>>That typically occurs in the U.S. when the prosecution doesn't think they have a strong enough case to prove 1st degree murder. Did the prosecution go for 1st degree murder and the judge gave the jury the option to find him guilty of 1st degree or 2nd degree murder?
>
>Yes and yes. I still can't fathom how you can find a man guilty of being a serial killer (he was found guilty of 6 murders so far and there are still a lot more to go) and come to the conclusion that he didn't plan any of them. They were all 'spur of the moment'? Seems inane to me.

One possibility: they were crimes of opportunity. Maybe he invited hundreds of women to "party" at his farm, over a period of years, but only killed those drunk or stoned enough to be completely helpless.

Another possibility, based on a Pickton quote: "I know I was brought into this world to be hear (sic) today to change this world of there (sic) evil ways," . . . Perhaps after interviewing a given woman over a period of time he may have decided that she was evil and should be murdered. Other women may not have met the "standard" and may have been spared. It's a very fine line but it could be argued that in either of these cases there was not premeditation.

Bear in mind that any serial murderer is not going to be considered "sane". Both of the above arguments are (IMO :)) rational; Pickton's real motives may not be rational at all.