We are back up at Alek Minassian's trial. Dr. Alexander Westphal is on his third day of testimony. Follow along here or below. Still waiting on the bottom line on how what he's said so far actually get Minassian to being not criminally responsible. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/12/02/forensic-psychiatrist-dr-alexander-westphal-testifies-for-a-third-day-as-part-of-alek-minassians-defence.html

Westphal is still in examination-in-chief, and Minassian's defence lawyer Boris Bytensky is asking questions. Defence is asking about American insanity defence cases where autism spectrum disorder has been the defence. Judge says it is important to get case law references.

She is not willing to just take Dr. Westphal's word about what courts have said. Defence says the questions will involve cases Westphal has been involved in. Crown says his understanding is that these cases have not been reported, so no way to verify.

Defence says he wants to leave judge with evidence that these issues have been raised in a not criminally responsible type context in other jurisdictions. She's not being asked to consider something no court has ever considered before, he says.

There is no jury so Justice Molloy is going to hear the evidence and they will discuss later what she can do with it, if anything.

Westphal has testified in two cases where autism spectrum disorder was raised as part of a not guilty by reason of insanity defence, and was involved in a third. In one case it was unsuccessful and involved a three judge panel. Judge interjects again and wants to know details.

In Connecticut, not criminally responsible cases are decided by a three-judge panel. Justice Molloy said she cannot attach any weight to this evidence because she doesn't know what these legal processes are. If he has some insight into a legal precedent that might be relevant

I should note that the test in Canada is whether Minassian's mental disorder (autism spectrum disorder) rendered him unable to know what he was doing was wrong. The focus of this trial is whether he knew it was morally wrong. Not by his own moral code, but society's moral code.

Okay, Westphal is back. He says he doesn't really know about the legal decisions in the cases he testified in. He does know about some other cases in Ireland. (The Crown is shaking his head).

There are newspaper accounts of these cases. The Crown now formally objects. How does this further your inquiry here, he says. Judge agrees it doesn't help, though she says she'd appreciate any help from another jurisdiction.

With all due to respect to the reporters watching, she says, a newspaper account isn't helpful. She needs to know the legal issues, the test and how it was applied.

Justice Molloy observes that just because a jury made a decision doesn't mean it fits a legal test. There may be no decision because it's a jury verdict, but there may be decisions in other ways through pre-trial rulings or appeal decisions.

The defence hasn't been able to find anything but more efforts will be made. But the judge won't rely on the newspaper accounts. The Crown says he doesn't know why Westphal would talk about cases he read about in the newspaper.

And so we will move on from this area.

Westphal is now being asked about the concept of "overvalued ideas" as testified about previously by Dr. Bradford. He says there is fuzzy lines between overvalued ideas and delusions but does think it is a concept linked to autism and intense focus.

Westphal says Minassian was obsessively focused on mass killings and the metrics of measuring those. He was also very focused on Elliot Rodger.

Westphal says Minassian was obsessed with Rodger as a mass killer, but not as an incel hero. He took on Rodger's incel "mantle." (I think this goes back to him saying he doesn't think Minassian is a genuine incel)

Westphal said Minassian's accounts to him were consistent, not much variation with what he told other assessors -- except for the police interview which stands out.

(I expect the Crown to have some questions about this).

Westphal said Minassian tried to explain percentage influences of the various aspects of his motives. The only common element is that none of them that explain in a satisfactory way why he did it, Westphal said. Can't say he really hated women, or was so lonely.

This, to Westphal, goes to his view that Minassian has no concept of the devastation he caused.

The defence is reading about the percentage breakdown. Minassian gave 40 percent to MGTOW (men go their own way) which Westphal calls a misogynist ideology linked to the incels and Redpill (a Matrix reference to people being like sheep vs taking redpill and seeing the truth)

Minassian gave the job anxiety 15 per cent and noteriety 20 percent. Then he changed it around a bit. He then includes Elliot Rodger and the mass shooters in the 40 per cent I think.

Westphal doesn't make much of this. Minassian gave different weights to these different factors at different times in his interviews with Westphal.

Westphal said Minassian doesn't understand how much these motives factored in, and that he (Westphal) also doesn't understand this.

Minassian told Westphal he needed to "spice up" the narrative by linking it to the incel because no one cares about him. Westphal said this is an "odd and interesting" window into how Minassian thinks because it is the act itself that is the main thing.

Minassian was asked to try and put himself in the place of victims and said he'd be "griefstricken" with "his temperament." Westphal says Minassian is a "really smart guy" and he can repeat information. Whether he feels it is a different question.

Different from his understanding on impact the victims while he was doing it. Westphal says that question was about the civil lawsuits that have been filed against him and which he has read.

Westphal says Minassian did talk about the impact on his dad and dad's job. He said his parents would be devastated.

In the report Westphal did, Minassian said his family would be devastated, but also that they would move on because they didn't rely on him. He knew they'd be "upset and disappointed" much more than if he failed a test.

Defence: What does this mean re empathy and theory of mind. Westphal says it's difficult to know because by then Minassian had had so much exposure to other doctors. Minassian in Bradford's report used "practical and unempathic terms." Also has spoken to chaplain.

So this doesn't really change his opinions. Taking a ten minute break.

Here is full quote of what Minassian said when Westphal asked him to put himself in the place of the victims:

"I guess depending on their individual temperament. I would either be extremely griefstricken or maybe even extremely angry...my temperament I would probably be extremely griefstricken."

We are back up now. Defence is now asking Westphal to look at the transcript of his interview with Minassian (we don't have copies of this).

Defence asks if it refreshes his memory that the context of that question was about the civil lawsuits. Westphal says he sees it. Defence: What type of info did he learn from the lawsuits?

Westphal said he wanted to know what Minassian knew about the "textures" of the victim stories. Wanted to see if he took any pleasure in who he had done this to. He couldn't name all of them, didn't know much about them.

Westphal doesn't think Minassian took any pleasure from this. He had some small pieces of information about some of the victims from the lawsuits, marriage and kids.

Westphal says none of the ingredients of his motives explain what Minassian did. Being lonely was something he identified as something in common with some of the mass killers he read about online. Loneliness felt more real/important than the incel stuff.

Defence: What about anger? Westphal said the angry school shooter narrative is embedded in a number of cases of mass violence. Has not been involved in a case like that. He gets the sense that in other cases there was mounting anger/escalation.

What is "puzzling and different" about Minassian is that there is none of that. Sure he was isolated and lonely, sure he was angry. But he doesn't think Minassian had been building explosive anger all his life. Would have seen signs of that in his life.

Defence: What if someone says he didn't show anger because he had autism. Westphal says he is not saying people with autism don't show or experience emotions. May show them differently. Does work with autistic people who show anger.

Minassian told Westphal he would "feel like a failure, guilty, everything is hopeless" if he had a low position at his job after 60 years. Would be better if he "accomplished" something even if he was "deceased as intended."

Westphal said this is linked to the job anxiety and noteriety. At another time Westphal said he didn't understand why Minassian was so worried about failing at his job and how that is equivalent to what he did.

"Would have been the fact that I'd done something...brought something to my name." He says slipping on a banana peel "is a failure" that makes people laugh. If you make a cool app or do a mass killing, "you've done something, you've been proactive, you've accomplished something."

Westphal says this is "such a distorted way of thinking to me."

Defence asks how moral wrong and making rational choices are linked. Westphal says "to make a rational decision you need to understand the moral implications of it, to make the decision responsibly."

Minassian made a comment to his parents that "everyone will see I did nothing wrong" and that he'd be "patted on the back." Westphal says the nothing wrong comment shows the dissociation, that somehow things will continue in his regular life.

Minassian took steps to cover up what he was trying to do, Westphal notes.

Westphal says re the internet back patting. Things on 4chan move quickly. He doesn't think this make sense.

Not like Minassian would be patted on the back, except in a way he couldn't understand or appreciate. He's not on the internet now. No one is coming to pat him on the back.

Westphal noted Minassian's brother said they had plans to go bowling and get sushi for after the attack date. Minassian was filling out paperwork for his new job that would have started after the attack.

Minassian also felt the need to finish his schoolwork despite intending to die shortly. "It's almost like he was operating in an alternate reality" with regard to planning the attack, Westphal said.

There was no hint in his behaviour ahead of time, or any emotion during the attack.

Defence now going to a part where Minassian said if he did pick a target, it would be any women aged "18 to 30" and college-aged groups of women.

"If I was to pick as specific target" it would women 18-30, "generic". He talks about "casual dating" and one night stands for college-aged women. To be consistent.
"Consistent with what?"
With what he posted on facebook, with the narrative. Trying to get sensationalism

He basically said if he hadn't linked his mass killing to incels, it wouldn't have received as much media attention.

He also said if he did a second mass killing, he wanted it to be consistent.

Westphal wonders why the consistency of the narrative is so important even long after the killing. The narrative is over. Shows rigid thinking. It is "totally bizarre and totally distorted."

Minassian asked if he could go back in time, would he continue as he did. Minassian said he would still go ahead with it and make sure he died. .

Westphal said Minassian didn't want to die, just that the mission required dying.

Westphal asked if Minassian would do it again if he got out of prison.

"I'd certainly think about it. Not sure if I'd go through with it or not." For more recognition or another "kill count."

If you were released today you consider it? He said the thought would "pop into my head, like school shootings did in high school." He referenced media attention, and the "kill count" scoring on an online website.

Improving your score would be a reason to do it? He says yes. She asks if there is a specific number he wants to reach. He says he hadn't really thought about it.

(That was an exchange between Minassian and Westphal/Dr. Alvarez-Toro who was working with Westphal).

These are "scary" and "ugly" statements. But he doesn't want to cause more suffering. He sees a metric linked to accomplishment. Not thinking about impact on other people.

Defence asks if there is anything in report Westphal doesn't think is now applicable. Westphal says he stands by his report.

Defence asks Westphal to take us from theory of mind to moral wrongfulness.

Westphal asks if they want the short answer or long answer. The short-ish answer, defence says. Judge interjects. She wants the long answer to connect the logical dots.

Westphal says it starts in the first years of life, in infancy, and the derailment of a developmental trajectory for social context. It's an intricate thing we all take for granted and is built on every day.

Westphal says autism is not a choice, it's a developmental pathway. They go on a different developmental pathway from a typical kid. Not looking at people in their faces for example, looking at other things. Around age 4, typically, you develop theory of mind.

You learn other people have perspectives and agency, with other desires and motives. He talks again rule-based moral reasoning and intention-based moral reasoning. That comes online in the middle of childhood.

But moral development might be different for people with autism.

Minassian didn't recognize the moral agency, of people as other entities that would suffer because of his actions. He states the wrongfulness of what did, but it doesn't matter to him because he has a "substantial defect" in empathic understanding...

of the real human consequences to his actions.

Westphal said theory of mind is fundamental to empathy. From there is built moral agency, which is that people recognize a person's intention is important in their moral agency and decision-making. Needed to become a full moral agent. Minassian has a defect here.

To be a fully formed moral agent you need to understand the context of your actions, to understand other people as moral agents, that they have lives as valuable as your own life. Not see people as "objects" which is what Minassian did.

Defence says he is almost done. Taking the lunch break now, back at 1:15.

We will resume shortly. To recap, essentially Dr. Westphal has concluded Minassian's autism spectrum disorder means that he did not develop the ability to see other people as full people, with their own lives and perspectives. He sees other people as "objects."

“That defect in moral reasoning...and this is built on theory of mind and this is built on social development, this is built on empathy, is understanding and sharing the perspectives of other people and understanding the impact of your actions."

“To be a fully formed moral agent you need to be able to understand the context for your actions, you need to be able to recognize people as free-standing moral agents in themselves, to be able recognize they are other beings and they have lives which are as valuable...

as your own life, but also have completely different perspectives and different things in their own lives. To not recognize that, to see people as objects in the way that Mr. Minassian clearly did to me is to me… reflects a very substantial breakdown of this entire process.”

Westphal has repeatedly stressed that autism is extremely variable and manifests in very different ways, including with empathy, so shouldn't make generalizations.

He has said autism can distort perceptions of reality in a way comparable to psychosis, and repeatedly said today he thinks Minassian's view is very distorted.

This is the area we are going back into now, it looks like.

Westphal is referring to the Grant paper again about moral reasoning. "Fully developed moral reasoning involves discerning whether an action is morally wrong based on the consideration of social rules, the protagonists’ intentions, and the outcome of the action,

as well as an understanding that social rules are not set in stone and can be applied flexibly"

He is now going into another part of the paper: "Difficulties with cognitive empathy have two implications for criminal
responsibility in the ASD population, i.e., they can (a) result in ASD individuals’ inaccurate understanding of the consequences of their actions

(i.e., they do not foresee the impact on their victims),
and (b) result in misinterpreting the mental state of their victims, thus leading to the criminal action"

Westphal said this context is important. He's now waving about a sheaf of papers, and will be reading us some bits of academic papers. No screen-sharing so hard to get spellings and details of the papers.

One paper talks about challenges in seeing perspectives of others. Another is about judiciary views and how they factored in autism in the context of criminal cases. One judge said a high-functioning autism diagnosis shows difficulty in processing info as a typical person would.

Crown objects, not sure what a judge thinks about someone with autism is relevant. Defence says Westphal is trying to show building blocks for his own opinion.

Justice Molloy said she'll hear it to see how it ties in (not sure she cares about what judges in California think).

Back to the paper: someone with autism doesn't see the world the way everyone else does. Can't tell them differently. Had hesitations about sending them to prison.

Westphal said he was just trying to show that this view goes beyond people who specialize in autism.

Now hearing about a paper in which a researcher writes about "rich vivid fantasy and impaired social imagination" which he thinks is relevant to Minassian's case.

Stresses that an offence plan for someone with autism may be based on visual copying of a story. Sophisticated detail but not sophisticated understanding of the consequences.

Westphal says this is closely related to Minassian's case, and his focus on Elliot Rodger.

Both autism and psychosis dramatically alter the way people see the world, Westphal says again.

Defence says he's going into his last area now.

Westphal refers in his report to a point where Minassian is asked to reflect on the morality of his actions.

"I certainly have committed the act of murder and there isn't any moral justification for it.. for the public eye it would be extremely upsetting and immoral."

This was on Jan. 17, 2020. Westphal recalls the conversations. Now going to the conclusion of the report.

Westphal and his co-authors concluded that Minassian understands his actions from an intellectual standpoint but doesn't understand his actions from a moral standpoint.

Defence asks him to explain this, given Minassian's own words.

Westphal says Minassian can clearly in a hundred different ways articulate what he did was wrong. He understands the rules. The problem is the stage beyond that, understanding why are there rules, the meaning behind the rules.

His neuro-developmental disorder leaves him without the insight into the meaning behind the rules, even though this is obvious to everyone else. It's obvious from everything he has said. Doesn't understand "moral status of other individuals."

This means he can't make rational decisions because that requires understanding moral implications.

Could he do that on April 23, 2018?

"In this circumstance, absolutely not. I really don't think he was."

Hearing an audio clip of Westphal and Minassian.

Westphal: Would you accept responsibility?

Minassian: There are consequences. People will want justice. "I know what I did was morally wrong and extremely devastating and irreversible."

W: Did you know that at the time?

Minassian: Knew a lot of people would be dead. "I knew it was wrong."

W: According to what metric of rightness and wrongness.

M: Wrong by "societal and moral standards."

W: So knowing it was wrong what caused you to do it?

A: An extreme desire to do it, rented the van did not want to back out, social isolation, anxiety, dad next to him on computer.

Westphal testifies this reasoning is clearly irrational.

And that is it from examination-in-chief. We are talking a break until 2:10 p.m.

Starting cross-examination by Crown Joe Callaghan. He's summarizing Westphal's position. Minssian has a sophisticated understanding of the rules and knows it is wrong by society's standards to kill. Westphal says yes. But Minassian didn't understand impact.

No psychiatric opinion on whether Minassian is criminally responsible? Westphal says it's legal issue.

Callaghan again says his view is it's about impact on others

Westphal says none of Minassian's explanations make sense. Shows something else is going on.

Minassian could not have done this if he'd understood the impact. No other agenda.

Crown: Trial is not about why he did it. About whether he is not criminally responsible.

Westphal says yes. Has not done a Canadian NCR assessment but has done the American equivalent

Westphal has done six or seven or those.

Crown: You don't know?

Westphal said he can find out. Didn't testify in all of them or support it. They were all in Connecticut.

Crown: You familiarized yourself with the legal test in Conneticut. You are a forensic psych, preparing a report for a legal determination

Westphal agrees.

Crown: Did you learn about the Canadian NCR test?

Westphal: Was trying to answer whether Minassian had autism, and how it or any other diagnoses were relevant to his actions and if he understood the wrongfulness of his actions.

Mades the distinction between the types of moral reasoning. But it boiled down to his understanding of moral wrongfulness which means impact and social context and impact on other lives vs just the rules.

Crown: You are a forensic psychiatrist. The forensic part is the legal part.

Westphal says yes. But he doesn't have legal background and is not a lawyer.

His role as he sees it is to give psychiatric knowledge to the legal context but not opine on legal dimensions of the case.

Crown: So you don't know the Canadian NCR test?

Westphal says that's not what he wrote his report about. Court can do what it will with the report. He's spent 2.5 days trying to explain his opinion. Doesn't have anything to say about Canadian standard.

He could try to stumble through it, but that isn't his role. Not making opinion on whether Minassian is not criminally responsible in terms of the legal test.

Crown: So using "morality" in the common meaning and not the legal meaning.

Westphal says no comment on legal definition of morality. He's defined it in the neuro-developmental area

Crown: You say Minassian understood wrongfulness from his actions intellectually. Against society's moral standards.

Westphal: Minassian said that explicitly. My point is that he doesn't have the capacity to understand the moral context.

Crown: You've read the other assesors' reports. And the notes?

Westphal: Not the notes, doesn't think it's needed. Read the opinions in the reports.

Crown: You've done assessments. You know notes reflect what the person being assessed said.

Westphal says there are multiple ways this happens. Can do notes, can record. Notes are not conclusions

Westphal says his notes aren't just writing down what the person says. Lots going on with notes, including thoughts and diagrams etc.

Crown: You didn't want to share the recordings because you shared the notes already.

Westphal: You have my reasons in the letter I wrote.

Crown: Why didn't you say in your report you had recordings

Westphal: I didn't depend on them for the report. We had enough information to draw conclusions.

He says the content of the videos was "horrific" and didn't want the videos to be shown publicly. Doesn't apologize for what position he put the court in but said it was difficult

Crown: Despite having the perfect record of what was said, you'd just rely on the notes. Even though they weren't a perfect record.

Westphal said they covered what he found relevant at the time and after. Limits on psych interviews

Crown: You could have looked at the videos.

Crown: You chose not to read the notes made by the other assesors. What about the contents of the phone etc.

Westphal did look at some stuff, the school work and the "glassphones" video

Crown: have you done fitness assessments?

Westphal: Yes (called competency in the US).

Crown is still asking about the notes. You know you can be asked for your notes. The lawyers would look at the notes to try to understand your opinion

Westphal said he knows "in concept" but explained his opinion is in his report

Crown: Aside from that you thought your notes were enough to not watch video, and you found the thought of watching the video difficult.

Westphal said his notes don't convey his opinions and are not a transcript. Between his notes and his colleagues notes, thought it was enough

Westphal is being very rambly in trying to explain what he relied on for this opinion.

Crown: But in your report you want to fairly reflect the facts as you know them

Westphal agrees but notes he didn't have all the info

Crown: What Minassian told you and the other assessors is v important. Why didn't you read their notes before you testified?

Westphal: It should all be in the report. People take notes in different ways.

Crown: You said you did your best to capture as much as you could in your report

Westphal said yes.

Crown suggests the report doesn't fairly and accurately reflect what Minassian told Westphal.

Crown: You were selective in what you chose to highlight in your report.

Westphal says he doesn't understand.

Crown: You knew the central issue was criminal responsibility.

Westphal: Yes at some point. Was asked to first assess for autism and impact on his actions. But did know it was about NCR

Crown: You knew the question of moral wrongfulness was key. And what he said about that was key.

Westphal agrees.

Crown is showing a part of Westphal's report. It is the bit where Minassian says there is "no moral justification for it so for the public eye, it would be extremely upsetting and immoral."

Crown: Anywhere else in the report you talk about this?

Westphal: This summarizes it.

Crown: This is among the weakest statements Minassian made to you about moral wrongfulness.

Westphal: Though it best summarized it.

Crown: You know there are strong, powerful indications of Minassian's understanding of moral wrongfulness.

Westphal: That was a clear statement. But my view is that Minassian doesn't actually understand it and my view is not based on the statements.

Crown: He doesn't have any understanding of the impact on victims or his family.

Westphal: He didn't have any understanding when he committed the act.

Over time he has articulated more about the impact on his family, but doesn't think that detracts from him having no empathic insight. Don't know what he discussed with other people

Westphal says the key thing is how Minassian describes the events with no "emotional valence."

Crown says Westphal could know what Minassian told others but chose not to (the notes).

Westphal said he does know some of it, from Bradford's report.

Crown: You said Minassian has no impact on the victims and family.

Westphal: He had no insight into the horrific impact on his victims and almost no insight into impact on his family. Can give some lip service but also says things that are shockingly not insightful.

Crown asks again.

Westphal says he doesn't think Minassian has any insight into his impact on his victims. Could have some insight into impact on his family. Looks at Bradford report because it was first.

Westphal says it is his position that Minassian has no insight into the impact on the victims, at the time and now. He is more qualifying re Minassian's family but calls it lip service

Crown: Did you use that language in the report.

Westphal: The report repeatedly tries to convey he didn't have any insight into the impact on the victims.

Crown asks about how the interviews with other assessors factored in.

Westphal thinks Minassian may have picked up the word devastating from someone else.

Crown: Is that why you left it out of your report?

Westphal demurs, part of his comments.

Crown asks why he left Minassian saying his parents would be devastated out of the report

Westphal said Minassian didn't understand at all the impact on his family. There is part of the interview where he discusses that. I see it as minimal understanding even now.

Crown: As an impartial and fair expert, don't you think it behooved you to include it in your report to court?

Westphal: I stand by report

Crown is being very forceful about this. "You didn't say he said his parents would be devastated. Why?"

Westphal said it was one of a number of statements and didn't think it had genuine insight. He had no insight of impact on his family at time. "I hear what you are saying and I apologize for that."

Crown says Westphal didn't put this thing about Minassian picking up stuff from the assessors in the report either.

Westphal agrees he did not.

Back from a break.

Crown: You'd agree his presentation and comprehension and responsiveness was consistent through the interviews with you.

Westphal: Yes.

Crown: Any part of the video would be representative?

Westphal says his presentation was extremely stable

We are going to see a video now from Jan 17. It is just under 4 minutes. We've been told there will be transcripts of these made available to ensure court openness but it hasn't happened yet despite the court okaying their release. Sigh.

We also don't have the reports despite being we eventually will and the assumption that everyone is following along with the reports.

The video will be played now so the public web view is being disabled (the public who is watching from the overflow room can see it).

Minassian is asked if it is okay to kill in defence of a child.

He says it would be more moral to kill in defence of a child.

What about a sexual predator killing for their sexual end?

Minassian says this is not morally right. Have to resist the urge

Westphal observes Minassian seems to have a clear understanding of what is moral.

You understand what you did is wrong?

Minassian says yes. Wrong in the sense in that is immoral.

Knows it's wrong to kill. Told by his family and school it is wrong. "ingrained pillar"

He said he ignored "all the other thoughts."

Willfully ignoring those thoughts?

I couldn't make out the answer, the audio was a bit jolty.

Crown says this is a powerful statement of his understanding of moral wrongfulness

Westphal agrees it is a powerful statement. Points to Minassian describing not killing as a rule. Something he's been told. Not that he understands beyond that.

Doesn't know what the implications of killing are.

Crown reads the Collins dictionary of the definition of intellectual, which includes understanding.

Westphal says that's true but not what he intended to mean. By intellectual he meant voice and articulate what the rules are and that is what Minassian just did.

Crown said Westphal said yesterday Minassian had a "sophisticated understanding of the rules."

Westphal said he intended to convey he can articulate the rule but has no grasp of the context of the rules. Doesn't understand emotional impact.

That is an ingredient of understanding.

Crown: That killing was wrong was fundamental to him. It was a core belief, that he accepts.

Westphal: Yes that is rules. He broke a rule not understood the broader impact.

Crown suggests that clip shows not killing was part of Minassian's core belief system.

Westphal says Minassian understands that society says killing is wrong, but doesn't understand the "social dimension of the action." It's top of the list of rules.

Westphal again says Minassian saw people as objects. It has the quality of a video game.

Crown: You are saying this video is like a video game?

Westphal: No.

Crown says Westphal in the interview said Minassian has a good understanding of the boundaries of right and wrong.

Westphal: He has a normal understanding of rules. Just the not emotional aspect.

Crown asks why the content of this clip, i.e. "ingrained pillar" is not in report

Crown says the "ingrained pillar" term would be a big moment. Not a usual term

Westphal: Yes but was aware of the distinction. My report says he knows that, just not the reason for the rules/context everyone else has.

Crown: Why is it not in report

Westphal: I thought it was summed up in the report.

Crown: This statement is that I've told my whole life killing is wrong. You are saying that's reflected in the report

Westphal reads what it is in his report. He repeats his opinion again.

Westphal pushes back on the Crown assertion that the report doesn't reflect that Minassian knew his whole life killing is wrong, and knew himself it was wrong.

Even if it not the same words.

Crown says the only way they learned of these words is from reviewing the video.

Crown asks where in the report is it conveyed that Minassian learned this fundamental rule from his family.

Westphal doesn't know.

Crown reads a part of the report that says Minassian knew killing was wrong in part from school. Doesn't mention family or everyone. That he knew it his whole life. An "ingrained soul rule."

Westphal said Minassian said it is generally accepted rule, agrees he knows that

Molloy says Minassian did seem more animated and was using hand gestures in that video. She was struck about that being different in quality.

Westphal says this is a great observation. He does get more animated about a topic he is interested in, which he is in self-defence.

Westphal talks about Minassian's inability to modulate his eye contact.

(From me: I thought he was similarly animated in the re-telling of the sequence of the van attack)

Molloy points to Minassian getting outraged about being seen as a bully. Interested in that response.

Westphal: Presentation across the board was flat. Can get excited about topics and loses some of the flatness. Bully thing caught him off-guard. He found it illogical.

Distinguishes between emotion and excitement about a topic.

Molloy asks him to explain this. Westphal says Minassian doesn't engage in anger, sometimes laughs a bit. Not saying he cannot or does not feel or experience emotions. But it's very limited.

Molloy says his parents thought his demeanour was very different in the police interview. Have his parents seen these videos?

Westphal says he doesn't know.

Molloy wants to know how much was put on. What about what he told the assessors.

He seemed "forthright and frank" in the police interview to her, and now that is what the assessors are saying he is.

We are taking a break now. Thank you to Justice Molloy for asking questions I've been thinking (I'm not sure I see a real difference between the police interviews and the short video clips of the interviews).

We are back and the Crown is taking Westphal through the bits in the report where Minassian was dismayed by being thought a bully, as referenced by Molloy. Westphal mentioned it twice, so significant.

Westphal agrees it is important.

Crown says Westphal's view is that Minassian has trouble expressing emotion but can experience emotion

Westphal agrees.

Westphal said the bully reaction was more "self-righteous shock" rather than an emotional state.

Westphal discussed bullying with Minassian a handful of times.

Crown says he's talking about Minassian being thought a bully. How often did you ask him that?

Westphal doesn't recall. His colleague was not struck by it in the same way.

Crown: How did he show his dismay?

Westphal: I thought he was going to jump across the table. I thought he was suddenly, abruptly angry.

Crown: Is THAT in your notes?

Westphal: Not in the colourful messy notes.