The trial of the author of the attack in Old Quebec this week tackles the heart of his fundamental debate: mental health. Was the accused in a full psychotic delirium at the time of perpetrating his crimes? Or rather a narcissist without a serious diagnosis?
Last week, Defense expert witness Gilles Chamberland argued that 26-year-old Carl Girouard was delirious on the evening of October 31, 2020 when he violently murdered two people and injured five others with a Japanese sword. .
In the eyes of this psychiatrist, the accused suffers from both an autism spectrum disorder and symptoms of schizophrenia.
In his testimony, he also insisted on the fact that the killer did not tend to pose as a victim, as do the perpetrators of crimes with narcissistic traits. “Throughout his personal history, he never puts it on the backs of others.” Other types of killers “feel like they’re victimized by everyone,” “build up anger, resentment, want revenge. Not him, “said Mr. Chamberland.
But now, since Monday, the expert witness for the Prosecution has been advancing practically the opposite. According to neuropsychologist William Pothier, it is “unlikely” that Carl Girouard is on the autism spectrum or that he suffers from schizophrenia.
According to him, the accused has rather narcissistic traits and suffers from anxiety disorders. When developing his killing plan, he would have been “obsessed with his self-image”.
To affirm this, the psychologist relies on an interview of several hours conducted with Carl Girouard, as well as on two tests aimed at defining the psychological profiles recognized in his field (a questionnaire, and images of inkblots to interpret) .
A “bad Carl” to relieve oneself of responsibility
Mr. Pothier also returned to the statements made by the accused in Court to the effect that “two Carls” lived together in him and that it was the “bad Carl” who had killed people while the “good” one was who took part in the trial.
In the eyes of the expert witness, this is a way for him to pose as a victim and to absolve himself of responsibility. “At the end of the day, he does not blame the others but blames another Carl who is not him,” argued Mr. Pothier. “In narcissism here, the split once again serves to protect esteem. I take all my qualities, I put them in a box; my faults, I put them in another box and that’s not me. »
Remember that in the context of this trial, the accused acknowledges the crimes he has committed and the debate is elsewhere. The jury must determine if he knew what he was doing that night or if he can be found not criminally not responsible on account of mental disorder as pleaded by his lawyer.
Tuesday, the latter, Me Pierre Gagnon sought to highlight the inconsistencies in the testimony of William Pothier and drew the attention of the jury to his young experience as an expert witness.
Mr. Pothier explained that he had worked at the University Institute in Mental Health (IUSMQ) since 2018 and that he had been commissioned by psychiatrist Sylvain Faucher to assess Carl Girouard’s file.
Me Gagnon also wanted to know why the neuropsychologist had not taken more account of an expert report produced when Girouard was a child. The author of this report quoted by Dr. Chamberland, imputed to the little boy “morbid ideations” and a “very important intra-psychic problem”. After a very close questioning, Mr. Pothier explained that he had not considered this “very relevant. »
On Monday, the Prosecution had engaged in a similar exercise with Dr. Chamberland. The prosecutor of the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP), François Godin had notably argued that Dr. Chamberland had a “hypothesis confirmation bias”, that is to say that he took refuge in his preconceived ideas.
With The Canadian Press