« The Generation Why Podcast

Steven Truscott - 114

Steven Truscott. In the summer of 1959, a 14 year-old boy gives a ride to a 12 year-old female classmate on his bicycle. He would be the last person seen with her before her body was discovered two days later. She had been sexually assaulted and strangled. Why was he with her instead of his […] The post Steven Truscott – 114 – Generation Why appeared first on The Generation Why Podcast. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This episode is brought to you by peacock bridge Did the original limited series, a friend of the family on the story of the Jan roper, kidnappings from nick and oscar executive producer of the act and candy and direct producer, eliza hip and comes a dark compelling look at the harrowing story through new lands produce which amber burke herself the series stars anna pack, when jake lacy college hanks LEO Tipton and mckenna grace stream now only on peacock. fx age. S and Y see is the next instalment of the award winning anthology series. American horror story created. Ryan murphy and brad fell chuck with to all episodes airing each week it promised to be a season like no other it s an y, see stars returning favorites like Zachary window and Billy lord, along with them faces, including Russell Toby and Charlie carver, something evil is coming fx. Is
yes and Y, see premiers october nineteenth on ethics stream on hulu the The I do in an thing or man so tonight's topic, we jump up north to canada very interesting. I had not actually never heard of this case before we started researching, and so I was pretty excited once I found out about it. So what? What are we doing tonight? Aaron? While tonight is the highly charged very controversial case of the murder of lynn harper.
and will also be discussing the accused and later convicted stephen truscott. This is kind of an old case, but stephen still alive today. What when this go down? This went down in, team. Fifty nine and it basely comes down to stephen, was asked to give linda ride. She, for a ride. She had gotten into what they say is a fight or an argument with her parents. She again to her guide me or brownie meeting. and then some time around seven thirty. She asks stephen prescott for a ride. She knows, he's and ponies theirs. is that are down the highway that she can go visit and she like up go visit. Those ponies it's mile and a half, or just a little over that probably to see the ponies, and he says that you know
her answer. She gets on the cross bars of his bike and supposed Lee they go down. Gravel road and too highway eight He says she wants off that she is going to head on in know by herself to go, see the ponies. It's kind of an intersection in the road right there too, the highway. So she chooses to hitchhike basically that that distance, because he starts to head back, but when he goes some way stops the bridge he looks back any sees her getting into a car. She says is a a grey nineteen, fifty nine really bel air with a yellow license plate or bumper sticker yeah. Any actually makes note he says of the license plate number which it time this comes out later, but he says it's nine, eight one, six, six six! I dont yeah, that's interesting because it was kind of
sort of far away, so they question whether he could have seen the license plate from that distance. We can get in to what has been argued from sides on this case, because she ends up being found a couple of days later in a place known as lawson's bush and when they find her she's, been brutally raped and strangled to death She strangled with her blouse and she has in undershirt, which is the only thing she's wearing at this point, its bloody then the rest for clothes seem to be new we set aside and she has a, I believe, a necklace, that's hanging from the fence, and this bush is pretty much on the way to the drop off point where he claims he dropped her off. It's like halfway there, the others, a point at which, depending on if he's taking her to this spot or to the highway, were heed
to go a different way. There's a little tractor trail, that's off a road that we lay down to this bush area or age continue on and go over the bridge and go to the highway, and that will be important because there are different witnesses that have different takes on where they saw him and if they saw him and with whom. So he takes her. He comes back that night. She doesn't return home, they reporter missing and two days later, they find her body. The next day he's taken into custody. Stephen, is and taken in for interrogation and they say that they interrogated him for seven eight hours and he's fourteen years old, which his parents there was a
We're they're. Probably not. I take issue with that because I realize it's it's a murder, it's a heinous murder but interrogating a fourteen year old boy trying to get him to tell you what happened is sort of questionable in my mind, but I get the the passion there have. You know we need to find who did this to this little girl this is a heinous crime. That's worth starts is worth his interrogation. Well, then, nothing to keep in mind as a fourteen year old. Is it now Sarah Lee a five year old of dear old as a young adult. Basically. Well, then, what let em vote and drink. It now I understand a fourteen year old, while they may not be able to smoke and drink legally, they have still been quite capable of killing people. Oh yeah, oh yeah. He is one hundred and thirty pounds
witches might enable everyone way. Emily was aware of your old girl, he's way, bigger than learn anything Have any trouble giving her a ride down the road on his bike now now and if you see pictures of him he's he's kind of tall he's a big fourteen year old, so they charge him with first degree. Murder within two. Phase of the crime. The other crime happens on june ninth and he is charged on june thirteenth at two thirty in the morning. Okay, but it it should be said he did not confess at all to this and he Hidden implicate himself, in any way that I could find that would you know that would point out that maybe he was having doubts about himself or that that he was breaking or anything like that. It's pretty obvious that the reason they picked him up ass because enough. What She said you had the last time we saw she was riding on the cross bars of his bike. He definitely was
ass person scene with lynn, there's no doubt about it and he should be considered, suspect number one. In that case, definitely so the interesting thing here is three days after the incident he is examined and- he has some injuries to his elbows and his chest, and then he two lesions, one on each side of his penis, and I believe that this is probably something really focus. The attention of law enforcement on him and said she last person scene with her, he does have some injuries, including his groin. Perhaps we should really move on this guy in the police report. Ah, the share of her. Whoever said it looks like Lynne was fighting back, so we should find somebody that has wounds or scrapes or something
so whether or not his wounds and scrapes match defensive wounds or offensive of wounds. For that matter, that's up for debate, but that was in the place report. So they go on to charge him and they go to court and that's when we get into pretty much the eyewitness testimony right. They have disagreements over where he should be taken to court. There's more team well it's not just cities fourteen it has to do with the kind of case that it is it's a pretty serious case, yeah, and so the crown attorney and defence council are working this out, that's putting it mildly, they're, trying to figure out where they take this. Ass. They decide that he should stand trial may screen in adult court as an adult which for the heinous crime I get that I get that decision it mean if ye
robbed somebody or stolen car. No, but when you're being charged with rape and murder, that's that's a different situation. So I their decision there and they hold a hearing and they're just trying to find out. If there's enough evidence to really go ahead with the trial and at these pre trial brings its essentially like a small trial. They have witnessed come forward, bring forth evidence and then the magistrate and decide whether it's going to be a full blown trial or not. And, of course, there is a lot of evidence here and there are plenty of witnesses, although most of them are pretty young yeah witches kind of an issue I mean- You got it. You gotta have witnesses to find out what happened, but all the witnesses are teenage, and younger so stories organ the little nonlinear and in times Details are going to be a little vague there
I mean a lot of these when I was reading through the statements by some of these different witnesses. A lot of them are eleven or twelve or thirteen, and that's me These? Are the kid severed hang out with each other, but right from the beginning, you read this Stephanie think, while this is going to be really difficult unless they have, as we like to say, a smoking gun going off of these witness says it can be very, very difficult. So the evidence I mean really, if he doesn't, if you just glances case you can be like he's alive sky. Seen with this girl, she is up dead. The next day case closed. I mean there's not much to others more to it than that. No, but me, and if you just look at a glance people could, you know just be like yeah. Oh, I don't care what he says he's the last person scene with her and she is literally killed right after he's not seen with her. So
goes a little bit further than nuts. I think some of the evidence gets a little jumbled and in the court and the trial. So why should we start with all the? and all the witness testimony can I'll be taken, one where the other there there is. Thing here that absolutely points to a definite. I'm gonna stay there right now, because I've read through the transcripts and read through the testimony and You wanna talk about. This is why this case was so controversial and you'll talk to people know say: oh he's definitely guilty. Are he didn't? Do it So, let's that's kind of go through some of this stuff, one of the early determinations that had to be made, was her stomach contents because she had eaten, probably not too long before she went out.
So they could actually use that to determine, probably since it took them a couple of days to find her or to come across her, it may help them figure out about when she died, but back then they couldn't sale this thirty minute period here is not an exact science dealing with someone who was last seen with her? Who is out kind of late it kind of get surround dark? Then it gets difficult, because if she, if she was killed that evening, then it may be him or it may not be him, but it keeps him in the possible zone will put it that way where she was lawson's bush there's a tractor trail. It goes off the road. and one of the first things. That's what's actually protein. Well, the first things people will find when they read on this case. But there was a bite track. They went all the way through down that way along the tractor trail,
and this is where some controversy starts right from the get go, because the police officers supposedly does this, and it seems obvious that the bike track had been left at a time when, when the ground was wet because the way the impression was very defined. I've seen this bite track on the internet and its very defined. It definitely looks like it was left at a time when the ground had been wet
which would rule it out from being relevant to this case and the results of the dog that there may have been tire tracks in the area and the man who on the property said he saw a strange vehicle there. Although I didn't see anything that showed whether he actually got a good look at the vehicle or not, he just said that there was a vehicle there that he didn't recognize not necessarily right there, but on his property. So let's go back to the time of death and the the contents of her stomach the autopsy. What was the doctor's name doctor peniston peniston, there's lots of different ways to find time of death and he says well how far along her. The food in her stomach was digested will tell us because that's last time she ate blah blah and, if I remember rightly, pretty much puts it right at the time. She was last seen with with stephen, but then
Essentially, he came up with that by just looking at some stomach contents and ajar and then later on, he kind of recounts that he says well It was more of a window of time, so if he sang in in court one thing but then generalizing later I I don't really like that. I don't, I don't think in nineteen fifty nine. They could pinpoint down to a very specific time at that point, and he sort of does that and I feel like he does, that for the prosecution, because it's such a charged, Is he? I think this happens a lot? Actually, I think india they have meetings with their witnesses, and this is just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if he had told them it could have been between seven or nine o clock, and I'm sure they say where we cannot needed to be before eight and still say what I don't know and that they may have said. Look I mean, is this really possible sure its past
oh ok will we need you to say that in Gaza not a lie. It's just a omission. They can talk him through it and convince him that it's that it's okay, but later, if he's questioned again, I'm sure it comes out that well it's not that exact a science know. So I take a little bit of a problem with that and the tracks on the on the trail. I you know these kids are hanging out there, so I didn't put a lot of a lot of weight to those either, but the fact that one was an impression when it was wet, you're saying that pretty much excludes his bike. Oh that makes sense so well, I would say what it does it. It excludes that track. From being relevant, but it's not saying that he didn't take by down there or theirs, number of ways this could have gone downward. You he wouldn't have left marks mean it wasn't wet.
Yeah and he may not have taken his bike all the way over there. There is also the there were also some footprints shoeprints. I should say by the body. and this is actually one of the. I would say. The most frustrating part of the case for me are the shoes, because what it seem like they sort of drop the ball in this area, because the shoeprints they found his shoes. They looked at the tread of the shoes and they looked at the tread near the body. Seem to make a big deal of this, but they say, while these look really similar yeah, but why weren't they taking measurements Did you get the feeling that they took measurements? It now, the other all. It seems to me that they just looked at the tread wheel great you know, but that's if they were the same size footprint shoeprints than me You ve got him nailed, may
This is enough to really persuade people right rigs. Yeah armenian in this is nineteen. tonight we don't have dna I barely have fingerprints and another thing, so they have a shoe print. Let's go with that. You know I mean that's, that's some hard evidence right there and for them to not really analyze that not even really use it. So much in court is bothersome. Nowadays they would have, they would have taken their shoes in they would have. They would have tried to me their size, they would have tried to match the tread exactly they would have examined the shoes because
as far as I remember they didn't look like they had been cleaned, so they could have tried to match these specific ground. That was by her with whatever was on the shoes, be a grass raider mean they could have made a plaster cast of it. You know a lot of things they could have done so that for me, was it very frustrating point reading through this case, another thing is the physical exam. nation of him, and this comes up in court because Essentially they say there are four pillars holding the case up and when These have to do with the condition of stephen truscott. as he was examined, because it seemed
very strange that he would have injuries to himself given what it just occurred and given that he was is suspected of possibly being involved or being that the sole perpetrator in this crime. This episode is brought to you by progressive. Have you tried the name, your price tool, yet it works. The way it sounds you tell her. How much you want to pay for car insurance and I'll show you coverage options that future budget. It's easy to start quote and you'll be able to find a rate that works for you. It's just one of the many ways you can save with progressive get your what today, a progressive dot com and see why four out of five new auto customers recommend progressive, progressive as well to insurance company and affiliates price and coverage match limited by state law. Do you hear that The little space for mindfulness become the meditation pie gasped in fifteen, then tell us become your space to unwind? Listen.
Sclusively on amazon, music or simply telling I could devise like that play the pod cast become so what I saw here was during the case during the actual trial, they rawdon these doctors to really emphasise that he would not have injuries to his growing area. If he wasn't perpetrating a heinous sexual attack, but at the same time I hear that one he's when he goes to a jail and they examined him there that another that the the jailhouse doctor says that his marks look like normal marks and the marks on his group wine look like dry scanner, some sort of skin condition and nothing to do with wounds in trial.
I have doctors saying these look like wounds, you know from doing something rough as opposed to a doctor saying this is just a skin condition, or maybe he hasn't bathed in awhile. So there's a little bit of controversy there. Well, as far as I know, his the condition of his genitals were a little different and that's because well, let's put it this way. Doctor, Charles Danby is the one that was the doctor who says that he had treated him on six previous instances for a skin condition, said dermatitis and that they were on his face and on his back, and this is strange because he has this condition that causes oozing scaling, ang crusted spots on himself in on his skin yeah
and these are sort of what described on his penis yeah. but issues are that there are on one on it side of it and that's where there were other doctors to other doctors at trial, saying that it was likely cause by friction so that each side, because, if For the sake of argument, if he's assaulting the girl and there's going to be friction most likely in this case, that it would cause them to get raw, and that would be the reason why he has these lesions. That done, Charles Danby says well, I would say this is more of his dermatitis in when they ask him about it. He s, is it away in any an intelligent man?
or by saying that it's quite possible that he's had this issue. They didn't bring it up because it's on his genitals, that's embarrassing. It could be embarrassing. He doesn't want to tell people about it: so, even if he was being treated. My only thing here is, if he, if he does, Skin commission did the doktor never bring up to maybe salmon him further to see how bad you know bad. This was I only have him take off his shirt at these visits. It yeah. Who knows I mean right now we got it could have been either a skin condition or it could have been from an attack, and I I see both sides of that one. I don't know where I fall on that, but I definitely see some both it's because either one makes sense you seen. I know this isn't term exact evidence, but you ve seen pictures have him right from back then yeah, yeah
Does he look like he's, got a bad condition now he asked look like pre pretty boy like real clean cut, nothing on his face nothin on his hands. So like I said it's not sound proof, but in all the way I've seen him. He he looks he s pretty good skin, especially for a fourteen year old sound. Well, we didn't have the process experience. We have now well, I'm just saying if he did have a condition that was so bad that he had gone to the doctor six times previously and yeah. I just find that interesting. That's all! Alright! We should talk about. This is because the witnesses are a major factor in the case and trust me. I try to find a way to really minimize this part of the case, because we're talking about young kids and
This reading, through the things they said, I really got the feeling that they are really young, kids and that yeah, I know adults can forget things they can misinterpret what their seen just as well it could, but I also have to preface this. I got the sense that some of these kids had allegiances and that cuts both ways, but believe me, this, isn't it's not it's not to say that this favored or disfavored trust got necessarily it's just. I got the sense that this was true that some of these kids had allegiances in us. The popular kids
clicks are not a thing of modern times so yeah, I'm just saying that it's a real possibility that this was going on and and of course, there's some statements that might pack that up bedtime, which which witnesses did you really think, were important. When you read over this and really there was what was his name. Butch butch is one of george Arnold george, and there was a a little girl. Wasn't there. There is a girl that he was supposed to well. He. She says, and he says that they there they had talked about going to. I think look look for calves over by lawson's bush and shit up turning him down or cancelling
and this was just prior to the time that he gets asked for a ride- that that lynn harper s for a ride and tat to pay. who you believe she says that he had said. You know, don't tell anybody that I ask you that then he now just forget about it. You know we have phillips, who says he didn't see them on the road and he was walking down the road which would mean that they were often the bush doing something as opposed- do you know going down the road to the drop off point per se, but
was kind of in that same boat right. He saying that in didn't. You know he didn't see them crossed the bridge or the he didn't see them go all the way down to the highway and, I think, but even says they were in the bush, or he saw them go to the bush. So we have to essentially witnesses that are saying now: he day they stopped or we didn't see them, meaning they would be in the bush. And then you have the girl, that's kind of saying now. Not so much And then, finally, we have dug who says he saw them, crossed the bridge and go past the bush and go on so dog and the girl are kind of backup, stephen story, whereas the other two are saying that doesn't make sense. Now.
they discredit doug's account because they say we're Doug was he wouldn't have been able to see them go across the bridge. Yet where Doug says he was, if you go there, you can see. There is line aside. But essentially his testimony I felt was thrown out in court because they just said you can't. You couldn't have seen what he saw. Meanwhile,. Birch kind of got the timing wrong and encourage change. This, Now, whether or not that was totally disregarded in court. I can't you know. I don't know how the juries felt about that, but I I think bush is a testimony was pretty damning, regardless of whether he got the time wrong. What did you think about him, which one bush are you talking
I'll george, arnold yeah arnold arnold's an interesting witness here because he's the one that says at first he seems to support stephen story and then, after this governor of lynn, her body he seems to go back. He says, wait a minute and then says this is what I this is. What I saw and its different changes the story and makes it? He has a damning story essentially about seeing land And ah, or knowing that lynn and stephen go into the woods, so you can. You can take that a couple of ways either. He did get it wrong and he wanted to correct his mistake or b, He doesn't even know if he got it right or wrong, but
that he knows that the little girl was murdered, he's changing story because he needs to its. They can go one way other at this point. Yet his stories are all over the place. Of his stories, is that he went to Stevens house about eight forty five, that night and. no arnold says where we know. Where were you an stephenses down the river. and he says I heard that you had given Lana right down to the river and he yeah. She wireless down, enumerate highway and arnold says I heard you were in the bush with her, and he said no We were on the side, the bush looking for accounting and calf. he goes. Why do you want to know for an hour
says, skip atlas by ball yeah and who knows it that conversation took place in a dead? Again, we have stephen, not really implicating Well, it's sort of is because he's claiming I'm looking for a cow and calf which sort it goes back to the joscelyn story is placing himself at the bush, but saying he's not in the bush, so This is where some would say. This is a place he likes to go to well sounds like it hang out for a lot of the kids, or he in particular at least and then there is also another witness, and this is george- troubled and he's thirteen years old, and he gives testimony that he overhears arnold.
Stephen talking, and this is something I find particularly interesting and in here's a conversation old asked even what he was doing in the woods with lynn. and steam responded. I wasn't in the woods with land. Was I and then Arnold hesitates any as no, I guess it was somebody else and then george, urge bald says that stephen adds, I was chasing a cow. Wasn't I butch. And so there's deftly. I wasn't in the court room but almost sounds to me like he's coaching him, And so giving them leading him to that what he wants him to say. This is a perfect example of how you can t. An element of this case and I go either way with it. You could say now he's correcting him or her.
say no he's telling him what to say like I'm telling you where I was even though it s not really what I was doing and even one of stevens on Broadway He has a brother that even says that stephen was a bit rough and a bit intimidating and that other kids were nervous of him. So it's a ability anyway. But it's not there's no definitive proof here that he was pushing arnold. Although he was, it might explain why historic changes so much and it changes a lot the changes so much that people dont really put stock in him, but Half saw that changing story, there's a reason for it and then the the other kid that says
He didn't see him along the road while it is possible that he does happen to not be walking along the road. At the same time that Stephen inland were taking their ride, I mean we don't know if they were exactly there at all. in time. So for him to say, I didn't see them on the road that means there in the bush. It doesn't guarantee that it just means that he didn't see them when they were writing. So who knows where they were at the time when this other kid was walking down the road, so those are pretty much. The the few eyewitness accounts that I paid attention to, but at the same time, they're all a little contradict or it can be construed in different ways. I think one of the reasons for that is your asking all these young kids to know what time it is yeah. half of them, probably don't even wear, watches.
I have no idea what facebook is all like. There are tweeting. Oh I'm at the bush today, huh yeah they're, going to gps tag that It's true there's! No! This is the EU can already see how difficult this case is this based on so far we ve covered, these stomach contents, which that's going to come up later again. It's so difficult to nail down by two hours can make it difference if it was seven thirty or nine thirty. That's a pretty big difference, because We started in a nine thirty ten o clock. Now we might begin
at the time were Jeez Stevens home, where people saw Stephen shortly after he dropped off one. So we have witnesses placing him different places. So we are witnesses placing them in in very concrete places, a a certain timeframe, but when he was dropping let off that's when time seems to go out there do we talked about it before, but where he is where he seen is important, because it's pretty unlikely if he can be placed the highway with her. That means he went past He would need to go to take her to license bush yeah. Ok, so that's why it's important if some of these This is a right. You know if you to witness this angle, we saw em and then another witnesses that that's their says.
didn't see him. He gets confusing, who saw him where and its important, because if he takes that that tractor, trail he's going one way if he goes to the highways going another way I'll. Keep that in mind. Truscott is. Very very problematic for himself and that's because his own statements really put him in a bad spot in this whole case, and it's because you can get up to he's, young and dumb, possibly or that he's being very deceptive and that he chooses not to say things until much later.
I will fully admit I fall on me, he's young and dumb. I guess just because I saw the way you know Damien eccles rip. You know responded to the allegations that he killed. Those boys investment for three. And you didn't do himself any favours either. So I kind of fallen outside where a fourteen year old, not gonna, know what to say or he's not going to be well spoken, especially not himself and the time frames and what he was doing that day. But what did he say Well, he didn't speak at the trial, but he did have statements that he had given to the police. They could be used for him and his events was he said he had taken lynn to the intersection and that she had been picked up
she got in a ride in some strange car. Now, that's! But let's talk about that. So Essentially, he takes her down at the intersection and then he just dropped her off and. it's a little weird, because the intersection there's not much around there in its what about halfway to worsen, going without its way more than half way, it's, mostly where he's going. He takes her most of the distance I would say she's what or three horrors away their eyes. She's. On our way to where and he he's She wants often that she's gonna go there s a way our self, but their that that can be debated, that someone like her would want to be alone out, thereby herself.
it's I mean where she planning on walking the whole way there. You know, I don't know I mean that's that's the thing is On one side yeah she jumped on his bike, rode out there and then hey. You can let me off here thanks for the ride, guy see you later yeah, so I mean it's it's plausible that she said: okay, this is as far as I wanna go. Let's talk about why that might be because how about there's nothing? I can think even- and I dont know this for a fact, but is it possible? she just was uncomfortable, it's possible yeah. He he might have said something rude to her. He might you know- or she might have just been like. Oh my parents, don't need to see me with a fourteen year old or you know whatever it was. Yeah, I'm not sure that the age anything to do with, but the term northern hake
I was my own was possible. She was uncomfortable if, if his story is true saying that she immediately gets into a car, if she's most of the way to her destination, then why would she need to get a ride at that point? You know she could have walked the rest of the way and been fine and and the distance from where he was dropping her off to where she is getting in the car he rings off. This license plate number make and model of a car. I dunno, if he can see license plate, in that far away. I doubt it, but that's just my opinion. They did do tests that yeah I mean it's just it. I don't think it's. I think it's a little too far away. They said it was possible independently tested. It is possible. I wonder if he could remember days later.
yeah and certainly that's where the possibility comes up, because they actually located about five different vehicles that have similar license plate numbers and first, one that matches his license plate, but not that vehicle description that one doesn't panel. They find one that has thief Two digits transverse, so it's actually eight nine one. Instead of nine eight one, six six six and that person was was able tell them they weren't there at the time, and there is nothing about them About that person that that alerted investigators and also as as As someone who gave a statement, they just said that the they weren't there at that time. If, if you walked out the front of my house and I was waving a bite, you.
my front porch and you got in a car and took off and you're only twenty feet away from me. I probably wouldn't be looking at the license plate. I probably wouldn't even think twice about it, so I find that whole scenario kind of weird I am sure he could see the the make and model and the color of the car. But there's this is my my two biggest things are. I don't think he could see the license plate or remember and I dont understand why Linwood just jump into a car when she's most of the way to her destination. ryan. This that's something I find very fishy as well. Is that he will do so, and another thing about this car that she would just happen to get into the car, because that's his testimony is not like someone jump see if he had someone grabbed her. That would be one thing by.
If he is making at the story, I think the reason he doesn't come up with. That is because he doesn't tell anybody that she gets into a car until much later. That's, not something he doesn't stop and talk to a friend on the way back and say hey. This is what happened because certainly does talk to friends, he goes home. He doesn't telling when their her father s The house is start asking so his stories not the best now and he's not able to say, and of course we ve been over this. How do these kids know what time it is? They have approximations based on whatever may be someone s wrist watch as you have offered up, but he doesn't know quite when he gets home and he has a conversation at the house, but damn his parents, been very supportive of him at no point ever got any idea that they ever question whether he was involved in surprise. Basically, like a blanket trust, he has
Conversations regarding his- I guess you could say that estimates. The other kids that were around and you can how in his statements that he does zero and on our george, because Arnold George is the one that people keep saying. Well he's the one telling everyone you were in the bush with lynn and so he says that he goes over and and it says that arnold's word says: oh, I didn't. I didn't tell anybody that, but again the other guy Doug who says that he went on they throw that out immediately. It's it's just what they choose to take into trial and what they debunk. Of course, you know a prosecutor's going to be like nah. This guy couldn't have seen it you know, and the defense attorney is going to be like now. This guy's story just keeps changing, so it's a mess right and trust. God even denies that he had any day
made to go look for calves and he denies calling her, which is odd because it places him this this sort of places him at that spot, at least intentionally that that's where he is to go. He also has trouble like he remembers the vehicle make model year, but he cannot remember who we talk to at times like He'll deny that he talk to somebody and that person say why I saw him over here and it's as though he can't quit. Remember some of these. These conversations he had an its that's it inconsistent. Inconsistent, and it seems kind of its is out to me that he remembers in much more detail his conversation with Arnold george. There. In sum, then, someone else that other witnesses place him talking with he denies talking to another kid and yet
you could argue that he's not remembering this conversation because he doesn't want to be placed with that. Witness it's difficult to know so, with this trial, there's a mandatory punishment or aid a sentence. If your phone, guilty. What is that some concern? First dreamer is automatically a sense of death by hanging I've aloof, yeah by gallows. Now this is a heinous crime. It's it's terrible. But when they chose to try him as an adult, they chose the literally, they know that they might be putting a fourteen year old, the death. I think that was a mistake. I I I dunno, I mean that's just one of those things where I'm like a putting a fourteen year old to death just makes you look bad and makes the court and the justice system.
they. They got a really doubt their eyes and cross their tease to get this right. So they can show this person is a monster and deserves to be put to death. If he's down guilty yet they're not measuring a boot print there, they can't get their witnesses correct. I mean they're, so many problems with the way they are handling it that I go back to. Why are they charging them as an adult? Now I think they got caught, because the crime is really really bad and they had a. I will save. very decent suspect, not a perfect one, but a very decent suspect, but here's the age issue, some like myself, would say perfectly capable of murder, but I bet if you went and took a poll. This is just you know, anecdotal though whatever, but I think most people have Trouble wanting to charge a fourteen year old, with first degree, murder specially when it carries the death penalty, because.
When you say we'll be putting this killer to death and they're fourteen. I think most people are going to look at that and go oh yeah. I have a problem with that yeah degree. I do and I think one hundred percent and as will find out very soon. This comes back to bite them, because this this makes this case go well beyond a simple murder and conviction case. This blew up and the reason it blew up has begun. The age I don't know who could do it, but who's gonna put a fourteen year old, the death, even if you, even if you sit here and say he did it whose be able to do that who's going to be able to make sure that that sentence is carried out and that he's he's put to death, especially by hanging this has revolutionised everything, Canada I mean this is probably when you say this is what gets them do, that they get scared of the day
finally, after this as they should. I mean you know here here: it is One hundred percent agree that a fourteen year old is capable of murder. if I was in that little survey it'd be like now, a fourteen year old can kill somebody? That's that's not a thing to me yet. Could I find a fourteen year old guilty knowing that his? It will be death, I'm going to have a real hard time with that, because, as much as I know, a fourteen year old is capable of murder. Fourteen year old is not developed. There they're going through peers, their brains going through a lot of changes. When I think about when I was fourteen years old, I am not the same person. I don't even think the same way. There's nothing about the fourteen year old version of me that could even apply to you today, you dumb when you're fourteen, you don't know any
when you're fourteen. So do you deserve another chance? It committed heinous crime. I don't know that's up for debate, but putting a fourteen year old death to me, it's almost it's on the same lines as pudding, somebody that is mentally disabled to death, for something. not saying that all all teenagers are, you know, handicapped or mentally challenge, but to me there that they're not on the same level. They don't know what they do. They don't know the room cases of what they do. Finally, not a great argument it, but that's how I feel about it. Will it's almost like gaining a knee jerk reaction fourteen year old about to be hung So this is later of temper nineteen. Fifty nine found guilt. He sentenced to death next year. Nineteen sixty the prime minister
I am sure is shaking his head going. This is not good. He commutes the sentence to life in prison, which I'm I'm good with that, because a committed, a crime. What's let's punish him was made, you know, what's good status but putting fourteen year old, the death is pretty harsh, that's pretty ridiculous, so I understand their their changing part right there ripen already you can see with the they had their victory. The prosecutor, The crown had their victory in this case it, sir Slip away since our I'll say it now, if they had just gone through the juvenile system, I don't oh, that they'd have these problems I'm not sure this case would have been elevated to where people are arguing
on a national level. Over this or even around the world, your beer, exactly right, you just nailed it and on the head. So I guess what I'm trying to say is. I know that stephen truscott may not have had the best life spending years in prison with over that soon by it, in in a way. I believe it benefited him overall because it gets. people on his side that I don't think would have ever known his name had he gone to the juveniles Instead of the adult system. We wouldn't be talking about him, I may not have even known about it night. Sixty, seven, it gets put before the supreme court and they vote eight to one against a new trial, but there's it Scenting judge that that one guy said he would have new trial and hears. Why,
as three reasons he said, was highly prejudicial evidence which we can go over the week ago that real, quick witches the lesions on him, the marks on him, the I witnessed testimony that placed him in damning possessed damning spots signs, therefore, from the food time of death right improper we admitted evidence which again goes back to some of that, because was some of this affair to be admitted. Was it really evidence, that's a question and then incorrect directions in the judges charge The jury, the jury- may not have fully understood what they were doing by voting guilty as you said earlier, can you really find him guilty of first ray murder. If he's going to be put to death. and most would tell you especially anyone
in law would say you have to do what is right? If he is guilty, he is guilty. He can't sit there and second guessed the system, but exact again a young guy yeah. But if you know that you're putting someone to death, I would hope that you would require a high level of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and I know you should find guilt or innocence or guilt or not on the same standard or principle, but we don't wear human nineteen. Sixty nine stephen trust got. Is least from the penitentiary he's in in kingston aids. Sound parole to live with Malcolm Steinberg, who was the prison chaplain fur some years and had recently become a parole officer, So he actually
if goes and lives with him, and if you call. He was a young guy when he was arrested in and convicted and by the time. These twenty four twenty five he's married a year later, he marries a woman named marleen. A more or interesting because she gets involved after reading a book. There's a book written early on here as by isabel lombardy, and title of the book is the trial of stephen truscott and after reading that she just her heart, went out to, because she felt like he'd gotten a raw deal that he was innocent of the crime is our first innocent movement kind of that I know about. Canada nowadays innocence cases are all over the place, their innocence projects. There men, sound social media to get so and so,
trial or get them released and and at this time I'm not sure allow this was going on and end again. his his age played a role and the fact that they try to medicine is all that come. Again and again. And he and marlene would have three children You didn't use their name. She she's afforded him she also understood the heat on this case, and she used the maiden name of steve. His mother, which was bremen yeah. So They went into the name- bremen fur, oh for quite a while, and in the year two thousand: that's when they they come out and they come I think, because. They feel it's time to try and clear the air to try and clear his name.
and he says it has do with the family name, because you know his parents did support him and I think he fell like if he didn't do something that the name, which is people lavished and So in two thousand? They come out on CBC fifth estate programme and One thing I should mention before we go on is enough. T. Ninety seven truscott does something that anybody who leave him to be innocent- will probably really on this, and that is that he underwent vote terry dna testing he said tell me, they heard about this dna tests, doing and how they can compare it to evidence to see if someone was really involved and he underwent testing, but the financing. The case was not usable, was destroyed and, of course, not that it was destroyed on purpose, they just back in eighteen,
Nine. There is no understanding of dna as evidence in a criminal procedure, criminal trial in. Why would they keep it and if they have their man, he's been found guilty and he's literally gone to jail and served his sons. What why would they need to keep the evidence at that point? right it was a victory time to move on thing else that I read about was while he was jail for those ten years that the earth there they brought in psychiatry person and what not to interview him, try to get into the mind of a killer and he allowed them to interview him and edit interrogate him whatever and he never confessed to the I'm an they even went so far as to use truth systems on him and rumoured that they gave him lsd and questioned him. And at no point did he ever faster.
That's right he's never he's never ever said anything even remotely taking any responsibility for the crime that occurred. He never says anything I give you the idea that he's close to admitting ever ivy especially when they are questioning him wise in the penitentiary to eat. Just doesn't he doesn't say or do anything that would give anyone? The idea that you is ever going to do that now, just because somebody never this just because, because somebody never you know, does not mean that that innocent by any means means. But I think it is a little telling their questioning him under truth, theorems and lsd, and what not, if that is really true, it's kind of, the keeper lie at that point, but while I'm not sure that that stuff was effective, I don't I don't know.
how they use it or what their expertise was. But I know you're saying it's: it could be indicative of beside the case in two thousand one they file on appeal on his behalf, the lawyer. The law for the trust, scots two thousand six- they Soon, the body of law harper, I believe, is tied into the fact that he underwent dna testing and This was just a good way to say: look if we can get to you from the body and weak if we could match it or not matter to him. We could really clear this up quickly, because this is already back in the court's. He has a lot more support that I have at this time we more support than he had back. Then Are you back then? Originally, in nineteen fifty nine nineteen sixty he had his family, his parents- I should say- and now in the two thousands now he has a lot of people supporting him and he has the support of his wife marleen, who,
it should be said, really poured over there She didn't just accept the fact that he was not. You know not guilty of the crime in her eyes she actually went and red transcripts and she read through the evidence statements in really try to get a real handle on this, so that she could communicate to people on it and answer. June so that she was a strong supporter and set it just a supporter of the trouble examining her body was there was nothing usable found tat they were unable to Find any dna to use whoa, I mean at the time that you know they do an autopsy honour and then they prepare the body for burial. I mean I'm sure it was cleaned, often and then, fifty years later. However, many years right, so
two thousand seven. His appeal is successful and that's because, in my view in looking through the transcripts from that They re able to throw into gin. All of the major evidence and statements that got him convicted first place, in other words, yeah, you could say he was over here near the lawson's bush. But you could also say he was over here at the highway, in other words, by time people were much, understanding that everyone has different story and especially if through you know, they didn't have dna to say. Oh, we found his dna on her or in her that didn't happen. So all of this evidence could
skewed either way and by highlighting all that they went. They went point by point. And most of the evidence that was used against him be able to show why you can't just say it's indicative of his guilt. It could actually be indicative of something else. And especially like his legions, could have been a skin condition. The crazy thing is, it could have been his skin condition. Was it was provided by by his sexual assault of this young girl, but there's no, definitive answer there. You can't just say it was definitely a sexual assault that cause the lesions they couldn't just been from his skin condition. He just tell anybody about, there's no way for anyone to know that. But they go point by point.
and basically just throw water on everything and that their not wrong they and they even when you read through the transcript you can see where just trying to say the other day. You have been so sure, because we have other witnesses that have, moreover, here and if he was coming across back across the bridge without lynn. That shows that he went down to the highway. If he's without lynn, then he must have dropped her off. Of course, some sound, maybe he left the bush area and went the highway and then came back, but we don't have witnesses that say he went across the bridge by himself Some witnesses say all I saw him and so saying. I didn't see him over the bridge, the ones you saw
say they saw in we know if he was carried over to the highway. If he's so it's it's, it really depends on who you want to believe, but when you bring up this many questions, that's where there were people, I think decided what we're not so sure this and that's how he got his conviction overturn it's not like they're, saying he's not guilty their say in essentially what they're saying here is is that he did not get a fair trial and they could actually recharge him if they wanted to. But how are you going to do that in a case? That's this old! You don't have any more witnesses, you don't have any evidence, any physical evidence. You have nothing so you're, you're correct he he is his conviction was overturned, but they
You know no prosecutors going to take this case and retry him ever and that's where he's going to have difficulty getting that acquittal, which he so desires yeah. He and his wife have been very clear about that that they want to clear the name completely. I would say at this point: he needs To be content with where it is because he was able to please get his conviction overturned and, as you say, the prosecutor, even if they wanted to do me a favour by in this go to another trial. The no The prosecutor in their right mind can do that because, as you say, what are they gonna bring forward witnesses? from for a case, that this old, and then the evidence is not there anymore. They there's just no real way. Oh feasible way to make this happen. Now.
that they they do try to make it up to them. Don't they have a a little bit six point five million dollars. I know. as in a race if, if he's the visa, They got shafted This whole deal systems. Five million I'd say that's a pretty. That was it pretty good way to let him know that people were sorry at most people, don't see this kind of of gift. and I would say, if he's not getting an acquittal. This is the next best thing after he gets his conviction overturned I'm so, regardless of I mean seriously, regardless of whether he committed this crime or not, he gets his money because they didn't do it.
Equally the first time now molly not do a correctly, because it is a sign of the time or did they not do it correctly, because it is a charged case and heinous crime, or did they not do it correctly out of sheer incompetence? Who knows The one thing I did see that seem like you to me that he didn't get a fair trial was possible evidence of tyre tracks. By the area where she was found. That seemed it if he, especially since I suppose the police were found. to have discussed it, but they didn't bring it up that again, you could argue that it's not really up to the prosecution to offer any The defence, but again this is where I think, having it redone in the modern age, help them out a lot, and that's because I think far more open to really going over the evidence and seeing it in a more objective manner. Whereas back then I think they had this horrible crime,
and there were a lot of suspicious things about him and the trial Fifteen days it took six hours to find him guilty of the crime and first degree murderer. I would say that even back, then you could have looked at the evidence. One of two ways. and that they just when they were examining it they, the jury, decided tat. He was guilty based on all the suspicious evidence- They were just too many suspicious things going on and it made it easy for them to go. That way, and I would say the same goes for anyone who thinks he's guilty today. That there is a lot of suspicious things going on here. So where were you fall on it? I would tend to think that he's guilty. and I would say I can why the court overturn his conviction because this evidence does skew one way or another depending how you look at it, but
I am highly suspicious of of what he was doing and what he says and in the fact that she's left in a spot that he's been known to hang out at when is she gets in a car pap? I will. How does it? How does her getting in the car and up with her dead in that spot? I think that's if there is one aspect of this case, forgetting everything it else. This is the one thing that really stands out above everything is the fact that she mostly gets into a car, which I still can, at my head around that she gets into a car and yet she still ends up dead over at lawson's bush it just it just does not make sense to me and probably to many others. It just seems just two
strange. No, it doesn't make sense. Why would the person who now has a girl in their car go back to where she was go back to where other children are? Why not just take off whether I see that so my gut instinct? Is that he's guilty? And yet I can't prove it, but there are certainly a lot of suspicion here. I think if I would have been on the jury back, then I might have found him guilty. Just like the rest of not knowing about the death penalty, I probably would have sided with the guilty verdict,
as he is the last person seen with her. This is his known, hang out DA da da da da da Da Da, but looking at the case now in seeing how he's lived his life, I see patterns, and I really can't believe that somebody at fourteen would commit rape and murder. You know cause there's no real evidence that he was murdering people before this or or abusing animals and and stop. I I just don't think that he would do this go to jail, get out of jail and lead a totally completely normal life. I think, if you're capable of that heinous crime, you're not done yet you're going to keep going and doing
Other horrible things I mean, but maybe ten years in prison changed him. I don't know, I don't know if that reform would have happened, but you know there was another suspect, a suspect, that's brought up. During the trial or anything, but there was another person in the area who, for ten years before thee, the murderer actually take ways. He is his name's sergeant college shock and he's an airport he's in the air force and the military, and they have files on the sky in ten years. Prior to this murder,
he is on record that he exposes himself too little girls. He tries to coax them into his car. He tries to get them into his car using candy and new underwear he's in the area. Yet at no point do they seek him out there. You know they focused on stephen, as most people would, because he is. ass person scene with this child. So you know college jack he's not even on the radar, but if you profile him he's exactly the type of person that would have done this crime and he goes on ingots arrested for exposure arrested. For you know all kinds of things that to me a sexual predator who is capable of this crime,
would be doing and stephen gets out of prison into me. He doesn't show any signs of these things. He doesn't go after people, he doesn't have any relapse into his murderous, raping ways I so to me I have a problem with the the whole crime same time. I have a problem with how could Steve have this one incident in his life and that's it it happens for sure it's just not common. I that's why. I don't think he did this crime because he is a completely different person now and if you think he's guilt then hey the system worked and he's now reformed. What is the system due to reform him? There is nothing about the system that worked a reform in at all if it thing is he asked about and murdered anyone if you can gauge
in society and your normal person. Now your reform, is he a functional citizen in society? Yet you can't low point to what they did to her in prison, because I dont see it. They gave him. de in canada, tortured on you think That's what reformed him? No, I don't, reform them at all. I dont think prison reforms. Anybody, that's why I'm making the joke that the system worked and they reformed him is he hasn't, killed anybody since then, Well again, I think this comes down to the idea of whether someone could kill one time and not do it again, which I still firmly believe in or whether this girl could get into a car at the highway and yet end up dead over lawson's bush and I get that I mean it. You know a gang member gets initiated and they take em on dry
by shooting and he points the gun out the window and he shoots one person and he never does it again. I get that, but I think this crime was a little bit different and has a little bit more to do with somebody. That's really screwed up and he doesn't come off to me that way. So that's all I'm saying, but I understand why they found him guilty and I don't even know if he deserved the money or not, but he he's moved on and if I was him I probably would have moved on and just let it go, I wouldn't be trying to get it overturned or anything. I wouldn't care about a family name, but that's me. So we ve in something else that I was gonna bring up. But we didn't. We didn't talk about the dogs. The important thing to know here is we ve gotten messages from people who say that the dogs for not good, for not good evidence essentially and
the one thing that's been point out to the most, is that there was a case of a young girl, who was who had gone missing and if these dogs to try find if there is a body and of course had ever dog found a spot, and I'm just say it: they have proof that the dog did hit upon cadaver. It's true. It just wasn't her because wasn't dead. They found her because her mother and her mothers boyfriend had hidden or away hoping to get money out of sympathy they are raising money and they had hidden her away. While the d I did find a body it's not as you can't say that two dogs fail because they find cadaver sent that doesn't belong to the correct cadaver and
and why don't you say it again? Just in what did you say when we are talking about the mccain case and these dogs eddie in cuba as far as their their top dogs in their field, and they only hit upon the mccann's room and car and only items that belong to this family, they did not hit on anything else at the hotel. Were given lineups, they were walked around entire resort and all the other rooms they didn't hit on anything else. So if there are inconsistent, I would expect them to be inconsistent, but they only hit on their room. Their keys. There sure it's their car long story short. He believed the dogs, we not that its necessarily concrete proof. But man you talk about the
a suspicion. Certainly- and I watched a video of a dog- walked out two acres of land and they were trying to find the homeowner. and the person living at the house said. The homeowners gave him the house dog walks out there and he hits on a spot. They start digging, they find rotted me and dead animals and other things, but the dog keeps hidden, even though remove the rotten meat in all this stuff, so they bring in a backhoe and that dog finds that cadaver ten plus feet underground, not swayed by rotted me in all the other things that the person had asked. We buried there to throw the dog off. It was a contractor that came to the guy's house to do stuff at the house, killing the homeowner and bearing amount in the back yard. But the nightly has huge how
major, certainly yet slums, therewith error. Exactly the the The. In the late sixteen hundreds, the coast of north america, became a hotbed of piracy, but american pirate much more than just armed robbery of the high seas. They were also crucial figures in the growth of the thirteen colonies? That would eventually, become the united states.
I lindsey grant the host of wandering show american history tellers. We take you to the events times and people that shaped america and americans. Our values are struggles and our dream. in our later series. We take you back to the so called golden age of piracy and reveal, true stories behind such mythical figures as black beard and captain kidd list to the age of pirates by following american history tellers on apple pont, amazon, music or wherever you get? Your pot casts within one we eagerly and ad free by joining one replace an apple upon casts or the one rehab
Transcript generated on 2022-10-18.