Truscott verdict expected by July
Wednesday, November 29
- Organization: Clinton News Record
TORONTO -- One of Steven Truscott’s legal eagles believes his exoneration could be only months away.
In addressing colleagues, law students and media, Saturday, during the annual general meeting for the Association in the Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted (AIDWYC), Truscott defence-team lawyer Phil Campbell reports the five-member panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal is likely to render its decision on Truscott’s 1959 murder conviction by July 2007.
Campbell notes he most recently completed a 900-page factum for the Ontario Court of Appeal’s five-member panel, which began hearing the case for Truscott’s innocence at Osgoode Hall in Toronto in June.
“I’ve worked on nothing else for six weeks,” says Campbell. “I’ve thought about this case, day in and day out.”
Next up, says Campbell, is another three weeks of oral arguments, designed to further demonstrate to the judges that Truscott could not have been the one responsible for the June 9, 1959, rape and murder of 12-year-old Lynne Harper. That presentation is tentatively set to begin Jan. 29, 2007, in front of the panel -- consisting of justices Dave Doherty, Marc Rosenberg, Karen Weiler, Michael Moldaver and Chief Justice Roy McMurtry -- at Osgoode Hall in Toronto. Campbell estimates that process will take up to three weeks to complete.
All of this follows the three-week hearing in June, which featured a range of detailed testimony from renowned world experts in the various scientific fields, including entomology, the study of bugs.
“Entomology is complicated and unlovely stuff,” says Campbell.
There were also a number of powerful witnesses, says Campbell, who pointed to the testimony of present-day nurses Elizabeth Hulbert and Sandy Stolzmann. Both women reported one of the Crown’s key witnesses, Jocelyn Gaudet, later admitted to lying about her testimony at the original trial.
“The hearings in June turned up a great deal in this case,” says Campbell, noting the original pathologist, Dr. John Penistan, who was nearly entirely responsible for Truscott’s conviction, was totally discredited by a slew of expert witnesses, including internationally renowned forensic pathologist, Dr. Bernard Knight, of the United Kingdom.
Another boon to the defence’s argument was a number of experts noting stomach contents are unreliable resources when estimating a time of death. That testimony is key, notes Campbell, because the original pathologist relied on stomach contents to estimate a time of death that put the victim with Truscott when she died.
Campbell says that for more than a year before the hearing, it seemed nothing was happening on the case except case-management conferences. Indeed, says Campbell, it seems all the Crown wanted to talk about was procedure.
“We spent a great deal of time on evidentiary protocol,” he says.
Yet, at the beginning of this year, “the pace picked up, substantially,” says Campbell. That is when Chief Justice Roy McMurtry announced three weeks would be put aside in June to hear the Truscott appeal and “everybody had to show their hands, and things got serious.”
After oral arguments are presented in early 2007, the panel will likely take three to five months to render its decision, which can range from acquitting Truscott, entering a stay of proceedings, ordering a new trial, or dismissing the appeal.
Campbell adds that Truscott’s AIDWYC team, which also consists of renowned lawyers Marlys Edwardh and James Lockyer, initially had hoped the government would overturn or dismiss Truscott’s conviction following a lengthy review by retired justice Fred Kaufman. Instead, then justice minister Irwin Cotler chose to defer the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
“That was not, for us, a day of much jubilation,” says Campbell, who acknowledges the legal team hid its disappointment from the media throng gathered at Truscott’s Guelph home on that fall day in 2004. “We think the Minister might have been more decisive.”
Finally, Campbell told those present that he is confident AIDWYC’s role in Truscott’s appeal will see a long-awaited end by the time the next AGM rolls around.
“I’m sure we’ll have a report a next year’s meeting, but I’m sure it won’t tell you anything you don’t already know.”
Truscott was not present at the AGM for AIDWYC, though a number of his supporters were, including Romeo Phillion, who appeared at Truscott’s June hearing to show his support. Phillion is seeking exoneration for his 1972 murder conviction in the death of an Ottawa firefighter.
James Lockyer, who is on both Truscott and Phillion’s defence teams, reports that Phillion’s case has also been referred to the Ontario Court of Appeal and it is “not what we were hoping for any more than we were hoping for in Steven Truscott’s case.”
Lockyer says the case for Phillion’s innocence is “completely overwhelming,” though it will likely be more than a year before his case is heard before the court of appeal.
In addressing colleagues, law students and media, Saturday, during the annual general meeting for the Association in the Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted (AIDWYC), Truscott defence-team lawyer Phil Campbell reports the five-member panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal is likely to render its decision on Truscott’s 1959 murder conviction by July 2007.
Campbell notes he most recently completed a 900-page factum for the Ontario Court of Appeal’s five-member panel, which began hearing the case for Truscott’s innocence at Osgoode Hall in Toronto in June.
“I’ve worked on nothing else for six weeks,” says Campbell. “I’ve thought about this case, day in and day out.”
Next up, says Campbell, is another three weeks of oral arguments, designed to further demonstrate to the judges that Truscott could not have been the one responsible for the June 9, 1959, rape and murder of 12-year-old Lynne Harper. That presentation is tentatively set to begin Jan. 29, 2007, in front of the panel -- consisting of justices Dave Doherty, Marc Rosenberg, Karen Weiler, Michael Moldaver and Chief Justice Roy McMurtry -- at Osgoode Hall in Toronto. Campbell estimates that process will take up to three weeks to complete.
All of this follows the three-week hearing in June, which featured a range of detailed testimony from renowned world experts in the various scientific fields, including entomology, the study of bugs.
“Entomology is complicated and unlovely stuff,” says Campbell.
There were also a number of powerful witnesses, says Campbell, who pointed to the testimony of present-day nurses Elizabeth Hulbert and Sandy Stolzmann. Both women reported one of the Crown’s key witnesses, Jocelyn Gaudet, later admitted to lying about her testimony at the original trial.
“The hearings in June turned up a great deal in this case,” says Campbell, noting the original pathologist, Dr. John Penistan, who was nearly entirely responsible for Truscott’s conviction, was totally discredited by a slew of expert witnesses, including internationally renowned forensic pathologist, Dr. Bernard Knight, of the United Kingdom.
Another boon to the defence’s argument was a number of experts noting stomach contents are unreliable resources when estimating a time of death. That testimony is key, notes Campbell, because the original pathologist relied on stomach contents to estimate a time of death that put the victim with Truscott when she died.
Campbell says that for more than a year before the hearing, it seemed nothing was happening on the case except case-management conferences. Indeed, says Campbell, it seems all the Crown wanted to talk about was procedure.
“We spent a great deal of time on evidentiary protocol,” he says.
Yet, at the beginning of this year, “the pace picked up, substantially,” says Campbell. That is when Chief Justice Roy McMurtry announced three weeks would be put aside in June to hear the Truscott appeal and “everybody had to show their hands, and things got serious.”
After oral arguments are presented in early 2007, the panel will likely take three to five months to render its decision, which can range from acquitting Truscott, entering a stay of proceedings, ordering a new trial, or dismissing the appeal.
Campbell adds that Truscott’s AIDWYC team, which also consists of renowned lawyers Marlys Edwardh and James Lockyer, initially had hoped the government would overturn or dismiss Truscott’s conviction following a lengthy review by retired justice Fred Kaufman. Instead, then justice minister Irwin Cotler chose to defer the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
“That was not, for us, a day of much jubilation,” says Campbell, who acknowledges the legal team hid its disappointment from the media throng gathered at Truscott’s Guelph home on that fall day in 2004. “We think the Minister might have been more decisive.”
Finally, Campbell told those present that he is confident AIDWYC’s role in Truscott’s appeal will see a long-awaited end by the time the next AGM rolls around.
“I’m sure we’ll have a report a next year’s meeting, but I’m sure it won’t tell you anything you don’t already know.”
Truscott was not present at the AGM for AIDWYC, though a number of his supporters were, including Romeo Phillion, who appeared at Truscott’s June hearing to show his support. Phillion is seeking exoneration for his 1972 murder conviction in the death of an Ottawa firefighter.
James Lockyer, who is on both Truscott and Phillion’s defence teams, reports that Phillion’s case has also been referred to the Ontario Court of Appeal and it is “not what we were hoping for any more than we were hoping for in Steven Truscott’s case.”
Lockyer says the case for Phillion’s innocence is “completely overwhelming,” though it will likely be more than a year before his case is heard before the court of appeal.
Topics:
