Indeed, you wonder what would have happened if the long arm of the law reached out and imprisoned you because one or two pieces of evidence pointed to you.

Investigative techniques have improved in the last 48 years, but it’s still possible for evidence to point in the wrong direction.

In a case that, by today’s standards is almost completely based on circumstantial evidence, it’s hard to know what really happened.

I agree that a big teenager is capable of murder, but the reading I’ve done only points to a teenager doing the crime if that’s what you’re looking for. If you’re not trying to make the evidence fit a particular theory, the evidence seems to point in a lot of directions that were not pursued by police.

As for the analysis you linked to, one could make the same analysis of almost any statement by anyone, and come up with all sorts of semiotic interpretations. I certainly didn’t think the analysis was neutral. If anything, it seemed to be painfully trying to find evidence to fit a particular theory.

I’m not saying you don’t have the right to hold your beliefs. Just that nothing you said is very convincing.

Nor to will I believe the notion “just because everyone believes it true, it MUST be true!” mentality.

And I am thankful that Truscott was not sentenced to death at the age of 14-an appalling way to deal with justice in our free and modern society (although I do think he should have spent LWOP in solitary confinement for the unspeakable pain he caused)

I have my own reasons for believing in Trustcott’s guilt. And there was alot of evidence in the early case to prove it. Its too much to write here.

–For one, Trustcott said he left Lynne in the same place where she was found dead-even though he said he took her to the highway.

–Trustcott had a deep interest in young women and was strong young man (there is a big difference between the strength of a 10 year old and that of a nearly 15 year old)

–much of his testimony didn’t add up..but you will not read that in the paper

Read this statement analysis from a neutral source:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/truscott/

Here is a quote from it:
CanWest News Service quotes Truscott as saying “I never in my wildest dreams expected in my lifetime for this to come true. So this is a dream come true.” This is an odd statement for an innocent person to make. Some would say that since Truscott has been viewed as being guilty for so many years, he never thought he would live to see his acquittal. My experience has been that a person who knows he did not commit the crime will always have a hope or dream that he will one day be exonerated. Truscott’s statement seems to be in line with what he said over 45 years ago when he was convicted of this murder and then received a stay of execution. In hoping for another miracle, Truscott did not hope the killer would be found. He only hoped for “an appeal, a new trial, even an acquittal.” Well, he got his acquittal and rightly so did not get his declaration of innocence

And lastly DON’T FORGET THE REAL VICTM IN THIS STORY–LYNNE HARPER AND HER FAMILY…

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/28/truscott-decision.html