Speaker 1: With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 2: Really beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 2: the bride and broom? Sri?
Speaker 1: Sorry, we're here.
Speaker 2: We were getting lucky in the limo when we lost
Speaker 2: track of time.
Speaker 3: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 3: quicker than a guess registered.
Speaker 1: Well, in that case, I pronounce you Lucky Clay for
Speaker 1: free at Lucky Landslots dot com. Daily bonuses are waiting.
Speaker 1: No purchase necessary boid. We're prohibited by lock eight team
Speaker 1: plus terms and conditions APPLAG see website for details.
Speaker 3: Hello, it is Ryan and I was on a flight
Speaker 3: the other day playing one of my favorite social spin
Speaker 3: slot games on chumbacasino dot com. I looked over at
Speaker 3: the person sitting next to me, and you know what
Speaker 3: they were doing. They were also playing Chumpa Casino. Coincidence,
Speaker 3: I think not everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumpa
Speaker 3: Casino's home to hundreds at casino style games. You can
Speaker 3: play for free anytime, anywhere, even at thirty thousand feet.
Speaker 3: So sign up now at chumbuck Casino dot com to
Speaker 3: claim you're free welcome bonus. That's Chumbuck Casino dot Com
Speaker 3: and Lived Chumba Lane, No We Necessary DVOI where Everybody
Speaker 3: lost or reconditions Eating plus host.
Speaker 2: You are now listening to True Murder The most Shocking
Speaker 2: Killers in True Crime History and the authors that have
Speaker 2: written about them Gasey, Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker DTK. Every
Speaker 2: week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and
Speaker 2: infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host,
Speaker 2: journalist and author Dan Zupansky. Good evening, This is your
Speaker 2: host Stanzubaski for the program True Murder, The most Shocking
Speaker 2: Killers in True crime History and the authors that have
Speaker 2: written about them. This week has announced it speaks to
Speaker 2: be announced was the title of the program. I'm using
Speaker 2: opportunity tonight to talk about my book Trophy Kill, but
Speaker 2: more importantly, just an update of what's been happening with
Speaker 2: the trial. The crime occurred in two thousand and three,
Speaker 2: and in July July first, two thousand and three, and
Speaker 2: here we are almost seven years from that date and
Speaker 2: still in the appeal process. The appeal occurred and I
Speaker 2: attended on May twenty first, and here we are at
Speaker 2: June twenty third, and still the judges have reserved their
Speaker 2: decision on this incredible case. The most I think for
Speaker 2: anybody that reads about this from my book Trophy Kill,
Speaker 2: the Shall We Dance Murder, we'll be aware of incredibly
Speaker 2: curious decision to take so long for such an obvious
Speaker 2: murder case with really no appeal thirteen grounds. Well, we'll
Speaker 2: talk about the appeal and on what points they appealed
Speaker 2: the sentence. For those that have not heard about Trophy Kill,
Speaker 2: I will tell you about the book that I became
Speaker 2: involved with in two thousand and four. First off, let
Speaker 2: me tell you a little bit of background about the
Speaker 2: case itself. In two thousand and three, on July first,
Speaker 2: in Winnipeg, Canada, the Mirrimax movie Shall We Dance was
Speaker 2: being filmed, starring Jennifer Lopez, Richard Gere, and Susan Sarandon.
Speaker 2: Jennifer Lopez wasn't in the city as of yet, but
Speaker 2: she was arriving set to arrive in a few days
Speaker 2: after July first, and the paparazzi who always follow really
Speaker 2: popular celebrities around were in town ready for the arrival
Speaker 2: of Jennifer Lopez. And then at that time, Jennifer Lopez
Speaker 2: was engaged to actor Ben Affleck, and there was a
Speaker 2: little bit of controversy where Ben Affleck was filming in
Speaker 2: Vancouver and there was some talk of some rendezvous with
Speaker 2: a dancer in Vancouver, and as a subsequent as people
Speaker 2: know in Jennifer Lopez's life, that marriage didn't work out.
Speaker 2: So it was a real seminal time for their relationship
Speaker 2: and Jennifer Lopez's career, I guess, and more importantly personal relationship. Anyway,
Speaker 2: they were shooting the film Shall We Dance in Winnipeg,
Speaker 2: and Susan Sarandon had been in town for a couple
Speaker 2: of weeks, and so had Richard Gear. And Richard Gear
Speaker 2: had been taking dancing lessons at a studio downtown next
Speaker 2: to a bar called the Woodbine Hotel. And that will
Speaker 2: be important a little bit later on.
Speaker 4: Anyway, on July first, she called police. Susan Sarrand had
Speaker 4: called police after her and her assistant noticed that some
Speaker 4: jewelry had been taken from her trailer after they had
Speaker 4: been recently at the trailer taking off the jewelry. It
Speaker 4: was worn. It's a necklace with a amulet, a bar.
Speaker 4: It's anyway, if you go to the movie there are
Speaker 4: certain scenes where she is wearing this older looking pendant
Speaker 4: with a chain and a bar attached and the amulant
Speaker 4: more pendant attached to that necklace gold necklace. Anyway, she
Speaker 4: reported this gold necklace, a silver bracelet, and a couple
Speaker 4: ear rings stolen from her trailer from the set of
Speaker 4: the Merrimax movie as Shall We Dance? And this was
Speaker 4: on July first. On July second, again police were still
Speaker 4: looking for this jewelry. They had no clues as to
Speaker 4: where this jewelry had.
Speaker 2: Gotten to.
Speaker 4: On July second, round nine am, about twenty four hours
Speaker 4: later or so after this jewelry had been reported stolen,
Speaker 4: maybe less, a man named Sidney Tierhues and that spelled
Speaker 4: t w R hui s Sydney walked into a police
Speaker 4: station and they reported at that time very calmly walked,
Speaker 4: especially this under the circumstances, calmly walked into what he
Speaker 4: thought was a police station, but it was actually a
Speaker 4: remand center. And the remand center was for those people
Speaker 4: awaiting bail on remand so they were in custody, so
Speaker 4: it wasn't in fact a police station. But I guess
Speaker 4: the next best thing if you're going to report a
Speaker 4: crime anyway, walked in there and said he wanted to
Speaker 4: talk to somebody, and they asked him what it was about,
Speaker 4: and he said he wanted to basically speak to somebody
Speaker 4: in private, and a man named Donald Stephenson took him
Speaker 4: in the back and asked them, well, how can I
Speaker 4: help you here? What's the problem. He said, listen, I
Speaker 4: wanted to turn myself in because I think I killed somebody.
Speaker 4: And he said, hey, hey, just hang on, I'm not
Speaker 4: the person. You should say this too. He had a
Speaker 4: phone and he gave Sydney the number and said, hey, listen,
Speaker 4: dial this number. Call these people. This is the you know,
Speaker 4: we're not the police. Call the police and tell them
Speaker 4: and then tell them where you are. So he called
Speaker 4: the police, and a woman named Robin Sepanski answered the
Speaker 4: phone and asked him if she could help him, and
Speaker 4: he basically repeated that he wanted to turn himself in
Speaker 4: because he had met this man the night the day
Speaker 4: before and they had drank alcohol all day, and he
Speaker 4: said he claimed to have passed out intoxicated, and when
Speaker 4: he awoke some many hours later, he went to the
Speaker 4: bathroom and discovered his acquaintance dead in the bathtub, chopped
Speaker 4: up in the bathtub. So that's what he told the
Speaker 4: nine to one one operator when he was when he
Speaker 4: spoke to her, and she said, well, how did you
Speaker 4: kill him? How'd you do it? He said, well, I
Speaker 4: use the knife. Well where's the knife now, Well, it's
Speaker 4: left under the bathtub. So she told them he told
Speaker 4: her where the weapon was, and so there was a
Speaker 4: few details, but basically that's what he had said to them,
Speaker 4: and she testified much later on and noted to the
Speaker 4: police that he was very calm, very nonchalant, very unemotional.
Speaker 4: You know, I guess from years of experience with people
Speaker 4: under certain similar circumstances of finding someone dead, they would
Speaker 4: have reacted differently. So that was noted. Anyway, the police
Speaker 4: escorted they came there if they arrived at the Remann
Speaker 4: Center to a short distance away from the police station
Speaker 4: public safety building, And they arrived there some fifteen or
Speaker 4: twenty minutes later, and then we're pointed out to Sydney
Speaker 4: sitting on a bench near the door, and they asked
Speaker 4: him to repeat his story, and he said he met
Speaker 4: He gave more detail. He said he had met the
Speaker 4: man they met at the Woodbine and they met for drinks,
Speaker 4: and he said he first met Robin Green, the victim,
Speaker 4: when he came into the woodbine trying to sell a necklace,
Speaker 4: a gold necklace, and he was not interested, he said,
Speaker 4: but he was interested in Robin Green. And they drank
Speaker 4: together for a short period of time, and then Sydney
Speaker 4: had said to Robin, hey, listen, I've got some drinks
Speaker 4: at my hotel and it's just down the laneway at
Speaker 4: the Royal Albert Hotel, Royal Albert Arms Hotel. So they
Speaker 4: both agreed go back to the hotel. Now Sydney claims
Speaker 4: that they had sex, and there were photos taken with
Speaker 4: a disposable camera of Robin Green posing in various different
Speaker 4: clothing and different poses throughout the apartment, and Sydney claimed
Speaker 4: that they had homosexual sex, had sex in the apartment
Speaker 4: or apartment in the rented hotel room, and then they
Speaker 4: decided to go outside get some cold beer. Was especially
Speaker 4: hot day July first, and they went from the hotel
Speaker 4: and they went back in the general area, in fact,
Speaker 4: more so right in back to almost where the trailers
Speaker 4: were and more importantly where there was barkid set up
Speaker 4: in security because they were shooting some outdoor scenes for
Speaker 4: the Shall We Dance? Movie, and fans of the of
Speaker 4: the movie stars and just general onlookers were near the area,
Speaker 4: and hence the reason for the barricades and the security,
Speaker 4: and it was quite a scene, basically, with a few
Speaker 4: hundred people milling around trying to get a sense of
Speaker 4: what was going on and seeing if they could get
Speaker 4: a you know, a look a peek at one of
Speaker 4: their movie stars. And anyway, Sydney and Robin went into
Speaker 4: a park that's known for homosexuals to frequent and they
Speaker 4: sat there and they had some more drinks, and they
Speaker 4: stayed there for a couple hours, will say, I'm not
Speaker 4: sure how long, and then they came back to the hotel.
Speaker 4: So they came back to the hotel and Sidney wanted
Speaker 4: to get some ice, and he spoke to the bartender
Speaker 4: who was named Diane Last, and he asked Diane Last
Speaker 4: to watch his friend while he went downstairs and got
Speaker 4: ice for the two of them, and basically she noted
Speaker 4: to the police that he was staggering and was really
Speaker 4: unsteady on his feet, and Sydney returned from the basement
Speaker 4: with his ice and they the two of them then
Speaker 4: bid Diane Last the bartender, goodbye, and they went upstairs
Speaker 4: to the hotel room. Now I'm sorry if I get
Speaker 4: the story a little convoluted, but this is the order
Speaker 4: of events that happened. The last anyone saw of Robin
Speaker 4: Green was what I just spoke about. Diane Last was
Speaker 4: the last witness to see Robin Green alive. The next day,
Speaker 4: Sidney Cheery walked into that Reman Center and then told
Speaker 4: police that he had woken from a blackout with this
Speaker 4: gentleman to find him dead in the bathtub. Now, when
Speaker 4: the police arrived at the Remann Center, the three of
Speaker 4: them then went to the hotel room. They went up
Speaker 4: the elevator to room three h nine and they walked
Speaker 4: in and despite the police officers being prepared for you know,
Speaker 4: he said the body would be chopped up, dispembered body,
Speaker 4: they were not, and no one, I think could ever
Speaker 4: be prepared for what they would find. Now, it was
Speaker 4: a small room and as soon as they walked in,
Speaker 4: of the female officer Schroeder, Sylvia Schroeder, proceeded to look
Speaker 4: at the cot or the mattress that was in the room.
Speaker 4: And it's a very small room, dirty old musquee hot,
Speaker 4: filthy room at that time strewn with blood soaked underwear.
Speaker 4: They could see that immediately there was dozens of pairs
Speaker 4: of underwear with blood. They also quickly. She was in
Speaker 4: the room quickly, I could say. It's a very small room,
Speaker 4: and she could see that there was numerous stab wounds
Speaker 4: to the mattress, and blood all over the mattress, and
Speaker 4: blood over the wall, and blood leading up to the
Speaker 4: washroom which was right there, hidden off this small room,
Speaker 4: and there was a door and the bathroom if you
Speaker 4: were to go in. When the police officer, he didn't
Speaker 4: go in with the Sylvia Schroeder, she stayed back. He's
Speaker 4: the only gentleman that went. The officer that went into
Speaker 4: the h and his name is August Meron. He went
Speaker 4: through the doorway and immediately was hit with the display.
Speaker 4: The body was posed and displayed facing the doorway as
Speaker 4: the officer would go in. The body had been cut
Speaker 4: into eight separate pieces, but reassembled. The head was decapitated well.
Speaker 4: That head was back on the neck and the shoulders.
Speaker 4: The arms were cut off at the elbows and the
Speaker 4: legs cut off at the knees and those were placed
Speaker 4: again in a display back where they would normally be.
Speaker 4: The victim was castrated cleanly, so the penis in the
Speaker 4: testicles where they're sitting where they would have been, but
Speaker 4: detached from the body. One of the eyes was gouged
Speaker 4: out and the other was deflated, and one of the
Speaker 4: nipples was missing, and part of the arm was dissected.
Speaker 4: But more importantly, what you couldn't miss was the slice.
Speaker 1: With Lucky landslids, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 2: Nearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 2: the bride and groom?
Speaker 4: Sorry?
Speaker 1: Sorry, we're here. We were getting lucky in the limo
Speaker 1: and we lost track of time.
Speaker 3: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 3: quicker than a gets registered in.
Speaker 2: In that case, I pronounce you Lucky piks for.
Speaker 1: Free Lucky Land slots dot com. Dagley bonuses are waiting.
Speaker 1: No purchase necessary. Board were prohibited by lock Ey team
Speaker 1: plus terms and conditions applag see website for.
Speaker 4: Details from neck right down to the waist, and everything
Speaker 4: that would normally have been in the body cavity was gone,
Speaker 4: the liver, the heart, the lungs, the windpipe, the intestines,
Speaker 4: the everything the heart was gone, and it wasn't in
Speaker 4: the apartment, the rented room, and it ends up it's
Speaker 4: nowhere to be found. They searched probably a mile radius
Speaker 4: of the hotel and the sewer system. Nothing. The body
Speaker 4: was in the batht of the body was clean. There
Speaker 4: was no blood anywhere. So this sight that this police
Speaker 4: officer saw him just froze and transfixed him. You can
Speaker 4: imagine he just froze as he took this in slowly,
Speaker 4: took him almost apparently about three minutes to take all
Speaker 4: this information in process. It to go from this initial
Speaker 4: shock to eventual recognition of what you're seeing and then
Speaker 4: just revulsion. And he staggered out of the room, made
Speaker 4: it to the doorway, held himself up in the doorway,
Speaker 4: and it's incredible. You know, a blow, a psychological blow
Speaker 4: to your mind. Even Jack the Ripper had not done
Speaker 4: as he escalated in his murders. Jack the Ripper didn't
Speaker 4: do what Sidney Tierhues did. There have been killers have
Speaker 4: displayed their victims, but in writing this book, I had
Speaker 4: to do the research. It's totally unique. Now, of course
Speaker 4: he was charged for murder, but this being Canada, he
Speaker 4: was automatically charged for second degree murder in that trial,
Speaker 4: the possibility of reducing that second degree murder charge to
Speaker 4: manslaughter is a good possibility, given precedent, and given at
Speaker 4: that time that trial, custody accounted for twice, and sentences
Speaker 4: were typically from six to ten years. You know, in
Speaker 4: all practical terms, I'll get right down to the practical
Speaker 4: math here, that a person that would be convicted in
Speaker 4: other jurisdictions a murder is and was and very well
Speaker 4: could be walking the streets in three or four years. Typically,
Speaker 4: Typically despite the ability of giving someoney someone a life
Speaker 4: sentence for manslaughter, because of lesser lenient precedents being set,
Speaker 4: the judges and the courts themselves, either through appeal or
Speaker 4: in actual sentencing, chose this seemingly lenient sentence. Especially, it's
Speaker 4: not a matter of punishment, it's a matter of appropriate
Speaker 4: sentencing and appropriate identification of someone as a murderer. Manslaughter
Speaker 4: sounds like you went out hunting and you were drunk
Speaker 4: and you know, or some accidental death that of course
Speaker 4: you were responsible, but less responsible. Now, I don't want
Speaker 4: to get caught up in that, but I wanted to
Speaker 4: make sure that the audience understands that this is a
Speaker 4: completely different system than the United States of America, regardless
Speaker 4: of a clear premeditation and evidence of premeditation in this
Speaker 4: particular case, that this killer set out to find a victim,
Speaker 4: kill him, display and pose his body, and this murder
Speaker 4: horror spectacle as I call it for lack of better term, merely,
Speaker 4: once he knew he had Susan Surrand instilled in jewelry,
Speaker 4: he decided to end. I contend and his reign of terror,
Speaker 4: his reign of horror, and hence he walked into walk
Speaker 4: to authorities and said, listen, you know, I think I
Speaker 4: killed somebody. I woke up and you know, don't remember anything,
Speaker 4: of course, but I think I killed this person. Now,
Speaker 4: if you apply the same logic that would that would
Speaker 4: direct you or I or someone else, you know, this
Speaker 4: is not what can apply with the serial killer. In
Speaker 4: my book, we go somewhat into serial killing so people
Speaker 4: understand what the serial killer profile really is. And I
Speaker 4: know a lot of people have read a lot of
Speaker 4: true crime. It's the same some of the same information.
Speaker 4: I've tried to provide just the relevant information for people
Speaker 4: to understand. More so, the the psychopathic mind is a
Speaker 4: given a person with no conscience. We're past that level.
Speaker 4: But the truly unique aspects of some serial killers are
Speaker 4: that they have a strange, I guess strange to everyone
Speaker 4: else idea of mixing sex and murder. And these start
Speaker 4: off as fantasies early in their lives typically, but in
Speaker 4: the end, sex and murder are synonymous. They're desired, that
Speaker 4: is the fantasy. Murder creates a sexual feeling, a sexual desire,
Speaker 4: and a sexual release, and part of the sexual fantasy
Speaker 4: is murder. There are lots of classifications. There are the
Speaker 4: sadistic killers, the but this person I would say classifies
Speaker 4: as a lost killer by definition. I interviewed a gentleman
Speaker 4: named Robert K. Wrestler, and anybody's read true crime knows
Speaker 4: who Robert K. Wrestler is. Basically was one of the
Speaker 4: people that established the behavioral Science unit or the behavioral
Speaker 4: unit at the Quantico in Virginia, Quantico Beach or Quantico
Speaker 4: pardon me, Quantico Field Office in the FBI Field office
Speaker 4: that talked about that created the serial killer profile in
Speaker 4: the first place. So I interviewed Robert K. Wrestler many
Speaker 4: years ago before I had ever done this. It seemed
Speaker 4: strange and more than a coincidence that I would have
Speaker 4: spoken to him about John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer.
Speaker 4: This killer has spoken, even initially in the first interviews
Speaker 4: shortly after the murder, spoke about comparisons to Jeffrey Dahmer,
Speaker 4: and later on there is much talk about Jeffrey Dahmer,
Speaker 4: John Wayne Gacy, A Bundy, Aileen Warnos, serial killers, notorious
Speaker 4: serial killers, famous serial killers. It's very important now after
Speaker 4: this crime, there was international coverage of this crime, of
Speaker 4: this murder because of one reason, primarily the paparazzi were
Speaker 4: in Winnipeg and as such reported on the crime and
Speaker 4: celebrity online sites and mainstream newspapers, New York Times, all
Speaker 4: kinds of media reported on the crime for a short
Speaker 4: few days because at first it was thought that Jennifer
Speaker 4: Lopez's jewelry, or at least it was reported by the
Speaker 4: paparazzi that Jennifer Lopez's jewelry had been stolen. Of course,
Speaker 4: Jennifer Lopez is much more important to the world the
Speaker 4: celebrity than Susan Sarandon, and shortly after it was reported
Speaker 4: that Susan Surrandon's jewelry was found a few feet away
Speaker 4: from this horror spectacle, and the operazzi reported sensationalistically that
Speaker 4: it was found in a pool of blood, which is inaccurate,
Speaker 4: but needless to say, that jewelry was found a few
Speaker 4: feet away from this murder scene, this crime scene. A
Speaker 4: few weeks after this crime, the police service determined, and
Speaker 4: take this as you will, they determined that the jewelry
Speaker 4: had no significance in terms of the motive for the murder.
Speaker 4: Now I'm not sure how they determined that, but if
Speaker 4: they were to say, we have no evidence that the
Speaker 4: jewelry has any has anything to do with the motive
Speaker 4: in this murder, well, then I guess that's easier to
Speaker 4: prove that there is no clear or conclusive evidence that
Speaker 4: the jury had anything to do in terms of the motive.
Speaker 4: But the only person that knows if the jury had
Speaker 4: anything to do in terms of the motive for this
Speaker 4: murder is the killer himself. Now, I believe if the
Speaker 4: killer himself were to admit that rather than what he
Speaker 4: did claim, which was I woke up and I don't remember,
Speaker 4: and so I should be guilty of manslaughter because I
Speaker 4: was intoxicated and hence didn't have the necessary intent to
Speaker 4: kill that's how the laws interpreted here. But in this case,
Speaker 4: in this very extreme case, this very emotional, sensationalistic case,
Speaker 4: it seems absurd that this person who was butchered and
Speaker 4: posed and displayed. Certainly you may not be able to
Speaker 4: conclusively say that the jewelry that was sitting there became
Speaker 4: the motive for this killer, this incredible killer, this unique, vicious,
Speaker 4: psychopathic killer, to come forward to tell police, listen, you
Speaker 4: know I killed somebody, go check it out. Then he
Speaker 4: grants interviews right away. It says I'm not Jeffrey Dahmer,
Speaker 4: smiling face front page of the newspaper, claiming he has
Speaker 4: no memory. This is the person that clearly craves celebrity. Again,
Speaker 4: another feature of we really don't study one off killers,
Speaker 4: people that have only killed one person. They often study
Speaker 4: sadistic killers, killers that torture, killers that capture or abduct,
Speaker 4: killers like this that have clearly have something over and
Speaker 4: beyond the run of the mill. Killer, we'll say, more
Speaker 4: understandable killer. This is much more than a random killing.
Speaker 4: This is much more than anger. It's much more so.
Speaker 4: This killer had the attention of the world because of
Speaker 4: susan surround.
Speaker 2: Instolled in jewelry.
Speaker 4: The police quickly say that the jewelry had nothing to
Speaker 4: do with the motive, and hence that jewli doesn't have
Speaker 4: to be a crime exhibit. No one, including Susan Sarandon
Speaker 4: nor her assistant have to come and testify as to
Speaker 4: actual events the Shall We Dance movie, any footage that
Speaker 4: had been shot with Susan Sarandon wearing that jewelry, and
Speaker 4: there is a fair amount of footage where she is
Speaker 4: wearing that jewelry in the film. A matter of budget,
Speaker 4: a matter of scheduling, and a matter of course talking
Speaker 4: about continuity, that jewelry could not be tied up in
Speaker 4: court or as police exhibit or any other such thing.
Speaker 4: And no one else could afford nor would want to
Speaker 4: come and testify as to any kind of events, nor
Speaker 4: which Shall We Dance mirror Max want to have anything
Speaker 4: to do with the negative publicity of that murder. And
Speaker 4: that's all I'll say about it. That's all. That's all,
Speaker 4: you know. If I if I say more than that,
Speaker 4: then it sounds like I'm speculating on why things were done.
Speaker 4: But it's very interesting to see how almost all media
Speaker 4: took out that very important reference out of the story.
Speaker 4: Now maybe it's not a conspiracy. Who knows. I mean,
Speaker 4: I see things that make no sense whatsoever. Why a
Speaker 4: story or certain portions of the story are not followed
Speaker 4: up on the Winnipeg Son as opposed to the Winnipeg
Speaker 4: Free Press. The crime reporter for the Free Press was
Speaker 4: out of town at the time the crime occurred, and
Speaker 4: the Winnipeg Son, a reporter named Kerry Costanga, now with
Speaker 4: the Edmonton Son, had exclusive interviews with Sydney where he
Speaker 4: spoke freely and clearly demonstrated to me at that time,
Speaker 4: where I still was not involved with the case whatsoever,
Speaker 4: that this clearly was an unusual killer of the ilk
Speaker 4: that I had read about, and I had been fascinated
Speaker 4: by some of these psychopathic minds, these killers, the Jeffrey Dahmers.
Speaker 4: I think I'm not alone.
Speaker 3: Hello, it is Ryan. And we could all use an
Speaker 3: extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we just to
Speaker 3: make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes,
Speaker 3: counting or steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That
Speaker 3: is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino.
Speaker 3: Chumbuck Casino has all your favorite social casino style games.
Speaker 3: You can play for free anytime anywhere with daily bonuses.
Speaker 3: That's your bright New day Lowe actually a lot, so
Speaker 3: sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com. That's Chumbuck
Speaker 3: Casino dot com.
Speaker 4: Lost the terms conditions eighteen plus in finding their case.
Speaker 4: Is fascinating, this aberration. I mean, I read Silence of
Speaker 4: the Lambs. I thought it was a fascinating fictional book.
Speaker 4: Shortly after is the true story of Jeffrey Dahmer. You
Speaker 4: have to be moved to read the non fiction account
Speaker 4: of Jeffrey Dahmer after you seemingly enjoyed the Silence of
Speaker 4: the Lambs. That's all I can say. I think it
Speaker 4: would find it unusual that you would not read the
Speaker 4: story of Jeffrey Dahmer, at least in the magazines. I
Speaker 4: didn't go out and buy every book conceivable, but it
Speaker 4: was hard not to be again at least interested in
Speaker 4: this story that happened just on the heels of a
Speaker 4: movie that shocked people and won great phraise for you know,
Speaker 4: for being a realistic movie. And so anyway, getting back
Speaker 4: to Sidney Tierhuse, it was clear that this was a
Speaker 4: case that had caught my attention, and I was a
Speaker 4: radio host producing a show on the University of Manitoba Radio.
Speaker 4: I mean, and I don't want to exaggerate what that is.
Speaker 4: I saw it as an apprentice journalist. That was my apprenticeship,
Speaker 4: being able to have a one hour live program and
Speaker 4: with that all of the things that can go wrong,
Speaker 4: and being able to have the ability, despite not having
Speaker 4: a huge audience or even a provable audience, that I
Speaker 4: would have the kind of guests that I wanted to
Speaker 4: have on the program, Important guests speaking about important issues
Speaker 4: that often or typically didn't get airtime on conventional mainstream media,
Speaker 4: or they weren't explored in the in depth way that
Speaker 4: we could I could afford to with a one hour
Speaker 4: interview style format with no phone calls, so we kept
Speaker 4: it very informational. Obviously, not everybody's interests in a one
Speaker 4: hour format, But like this program and much of talk
Speaker 4: radio proves, there is an intelligent, discerning and attentive audience
Speaker 4: that if you give them information and you keep their
Speaker 4: you keep their attention, they will certainly tune in and
Speaker 4: listen and get the information that you're trying to impart
Speaker 4: to them. So anyway, at that time, I was at
Speaker 4: the University of Manitoba. I just happened to be the
Speaker 4: chairman of media and policy affairs for a group called
Speaker 4: People for Justice. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not
Speaker 4: a right winger guy at all. I am so far
Speaker 4: away from that description of that type of personality. I
Speaker 4: have been moved in the sixteen years that I have
Speaker 4: lived in this city to be much more concerned about
Speaker 4: the most serious of crime and how the judicial system
Speaker 4: deals with the most serious of crime. I have said
Speaker 4: before that I applaud Canada for understanding the difference between
Speaker 4: people that actually can be rebilitated or people that are
Speaker 4: should be given a chance at a young age to
Speaker 4: turn their lives around. I'm not you know, I don't
Speaker 4: think in Canada we depict the United States as harsh,
Speaker 4: lock them up kind of society with imprisonment rates quite
Speaker 4: high in terms of the rest of the world. We
Speaker 4: fear these mandatory minimums for three strikes and you're out.
Speaker 4: But regardless, we're very we are very ignorant of the
Speaker 4: US system and how it deals with serious criminals. And
Speaker 4: also I've read and heard many accounts of how the
Speaker 4: United States as a whole experimented with more lenient sentences
Speaker 4: and probably dealt with the same kinds of issues that
Speaker 4: we have, whereas we think that we can give a
Speaker 4: person another chance based on their behavior in prison, all
Speaker 4: kinds of concepts like this. But now you see much
Speaker 4: harsher sentencing in most states in the United States, and
Speaker 4: the ability to have mandatory sentences where life sentences where
Speaker 4: there is no chance of parole, or at least consecutive
Speaker 4: sentencing where the multiple crimes of these killers is added
Speaker 4: so that there is no practical possibility of parole. In Canada,
Speaker 4: we do not have that type of device, and we
Speaker 4: do have a mindset that has grown to believe that
Speaker 4: we can rehabilitate anyone. I really do believe that as
Speaker 4: part of the actual mindset that we had a famous
Speaker 4: killer here, a politician who assassinated his wife and was
Speaker 4: convicted with very convincing evidence in this country, despite him
Speaker 4: having the ability to hire the best of lawyers and
Speaker 4: mount the best of defenses, and this person was convicted
Speaker 4: of murder. Now despite not admitting that he murdered his wife,
Speaker 4: they still let this guy out after twenty three years,
Speaker 4: just let him out. So it's a different system. Now
Speaker 4: back to Sydney, tierhuse I had been doing the radio show.
Speaker 4: I was involved with People for Justice as chairman of
Speaker 4: Media and policy Affairs. We were dealing with things like
Speaker 4: no consecutive sentences, conditional sentences for crimes that would have
Speaker 4: had severe punishment. Previously, they made conditional sentences for people
Speaker 4: that were apparently first time offenders, non serious offenders. In
Speaker 4: a few short years, those conditional centers were applied even
Speaker 4: to things like manslaughter, serious assault, child pornography, all kinds
Speaker 4: of charges like that. I apologize, I won't go too
Speaker 4: far into the Canada's system that I'm very critical of. Now.
Speaker 4: When I was at the radio station, I was doing
Speaker 4: a weekly interview program and I knew a gentleman from
Speaker 4: the home city where I was, and he was incarcerated
Speaker 4: on some charges and asked me if he could call
Speaker 4: me from the remand center and help them take care
Speaker 4: of a little bit of business. Now, I'm not in
Speaker 4: the habit of helping out criminals while they're in prison,
Speaker 4: but I knew this gentleman. They weren't serious charges, and
Speaker 4: I was convinced that he would be cleared on the
Speaker 4: charges anyway. Long story short, I let him simply call
Speaker 4: me from jail and I helped him a little bit
Speaker 4: of banking business, and as I had known him for
Speaker 4: years and years anyway, a few months later, this was
Speaker 4: in the Fall in January, he called me to say, jeez,
Speaker 4: guess who is in the same jail range as I am,
Speaker 4: And it ended up being Sidney Teerhuse the killer. Now
Speaker 4: I saw it as a faithful turn of events. I
Speaker 4: asked my acquaintance to my friend if he would ask
Speaker 4: Sidney Teerhues if he would be interested in being interviewed
Speaker 4: on radio. He said he agreed. My friend said, yeah,
Speaker 4: he agreed he would do it at some point. And
Speaker 4: then in the I'd thought about it for a few
Speaker 4: days and said, you know what, I think this is
Speaker 4: my opportunity to actually be a real journalist and write
Speaker 4: about this case, because it's a fascinating case. He is likely, well,
Speaker 4: it's not likely he will have the opportunity to have
Speaker 4: his murder charge reduced to manslaughter and walk out of
Speaker 4: jail in a few short years. And in my mind,
Speaker 4: despite what I know about this crime, despite what I
Speaker 4: think this person may be. And I really didn't know
Speaker 4: much at that time except the description of the crime.
Speaker 4: I read the interviews I saw a smiling face. I
Speaker 4: think inherently, before I had done all of the research
Speaker 4: that I had to do to do this book, that
Speaker 4: I realized inherently intuitively that he was psychopathic, That he
Speaker 4: had the qualities of a serial killer, and qualities of
Speaker 4: the most eccentric, the most the most notorious serial killers,
Speaker 4: the people that tried to outdo everyone else, the people
Speaker 4: that may have been influenced by the ghastly deeds of
Speaker 4: everyone from Jack the Ripper through Ted Bundy and John
Speaker 4: Wayne Gates. See people emulating their role models, their heroes.
Speaker 4: All I could see intuitively that this guy was special, different, unique,
Speaker 4: and the story was worth writing about, especially when I thought, geez,
Speaker 4: this is my friend, he's there. All I did was
Speaker 4: make a decision to think, geez, I know this guy
Speaker 4: can remember what he did. That's hilarious that anybody would
Speaker 4: believe otherwise. And that's all I knew. And I went
Speaker 4: into this not knowing much else, kind of stumbling in
Speaker 4: it again a faithful turn of events. I really can't
Speaker 4: go back into how my life changed in a short
Speaker 4: few months, but what we do have is this book
Speaker 4: that was released on April the nineteenth of this year,
Speaker 4: twenty ten Trophy killed, the Shall We Dance Murder? The
Speaker 4: trial and revelations of a psychopathic killer. Now, in the
Speaker 4: year that I corresponded with Sidney Tierheues, he was under
Speaker 4: no illusions what was going to happen. We had a
Speaker 4: straightforward agreement we were going to write a book about
Speaker 4: him and this trial. And that's not really any different
Speaker 4: in any true crime book, where you would talk about
Speaker 4: the killer, talk about the victim, talk about the trial,
Speaker 4: talk about the story basically, and all of the inside
Speaker 4: or inside information or behind the scenes information, whether it
Speaker 4: come from a crown attorney, district attorney you would call
Speaker 4: in the United States, we call a crown attorney here,
Speaker 4: same thing prosecuting attorneys.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 4: Same inside information that makes for a good true crime
Speaker 4: book eventually made for this book to be different and unique.
Speaker 4: In the year that Sidney Tyerhues corresponded with me, he
Speaker 4: began with everything from his earliest life from memory where
Speaker 4: he was adopted as a young child. His mother was
Speaker 4: fifteen years old, gave the child the way she was
Speaker 4: on a small reserve called Little Grand Rapids, a couple
Speaker 4: hundred miles away from Winnipeg, which is about seven hundred
Speaker 4: thousand people, a big city, eighth biggest city in Canada,
Speaker 4: and he was adopted by a white family even though
Speaker 4: he's an Aboriginal child and named Tierhughes. So his original
Speaker 4: name was Sidney Owens, and he became Sydney Teerhughes, and
Speaker 4: they officially adopted him. At first they did, I guess
Speaker 4: they're fond parents, and then officially adopt him when he
Speaker 4: was three years old on July first, pardon me, July
Speaker 4: second was the actual date he became Sidney Tierhuse. And
Speaker 4: I think that's important because when you look at July
Speaker 4: second is when he went in to police in Winnipeg
Speaker 4: and reported his crime. And we'll talk about that a
Speaker 4: little bit later. In that year correspondence, he started with
Speaker 4: his whole life, and of course he spoke of I'm
Speaker 4: not saying, of course, but I wasn't so surprised that
Speaker 4: there was claims of sexual abuse by his stepbrother, and
Speaker 4: claims of sexual abuse by all kinds of people. And
Speaker 4: he spoke of the underage male prostitution seen in Winnipeg.
Speaker 4: Whether it's true or not, I could never really investigate
Speaker 4: his claims. It's fascinating the stories that he does tell
Speaker 4: he is a good writer. He would have had possibly
Speaker 4: a future as a writer. I don't know, but he's
Speaker 4: a decent writer. He has an eloquent style. He's very descriptive.
Speaker 4: It makes for fascinating reading. In that year period, we
Speaker 4: didn't become penpals. This was a working project. So I
Speaker 4: peppered him with questions constantly on the telephone, and when
Speaker 4: I wrote letters, which were not that many, I included
Speaker 4: as many questions as possible and didn't beat around the bush.
Speaker 4: I just kept hammering home questions, like very important questions
Speaker 4: right from the very beginning. What happened to them? To
Speaker 4: the internal organs, what'd you do with them? Where'd they go? Eventually?
Speaker 4: You know, I don't want to make it sound like
Speaker 4: I wasn't a crafty person or a clever person in
Speaker 4: my questioning of this person. But I will tell you
Speaker 4: honestly that it is more so that this person really
Speaker 4: wanted to tell somebody everything. And at some point, after
Speaker 4: about nine or ten months of corresponding with me, he
Speaker 4: wanted to tell me about the murder itself. I didn't
Speaker 4: have to pry this information out. It came in a
Speaker 4: flood in around ten months after we start corresponding, which
Speaker 4: was around January. I visited him once in the remand Center,
Speaker 4: and that's in the book as well. Now, a lot
Speaker 4: of these letters came in that ten months to twelve
Speaker 4: month period, and a series of letters, maybe over a dozen,
Speaker 4: and diagrams depicting describing every single graphic and gory detail
Speaker 4: of the murder, dismemberment, the enjoyment of the dismemberment, the
Speaker 4: preparation of the dismemberment, the body as a human trophy
Speaker 4: as he called it, all the description of the necrophilia
Speaker 4: diagrams that corresponding with that, people speak of utter lack
Speaker 4: of remorse, not even appropriate glee, enjoyment, reveling. Now, not
Speaker 4: everybody wants to buy a book just to see the
Speaker 4: most sickening stuff they've ever read, And that's not what
Speaker 4: I'm promoting here. But I'm promoting to you that this
Speaker 4: killer has achieved a new level of sinister and evil,
Speaker 4: combining many of his role model serial killer heroes, unlike
Speaker 4: Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nielsen from England and some of
Speaker 4: you know, we'll talk about Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nielsen.
Speaker 4: They kept their bodies the bodies of their victims. Of
Speaker 4: course they did horrendous thing, they killed them. Of course
Speaker 4: they engaged in sex and necrophilia. But unlike Jeffrey Dahmer
Speaker 4: that there was some discussion, an argument. Robert K. Wrestler
Speaker 4: actually testified at Jeffrey Dahmer's trial to say he was
Speaker 4: insane at that point, at some point had gone insane
Speaker 4: and hence was not responsible like someone else. And we've
Speaker 4: had the case of a gentleman named Vincent Lee who
Speaker 4: cut off a passenger's head on a Greyhound bus and
Speaker 4: cannibalized him. And he's in a mental institution, not criminally
Speaker 4: responsible for his crimes, but very much like Hannibal Lecter,
Speaker 4: this criminal, whereas not as sophisticated as Hannibal Elector. This person,
Speaker 4: this killer has combined the taunting of the victims, the
Speaker 4: taunting of the police in the judicial entire judicial system,
Speaker 4: the revenge on his adopted and his biological family. He
Speaker 4: hyphenated his name at the trial to include his biological
Speaker 4: name as well. He went to police on the anniversary
Speaker 4: of his adoption into the Tihu's family, which he claimed
Speaker 4: abused him. He used every opportunity to use the media
Speaker 4: for photo ops. Despite his lawyer's obvious advice not to
Speaker 4: speak to the media, he spoke anyway. This person contacted
Speaker 4: the media. I was not the only person he tried
Speaker 4: to tell his story to. I just happened to be
Speaker 4: the only person that was willing to hear the story,
Speaker 4: wanted to hear the ugly truth, the harsh truth. I
Speaker 4: didn't deceive this person, except that when I had enough
Speaker 4: evidence that spoke to the motive, the time of the murder,
Speaker 4: the whereabouts of the missing organs. And then I told them, hey, listen,
Speaker 4: the law passed that you can't profit from the nordvariety
Speaker 4: of your crime. I say, did you read that? He
Speaker 4: hung up, and that was the end of the correspondence.
Speaker 4: And of course I went to authorities, which I was
Speaker 4: going to anyway. I mean, you can't give me evidence
Speaker 4: as a journalist and then expect me to protect that
Speaker 4: evidence about murder, you know, unlike his lawyer. And that's
Speaker 4: another story. His lawyer is a person named Greg Brodsky.
Speaker 4: This is his forty ninth or fiftieth years of the
Speaker 4: defense lawyer. Fiftieth year, he has defended and tried almost
Speaker 4: seven hundred murder cases, a record in the English speaking world,
Speaker 4: and why I got motivated to get involved with a
Speaker 4: law reform group in Winnipeg and walk around at the
Speaker 4: law courts with picket signs and to spend years of
Speaker 4: my life on this book. Despite criticism from a lot
Speaker 4: of people, and the criticism has not ended. This is
Speaker 4: an important story for what you find out about how
Speaker 4: a defense lawyer defends this killer. Everybody says, Wow, they
Speaker 4: have to do the best, you know, defend this person
Speaker 4: to the best of their ability. I agree, What does
Speaker 4: that mean? What does that entail? The cornerstone of the
Speaker 4: judicial system is that you're not the lawyer is not
Speaker 4: to tell a lie on behalf of his client, or
Speaker 4: have his client go on the stand to lie, and
Speaker 4: a known lie, what you know, is a lie. So
Speaker 4: you don't let your client perjure themselves and you don't
Speaker 4: lie on their behalf. Now people might scoff, we're so
Speaker 4: naive that we just bend that rule. We just tell
Speaker 4: and as I've been told by a former district attorney
Speaker 4: crown attorney, we just tell the client right away, don't
Speaker 4: say anything, don't tell me anything, listen to what the
Speaker 4: crown has And then so he says, if the client
Speaker 4: is halfway smart. I interviewed Greg Brotsky unbeknownst that I
Speaker 4: had been corresponding with his client. He told me things
Speaker 4: that blew my mind. Again, I must be naive, fifty
Speaker 4: one years old, educated, self educated to what has gone
Speaker 4: on and the changes in the legal system and the
Speaker 4: practical sentences that are meted out every day. And I'm
Speaker 4: not the only person that is criticizing the legal system,
Speaker 4: the judicial system. But a defense lawyer's responsibility to determine
Speaker 4: the truth so that he doesn't suborn perjury, he doesn't
Speaker 4: lie on his client's behalf. You read this book, and
Speaker 4: there's all kinds of unsubstantiated material that comes out at
Speaker 4: the trial. His brother sexuallybews it. Who says there was
Speaker 4: no criminal charges. It's irresponsible and it's irresponsible as a witness.
Speaker 4: How most witnesses would buckle under some of the techniques
Speaker 4: that this defense lawyer has learned at the behest of
Speaker 4: the taxpayer. Obviously, he has had the lion's share of
Speaker 4: murder cases in Manitoba and other provinces as well, gaining
Speaker 4: this invaluable experience. And if he crosses over that line
Speaker 4: in which the judicial cornerstone is built on that you're
Speaker 4: not to lie for your client and not to have
Speaker 4: your client lie. This book is a testament forever to
Speaker 4: chronicle what occurred on December one to nineteenth, two thousand
Speaker 4: and eight in Winnipeg, Canada. I call it one of
Speaker 4: the most important trials murder trials in Canadian history, for
Speaker 4: what it clearly demonstrates and what it clearly represents. Very
Speaker 4: much like the Carla Hamlica and Paul Bernardo murder case,
Speaker 4: in which the reverberations from this chicanery and this black
Speaker 4: eye total disgrace, very much like the oj Simpson case
Speaker 4: in America, very much like the Rodney King decision travesties
Speaker 4: of justice. Carla Jamalca being released from prison, ever, is
Speaker 4: a travesty of justice. For her to be depicted as
Speaker 4: a battered woman syndrome victim is injustice personified. The psychiatrist
Speaker 4: that went along with it, the lawyer that went along
Speaker 4: with it, the lawyer for Paul Bernardo that found the
Speaker 4: videotapes of the torture and rape of the victims, suppressed
Speaker 4: the videotapes to benefit his own client, a travesty of justice.
Speaker 4: So it's an ugly story when you hear the details
Speaker 4: of the videotapes of the rape. They're ugly. It's sexually ugly,
Speaker 4: it's murderously ugly. It's information that is ugly. It's the
Speaker 4: ugliest side of humanity in that police, crooked psychiatrists or
Speaker 4: ine f psychiatry, or psychiatry gone to mock lawyers with
Speaker 4: totally misplaced loyalty. After all, the taxpayer pays for this.
Speaker 4: Taxpayer pays for the prosecuting attorneys, pays for the defense attorney,
Speaker 4: and pays for the entire system, rehabilitation, incarceration, everything. Now,
Speaker 4: I don't say that they should have to make decisions
Speaker 4: on what happens. The judge makes that, but it would
Speaker 4: be nice and it would be important for people to
Speaker 4: actually understand how the system actually works here. Now for
Speaker 4: our American listeners and people will say, why would I
Speaker 4: buy a book about the Canadian judicial system. It's just
Speaker 4: a break from some of the true crime books that
Speaker 4: you have there, where it's a foregone conclusion it's going
Speaker 4: to be death penalty or life without any chance of parole,
Speaker 4: or I'll see you there's no chance of parole. This
Speaker 4: person had a very very very good chance of walking
Speaker 4: out of prison in three or four or five years,
Speaker 4: and if you were to read the material that is
Speaker 4: in this book, and I have chosen not to actually
Speaker 4: read excerpts from the book because it's just it's too graphic.
Speaker 4: So I have two chapters that and of course twenty
Speaker 4: two drawings that there's an explicit, very detailed warning for
Speaker 4: all people before they read those chapters. You read the
Speaker 4: information in different ways as when they repeat some of
Speaker 4: that information at trial. But the media, the only person
Speaker 4: that saw as much as you will see in this
Speaker 4: book is the jury who actually had the misfortune of
Speaker 4: actually having to see the crime scene photos. And when
Speaker 4: I talk about this book the most open and shot case,
Speaker 4: the most obvious case of flagrant murder for the purpose
Speaker 4: of someone just being famous a lost killer, I claim
Speaker 4: he's a serial killer, and I make my contention and
Speaker 4: my assertion, and I provide the evidence for that, and
Speaker 4: a lot of that well, of course, much of that
Speaker 4: evidence is from the killer himself. The appeal was filed,
Speaker 4: as per his legal right, shortly after the conviction, within
Speaker 4: a month, and that was filed in January of two
Speaker 4: thousand and nine. The appeal was heard on May twenty first,
Speaker 4: twy ten I went to the appeal. It was sickening.
Speaker 4: The defense lawyer used the opportunity to go back into
Speaker 4: a two thousand and six jury challenge jury of his peers.
Speaker 4: His client was apparently denied. It was dismissed. The same
Speaker 4: type of motion was dismissed eight times, even by the
Speaker 4: presiding judge's father. It's ridiculous how much time it takes
Speaker 4: to dismiss something that's totally without merit that motion in
Speaker 4: this appeal, which there was thirteen rounds of appeal, including
Speaker 4: that the jury should not have been shown crising photos,
Speaker 4: the jury should not have shown crime scene photos, that
Speaker 4: the letters should not have been deemed admissible, that the
Speaker 4: drawings should not be deemed amissible. Basically, the judges have
Speaker 4: reserved a decision and it is now over thirty days
Speaker 4: for that decision, so over seven years from crime to
Speaker 4: again decision. And who knows, he may just get a
Speaker 4: new trial anyway. The book is Trophy Killed The Shall
Speaker 4: We Dance Murder? It's available Amazon, Barnes and Noble. The
Speaker 4: Trial and Revelations of the Psychopath Killer. Join me next
Speaker 4: week for Corey Mitchell with his book Savage Son and
Speaker 4: Everyone have yourself a good evening, and if you've listened
Speaker 4: this evening, please trust me, it's the most shocking book
Speaker 4: you'll ever dare to read. Trophy Kill. Thank you for listening,
Speaker 4: and you have yourselves a good evening.
Speaker 2: Good night,