A man who killed and ate a man has been released back into public life after ten years.

Tyree Smith, from Bridgeport, Connecticut, killed a homeless man and then ate his brain and eyeballs according to officials.

The horrific case made headline news, with Smith found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity after a July 2013 trial.

In lieu of a stint behind bars, Smith was ordered committed to a state psychiatric hospital for 60 years.

But now, ten years after the grim incident, the state Psychiatric Security Review Board said Smith was ready to be transitioned back into the community.

Smith has been released from the facility, Connecticut’s most secure, as of writing.

He will be living in a Waterbury group home, and is not allowed to associate with anyone involved in criminal activity.

The board stated in its report: “Tyree Smith is an individual with a psychiatric illness requiring care, custody and treatment.

“Since his last hearing Tyree Smith has continued to demonstrate clinical stability.

“Mr. Smith is medication compliant, actively engaged in all recommended forms of treatment, and has been symptom-free for many years.”

During the trial, Smith’s cousin Nicole Rabb claimed he arrived at her Connecticut home in December 2011, talking about Greek gods and ruminating about needing to go out and get blood.

When she saw him the next evening she noticed what appeared to be specks of blood on his pants and that he was carrying chopsticks and a bloody ax.

Smith then allegedly told Rabb he killed a man and ate his brains in the Lakeview Cemetery while drinking sake, and grimly warned he intended to eat more people.

A month later, police found Angel Gonzalez’s mutilated body in the vacant apartment on Brooks Street in Bridgeport where Smith had lived as a child.

Police later recovered the bloody ax and an empty bottle of sake in a stream bed near the Boston Avenue cemetery.

The defense’s case rested on the testimony of Yale University psychiatrist Dr. Reena Kapoor, who testified that Smith had kept his lust for human flesh after his arrest, even offering to eat her.

Kapoor claimed Smith suffered from psychotic incidents since childhood and heard voices that told him to kill people.

She then said the voices ordered Smith to eat the victim’s brain so they would get a better understanding of human behavior and the eyes so that they could see into the “spirit realm.”

Kapoor added that Smith went to Subway after eating the man’s body parts.

The report on Smith’s release said: “He denied experiencing cravings but stated that if they were to arise, he would reach out to his hospital and community supports and providers.”

  • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    He ended someone’s life. That alone should remove him from society forever.

    Now his entire release hinges on him being compliant with his meds to not end someone else’s life.

      • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        So if your brakes stop working and you run someone over tomorrow, you should be removed from society forever?

        Accidentally spread COVID to your grandma and she died? Life in prison for you!

        Had a stillbirth? Goodbye society, put the wench behind bars.

        Obviously that’s the dumbest take I’ve ever heard. How do people have so little empathy they can’t even imagine what a mental issue like that could even be like. These people are sick and not in control.

        If we have highly educated people who can accurately take measures to cure these people, I’m 100% supporting this. More yet, if the US cared only a tiny bit more about healthcare, cases like this would easily be avoided.

        People who voted for those not giving a fuck killed the man, maybe you, the voter should be jailed too, according to your rethoric?

        • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve said it 3 times in other threads on this same post but I’ll make it four since apparently I didn’t say it on this one. Manslaughter isn’t the same. I’m talking about premeditated, malicious intent to rob someone from their family and loved ones. Those people are beyond redemption. Beyond correction. They should not get a second chance.

          • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, so the cannibal does not belong in prison as you say. There was no premeditated, malicious intent. How could there be, if you’re not in the right mind.

            Not seeing that is the big issue here.

            • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s unusual. So because they didn’t choose the mental illness, they’re absolved of the effects it has? So really the only thing drunk drivers are at fault for is the first drink. After that, they can’t be held responsible. “Not in the right mind” as you say.

              • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re right that the drunk driver is only responsible for the first drink. The first drink is what caused the accident in the first place. What happened to manslaughter isn’t murder anyways? That drunk driver very much chose to drink that night and didn’t take measure to stop themselves from doing something dangerous, which justifies a manslaughter charge, like getting a ride to the bar.

                That’s very different from someone being mentally ill and absolutely unable to control when those voices start screaming in their head to kill someone.

                • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But hey that first drink isn’t illegal, it’s everything they did after they’re ‘mentally impaired’ so they shouldn’t be held responsible for the second drink or getting behind the wheel. It wasn’t their choice, right? This line of logic is deeply flawed. If we expect people who are drunk to take measures not to harm others in spite of their mental impairment, we should expect the same for the mentally ill.

          • BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You keep using those words… “premeditated” and “malicious intent”…

            Do you… understand mental illness at all?

          • CoderKat@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            By nature of successfully being considered legally insane (which is not easy to do), he doesn’t have malicious intent, though. Not in the eyes of the law. By being not in the right mind, it’s as if it wasn’t actually him that committed the crime.

            We should be making decisions based on facts, not emotions. It’s easy for a horrible crime to make us feel “what the fuck, he should rot in prison”. But ask yourself why the insanity defense even exists if not to allow seriously ill people to be helped.