Talk:Steven Truscott

The Fifth Estate

There should be an inclusion of the fact that the cbc's fifth estate documentary by linden mcintyre on truscott should be included in this article due to its significance of the exoneration of steven truscott. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.97.138 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bio needs backgound info and reorganization, formatting, other

As biography this article needs more general and background information and reorganization. Tintina 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Lynne Harper section, the following sentence is in desperate need of clarification: "Truscott maintains that Heading back towards the bridge, where he looked back to the intersection and observed that a vehicle had stopped at the intersection and that Lynne was in the process of entering it."Country Wife 14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There was also an article about Lynne Harper in Wikipedia, but, for some reason, it had been deleted. Does anyone know the reason for this? Also, if possible, can someone please reinstate the article. After all, this was her tragedy also, & she should have her own article too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.110 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This being "her tragedy" is not the basis for notability upon which a person gets a Wikipedia article. Please see the Notability guidelines. TheBlinkster (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No sources for dates questionable?

There are no sources for the dates in this article, and their validity may be questionable. The following source has a number of contrary da tes listed for some events. [1] Crazy.marc 23:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Kalichuk section

Since this is technically a biography of Steven Truscott, in my opinion the Alexander Kalichuk section isn't directly relevant. Although it's sometimes difficult to see daylight between Steven Truscott and his "case", I think that including the material in this section in his biographical article stretches the envelope too far. Thoughts? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kalichuk section was removed on Aug.15 by Bearcat with the edit summary "Not the place for this". It is true that it was much too long as it duplicated the entire Kalichuk article. However I think some mention of Kalichuk is important in the Truscott article as it shows that a credible (to CBC at least) alternative suspect is now known to exist. So I have restored one paragraph with the essential information, and a link to the Kalichuk article for more information. Dirac66 (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Bearcat's assessment that the article, as a BLP, is not an appropriate place for speculation on alternative suspects regarding the crime. In my opinion, the entire Kalichuk "theory" itself is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and so highly speculative in nature, that I'd be willing to bet that for legal reasons CBC wouldn't have touched it with a ten foot pole had Kalichuk still been alive to potentially launch a civil suit when they broadcast it. Also in my opinion, there is so much information available in reliably published sources regarding this case, it wouldn't be difficult at all to put together a well referenced article pertaining to the case itself, where various details could be presented that aren't really appropriate in a BLP. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Always maintained his innocence"

According to Keith Simpson's book, Truscott had implicitly admitted guilt in a request for probation. While there may indeed have been a Catch-22 element to that, it seems that it the phrase quoted is not quite correct. Groomtech (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Need to Fix

I admire the philosophy of "informative" over "inoffensive". It's producing the best encyclopaedia in the world. I've been using it for years and this is the first time I have an issue.

I think it is shameful to humiliate that young girl, displaying her nude body on the Internet. It's callous and cruel. Slightsmile (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Slightsmile

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not censored. Groomtech (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We have many photos of dead bodies on the project where they are relevant. An unsolved murder is definitely one of those situations. The fact this particular subject is a certain age or gender is a red herring to its suitability. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You can see her genitalia. I don't think Wikipedia's policies intended for such indignity to innocent murder victims. If she had a say, would she consent to being exposed like that? Slightsmile (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Slightsmile

Image Policy

The image of Lynne Harper violates Wikipedia's Image use policy in two ways.

First - Images that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject are normally considered unacceptable. The image in question definitely humiliates the subject.

Secondly - On the issue of (assumed) consent. Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place normally require consent.

The image was taken on a farmer's woodlot, a private property and so violates Wikipedia's policy on that count. Even if the image had been taken in a public area, the subject would have been there against her will. Consent could be assumed to assist police investigation but certainly not ever for public display.

I do believe that the policy of (assumed) consent should be clarified specifically in the case of murder victims. Wikipedia has a responsibility of treating a victim with some degree of dignity in death.

I've been surfing Wikipedia for years, including murder cases and have never seen victims displayed like that. There must be an image available portraying a happy smiling Lynne Harper that would serve equally well as relevance to the article. Slightsmile (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Slightsmile

You do seem extremely determined to have this image removed from the encyclopedia, actually it appears that it's currently almost the sole purpose of your account. I'd like to suggest to you, that it's exactly that kind of focused "campaign" approach to advocating the removal of specific material from Wiki that will stir the ire of many editors, a lot will read the attempt as "censorship" and react negatively on that basis alone. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A "smiling alive Lynne Harper" has absolutely no relevance to Truscott, unless we were deciding to list all his childhood friends and include photos of them. It is her murdered body that is relevant to Truscott - and the Holocaust article is illustrated with File:Warsaw ghetto - infant corpse.jpg, File:Seitajärvellä 7. heinäkuuta 1944 partisaanit ottivat taloista ruokaa ja pyyheliinoja..jpg is a nearly identical image from the Winter War of a murdered (and likely violated) girl lying dead in a field, File:MaryJaneKelly Ripper 100.jpg is a gruesome photograph of a dismembered victim of Jack the Ripper, etc, etc, etc. The rule against "unfairly demeaning" photos means you can't upload your girlfriend stepping out of the shower, or Kevin Rudd eating his earwax, without good reason - it certainly does not apply to murder victims. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"the alleged murder of classmate Lynne Harper"

Let's take this slowly. Firstly, the phrase as written fails in its intended effect. The murder is a fact (or we may take it to be so), the allegation is that it was Truscott who committed that murder. Secondly, it is entirely accurate to say that Truscott was "sentenced to death for the murder of Lynne Harper", because that's exactly what happened in 1959. It would of course be highly irresponsible not to couple that with the further information that the 1959 conviction was later declared a miscarriage of justice, but as a statement of fact about what happened in 1959, "sentenced to death in 1959 for the murder of classmate Lynne Harper" is unimpeachable. Groomtech (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the whole lead (intro) paragraph needs a rewrite, and not just the alleged part. Alleged can be used, but it would need to modify that he was the "alleged killer". Also, going back to the writing style and content of the lead/summary paragraph, inline citations are not needed as per Wikipedia style guidelines WP:LEADCITE. As long as the information exists in the body of the article with citations, citations, therefore are not needed in the summary paragraph, because it is not introducing new information that does not exist already, elsewhere in the article.Abebenjoe (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No pictures and very little discussion of evidence?

This article seems to be missing a picture and infobox. Also, there is very little discussion of the actual evidence except for Truscott's story and the insect evidence. If there were all these "incredibilities" in the evidence it would help if a couple were mentioned. As it is, I'm completely in the dark as to why this person was convicted and why the conviction was overturned. TheBlinkster (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steven Truscott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401120657/http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/ccr/kaufman/index.html to http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/ccr/kaufman/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830125441/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070827/truscott_case_070828/20070828?hub=TopStories to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070827/truscott_case_070828/20070828?hub=TopStories

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)