Stabbing in Brentwood-5 Dead, 1 Arrested

[Aeneas]

Horrific story.

I have only one thing to contribute. Should have quoted jayswin's post, but too lazy to go back now.

I was always one of those who thought justice in these cases was the death penalty or life in prison. I didn't care about the mental illness, I only cared about the victims and their families.

I credit CP for turning me around and making me look into this complex issue deeper.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Here's what i don't understand..

If this was always going to be the decision in the case, why in the name of all things good, did the crown give a blow by blow of what happened that night including pictures that the families/friends in the courtroom were subjected too.

Seems pointless (if not cruel) to those most affected by the demonstration when none of it was necessary to an agreement between the crown and the defense that deGrood was NCR.

I have a feeling we will hear from some more family members and their thoughts on thhis may not be very complimentary to the crown or towards any sort of "justice" being served.

Maybe i am out to lunch on this but damn it seems really iffy to me.

I honestly don't know enough about the process of something like this to comment.

It seems to me that this is a process that has to happen regardless, no? They can't just rule NCR (or anything) without a trial, regardless of how the sides feel. Maybe new evidence comes to light. Maybe a witness says something that changes things. I dunno. Seems like due diligence to me, however painful for the families. It'd be an awful thing to sit through, no question, but it seems to be the correct process to me. Is there an alternative? I honestly don't know. Can the Crown, defense, and judge all just sit in a room and decide he's NCR without any other testimony?

If there are alternatives, I would assume, at least partially, that it was done for the benefit of the public. Imagine if we never heard anything about DeGroods actions, or what he said to people, and he was just declared NCR without any of us knowing these things. There would be an uproar, especially in Calgary. I think for the benefit of the country as a whole, cases of NCR have to be as clear and transparent as possible.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by MBates

(Deleted)

No legitimate Crown prosecutor would propose on day 2 of a 1st degree murder trial to have a day of family tributes for the victims if he was actually conducting a trial to convict someone and sentence them to life.

No competent defence counsel could even fathom agreeing to such a step if he was not already assured no convictions were being sought.

As for the judge, I am struggling to understand how he permitted it to happen even though it was jointly proposed by the lawyers. Having allowed massively prejudicial and completely invalid information put before him he could not legitimately convict the accused now and have the proceeding withstand appellate scrutiny.

(More Deleted)

MBates,

I agree with the above, its clear the Crown conceded even before the opening statements.

I also found it odd how the press reported on the defence counsel being "near to tears", not to say anything bad about him, but it just doesn't sit right that the lead story one day is the defence lawyer was near crying.

However, the Crown hires three experts and they all come back with consistent (though not the same) diagnoses. And we know the Crown is obligated to seek the truth, not to seek a conviction.

So what is the Crown to do here? I presume you're going to say, cross-examine the hell out of those experts, but you still need the back-up of at least one expert to provide an alternative diagnosis, don't you? Should the Crown have gone shopping for an out country expert? Doesn't that look bad by itself?

[AcGold]

I read the psych report and it really does seem like he had a complete psychotic break from reality. Purely speculation but the description he gave of the events indicates there was something driving him to a state of hyper paranoia, it was the paranoia that someone was plotting against him that drove him mad. Seems like he was gaslighting himself with conspiracy theories. You guys should read the psych report.

Since he doesn't have a history at all of paranoid delusions my guess is there was something toxic in his environment. His words describe exactly how a person in a psychotic break thinks where they start making false correlations between events and creating false paradigms.

The possibility that he masterminded such a lie is unlikely as it would require true genius to come up with each lie and his actions don't match that of a genius. Now I really am wondering what happened that drove him to be so paranoid. It's common to assume that a psychotic break means you completely lose touch with reality but that's not the case, it's that you supplant delusional correlations on top of true cognitions. He knew he was at a party, he knew who his friends were but he thought there was a conspiracy going on in the background.

Schizophrenia is a long-term disease and generally a mental disorder must persist for a period of two months or more before it is considered an actual disorder, deGrood suffered the symptoms for just the one month preceding the events as his life slowly disintegrated.

I'm guessing stress, social isolation, malnutrition, improper sleep patterns and conspiracy theories pushed him to a state of hyper stress and paranoia. I could be wrong and he could be schizophrenic but it seems like environmental factors were more contributory than biological.

Here's the report http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...ych-Report.pdf

[Regorium]

I've read the psych report. I truly respect the expert's opinion.

The report states that it is extremely unlikely that such a drastic reaction could be had for being snubbed at a party. Earlier, I believe MattyC stated that you can't really apply rational behavior to an irrational mind - I agree with the statement, but it has to work both ways. We, of rational mind, might think that it's a ridiculous reaction to kill 5 people for being snubbed. For someone irrational, it might be perfectly acceptable - does that make it NCR?

Elliot Rodgers is another person that was a social pariah, and ended up murdering a bunch of white girls and asian dudes. Drastic reaction? Absolutely, but wouldn't really say NCR even though he's absolutely insane (of course he committed suicide, making the discussion much easier).

Some people when they walk in on a cheating spouse, leave in disappointment and file divorce. Others will murder in a crime of passion. In a case like this, many people argue that they were not themselves at that moment in time, completely overtaken by anger and rage and no longer thinking rationally. Does that make them NCR? I'm sure stress, social isolation, improper sleep patterns and all those contributory factors are also involved in cases like that as well as usually that's how relationships break down.

My opinion is that no, he didn't commit murder 1 based on the psych report and the evidence presented, but 5 counts of manslaughter absolutely should've been on the table, which would've guaranteed that he will not be in public for a long time, as well as getting the psychiatric treatment that he needs.

I'm just rambling at this point, but I guess I'm not completely knowledgeable regarding the laws around what constitutes NCR and what constitutes manslaughter. I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what makes a case like this any different than a drunk driver (who was clearly not himself behind the wheel) that just had financial difficulty, stress at home, a bad upbringing, social isolation, improper sleep patterns, struggling with alcoholism (a condition classified as a mental illness) that killed five people. For some reason, I think the reaction to a case like that would be drastically different than what we see in this thread.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I've read the psych report. I truly respect the expert's opinion.

The report states that it is extremely unlikely that such a drastic reaction could be had for being snubbed at a party. Earlier, I believe MattyC stated that you can't really apply rational behavior to an irrational mind - I agree with the statement, but it has to work both ways. We, of rational mind, might think that it's a ridiculous reaction to kill 5 people for being snubbed. For someone irrational, it might be perfectly acceptable - does that make it NCR?

Elliot Rodgers is another person that was a social pariah, and ended up murdering a bunch of white girls and asian dudes. Drastic reaction? Absolutely, but wouldn't really say NCR even though he's absolutely insane (of course he committed suicide, making the discussion much easier).

Some people when they walk in on a cheating spouse, leave in disappointment and file divorce. Others will murder in a crime of passion. In a case like this, many people argue that they were not themselves at that moment in time, completely overtaken by anger and rage and no longer thinking rationally. Does that make them NCR? I'm sure stress, social isolation, improper sleep patterns and all those contributory factors are also involved in cases like that as well as usually that's how relationships break down.

My opinion is that no, he didn't commit murder 1 based on the psych report and the evidence presented, but 5 counts of manslaughter absolutely should've been on the table, which would've guaranteed that he will not be in public for a long time, as well as getting the psychiatric treatment that he needs.

I'm just rambling at this point, but I guess I'm not completely knowledgeable regarding the laws around what constitutes NCR and what constitutes manslaughter. I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what makes a case like this any different than a drunk driver (who was clearly not himself behind the wheel) that just had financial difficulty, stress at home, a bad upbringing, social isolation, improper sleep patterns, struggling with alcoholism (a condition classified as a mental illness) that killed five people. For some reason, I think the reaction to a case like that would be drastically different than what we see in this thread.

Yes, you do have it all wrong, and it seems to be because you're trying to overthink everything due to not understanding the disorder itself and how the law applies to it.

With the disorder itself you're comparing rational minds to irrational minds and extremely angry people to mental illness. You're basically all over the map trying to justify justice for the families, which is fine it's human nature. I think you're biggest misunderstanding appears to be that you believe that Degrood could have been kind of in a psychotic state, but also kind of upset and in control of his actions.

What the doctors found is that he was in a psychotic state and not in control of his thoughts or actions. There was no "what the hell's happening to me, I'm going to kill people, I need to stop this, ah geez I don't think I can".


Also, with regards to application of the law, it would make no sense at all to not apply full murder charges but apply manslaughter charges so that he stays in for a long time because you're not comfortable with NCR. I mean you're suggesting literally applying a false charge to a person as a "happy medium criminal charge" to appease people. That's utterly ridiculous.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Regorium

.

I'm just rambling at this point, but I guess I'm not completely knowledgeable regarding the laws around what constitutes NCR and what constitutes manslaughter. I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what makes a case like this any different than a drunk driver (who was clearly not himself behind the wheel) that just had financial difficulty, stress at home, a bad upbringing, social isolation, improper sleep patterns, struggling with alcoholism (a condition classified as a mental illness) that killed five people. For some reason, I think the reaction to a case like that would be drastically different than what we see in this thread.

Of course it would be. Alcoholism may be a mental illness, but it's not one that causes individuals to lose the ability to appreciate that their actions are wrong before they get drunk. You can't get out of an impaired charge with an NCR defense. Nothing about your above scenario would support a diagnosis where at the time of committing the offense the perpetrator was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong. We're not talking about a suspect who was stressed out by school and had a few drinks and lack of sleep. That would be an entirely different scenario where a section 16 defense would in all probabilities fail.

[jayswin]

Think of it this way, if you had paranoid schizophrenia like doctor's have claimed Matthew Degrood did (I worded that so as to hopefully not draw Peter12 into semantics about whether they're right or not) it would be like this;

You'd wake up in a hospital bed and police would tell you that you killed 5 people last night. That's it, that's your knowledge of the crime.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by ernie

Treading some dangerous ground here...

Homolka made a plea bargain with the Crown who erroneously did so without looking at all the evidence from what I recall. Regardless, the plea bargain went through. During her incarceration she didn't fool anybody and was deemed early on as likely to re-offend and she was made not eligible for early release for this very reason. At the time of release it was stated that she had made rehabilitation progress but some things were still concerning. As such she had several restrictions at time of release (which were subsequently lifted). As far as we know at this time, 11 years later, she has not re-offended.

The Holmolka case highlights the bias in law towards down charging female violent offenders mostly, Crown realized they didnt have enough evidence to charge Bernado, let alone convict at first, they knew full well both were involved and made the decision to offer her the manslaughter charge in order to put him away for ever.
What she knew and they should have was the existence of video tapes of the crime in their house, they were discovered later in a bathroom cabinet if I remember right, truely shoddy police work that allowed her to get away with murder.
Holmolka was clearly some level of sociopath but neither socio or psychopaths are considered mentally ill in the eyes of the law, they know right from wrong and are utterly lucid.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The Holmolka case highlights the bias in law towards down charging female violent offenders mostly, Crown realized they didnt have enough evidence to charge Bernado, let alone convict at first, they knew full well both were involved and made the decision to offer her the manslaughter charge in order to put him away for ever.
What she knew and they should have was the existence of video tapes of the crime in their house, they were discovered later in a bathroom cabinet if I remember right, truely shoddy police work that allowed her to get away with murder.
Holmolka was clearly some level of sociopath but neither socio or psychopaths are considered mentally ill in the eyes of the law, they know right from wrong and are utterly lucid.

I don't remember a lot of details of the Bernardo/Holmolka case but I do remember a doctor at trial pointing out the numerous sex assaults Paul did before she was in the picture and compared her to a nazi concentration camp survivor that was forced to commit awful acts to survive and was groomed by Bernardo's sick mind.

I suppose we never will know the full truth but by all accounts she was perfectly normal before Bernardo and after her 12 years in jail.

[EldrickOnIce]

The experts provide an opinion - and I understand that this is not an exact science. But I do have issues with phrases like:
'It appears that..."
"It is unlikely that..."
"Does not appear to be...."
I know... they can provide nothing but an expert opinion - and I would have no reason to expect that opinion is not accurate, but still...
Anyway, horrible from every angle.

[Ne7en]

I know allot of people are strumming this case up to NCR but I cannot get over the premeditation he had. The texts warning of the "night of long knives", "5", had the victims picked out, etc. Sure the guy had/has mental issues but anyone who commits a murder clearly is not of the right mindset.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

The experts provide an opinion - and I understand that this is not an exact science. But I do have issues with phrases like:
'It appears that..."
"It is unlikely that..."
"Does not appear to be...."
I know... they can provide nothing but an expert opinion - and I would have no reason to expect that opinion is not accurate, but still...
Anyway, horrible from every angle.

What are your "issues" with those phrases?

[Ducay]

I think the fact the Crown didn't argue the NCR is most telling.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What are your "issues" with those phrases?

I think he's looking for certainty in a world where it doesn't exist.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Ne7en

I know allot of people are strumming this case up to NCR but I cannot get over the premeditation he had. The texts warning of the "night of long knives", "5", had the victims picked out, etc. Sure the guy had/has mental issues but anyone who commits a murder clearly is not of the right mindset.

Being NCR doesn't rule out the ability for premeditation though.

[Otto-matic]

Meghan Grant ‏@CBCMeg 13m13 minutes ago Macklin: Matthew #degrood had a mental disorder at time of the killings

Meghan Grant ‏@CBCMeg 7m7 minutes ago Macklin: agrees with experts - #degrood did not know what he was doing was morally wrong. Now moves onto possibility of malingering

Meghan Grant ‏@CBCMeg 1m1 minute ago Macklin: agrees w/ experts who found #degrood not faking/exaggerating symptoms

Meghan Grant ‏@CBCMeg 2m BREAKING: Justice Eric Macklin finds Matthew de Grood not criminally responsible for killing 5 people on April 14, 2014 #degrood

[Regorium]

At least he was remorseful in the end.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Ne7en

I know allot of people are strumming this case up to NCR but I cannot get over the premeditation he had. The texts warning of the "night of long knives", "5", had the victims picked out, etc. Sure the guy had/has mental issues but anyone who commits a murder clearly is not of the right mindset.

Sorry, and may be I'm mistaken, but wasn't the "night of the long knives" what he said to his friend after the murders?

Additionally, weren't there only 5 people present in the house at the time? I could very easily be mistaken, but if he texted "5" earlier in the day and 5 people just happened to stay behind, that's closer to precognition, not premeditation.

Although your point is made with the garlic and knife he brought to the party anyways.

[peter12]

I would be interested in seeing his IQ test results. Obviously they are confidential, but I would guess his score was quite high.