Thread by @alysanmati

We are back up today, and hoping to soon hear what the opinion of the defence psychiatrist is about the crux of this trial -- whether Alek Minassian's autism spectrum disorder rendered him unable to know what he did (run down pedestrians in a van) was morally wrong.

Follow along here, or at the link below: thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…

We are just waiting for the webinar link to connect.

Going through the procedure for playing the sealed video clips -- there are five short clips, and when they are played the webinar view will be turned off.

Westphal starts with the brain differences between anti-social and autism. Anti-social in this context is on the same continuum of psychopathy. Autism is fundamentally different from psychopathy, Westphal says again. There are different reasons for empathy deficits.

The brain areas affected by anti-social traits are different from the parts affected by autistic traits, he says.

So we are going through a paper mentioned yesterday about autism and criminal responsibility by researchers at Queens. The abstract is here: psycnet.apa.org/buy/2017-52394…

Westphal reads this bit out from the paper: "Most important, individuals with ASD present deficits in cognitive empathy and complex moral reasoning, both of which are likely due to challenges with theory of mind. By having deficits in cognitive empathy, individuals with ASD have

difficulty determining another’s mental state. Unlike ASD, individuals with psychopathy demonstrate both theory-of-mind abilities and cognitive empathy which allows these individuals to manipulate or deceive others"

Once again it's to distinguish autism and psychopathy.

There is a literature on theory of mind (being able to understand the mental state of others) and moral reasoning.

Grant paper again: "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 (Piaget, 1965)." Westphal says it is a good way to think about moral reasoning. Kids eventually learn intent behind actions is really important, it's a part of mature reasoning.

A child was told not to use scissors but cut a tiny hole in her dress. In the other scenario a kid making a christmas card for her mom and made a big rip in her dress. Who is more naughty? A rule and outcome answer are the early stage of development and the intent answer is later

Westphal says people with autism may focus on outcome and breaking the rules (the kid in the second scenario made a bigger tear in the dress), rather the intent behind the action (that the kid in the second scenario didn't mean to cut her dress).

Now talking about another widely-cited 2010 paper by Joseph Moran: Impaired theory of mind for moral judgement in high-functioning autism. The paper has had a large impact on how people think about autism, Westphal says.

It looks at intention and outcome and how that goes into whether something is morally wrong. If the intention and outcome were both neutral, both neurotypical people and autistic people made the same judgements.

But people with high-functioning autism judged accidental and intentional harm as equally morally wrong, Westphal said.

He's pointing to a section of the paper that says the pattern of results shown by adults with autism mirror those of typically developing children. But at age 4 or 5 neurotypical kids start to distinguish outcome and intention.

The paper says being able to exculpate accidental harm "requires an especially robust mental state" to override the actual harm done. This aspect of theory of mind may never develop in people with autism spectrum disorder or develops in an atypical way.

Westphal says the problem with creating the complex scenarios for testing is that a lot of stuff you can think your way through if you have enough horsepower. And lots of people with autism are very smart. Real-world scenarios are infinitely more complex.

We've been talking a very confusing area that I cannot begin to try and explain and are now taking a break during which some clarifying material will hopefully be produced.

(The judge and the lawyers are also confused)

Justice Molloy has read the paper now. But it assumes the reader knows what a false belief test is. I think the point of this test is about whether a person can put themselves into the perspective of someone else and then predict their behaviour.

Okay, we are looking at a graphic explaining the Sally Anne test: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally%E2%…

The question is what the person observing this scenario concludes about where to look for the marble. Sally thinks the marble is where she left it. The task tests whether you can take perspective of Sally and know she would do.

People with autism can struggle to take Sally's perspective, which is different from the observer's perspective, Westphal says.

You have to be able to take the perspective of another person to understand intention-related moral reasoning, Westphal explains.

Westphal says Minassian doesn't convey much emotion. Did try to examine his internal emotional state. His cognitive empathy is reduced (this is about understanding how other people feel) but he also has reduced emotional empathy (resonating with/sharing the emotions of others)

Defence asks about connection between empathy and knowing is something wrong. Westphal says to know something is wrong is to know there is a rule against something. Empathy is knowing WHY something is wrong, to understand the perspective of a victim of a violation of the rules.

Defence says we have rules about killing people. No dispute Minassian knows killing is against the law. Any comment now about how that ties into empathy?

Westphal says the single point of what he's been saying is that Minassian is stuck at an early development stage for moral judgements. He knows rules and has a sophisticated understanding of rules. Issue is Westphal doesn't think he understands the horrific impact of what he did.

Justice Molloy is trying to break this down. He understands the physical consequence that people are dead. What doesn't he understand. That other people will be upset by their death? The meaning of death?

Westphal said Minassian said some odd things in the interviews. He talked about "converting life status to death status." Not how we think about death, the grief dimension of death, the impact on loved ones.

Molloy: that's not the measure of it, is it? If he killed someone with no one to mourn them, it is nevertheless a murder. Don't know that you have to envision how many will be upset about it. Westphal says woven into the fabric is how we think about things is impact on others.

Minassian sees death as a very abstract thing. It has a dissociative quality of someone playing a video game. It's how dispassionately he talked about this, like killing people in a video game. "That is really how I feel about how he was thinking about this."

He has "no emotional connection" to what he did. No remorse, no regret but also no sadism. When he speaks about what he did it is "completely devoid of any emotional context whatsoever or the impact that it had on other lives."

Defence says Dr. Bradford talked about the importance of psychosis in a not criminally responsible finding. Is psychosis necessary? Westphal says psychosis is a severe mental disorder in which contact is lost with reality. Usually happens through delusions/hallucinations

Westphal says autism can lead to a profound alteration in the way you see and interact with the world. It is just as different as psychosis. The point is that autism can alter the perception of the world in a way enough to impact criminal culpability.

Westphal is talking about his much-touted quote in which he says Minassian's "autistic way of thinking was severely distorted in a way similar to psychosis."

It is followed up in the report by this line: "There is support in the literature that autistic ways of thinking may distort reality as substantially as psychotic ways of thinking."

That is followed by a quote from a paper by Kristiansson and Sorman from 2008. They talk about a person with autism spectrum disorder who had severe mental impairment "very much like a psychosis."

A "isolated and odd lifestyle" leading to a "detached psychological structure sometimes nearly psychotic, with defective reasoning and a marked reduction of cognition." Westphal said this is NOT psychosis but like it.

When speaking with Westphal, Minassian seemed shocked and dismayed when he was asked if people thought he was a bully, because he had been bullied. Couldn't understand that aspect of what he'd done.

In trying to explain this area of reality distortion, Westphal says it can be hard to distinguish someone with autism or severe negative symptoms of schizophrenia if they were just walking down the street.

Gonna go through some examples what Minassian told Westphal to try and illustrate these points. Going to show the first of video clip of Westphal's interview with Minassian.

The clip will involve Minassian talking about what he did.

Hard to hear the clip and its a bit laggy, going to try again. The video shows Minassian sitting at a table wearing an orange t-shirt and gesturing with his hands.

We are breaking for lunch now to see if we can sort this out.

We are back and hopefully the video playback issues are resolved.

The Crown is assisting the defence in playing the videos I think. Minassian is talking about the moment he started the attack. "I decided to just go for it." He talks about hitting the "first batch" and then hitting the next group "all in a line."

His worries disappeared after hitting the first group because he could hit more people. He is using his hands to describe how he was driving. He talks about one man who looked surprised before Minassian hit him.

He panicked when one person he hit had a drink spill onto his windshield, impairing his visibility. He describes his route clearly after this, including the turns he took and efforts to dodge obstacles. "There was an old man jaywalking and I hit him."

When describing the man who looked surprised, Minassian sort of mimicked a surprised expression (at least that is my impression from what we just saw).

Justice Molloy agreed that seeing the actual video clip is relevant, vs just the transcript. These video clips can never be shown to the public, as a result of Westphal's highly unusual condition for testifying.

Defence said it was "very difficult footage" to watch and he isn't sure if any of the victims and/or their families who saw it, but just wanted to acknowledge it.

Defence points out Minassian's account was out of sequence to the actual events.

Westphal said he doesn't have anything to add to that, other than relaying of temporal sequences can be "haphazard" for people with autism.

Westphal said the manner of Minassian was like he was going shopping or something neutral. "It's shocking. It's really, really shocking." Not only a "complete absence" of emotion, clinical cold description, also not celebratory in it's aspect.

Westphal says Minassian has given a number of accounts about why he did this. There are people who would relish telling those stories. That is one of Minassian's accounts, his "incel anger against women thing." Didn't see any of that in his interviews.

No emotion at all. He is "detached" and a "void there where you would expect anything." Westphal said this section of the video is probably the most horrific. He can't give an opinion of why Minassian did this.

The common element in the accounts of his motives is that "none of it makes any sense." The only thing that makes sense is that he was "completely devoid of what he needed to understand what he was doing.

Defence: At one point in the video Minassian said he wasn't sure he could do it, that he had "the guts" to do it. But once he hit the first group of people, he knew he could and it was easier. There was a re-assessment? Westphal says it "removed any reservations"

Westphal says he doesn't know why he stopped but it wasn't because he had second thoughts about it. He kept going in a "mechanical and detached way."

Minassian claims he stopped because a drink spilled onto the windshield. (I think, if I recall correctly from the agreed facts, it was more that the van was really damaged).

Going see another clip where Minassian describes the tail end of the attack.

It was a bit hard to hear. I think Minassian talked about feeling defeated when he was stopped before he could die by suicide. "I was captured," he said.

Westphal said dying for him was part of the mission.

Westphal said he doesn't really have a comparison point, whether someone with another disorder would say something like this. Says there was no gloating, no relish in Minassian's account.

Defence asks about Minassian's use of the word "captured."
Westphal asked Minassian how he'd feel if one of his victims was an incel. That would have been "stupid," Minassian said, going on to describe things in military combat terms. Goes back to his video-game type terms.

Played another clip in which Minassian talks about choosing another narrative, like Rodgers, in order to gain attention in the "fringes" online. Westphal said it illustrates how irrational Minassian is.

Westphal says Minassian talked about no one being interested in his real motivation which was around job anxiety and failing socially. Felt more real that the veneer of incels, even though it was also irrational.

Still don't have a coherent explanation for what happened, Westphal said.

Now the defence is reading a portion of the transcript. It involves Minassian saying he did feel some loneliness walking through college campus.

Enough to hurt people? He says not 100 per cent. Talks about job anxiety.

Why not go to a counsellor? He didn't think of it.

He said he only thought of two options: "either you try the job and you fail, or you did this (the attack) before you get a chance to fail at your job."

(The questioner in the transcript is a female doctor who works with Westphal, I think she may also be a psychiatrist but I can't recall right now)

Defence asks about how and to what extent is there a connection between the internet and how it affects vulnerable people and people with autism.

Crown interjects, notes Westphal said he is not an expert in internet and autism.

Defence says he's not an expert in the internet but is an expert in autism and done his own research in this area

Defence says Westphal will give his view about online communities affected Minassian.

Molloy says Westphal is qualified to give an opinion in this area

Defence says there is an agreed statement of facts about incels, an online community. Any stats about prevalence of people with autism and how often they identify as incels.

Westphal says one of the major incel sites Minassian went to did an internal survey

This is a very very nascent area, Westphal said. He hadn't heard of incels prior to this case.

Westphal talks about an obsessional focus on stuff online. The currency of these forums, or activity, is "one-upmanship" and sick dark humour. When you have someone who doesn't fully understand that joking or shocking each other, it can be problematic and it's deeply concerning

Westphal is concerned about the impact of this on vulnerable people.

We are now talking about one specific site Minassian went to, Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's a searchable directory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclope…

One of the sections is about autism. Not going to show the content. Westphal calls it "indescribably horrible." Can't think about how awful it would be to read it as someone who had autism.

There is advocacy of killing and suicide. Westphal calls it self-directed hatred or self-loathing.

The defence asks about Minassian calling himself a "murdering piece of shit" to police. Westphal says it's consistent with him trying to be like Rodger. Sounds like a scripted phrase, a "movie type of line."

Defence asks if it could be linked to the website. Westphal said he doesn't know.

Taking the afternoon break now.

Defence asks about Minassian using the term "kill count." Westphal said there is a reference on the website we talked about before about "success" and competing for a metric regarding the number of people injured and killed

Minassian was familiar with the "kill counts" of other people. Defence isn't going to put up some of this info on the screen or make it an exhibit, but is going to ask some questions.

Defence says the website lists mass killings. One page is titled "high score" and basically talks about a list of the most depraved people, who have killed the most peope, in a kind of dark internet sarcasm way.

There are other pages with their own variations. Minassian was aware of these "rankings"? Westphal agrees.

Defence asks what role these internet forums played in Minassian's case. Westphal said it was "in that environment that he conceived of what he ultimately did." He was saturated in horrific material. It was one of his areas of "real focus" and spent a lot of time thinking about.

"In the absence of this sort of thing, this would not have happened," Westphal said.

Defence asks if he was inspired to start an incel rebellion and chad's and stacey's. Westphal said no. The talk about incel was kind of an "attempt at humour" by Minassian, part of gaining currency but he is not a genuine incel believer.

Defence now asks about Elliot Rodger. There is the manifesto and videos -- lots of info available online about him. Also the case with other people. Superficially Minassian identified with Rodger as a socially isolated person but also many differences. Adopted it as a "mantle"

Westphal has seen some of the Rodger videos, defence describes them as angry. Minassian however never showed signs of anger. His family never saw any signs of anger either.

Westphal said Minassian had some manifestations of loneliness, like in him making Wookie noises. Also Minassian sent some facebook messages reaching out to people before the attack. Seemed like a "plea."

Defence asks about the motivations Minassian has expressed. There is the incel one/Rodger, then there is the thoughts about school shooters. He identified social isolation as a factor and job anxiety which do seem real, Westphal. None of these explanations are compelling.

There is the noteriety aspect. Westphal repeats an earlier point about the only thing making sense being Minassian's total lack of insight into the impact of his actions.

Going to hear another clip now about the Facebook post made by Minassian. Minassian made the post shortly after around the start of the attack

We just saw a clip of Minassian rapidly reciting the content of the Facebook post (I actually though he was reading it, it happened so quickly).

Defence: You asked Minassian if he can tell you what he put in the Facebook post. Why did you ask him that?

Westphal doesn't recall why except that it seemed so specific and so cryptic. Was wondering how random it was.

Minassian recited it immediately with no hesitation. Westphal said it goes back to Minassian reciting the digit spans in the IQ test. His words can seem more quick than his thoughts. He had it memorized. A rushed, scripted quality. Precise but cryptic language.

Westphal notes that Minassian set the incel narrative in the post written before the attack and sent the post during the attack. Doesn't take anything from the tone of it.

Defence asks when Minassian sent the post. Westphal said he thinks it's when he pulled over briefly, after hitting all his victims. Would he still be contemplating suicide-by-cop when he sent it? That was part of the mission.

Westphal said he didn't send it initially -- maybe indicates multiple decision points in the sequence of events.

Minassian, after his rampage through victims, drove through intersections. Can we make anything of him slowing down, how was driving. Westphal said it could go to rigidity of his purpose, which wasn't driving into cars.

Another short break, last of the day.

We are back. Westphal is being asked about what if anything to make of Minassian's decision to join the military.

Westphal says Minassian did not disclose that he was diagnosed with autism but did disclose being on medication for Tourette's. Westphal asked about this, but doesn't recall the answer. Thinks Minassian was aware autism would disqualify him.

Was not a plan grounded in reality anyway. Don't think the fact he went to the military, other than lack of reality about it, was anything extraordinary.

Defence: Anything about the military and his small social circle? Westphal says it is a good point. Highly structured. From a daydream point of view it would be people in nice uniforms patting each other on the back. Doesn't think Minassian understood how tough it would really be

Defence asks about how Minassian failing at the military factored in. Westphal said he could recognize the military was not a realistic way forward. He could shift before he was court-martialed or something.

Defence: Anything about his ability to shift with that, versus with the van attack plan. Westphal said the military decisions parallel decisions in the van attack process but it played out on different time scales and were different things.

Defence asks about the process of interviewing, examining Minassian and writing the report. Westphal met him in Dec and Jan (2019 or 2020?). Westphal had said he did 15 hours of interviews but apparently that was not right.

Westphal gave a rambly answer that I will not subject you all to, but basically it was 14 hours not 15.

Westphal says he didn't watch the video recordings that he took of some of the interviews (some parts were not recorded for tech reasons). He did the recordings because he had "no idea what I walking into."

But he ended up not needing the videos to do the report, which I understand he wrote in the summer (submitted in July).

Defence notes that he asked Westphal to make recordings and that Westphal gave him copies of the recordings.

Westphal physically came here to Toronto speak to Minassian in December. He made notes after his interviews. We are just going through his process.

He worked with two other doctors on the report, a psychologist and another psychiatry fellow (both women, which is relevant maybe because of Minassian's apparent inability to speak to women -- though that hasn't seemed to affect these examinations).

Defence asks about Minassian's apparent interest in the Bible which emerged after he was incarcerated. He has appeared to be reading his copy of the Bible on breaks in the trial (we catch glimpses on Zoom).

Westphal said Minassian showed an encyclopedic approach to the Bible rather than insight, reciting lots of parts he remembered. Does this aspect of religiosity matter? Westphal found it striking that in the context of religion he doesn't expect remorse.

Well we are done for the day. A little more insight into Westphal's opinion that, in this extreme case, Minassian's autistic way of thinking distorted his reality to a level comparable to psychosis.

And that, per Westphal, he lacks both cognitive and emotional empathy, and has zero understanding of the impact of the horrific devastation he has caused. No clear explanation of how this gets Minassian to not criminally responsible though.

Back tomorrow at 10 a.m.