Despres not criminally responsible for neighbours' deaths

A New Brunswick judge has ruled that Gregory Despres caused the deaths of his elderly neighbours but that he is not criminally responsible.

Cries of "Hallelujah" and "Thank God" fromrelatives of the victimsturned to tears asthe judge's ruling first saidthe 25-year-old had caused the deaths but then went on to say he couldn't be held criminally responsible.

Justice William Grant told the Fredericton Court of Queen's Bench on Wednesdaythe Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt Despres caused the deaths of Fred Fulton, 74, and Verna Decarie, 70, in April 2005.

The defence, however, had also successfully argued that Despres was not criminally responsible for his actions, Grant said.

Despreswas charged with two counts for first-degree murder. Hehas now been remanded to the Shepody Healing Centre, which serves as a secure mental health centre for New Brunswick's medium-security Dorchester Penitentiary. A disposition hearing will be held within 45 days to determine what will happen next to Despres.

'Sheer brutality'

Fulton and Decarie were found dead in their Minto, N.B., home on April 26, 2005. Both had been stabbed repeatedly and Fulton was decapitated.

"The sheer brutality of the murders makes me question whether this could be carried out by a person who understood the wrongfulness of their actions," Grant said.

The court had heard there were footprints made in blood by bare feet and a pair of boots throughout the house and on the back porch indicating a struggle where Fulton had at one point likely escaped his attacker to the outside and also attempted to barricade himself in the bathroom.

Fulton had 30 clusters of stab wounds on his body and his decapitated head was found in a pillowcase under the kitchen table. Decarie's body had 31 wounds with the most substantial stabs to her face and upper neck.

Grant said he believed from the testimony of expert witnesses and Despres's family that he had been suffering from a mental illness for at least a year before the killings and was delusional for at least 24 hours after the incident.

The judge referenced the testimony of Despres's grandfather, who had told the court that the man would stay in the bathroom for hours talking to himself in voices.

Despres's delusions were also apparent when he crossed the border at Calais, Maine, and told border officials that he was a marine sniper and an assassin with 700 kills.

Family members of the victims told reporters outside the courthousethe verdict was not unexpected but that they were still disappointed.

"I think that's too grey of [an] area in the law," said Michael Richardson, Fulton's nephew. "I just think that you're responsible for your actions regardless of what you do. If you're not responsible for your actions, who is?

"Someone should pay for these two people being murdered, and I don't think we got justice today."

Second trial for Despres

The second trial for Despres was heardbyGrant alone.

Despres's first trial was halted in 2007 after he exhibited bizarre behaviour in the courtroom. After a psychiatric assessment, he was declared unfit to stand trial and ordered to undergo treatment for paranoid schizophrenia.

A provincial review board later ruled that Despres had responded well to psychiatric treatment, understood the court proceedings and the charges against him and was fit to stand trial again.

His second trial, however, was adjourned again in November to allow the Crown and defence to prepare expert witnesses to testify onwhether Despres could be held criminally responsible for his alleged crimes.

In January, the court heard from two psychiatrists who believed that the man could not be found criminally responsible if a guilty verdict was handed down.

For individuals to be found not criminally responsible, they must have a mental disorder and that illness must be found to have had aneffect on behaviour during the situation being examined.

Despres's defence lawyers had argued he was delusional and believed he was carrying out a military mission at the time the slayings occurred.

The Crown maintained that Despres knowingly entered the home of his neighbours with a weapon and wearing protective clothing. He then committed a crime, fled the scene and crossed the border into the United States, the Crown argued in court.