Quote:
Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor
They go so far as saying it was a miscarriage of justice and the title of the verdict (from what I understand) was labled vindication....why could they not proclaim him inoccent? I guess maybe there wasn't enough evidence to clear him completely?
|
From the decision:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Court of Appeal Justice
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.
|
Saying someone is not guilty is a far cry from calling someone innocent. Guess the facts just weren't there for the Court of Appeal to say "this guy didn't do it." There really is no precedent for this. A court in Canada has never found someone innocent.
I recall watching the proceedings on CSPAN and the panel asked Truscott's attorney Hersh Wolch (Calgary guy, btw) what the test is to find someone innocent. Mr. Wolch did the best he could, given that there is no previous judicial ruling on the point, and said something to the effect that you know in your heart/head that this person is innocent.
Interesting case, however tragic it may be. Check out the book "
Until You Are Dead" for a bit of insight into the case. Surely there will be dozens (or half dozens) of other books about this case set to hit the market soon.