Thread by @alysanmati

Dr. John Bradford is up again today at the van attack trial. The Crown asked ONE question this morning and has completed his cross.

thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…

Basically it was about Bradford's view that the only route to NCR for Minassian would be that he didn't understand the moral wrongfulness of his actions (and not that he didn't appreciate the nature and quality of his actions).

I was NOT expecting the Crown to finish so quickly today. The judge now has a couple of questions for Dr. Bradford about "pervasive developmental disorder" in the DSM-4 (the previous version of the manual classifying mental disorders).

She is wondering how long autism has been recognized as a mental disorder by the psychiatric profession, since there isn't really any caselaw. Bradford explains that it was typically part of child psychiatry so it was siloed off from adult psychiatry.

Or adult psychiatrists were mixing autism spectrum disorder with other disorders that affect presentation. But understanding has evolved over the last several years with the DSM-4 and now the DSM-5 which came in 7 years ago.

But it had been a under-researched area until fairly recently, 2013/2014.

Judge asks about the psychopathy test -- Bradford said he knew that Minassian wouldn't score on it, didn't think it was worth doing though it was done.

Judge: A psychopath might have no other mental disorder or have one?

Bradford: There is often co-morbidity with substance use

Judge: You can be a psychopath and still not fit into Section 16 (the not criminally responsible test)?

Bradford is talking about caselaw, mentions a Supreme Court of Canada case, Kjelski. There was a time when psychopathy was an entry point, but he doesn't support it and most forensic psychiatrists done support.

Judge: If you knew it was wrong but just didn't care, had no remorse or no empathy, back in the day that could get you a not criminally responsible verdict. But now, would you say a psychopath understood moral wrongfulness? They understood but just didn't care?

Bradford: Yes, good way to put it. Could go further to say they got pleasure out of it.

Judge asks if Minassian talked about any internalized anger.

Bradford said he didn't show any anger. Didn't express any hatred other than why he focused on Elliot Rodger. He focused on the "incel theme" but without much emotion and just talking about "Chad's and Stacys."

(This is a key thing re motivation -- the assessors seem to think Minassian isn't really committed personally to the incel beliefs)

Judge asks if there was much information about how long Minassian spent online or where he was spending his time online.

Bradford: Not really. He was good with computers. Challenge in analysing the data, can't be certain.

Crown now asking some questions. Says Minassian told Bradford about going online "incognito" and that 4chan posts wouldn't be stored on his computer.

Bradford agrees but says he's not a tech person, doesn't know if accurate.

Crown points to Minassian telling Bradford about his hatred of "Chad's and Stacy's" -- an incel term for the attractive men and women. Minassian denied really being an incel and denied being angry to Bradford.

Bradford said he never showed rage.

Minassian said he wasn't "enraged" but "disappointed, Crown asks.

Bradford agrees.

Now in re-examination by the defence. Defence asks if Bradford has seen the Elliot Rodger video. Rodger appears angry in that video.

Bradford had seen it, says Rodger was much more angry and vengeful which is why there is a question about whether Rodger actually had Asperger's

Bradford wrote the report for the court, but at the behest of the defence who could choose whether to use it or "make it disappear."

Bradford said this is a unique case, with someone who has no co-morbidity with his autism spectrum disorder, and who carried out a mass killing and lived. He said part of his role is to acknowledge others might have different opinions.

Defence asks if the Crown experts did any malingering tests. Bradford can't recall but notes that the tests are mostly linked to psychosis which isn't an issue here.

Defence asks about the value of consistency in the presentation of Minassian, who was asked the same questions by different people.

Bradford said Minassian appears consistent in the way he's presented. No doubt that he's not faking autism.

Defence asks about Minassian's consistency in his answers about motivation.

Bradford: I think it does matter. Made the point that the police interview is important bc it was done 10 hours after.

Left a question in his mind of how he came to give the explanation he did, which he now claims was fabricated.

Well that's it from Dr. Bradford. Here is Rosie Dimanno's column on his testimony from yesterday which seems very odd coming from the defence: thestar.com/opinion/star-c…

Well Dr. Westphal is going to testify Monday (and likely until Wednesday). He is the key witness for the defence. We won't be hearing from the psychologist who did the testing on Minassian for him. So we expect the defence case to close Wednesday. Then the Crown experts will go

And that's it for the day. See you all on Monday.