RSS
But Neal Haskell denies tailoring his testimony to fit with the Crown’s theory that Truscott was Lynne Harper’s killer.
“I really don’t care who the murderer is — was,” he told the Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday, as Truscott watched from the public gallery with his sister, Barbara. She was just 6 when her 14-year-old brother was sentenced to hang for murder.
The sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. Truscott, now 61, was paroled in 1969.
Haskell, a forensic entomology professor at Purdue University in Indiana, is testifying as a Crown witness at the Ontario Court of Appeal’s review of the 47-year-old case.
Using observations about insects found on the girl’s remains, Haskell concluded Lynne was killed before sunset on June 9, 1959.
That would fit within the time frame of the Crown’s theory, which is that Truscott lured his 12-year-old classmate into roadside bush outside Clinton, Ont., and raped and murdered her sometime between 7 and 7:45 that night.
Truscott told police he agreed to give Lynne a ride on his bicycle and they set out on a county road shortly after 7 p.m., travelling north to Highway 8, where he dropped her off and saw her getting into what appeared to be a 1959 Chevy.
Later this week, Truscott’s lawyers are expected to call two forensic entomologists as expert witnesses to testify that the size and type of insects found on Lynne’s remains indicate that she was killed on June 10, when Truscott’s whereabouts were known.
Under cross-examination yesterday by Philip Campbell, a lawyer representing Truscott, Haskell denied exaggerating the results of scientific experiments and selectively citing research to undermine Truscott’s position.
Then Campbell asked him about a voice mail message left last June, he said, with Detective Tom Nahrgang, an Ontario Provincial Police officer assigned to the case.
In the message, Haskell explained that he had “looked over the evidence” and felt he “could do some pretty damaging work to the case,” Campbell suggested.
“I don’t recall. I have no reason to question it,” said Haskell. “It could be.”
In earlier testimony yesterday, Haskell said maggots collected from two locations on Lynne’s remains were most useful in his calculations, because they were the largest and had been on the body the longest time.
One was a lesion on Lynne’s left buttock. Inside was a quarter-inch larva from a flesh fly. Its size indicates it was in the second stage of its development and deposited on June 10, Haskell told the court.
However, that does not mean Lynne died on June 10, he said. Another crucial aspect of flesh fly behaviour has to be taken into account, he said.
Unlike other types of flies, flesh flies do not descend swiftly on decomposing remains but instead wait at least 12 hours, and in some cases two days, after death before arriving, Haskell testified.
So if a female flesh fly deposited her larvae on the remains on June 10, it would mean Lynne was killed on June 9, he said.
Based on his own experience and what he’s read in the scientific literature, Haskell said he has never known a flesh fly to appear on a corpse until at least 24 hours after death.
They typically arrive after other flies, such as blowflies, he insisted.
But Campbell referred Haskell to a report he prepared in 1992, when he was retained by police in York Region to determine the time a family of three was killed in their home. In his report, Haskell said flesh flies were among first to descend on the corpses.
Haskell agreed that appeared to be his opinion in 1992.
Campbell also referred him to several other scientific studies that reported flesh flies arriving on decomposing animals soon after death, with no waiting time.
Haskell said one study was conducted in Australia, where “tropical” weather conditions could affect flesh fly behaviour. Another used frozen pigs that had been thawed, which could have broken down their flesh and accelerated the appearance of flesh flies, he said.
The hearing continues.