Episode 24-THE MOST SHOCKING KILLER IN TRUE CRIME HISTORY-APPEALS

claim you're free welcome bonus. That's Chumbuck Casino dot Com and Lived Chumba Lane, No We Necessary DVOI where Everybody lost or reconditions Eating plus host.

written about them. This week has announced it speaks to be announced was the title of the program. I'm using opportunity tonight to talk about my book Trophy Kill, but more importantly, just an update of what's been happening with the trial. The crime occurred in two thousand and three, and in July July first, two thousand and three, and here we are almost seven years from that date and

still in the appeal process. The appeal occurred and I attended on May twenty first, and here we are at June twenty third, and still the judges have reserved their decision on this incredible case. The most I think for anybody that reads about this from my book Trophy Kill, the Shall We Dance Murder, we'll be aware of incredibly curious decision to take so long for such an obvious

murder case with really no appeal thirteen grounds. Well, we'll talk about the appeal and on what points they appealed the sentence. For those that have not heard about Trophy Kill, I will tell you about the book that I became involved with in two thousand and four. First off, let me tell you a little bit of background about the

case itself. In two thousand and three, on July first, in Winnipeg, Canada, the Mirrimax movie Shall We Dance was being filmed, starring Jennifer Lopez, Richard Gere, and Susan Sarandon. Jennifer Lopez wasn't in the city as of yet, but she was arriving set to arrive in a few days after July first, and the paparazzi who always follow really popular celebrities around were in town ready for the arrival

of Jennifer Lopez. And then at that time, Jennifer Lopez was engaged to actor Ben Affleck, and there was a little bit of controversy where Ben Affleck was filming in Vancouver and there was some talk of some rendezvous with a dancer in Vancouver, and as a subsequent as people know in Jennifer Lopez's life, that marriage didn't work out. So it was a real seminal time for their relationship

and Jennifer Lopez's career, I guess, and more importantly personal relationship. Anyway, they were shooting the film Shall We Dance in Winnipeg, and Susan Sarandon had been in town for a couple of weeks, and so had Richard Gear. And Richard Gear had been taking dancing lessons at a studio downtown next to a bar called the Woodbine Hotel. And that will be important a little bit later on.

more pendant attached to that necklace gold necklace. Anyway, she reported this gold necklace, a silver bracelet, and a couple ear rings stolen from her trailer from the set of the Merrimax movie as Shall We Dance? And this was on July first. On July second, again police were still looking for this jewelry. They had no clues as to where this jewelry had.

it wasn't in fact a police station. But I guess the next best thing if you're going to report a crime anyway, walked in there and said he wanted to talk to somebody, and they asked him what it was about, and he said he wanted to basically speak to somebody in private, and a man named Donald Stephenson took him in the back and asked them, well, how can I help you here? What's the problem. He said, listen, I wanted to turn myself in because I think I killed somebody.

And he said, hey, hey, just hang on, I'm not the person. You should say this too. He had a phone and he gave Sydney the number and said, hey, listen, dial this number. Call these people. This is the you know, we're not the police. Call the police and tell them

and then tell them where you are. So he called the police, and a woman named Robin Sepanski answered the phone and asked him if she could help him, and he basically repeated that he wanted to turn himself in because he had met this man the night the day before and they had drank alcohol all day, and he said he claimed to have passed out intoxicated, and when he awoke some many hours later, he went to the bathroom and discovered his acquaintance dead in the bathtub, chopped

up in the bathtub. So that's what he told the nine to one one operator when he was when he spoke to her, and she said, well, how did you kill him? How'd you do it? He said, well, I use the knife. Well where's the knife now, Well, it's

left under the bathtub. So she told them he told her where the weapon was, and so there was a few details, but basically that's what he had said to them, and she testified much later on and noted to the police that he was very calm, very nonchalant, very unemotional. You know, I guess from years of experience with people under certain similar circumstances of finding someone dead, they would

have reacted differently. So that was noted. Anyway, the police escorted they came there if they arrived at the Remann Center to a short distance away from the police station public safety building, And they arrived there some fifteen or twenty minutes later, and then we're pointed out to Sydney sitting on a bench near the door, and they asked him to repeat his story, and he said he met

He gave more detail. He said he had met the man they met at the Woodbine and they met for drinks, and he said he first met Robin Green, the victim, when he came into the woodbine trying to sell a necklace, a gold necklace, and he was not interested, he said, but he was interested in Robin Green. And they drank together for a short period of time, and then Sydney had said to Robin, hey, listen, I've got some drinks at my hotel and it's just down the laneway at

the Royal Albert Hotel, Royal Albert Arms Hotel. So they both agreed go back to the hotel. Now Sydney claims that they had sex, and there were photos taken with a disposable camera of Robin Green posing in various different clothing and different poses throughout the apartment, and Sydney claimed that they had homosexual sex, had sex in the apartment or apartment in the rented hotel room, and then they

decided to go outside get some cold beer. Was especially hot day July first, and they went from the hotel and they went back in the general area, in fact, more so right in back to almost where the trailers were and more importantly where there was barkid set up in security because they were shooting some outdoor scenes for

the Shall We Dance? Movie, and fans of the of the movie stars and just general onlookers were near the area, and hence the reason for the barricades and the security, and it was quite a scene, basically, with a few hundred people milling around trying to get a sense of what was going on and seeing if they could get a you know, a look a peek at one of

their movie stars. And anyway, Sydney and Robin went into a park that's known for homosexuals to frequent and they sat there and they had some more drinks, and they stayed there for a couple hours, will say, I'm not sure how long, and then they came back to the hotel.

So they came back to the hotel and Sidney wanted to get some ice, and he spoke to the bartender who was named Diane Last, and he asked Diane Last to watch his friend while he went downstairs and got ice for the two of them, and basically she noted to the police that he was staggering and was really unsteady on his feet, and Sydney returned from the basement with his ice and they the two of them then bid Diane Last the bartender, goodbye, and they went upstairs

to the hotel room. Now I'm sorry if I get the story a little convoluted, but this is the order of events that happened. The last anyone saw of Robin Green was what I just spoke about. Diane Last was the last witness to see Robin Green alive. The next day, Sidney Cheery walked into that Reman Center and then told police that he had woken from a blackout with this gentleman to find him dead in the bathtub. Now, when the police arrived at the Remann Center, the three of

them then went to the hotel room. They went up the elevator to room three h nine and they walked in and despite the police officers being prepared for you know, he said the body would be chopped up, dispembered body, they were not, and no one, I think could ever be prepared for what they would find. Now, it was a small room and as soon as they walked in, of the female officer Schroeder, Sylvia Schroeder, proceeded to look at the cot or the mattress that was in the room.

And it's a very small room, dirty old musquee hot, filthy room at that time strewn with blood soaked underwear. They could see that immediately there was dozens of pairs of underwear with blood. They also quickly. She was in

the room quickly, I could say. It's a very small room, and she could see that there was numerous stab wounds to the mattress, and blood all over the mattress, and blood over the wall, and blood leading up to the washroom which was right there, hidden off this small room, and there was a door and the bathroom if you were to go in. When the police officer, he didn't go in with the Sylvia Schroeder, she stayed back. He's the only gentleman that went. The officer that went into

the h and his name is August Meron. He went through the doorway and immediately was hit with the display. The body was posed and displayed facing the doorway as the officer would go in. The body had been cut into eight separate pieces, but reassembled. The head was decapitated well. That head was back on the neck and the shoulders. The arms were cut off at the elbows and the legs cut off at the knees and those were placed again in a display back where they would normally be.

The victim was castrated cleanly, so the penis in the testicles where they're sitting where they would have been, but detached from the body. One of the eyes was gouged out and the other was deflated, and one of the nipples was missing, and part of the arm was dissected. But more importantly, what you couldn't miss was the slice.

officer saw him just froze and transfixed him. You can imagine he just froze as he took this in slowly, took him almost apparently about three minutes to take all this information in process. It to go from this initial shock to eventual recognition of what you're seeing and then just revulsion. And he staggered out of the room, made it to the doorway, held himself up in the doorway, and it's incredible. You know, a blow, a psychological blow to your mind. Even Jack the Ripper had not done

as he escalated in his murders. Jack the Ripper didn't do what Sidney Tierhues did. There have been killers have displayed their victims, but in writing this book, I had

to do the research. It's totally unique. Now, of course he was charged for murder, but this being Canada, he was automatically charged for second degree murder in that trial, the possibility of reducing that second degree murder charge to manslaughter is a good possibility, given precedent, and given at that time that trial, custody accounted for twice, and sentences

were typically from six to ten years. You know, in all practical terms, I'll get right down to the practical math here, that a person that would be convicted in other jurisdictions a murder is and was and very well could be walking the streets in three or four years. Typically, Typically despite the ability of giving someoney someone a life sentence for manslaughter, because of lesser lenient precedents being set, the judges and the courts themselves, either through appeal or

in actual sentencing, chose this seemingly lenient sentence. Especially, it's not a matter of punishment, it's a matter of appropriate sentencing and appropriate identification of someone as a murderer. Manslaughter sounds like you went out hunting and you were drunk and you know, or some accidental death that of course

you were responsible, but less responsible. Now, I don't want to get caught up in that, but I wanted to make sure that the audience understands that this is a completely different system than the United States of America, regardless of a clear premeditation and evidence of premeditation in this particular case, that this killer set out to find a victim, kill him, display and pose his body, and this murder horror spectacle as I call it for lack of better term, merely,

once he knew he had Susan Surrand instilled in jewelry, he decided to end. I contend and his reign of terror, his reign of horror, and hence he walked into walk to authorities and said, listen, you know, I think I killed somebody. I woke up and you know, don't remember anything, of course, but I think I killed this person. Now, if you apply the same logic that would that would direct you or I or someone else, you know, this

is not what can apply with the serial killer. In my book, we go somewhat into serial killing so people understand what the serial killer profile really is. And I know a lot of people have read a lot of true crime. It's the same some of the same information. I've tried to provide just the relevant information for people to understand. More so, the the psychopathic mind is a given a person with no conscience. We're past that level.

But the truly unique aspects of some serial killers are that they have a strange, I guess strange to everyone else idea of mixing sex and murder. And these start off as fantasies early in their lives typically, but in the end, sex and murder are synonymous. They're desired, that is the fantasy. Murder creates a sexual feeling, a sexual desire, and a sexual release, and part of the sexual fantasy

is murder. There are lots of classifications. There are the sadistic killers, the but this person I would say classifies as a lost killer by definition. I interviewed a gentleman named Robert K. Wrestler, and anybody's read true crime knows

who Robert K. Wrestler is. Basically was one of the people that established the behavioral Science unit or the behavioral unit at the Quantico in Virginia, Quantico Beach or Quantico pardon me, Quantico Field Office in the FBI Field office that talked about that created the serial killer profile in the first place. So I interviewed Robert K. Wrestler many

years ago before I had ever done this. It seemed strange and more than a coincidence that I would have spoken to him about John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer. This killer has spoken, even initially in the first interviews shortly after the murder, spoke about comparisons to Jeffrey Dahmer, and later on there is much talk about Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, A Bundy, Aileen Warnos, serial killers, notorious

serial killers, famous serial killers. It's very important now after this crime, there was international coverage of this crime, of this murder because of one reason, primarily the paparazzi were in Winnipeg and as such reported on the crime and celebrity online sites and mainstream newspapers, New York Times, all kinds of media reported on the crime for a short few days because at first it was thought that Jennifer Lopez's jewelry, or at least it was reported by the

paparazzi that Jennifer Lopez's jewelry had been stolen. Of course, Jennifer Lopez is much more important to the world the celebrity than Susan Sarandon, and shortly after it was reported that Susan Surrandon's jewelry was found a few feet away from this horror spectacle, and the operazzi reported sensationalistically that it was found in a pool of blood, which is inaccurate, but needless to say, that jewelry was found a few

feet away from this murder scene, this crime scene. A few weeks after this crime, the police service determined, and take this as you will, they determined that the jewelry had no significance in terms of the motive for the murder.

Now I'm not sure how they determined that, but if they were to say, we have no evidence that the jewelry has any has anything to do with the motive in this murder, well, then I guess that's easier to prove that there is no clear or conclusive evidence that the jury had anything to do in terms of the motive. But the only person that knows if the jury had anything to do in terms of the motive for this

murder is the killer himself. Now, I believe if the killer himself were to admit that rather than what he did claim, which was I woke up and I don't remember, and so I should be guilty of manslaughter because I was intoxicated and hence didn't have the necessary intent to kill that's how the laws interpreted here. But in this case, in this very extreme case, this very emotional, sensationalistic case, it seems absurd that this person who was butchered and

posed and displayed. Certainly you may not be able to conclusively say that the jewelry that was sitting there became the motive for this killer, this incredible killer, this unique, vicious, psychopathic killer, to come forward to tell police, listen, you know I killed somebody, go check it out. Then he grants interviews right away. It says I'm not Jeffrey Dahmer, smiling face front page of the newspaper, claiming he has

no memory. This is the person that clearly craves celebrity. Again, another feature of we really don't study one off killers, people that have only killed one person. They often study sadistic killers, killers that torture, killers that capture or abduct, killers like this that have clearly have something over and beyond the run of the mill. Killer, we'll say, more understandable killer. This is much more than a random killing. This is much more than anger. It's much more so.

This killer had the attention of the world because of susan surround.

wearing that jewelry in the film. A matter of budget, a matter of scheduling, and a matter of course talking about continuity, that jewelry could not be tied up in court or as police exhibit or any other such thing. And no one else could afford nor would want to come and testify as to any kind of events, nor which Shall We Dance mirror Max want to have anything to do with the negative publicity of that murder. And that's all I'll say about it. That's all. That's all,

you know. If I if I say more than that, then it sounds like I'm speculating on why things were done. But it's very interesting to see how almost all media took out that very important reference out of the story. Now maybe it's not a conspiracy. Who knows. I mean, I see things that make no sense whatsoever. Why a story or certain portions of the story are not followed up on the Winnipeg Son as opposed to the Winnipeg

Free Press. The crime reporter for the Free Press was out of town at the time the crime occurred, and the Winnipeg Son, a reporter named Kerry Costanga, now with the Edmonton Son, had exclusive interviews with Sydney where he spoke freely and clearly demonstrated to me at that time, where I still was not involved with the case whatsoever, that this clearly was an unusual killer of the ilk that I had read about, and I had been fascinated

by some of these psychopathic minds, these killers, the Jeffrey Dahmers. I think I'm not alone.

sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com. That's Chumbuck Casino dot com.

story of Jeffrey Dahmer, at least in the magazines. I didn't go out and buy every book conceivable, but it was hard not to be again at least interested in this story that happened just on the heels of a movie that shocked people and won great phraise for you know, for being a realistic movie. And so anyway, getting back to Sidney Tierhuse, it was clear that this was a case that had caught my attention, and I was a radio host producing a show on the University of Manitoba Radio.

I mean, and I don't want to exaggerate what that is.

I saw it as an apprentice journalist. That was my apprenticeship, being able to have a one hour live program and with that all of the things that can go wrong, and being able to have the ability, despite not having a huge audience or even a provable audience, that I would have the kind of guests that I wanted to have on the program, Important guests speaking about important issues that often or typically didn't get airtime on conventional mainstream media,

or they weren't explored in the in depth way that we could I could afford to with a one hour interview style format with no phone calls, so we kept

it very informational. Obviously, not everybody's interests in a one hour format, But like this program and much of talk radio proves, there is an intelligent, discerning and attentive audience that if you give them information and you keep their you keep their attention, they will certainly tune in and listen and get the information that you're trying to impart to them. So anyway, at that time, I was at

the University of Manitoba. I just happened to be the chairman of media and policy affairs for a group called People for Justice. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a right winger guy at all. I am so far away from that description of that type of personality. I have been moved in the sixteen years that I have lived in this city to be much more concerned about the most serious of crime and how the judicial system

deals with the most serious of crime. I have said before that I applaud Canada for understanding the difference between people that actually can be rebilitated or people that are should be given a chance at a young age to turn their lives around. I'm not you know, I don't think in Canada we depict the United States as harsh, lock them up kind of society with imprisonment rates quite high in terms of the rest of the world. We fear these mandatory minimums for three strikes and you're out.

But regardless, we're very we are very ignorant of the US system and how it deals with serious criminals. And also I've read and heard many accounts of how the United States as a whole experimented with more lenient sentences and probably dealt with the same kinds of issues that we have, whereas we think that we can give a person another chance based on their behavior in prison, all

kinds of concepts like this. But now you see much harsher sentencing in most states in the United States, and the ability to have mandatory sentences where life sentences where there is no chance of parole, or at least consecutive sentencing where the multiple crimes of these killers is added so that there is no practical possibility of parole. In Canada, we do not have that type of device, and we do have a mindset that has grown to believe that

we can rehabilitate anyone. I really do believe that as part of the actual mindset that we had a famous killer here, a politician who assassinated his wife and was convicted with very convincing evidence in this country, despite him having the ability to hire the best of lawyers and mount the best of defenses, and this person was convicted of murder. Now despite not admitting that he murdered his wife, they still let this guy out after twenty three years,

just let him out. So it's a different system. Now back to Sydney, tierhuse I had been doing the radio show. I was involved with People for Justice as chairman of Media and policy Affairs. We were dealing with things like no consecutive sentences, conditional sentences for crimes that would have had severe punishment. Previously, they made conditional sentences for people

that were apparently first time offenders, non serious offenders. In a few short years, those conditional centers were applied even to things like manslaughter, serious assault, child pornography, all kinds of charges like that. I apologize, I won't go too far into the Canada's system that I'm very critical of. Now.

When I was at the radio station, I was doing a weekly interview program and I knew a gentleman from the home city where I was, and he was incarcerated on some charges and asked me if he could call me from the remand center and help them take care of a little bit of business. Now, I'm not in the habit of helping out criminals while they're in prison, but I knew this gentleman. They weren't serious charges, and I was convinced that he would be cleared on the

charges anyway. Long story short, I let him simply call me from jail and I helped him a little bit of banking business, and as I had known him for years and years anyway, a few months later, this was in the Fall in January, he called me to say, jeez, guess who is in the same jail range as I am, And it ended up being Sidney Teerhuse the killer. Now

I saw it as a faithful turn of events. I asked my acquaintance to my friend if he would ask Sidney Teerhues if he would be interested in being interviewed on radio. He said he agreed. My friend said, yeah, he agreed he would do it at some point. And then in the I'd thought about it for a few days and said, you know what, I think this is my opportunity to actually be a real journalist and write

about this case, because it's a fascinating case. He is likely, well, it's not likely he will have the opportunity to have his murder charge reduced to manslaughter and walk out of jail in a few short years. And in my mind, despite what I know about this crime, despite what I think this person may be. And I really didn't know much at that time except the description of the crime.

I read the interviews I saw a smiling face. I think inherently, before I had done all of the research that I had to do to do this book, that I realized inherently intuitively that he was psychopathic, That he had the qualities of a serial killer, and qualities of the most eccentric, the most the most notorious serial killers, the people that tried to outdo everyone else, the people that may have been influenced by the ghastly deeds of everyone from Jack the Ripper through Ted Bundy and John

Wayne Gates. See people emulating their role models, their heroes. All I could see intuitively that this guy was special, different, unique, and the story was worth writing about, especially when I thought, geez, this is my friend, he's there. All I did was make a decision to think, geez, I know this guy can remember what he did. That's hilarious that anybody would believe otherwise. And that's all I knew. And I went into this not knowing much else, kind of stumbling in

it again a faithful turn of events. I really can't go back into how my life changed in a short few months, but what we do have is this book that was released on April the nineteenth of this year, twenty ten Trophy killed, the Shall We Dance Murder? The trial and revelations of a psychopathic killer. Now, in the year that I corresponded with Sidney Tierheues, he was under no illusions what was going to happen. We had a straightforward agreement we were going to write a book about

him and this trial. And that's not really any different in any true crime book, where you would talk about the killer, talk about the victim, talk about the trial, talk about the story basically, and all of the inside or inside information or behind the scenes information, whether it come from a crown attorney, district attorney you would call in the United States, we call a crown attorney here, same thing prosecuting attorneys.

he was adopted as a young child. His mother was fifteen years old, gave the child the way she was on a small reserve called Little Grand Rapids, a couple hundred miles away from Winnipeg, which is about seven hundred thousand people, a big city, eighth biggest city in Canada, and he was adopted by a white family even though he's an Aboriginal child and named Tierhughes. So his original name was Sidney Owens, and he became Sydney Teerhughes, and

they officially adopted him. At first they did, I guess they're fond parents, and then officially adopt him when he was three years old on July first, pardon me, July second was the actual date he became Sidney Tierhuse. And I think that's important because when you look at July second is when he went in to police in Winnipeg and reported his crime. And we'll talk about that a

little bit later. In that year correspondence, he started with his whole life, and of course he spoke of I'm not saying, of course, but I wasn't so surprised that there was claims of sexual abuse by his stepbrother, and claims of sexual abuse by all kinds of people. And he spoke of the underage male prostitution seen in Winnipeg. Whether it's true or not, I could never really investigate his claims. It's fascinating the stories that he does tell he is a good writer. He would have had possibly

a future as a writer. I don't know, but he's a decent writer. He has an eloquent style. He's very descriptive. It makes for fascinating reading. In that year period, we didn't become penpals. This was a working project. So I peppered him with questions constantly on the telephone, and when I wrote letters, which were not that many, I included as many questions as possible and didn't beat around the bush. I just kept hammering home questions, like very important questions

right from the very beginning. What happened to them? To the internal organs, what'd you do with them? Where'd they go? Eventually? You know, I don't want to make it sound like I wasn't a crafty person or a clever person in my questioning of this person. But I will tell you honestly that it is more so that this person really wanted to tell somebody everything. And at some point, after about nine or ten months of corresponding with me, he wanted to tell me about the murder itself. I didn't

have to pry this information out. It came in a flood in around ten months after we start corresponding, which was around January. I visited him once in the remand Center,

and that's in the book as well. Now, a lot of these letters came in that ten months to twelve month period, and a series of letters, maybe over a dozen, and diagrams depicting describing every single graphic and gory detail of the murder, dismemberment, the enjoyment of the dismemberment, the preparation of the dismemberment, the body as a human trophy as he called it, all the description of the necrophilia diagrams that corresponding with that, people speak of utter lack

of remorse, not even appropriate glee, enjoyment, reveling. Now, not everybody wants to buy a book just to see the most sickening stuff they've ever read, And that's not what I'm promoting here. But I'm promoting to you that this killer has achieved a new level of sinister and evil, combining many of his role model serial killer heroes, unlike Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nielsen from England and some of you know, we'll talk about Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nielsen.

They kept their bodies the bodies of their victims. Of course they did horrendous thing, they killed them. Of course they engaged in sex and necrophilia. But unlike Jeffrey Dahmer that there was some discussion, an argument. Robert K. Wrestler actually testified at Jeffrey Dahmer's trial to say he was insane at that point, at some point had gone insane

and hence was not responsible like someone else. And we've had the case of a gentleman named Vincent Lee who cut off a passenger's head on a Greyhound bus and cannibalized him. And he's in a mental institution, not criminally responsible for his crimes, but very much like Hannibal Lecter, this criminal, whereas not as sophisticated as Hannibal Elector. This person, this killer has combined the taunting of the victims, the taunting of the police in the judicial entire judicial system,

the revenge on his adopted and his biological family. He hyphenated his name at the trial to include his biological name as well. He went to police on the anniversary of his adoption into the Tihu's family, which he claimed abused him. He used every opportunity to use the media for photo ops. Despite his lawyer's obvious advice not to speak to the media, he spoke anyway. This person contacted the media. I was not the only person he tried

to tell his story to. I just happened to be the only person that was willing to hear the story, wanted to hear the ugly truth, the harsh truth. I didn't deceive this person, except that when I had enough evidence that spoke to the motive, the time of the murder, the whereabouts of the missing organs. And then I told them, hey, listen, the law passed that you can't profit from the nordvariety of your crime. I say, did you read that? He hung up, and that was the end of the correspondence.

And of course I went to authorities, which I was going to anyway. I mean, you can't give me evidence as a journalist and then expect me to protect that evidence about murder, you know, unlike his lawyer. And that's another story. His lawyer is a person named Greg Brodsky. This is his forty ninth or fiftieth years of the

defense lawyer. Fiftieth year, he has defended and tried almost seven hundred murder cases, a record in the English speaking world, and why I got motivated to get involved with a law reform group in Winnipeg and walk around at the law courts with picket signs and to spend years of my life on this book. Despite criticism from a lot of people, and the criticism has not ended. This is an important story for what you find out about how

a defense lawyer defends this killer. Everybody says, Wow, they have to do the best, you know, defend this person to the best of their ability. I agree, What does that mean? What does that entail? The cornerstone of the judicial system is that you're not the lawyer is not to tell a lie on behalf of his client, or have his client go on the stand to lie, and a known lie, what you know, is a lie. So you don't let your client perjure themselves and you don't

lie on their behalf. Now people might scoff, we're so naive that we just bend that rule. We just tell and as I've been told by a former district attorney crown attorney, we just tell the client right away, don't say anything, don't tell me anything, listen to what the crown has And then so he says, if the client is halfway smart. I interviewed Greg Brotsky unbeknownst that I had been corresponding with his client. He told me things

that blew my mind. Again, I must be naive, fifty one years old, educated, self educated to what has gone on and the changes in the legal system and the practical sentences that are meted out every day. And I'm not the only person that is criticizing the legal system, the judicial system. But a defense lawyer's responsibility to determine the truth so that he doesn't suborn perjury, he doesn't

lie on his client's behalf. You read this book, and there's all kinds of unsubstantiated material that comes out at the trial. His brother sexuallybews it. Who says there was no criminal charges. It's irresponsible and it's irresponsible as a witness. How most witnesses would buckle under some of the techniques that this defense lawyer has learned at the behest of the taxpayer. Obviously, he has had the lion's share of murder cases in Manitoba and other provinces as well, gaining

this invaluable experience. And if he crosses over that line in which the judicial cornerstone is built on that you're not to lie for your client and not to have your client lie. This book is a testament forever to chronicle what occurred on December one to nineteenth, two thousand and eight in Winnipeg, Canada. I call it one of the most important trials murder trials in Canadian history, for

what it clearly demonstrates and what it clearly represents. Very much like the Carla Hamlica and Paul Bernardo murder case, in which the reverberations from this chicanery and this black eye total disgrace, very much like the oj Simpson case in America, very much like the Rodney King decision travesties of justice. Carla Jamalca being released from prison, ever, is a travesty of justice. For her to be depicted as

a battered woman syndrome victim is injustice personified. The psychiatrist that went along with it, the lawyer that went along with it, the lawyer for Paul Bernardo that found the videotapes of the torture and rape of the victims, suppressed the videotapes to benefit his own client, a travesty of justice. So it's an ugly story when you hear the details of the videotapes of the rape. They're ugly. It's sexually ugly,

it's murderously ugly. It's information that is ugly. It's the ugliest side of humanity in that police, crooked psychiatrists or ine f psychiatry, or psychiatry gone to mock lawyers with totally misplaced loyalty. After all, the taxpayer pays for this. Taxpayer pays for the prosecuting attorneys, pays for the defense attorney, and pays for the entire system, rehabilitation, incarceration, everything. Now, I don't say that they should have to make decisions

on what happens. The judge makes that, but it would be nice and it would be important for people to actually understand how the system actually works here. Now for our American listeners and people will say, why would I buy a book about the Canadian judicial system. It's just a break from some of the true crime books that you have there, where it's a foregone conclusion it's going to be death penalty or life without any chance of parole,

or I'll see you there's no chance of parole. This person had a very very very good chance of walking out of prison in three or four or five years, and if you were to read the material that is in this book, and I have chosen not to actually read excerpts from the book because it's just it's too graphic. So I have two chapters that and of course twenty two drawings that there's an explicit, very detailed warning for

all people before they read those chapters. You read the information in different ways as when they repeat some of that information at trial. But the media, the only person that saw as much as you will see in this book is the jury who actually had the misfortune of

actually having to see the crime scene photos. And when I talk about this book the most open and shot case, the most obvious case of flagrant murder for the purpose of someone just being famous a lost killer, I claim he's a serial killer, and I make my contention and my assertion, and I provide the evidence for that, and a lot of that well, of course, much of that

evidence is from the killer himself. The appeal was filed, as per his legal right, shortly after the conviction, within a month, and that was filed in January of two thousand and nine. The appeal was heard on May twenty first, twy ten I went to the appeal. It was sickening. The defense lawyer used the opportunity to go back into a two thousand and six jury challenge jury of his peers.

His client was apparently denied. It was dismissed. The same type of motion was dismissed eight times, even by the presiding judge's father. It's ridiculous how much time it takes to dismiss something that's totally without merit that motion in this appeal, which there was thirteen rounds of appeal, including that the jury should not have been shown crising photos, the jury should not have shown crime scene photos, that the letters should not have been deemed admissible, that the

drawings should not be deemed amissible. Basically, the judges have reserved a decision and it is now over thirty days for that decision, so over seven years from crime to again decision. And who knows, he may just get a new trial anyway. The book is Trophy Killed The Shall We Dance Murder? It's available Amazon, Barnes and Noble. The

Trial and Revelations of the Psychopath Killer. Join me next week for Corey Mitchell with his book Savage Son and Everyone have yourself a good evening, and if you've listened this evening, please trust me, it's the most shocking book you'll ever dare to read. Trophy Kill. Thank you for listening, and you have yourselves a good evening.