Steven Truscott…. Acquitted… Finally!

After 49 years, 2 months and 19 days, Steven Truscott has been acquitted of the murder of Lynne Harper.

While not a quite a finding of “factual innocence”, the court essentially found enough evidence to support the Appellant’s position that information was withheld, ignored, and that reasonable explanations were dismissed and unreasonable explanations applied. While they decided that there might have been enough evidence to convict, the “fresh evidence” (evidence either not obtained that would have readily been available at the time but not pursued; evidence hidden by the Crown at the time; or forensic evidence so badly gathered or improperly interpreted by even the standards of that day) could have brought about an finding of innocence 28 years ago.

For these reasons, dealt with in considerably more detail above, we have concluded that, while it cannot be said that no jury acting judicially could reasonably convict, we are satisfied that if a new trial were possible, an acquittal would clearly be the more likely result. Having regard to the highly unusual circumstances of this Reference, we have determined that the most appropriate remedy is to enter an acquittal. Accordingly, in the words of s. 696.3(3)(ii) of the Criminal Code, the appeal is allowed, the conviction for murder is set aside and an acquittal entered. [read the full Ontario Supreme Court decision]

You can hear Steven Truscott’s statements to the press upon hearing of the Ontario Supreme Court decision.

A few words on the difference between “Not guilty” and “Innocent”….

We may, in our hearts know or believe someone to be “innocent” of a crime. However, the court, whether a jury or a judge (or judges) is charged with finding a verdict or “Guilty” or “Not guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt, not “Guilty” or “Innocent”. Short of retrying the case, the best the court could do was to quash the original conviction and acquit.

I believe that this closes the case in that the Crown can not bring Steven to trial again on the charges.

Steven Truscott…. Acquitted… Finally!

After 49 years, 2 months and 19 days, Steven Truscott has been acquitted of the murder of Lynne Harper.

While not a quite a finding of “factual innocence”, the court essentially found enough evidence to support the Appellant’s position that information was withheld, ignored, and that reasonable explanations were dismissed and unreasonable explanations applied. While they decided that there might have been enough evidence to convict, the “fresh evidence” (evidence either not obtained that would have readily been available at the time but not pursued; evidence hidden by the Crown at the time; or forensic evidence so badly gathered or improperly interpreted by even the standards of that day) could have brought about an finding of innocence 28 years ago.

For these reasons, dealt with in considerably more detail above, we have concluded that, while it cannot be said that no jury acting judicially could reasonably convict, we are satisfied that if a new trial were possible, an acquittal would clearly be the more likely result. Having regard to the highly unusual circumstances of this Reference, we have determined that the most appropriate remedy is to enter an acquittal. Accordingly, in the words of s. 696.3(3)(ii) of the Criminal Code, the appeal is allowed, the conviction for murder is set aside and an acquittal entered. [read the full Ontario Supreme Court decision]

You can hear Steven Truscott’s statements to the press upon hearing of the Ontario Supreme Court decision.

A few words on the difference between “Not guilty” and “Innocent”….

We may, in our hearts know or believe someone to be “innocent” of a crime. However, the court, whether a jury or a judge (or judges) is charged with finding a verdict or “Guilty” or “Not guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt, not “Guilty” or “Innocent”. Short of retrying the case, the best the court could do was to quash the original conviction and acquit.

I believe that this closes the case in that the Crown can not bring Steven to trial again on the charges.

Pregnant, poor and raped in Africa: debate over options

By HEATHER MALLICK (CBC)

It takes very little to annoy the Vatican. As proof, Amnesty International seems to have managed it.

It’s odd because Amnesty is an organization, like Médecins sans Frontières, that is pretty as a pearl, selfless as a live organ donor and pretty much morally unassailable. We’re all for human rights and medical care for the poor and the stomped-on of this world, correct?

Not so much, says the Vatican.

Amnesty recently decided on a policy it had been discussing for some time. Without stating a position on abortion generally, it said it would campaign for abortion rights in cases of rape, incest or violence, or where the mother’s life or health is in danger.

Although rape has always been used in war as a means of terrifying and subjugating the civilian population, the impetus appears to be the horrific rapes inflicted upon women in Darfur.

It took Amnesty long enough to reach this conclusion, but like all organizations depending upon consensus, it has been described as “”a huge creaking oil tanker that takes a very long time to turn around.”

Wartime rape is an appalling crime — armed and powerful aggressors against helpless people — but it gets worse: The victims, like German women after the Russian Army descended in 1945, are shunned by their own community. Silence descends. I always thought the worst story out of Darfur was of refugees reduced to renting a piece of shade under a tree. But there are worse torments. [read the full article]

Of course, the Vatican doesn’t really CARE about women or children. Their best interests don’t ever really factor into the decision-making process in Church policy. Never have… Never will….

The Church makes its own rules. Divorce is out of the question…. unless the Pope says so (Application under either the Petrine Privilege or the Pauline Privilege (after Peter and Paul) allows for divorce, that fact being something of which very few Catholics are aware).

The Catholic Church doesn’t care whether someone is actually Catholic in it’s decisions, as shown in the Church’s denunciation of Amnesty’s decision and in other areas, such as the granting of annulments by the Church. Most Catholics aren’t even aware that the Church can allow a non-Catholic married to a non-Catholic to annul their marriage so they can marry a Catholic.

Of course, the fact that a non-Catholic married to a non-Catholic, who wasn’t married in the Catholic Church, can find themselves dragged before a Tribunal asking them all sorts of personal and intrusive questions can be a little surprising (Nay, even offensive!) because their former spouse has decided to marry a Catholic. It comes as more of a surprise to many Catholics. For a non-Catholic of fair intelligence to try and make heads or tails of just what their rights are is pretty well a lost cause. For someone who is not well educated and in fear of their mortal soul it must be terrifying.

…And the mental gymnastics it must have taken come up with the the logic of “You marriage is deemed never to have taken place. This does not mean that children from this marriage are not legitimate. The marriage took place legally but it is deemed not to have taken place under the laws of the Church.”

Makes as much sense as “Every life is sacred. So if you are raped (likely under torture or AS torture) and you and your child are then excluded from your community and forced to starve or actually stoned to death by your family and neighbours… that’s terrible but not as terrible as if you had aborted the little clump of cells that resulted from the rape….” You aren’t sacred but the lump of cells is.

Optical Illusion (this actually caused a visual migraine, so if you are prone, don’t watch)


If your eyes follow the movement of the rotating pink dot, the dots will remain only one color, pink.

However if you stare at the black ” +” in the center, the moving dot turns to green.

Now, concentrate on the black ” + ” in the center of the picture. After a short period, all the pink dots will slowly disappear, and you will only see only a single green dot rotating.

It’s amazing how our brain works. There really is no green dot, and the pink ones really don’t disappear. This should be proof enough, we don’t always see what we think we see.
The opposite color of red is green. Your eye sees the “after image” or red and the gray neutralizes the red (or pink).

Optical Illusion (this actually caused a visual migraine, so if you are prone, don’t watch)


If your eyes follow the movement of the rotating pink dot, the dots will remain only one color, pink.

However if you stare at the black ” +” in the center, the moving dot turns to green.

Now, concentrate on the black ” + ” in the center of the picture. After a short period, all the pink dots will slowly disappear, and you will only see only a single green dot rotating.

It’s amazing how our brain works. There really is no green dot, and the pink ones really don’t disappear. This should be proof enough, we don’t always see what we think we see.
The opposite color of red is green. Your eye sees the “after image” or red and the gray neutralizes the red (or pink).

The Outer Limits: More "porkers" from the Quebec police

“He also said one of the officers was given a rock by protesters but the officer had no intention of using it.”

“One of the extremists gave the rock to one of our police officers and he had a choice to make,” [Insp. Marcel] Savard said. He was asked by extremists to throw the rock at the police, but never had any intention of using it.”

Bullshit… If he had no intention of using it or had no intention of inciting violence, what purpose did he have in holding a rock? The only people seen holding rocks were the ones pointed out as police. Did they hold a gun to his head and say “Throw that rock!”?

“The thing that was interesting in this particular incident, three people in question were spotted by protesters because were not engaging in violence,” [Stockwell] Day said Friday in Vancouver.

“They were being encouraged to throw rocks and they were not throwing rocks, it was the protesters who were throwing the rocks. That’s the irony of this,” said Day, adding the actions were substantiated by the video that he has seen of the protests.

“Because they were not engaging in violence, it was noted that they were probably not protesters. I think that’s a bit of an indictment against the violent protesters.”

Again, I say “Bullshit”. Does this pinhead think that Canadians are so stupid as to not be able to view the video and see that this is a flat-out lie? (not to mention the fact that no one threw rocks at this particular spot. It begs the question… If rocks were thrown elsewhere, was it police provocateurs who DID throw them? More undercover police?).

No, the “irony” is that you actually think that Canadians will believe this if said repeatedly.

These men were called out because they were advancing towards the line of police carrying rocks and refused to back down when confronted by a man in a business suit carrying a plastic shopping bag (I can see the headlines “Riot Police Terrorized By Empty Loblaws Bag!”). The only people using abusive language or threatening postures were the undercover police. None of the so-called “extremists” threatened them. None of THEM were using threatening gestures. They called them out from at least 10 feet away.

One man and his shopping bag… Who needs a rock, anyway?


These three continued to act in a threatening manner when told to back off by a protest organizer demanding that a peaceful protest be maintained.

For the police to place undercover police within the crowds to monitor the demonstration and to prevent violence is not the issue. What is the issue is the actions of these three officers while supposedly “monitoring” the crowd. If they were simply monitoring, they would not have been at the front of the line, breaching the line of peaceful demonstrators, far away from the so-called “extremeists” and heading straight at the police with rocks in their hands.

In a crowd that size, had they been “coerced” into hefting rocks, they could simply have fallen back, dropped the rocks and made their way either to another part of the line or back to the police lines with no one being any the wiser.

Instead, they push their way into the line of middle-aged protesters in street-clothes, well away from the people they were supposedly “blending in” with, carrying weapons, acting in a menacing manner, and when called out, unlike anyone else confronted in a similar manner, they continue on, shoving and swearing at a protest organizer and advance on the police line.

The Quebec police don’t even have the sense to simply shut up and admit that if these guys weren’t told to cause trouble so police could get rough, they acted foolishly and quietly back away from the issue.

Keep on digging, Boys, you might still be able to reach China. Tienanmen Square sound familiar?

Police provocateurs at Montebello Summit

The Outer Limits: More "porkers" from the Quebec police

“He also said one of the officers was given a rock by protesters but the officer had no intention of using it.”

“One of the extremists gave the rock to one of our police officers and he had a choice to make,” [Insp. Marcel] Savard said. He was asked by extremists to throw the rock at the police, but never had any intention of using it.”

Bullshit… If he had no intention of using it or had no intention of inciting violence, what purpose did he have in holding a rock? The only people seen holding rocks were the ones pointed out as police. Did they hold a gun to his head and say “Throw that rock!”?

“The thing that was interesting in this particular incident, three people in question were spotted by protesters because were not engaging in violence,” [Stockwell] Day said Friday in Vancouver.

“They were being encouraged to throw rocks and they were not throwing rocks, it was the protesters who were throwing the rocks. That’s the irony of this,” said Day, adding the actions were substantiated by the video that he has seen of the protests.

“Because they were not engaging in violence, it was noted that they were probably not protesters. I think that’s a bit of an indictment against the violent protesters.”

Again, I say “Bullshit”. Does this pinhead think that Canadians are so stupid as to not be able to view the video and see that this is a flat-out lie? (not to mention the fact that no one threw rocks at this particular spot. It begs the question… If rocks were thrown elsewhere, was it police provocateurs who DID throw them? More undercover police?).

No, the “irony” is that you actually think that Canadians will believe this if said repeatedly.

These men were called out because they were advancing towards the line of police carrying rocks and refused to back down when confronted by a man in a business suit carrying a plastic shopping bag (I can see the headlines “Riot Police Terrorized By Empty Loblaws Bag!”). The only people using abusive language or threatening postures were the undercover police. None of the so-called “extremists” threatened them. None of THEM were using threatening gestures. They called them out from at least 10 feet away.

One man and his shopping bag… Who needs a rock, anyway?


These three continued to act in a threatening manner when told to back off by a protest organizer demanding that a peaceful protest be maintained.

For the police to place undercover police within the crowds to monitor the demonstration and to prevent violence is not the issue. What is the issue is the actions of these three officers while supposedly “monitoring” the crowd. If they were simply monitoring, they would not have been at the front of the line, breaching the line of peaceful demonstrators, far away from the so-called “extremeists” and heading straight at the police with rocks in their hands.

In a crowd that size, had they been “coerced” into hefting rocks, they could simply have fallen back, dropped the rocks and made their way either to another part of the line or back to the police lines with no one being any the wiser.

Instead, they push their way into the line of middle-aged protesters in street-clothes, well away from the people they were supposedly “blending in” with, carrying weapons, acting in a menacing manner, and when called out, unlike anyone else confronted in a similar manner, they continue on, shoving and swearing at a protest organizer and advance on the police line.

The Quebec police don’t even have the sense to simply shut up and admit that if these guys weren’t told to cause trouble so police could get rough, they acted foolishly and quietly back away from the issue.

Keep on digging, Boys, you might still be able to reach China. Tienanmen Square sound familiar?

Police provocateurs at Montebello Summit

Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest

“Quebec provincial police admitted Thursday that three of their officers disguised themselves as demonstrators during the protest at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.

However, the police force denied allegations its undercover officers were there on Monday to provoke the crowd and instigate violence.

At no time did the police of the Sûreté du Québec act as instigators or commit criminal acts,” the police force said in French in a news release. “It is not in the police force’s policies, nor in its strategies, to act in that manner.

“At all times, they responded within their mandate to keep order and security.

Police said the three undercover officers were only at the protest to locate and identify non-peaceful protesters in order to prevent any incidents.

Police came under fire Tuesday, when a video surfaced on YouTube that appeared to show three plainclothes police officers at the protest with bandanas across their faces. One of the men was carrying a rock.

In the video, protest organizers in suits order the men to put the rock down, call them police instigators and try unsuccessfully to unmask them.

Protest organizers on Wednesday played the video for the media at a news conference in Ottawa. One of the organizers, union leader Dave Coles, explained that one reason protesters knew the men’s true identities was because they were wearing the same boots as other police officers.

Coles said on Wednesday that the only thing he didn’t know was whether the men were Quebec police, RCMP or hired security officers.

“[Our union] believes that the security force at Montebello were ordered to infiltrate our peaceful assembly and provoke incidents,” said Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union.

Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects.

The protest at Montebello occurred outside the Fairmont Le Château Montebello hotel, near Ottawa, where Prime Minister Stephen Harper was meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. The summit about border security, free trade and other issues began Monday and finished Tuesday.

Protesters said they gathered to voice their concern about Canada losing control of its energy and water resources and borders. Others decried what they called a high level of secrecy at the summit.

The Quebec provincial police will not comment any further on the affair, a spokeswoman in Montreal said.

Quebec Justice Minister Jacques Dupuis was made aware of the news, but a spokesman from his office said he will not comment on the matter either.”

To the claims by the Surete, highlighted above in red…. I say “Bullshit”.

To this porker “At no time did the police of the Sûreté du Québec act as instigators or commit criminal acts” I say “Only because you were caught out in time”.

To this “Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects.” I say, “You were called out becuase you advanced in a threatening manner, carrying rocks, on a peaceful line of demonstrators and, when told to turn back, you refused”.

The Surete lied, continues to lie, and I suspect was at the root of other violence at the Summit protests.

The Prime Minister should repudiate the actions of the Surete and call an inquiry, or step down. Preferably all three.

Sighhhh…..

The mayor and City Council have apologized to a 70-year-old woman arrested after a dispute with a police officer over her brown lawn – but she has still been charged in the case. [read the full story]

Case of the lifeless lawn (Daily Herald)

By the letter of the law Flygare acted properly, but that’s about all that can be said about his handling of the incident. He apparently could think of no better way to handle a 70-year-old woman and her quirky combativeness than to wrestle her into submission.” [read full commentary]

My personal opinion is that, unless her lawn is full of garbage or an actual hazard to neighbours, whose business is it?

Garden Nazis
I live in a co-op where the guy in charge of “Landscape” has his ass glued permanently to the ride-em mower and all the public areas, as well as all the other areas where people mow their laws within an inch of their lives are brown and full of weeds. We, on the other hand, have a bright green lawn. We also have constant and pointed comments from “Mr. Mower” about how “unsightly” our lawn is because it is (are you sitting down?) “over 3” long, as though it is some sort of federal law that it can’t be that long.

There was a move on the part of some members to ban pesticides and herbicides in the co-op. “Mr. Mower” just about had an embolism. Despite presenting facts and figures from actual experts which showed the link between weedy lawns and over-mowing, he and others proclaimed that unless we used herbicides, the 4 Riders of the Apocalypse would soon be looming over the co-op.

Well, they had their was because all their lawns are brown and full of weeds…. not because they didn’t use herbicides but because they continue to mow the lawns to 1″… So, he has run out to Rona and bought herbicides.

My lawn? Despite the fact that I haven’t watered my lawn once this year, used herbicides, or mowed my lawn more than 4 times all summer (and never to under 3″) I have a green lawn with very few weeds.

Of course, he also chopped down all our trees and, while I was out one day, ordered my niece’s boyfriend to pull chop down my garden last summer. We were about to have the fence replaced and the committee that oversaw this had very carefully gone through my garden with me looking at what was what and what needed to be carefully moved and what didn’t need to move at all.

Despite his having nothing whatever to do with the fence replacement, “Mr. Mover” came over and ordered my nephew to pull out or chop down all my plants, including a rare, wild Clematis.

He must be really miffed because many of them, though damaged most, including the Clematis, came back. The trees, though, are gone…. My garden looks like Hell but I am damned if I am going to do anything at all to it. If he complains, I will tell him and anyone who listens that it is a mess because he ordered my garden pulled up and it it, therefore, his fault. I may even use the “Garden Nazi” term.

He seems to have a real hatred for both trees and perennials since he regularly comes through and whipper snips my and others’ borders and chops down trees. Meanwhile, he and his wife have neat little squares with three Petunias and a marigold out front of their house and glare at anyone who has a real garden.

Someone moves out and, even when the new person moving in wants the garden left intact, they come in and rip is all out.


Why didn’t she just put a "hex" on them?

Salem’s “Wiccan high-priestess” and a companion were charged after leaving a raccoon’s head and entrails on the doorsteps of several businesses.

Apparently, the vendetta began over her being fired from a psychic hot-line and plans to limit the number of psychics allowed to come to Salem at Hallowe’en….

Apparently, the raccoon was predeceased.

« Older entries

%d bloggers like this: