While attorneys from both parties spoke at length about the credibility of their respective psychiatrists during their pleadings, Judge Richard Grenier took the time to guide the jury in his instructions so they could properly assess these expert testimonies at the heart of the debate at The Halloween Killer Trial .
• Also read: Pleas in the trial of the Halloween killer: A psychosis disappeared in no time
• Also read: Carl Girouard trial: The jury is scheduled to deliberate on Monday
The final step before the jury is seized to decide a verdict in the Carl Girouard case began Thursday morning.
In order for jury members to take advantage of the good weather over the next few days, Judge Richard Grenier presented only part of his guidelines, to be finalized on Monday when deliberations are due to begin.
No acknowledgment possible
In particular, the judge recalled that there was “no room for an acquittal” in this case, since the accused admitted causing the deaths of François Duchesne (56) and Suzanne Clermont (61) and injuring five other people.
- Hear Vincent Dessureault on the mic with Mario Dumont on QUB radio
The jury must first rule on the 26-year-old’s non-criminal liability for a mental disorder.
If they reject that thesis, the jury must then agree on a murder verdict, which is due on January 1stah degree, i.e. on the 2ndand degree or even manslaughter.
However, the judge has not yet explained in detail what process the 11 jurors will have to go through in order to decide.
Testimonials from experts
The quality of the testimonies of the three experts, two from the Crown and one from the defence, will certainly be the focus of the jury’s debates and the judge gave them some tips to evaluate them.
“Does the witness appear impartial or neutral? Does he appear complacent or biased and tend to favor the party that subpoenaed him,” the judge said.
There is a significant difference of opinion between the conclusions of the two psychiatrists. Those of the defense, the Dright Gilles Chamberland, confirms that Carl Girouard suffered from schizophrenia and was in a state of full psychotic delirium at the time of the tragedy, such that he could not distinguish between good and evil.
Conversely, psychiatrist Sylvain Faucher, presented by the Krone, is more likely to conclude that the defendant’s malicious fantasy was a deliberate narcissistic pursuit against a society that failed to recognize its otherness.