Guy Turcotte granted conditional release pending murder trial

QuebecCanadian

Electoral Member
Apr 13, 2014
502
0
16
Former Quebec cardiologist Guy Turcotte has been granted conditional release pending his second murder trial for the 2009 stabbing deaths of his two children.

Turcotte — found not criminally responsible in his first trial in the deaths of Olivier, 5, and Anne-Sophie, 3 — made the request to be a free man before a judge at the courthouse in St-Jérôme, Que., last week.

“Of course this is not the conclusion that the Crown expected,” said Crown prosecutor René Verret outside the courtroom.

In rendering his decision, Judge André Vincent said he believed releasing Turcotte would not cause the public to lose faith in the justice system.

Turcotte is entitled to his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty leading up to a murder trial in which the entire process will start from zero, Vincent argued.

“His conditional release does not mean that he is exonerated from the criminal charges he is facing,” he continued.

Patrick Gaston, the uncle of Turcotte's children with Isabelle Gaston, was at the courthouse on Friday, and was overcome by anger.

Gaston ranted about the unfairness of the conditional release while the cameras rolled just outside the courtroom.

He said the court prioritized Turcotte's rights over the rights of the victims and their family. He said his release was done to the detriment of him and the rest of the Gaston family.

"They've put me in prison by freeing him," he said. He reminded reporters that Turcotte stabbed his children a total of 47 times.

“Guy Turcotte will always be a sadistic manipulator,” Gaston said before storming out of the courthouse.

Isabelle Gaston was not at the courthouse and said she would not comment on the court's decision.

Turcotte’s release involves a number of conditions, including not communicating with or coming within 100 metres of ex-wife Gaston.

He will also have to respect a curfew, live at his uncle’s home and continue his psychiatric therapy and medication regimen.

Turcotte was depressed while in custody

Turcotte testified he wanted to be released so that he could take care of his family and perform volunteer work at a food bank on Montreal's South Shore.

He also said that he was the victim of harassment and threats following his return behind bars, and that he had become depressed while in custody.

In September 2015, Turcotte's second trial on two counts of first-degree murder is set to begin.

Turcotte has been detained in the medical wing of the Rivière-des-Prairies detention centre since he was arrested — for a second time — in November 2013.

The ex-cardiologist was charged with first-degree murder in 2009.

Turcotte admitted to killing his children during his trial in 2011. A jury found him not criminally responsible because of a mental-health disorder.

Turcotte then spent 18 months at a Montreal psychiatric hospital, the Pinel Institute.

He was released from the institute in December 2012, but was rearrested in fall 2013 after the Crown appealed the jury decision and won a new trial.

Michel Surprenant, chairman of the Quebec-based Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association, said the court made an error in approving Turcotte's release.

“This doesn’t make any sense. We can’t accept that,” he said.

He agreed with the judge that, as it stands, Turcotte is not a danger to society or to his ex-wife.

"It’s true that he doesn’t present any danger right now, but if he is confronted with a type of stimulation that led to him to kill his two children before, no one is to say he wouldn’t react the same way," Surprenant said in French.

Canadian Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu of Quebec is the founding president of the Murdered or Missing Persons' Families' Association.

He issued a statement shortly after the Turcotte decision was handed down.

"I am deeply troubled by the decision to allow Guy Turcotte to be granted bail until his new trial. This is an affront to his victims and to law-abiding Canadians," the statement read.


Guy Turcotte granted conditional release pending murder trial - Montreal - CBC News

~

Disappointed and pissed but not at all surprised :(

D'oh! I did it again :/
 

QuebecCanadian

Electoral Member
Apr 13, 2014
502
0
16
He admitted to stabbing his kids 47 times. He's guilty or nuts. Either way, he should be locked up forever Don't care where.

They hold people who have been charged with a crime all the time.

How do you know he's not a danger to others? He could fly off the same handle. He could go after the ex-wife (who was the one he wanted to hurt most by doing what he did) and kill her. Then we can all sit here and be outraged that someone like that was given benefit of the doubt....kinda like child services did with the guy who killed his 5 kids.

And what will happen then? The judge will say "oopsy" and put him where he should be now.

He killed his children. Anyone who can do that has no boundaries that can't be crossed.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,181
492
83
Washington DC
He admitted to stabbing his kids 47 times. He's guilty or nuts. Either way, he should be locked up forever Don't care where.
I'm sure he is. But he hasn't been found guilty.

They hold people who have been charged with a crime all the time.
I think I just said what the standard was.

How do you know he's not a danger to others? He could fly off the same handle. He could go after the ex-wife (who was the one he wanted to hurt most by doing what he did) and kill her. Then we can all sit here and be outraged that someone like that was given benefit of the doubt....kinda like child services did with the guy who killed his 5 kids.
The burden of proof is the other way. The Crown has to prove he is a danger.

And what will happen then? The judge will say "oopsy" and put him where he should be now.

He killed his children. Anyone who can do that has no boundaries that can't be crossed.
You'd be surprised.
 

QuebecCanadian

Electoral Member
Apr 13, 2014
502
0
16
Yes, I would be very surprised if a person who could kill his own innocent children to get back at their mother would have a line he couldn't cross.

The proof that he is (or could be) a danger is the fact that he killed his children.

He hasn't been found guilty. Neither has Magnotta. Neither has Bane. You don't let crazies loose. Even if they are educated cardiologists in nice suits,
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,181
492
83
Washington DC
Yes, I would be very surprised if a person who could kill his own innocent children to get back at their mother would have a line he couldn't cross.

The proof that he is (or could be) a danger is the fact that he killed his children.

He hasn't been found guilty. Neither has Magnotta. Neither has Bane. You don't let crazies loose. Even if they are educated cardiologists in nice suits,
You have to let crazies loose unless they are involuntarily committed, which requires a finding of non compos mentis by the court. Then at any time they stabilise as compos mentis, they must be released.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,181
492
83
Washington DC
So why is Magnotta not loose? Or Bane? Because they are accused...charged. Same thing here. No?
Presumably the court has found that they are dangerous or flight risks. Or they haven't posted bail. Those are the only three reasons (besides insanity and, disturbingly, increasingly "national security") that a person can be held.
 

QuebecCanadian

Electoral Member
Apr 13, 2014
502
0
16
Presumably the court has found that they are dangerous or flight risks. Or they haven't posted bail. Those are the only three reasons (besides insanity and, disturbingly, increasingly "national security") that a person can be held.
Well I'm learning.

...but I still don't like it :p
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,181
492
83
Washington DC
Well I'm learning.

...but I still don't like it :p

I understand that. We (by which I mean the English legal system and its progeny) are, in my opinion, a little past a 150-year swing toward the rights of the accused, which was occasioned by abuses by the state (Crown) previously. For the last 15 years or so, the trend has been toward more power for the state (Crown). The good news is the treatment of the accused will probably get more to your liking during the remainder of your lifetime, and you probably won't live long enough to see the slide into systemic abuse of the accused.
 

QuebecCanadian

Electoral Member
Apr 13, 2014
502
0
16
I dunno, if it can't be somewhere in the middle, I say swing right rather than left. I have a hard time with giving benefit of doubt when doubt is minuscule. This guy killed his kids, that's a fact. He is not above killing another human being, that's a fact. He's not above killing an innocent, defenseless child, that's a fact.

I figure "abusing his rights" is better than allowing him an opportunity to abuse someone else's.

Just my opinion. This Charter of Rights goes a tad far if you ask me.

There is a case here. A woman under the influence gets in a horrible accident with a city bus. The bus actually flips over. 2 people are killed. Her mother who was her passenger and the bus driver. 7 of 14 bus passengers are injured and even she sustains major injuries.

This happened August 2012. The trial is scheduled 2015 some time. They are charging her only with impaired driving because they're not quite sure who caused the accident. Okay, I get that. MAYBE her DUI had nothing to do with it. But her lawyer is arguing 2 things...

"Joyal said he'll argue his client's blood samples were taken with the understanding it was for medical purposes and not to be used as evidence against her, and if that were the case, she should have been asked to provide consent. The warrant was obtained four days after the accident.

Joyal will also file a motion arguing unreasonable delays since the trial is only scheduled for 2015."

Dorval accident shocks Montreal bus drivers

CJAD 800 – News. Talk. Radio. :: 2015 trial for accused in fatal Dorval bus crash :: News - CJAD 800 News - Article

Her lawyer will argue that the over the limit blood sample was taken under false pretenses....NOT that it wasn't over the limit.

So this person who was, in fact, over the limit and, in fact, driving in such a state might get off with less than a wrist slap because the police didn't ask the right question when they took her blood. Oh, and the poor dear has to wait an unreasonable 3 years to go to trial.

Hard to have faith.