Swimming against the tide
Contrary to the big splash in the media... the court did not actually declare Steven Truscott innocent...
"I believe he's definitely guilty," he said. "I believe that the media and the people on his defence team have put a spin on this thing that he was a young - a young boy that was very innocent, but in reality he was - he was a tough kid."**********
RELATED: Read the actual judgement
"The task of demonstrating innocence is particularly difficult in this case where in addition to the passage of almost a half-century since the crime, certain immutable facts cast some suspicion on the appellant."Which leaves the question of compensation.
"He was the last known person to see the victim alive and was with her at a location very close to where she was murdered."
"At this time, and on the totality of the record, we are in no position to make a declaration of innocence. Indeed, we are not satisfied that an acquittal would be the only reasonable verdict."
Former Appeal Court Justice Sydney Robins, tasked by the Ontario government with reviewing the compensation issue, said he must first decide whether Truscott is entitled to an award before recommending how much, if any.Lynn Harper's father also has an opinion.
"The issue turns on the fact that there was no explicit finding of factual innocence in the case,'' Robins said in a telephone interview.
“You never want to see someone who was innocent convicted of something,” the elder Mr. Harper said Wednesday. “But this is about money.”**********
The Harpers have long felt that part of Mr. Truscott's motive in continuing the efforts to clear his name has been to win a hefty compensation package from the government.
On Tuesday, Mr. Truscott's lawyer, James Lockyer, said his client should “get every penny he can out of the government after what he has been through.”
LAST WORD: The gold standard of innocence...
Is when, say... they actually catch the guy who did it.
In 1997, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno expressed regret over the leak regarding Jewell. "I'm very sorry it happened," she told reporters. "I think we owe him an apology."
Eventually, the bomber turned out to be anti-government extremist Eric Rudolph, who also planted three other bombs in the Atlanta area and in Birmingham, Alabama.
Technorati Tags: Steven Truscott, Richard Jewell, Eric Rudolph
5 comments:
Call me a bleeding heart if you will, but from the first time I heard about the Truscott case - shortly after his death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment - my reading of the circumstances says he was innocent, and that there are a number of people involved here who just plain don't want to admit even the possibility of error.
It is conceivable that you can be the last person to see someone alive (other than the killer) and that circumstances look suspicious, without stretching the point.
Oh, well, at least we don't do this!
*
for the record, i have absolutely no idea whether truscott is innocent or guilty.
the post quotes lynn harper's brother who knew truscott.
you can also go read the judgement of the court...
it states... "At this time, and on the totality of the record, we are in no position to make a declaration of innocence."
and that's where things stand legally.
*
I've followed the Truscott case since 1965, when I read the book by Isabel??. Back then, I firmly believed he was innocent, going only by what I read in the book, which was, of course, biased. Good authors can tug at the heart strings, and make a naive person (me) believe almost anything.
Now, I'm older, hopefully a little wiser, and don't KNOW if he's innocent or not. I hope he truly IS.
But, lacking DNA evidence, which is about the only thing you can trust anymore, we'll never know for certain.
Now, his lawyer claims he should be "hugely compensated", but this isn't a case like David Milgaard, where DNA proved he was innocent.
So, do Canadian taxpayers now have to foot the bill for the finding of a reasonable doubt? I guess we're about to find out.
I wasn't aware that in Canada you were presumed guilty until absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were innocent.
If he is a victim of a miscarrage of justice then he entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and should be compensated for his time behind bars or retried. (jmo, I am aware of how few actual 'rights' any Canadian has.)
*
"jon said... that in Canada you were presumed guilty"
oh boy... another faint heart, who apparently won't trouble himself to actually read what i wrote.
let me repeat, from above... "for the record, i have absolutely no idea whether truscott is innocent or guilty."
let's also review what the judges overseeing the case said... just one more time... "At this time, and on the totality of the record, we are in no position to make a declaration of innocence."
they weren't declaring him guilty... but they simply weren't declaring him innocent either... which is how the media is spinning this puppy.
what exactly is your issue with that?
*
Post a Comment