By Chinta Puxley, The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT

WINNIPEG - The family of a man who was beheaded on a Greyhound bus says his killer is "getting away with murder," but the judge who found him not criminally responsible for the "barbaric" slaying says the law doesn't unnecessarily punish the mentally ill.

Vince Li's attack on Tim McLean in Manitoba last summer was "grotesque" and "appalling," said Justice John Scurfield.

"However, the acts themselves and the context in which they were committed are strongly suggestive of a mental disorder," the judge said Thursday. "He did not appreciate the act he committed was morally wrong. He believed he was acting in self-defence and that he had been commanded by God to do so."

McLean's loved ones said the verdict has robbed them of closure and they feel the responsibility now falls to them to attend his yearly assessments to try to ensure Li is never released.

"He is getting away with murder," said McLean's older sister, Vana Smart. "He'll never have a criminal record. After the review board decides that he can be medically managed in the community, he can get a job in a daycare. He can cross the border.

"He'll never have this stigma attached to him ... He will be able to pursue his life as he pleases."

Both Crown and defence psychiatrists had testified at Li's trial that he was suffering from schizophrenia and believed the voice of God ordered him to kill McLean because the young man was a force of evil.

Li, 40, was charged with second-degree murder but pleaded not guilty. His DNA will be put on file but he won't have a criminal record.

He is to appear before a criminal review board within 90 days to determine how he will be institutionalized. His mental health will be reviewed every year by the same board to determine if he can be released into the community.

"That does not mean that he should go free," Scurfield said in his decision. "People who are found not criminally responsible but who continue to pose a danger to the community may be kept in a locked institution for the rest of their lives."

That was cold comfort to McLean's mother, Carol deDelley, who said Li may be mentally ill, but he still killed her 22-year-old son in the most brutal possible way.

"Whether he was in his right frame of mind or not, he still did the act," she said. "There was nobody else on that bus holding a knife slicing up my child. Nobody else did that. Just one individual did that."

DeDelley said the law needs to be changed so someone can be found not psychologically accountable but still criminally responsible for a crime.

"It's ridiculous that we've not only had to endure this procedure, but we get to endure it every year again for the rest of Mr. Li's natural life and our lives," she said. "A major illness took my son's life and he was never sick."

"Knowing that killer might get out some time soon is very hard," added Tim McLean Sr., who has his son's face tattooed on his chest above his heart with the words: "Tim McLean Forever Loved."

"This isn't the right result. We'll do what we can to ensure nobody gets hurt again."

But lawyers on both sides said justice was done. The Crown had no choice but to argue Li was not criminally responsible, said prosecutor Joyce Dalmyn.

"The evidence was so overwhelming," Dalmyn said. "I had an obligation to bring that to the court's attention and the family understand and respect that."

The review board will do its job "properly" in determining if Li is ever fit for release, she added.

Such boards look at police reports and transcripts of previous judicial hearings and also hear evidence from treating psychiatrists, who testify about a patient's current mental condition, treatment and prognosis. Crown and defence lawyers get the opportunity to ask questions.

The board must carefully consider whether a patient could function in society or would pose a risk to the public. Members take into account a patient's insight into the illness, as well as into what happened.

"Mr. Li will get help," said his lawyer, Alan Libman. "The Canadian public can be assured that the review board will take into consideration the protection of the public. Mr. Li advised me after court that he's going to work with his treatment team because it's his desire to get better."

Scurfield's decision brings an end to a trial that lasted barely two days and only heard from the two psychiatrists.

That Li killed the carnival worker - brutally stabbing him dozens of times, beheading him and then mutilating his body - was never in question at the trial.

An agreed statement of facts read in court detailed how Li sat next to McLean when the young man gave him a smile and asked how he was doing. It was after McLean closed his eyes to listen to music on his headphones that Li thought he heard the voice of God.

"Suddenly the sunshine came in the bus and the voice said, 'Quick. Hurry up. Kill him and then you'll be safe,"' Li told one of his psychiatrists. "It was so quick, such an angry voice, and I had to do what it said. I was told that if I didn't listen to the voice, I would die immediately."

Li ignored other horrified passengers as he repeatedly stabbed the young man, who unsuccessfully fought for his life.

When the bus pulled over near Portage la Prairie, Man., Li was engrossed with stabbing and mutilating McLean's body. Passengers fled the bus and stood outside.

Li tried numerous times to leave the bus but was locked inside and continued methodically carving up McLean's body. Police said body parts were found throughout the bus in plastic bags, although part of his heart and both eyes were never found and were presumed to have been eaten by Li.

The victim's ear, nose and tongue were found in Li's pocket.

God told him to cut up McLean and scatter his body parts around the bus, Li said.

"God told me to do it. Otherwise it would come back to life very quick and kill me. So I cut it up to make sure he couldn't come back to life ... God told me to cut off his head, so I did."

Li tried to escape from the bus through a window and was taken into custody.

After that, with blood smeared on his face from the attack, he politely apologized to police and pleaded with officers to take his life.

that poor family

We knew it had to end in a "not criminally responsible" decision. I get that the victim's family is angry. I can't even imagine what it is like for them. But I hope they get help processing their anger. Tim's mom has been very vocal demanding the laws be changed and that he be locked up for the rest of his life.

We don't do that here. Especially not to the mentally ill. Mr Li will get medical treatment and will remain in a secure facility. If there comes a day where he is deemed able to be a productive member of society again, then he should be released.

To lock a mentally ill person away indefinitley is to me akin to taking joe blow off the street to get a conviction for an unsolved murder.







I didn't know about the consumption of the eyes bit till a couple of days ago.

emm said:

What she said.

Giving a person with a mental illness a life sentence or even the death penalty is pointless if they didn't understand the wrongness of their actions. Some would even debate whether someone with this degree of disorder could even rightly be called a moral agent, which is what one has to be to be called guilty or innocent of any action. The best that can be done is to put them under intensive psychiatric care.

My mom works as a psych. nurse on a high security ward, and more than once she's had to deal with rapists and murderers who have absolutely no conception of the wrongness of their actions, or who believe God or the neighbours dog commanded them to do what they did. How do you deal with someone who doesn't understand what they've done?

As for this,

hokie said:

I feel for McLean's family, but this is out and out bullshit. They should educate themselves about criminal justice and mental illness before they go flapping their gums about complete nonsense. I understand their rage and hurt, but spreading ignorance and untruths isn't going to help the situation.

Religion

seed these things into peoples minds, ill or otherwise is only going to cause problems.

Hi should have still been found guilty - and recieve a minimum term with medical care. The family of the victim are given less rights than the criminal.

PREDOMINANT said:

if he is a nutter, then he needs to be watched 24/7, so it doesn't happen again!

ZombieKitten said:

Wouldn't quite put it like that, but I agree.

PREDOMINANT said:

I prefer nutter to psycho - there are many folks I'd call that, but mostly affectionately, not this one though

PREDOMINANT said:

What rights do you think they should get that they haven't been entitled to? What rights is he benefitting from that they're not?

meow85 said:

It's not about a ballance of equal rights - he comitted a crime not them. It is the focus of attention to the rights of the criminal (and opf course this is just) rather than the effect that this will have on the victims.

meow85 said:

Obviously he had some idea:

"Li tried to escape from the bus through a window and was taken into custody.

After that, with blood smeared on his face from the attack, he politely apologized to police and pleaded with officers to take his life."

ZombieKitten said:

If his schizophrenia is treated it won't happen again! isn't that the point of treating the illness?

He had a serious break with reality. It was horrible and tragic. If (big if!) he is deemed to be sucessfully treated what is the point of keeping the now non-dangerous person locked up? But that point is moot for now. He will be locked up. In a mental institution.

If you have two identical twins and one commits murder but you convict the other one, everyone would agree that was wrong. The innocent one didn't actually do it. But he looks like the one who did it! Convicting the mentally ill would be the same. Looks like him but you can't hold him responsible no matter what the public's need to punish him.

emm knows the real deal.

WHOA!

emm said:

I feel that the issue here is one that most people won't touch with a 10 ft pole - whether or not it's ok to force somebody to take medication. I find it amazing that it's not commonly practiced to do that yet, since people with personality disorders are a big part of violent crime. It's obvious that this guy, along with anybody else who committed a violent crime being off their meds and having a "break with reality" while they should be on them, should be forced to take the medication/s for the rest of his life - government funded so there can be no complaints of "I can't afford it". If they're ever on the streets again regardless of whether their sentence was prison or psych ward they should be monitored in the way of lifetime parol - you show up for a blood test showing you're on your med, or you're back in treatment or jail. For the rest of your life. The end.

PREDOMINANT said:

What would you have the law do for the family that they aren't in this case?

applekisses said:

All that signifies is that he knew the cops would want him. It doesn't mean he really understood the wrongness of his actions, or that he had freely chosen to do what he did.

Teacher said:

People who are deemed a danger to themselves or others are already forcibly medicated but this can only happen if they were previously in the system, whether through a prior arrest or through psychiatric care. And it's still remarkably easy for a person to slip through the cracks and never receive a diagnosis.

In Canada the health care system takes care of the expense of many medications, and the courts can appoint someone to supervise a person like Li and ensure they take their meds.

meow85 said:

But is it for life, I mean the enforced medication or just for the prison/hospital term? If it IS for life that's brilliant. And yes it's easy to fall through the cracks, I think it's the same for any and all countries. Here we seem to have an awful lot of those psych evals lately with violent criminals that it's a no brainer with - they're not insane, just murderers.
Here you have to pay a certain amount each 12 month period for meds, after that it's free and certain meds are free anyways - like diabetes meds/supplies for example. My mood stabiliser is expensive as hell but at least I get up to the 12 month amount very fast.

Teacher said:

It's generally understood that in extreme cases like this it is for life, but Li would have to undergo regular evaluations to check that the meds are the correct ones, he's taking the right amount, etc.

Hospital terms for dangerous cases can be indefinite if they don't show signs of improval.

meow85 said:

Of course, it's imperative that the diagnosis/meds are correct. But could Li be released eventually but still be forced to take the meds?
It's the same with hospital sentences here, all jail sentences end sooner or later ("life" isn't even life here, pussyass country ) but criminals sentenced to jail are subject to eval before release.

All kinds of awful. Yet I have to agree with emm.