and mentioned in a couple of the new books on the case, that Truscott had completely given up hope by the early 1990's of ever being exonerated of the crime and it was only after protracted "harassment" on the part of one of his children and recent improvements in DNA forensics that he even expressed interest in trying again. I think that last point is an important one when considering his potential guilt or innocence. If Truscott truly was guilty of killing Lynne Harper, why did he pursue the exhumation and DNA testing of her remains last year? What did he possibly have to gain? Granted, in any event, it was unlikely that after so much time had passed that any useable evidence would have survived. But consider it, if his DNA *were* by some remote chance been found in Lynne's body, he would have sealed his guilt of the crime forever in everyone's minds. It's my belief, that he pursued that testing for one reason, that it was remotely possible that evidence had survived the decades and that evidence would concretely demonstrate his innocence of the crime. Otherwise, why would he take the risk?

70.49.22.9 04:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Huron County Born And Bred

Article Cleanup
In my opinion the first section isn't too bad, but over all, this article needs a fair bit of work. Sentence structure, grammar, the relevance of a simple "list of businesses" and directions to nearby communities all leave much to desire from my perspective. Deconstructhis 19:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)