Speaker 1: Hello, it is Ryan, and we could all use an
Speaker 1: extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we just to
Speaker 1: make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes,
Speaker 1: counting or steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That
Speaker 1: is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino.
Speaker 1: Chumbuck Casino has all your favorite social casino style games.
Speaker 1: You can play for free, anytime anywhere with daily bonuses.
Speaker 1: That's your brighten your day, Lowe actually a lot, so
Speaker 1: sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com. That's Chumbuck
Speaker 1: Casino dot com.
Speaker 2: No purchace necessary dtailoid overhibit like losty terms and conditions eighteen plus.
Speaker 2: With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 3: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 3: the bride and groom?
Speaker 4: Sorry?
Speaker 2: Sorry, we're here. We were getting lucky in the limo
Speaker 2: when we lost track of time.
Speaker 1: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 1: quicker than a guess registered.
Speaker 2: But in that case, I pronounce you lucky. Play for
Speaker 2: free at Lucky Landslots dot com. Daily bonuses are waiting.
Speaker 2: No purchase necessary boid, We're prohibited by Long eighteen plus
Speaker 2: terms and conditions applying See website for detail.
Speaker 1: Loop Host Radio.
Speaker 3: You are now listening to True Murder, The most Shocking
Speaker 3: Killers in True Crime History and the authors that have
Speaker 3: written about them Gasey Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker VTK. Every
Speaker 3: week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and
Speaker 3: infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host,
Speaker 3: journalist and author Dan Zupansky.
Speaker 4: Good evening, This is your host Dan Zupanski for the
Speaker 4: program True Murder, The most Shocking Killers in True crime
Speaker 4: History and the authors that have written about them. In
Speaker 4: February two thousand and nine, Guy Turcott, a cardiologist, stabbed
Speaker 4: his two young children and Sophie three and Olivier Olivier
Speaker 4: five forty six times while they were lying in their beds.
Speaker 4: Turcott admitted to the killings, but in the subsequent murder
Speaker 4: trial he claimed he could not recall carrying them out.
Speaker 4: The Guee Turcotte murder trowe was one of the most
Speaker 4: closely followed in recent history in Canada, both horrifying and
Speaker 4: captivating the public. The jury deliberated for five days deciding
Speaker 4: on the fate of the cardiologists charged with first degree
Speaker 4: murder in the deaths of his children. The trial hinged
Speaker 4: on Turcott's state of mind at the time of the
Speaker 4: February two thousand and nine slayings. Was he trying to
Speaker 4: get revenge on his estranged wife a fellow doctor, for
Speaker 4: cheating on him with a mutual friend, or was he
Speaker 4: a sick man who had lost all reason. Turcott's lawyers
Speaker 4: argued he had been rendered temporarily insane over the recent
Speaker 4: breakup of his marriage with miss Gaston. In the July verdict,
Speaker 4: a jury found he was not criminally responsible for his actions.
Speaker 4: In September, Turcott faced a five person mental health tribunal
Speaker 4: to determine whether he should be released or whether he
Speaker 4: should be detained for another year. As the mental health
Speaker 4: tribunal decided whether to set Ghee Turcott free, hundreds of
Speaker 4: protesters gathered in fourteen Quebec cities calling for an overall
Speaker 4: of the justice system. Crown prosecutors are now seeking a
Speaker 4: retrial for Turcott, arguing that the judge aired in law
Speaker 4: in his instructions to the jury, the program this evening
Speaker 4: we're discussing is not criminally responsible, travesty of justice, and
Speaker 4: that this will be an editorial program where I will
Speaker 4: welcome people to call in after they get the gist
Speaker 4: of the program, and that number is three four seven
Speaker 4: two three seven four zero zero six four three four
Speaker 4: seven two three seven four zero six four. So if
Speaker 4: you have an opinion once we get about maybe ten
Speaker 4: fifteen minutes into the program, and you're a regular listener
Speaker 4: and want to weigh in on the subject itself, on
Speaker 4: your opinion on what you think about this, please carefully
Speaker 4: consider what has been said in the fifteen minutes, and
Speaker 4: then I welcome you to call in if you like,
Speaker 4: or just listen to the rest of the program, as
Speaker 4: I think there'll be some relevant issues for everybody listening
Speaker 4: right now. True crime fans everywhere will be interested in
Speaker 4: this case, and I'll explain why even people in America
Speaker 4: might find this shocking, and I'll explain why I think
Speaker 4: people in America might want to pay attention to this
Speaker 4: verdict in Canada. Now, this Geettercott, like I mentioned, is
Speaker 4: a prominent cardiology living in Montreal, one of the biggest
Speaker 4: cities in Canada, and he had discovered an email after
Speaker 4: his wife had filed for divorce or they were separated,
Speaker 4: and this email he found a confidential correspondence with his
Speaker 4: wife and a mutual friend of his and his wife's
Speaker 4: who she now he learned through this email was she
Speaker 4: was carrying on an affair with this person that was
Speaker 4: his mutual friend and well mutual friend of both of them.
Speaker 4: So this created this precipitated this situation. Anyway, Now, what
Speaker 4: Geeturkoud did was on the evening in question is he
Speaker 4: went online and researched how to commit suicide and apparently
Speaker 4: decided for some reason that window washer fluid would do
Speaker 4: the trick, and ingested some of this window washer fluid.
Speaker 4: And then again, this is the only way we'll ever
Speaker 4: find this out is from his account of what happened.
Speaker 4: He said he then contemplated the life of his three
Speaker 4: year old daughter and his five year old son and
Speaker 4: thought that they would it would be horrible for them
Speaker 4: to not have a father. So, in this twisted logic
Speaker 4: that he had at that time, he decided to stab
Speaker 4: them forty nine times all together between the two forty
Speaker 4: nine times, so an obvious overkill. Forty nine times he
Speaker 4: stabbed his own children. Now, previous to this, he had
Speaker 4: a journal separation, been angered at his wife and come
Speaker 4: and came to the family home that he has now
Speaker 4: been locked out of his own home. And everyone can
Speaker 4: probably understand this would make most people angry. He punched
Speaker 4: his wife, or now his ex wife, Miss Gaston, punched
Speaker 4: her in the face. So in subsequent emails he had
Speaker 4: used the words, if you want a war, you're going
Speaker 4: to have a war. Now, I believe there's a difference
Speaker 4: in Canadian law. Anybody's listening to this program quite steadily
Speaker 4: will know that. In my opinion, and it's not even opinion. Factually,
Speaker 4: this country starts with second degree murder and then proceeds
Speaker 4: with the possibility of manslaughter as a potential outcome. Rarely
Speaker 4: are defendants charged initially with first degree murder. Now, for
Speaker 4: those in the US realizing that first degree murder is
Speaker 4: there's supposed to be some form of premeditation, and that's
Speaker 4: where the Canadians get hung up on. They say, well,
Speaker 4: there was no premeditation, but in America, just a few seconds,
Speaker 4: just a split second of thirty seconds, a minute of
Speaker 4: any kind of planning would qualify then potentially. And I'm
Speaker 4: dumbing this down completely, and I apologize for those legal
Speaker 4: those people that know the law better than I that
Speaker 4: this would qualify potentially for first degree murder in this country,
Speaker 4: because we seem to have a different definition of this
Speaker 4: first degree. What we have is that we normally start
Speaker 4: with second degree murder charges and then with the possibility
Speaker 4: for that defendant of manslaughter. In America seems to be
Speaker 4: either in a death penalty state first degree murder, second
Speaker 4: degree murder, and then three differ degrees in manslaughter. And
Speaker 4: I think that might even depend on state to state
Speaker 4: being some differences. I'm not sure anyway, Getting back to
Speaker 4: Ghee Turkott, now, what happened is I mentioned in the
Speaker 4: opening that the jury found Gee Turkott not criminally responsible
Speaker 4: for the killings, and you can ask, well, how could
Speaker 4: he not be responsible if he admitted to the killings,
Speaker 4: because the state or our government has the onus to
Speaker 4: prove that he had the necessary intent to kill if
Speaker 4: he didn't have an intent to kill, And again, the
Speaker 4: state has to prove that he had the intent to kill,
Speaker 4: not the other way around. He does not have to
Speaker 4: prove that he had no intent to kill. The state
Speaker 4: has to prove that he had an intent to kill.
Speaker 4: Without the intent to kill, there is no murder. Now,
Speaker 4: the jury had the possibility of first degree murder, which
Speaker 4: he was charged with for the two children, second degree
Speaker 4: murder manslaughter which is greatly reduced for murder in terms
Speaker 4: of sentencing, and then in this case, not criminally responsible.
Speaker 4: So the defense put forward psychiatric experts, psychiatrists that were
Speaker 4: reconsidered expert witnesses, and they felt that in his altered state,
Speaker 4: I guess from the combination of the window washer fluid,
Speaker 4: but really it was the overall mental state that this
Speaker 4: person found themselves in an odd moment, a out of
Speaker 4: character moment, and had stabbed his children forty nine times.
Speaker 4: And the psychiatrists for the defense, along with the defense
Speaker 4: team and their strategy, convinced the jury, and they must
Speaker 4: have done an adequate job for the jury to believe
Speaker 4: that he was not criminally responsible for his actions. He
Speaker 4: did not have an intent to kill, apparently because of
Speaker 4: his altered thinking, his altered state of mind, and they
Speaker 4: were convinced that he was not criminally responsible. Now, for
Speaker 4: those that listened last week and for those that didn't,
Speaker 4: I'll just do a little bit of a recap. I
Speaker 4: was interviewing a gentleman named Fred Rosen, And for those
Speaker 4: that did comment and quite a few people contacted me. Yes,
Speaker 4: the hour of the interview was two hours instead of
Speaker 4: one hour because the one hour, Fred seemed to want
Speaker 4: to talk about everything, bought his book for that hour,
Speaker 4: so I indulged him, and I got caught up in
Speaker 4: his tangents, I would say, but we talked about a
Speaker 4: lot of things, and many many people commented that they
Speaker 4: weren't so interested in this banter whatsoever. They really just
Speaker 4: enjoy hearing about the books from the authors, the authors
Speaker 4: explaining their books. But why bring up Fred Rosen is
Speaker 4: because Fred Rosen in his book acted like the consummate
Speaker 4: journalist and just presented the facts and let the audience,
Speaker 4: the reader, determine whether this serial killer, Gary Hilton, had
Speaker 4: a organic brain disorder, an event that precipitated him not
Speaker 4: being criminally responsible for his actions much years later, when
Speaker 4: oddly enough, he seemed to become a serial killer at
Speaker 4: fifty eight or fifty nine years of age and went
Speaker 4: on to kill three or four people in total. And
Speaker 4: so when he has described this person as a psychopathic,
Speaker 4: devious con man who ends up later being a killer,
Speaker 4: I found it surprising that Fred Rosen had concluded that, yes,
Speaker 4: this person wasn't he didn't think was criminally responsible for
Speaker 4: his actions and certainly should not have been put on
Speaker 4: death row. Now, I don't want to get back into
Speaker 4: that debate or not, but he did have sympathy for
Speaker 4: this killer and believed the defense that this killer, Gary Hilton,
Speaker 4: had had an injury that rendered him incapable of being
Speaker 4: responsible for his crimes later in life for those murders
Speaker 4: and I and they say, even if you do agree
Speaker 4: with that, then what do we do now? Getting back
Speaker 4: to this case, it's similar, And this is the why
Speaker 4: I've drawn them both together, is that if you believe that, yes,
Speaker 4: this cardiologist, this upstanding doctor, a member of the community,
Speaker 4: and I'm sure they provided ample evidence of this person
Speaker 4: not having a murderous reputation or intentions or background or
Speaker 4: behavior that would indicate something like this, that if he's
Speaker 4: not criminally responsible for the deaths of his children, this
Speaker 4: was an odd moment out of character, that he was
Speaker 4: consumed by his anger and depression and rejection, whatever way
Speaker 4: you would like to describe it. And now in this
Speaker 4: particular case, he is put into a mental institution and
Speaker 4: a psychiatric tribunal is going to decide whether he just
Speaker 4: goes home in a short period of time, or he's
Speaker 4: kept for another year. As you read another year, like
Speaker 4: something will go on in that year of treatment. So
Speaker 4: I asked a question for our audience and just for
Speaker 4: the listener for themselves to think and contemplate, what do
Speaker 4: you do with this person that's not criminally responsible. If
Speaker 4: they just had an odd moment, then what we call
Speaker 4: in Canada, he would be not insane by any standards
Speaker 4: that we normally apply. So if he's not insane per se,
Speaker 4: then he had an insane moment. And there has been
Speaker 4: defenses that I've spoken about before in Canada insane automatism
Speaker 4: and non insane automatism, where basically the person is rendered
Speaker 4: a robot, not conscious in the normal state, not again
Speaker 4: responsible for their criminal actions because of this altered state,
Speaker 4: this automaton that they become. But if there's a non
Speaker 4: insane automatism, then this person snapped lost it as they call,
Speaker 4: we use whatever description like, and otherwise this person, as
Speaker 4: the psychiatrists speak in Canada, not likely to re offend
Speaker 4: or yeah, not likely to reoffend. I don't know how
Speaker 4: they can make that kind of conclusion. But my question is,
Speaker 4: what do we do with killer Gary Hilton if we
Speaker 4: do conclude that yes, he had an injury where something
Speaker 4: fell on his head and had two hundred stitches to
Speaker 4: his head and that affected a certain portion of the brain,
Speaker 4: and that certain portion of the brain is responsible for
Speaker 4: empathy and sympathy and would render this person a psychopath
Speaker 4: without any conscience. What do we then do with these
Speaker 4: people that we've said they're not criminally responsible. Is ninety
Speaker 4: days and.
Speaker 2: Judy was boring Hello. Then Judy discovered Chumba Casino dot com.
Speaker 2: It's my little escape. Now Judy's the life of the party.
Speaker 2: Oh baby, mama is bringing home the bacon. Who take
Speaker 2: it easy, Judy. The Chumba life is for everybody. So
Speaker 2: go to chumbacasino dot com and play over one hundred
Speaker 2: casino style games joined today and play for free. Bring
Speaker 2: your chance to redeem some serious prices. Jump A casino
Speaker 2: dot coms were promitted by terms and conditions, deals and.
Speaker 4: A mental institution to determine whether these people are not
Speaker 4: at by definition insane, Then what do we do? And
Speaker 4: I think what we have in the decision in Montreal, Canada,
Speaker 4: and I did throw in that this was one of
Speaker 4: the most closely followed in recent history in Canada. That's incorrect.
Speaker 4: What happened was in fourteen cities in one province, and
Speaker 4: we have ten or eleven provinces. That what we have
Speaker 4: is the Decision two in that in that province itself
Speaker 4: resonated among the primarily French Canadian population that dominates Quebec
Speaker 4: in terms of population. Fourteen cities there were and I
Speaker 4: don't even know how big I read one was one
Speaker 4: hundred people at this protest. So the fact that that
Speaker 4: fourteen cities were going to have some form of protest
Speaker 4: is significant in Canada. There was a Facebook page with
Speaker 4: twenty seven thousand signatures, for example. But to compare anything
Speaker 4: that resonates in the United States, some of the cases, well,
Speaker 4: the biggest obviously the Casey Anthony case recently, but there
Speaker 4: have been many cases that have seemed to resonate with
Speaker 4: the public over the years, and every year, in every
Speaker 4: few months, there's some case that dominates the headlines and
Speaker 4: seems to captivate the imagination of people. In America, we
Speaker 4: have a case here where, for the most part, it
Speaker 4: was reported nationally, a national news story, and it just
Speaker 4: didn't seem to outrage the people of Canada, and again,
Speaker 4: I don't know what would I'm even the Robert Picton case,
Speaker 4: all kinds of other incredible cases do not seem to
Speaker 4: have the ability or the power to outrage an entire nation,
Speaker 4: to create debate, to create discussions, to have some sort
Speaker 4: of political ramifications for something to change as a result
Speaker 4: of people complaining and protesting and calling out and expressing
Speaker 4: their outrage. So what we have here actually is a
Speaker 4: primarily phenomena that happened in one province in Canada and
Speaker 4: the rest we're looking at this case. For example, I'm
Speaker 4: sitting in the middle of Canada and I talk and
Speaker 4: I'm talking to people and they mentioned had seen the
Speaker 4: Casey Anthony verdict. Well, Canadians are just like Americans. We
Speaker 4: watched the same television program, so we're aware of the
Speaker 4: Casey Anthony case. Of course, it isn't as important to
Speaker 4: us as Canadians as it is to Americans, especially in
Speaker 4: people in the areas that were affected in Florida and
Speaker 4: in that area. But we still it's a good example
Speaker 4: of someone randomly speaking to me about a case and
Speaker 4: not being aware of a case that should definitely give
Speaker 4: as much pause to consider. But also elicted some form
Speaker 4: of outrage once they were notified of this case, that
Speaker 4: they weren't aware of this case at all, but aware
Speaker 4: of the Casey Anthony case. Again, Casey Anthony was convicted
Speaker 4: on circumstantial evidence. This cardiologist killed his children, admitted killing
Speaker 4: his children, stabbed them forty nine times with example evident,
Speaker 4: and yet was decided in a court of law by
Speaker 4: a jury as not criminally responsible. That's not the same
Speaker 4: as an acquittal. But in a lot of people's minds,
Speaker 4: if this person, this doctor, is released in forty five
Speaker 4: or ninety days, and as some people have spoken in editorials,
Speaker 4: he's likely to be able to be able to practice
Speaker 4: medicine again as well. Again, just maybe a little bit
Speaker 4: more outrage to add to the outrage already. Anyway, what
Speaker 4: I think the lesson is for Americans is that once
Speaker 4: you buy into too much psychiatry and its influence in
Speaker 4: the courts, this expert witness is a battle of expert
Speaker 4: witnesses in terms of the prosecution will have a psychiatrist
Speaker 4: that will claim the exact opposite, and another psychiatrist for
Speaker 4: the defense will claim that, yes, surely this person was
Speaker 4: not of their right mind and should be not criminally responsible.
Speaker 4: So it gets down to the entire trial coming down
Speaker 4: to two expert witnesses. And again we hold up psychiatry
Speaker 4: as something that we normally the layman does not understand whatsoever.
Speaker 4: So we have a hard time arguing or disputing any
Speaker 4: psychiatric evaluation. So it is a matter of which psychiatric
Speaker 4: experts end up being the better witness at a trial.
Speaker 4: And these cases, either it can muddy the waters or
Speaker 4: it can, certainly in this particular case, go from a
Speaker 4: first degree murder conviction to a not criminal responsible, incredibly
Speaker 4: different outcome in terms of sentence and in every way
Speaker 4: completely different for the victims and the families of the victims,
Speaker 4: and the entire judicial system itself. So I believe that
Speaker 4: if we buy into too much the excuses or not
Speaker 4: criminally responsible, what we have is well, then what do
Speaker 4: we do In the case of Gary Hilton? What would
Speaker 4: we do if we were to believe that somehow or
Speaker 4: other this was not of his volition, It was not
Speaker 4: his fault that he robbed, killed, disposed of these human beings.
Speaker 4: What would we then do with him? If we were
Speaker 4: to put him in a mental institution? Then what is
Speaker 4: the sentence in a mental institution till he's well for
Speaker 4: a certain prescribed period of time. Would that do the trick?
Speaker 4: What would suffice and what would we all be able
Speaker 4: to agree on? And probably not much. The idea that
Speaker 4: this person would be capable and then not, of course
Speaker 4: not be responsible, then we would say, well, then we
Speaker 4: would keep him in a mental institution because we do
Speaker 4: not know what that person is capable of. In the
Speaker 4: case of this cardiologist, we have a person that probably
Speaker 4: has a squeaky clean background, nothing but a stellar record
Speaker 4: of education and work. But regardless of that, I don't
Speaker 4: think that that should necessarily negate any kind of idea
Speaker 4: that this person cannot and will not, at any other
Speaker 4: time in the future re offend to some extent in
Speaker 4: his violent nature. That's just my take on it. Again,
Speaker 4: probably the circumstances that came together in this perfect storm
Speaker 4: to create this incredible murder of his children will probably
Speaker 4: not exist again. Well that's doesn't have any children left,
Speaker 4: there is likely not to happen again. But that does
Speaker 4: not mean that somehow or other a psychiatrist can say
Speaker 4: with any kind of certainty that this person is again
Speaker 4: less likely to reoffend. That's a reason not to punish
Speaker 4: this person, not to incarcerate this person for the killings
Speaker 4: of his children. So it is again I think it's
Speaker 4: something that's not an easy question. It's not an easy decision.
Speaker 4: But I would like to if anyone who's listening to
Speaker 4: the program right now, please give me a call at
Speaker 4: three four seven two three seven four zero sixty four
Speaker 4: and you can weigh in on this subject. Just for
Speaker 4: those that are going to be tuning in next week
Speaker 4: and in the near future and may not listen to
Speaker 4: this entire program, I want to tell you that coming
Speaker 4: up next week is again on the program for an
Speaker 4: encore performance is run francel with his latest book, A
Speaker 4: Sour Toe Cocktail, And it's a little different in that it
Speaker 4: really has nothing to do with any major murder or crime,
Speaker 4: but it really does have everything to do with Ron Fransell,
Speaker 4: who is a best selling true crime author, a very
Speaker 4: good author, author of The Darkest Night and Delivered from
Speaker 4: Evil and a host of other true crime books. He
Speaker 4: has a legion of fans. He's a very good writer,
Speaker 4: and he's a very good interview And he had told
Speaker 4: me on a previous program that he had planned he
Speaker 4: was planning a trip with his son, a dream, a trip,
Speaker 4: a vacation, once in a lifetime opportunity to go with
Speaker 4: his son to Alaska and that entire adventure. And so
Speaker 4: I will use the opportunity because he has a book
Speaker 4: called The Sauertool Cocktail, and we'll be able to talk
Speaker 4: to him about this life changing experience that he had
Speaker 4: planned for many, many years and how that went. And
Speaker 4: we will talk about his life writing, his career writing
Speaker 4: true crime, what he's learned, some of the surprises, some
Speaker 4: of the things that he did not anticipate, what happened
Speaker 4: in his journey as a true crime writer, and we'll
Speaker 4: talk about his new books Hour to a Cocktail and
Speaker 4: the entire experience. Ron Francell again is a great interview
Speaker 4: and a great author, and we're going to have on
Speaker 4: September twenty first. The book will be called The Crime
Speaker 4: Buff's Guide to the Outlaw Rockies, so geographically speaking, everywhere
Speaker 4: that is important in true crime history, to some of
Speaker 4: the locations involved in Ted Bundy, the Columbine Massacre, and
Speaker 4: a host of other famous and infamous true crimes and
Speaker 4: where they existed geographically, and it's The Crime Buff's Guide
Speaker 4: to the Outlaw Rockies. It seems the West Coast has
Speaker 4: it's an incredible share of serial killers and their sordid stories.
Speaker 4: October fourth is going to be the Sour Till Cocktail.
Speaker 4: Pardon me for mixing up order of things. That's Ron Franzell.
Speaker 4: And again Ron Francell September twenty first with The Crime
Speaker 4: Buff's Guide to the Outlaw Rockies. So that will be interesting.
Speaker 4: Two books from a very very good author, Ron Francell.
Speaker 4: After that we were going to have at some point
Speaker 4: and I just got the book today. It got sidetracked
Speaker 4: in the mail and she fast tracked me another coffee.
Speaker 4: This is a case that again captured the imagination of
Speaker 4: the American people and in an international audience in a
Speaker 4: huge way. This is the book about the trials of
Speaker 4: Amanda Knox and this the author is Nina Burleigh, and
Speaker 4: it's called The Fatal Gift of Beauty. And so it
Speaker 4: is the case of the sexually violent murder of twenty
Speaker 4: one year old British student Meredith Kircher in Perugia, Italy,
Speaker 4: on the night of November first, two thousand and seven.
Speaker 4: The story became an international sensation when one of Kircher's
Speaker 4: housemates twenty year old Seattle native Amanda Knox, as well
Speaker 4: as her Italian boyfriend and a troubled vocal man. Knock
Speaker 4: said she vaguely knew were arrested in charge with Meredith
Speaker 4: Kircher's murder. So that will be an interesting case. I
Speaker 4: don't know much about this case at all. I just
Speaker 4: didn't pay attention when I saw the news accounts. I
Speaker 4: really don't like hearing sensational headlines and not much follow
Speaker 4: up information, so I didn't pay attention to those coming
Speaker 4: from people like Nancy Grace ranting and raving at the
Speaker 4: top of her lungs about Amanda Knox and anyway, that
Speaker 4: will be a very very interesting program that would come
Speaker 4: up very soon. I contacted someone just recently from someone
Speaker 4: that contacted me through blog talk radio and suggested that
Speaker 4: I look into a book from an author named Yvonne Mason,
Speaker 4: and it's called Silent Scream. So of course I followed
Speaker 4: that up. It looked like a very interesting story and
Speaker 4: an interesting book. And Yvonne Mason will be on October
Speaker 4: the twelfth and with her book Silent Scream, and so
Speaker 4: we have a host of other possibilities trying to get
Speaker 4: the lawyer for John Wayne Gacy and has appeared on
Speaker 4: My Friend and a Friend of the program Burro Bear
Speaker 4: with his True Crime Uncensored program with Don Woldman in
Speaker 4: Los Angeles. They've had him on a couple of times.
Speaker 4: Sam and it's now a judge, but he was a
Speaker 4: lawyer for John Wayne Gacy and infamous or famous John
Speaker 4: Wayne Gacy, one of the most fascinating serial killers of
Speaker 4: all time, gave a confession to Sam Amarante, making Sam
Speaker 4: Amaranti the lawyer for John Wayne Gacy. Very put him
Speaker 4: in a very very awkward position, especially given you're trying
Speaker 4: to defend this guy. So it would be a very
Speaker 4: interesting story. And Burle has assured me that he will
Speaker 4: put the buccaneer for Sam Amaranti, who's now a judge,
Speaker 4: and we can talk about the John Wayne Gase John
Speaker 4: Wayne Gacy case, very very very fascinating murderer and fascinating
Speaker 4: case in every single way. If you do get a chance.
Speaker 4: There's an excellent book. I've been trying to get this person,
Speaker 4: who still has a thriving law business to come on.
Speaker 4: He has written one of the classics killer Clown. His
Speaker 4: name is Terry Sullivan and This is the book that
Speaker 4: you really should read about. There are a host of
Speaker 4: books about John Wayne Gacy, but if you do get
Speaker 4: a chance, Killer Clown has been around for many, many years.
Speaker 4: It is fantastic, scary, and unforgettable. So Killer Clown do
Speaker 4: yourself a favor if you haven't checked this out. This
Speaker 4: is one of the most incredible stories of all So,
Speaker 4: getting back to the Gee Turcott story, the cardiologists estabbed
Speaker 4: as children, we have a people that I found interesting
Speaker 4: when I read articles about the case is that people
Speaker 4: were clamoring to be in attendance at this trial to
Speaker 4: get the few seats that were in the courtroom.
Speaker 1: Lucky Land Casino, asking people, what's the weirdest place you've
Speaker 1: gotten lucky?
Speaker 2: Lucky?
Speaker 1: In line at the Delhi I guess ah, in my
Speaker 1: dentist's office more than once. Actually do I have to say?
Speaker 3: Yes? You do?
Speaker 2: In the car for my kids PTA meeting? Really yes,
Speaker 2: excuse me? What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky? I
Speaker 2: never win?
Speaker 3: And tell well, there you have it.
Speaker 1: You can get lucky anywhere playing at Lucky landslaughts dot
Speaker 1: com play for free right now?
Speaker 2: Are you feeling lucky? We're just necessary aid my long
Speaker 2: eighteen plus terms conditions, plus every else to.
Speaker 4: Be able to witness what was going on, and when
Speaker 4: those people were interviewed afterwards, there was far there was
Speaker 4: an incredible amount of sympathy for the jury and for
Speaker 4: the jury's verdict itself, and people seem to understand. So
Speaker 4: I don't know what I was missing out of this,
Speaker 4: but I know that it's a case that outraged me
Speaker 4: immediately after reading about this, and I really am disappointed
Speaker 4: that it hasn't gained more ground in the rest of Canada.
Speaker 4: We really should have your protest all across Canada for
Speaker 4: the ramifications of this trial. This trial will, as they say,
Speaker 4: I'm not sure for sure, but legal experts say it's
Speaker 4: unlikely to become a precedent setting case. But regardless, this
Speaker 4: seems to be the evolution of the Canadian judicial system
Speaker 4: where we seem to more and more and more understand
Speaker 4: the killer, feel sorry for the killer, excuse the killer,
Speaker 4: and I just think it's a wrong trend. I think
Speaker 4: it's the wrong direction for our judicial system to go.
Speaker 4: We have a reigning conservative government that has has come
Speaker 4: the power on a tough on crime platform, and yet
Speaker 4: even though they've addressed a couple things that are very
Speaker 4: problematic in terms of of dealing with the most serious criminals.
Speaker 4: They still, I mean, as conservative as they are, they
Speaker 4: still do not seem to get what the people are
Speaker 4: upset about in Canada. They have no faith in the
Speaker 4: judicial system whatsoever, so they're not you know, they're not
Speaker 4: consulting with Canadians to find out exactly what Canadians would want.
Speaker 4: It's just a platform of tough on crime without really
Speaker 4: addressing that we still don't have an actual life sentence.
Speaker 4: We don't have a mechanism that actually can keep anyone
Speaker 4: in for their entire life, regardless of how many murders
Speaker 4: they've done, or how many rapes they've done, or how
Speaker 4: many children they've abducted and kidnapped and sexually assaulted. It
Speaker 4: doesn't seem to make any difference. We just do not
Speaker 4: have an event that can jar people's minds, the public's
Speaker 4: minds into asking demanding that we actually have an actual
Speaker 4: life sentence without the possibility of parole. And where we
Speaker 4: have a problem is that we don't even have consecutive sentencing.
Speaker 4: If you've killed Robert picton evidence of thirty three murders,
Speaker 4: he only has one murder conviction. It just seems ludicrous
Speaker 4: that someone would have to go through the motions if
Speaker 4: you think to give this grant this person a parole
Speaker 4: hearing when everyone knows that he is likely to not
Speaker 4: be released from prison. Now, however, when you're comparing thirty
Speaker 4: three to one, we seem to then considered one not
Speaker 4: so serious a certain amount of time in prison as rehabilitation,
Speaker 4: even though it's just a certain amount of time in prison.
Speaker 4: And so these people are eventually released back into the community,
Speaker 4: and that's the kind of language we talk about. Well,
Speaker 4: these people will eventually be released back in the community,
Speaker 4: so we have to prepare them for the community. We
Speaker 4: have to let them out a couple of years before
Speaker 4: their earliest parole day to prepare them for their eventual
Speaker 4: release into the community. We ended our death penalties sometime
Speaker 4: in the fifties and in real terms in practice, and
Speaker 4: then officially in the sixties, and so at that time
Speaker 4: we also throughout actual life sentence. So we went from
Speaker 4: having the death penalty to not having an actual life sentence.
Speaker 4: And then somewhere along the line, I do not know
Speaker 4: how this could have been justified. We don't even have
Speaker 4: consecutive sentencing, even for multiple murder. And the evolution has
Speaker 4: been obviously gradual. We were a very punitive country, harsh
Speaker 4: sentences for even minor crime not so long ago, thirty
Speaker 4: years ago, forty years ago, twenty five years ago. So
Speaker 4: we have seemed to think we've evolved into this kinder,
Speaker 4: gentler population that believes in restorative justice rather than punitive
Speaker 4: and justice. And we don't believe in deterrence as much
Speaker 4: as rehabilitation. And I believe in all these concepts for
Speaker 4: certain crimes that certainly are more apt to be reasonable
Speaker 4: for rehabilitation. If someone were to steal, and you were
Speaker 4: to make them work and to pay back restitution for
Speaker 4: the money that they would have stolen, and if these
Speaker 4: people had to come to this decision that if they
Speaker 4: were to go to jail, then they would have to work.
Speaker 4: So when they are free, then they have the decision
Speaker 4: to work and make much more money and enjoy their freedom.
Speaker 4: I think it's a simple. I think it's oversimplifying the situation.
Speaker 4: But there are people that can rehabilitate themselves from looking
Speaker 4: at the options, looking at the pros and the cons.
Speaker 4: When we're talking about killers and rapists and pedophiles and
Speaker 4: psychopathic personalities in general, that have no conscience, that would
Speaker 4: rip off your granny of every cent that she has
Speaker 4: and not think anything of it, and people that have
Speaker 4: no conscience when it comes to these violent crimes. Then
Speaker 4: we're talking about people that even the experts will say,
Speaker 4: these people can't be rehabilitated. So I think that when
Speaker 4: we in America those that would like to Again, I
Speaker 4: don't believe death only because there are errors and I
Speaker 4: don't want to have that on my hands. But I
Speaker 4: do understand the thirst or the desire for the death
Speaker 4: penalty for these heinous crimes, for these unconsciable killers. I
Speaker 4: do understand it coming from the victims' families or from
Speaker 4: other people that are affected, or from society in general.
Speaker 4: And I do also understand it it is a safeguard
Speaker 4: for somebody who might be a liberal minded governor to
Speaker 4: maybe let these people out or commute their sentence, or
Speaker 4: maybe again a liberal minded appeals courts. So I understand that.
Speaker 4: But at the same time I think that we have
Speaker 4: I think it should be adequate that you were to
Speaker 4: incarcerate this person for their natural life in a cell
Speaker 4: in a prison. I think has to be enough. It
Speaker 4: just has to be enough, because really, what we're talking
Speaker 4: about is not deterrence, it's not rehabilitation, it's not denunciation.
Speaker 4: It is protection of society. So I think that's what
Speaker 4: we have to keep our keep our eye focused on,
Speaker 4: is that it's just public safety. It's not revenge, it's
Speaker 4: not punishment, it's not retribution. So I think that what
Speaker 4: we're going to do is going to have something in
Speaker 4: Canada that has to have a spark and outrage in Canada,
Speaker 4: some case that hasn't happened before. Like I said that
Speaker 4: Robert picton the Bernardo Hamalca case, again very very outrageous.
Speaker 4: The case I was involved with Sidney Tier, the psycho
Speaker 4: killer who wanted to write his letters and be famous
Speaker 4: and butchered a human just to do so. Clifford Olson,
Speaker 4: who killed ten children and then blackmailed the government into
Speaker 4: paying him ten thousand dollars per body, ten bodies, ten
Speaker 4: thousand dollars per body to show them where those graves were.
Speaker 4: And this person still laughing at the federal government, just
Speaker 4: told the federal government last year that he'd been saving
Speaker 4: up a pension old age pension while he was in prison.
Speaker 4: Of course, a tough on crime government had no idea.
Speaker 4: So we have these people that are reviled, but we
Speaker 4: only have a handful of these cases, and we don't
Speaker 4: seem to learn much from them. There isn't much real
Speaker 4: debate other than wow, how could these people become who
Speaker 4: they are? And I couldn't tell by looking at them,
Speaker 4: and they seem to be so normal. Our latest case
Speaker 4: was a a prestigious colonel in the military, Colonel Williams,
Speaker 4: who was raping and killing his neighbors when they finally
Speaker 4: caught up to him. This offender shared a lot of
Speaker 4: the characteristics of bt K, where he would have he
Speaker 4: was into the souvenirs and trophies. He would go into
Speaker 4: his neighbor's home and try on the young daughter's close
Speaker 4: pose in the clothes, take photos of the clothes. He
Speaker 4: later graduated escalated to rape, forcible confinement, videotaping his crimes,
Speaker 4: and then later he graduated to murder. And they finally
Speaker 4: caught up with him, and of course he exhibited all
Speaker 4: of the characteristics of a very unique serial killer. And
Speaker 4: this person now is sitting in prison. The trial happened
Speaker 4: very quickly, unlike a lot of cases. He didn't have
Speaker 4: a defense lawyer that was pleading not guilty on his behalf.
Speaker 4: He gave a confession once he realized there could be
Speaker 4: some problems for his wife. He wanted to lessen the
Speaker 4: burden for his wife, and the interviewing officer did a
Speaker 4: pretty masterful job of indicating the position that he was
Speaker 4: really in the military was outraged that this person wearing
Speaker 4: the being a decorated officer, the shame he brought to
Speaker 4: the military, and so I think they had a major
Speaker 4: influence in him not mounting any kind of defense and
Speaker 4: that this case really happened, occurred fairly quickly and ended
Speaker 4: fairly quickly, and you know, the book is out and
Speaker 4: there's not much debate about this, and the debate that
Speaker 4: really ensued out of that was, well, what could have
Speaker 4: made this again successful military person become this other person?
Speaker 4: And I don't think that's the question. We all can
Speaker 4: just watch Dexter episodes or realize that through many of
Speaker 4: the true crime stories that people have written books about
Speaker 4: that a lot of these psychopathic killers have military backgrounds.
Speaker 4: It's not that surprising whatsoever that somebody could be a
Speaker 4: respectable businessman or a reverend or the wife wouldn't know. Well,
Speaker 4: we can get that on investigation discovery, program after program
Speaker 4: after program of wife saying he was a great father,
Speaker 4: he was a good husband. I had no idea. So
Speaker 4: again we can get over that one because that's a
Speaker 4: popular refrain. I had no idea. He doesn't look like
Speaker 4: a serial killer. I knew him since we were young.
Speaker 4: Of course, these people do not reveal themselves, and that's
Speaker 4: just all you can say. These people are manipultive, they're
Speaker 4: clever for the most part, and this is something that
Speaker 4: they do that I don't think anybody could imagine that
Speaker 4: their friends would be capable of doing and how why
Speaker 4: would you even imagine something like that? So that's all
Speaker 4: we seem to learn from these things, and especially in Canada,
Speaker 4: the judicial system, like I had mentioned the Bernardo Homalka
Speaker 4: case again that Carla Hamlca was depicted as a battered
Speaker 4: woman against undue influence of psychiatry in the courtroom itself,
Speaker 4: Robert Picton of psychiatry had nothing to do with that case.
Speaker 4: He didn't really say much except to boast to an
Speaker 4: undercover officer that one more and he would have had fifty.
Speaker 4: That is more a case of the police ignoring experts
Speaker 4: saying that there was a serial killer loose, the police
Speaker 4: ignoring victims' families because of course the victims were I
Speaker 4: hate to say it, hookers. And it's not some sort
Speaker 4: of police directive to ignore the murders of people considered
Speaker 4: less important in society. But it just is human nature
Speaker 4: to not consider the drug addict or the street prostitute,
Speaker 4: or it's just in the nature of some people to
Speaker 4: ignore information coming from people that they do not consider
Speaker 4: trustworthy or reliable in terms of information. So it's human
Speaker 4: nature to dismiss some people and what they say. But
Speaker 4: you really do have this systemic situation where they did
Speaker 4: ignore that there was a serial killer running around in
Speaker 4: Vancouver killing women and did not respond till well, well
Speaker 4: until it was too late, and they could have saved
Speaker 4: lives by responding and doing things differently. So it doesn't
Speaker 4: seem like we have the focus the concerted media attention
Speaker 4: on some of these cases and analysis. I found one
Speaker 4: article about the Skeecher caught verdict where the person didn't
Speaker 4: agree with that verdict whatsoever. So I think that the
Speaker 4: I think that by and large, either people were not
Speaker 4: aware they were or just did not resonate with them
Speaker 4: at all. That again, this years of ignoring these sorts
Speaker 4: of cases and not being personally involved has created a
Speaker 4: situation where we have this state where we a fair
Speaker 4: amount of people do not understand these verdicts. Another group
Speaker 4: of people are so far behind they aren't even aware
Speaker 4: of these verdicts. And then you have a good group
Speaker 4: of people that have been seemed to be groomed by
Speaker 4: the bleeding heart liberals as I can call them, people
Speaker 4: that always seem to believe the excuses of killers and
Speaker 4: some of these criminals and want to believe that everyone
Speaker 4: is essentially good, so they don't have the same I
Speaker 4: guess healthy dosa synism where there are, in my mind
Speaker 4: and a lot of people that are in the know
Speaker 4: police officers, correctional officers, obviously, certain defense lawyers people. There
Speaker 4: must be a good group of people that realize that
Speaker 4: there are these kinds of people that cannot be fixed,
Speaker 4: that cannot be rehabilitated, and maybe we can't even understand,
Speaker 4: and we just need to ensure that they're locked away
Speaker 4: for public safety, and that's it. But we have a
Speaker 4: phenomena here in Canada that a combination of factors has
Speaker 4: evolved so that we have no outrage over a verdict
Speaker 4: like this of any magnitude whatsoever. Again, there was some editorials.
Speaker 4: I'm sure I didn't monitor every radio station, But again,
Speaker 4: if I believe that if I were to look at
Speaker 4: the and examine the content of that criticism, it would
Speaker 4: be criticism at a much lower, unfocused level than where
Speaker 4: I believe it really should be. And that's the cys
Speaker 4: them itself, the direction, the undue influence of psychiatry, and
Speaker 4: of course our acceptance of a psychiatric expert as the
Speaker 4: expert that trumps all others. Again, we have police, They
Speaker 4: make their decision, yes this is a homicide. Prosecution says, yes,
Speaker 4: this is something that we can prosecute. It's a murder,
Speaker 4: and then the chess game that has evolved in this
Speaker 4: country then takes over, where there's so many reasons to
Speaker 4: excuse murder. If the state has to prove intent to kill,
Speaker 4: if alcohol reduces that intent to kill, if provocation reduces
Speaker 4: that intent to kill. We also don't have laws where
Speaker 4: the person that drove the car up to the home
Speaker 4: invasion people go in and kill somebody and come back
Speaker 4: out that person's not involved. And in America, there's this
Speaker 4: instant connection. If you're involved in the commission of a rape,
Speaker 4: involved in a commission of a murder, it are pardon me,
Speaker 4: a theft, and a homicide occurs, then you were responsible
Speaker 4: for that homicide. So it seems to be that the
Speaker 4: American judicial system assigns more responsibility for crime and the perpetrator.
Speaker 4: And in Canada we have this phenomena and again an
Speaker 4: ever worsening trend and direction of excusing almost anyone of anything.
Speaker 4: We have the boss Beheader who cannibalized and cut off
Speaker 4: a person's head on a bus, and the psychiatric industry
Speaker 4: here in Canada, and this is a story that's in
Speaker 4: Winnipeg itself where I reside, and they are hell bent
Speaker 4: on making this their pet project, where they claim that
Speaker 4: they have medication that will render this killer cannibal harmless
Speaker 4: on medication and monitoring, and right now he's been incarcerated
Speaker 4: in a mental institution for a little over a year. Again,
Speaker 4: they're making arrangements so that this person is escorted on
Speaker 4: the grounds that have no fence, have no precaution to
Speaker 4: protect anyone in the surrounding area, and this person they're
Speaker 4: hell bent on taking this person out for walks for
Speaker 4: fresh air. They can't just simply open a window for
Speaker 4: this person. And I pose the question, if they have
Speaker 4: medication that renders a hannibal lecter who happens to be insane,
Speaker 4: who's capable of cannibalizing and murdering someone on a Greyhound bus,
Speaker 4: then there should be no one in the mental institution whatsoever.
Speaker 4: I mean, you should just open up the doors, hand
Speaker 4: out those meds, and say see you later. Because if
Speaker 4: this guy can be rendered harmless through medication, then it
Speaker 4: seems to be that there is no crime whatsoever where
Speaker 4: the perpetrator could not be rendered harmless with the aid
Speaker 4: of medication. So I think it's ridiculous this trend and
Speaker 4: this conclusion that somehow, because they're not criminally responsible, then
Speaker 4: what are we going to do. It's unconscionable for us
Speaker 4: to lock them in a mental institution, to say that
Speaker 4: they have to be in that mental institution till we
Speaker 4: determined that they're not insane, that they have no mental
Speaker 4: health issues. Instead, we're throwing caution to the wind and
Speaker 4: hoping that all our theories about rehabilitation and psychiatry and
Speaker 4: these wonder drugs from the pharmaceutical companies will do their job.
Speaker 4: And I do not buy into this for a second,
Speaker 4: and I believe that if this sort of mindset can
Speaker 4: be acceptable here, I'm not saying that America at any
Speaker 4: time in the near future will have this same situation
Speaker 4: in their laps. But you can see that there are
Speaker 4: a fair amount of people. If a true crime author,
Speaker 4: a noted journalist, a veteran true crime author, examines the
Speaker 4: case of serial killer Gary Hilton realizes that this person robbed,
Speaker 4: he may have tortured, had a van set up for abduction.
Speaker 4: This person spent a fair amount of time calculating what
Speaker 4: he was going to do, inflicting pain to rob these
Speaker 4: person first of their ATM cards and then ask him
Speaker 4: for the push them for the numbers, and then when
Speaker 4: he didn't need these people anymore, he killed them. A
Speaker 4: cold and calculating serial killer that an author who has
Speaker 4: handled the case or written about the case, attended the trial,
Speaker 4: looked at all the evidence, and then that person says,
Speaker 4: you know, I don't think he's criminally responsible. Again, then
Speaker 4: what then, what do we do with a serial killer
Speaker 4: who's killed four people? What do we do with a
Speaker 4: cardiologist that's capable of stabbing his children forty nine times. Well,
Speaker 4: what do we do do we say, Well, we're going
Speaker 4: to put them in an institution indeterminate amount of time.
Speaker 4: And then again a psychiatric tribunal, psychiatrists. Again, the people
Speaker 4: that believed he was not criminally responsible are now going
Speaker 4: to again the same occupation, These same professionals, from the
Speaker 4: same mindset are going to determine when this person is
Speaker 4: able to go out in the community. Again, these people
Speaker 4: so convinced that they have this incredible medicine, this incredible
Speaker 4: drug that renders people harmless, that we're capable of sawing
Speaker 4: off a person's head and then cannibalizing certain body parts.
Speaker 4: A cardiologist, because his wife is screwing around with his friend, figures,
Speaker 4: I'll drink window wash or fluid. Did he know that
Speaker 4: was not going to kill him? Did he realize that?
Speaker 4: Did he go on the internet to make up an
Speaker 4: excuse for later in his defense? Does he know that
Speaker 4: much about the law? Does it even matter? Because the
Speaker 4: logic that twisted logic, Well, my kids won't have a father,
Speaker 4: so i'll take him out. Well, then take Why did
Speaker 4: you stab him forty nine times? Again? Is that evidence
Speaker 4: of an unclear mind? And because he is the overkill
Speaker 4: evidence that he was insane temporarily Should we excuse temporary insanity?
Speaker 4: Can't we all say we were temporarily insane, that we
Speaker 4: don't quite remember everything, when we do flip out, when
Speaker 4: we do get mad, when we do get so angry
Speaker 4: that we throw the telephone against the wall, when we
Speaker 4: grab someone. Couldn't we all use that defense? Won't we
Speaker 4: all use that defense? It's incredible the development and the
Speaker 4: influence of psychiatry in court decisions. There is no cat scan,
Speaker 4: there's no brain scan to determine some of these things.
Speaker 4: So it is open to a certain amount, a fair amount,
Speaker 4: maybe an incredible amount of interpretation an opinion. Obviously, if
Speaker 4: you have a psychiatrist for the defense, you have a
Speaker 4: psychiatrist for the prosecution, and they disagree, well then it's
Speaker 4: not so clear cut. It's obviously not determinable by an
Speaker 4: X ray or a brain scan. So again it's not
Speaker 4: conclusive what these people are saying. It's their expert opinion,
Speaker 4: and then we render these the court enters them experts,
Speaker 4: experts in psychology and psychiatry and the mind and how
Speaker 4: the mind works. So I'm not I'm not speaking to
Speaker 4: a primarily a Canadian audience, and I'm glad I'm not
Speaker 4: speaking to a Canadian audience because I I don't have
Speaker 4: much patience for people that just can accept, just by
Speaker 4: their nature, the goodness of everyone, and and and again
Speaker 4: by extension, the honesty of the psychiatrist, and the the
Speaker 4: again the ethics of the lawyer, that everybody is. Nobody
Speaker 4: is trying to get their client off if their client
Speaker 4: is guilty. There's no impetus. There is no motivation for
Speaker 4: these people to actually lie or evade incarceration, or evade
Speaker 4: telling the truth. This cardiologist has a successful career, he's
Speaker 4: a doctor. He's probably helped a lot. So what it
Speaker 4: doesn't matter. He's not any better than anyone else, because
Speaker 4: we're dealing with this heinous crime and two children dead.
Speaker 4: This Gary Michael Hilton was a con man, but he
Speaker 4: served in the Vietnam War. He got an honorable discharge,
Speaker 4: so technically he's a war hero or he served his country.
Speaker 4: So again, Gary Michael Hilton is not ge Turcotte. But
Speaker 4: in the end, both of these people murdered. Both these
Speaker 4: people calculated to a certain degree, they're both killers. What
Speaker 4: do we do? Garry Michael Hilton got the death penalty.
Speaker 4: Guy Turcott will be out in a short period of time,
Speaker 4: and will they be practicing medicine again? Even more outrage now,
Speaker 4: I noticed that no one called in this evening, and
Speaker 4: I should have put up that this was a kind
Speaker 4: of program that I could. I would ask for people
Speaker 4: to call in, And I know that not too many
Speaker 4: people listen to the program live, but listen to it
Speaker 4: archive at their own convenience. So if there are anyone
Speaker 4: that would like to weigh in, give me an opinion
Speaker 4: about what about the program itself and what they believe
Speaker 4: about some of the commentary i'mant tonight, it would mean
Speaker 4: a lot to me if I could get that again
Speaker 4: last week. I do apologize for the guests going off
Speaker 4: on a tangent and me not being able to correl
Speaker 4: them back. But for those people would like to listen.
Speaker 4: In the second hour, we do cover his book completely,
Speaker 4: very much like I normally do in a program, and
Speaker 4: all the talk about Canada and all the talk about
Speaker 4: America and the guest apologizing for Americans really rankled a
Speaker 4: lot of the listeners out there listening to the program.
Speaker 4: So I apologize for bringing politics into the equation. At all,
Speaker 4: because that's not really what we're here for. That being said,
Speaker 4: I did an editorial program because I just believe this
Speaker 4: case really clearly demonstrates the situation that we're in here
Speaker 4: in Canada, the differences in our judicial systems and the
Speaker 4: differences in people's attitudes towards these types of crimes and
Speaker 4: these types of verdicts. So I wanted to bring that
Speaker 4: to the attention of my mostly American and international audience,
Speaker 4: and you can compare it to the jurisdictions that you
Speaker 4: were in. And again, if you're outraged over this verdict
Speaker 4: and what I have to say, or you just disagree
Speaker 4: with me vehemently and like to set me straight, please
Speaker 4: contact me and I'd be more than happy to respond
Speaker 4: to your comments, and I welcome them. I want to
Speaker 4: thank you very much for listening tonight, even listening to
Speaker 4: the program True Murder the most shocking killers in true
Speaker 4: crime history, and the authors have written about them. Thanks
Speaker 4: for joining me. Good night,