CREEPS XI

There are two kinds of creepy people that bring utter contempt to anyone who commits these crimes. They are parents who kill their children and children who kill their parents. Today’s article is about a father who killed his two small children.                              

Dr. Guy Turcotte was born on April 21 1972 and later he worked with his wife Isabelle Gaston at Hotel-Dieu de Saint-Jerome (hospital) as a cardiologist. He met and fell in love with Gaston in Québec City in 1999. They moved in together in 2000, but their relationship became hostile to the point of domestic violence on both parts. Due to this violence, Turcotte moved out but reconciled with Gaston shortly after promising to work on their relationship.

                   

In mid-January 2009, shortly before Gaston and Turcotte were planning to leave for a trip to Mexico with their children, Turcotte was informed that his wife was having an affair with their personal trainer and friend Martin Huot. His girlfriend, Patricia Giroux, is the one who notified Turcotte of the affair and also provided proof by showing emails between Huot and Gaston. This angered Turcotte, and he felt betrayed. Although he couldn't bring himself to cancel the trip, Turcotte and Gaston decided to separate. Two days after coming home from their trip, Turcotte left the family residence. Gaston and the children stayed in the house, and both parents agreed to share custody.  

                                                                                                       

 During the separation, conversations between Turcotte and Gaston were often spiteful. On February 8, 2009, Turcotte found out that the children had been to the Carnaval de Québec with their mother and Huot. The Carnaval had special meaning to him since he had lived in Quebec City for many years. Turcotte testified Later that "a hammer to the head would have hurt less… I could not accept that Martin spent time with my children...as if I was being replaced". The next day, a former neighbor told Turcotte that the day he left, Huot had spent the night with his family and had been staying there almost every night for the previous two weeks. Turcotte said during his testimony that the information "made him flip". On February 10, 2009, he went to his family's residence to fetch his son's sweater and found Huot in the kitchen. Turcotte said, "You stole my wife. You betrayed me, you were my friend" and punched Huot in the face before leaving the house.

On February 20, 2009, Turcotte drove by his old house, and Gaston ordered him to leave, telling him, "you are going to stop controlling my life...now, if I want to, I can change the children's names... I can get custody, I can move anywhere in Quebec". Turcotte was terrified of losing his children. That day, while he was at work, colleagues noted that there were no outward signs of distress. He had exchanged emails with Gaston and also picked up his children from daycare and school. He telephoned Gaston, who told him that she had changed the locks on the house and had consulted a lawyer. He was deeply hurt and took this as an attack. He replied that if she wanted war, she was going to get it. That night, Turcotte felt dejected and began to cry. After putting the children to bed, he read dated emails from Gaston which further hurt and disheartened him. He wanted to end his life and searched the Internet for techniques to commit suicide. I hate to say this but it would have been better if he had committed suicide. Alas, that didn’t happen.

On the morning of February 21, 2009, two police officers followed up on a call placed to 911 after Turcotte had expressed suicidal thoughts to his mother. When they entered his home, the officers discovered the inert bodies of two children, a boy and a girl.  Turcotte was hiding under his bed, covered in vomit and blood. He told police he'd drunk windshield wiper fluid and wanted to die.

After tucking his two children in bed, his 5-year-old son cried out, “Non Papa, Non. (No father No) as he stabbed the little boy 27 times. He stabbed his 3-year-old daughter 19 times.

Now it must be obvious to my readers that his motive was clear. He was punishing his wife by killing their children. He told a nurse in the hospital while being treated for the ingestion of windshield wiper fluid that he killed the children. He told her that he wanted to make her angry and that the way to do so was to take away from her what was most precious to her. To accomplish that purpose, he murdered their children. That puts him in the category of a human monster.

I remember reading years ago about another human monster who called his wife on the phone while he held their six-year-old son by his hand. He said to her, “You want our son back in your custody. Come and get him.” Then she heard a loud shot on the phone. Then the monster said. “His body is here for you to pick up.” It occurred in the United States. I don’t know if he was executed or sent to prison for life.

 Turcotte was charged with two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of his two children. For multiple murder offences committed after December 2, 2011, a court may, after considering any jury recommendation, impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for each murder. While the provision is not mandatory, this means, for example, that an individual convicted of two counts of first degree murder could face life with no parole for 50 years or 25 years for each conviction. Unfortunately, this monster won’t be sentenced to 50 years in prison because he committed his crimes before that new law came into effect. Although he could be sentenced to 25 years, that doesn’t mean he won’t spend more time in prison. The 25-year sentence is the minimum sentence he would have to serve if he was given that sentence.

 The jurors had the choice of four possible verdicts: not criminally responsible or guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Now it must be obvious to anyone reading this article that this sleaze ball didn’t want to go to prison for 25 years. The only way he could avoid prison is to pretend that he was crazy when he committed that horrendous crime. If he could convince the psychiatrists who were examining him that he really was crazy, the jury would rule that he was not criminally responsible for the two murders of his children.

Defence psychiatrists, as well as Turcotte, said he drank the windshield wiper fluid before the slayings in an attempt to commit suicide and then decided to kill his children to spare them finding his body the next day.

I can understand why Turcotte would make that statement but it is beyond all understanding why his defence psychiatrists would accept that statement as being genuine considering what he had said to the nurse.  Defence psychiatrists are hired by the defence to say what the defence wants to be said. I think of them as the prostitutes of the court.

 The Crown prosecutor agreed that Turcotte wanted to commit suicide, but said he killed the children before consuming the liquid – perhaps an hour before his arrest, according to one expert. Jurors heard it was impossible to know with certainty when and how much methanol was ingested.

Truscott’s lawyer warned jurors from the outset that finding someone guilty for acts committed by someone not of sound mind would have legal consequences. By that, he meant that the decision would be appealed to a higher court.

 On July 5, 2011, a jury rendered a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Pursuant to Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, the Review Board must assess the respondent's mental state and the risk he may represent to society. On June 4, 2012, the Review Board rendered its first decision. It ordered Turcotte to remain in detention at the Institut Philippe-Pinel (hospital for the criminally insane) because on that date, he represented a significant risk to society. On December 12, 2012, the Review Board reassessed Turcotte’s state of mind. It found that the safety of the public no longer required that he be held in a hospital institution. It therefore granted him bail under certain conditions and allowed him to continue to receive the care he required as an out-patient.                                            

The Crown appealed the verdict, and on November 13, 2013, a Court ordered a new trial. The judge concluded that a reasonably informed public would not lose confidence in the administration of justice if the respondent were released pending his trial and the verdict of a jury. The Supreme Court of Canada indicated in the past that judges must deny bail if they are satisfied that, a reasonable member of the community would be satisfied that denial of bail is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. After listening to all the arguments, the Appeal Court ruled  that on the basis of the standard of review defined in the Supreme Court ruling in another case, , the Appeal Court was of the view that the trial judge did not commit a palpable error of law or fact and that he exercised his discretion judicially.

A new judgment was rendered on September 12, 2014, by the Superior Court, District of Saint-Jérôme (the Honourable Mr. Justice André Vincent) who then assessed the testimony and concluded that the detention of Turcotte was not necessary to ensure his presence at trial or for the safety or protection of the public. He then ordered the interim release of Turcotte in addition to a number of conditions and prohibitions intended to restrict his freedom and ensure his presence at trial, in compliance with the applicable rules.

Needless to say, not only was the Crown prosecutor infuriated, so was the rest of Canada.

The Crown argued in the Quebec court of appeal that the trial judge erred in law in his interpretation and application of paragraph 515(10)(c). This provision sets out four criteria justifying the detention of an accused in custody to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case, the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, and the fact that the accused is liable for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment.

In December 2015, Turcotte was found guilty of second-degree murder of his two children. The jury rejected the defence of not criminally responsible for the murders. His lawyer has filed an appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal based on the premise that the trial judge erred in not advising the jury that because he suffered from a mental disorder, he should have been found not guilty since he wasn’t criminally responsible for his crimes.

The charge of second degree murder in Canada is the sudden deliberate killing carried out without planning ahead of time that apples to first degree murder. The minimum sentence is life in prison with no parole for 10 years, but sentences can be as long as life in prison without parole for 25 years.

The sentence date was scheduled for January 15, 2016. On that date, he was ordered to serve 17 years in prison before he can apply for parole. Quite frankly, I don’t think that sentence is sufficient for stabbing to death tw0 small children.