Thread by @alysanmati

You can follow my tweets for Alek Minassian's trial here or in the story below. Vahe Minassian, Alek Minassian's father, is being cross-examined today by Crown prosecutor Cynthia Valarezo.

thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…

The Crown started by showing Vahe (using first names to distinguish father, son) a section from one of the defence reports on Alek. The report describes a conversation with Vahe as repeatedly saying the assessment would help his son and not absorbing what the doctor was saying.

The Crown suggests that after being sent an article about autism spectrum disorder and criminal responsibility, Vahe became aware of "certain catch phrases that became important in your son's defence" such as lack of emotion and hyper-focus and fixation.

Vahe's answers are very long but he essentially denies this, and says he's describing his son's behaviour as it had always been.

Crown suggests again he started using the specific words after being interviewed by the assessors.

Vahe says over time as he started thinking about it, and he was asked questions, his memories became clearer and he could identify issues out of a "life time of experiences."

Crown put another section of the report up but there has been a defence objection.

The issue is around procedure of putting questions to a witness about a statement they made to someone else. Molloy lays out how it should go.

Crown is asking Vahe if he recalls a conversation with Dr. John Bradford where Bradford explained how the not criminal responsible worked in October 2019.

Vahe said he asked how it worked but can't recall the content of the conversation.

Crown asks if he reviewed notes made by the assessors before his testimony. He did not. She then asks what he recalls from that conversation about NCR

Vahe: The onus is on Crown to provide guilt beyond reasonable about in NCR the roles are reversed. That's all he recalls.

(That is not totally accurate, legally speaking).

Crown asks if he recalls anything said about the NCR test.

Vahe said he can't really even recall what the defence lawyer said about the NCR test yesterday.

Seeing notes by Bradford in which he says he told Vahe that "high-functioning autism spectrum disorder on its own has never [as far as I know] been used for the defence of not criminally responsible on the basis of a mental disorder."

He also explained the NCR test and said that if there was any possibility of Alek being found NCR it would be in the area of "moral wrongfulness"

Vahe said he recalls having the conversation which was about a year ago.

Crown said he retained the information about the legal test needed to help his son.

Vahe says it wasn't important, he only remembers because they are talking about it now. Not something that stayed w him

Crown: "You knew the evidence you needed to give to help out your son."

Vahe said he wasn't even thinking about the trial during that conversation, was confused, didn't know how the defence worked.

Crown interrupts, says she talking about now.

Vahe goes back to explaining that the whole legal process was new to them and why he asked about the NCR defence. "I was interested in a general..." he says trailing off.

Crown: You came to court yesterday and told her Honour about how many times you watched the video statement

Crown: Told her it was about three times. First time you watched it, when was that?

Vahe: It became available on Youtube, it was late at night. Watched five minutes couldn't watch it anymore.

(Aside from me, the video was publicly released last fall and was put online).

Vahe said he watched all of it before he spoke to Dr. Bradford.

Crown: I'm confused now, asks what he was referring to yesterday about the first time he watched the video

Vahe clarifies that the first five minute clip he saw isn't what he considers the first time

Crown suggests he knows she's going to ask him about Dr. Bradford and that she's going to point out that he watched the video more times than three.

Vahe gives a hard to follow response.

Crown going through when he watched the video.

Vahe said he rewatched the section of the video where he first thought his son was crying but later decided he was not

Crown: You thought it would help his defence to show he. is incapable of emotion, incapable of remorse

Vahe: I gave the reasons why I thought he wasn't crying.

Crown suggests he watched the video more times than he admits. He watched it before he spoke to Bradford on Oct. 8, 2019.

Vahe said they went through the video in his office, to the spots he was referring to.

Vahe said he didn't keep a record of when he watched the video, he's giving an approximation of the number of times (two or three).

Crown: On Nov. 5 2019 there was another meeting with Bradford

Vahe said he did make some notes about what he wanted to comment on to the doctor

The Crown is challenging Vahe on what she considered inconsistencies in his account of when he watched the video, if he made notes, whether the video was fastforwarded and how much.

Vahe is giving very long rambly answers about how he doesn't recall exact dates and times when he watched the video.

Crown says yesterday he knew how many times he watched it and now he doesn't.

Crown says he watched the video four times before it was played in court last week.

Vahe says again he hasn't made notes of when exactly he watched the video. Saw it "a few times."

Crown: Do you dispute four times?

Vahe: Three or four times.

Crown: You know that on Nov. 5, 2019, you told the doctor he breaks down and cries after "minutely" going through that video multiple times. That is why you changed your evidence today.

Vahe says he hadn't paid attention to that segment several times.

Crown: Are you denying you said he was breaking down and crying?

Vahe: I am confirming that the first time I saw it... I didn't use the word break down. I do confirm telling him it looked like he's crying.

Crown: No reason so far to dispute anything Dr. Bradford attributes to you having said to him? Only now, about this emotional breakdown of your son.

Vahe: Not denying the conversation.

Vahe again says he just told Dr. Bradford he thought his son was crying.

Yesterday he said upon a rewatch that it didn't look like his son was crying, just muttering under his breath as he does.

The two minute section of the video in question is here:

It should start playing at 34:40, but if not, that's where to start it.

We are now on a ten-minute break in recognition that we took far too few breaks yesterday.

Back up. Crown is showing Vahe a page of Dr. Bradford's notes about his parents comments on the video.

The note says they told him Minassian "breaks down and cries" when the detective is out of the room.

Vahe says he was trying to convey that his son talks in a "presentation style" and that his demeanour changed when the detective left the room.

Crown says the question she's asking is about whether he's told the court something different than what he said before.

We've got another defence objection. Bytensky said the doctor's note says "they" and that the words are not quoted verbatim. Judge agrees, was about to raise the issue. Question will be rephrased.

Crown: Did your wife say anything about Alek breaking down and crying in that conversation.

Vahe: Wouldn't surprise me if she also said he was crying but he doesn't recall what he said.

Sorry, what she said. He just doesn't recall using those two words "break down."

Crown: You remember that there were lots of conversations about how you came to be allowed to watch the video. But you don't recall how many times you watched it?

Vahe: "Wasn't being as precise as you may be." Don't know the exact count, around three times in its entirety.

Crown: No present day memory of the specific NCR test

Vahe: Remember the conversation

Crown: Don't recall telling Bradford Alek "broke down and cried."

Vahe: I only have an issue with those two words "broke down"

Crown: You said those words because you noticed your son was displaying an emotional reaction to what he'd just done

Vahe: I don't agree with that. I thought, was he crying in that video

Crown: The reason you are hesitant to adopt that section is because you don't think it will help his defence at this trial

Vahe: I've said he before he doesn't display emotion, explained our "lifetime of experience."

Crown: But you know from the doctor that Alek's ability to display emotion is incredibly important at this trial

Vahe: You don't know if something is good or bad. I remember providing information that I was sure was relevant or how it would be used.

Sorry, WASN'T sure was relevant. He said he tried to give as much info as possible.

Crown: Why did your view of whether he was crying change?

Vahe: When I saw the video again with the shock gone, he didn't appear like he was crying. Was told this segment would be discussed so watched it again.

Crown: It was significant to you that you saw your son crying.

Vahe: I don't agree with your characterization. Observation was made that his demeanour changes when detective leaves the room. I'm just repeating myself.

Crown: The reason you changed your evidence is because you are telling the court what you think it needs to hear to help your son's defence.

Vahe: At the time we had no idea how any of this would proceed. Was just trying to provide details best we could

Crown points out that Vahe testified that he'd never seen his son cry ever. So it would be significant to see him cry in the video.

Vahe said it wasn't really a significant part of the video

Crown: So you got the crying wrong. Anything else you got wrong like the comment you say Alek made about going home soon?

Vahe doesn't really answer

Crown asks when Alek made the statement where he asked if there had been an impact on the family?

Vahe guesses it was around July to Sept 2018, when he was first being assessed at St. Joseph's hospital.

Vahe said the other comment, about going home soon, was before the trial got delayed, maybe late last year -- end of 2019.

(Aside, I'm told that the public viewing space for the trial which is now at 315 Front St. has capacity for 40 people but there are only about 9 today).

Crown said Alek told a doctor he felt guilty after seeing his father on tv, and told another one that he saw "sadness" in his mother's eyes. And that he knew his father would be "emotionally affected" and devastated and would feel "let down."

Vahe said he didn't know any of that

Crown suggests it is another example of what Alek has not told his father.

Crown now asking about Alek displaying love for his family, and his brother which Vahe spoke about yesterday.

Vahe: Always been close to his brother.

Vahe: My description is that he loves his brother.

Crown: Another observation was about running to and hugging his grandmother.

Vahe: Yes

Crown: But yesterday you said he doesn't understand emotions

Vahe: Based on a lifetime of experiences he loves his family, surprising to hear that he's saying these things to the doctors

Crown: Not that he doesn't feel emotions, but that he doesn't show it much

Vahe: Overstatement that he shows emotion other than those few examples. I don't know what to make of all this information.

Vahe: You're telling me these statements he made to the doctors. Adds to the layers of surprise. Don't know what to make of it

Crown: It's because you realize the info about his lack of emotion has impact in court.

Crown: Despite difficulties as a child, Alek grew up to be a "highly intelligent adult."

Vahe: Intelligence has always been there in some areas, in others he was behind.

Crown: He studies a wide range of topics including science. He learned to multi-task, focus on multiple goals and complete them at the same time.

Vahe: The multi-tasking is a big challenge for him.

Crown: Your son was chatting with friends, applying for and getting a job, finishing college successfully with high marks, going out with his friends. Doing all of that a month before the offence.

Vahe: In last semester he had a light courseload. He has gone out but not alot

Vahe says he doesn't know what period of time this is referring to (the passage read by the Crown says it is preceding the April 23, 2018 attack).

We are breaking for lunch now until 1:15 p.m. The next witness is going to be Alek Minassian's pediatrician but we won't get to her until tomorrow afternoon.

We are back up. To recap this morning, the Crown is suggesting Vahe Minassian has changed his evidence and is tailoring it to what he thinks will best support his son's defence that he didn't understand what he did was morally wrong.

A key point the Crown has been trying to make is that there are things Alek Minassian has done or said that his father is not aware of.

The Crown is trying to establish how many friends Alek Minassian had in April 2018 and how much of a social life he had.

Vahe says he had a very limited social life. The Crown is listing people. Vahe objects to the second name, says it was years since they met.

The third name the Crown said was a friend of his brothers, Vahe said. His brother would take Alek with him to his house. We've seen that the friend and Alek did text each other.

Crown: You didn't see him while he was socializing with his friends or out with his friends, right. Like when he was at a bar when he was with the military.

Vahe agrees that he wouldn't see his son when he was out with his friends.

Crown: You said the Halloween party in 2013 when Alek said he approached women to ask for a date could not have happened.

Vahe agrees it was just not possible based on how Alek was at the time. Absolutely sure would have been impossible.

Crown asks if he's as sure about this as he is about everything else he's said so far at this trial.

Vahe repeats that his answer is correct.

Crown: You think it's impossible he asked a woman out on a date in any random location?

Vahe: Based on my lifetime of experience, yes.

Crown: He told doctors that he approached women for a date three times.

Crown: The first time was in Sept 2012 at college at the library. He does have the social ability to ask for a woman's number and text with her.

Vahe: If that's in fact true, I agree with you. That scenario does not fit with what I think.

Alek Minassian is fidgeting a bit, sitting in a room at the jail but not shaking his head or anything like that.

Crown says he asked two other women for their numbers while at college and was rejected by the second but was still able to ask a third woman for her number.

Vahe repeats that it's not likely based on his own knowledge of his son.

Vahe says it sounds like something out of the Elliot Rodger manifesto.

Crown, in a surprised tone, asks if he thinks Alek was echoing the manifesto in his conversations with the doctors for his NCR assessment.

Vahe said if he was asking women out it would have been a pleasant surprise.

Crown: You'd have been surprised if, before it happened, someone told you Alek would join the military. Impossible.

Vahe: Not impossible but a surprise

Crown: How about if someone told you on April 22, 2018 someone told you your son would rent a van and kill ten people and injured 16 others. You'd say that would be impossible.

Vahe: Yes, I would have said that would be impossible.

Crown: Aware that your son told the assessors he faked being afraid of women.

Vahe: Not aware of that but I do recall that when uncomfortable, he'd say something like that

Crown: Alek was upbeat and happy in the days preceding the attack, according to you. But he told assessors he was feeling lonely.

Vahe says he didn't know that

Crown: He kept that from you?

Vahe: Yes. Would be a surprise

Crown: He led to you believe he was happy and looking forward to starting a new job.

Vahe: That's the impression

Crown: He told assessors he had "extreme anxiety" and fear of failure about the job.

Vahe: He didn't share that but anxiety wouldn't be surprising.

Crown asks if Vahe is sure about the wording. Alek never said anything similar to that to the assessors. He told a doctor he though the public would see what he did as "morally unjustifiable" or "morally terrible."

He also said he knew what he did was wrong, knew his whole life that killing was wrong.

Vahe said he was sure about the words Alek used including about going home soon.

Crown said Alek told doctors that he knew he'd be locked up for the rest of life in jail and that he'd likely never receive parole. Even if he went to a hospital he didn't think he'd be released.

Vahe maintains that is what Alek said to him. These other statements just add to his surprise and confusion.

Back from a break. Crown is asking about Alek Minassian's memory. Establishes he is intelligent and can remember what he learned.

Vahe disputes what his son understood vs remembered

Vahe said he has a good memory and can recite back what he's told. Going through a school assignment written by Alek in 2008. In it he says: "It's wrong to kill people."

Vahe agrees that Alek would remember that and would know killing was wrong.

Crown: Alek told a doctor that he knew his whole life that killing was wrong. He knew that because of his pro-social upbringing, in which you and his wife raised him.

Vahe says he is not sure what conclusions Alek drew from his upbringing.

Crown: You'd agree there was morality based subject to the assignment (it goes into why the Holocaust was wrong).

Vahe says he doesn't know what the context of the assignment but agrees likely morality

Crown: Alek has a strong memory, he'd remember this

Vahe: In general, yes.

Judge intervenes to say no one can predict what someone remembers from what they wrote about in high school. Not how memory works.

Crown agrees and that was her last question.

And we are back. Minassian's defence lawyer is asking questions of Vahe Minassian in re-examination.

Starts with a question about what hyper-focus means.

Vahe: My attempt to explain my son's focus on one task at times at expense of ignoring other things

Defence: During the police interview did the detective ever say anything about crying?

Crown interjects, notes the transcript is in evidence.

Defence asks if Vahe ever spoke to him about Alek's statement.

Vahe says he probably did.

Defence will refresh his memory with a file note from the defence.

The file note is from Jan 11, 2019.
Vahe said he can't recall based on that when his conversation with his son when that statement was made. "Everybody will see I haven't done anything wrong," is what stuck with me, he said.

That's the last witness for today. Court is resuming at 1 p.m. tomorrow. We will be hearing from a doctor but not one of the defence psychiatrists.