NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE-TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

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

The Guee Turcotte murder trowe was one of the most closely followed in recent history in Canada, both horrifying and captivating the public. The jury deliberated for five days deciding on the fate of the cardiologists charged with first degree murder in the deaths of his children. The trial hinged on Turcott's state of mind at the time of the

February two thousand and nine slayings. Was he trying to get revenge on his estranged wife a fellow doctor, for cheating on him with a mutual friend, or was he a sick man who had lost all reason. Turcott's lawyers argued he had been rendered temporarily insane over the recent breakup of his marriage with miss Gaston. In the July verdict, a jury found he was not criminally responsible for his actions.

In September, Turcott faced a five person mental health tribunal to determine whether he should be released or whether he should be detained for another year. As the mental health tribunal decided whether to set Ghee Turcott free, hundreds of protesters gathered in fourteen Quebec cities calling for an overall

of the justice system. Crown prosecutors are now seeking a retrial for Turcott, arguing that the judge aired in law in his instructions to the jury, the program this evening we're discussing is not criminally responsible, travesty of justice, and that this will be an editorial program where I will welcome people to call in after they get the gist of the program, and that number is three four seven two three seven four zero zero six four three four

seven two three seven four zero six four. So if you have an opinion once we get about maybe ten fifteen minutes into the program, and you're a regular listener and want to weigh in on the subject itself, on your opinion on what you think about this, please carefully consider what has been said in the fifteen minutes, and then I welcome you to call in if you like, or just listen to the rest of the program, as I think there'll be some relevant issues for everybody listening

right now. True crime fans everywhere will be interested in this case, and I'll explain why even people in America might find this shocking, and I'll explain why I think people in America might want to pay attention to this

verdict in Canada. Now, this Geettercott, like I mentioned, is a prominent cardiology living in Montreal, one of the biggest cities in Canada, and he had discovered an email after his wife had filed for divorce or they were separated, and this email he found a confidential correspondence with his wife and a mutual friend of his and his wife's who she now he learned through this email was she was carrying on an affair with this person that was

his mutual friend and well mutual friend of both of them. So this created this precipitated this situation. Anyway, Now, what Geeturkoud did was on the evening in question is he went online and researched how to commit suicide and apparently decided for some reason that window washer fluid would do the trick, and ingested some of this window washer fluid. And then again, this is the only way we'll ever find this out is from his account of what happened.

He said he then contemplated the life of his three year old daughter and his five year old son and thought that they would it would be horrible for them to not have a father. So, in this twisted logic that he had at that time, he decided to stab them forty nine times all together between the two forty nine times, so an obvious overkill. Forty nine times he

stabbed his own children. Now, previous to this, he had a journal separation, been angered at his wife and come and came to the family home that he has now been locked out of his own home. And everyone can probably understand this would make most people angry. He punched his wife, or now his ex wife, Miss Gaston, punched her in the face. So in subsequent emails he had used the words, if you want a war, you're going to have a war. Now, I believe there's a difference

in Canadian law. Anybody's listening to this program quite steadily will know that. In my opinion, and it's not even opinion. Factually, this country starts with second degree murder and then proceeds with the possibility of manslaughter as a potential outcome. Rarely are defendants charged initially with first degree murder. Now, for those in the US realizing that first degree murder is there's supposed to be some form of premeditation, and that's

where the Canadians get hung up on. They say, well, there was no premeditation, but in America, just a few seconds, just a split second of thirty seconds, a minute of any kind of planning would qualify then potentially. And I'm dumbing this down completely, and I apologize for those legal those people that know the law better than I that this would qualify potentially for first degree murder in this country, because we seem to have a different definition of this

first degree. What we have is that we normally start with second degree murder charges and then with the possibility for that defendant of manslaughter. In America seems to be either in a death penalty state first degree murder, second degree murder, and then three differ degrees in manslaughter. And I think that might even depend on state to state

being some differences. I'm not sure anyway, Getting back to Ghee Turkott, now, what happened is I mentioned in the opening that the jury found Gee Turkott not criminally responsible for the killings, and you can ask, well, how could he not be responsible if he admitted to the killings, because the state or our government has the onus to prove that he had the necessary intent to kill if he didn't have an intent to kill, And again, the state has to prove that he had the intent to kill,

not the other way around. He does not have to prove that he had no intent to kill. The state has to prove that he had an intent to kill. Without the intent to kill, there is no murder. Now, the jury had the possibility of first degree murder, which he was charged with for the two children, second degree murder manslaughter which is greatly reduced for murder in terms of sentencing, and then in this case, not criminally responsible.

So the defense put forward psychiatric experts, psychiatrists that were reconsidered expert witnesses, and they felt that in his altered state, I guess from the combination of the window washer fluid, but really it was the overall mental state that this person found themselves in an odd moment, a out of character moment, and had stabbed his children forty nine times.

And the psychiatrists for the defense, along with the defense team and their strategy, convinced the jury, and they must have done an adequate job for the jury to believe that he was not criminally responsible for his actions. He did not have an intent to kill, apparently because of his altered thinking, his altered state of mind, and they were convinced that he was not criminally responsible. Now, for those that listened last week and for those that didn't,

I'll just do a little bit of a recap. I was interviewing a gentleman named Fred Rosen, And for those that did comment and quite a few people contacted me. Yes, the hour of the interview was two hours instead of one hour because the one hour, Fred seemed to want to talk about everything, bought his book for that hour, so I indulged him, and I got caught up in his tangents, I would say, but we talked about a lot of things, and many many people commented that they

weren't so interested in this banter whatsoever. They really just enjoy hearing about the books from the authors, the authors

explaining their books. But why bring up Fred Rosen is because Fred Rosen in his book acted like the consummate journalist and just presented the facts and let the audience, the reader, determine whether this serial killer, Gary Hilton, had a organic brain disorder, an event that precipitated him not being criminally responsible for his actions much years later, when oddly enough, he seemed to become a serial killer at fifty eight or fifty nine years of age and went

on to kill three or four people in total. And so when he has described this person as a psychopathic, devious con man who ends up later being a killer, I found it surprising that Fred Rosen had concluded that, yes, this person wasn't he didn't think was criminally responsible for his actions and certainly should not have been put on

death row. Now, I don't want to get back into that debate or not, but he did have sympathy for this killer and believed the defense that this killer, Gary Hilton, had had an injury that rendered him incapable of being responsible for his crimes later in life for those murders and I and they say, even if you do agree

with that, then what do we do now? Getting back to this case, it's similar, And this is the why I've drawn them both together, is that if you believe that, yes, this cardiologist, this upstanding doctor, a member of the community, and I'm sure they provided ample evidence of this person not having a murderous reputation or intentions or background or behavior that would indicate something like this, that if he's not criminally responsible for the deaths of his children, this

was an odd moment out of character, that he was consumed by his anger and depression and rejection, whatever way you would like to describe it. And now in this particular case, he is put into a mental institution and a psychiatric tribunal is going to decide whether he just goes home in a short period of time, or he's kept for another year. As you read another year, like

something will go on in that year of treatment. So I asked a question for our audience and just for the listener for themselves to think and contemplate, what do you do with this person that's not criminally responsible. If they just had an odd moment, then what we call in Canada, he would be not insane by any standards that we normally apply. So if he's not insane per se,

then he had an insane moment. And there has been defenses that I've spoken about before in Canada insane automatism and non insane automatism, where basically the person is rendered a robot, not conscious in the normal state, not again responsible for their criminal actions because of this altered state,

this automaton that they become. But if there's a non insane automatism, then this person snapped lost it as they call, we use whatever description like, and otherwise this person, as the psychiatrists speak in Canada, not likely to re offend or yeah, not likely to reoffend. I don't know how

they can make that kind of conclusion. But my question is, what do we do with killer Gary Hilton if we do conclude that yes, he had an injury where something fell on his head and had two hundred stitches to his head and that affected a certain portion of the brain, and that certain portion of the brain is responsible for empathy and sympathy and would render this person a psychopath without any conscience. What do we then do with these

people that we've said they're not criminally responsible. Is ninety days and.

we have ten or eleven provinces. That what we have is the Decision two in that in that province itself resonated among the primarily French Canadian population that dominates Quebec in terms of population. Fourteen cities there were and I don't even know how big I read one was one hundred people at this protest. So the fact that that fourteen cities were going to have some form of protest is significant in Canada. There was a Facebook page with

twenty seven thousand signatures, for example. But to compare anything that resonates in the United States, some of the cases, well, the biggest obviously the Casey Anthony case recently, but there have been many cases that have seemed to resonate with the public over the years, and every year, in every few months, there's some case that dominates the headlines and

seems to captivate the imagination of people. In America, we have a case here where, for the most part, it was reported nationally, a national news story, and it just didn't seem to outrage the people of Canada, and again, I don't know what would I'm even the Robert Picton case, all kinds of other incredible cases do not seem to have the ability or the power to outrage an entire nation, to create debate, to create discussions, to have some sort

of political ramifications for something to change as a result of people complaining and protesting and calling out and expressing their outrage. So what we have here actually is a primarily phenomena that happened in one province in Canada and the rest we're looking at this case. For example, I'm sitting in the middle of Canada and I talk and I'm talking to people and they mentioned had seen the

Casey Anthony verdict. Well, Canadians are just like Americans. We watched the same television program, so we're aware of the Casey Anthony case. Of course, it isn't as important to us as Canadians as it is to Americans, especially in people in the areas that were affected in Florida and in that area. But we still it's a good example of someone randomly speaking to me about a case and not being aware of a case that should definitely give

as much pause to consider. But also elicted some form of outrage once they were notified of this case, that they weren't aware of this case at all, but aware of the Casey Anthony case. Again, Casey Anthony was convicted on circumstantial evidence. This cardiologist killed his children, admitted killing his children, stabbed them forty nine times with example evident, and yet was decided in a court of law by a jury as not criminally responsible. That's not the same

as an acquittal. But in a lot of people's minds, if this person, this doctor, is released in forty five or ninety days, and as some people have spoken in editorials, he's likely to be able to be able to practice medicine again as well. Again, just maybe a little bit

more outrage to add to the outrage already. Anyway, what I think the lesson is for Americans is that once you buy into too much psychiatry and its influence in the courts, this expert witness is a battle of expert witnesses in terms of the prosecution will have a psychiatrist that will claim the exact opposite, and another psychiatrist for the defense will claim that, yes, surely this person was not of their right mind and should be not criminally responsible.

So it gets down to the entire trial coming down to two expert witnesses. And again we hold up psychiatry as something that we normally the layman does not understand whatsoever. So we have a hard time arguing or disputing any psychiatric evaluation. So it is a matter of which psychiatric experts end up being the better witness at a trial.

And these cases, either it can muddy the waters or it can, certainly in this particular case, go from a first degree murder conviction to a not criminal responsible, incredibly different outcome in terms of sentence and in every way completely different for the victims and the families of the victims, and the entire judicial system itself. So I believe that if we buy into too much the excuses or not criminally responsible, what we have is well, then what do

we do In the case of Gary Hilton? What would we do if we were to believe that somehow or other this was not of his volition, It was not his fault that he robbed, killed, disposed of these human beings. What would we then do with him? If we were to put him in a mental institution? Then what is the sentence in a mental institution till he's well for a certain prescribed period of time. Would that do the trick? What would suffice and what would we all be able

to agree on? And probably not much. The idea that this person would be capable and then not, of course not be responsible, then we would say, well, then we would keep him in a mental institution because we do not know what that person is capable of. In the case of this cardiologist, we have a person that probably has a squeaky clean background, nothing but a stellar record

of education and work. But regardless of that, I don't think that that should necessarily negate any kind of idea that this person cannot and will not, at any other time in the future re offend to some extent in his violent nature. That's just my take on it. Again, probably the circumstances that came together in this perfect storm to create this incredible murder of his children will probably not exist again. Well that's doesn't have any children left,

there is likely not to happen again. But that does not mean that somehow or other a psychiatrist can say with any kind of certainty that this person is again less likely to reoffend. That's a reason not to punish this person, not to incarcerate this person for the killings of his children. So it is again I think it's something that's not an easy question. It's not an easy decision.

But I would like to if anyone who's listening to the program right now, please give me a call at three four seven two three seven four zero sixty four

and you can weigh in on this subject. Just for those that are going to be tuning in next week and in the near future and may not listen to this entire program, I want to tell you that coming up next week is again on the program for an encore performance is run francel with his latest book, A Sour Toe Cocktail, And it's a little different in that it really has nothing to do with any major murder or crime, but it really does have everything to do with Ron Fransell,

who is a best selling true crime author, a very good author, author of The Darkest Night and Delivered from Evil and a host of other true crime books. He has a legion of fans. He's a very good writer, and he's a very good interview And he had told me on a previous program that he had planned he was planning a trip with his son, a dream, a trip, a vacation, once in a lifetime opportunity to go with

his son to Alaska and that entire adventure. And so I will use the opportunity because he has a book called The Sauertool Cocktail, and we'll be able to talk to him about this life changing experience that he had

planned for many, many years and how that went. And we will talk about his life writing, his career writing true crime, what he's learned, some of the surprises, some of the things that he did not anticipate, what happened in his journey as a true crime writer, and we'll talk about his new books Hour to a Cocktail and the entire experience. Ron Francell again is a great interview and a great author, and we're going to have on

September twenty first. The book will be called The Crime Buff's Guide to the Outlaw Rockies, so geographically speaking, everywhere that is important in true crime history, to some of the locations involved in Ted Bundy, the Columbine Massacre, and a host of other famous and infamous true crimes and where they existed geographically, and it's The Crime Buff's Guide to the Outlaw Rockies. It seems the West Coast has it's an incredible share of serial killers and their sordid stories.

October fourth is going to be the Sour Till Cocktail. Pardon me for mixing up order of things. That's Ron Franzell. And again Ron Francell September twenty first with The Crime Buff's Guide to the Outlaw Rockies. So that will be interesting. Two books from a very very good author, Ron Francell. After that we were going to have at some point and I just got the book today. It got sidetracked in the mail and she fast tracked me another coffee.

This is a case that again captured the imagination of the American people and in an international audience in a huge way. This is the book about the trials of Amanda Knox and this the author is Nina Burleigh, and it's called The Fatal Gift of Beauty. And so it is the case of the sexually violent murder of twenty one year old British student Meredith Kircher in Perugia, Italy, on the night of November first, two thousand and seven.

The story became an international sensation when one of Kircher's housemates twenty year old Seattle native Amanda Knox, as well as her Italian boyfriend and a troubled vocal man. Knock said she vaguely knew were arrested in charge with Meredith Kircher's murder. So that will be an interesting case. I don't know much about this case at all. I just

didn't pay attention when I saw the news accounts. I really don't like hearing sensational headlines and not much follow up information, so I didn't pay attention to those coming from people like Nancy Grace ranting and raving at the top of her lungs about Amanda Knox and anyway, that will be a very very interesting program that would come

up very soon. I contacted someone just recently from someone that contacted me through blog talk radio and suggested that I look into a book from an author named Yvonne Mason, and it's called Silent Scream. So of course I followed that up. It looked like a very interesting story and

an interesting book. And Yvonne Mason will be on October the twelfth and with her book Silent Scream, and so we have a host of other possibilities trying to get the lawyer for John Wayne Gacy and has appeared on My Friend and a Friend of the program Burro Bear with his True Crime Uncensored program with Don Woldman in Los Angeles. They've had him on a couple of times.

Sam and it's now a judge, but he was a lawyer for John Wayne Gacy and infamous or famous John Wayne Gacy, one of the most fascinating serial killers of all time, gave a confession to Sam Amarante, making Sam Amaranti the lawyer for John Wayne Gacy. Very put him in a very very awkward position, especially given you're trying to defend this guy. So it would be a very

interesting story. And Burle has assured me that he will put the buccaneer for Sam Amaranti, who's now a judge, and we can talk about the John Wayne Gase John Wayne Gacy case, very very very fascinating murderer and fascinating case in every single way. If you do get a chance. There's an excellent book. I've been trying to get this person, who still has a thriving law business to come on. He has written one of the classics killer Clown. His name is Terry Sullivan and This is the book that

you really should read about. There are a host of books about John Wayne Gacy, but if you do get a chance, Killer Clown has been around for many, many years. It is fantastic, scary, and unforgettable. So Killer Clown do

yourself a favor if you haven't checked this out. This is one of the most incredible stories of all So, getting back to the Gee Turcott story, the cardiologists estabbed as children, we have a people that I found interesting when I read articles about the case is that people were clamoring to be in attendance at this trial to get the few seats that were in the courtroom.

the ramifications of this trial. This trial will, as they say, I'm not sure for sure, but legal experts say it's unlikely to become a precedent setting case. But regardless, this seems to be the evolution of the Canadian judicial system where we seem to more and more and more understand the killer, feel sorry for the killer, excuse the killer, and I just think it's a wrong trend. I think it's the wrong direction for our judicial system to go.

We have a reigning conservative government that has has come the power on a tough on crime platform, and yet even though they've addressed a couple things that are very problematic in terms of of dealing with the most serious criminals. They still, I mean, as conservative as they are, they still do not seem to get what the people are

upset about in Canada. They have no faith in the judicial system whatsoever, so they're not you know, they're not consulting with Canadians to find out exactly what Canadians would want. It's just a platform of tough on crime without really addressing that we still don't have an actual life sentence. We don't have a mechanism that actually can keep anyone in for their entire life, regardless of how many murders they've done, or how many rapes they've done, or how

many children they've abducted and kidnapped and sexually assaulted. It doesn't seem to make any difference. We just do not have an event that can jar people's minds, the public's minds into asking demanding that we actually have an actual life sentence without the possibility of parole. And where we have a problem is that we don't even have consecutive sentencing. If you've killed Robert picton evidence of thirty three murders,

he only has one murder conviction. It just seems ludicrous that someone would have to go through the motions if you think to give this grant this person a parole hearing when everyone knows that he is likely to not be released from prison. Now, however, when you're comparing thirty three to one, we seem to then considered one not so serious a certain amount of time in prison as rehabilitation, even though it's just a certain amount of time in prison.

And so these people are eventually released back into the community, and that's the kind of language we talk about. Well, these people will eventually be released back in the community, so we have to prepare them for the community. We have to let them out a couple of years before their earliest parole day to prepare them for their eventual

release into the community. We ended our death penalties sometime in the fifties and in real terms in practice, and then officially in the sixties, and so at that time we also throughout actual life sentence. So we went from having the death penalty to not having an actual life sentence. And then somewhere along the line, I do not know how this could have been justified. We don't even have consecutive sentencing, even for multiple murder. And the evolution has

been obviously gradual. We were a very punitive country, harsh sentences for even minor crime not so long ago, thirty years ago, forty years ago, twenty five years ago. So we have seemed to think we've evolved into this kinder, gentler population that believes in restorative justice rather than punitive and justice. And we don't believe in deterrence as much as rehabilitation. And I believe in all these concepts for certain crimes that certainly are more apt to be reasonable

for rehabilitation. If someone were to steal, and you were to make them work and to pay back restitution for the money that they would have stolen, and if these people had to come to this decision that if they were to go to jail, then they would have to work. So when they are free, then they have the decision to work and make much more money and enjoy their freedom. I think it's a simple. I think it's oversimplifying the situation.

But there are people that can rehabilitate themselves from looking at the options, looking at the pros and the cons. When we're talking about killers and rapists and pedophiles and psychopathic personalities in general, that have no conscience, that would rip off your granny of every cent that she has and not think anything of it, and people that have no conscience when it comes to these violent crimes. Then we're talking about people that even the experts will say,

these people can't be rehabilitated. So I think that when we in America those that would like to Again, I don't believe death only because there are errors and I don't want to have that on my hands. But I do understand the thirst or the desire for the death penalty for these heinous crimes, for these unconsciable killers. I do understand it coming from the victims' families or from other people that are affected, or from society in general.

And I do also understand it it is a safeguard for somebody who might be a liberal minded governor to maybe let these people out or commute their sentence, or maybe again a liberal minded appeals courts. So I understand that. But at the same time I think that we have I think it should be adequate that you were to incarcerate this person for their natural life in a cell

in a prison. I think has to be enough. It just has to be enough, because really, what we're talking about is not deterrence, it's not rehabilitation, it's not denunciation. It is protection of society. So I think that's what we have to keep our keep our eye focused on, is that it's just public safety. It's not revenge, it's not punishment, it's not retribution. So I think that what we're going to do is going to have something in Canada that has to have a spark and outrage in Canada,

some case that hasn't happened before. Like I said that Robert picton the Bernardo Hamalca case, again very very outrageous. The case I was involved with Sidney Tier, the psycho killer who wanted to write his letters and be famous and butchered a human just to do so. Clifford Olson, who killed ten children and then blackmailed the government into paying him ten thousand dollars per body, ten bodies, ten thousand dollars per body to show them where those graves were.

And this person still laughing at the federal government, just told the federal government last year that he'd been saving up a pension old age pension while he was in prison. Of course, a tough on crime government had no idea. So we have these people that are reviled, but we only have a handful of these cases, and we don't seem to learn much from them. There isn't much real debate other than wow, how could these people become who they are? And I couldn't tell by looking at them,

and they seem to be so normal. Our latest case was a a prestigious colonel in the military, Colonel Williams, who was raping and killing his neighbors when they finally caught up to him. This offender shared a lot of the characteristics of bt K, where he would have he was into the souvenirs and trophies. He would go into his neighbor's home and try on the young daughter's close

pose in the clothes, take photos of the clothes. He later graduated escalated to rape, forcible confinement, videotaping his crimes, and then later he graduated to murder. And they finally caught up with him, and of course he exhibited all of the characteristics of a very unique serial killer. And this person now is sitting in prison. The trial happened very quickly, unlike a lot of cases. He didn't have a defense lawyer that was pleading not guilty on his behalf.

He gave a confession once he realized there could be

some problems for his wife. He wanted to lessen the burden for his wife, and the interviewing officer did a pretty masterful job of indicating the position that he was really in the military was outraged that this person wearing the being a decorated officer, the shame he brought to the military, and so I think they had a major influence in him not mounting any kind of defense and that this case really happened, occurred fairly quickly and ended fairly quickly, and you know, the book is out and

there's not much debate about this, and the debate that really ensued out of that was, well, what could have made this again successful military person become this other person? And I don't think that's the question. We all can just watch Dexter episodes or realize that through many of the true crime stories that people have written books about that a lot of these psychopathic killers have military backgrounds. It's not that surprising whatsoever that somebody could be a

respectable businessman or a reverend or the wife wouldn't know. Well, we can get that on investigation discovery, program after program after program of wife saying he was a great father, he was a good husband. I had no idea. So again we can get over that one because that's a popular refrain. I had no idea. He doesn't look like a serial killer. I knew him since we were young. Of course, these people do not reveal themselves, and that's

just all you can say. These people are manipultive, they're clever for the most part, and this is something that they do that I don't think anybody could imagine that their friends would be capable of doing and how why

would you even imagine something like that? So that's all we seem to learn from these things, and especially in Canada, the judicial system, like I had mentioned the Bernardo Homalka case again that Carla Hamlca was depicted as a battered woman against undue influence of psychiatry in the courtroom itself, Robert Picton of psychiatry had nothing to do with that case. He didn't really say much except to boast to an undercover officer that one more and he would have had fifty.

That is more a case of the police ignoring experts saying that there was a serial killer loose, the police ignoring victims' families because of course the victims were I hate to say it, hookers. And it's not some sort of police directive to ignore the murders of people considered

less important in society. But it just is human nature to not consider the drug addict or the street prostitute, or it's just in the nature of some people to ignore information coming from people that they do not consider trustworthy or reliable in terms of information. So it's human

nature to dismiss some people and what they say. But you really do have this systemic situation where they did ignore that there was a serial killer running around in Vancouver killing women and did not respond till well, well until it was too late, and they could have saved lives by responding and doing things differently. So it doesn't seem like we have the focus the concerted media attention

on some of these cases and analysis. I found one article about the Skeecher caught verdict where the person didn't agree with that verdict whatsoever. So I think that the I think that by and large, either people were not aware they were or just did not resonate with them at all. That again, this years of ignoring these sorts of cases and not being personally involved has created a situation where we have this state where we a fair

amount of people do not understand these verdicts. Another group of people are so far behind they aren't even aware

of these verdicts. And then you have a good group of people that have been seemed to be groomed by the bleeding heart liberals as I can call them, people that always seem to believe the excuses of killers and some of these criminals and want to believe that everyone is essentially good, so they don't have the same I guess healthy dosa synism where there are, in my mind and a lot of people that are in the know

police officers, correctional officers, obviously, certain defense lawyers people. There must be a good group of people that realize that there are these kinds of people that cannot be fixed, that cannot be rehabilitated, and maybe we can't even understand, and we just need to ensure that they're locked away for public safety, and that's it. But we have a phenomena here in Canada that a combination of factors has evolved so that we have no outrage over a verdict

like this of any magnitude whatsoever. Again, there was some editorials. I'm sure I didn't monitor every radio station, But again, if I believe that if I were to look at the and examine the content of that criticism, it would be criticism at a much lower, unfocused level than where I believe it really should be. And that's the cys them itself, the direction, the undue influence of psychiatry, and of course our acceptance of a psychiatric expert as the

expert that trumps all others. Again, we have police, They make their decision, yes this is a homicide. Prosecution says, yes, this is something that we can prosecute. It's a murder, and then the chess game that has evolved in this country then takes over, where there's so many reasons to excuse murder. If the state has to prove intent to kill, if alcohol reduces that intent to kill, if provocation reduces

that intent to kill. We also don't have laws where the person that drove the car up to the home invasion people go in and kill somebody and come back out that person's not involved. And in America, there's this instant connection. If you're involved in the commission of a rape, involved in a commission of a murder, it are pardon me, a theft, and a homicide occurs, then you were responsible

for that homicide. So it seems to be that the American judicial system assigns more responsibility for crime and the perpetrator. And in Canada we have this phenomena and again an ever worsening trend and direction of excusing almost anyone of anything.

We have the boss Beheader who cannibalized and cut off a person's head on a bus, and the psychiatric industry here in Canada, and this is a story that's in Winnipeg itself where I reside, and they are hell bent on making this their pet project, where they claim that they have medication that will render this killer cannibal harmless on medication and monitoring, and right now he's been incarcerated

in a mental institution for a little over a year. Again, they're making arrangements so that this person is escorted on the grounds that have no fence, have no precaution to protect anyone in the surrounding area, and this person they're hell bent on taking this person out for walks for fresh air. They can't just simply open a window for

this person. And I pose the question, if they have medication that renders a hannibal lecter who happens to be insane, who's capable of cannibalizing and murdering someone on a Greyhound bus, then there should be no one in the mental institution whatsoever. I mean, you should just open up the doors, hand

out those meds, and say see you later. Because if this guy can be rendered harmless through medication, then it seems to be that there is no crime whatsoever where the perpetrator could not be rendered harmless with the aid of medication. So I think it's ridiculous this trend and this conclusion that somehow, because they're not criminally responsible, then

what are we going to do. It's unconscionable for us to lock them in a mental institution, to say that they have to be in that mental institution till we determined that they're not insane, that they have no mental health issues. Instead, we're throwing caution to the wind and hoping that all our theories about rehabilitation and psychiatry and these wonder drugs from the pharmaceutical companies will do their job.

And I do not buy into this for a second, and I believe that if this sort of mindset can be acceptable here, I'm not saying that America at any time in the near future will have this same situation in their laps. But you can see that there are a fair amount of people. If a true crime author, a noted journalist, a veteran true crime author, examines the case of serial killer Gary Hilton realizes that this person robbed, he may have tortured, had a van set up for abduction.

This person spent a fair amount of time calculating what he was going to do, inflicting pain to rob these person first of their ATM cards and then ask him for the push them for the numbers, and then when he didn't need these people anymore, he killed them. A cold and calculating serial killer that an author who has handled the case or written about the case, attended the trial, looked at all the evidence, and then that person says,

you know, I don't think he's criminally responsible. Again, then what then, what do we do with a serial killer who's killed four people? What do we do with a cardiologist that's capable of stabbing his children forty nine times. Well, what do we do do we say, Well, we're going to put them in an institution indeterminate amount of time.

And then again a psychiatric tribunal, psychiatrists. Again, the people that believed he was not criminally responsible are now going to again the same occupation, These same professionals, from the same mindset are going to determine when this person is

able to go out in the community. Again, these people so convinced that they have this incredible medicine, this incredible drug that renders people harmless, that we're capable of sawing off a person's head and then cannibalizing certain body parts. A cardiologist, because his wife is screwing around with his friend, figures, I'll drink window wash or fluid. Did he know that was not going to kill him? Did he realize that? Did he go on the internet to make up an

excuse for later in his defense? Does he know that much about the law? Does it even matter? Because the logic that twisted logic, Well, my kids won't have a father, so i'll take him out. Well, then take Why did you stab him forty nine times? Again? Is that evidence of an unclear mind? And because he is the overkill evidence that he was insane temporarily Should we excuse temporary insanity?

Can't we all say we were temporarily insane, that we don't quite remember everything, when we do flip out, when we do get mad, when we do get so angry that we throw the telephone against the wall, when we grab someone. Couldn't we all use that defense? Won't we all use that defense? It's incredible the development and the influence of psychiatry in court decisions. There is no cat scan, there's no brain scan to determine some of these things. So it is open to a certain amount, a fair amount,

maybe an incredible amount of interpretation an opinion. Obviously, if you have a psychiatrist for the defense, you have a psychiatrist for the prosecution, and they disagree, well then it's not so clear cut. It's obviously not determinable by an X ray or a brain scan. So again it's not conclusive what these people are saying. It's their expert opinion, and then we render these the court enters them experts, experts in psychology and psychiatry and the mind and how

the mind works. So I'm not I'm not speaking to a primarily a Canadian audience, and I'm glad I'm not speaking to a Canadian audience because I I don't have much patience for people that just can accept, just by their nature, the goodness of everyone, and and and again by extension, the honesty of the psychiatrist, and the the again the ethics of the lawyer, that everybody is. Nobody is trying to get their client off if their client

is guilty. There's no impetus. There is no motivation for these people to actually lie or evade incarceration, or evade telling the truth. This cardiologist has a successful career, he's a doctor. He's probably helped a lot. So what it doesn't matter. He's not any better than anyone else, because we're dealing with this heinous crime and two children dead. This Gary Michael Hilton was a con man, but he

served in the Vietnam War. He got an honorable discharge, so technically he's a war hero or he served his country. So again, Gary Michael Hilton is not ge Turcotte. But in the end, both of these people murdered. Both these people calculated to a certain degree, they're both killers. What do we do? Garry Michael Hilton got the death penalty. Guy Turcott will be out in a short period of time,

and will they be practicing medicine again? Even more outrage now, I noticed that no one called in this evening, and I should have put up that this was a kind of program that I could. I would ask for people to call in, And I know that not too many people listen to the program live, but listen to it

archive at their own convenience. So if there are anyone that would like to weigh in, give me an opinion about what about the program itself and what they believe about some of the commentary i'mant tonight, it would mean a lot to me if I could get that again last week. I do apologize for the guests going off on a tangent and me not being able to correl them back. But for those people would like to listen.

In the second hour, we do cover his book completely, very much like I normally do in a program, and all the talk about Canada and all the talk about America and the guest apologizing for Americans really rankled a lot of the listeners out there listening to the program. So I apologize for bringing politics into the equation. At all,

because that's not really what we're here for. That being said, I did an editorial program because I just believe this case really clearly demonstrates the situation that we're in here in Canada, the differences in our judicial systems and the differences in people's attitudes towards these types of crimes and these types of verdicts. So I wanted to bring that to the attention of my mostly American and international audience, and you can compare it to the jurisdictions that you

were in. And again, if you're outraged over this verdict and what I have to say, or you just disagree with me vehemently and like to set me straight, please contact me and I'd be more than happy to respond to your comments, and I welcome them. I want to thank you very much for listening tonight, even listening to the program True Murder the most shocking killers in true crime history, and the authors have written about them. Thanks for joining me. Good night,