Comment Corner

What you need to know before you know you need it.

 Page 1 of 1
 [ 1 comment ] 

Permanent LinkPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:05 pm 
STEVEN TRUSCOTT FUCKING DID IT

Obviously, the murder of Lynne Harper took place before I was born. Had I been alive at the time, I would have instantly traveled to Clinton, Ontario, kicked the living snot out of Truscott 30 seconds before he perched Lynn Harper on his handlebars and drove her off to rape and kill her.

In recent years, especially this past summer, the belief of our public against Truscott’s conviction has grown while belief in the decision made by two, count ‘em two courts, including the Supreme Court, has simply been thrown by the wayside in favour of a paranoid delusion that a miscarriage of justice occurred.

Frankly, Truscott fucking did it. In this article, we’ll explore the facts and fallacies which surround the case and come away true believers that the only miscarriage of justice which occurred is that Steven Truscott isn’t getting raped in the ass anymore.

BEFORE THE MURDER

It’s interesting to note certain things from Truscott’s own book, the Steven Truscott Story, in comparison with what the Crown adduced at trial. Rather than believe the ill-deserved hype and public apology from Michael Bryant, look closely at the actual case and discover the evidence which chillingly shows Truscott as murderer.

1. Truscott admits to being with Harper

Amazingly enough, this can often be overlooked. Truscott was with Harper the night she was killed. He says it, witnesses say it, it’s never been disputed.

2. Truscott has never denied killing Lynne Harper

Through out all of Truscott’s testimony, public statements and even his own damn book, Truscott’s never even made the following simple denial: I didn’t kill Lynne Harper. He’s made the claim that he’s innocent. Well, whoopty-fucking-doo! Saying you’re innocent isn’t the same as claiming you didn’t do whatever the crime is, it’s saying you haven’t been convicted of a crime. Ask yourself, when’s the last time somebody accused you of doing something which you didn’t do. Did you respond by saying “I didn’t do that” or “I’m innocent!”? Guess what, you can be innocent and have committed the crime too. You just haven’t been proven guilty.

3. Lawson’s Bush is awfully convenient

How many people focused on this small patch of land in between the school and the highway where Lynne Harper’s body was found? Jocelyne Gaudet, a fellow student with Truscott, told police that Truscott had made a date with her to go to Lawson’s Bush that night. A little before 7:30, Gaudet meets Lawson, the farmer who owns this fateful patch of land, at his barn. She states she’s looking for Truscott at Lawson’s Bush, where she had made previous plans to meet him. She repeats her story to 10 year old Philip Burns, whom she meets nearby. Butch George is another student, who goes looking for Truscott at Lawson’s Bush. There are now two people, independent of each other, looking for Truscott at Lawson’s Bush. What does this mean? Here’s what Truscott’s version of events amounts to:

If there were a mall with a thousand stores in it, and I were going to invent a story about you wherein you hid a body in a store, I could pick any store at random. It could just as likely be EB Games as it could Footlocker. I’m making it up as I go along. So, I decide to tell the police I saw you at EB Games, for no reason other than I picked that store at random. Now, another person also decides to invent a story out of whole-cloth about you being at the mall and she says that she went looking for you twice at EB Games, because earlier, that’s where you said you’d be meeting her. Keep in mind her story is total bullshit, she’s made the whole thing up. Two people have pinpointed you to being at EB Games, independently of each other and at random. No biggie, it can still be coincidence. But, EB Games is where there’s a dead body. And that dead body is the body of the person that other people, including yourself, say you were with the night she died.

So now two people have randomly selected 1 store in a thousand at which there’s a dead body, and you’re, by your own admittance, the last known person to have seen her alive.

See the problem? Truscott spends no time discrediting these two people who are looking for him at the murder scene, he simply discredits those people’s assumption that he had sinister intentions. Another non-denial.

But then Truscott puts himself in Lawson’s Bush the night Lynne Harper died by telling his own friend, Tom Gillette, that he was there looking for a calf the day after Harper is killed. Yet another student, George Archibald overhears Truscott tell Butch George that he was in Lawson’s Bush the previous night. If you’re counting, two kids present information to the police that Truscott was in Lawson’s Bush the night Harper was killed. Does it end there? Nope. Bryan Glover reports that he overheard Truscott tell Paul Desjardine that he was in Lawson’s Bush WITH Lynne Harper the night she was killed. Could that just be hearsay? Well no, because Desjardine reports the same story at trial.

Four more kids present testimony that Truscott was in Lawson’s Bush, coupled with Gaudet and George makes six.

Are they all lying? If you believe that each and every kid is a horrible liar, they each directly or indirectly have made up stories putting Truscott at the scene of the crime where Harper’s body is coincidently found. Two of them state that Truscott admitted to being with Harper at the scene of the crime and hey, [i]it’s not like Truscott’s ever denied killing her.[i]

4. The physical evidence.

Just a few things here. The time of death of Lynne Harper was established as roughly 7:30 based upon the digestion of stomach contents. Harper’s parents said she ate at 5:30 and the coroner estimated that it could be 15 minutes to either side. Maggot infestation supported this conclusion.

Truscott supporters take great umbrage with this conclusion. They want the greatest range of time to allow the time of death of Lynne Harper to be close to 8:30, when Truscott is back home, baby-sitting. If that’s true, Truscott couldn’t have killed her.

Let’s take the Truscott-friendly 8:30 time of death. According to Truscott, he rode with Harper to the highway where he dropped her off. After dropping her off, a car just happened by, Harper stuck out her thumb, the car stopped, Harper got in and sped away. He estimated this to be near 7:45. Let’s take Truscott’s story as true.

If true, some random violent pedophile just happened to be driving along the country road when Truscott dropped Harper off. Truscott further stated she wanted to go to the highway so she could go to a farm and see ponies. Does Truscott take her the whole way? Nope. He dumps her a few miles from the supposed farm and takes off on her after witnessing her get into a stranger’s car.

If this pedophile grabbed Harper, raped her and killed her, he then must have pulled the car around to where he found her at the roadside and carried her body down to Lawson’s Bush where he dumped her. But Lawson’s Bush is the crime scene, it’s where she was killed. So, the pedophile now obediently turns the car around, drives back to where she was picked up, walks back towards the school along the pathway which goes near Lawson’s Bush where he decides to rape and strangle her. Coincidently, this is the very spot that 6 kids are inventing stories that Truscott was there, some of them further saying that Truscott was there with Harper.

5. A little logic please.

What a fucking coincidence Truscott would have us believe. But he doesn’t even really believe it himself. He writes in his own book "Had I intended to rape and murder Lynne Harper, would I not, rather have been stupid beyond belief, to drive my victim, minutes prior to killing her, past innumerable witnesses? This fact occurred to no one, not even my counsel." Where’s his denial? Nowhere. He just states that anybody intending to rape and murder would be stupid to parade their victim in front of witnesses. That’s entirely true. But it’s not a denial.

TO BE CONTINUED…

The Supreme Court brands him a liar.
He continues his failure to deny.
He fucks up his parole board hearing.
Declared innocent? Not by anybody.

The stunning conclusion soon!

_________________
Nam eloquentiam quae admirationem non habet nullam iudico


 Profile  
 


Comments
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Online
Profile
Permanent LinkPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:28 pm 

Here it is Jan 2 and we are still waiting for the "stunning conclusion"





 Page 1 of 1
 [ 1 comment ] 


 

Author
USER_AVATAR

Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (177)

Archives
- September 2008
ODE TO DUMMY MATT
   Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:12 pm

+ July 2008
+ May 2008
+ April 2008
+ March 2008
+ February 2008
+ January 2008
+ December 2007
+ November 2007
+ October 2007
+ September 2007
+ August 2007
+ July 2007
+ June 2007
+ May 2007
+ April 2007
+ March 2007
+ February 2007
+ January 2007
+ December 2006
+ November 2006
+ October 2006
+ September 2006
+ August 2006
+ July 2006
+ June 2006