CT Man Accused of Eating Murder Victim’s Brain Granted Conditional Release
Sister-in-law of victim Angel Gonzalez asks: “How do we really know he’s not going to do this again?”
My husband and I are considering relocating and moving out of California.
There are many possible options, as most places have saner policies and more reasonable taxes than my current home state. And while Connecticut was never one of my top picks, it now is pretty much jettisoned to the bottom.
Why? It allows its cannibals to roam freely.
A man accused of cannibalism and murder has been granted conditional release, according to the Connecticut Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB).
The board granted Tyree Smith’s release after a careful review of his clinical progress, officials said.
He’s currently at Connecticut Valley Hospital in Middletown. Smith is accused of hacking a man to death with an axe in Bridgeport and eating part of the victim’s brain and an eyeball.
The PSRB said Smith has demonstrated long-term stability, remained engaged in all recommended treatments and consistently followed his care.
His conditional release requires that he remain under structured supervision and that he continues to receive necessary mental health services.
Smith stood trial for the murder of Angel Gonzalez with an axe and consumed parts of the victim’s brain and eyeball in 2011. He was found not guilty because of insanity in 2013 and ordered confined to Whiting Forensic Hospital for 60 years.
“Experts” assert he has demonstrated long-term stability and consistently followed his treatment plan.
Meanwhile, the victim’s family has expressed concerns about public safety. Gonzalez’s sister-in-law questioned how Connecticut authorities could be certain Smith wouldn’t re-offend, and Republican officials questioned the decision.
During a hearing Friday before the state’s Psychiatric Security Review Board, Gonzalez’ sister-in-law, Talitha Frazier, said she was concerned Smith was now hiding his mental illness.
“How do we really know he’s not going to do this again?” she asked.
GOP lawmakers Heather Somers, Paul Cicarella, Henri Martin, and Stephen Harding called the decision “mind-boggling” in a statement.
“This terrible decision puts public safety in jeopardy and is yet another terrible message to send to CT violent crime victims and their families. This person should never be out,” they added.
Smith’s statements add to the very reasonable concerns about his release.
“He denied experiencing cravings but stated that if they were to arise, he would reach out to his hospital and community supports and providers,” the report states.
Um IF a crazing should arise? WTF. No.https://t.co/dtrBq8X6G0
— dontfckwjustice (@dontfckwjustice) February 22, 2025
Not only is the public less safe, but the move is clearly damaging to the rule of law. Notably, the President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele weighed in:
It’s also a clear violation of human rights by the State of Connecticut.
The UN may not agree, but the State has the responsibility to guarantee the fundamental right of a human not to be axed and eaten. https://t.co/GHQqaNjx9F
— Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) February 23, 2025
I don’t think I am the only one scratching Connecticut off their list, either.
Thinking of moving to CT? Today a board meets to decide if a man that bludgeoned someone to death with an ax and then ate one of his eyeballs and his human flesh should be released on a “conditional release.” Welcome to CT- where we are known for pizza and cannibals.…
— Amy Bourdon (@ThisRepubGirl) February 21, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
He looks nice enough…
I have to admit, he does present pretty well for a zombie.
Which of the two men in the picture is the fine young cannibal?
Excellent group, BTW. I still listen to them every now and again.
In a book about the Second Punic War, the author referred to the less famous sons of Hamilcar Barca as “fine young Hannibals”.
(Ghosts of Cannae, if memory serves me right)
I bet the Connecticut Psychiatric Security Review Board would conditionally release Hannibal Lector. And what are his conditions? Please don’t eat any more brains or well hold you and conditionally release you again? I
Are livers OK instead of brains for this person?
Ugh. Livers require chianti. With MD 2020, stick with brains.
and fava beans
Better add that to the list, And throw in dogs and cats, just to be safe.
That crazy man eats brains!
So! Let him out. He’s an Angel.
So the real reason for his release comes out…..
If he eats brains…. he’s a zombie.
One of the almost guaranteed (D) voting demographic.
Truly unbelievable. When this man injures or kills again – and he will because people with psychosis like that always eventually stop taking their meds – will the people who turned this monster loose on the world be held civilly culpable? THIS is exactly the kind of instance that when things go predictably sideways, those bureaucrats shouldn’t have any kind of qualified immunity.
I know a couple of doctors who can deal with this guy: Drs Smith & Wesson (with due credit to Clint Eastwood)
His only purpose is to remind us that liberals are the true enemy.
If you live in CT don’t buy the huevos con sesos at the local taqueria.
He’s a vegetarian now apparently
So, it’s heads of lettuce, from now on?
You mean he only eats vegetarians?
Let’s hope he moves next to the deranged Senator Murphy.
There is no justification for anyone who has hacked someone to death to ever be let out of prison, to begin with. Murder should warrant the death penalty.
And to add the cannibalism on top of that … There are some really sick, depraved people in Connecticut – and I’m not talking about the cannibal – who should have just been put down years ago.
If he really has regained sanity, his first act while unsupervised should be to end his ability to endanger others.
Beyond that, anyone who thinks he’ll stay on his medication is a fool.
It used to be that once one is declared to have regained his sanity he was then fit to stand trial.
What the courts have done with the outrageous abuse of the concept of insanity and letting dangerous people out is one of the worst crimes our society has faced. One is responsible for acts. “Not guilty by reason of insanity” is a farce that makes a mockery of the idea of morality. The person is guilty. And insane. Tough titties.
Too many retarded pop psychologists infesting our judiciary. They are dangerous loons, themselves.
You are confusing two completely different things. You are talking about people who were unable to stand trial because of their mental state at that time. Once they are able to stand trial they can be tried, if the statute has not expired.
This person, however, was tried in 2013, and was found not guilty by reason of his insanity at the time of the crime. No subsequent change in his sanity can alter that verdict.
It has never been the case that a person could be convicted or punished for a crime committed while he was insane.
This article has more details than have been reported in most places, including the fact that he’s not just being released into the wild, but into a group home, where presumably someone will be checking that he keeps taking his meds.
Which was ridiculous BS. Ordinarily – in a sane, self-respecting society, at least – he would not be tried if found, thus, insane, and locked away in an asylum until he was deemed sane enough to stand trial.
“Not guilty by reason of insanity” is pure, unadulterated BS. He was clearly guilty of the crime. I don’t care if voices told him to eat brains and eyes. He committed the act on his own.
If you want to pretend you are too advanced and pure and label him “insane”, then fine. But he is not “not guilty”. He’s guilty as sin.
This sort of ridiculous idiocy is why people rightfully hate lawyers.
This is exactly my point. As a lawyer, this bloodless, autistic recitation of why the nice, young cannibal can be released “presumably” to a care home where he will “presumably” be monitored is exactly why the legal system needs hit with a DOGE bomb. If Dr. Lecter here loses it and decides to go get takeout, who in the system will face a commiserate punishment for this stupidity? The judge? The staff assigned to watch him? Or do we all shrug our shoulders and say “s*** happens?” The people most affected, his victims, are essentially told to piss off. That’s not Milhouse’s concern here, you see, as that issue is “not before” him, the go-to answer of a judge that wants to make a pronouncement with his ruling but avoid the 95% certain outcome.
LOL.
ANd you have some specific, verifiable, detailed definition of “insane” that is objective??
You use meaningless words and pretend they are concrete. “Insane” is statement of personality fashion. It is impossible to know or to check. But what we can know and can check about people are acts they have committed – acts which deprived others of their rights, of their lives, of their brain matter and eyes.
Primordial, you keep obfuscating to hide the point, that you are a f***ing liar. What you claimed was a f***ng lie . Insanity has always been a defense. No civilized legal system has ever held that a person can be held liable for a crime he committed while insane. Insane people simply are not responsible for what they do. And that is not some modern PC nonsense, it’s a fundamental part of our entire legal system since the beginning of time.
This person stood trial because he was judged capable of doing so. He was able to assist in his defense, so he was able to stand trial, and prove to the jury that at the time of the killing he was incapable of being criminally culpable. The jury, which unlike you heard all the evidence, was convinced and acquitted him. That is how the law has always worked.
“Presumably” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
The shrinks who have certified him sane and safe for society should be required to house him for the next decade just to make sure. If they trust him to live with their spouses and their children, it’s all good. If they refuse, I guess they’re not so sure, are they?
Doesn’t work.
He’s safe around people with no brains.
The terms of the review sound highly bureaucratic and divorced from any actual concern for anyone’s safety. They’ve carefully designed a process to protect themselves from accountability.
If found guilty, he should be sent directly to the electric chair.
He was found not guilty.
Seems like a fine candidate for the democrats to run for congress in 2026. He’ll make a fine addition to the democratic and congressional black caucuses and to the squad.
This is woke psychiatry. Favored outcomes for members of favored groups. Confused? Here’s a hint: Hannibal Lector wouldn’t qualify for this treatment.
This is the kind of therapeutic carp that came out of Freud. It’s much deeper in psychiatry than “woke.”
So his due process should be violated because you don’t like the vibe? That’s not very law and order if you
What due process? He was sentenced to 60 years in a mental institution. That really shouldn’t be “until we think he’s right as rain.” Give that murder seldom has a statute of limitations, maybe he should be retried without the insanity defense (after all, he’s good now, right?).
He can’t be retried. Double jeopardy. Besides which, his current sanity doesn’t change the fact that he was insane when he committed the crime, and thus incapable of having mens rea.
Don’t worry Milhouse, I’m sure he’ll go out for takeout and we can give it another try. Of course someone will have to die for that to happen, but you know, that’s not the judges or the caregivers or the legal systems fault.
Society’s due process was violated when this animal wasn’t put down, as he deserved – as all murderers deserve.
Just don’t accuse him of eating cats.
Cool cats?
“My husband and I are considering relocating and moving out of California.”
I moved out of CA almost five years ago. Ordinarily I would say “Don’t come to Texas, we are full up with Californians,” but in your case, welcome.
Send him to Portland. Every MAX stop would be like a food cart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm47Fu6jUDA
This is a farce of justice. I deal with mental health inmates.
#1 Medicine is a band-aid. He will eventually stop taking it outside. I’ve seen it many times. It’s why so many come back to me where I work. Also, medicine over time it loses its effectiveness. I’ve seen inmates shrug off injections that would knock me out for a week.
#2 This guy has real mental health issues, but that doesn’t mean he’s not capable of lying, manipulating, and scheming. Having mental health issues doesn’t necessarily mean one is stupid. I’ve seen plenty who know they have issues and know how and when to play the system. The family is right to be concerned he’s just hiding his problems. I’ve seen plenty of judges and doctors get played like a fiddle by guys like the above.
#3 We need to change the laws around the country regarding mental health and criminality. The change is simple: No more pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity. No more using mental health issues as an excuse for committing crimes. Do the crime you get the time. If you’re really sick, like this guy, you do your time in a hospital. If they determine you no longer need a hospital you go to prison. You do your time. (This change will also cut down on the fakers of which there are many as it will no longer benefit them to play crazy)
#4 If this guy, when he fails and he will eventually, hurts anyone every doctor involved in his release needs to be sued and their licenses revoked.
If a person is incapable of mens rea, how can he be guilty of a crime? Would you convict five-year-olds too?!
Did he commit the criminal act?
Then he’s guilty.
This ain’t rocket surgery, Einstein.
You have a bug up your azz about making a moral judgment regarding criminal acts when it is the act, itself, that is the issue. Someone who is a danger to society is a danger, no matter what condition his mind was in. And if he was sick and got better … tough. His victim did not have that choice. But you don’t think the actual crime or the victim matters in any way, whatsoever. All you think is important is the poor, widdle criminal and his mental state. Despicable, really.
You are a monster. Literally a monster. There cannot be any justice system that doesn’t require mens rea. According to you a five-year-old who commits a crime should hang for it! After all, he did the act, and you don’t give a damn about his state of mind, because you have no morals whatsoever.
LOL. You are in favor of releasing cannibals onto the street and you call me a monster and accuse me of having no morals.
You are a sick, sick person.
I’ve got news for you, a 5 year old who knifes someone to death is most likely a lost cause and the world is no worse for his disappearance. Of course, there are no such examples – but there are plenty of 12 year old cold-blooded murderers and people have no patience for them.
But you care so much for the chillen’!!! You are such a moral paragon and a better person than anyone else … that you can look right past all the victims and just FEEL the pain of the poor criminals …
You really should never speak about morality. You have no idea about it. You deserve to live with this cannibal and the judge and psychiatrists who let him loose on society. You and them and none of us. You should be forced to live with all of these “not guilty” people who have committed heinous acts but are “not responsible”. They are your kind of people and normal society should not be burdened with any of you.
If someone is so insane he can’t (by your silly estimation) be held liable for his actions, then how can he stand trial?
If someone is crazy enough to be let off of murder by “reason of insanity”(LOL) how could he have sat for trial, to begin with??
Your argument is … insane.
He stood trial while medicated to make him capable of doing so. This is obvious and common.
Then he would have to be involuntarily civilly committed in a mental asylum. Otherwise any crazy bastard that runs down the street with a chainsaw and cuts people’s heads off would have to be turned through a revolving door and put back on the street because he’s clearly insane, yes? I mean, we have 4K video of someone committing brutal assaults on the street yet we have to pretend he’s not a threat to society because he claims under 50 different definitions of insanity, why he really didn’t know what he was doing. Perhaps his victim’s families could solve hus problem for us and we could also say that they had a bout of momentary insanity.
We have heard this story before. He will go free and do well and then, he’ll decide he doesn’t need his medication anymore. He’ll mutilate a few people and be caught again. The board of loonies who let him out will not be held accountable and only the newly dead will pay for this abomination of duty.
My husband and I are considering relocating and moving out of California.
If you’re just now considering it, then I’d say you’re not paying attention or you’re not very bright. (Since you don’t mention any ties binding you.)
ordered confined to Whiting Forensic Hospital for 60 years
So, why should his “demonstrated stability” allow him release? He was ordered confined for 60 years. Do so. No one should get to change that sentence because they decided he was ok now.
Meanwhile, the victim’s family has expressed concerns about public safety.
I’m a bit more concerned with actual justice. But yeah.
The therapeutic model of justice is the f****** stupidest bats*** crazy and most evil concept ever to arise out of Progressivism. I think we should dig Freud up and piss on him.
Because he was acquitted, so this was not a criminal sentence.
Because seriously crazy people are precisely the folks who you know will follow their treatment plan and take their meds faithfully after release. * eyeroll*
Having had (admittedly limited) acquaintance with some schizophrenics in my life I couldn’t name one of them who did well on their own, even when more or less “following” their treatment plans. I know at least one who ended up with no effective medications at all, and who had to be remanded for life into a secure facility.
It’s so much more complicated then “Well, lookit how well our little cannibal is doing… let’s cut him loose. He’ll be fine”
Cross Connecticut off the list of places to visit so long as they let cannibals loose.
There’s a simple rule. If they won’t let you carry on your own recognizance, or at LEAST on your home state’s official permit, never, ever, spend a night there. You may have to travel through it, but never travel to it.
Because, quite honestly, in a state where I can carry, a dude coming at me with an axe and designs on my (admittedly delicious) brain is not going to get a chance at pleading insanity.
Constitutional carry in Bama.
Send him to Washington where he will undoubtedly starve.
BTW, should we cross the threads with the one about rocks? (It’s down in the Quick Takes.)
Because I think a bunch of rocks could help solve this problem in fairly short order.
There are things in life that I would do to make the world a much better place if I ever won one of those billion dollar lottos.
This is one of them, buy the house next door to the judge and give this guy the keys.
“ Sister-in-law of victim Angel Gonzalez asks: “How do we really know he’s not going to do this again?””
There are ways…