During a cross-examination which gave rise to a heated verbal contest between the defense lawyer and the Crown psychiatrist, Ms.and Pierre Gagnon sought to establish that the expert had “confirmation bias” when he met the accused. An argument cleverly rejected by the witness.
• Read also: Halloween attack in Quebec: a malicious fantasy to prove itself
• Read also: Trial of Carl Girouard: the specialist’s tests questioned
In the conclusions of his report, forensic psychiatrist Sylvain Faucher, presented by the prosecution, concluded that Carl Girouard’s murderous journey resulted from a “malicious fantasy” and a “narcissistic quest” rather than a psychotic delirium. .
Because of this, the Halloween attacker was therefore fully aware of what he was doing when he killed two people and injured five others.
From the start of the psychiatrist’s cross-examination, the defense lawyer, Mr.and Pierre Gagnon, submitted that the expert may have had a preconceived idea of the accused even before meeting him. “Do you believe you may have been the victim of confirmation or hypothesis bias?” asked M.and Gagnon.
Cleverly, the witness retorted: “I invite you to demonstrate it to me.” The cross-examination was thus colored by this question regularly asked by Mr.and Gagnon as different topics were discussed.
- Listen to the chronicle of Nicole Gibeault, retired judge, at the microphone of Geneviève Pettersen on QUB radio:
Lack of attention
It was in particular question of the lack of attention which Girouard could have suffered in his childhood, a lack which would be at the source of his narcissistic personality disorder.
Thus, according to the Dr Faucher, the accused was anxious to respect the rules of society, to be “a good guy”, while keeping a distance from people, to “protect his esteem” and hide his difference.
“There wouldn’t be another reason why he’s stepping down [s’isole]?” then retorted M.and Gagnon. “To protect his mission?” he raised.
Once again, the lawyer returned to his original question. “Why, if it’s not a bias, do you always bring us back to his story of esteem, never to his mission?” asked M.and Gagnon.
However, the psychiatrist Faucher never seemed destabilized by the prosecutor’s questions.
On the contrary, several of his answers made the members of the jury laugh, in particular when he replied to the lawyer: “I am a bottomless pit” to argue that he was able to dwell at length on the personality disorders.
The cross-examination of the psychiatrist Faucher will continue on Monday. This is the last witness in this trial, after which the lawyers are expected to present their closing arguments.