Guy Turcotte found guilty of 2nd-degree murder in deaths of his 2 children

Guy Turcotte has been found guilty of second-degree murder in the deaths of his two children.

Turcotte was being tried for first-degree murder for a second time in connection with the stabbingdeaths of his children Olivier, 5, and Anne-Sophie, 3, on Feb. 20, 2009.

The 11-person jury reached the unanimousverdict on theseventh day of deliberations.

• Guy Turcotte verdict is 'right,' forensic psychiatrist says
• Medical experts should be selected by courts, Collge says

A conviction on second-degree murder carries a sentence of lifeimprisonment but the accused can be freed after a certain number ofyears.

Judge Andr Vincent asked the jury if it had a recommendation in terms of sentencing, but the jury replied after a brief deliberation that it did not have one to offer.

The prosecution and defence will present their recommendations for sentencing on Dec. 18.

Isabelle Gaston reacts to Turcotte verdict

9 years ago

Duration 0:33

Guy Turcotte has been found guilty of second-degree murder in the deaths of his two children. His ex-wife Isabelle Gaston reacts.

Mother reacts

Isabelle Gaston, the children's mother and Turcotte'sex-wife, said she was "happy" and "relieved" by the verdict, but thatit was hard to consider it avictory.

"I will not wake uptomorrowwith children," Gaston told reporters.

"I'm relieved for Olivier and Anne-Sophie, this is justice for them a little girl of threeand a little boy of five," she said, her voice breaking.

"I hope that Olivier and Anne-Sophie, their souls, will be able to rest."

Gaston said the verdict will help her to move forward with her life and start to heal.

"Since their deaths, my life has been a struggle, really a struggle," she said.

Turcotte admitted to causing thedeaths of his children, but the defence argued the former cardiologistwas not criminally responsible due to mental illness.

In the first trial in 2011,Turcottewasfoundnot criminally responsible for their deaths.

Crown prosecutors successfully appealed the original verdict inNovember 2013 and the country's highest court announced early thefollowing year it wouldn't hearTurcotte'sappeal of that decision.

In the second trial, which began in September,Turcottetestifiedhe drank windshieldwasher fluid on the night of the killings in an attempt to end his own lifeand, upon seeing death approaching, he stabbedhis two childrento spare them from waking up to a dead father.

The Crown, however, argued the killings were premeditatedas revenge againstGaston, who hadleft him a short time earlier for another man.

Reliving the trauma

Gaston said living through a second trial was difficult and forced her to once again confrontimages thatshe had worked hard to put out of her head.

"At first, I didn't want to come back and testify, but then I chose to have hope in the prosecutors," she said.

"When you are a mother, or a father, you have to go over your own needs and fight for your children, fortheir rights."

4 possible verdicts

The Crown completed its final arguments last Wednesday, saying Turcotte had decided to commit suicide and wanted to kill his children to ensure they weren't raised by another man.

Earlier, in the final arguments for the defence,Turcotte's lawyer had argued his client was a loving father who would not have killed his children unless he was suffering from mental illness.

The jury hadfour possible verdicts from which to choose:

• Guilty offirst-degree murder.
• Not criminally responsible due to mental illness.
• Not guilty of first-degree murder but guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
• Not guilty of first-degree murder but guiltyof second-degree murder.

Judge Vincenttold the jurors that to findTurcottenon-criminallyresponsible they had to believe that he had proven he was incapableof judging the nature or quality of his acts or of knowing whetherthe acts were wrong.

Duelling expert witnesses

Thetrial came down to duelling expert witnesses.

Experts on both sides agreed that Turcotte was suffering frommental issues an adjustment disorder with symptoms of anxiety anddepression.

They differed on his state of mind, however, with defence expertssaying Turcotte was obsessed with suicide, mentally ill andincapable of telling right from wrong.

Prosecution experts counteredthat he was in control and responsible for the acts.

Pierre Bleau, a Crown witness, said someone suffering from anadjustment disorder doesn't lose contact with reality, the abilityto reflect or a sense of responsibility for his actions.

Defence witness Dominique Bourget, a forensic psychiatrist with aspecialty in domestic homicides, testified Turcotte was sufferingfrom "a major mental illness" that prevented him from developingan intent to kill.

Another psychiatrist, Louis Morissette, testified Turcotte killedhis kids to prevent them from witnessing his eventual suicide andsaid that logic was faulty and the result of a sick mind.

Methanol a marginalfactor, expert said

Morissettesaid the actions were the product of his troubled mental state andhis suicidal thoughts and that Turcotte's consumption of methanolwas a marginal factor.

The Crown and defence disagreed on when the accused consumed thewindshield washer fluid and the impact it had on his actions.

Defence experts, as well as Turcotte, said he drank the fluidbefore the slayings in an attempt to commit suicide and then decidedto kill his children to spare them finding his body the next day.

The Crown agreed that Turcotte wanted to commit suicide, but saidhe killed the children before consuming the liquid perhaps an hourbefore his arrest, according to one expert.

Jurors heard it wasimpossible to know with certainty when and how much methanol wasingested.

Mother calls for expert accountability

After the verdict was announced, Gaston, a family doctor,said Quebec's medical collegehas"work to do" to ensure medical experts are made more accountable for their testimonies in court.

"When someone takes the stand in court and testifiesthat an adjustment disorder can justify the murder of children, I have serious questions," she said.

"It's still medicine, even if it's in a court, and we can't let that go without inspection and without analysis. If not, it undermines the public's confidence in itsinstitutions."