Thread by @alysanmati

The defence has started cross-examination of Dr. Percy Wright, whose testimony yesterday is summarized here: thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…

The questions start with asking how Dr. Wright chooses what to include in the report. He says it's guided by his clinical understanding. Defence says it's at his discretion, sometimes uses quotes, sometimes summarizes. He agrees.

(This is a line of questioning inspired by the Crown repeatedly calling the defence expert selective and misleading for not including parts of what Minassian said in the interviews)

Defence: Common for different experts to disagree on the highlights of what is said.

Wright agrees highlights can be different and even conclusions on major things can be different.

Defence: This is how expert evidence works, they make best professional opinions and others may disagree. Testing can be interpreted differently too.

Wright agrees.

Wright said the reports he's looked at, people have put their minds to the question and expressed their beliefs "with differing levels of clarity." (This I think is shade at Dr. Westphal, the key defence expert).

Wright says he spoke to Minassian for 10 to 12 hours. Dates/times not listed in report, not clear in which interview said the things he said.

Defence: Sometimes you say he gave a different answer at some times, but if he says the same thing repeatedly you may not record that.

Wright agrees.

Defence: You aren't making a transcript

Wright thanks the Toronto South for long periods of time with Minassian

Defence says, there is no audio recording of your interviews with Minassian. The questions are not recorded when you summarize his respose

Wright: In my notes, we discussed test questions but yes interview q's not noted

Defence: Minassian was cooperative, no indications of malingering, exaggeration

Wright agrees. Wright says there are examples where Minassian doesn't answer question asked. Report says: "Failed to appreciate the thrust of q's put to him, esp by internal state."

Defence: He appears baffled at times

Wright: Yes.

(The Crown spent ages challenging the defence expert on this point, suggesting Minassian does not appear baffled or unable to answer questions).

Wright: his first thought and reference point was often about overt behaviour rather than about internal state of himself or others. He could be directed to that for sure and think about it.

Defence: You said at times he struggled to describe the internal experiences of others.

Wright: At first pass, he was concrete

Defence: Your report doesn't say at first pass

Wright agrees.

Wright says Minassian, other than at the beginning, seemed relaxed and the conversation was not strained. No sense Minassian was angered by the questions. No tension in the room.

Defence: He knew you were a Crown assessor.

Wright: Yes

Wright said Minassian seemed to enjoy the conversations and part of the tests, which not everyone does.

A diversion in which the defence says he will stop saying "right" as part of his questions to Dr. Wright. Dr. Wright said he always uses "correct" and makes a little joke.

Defence: Minassian told you about his memories of childhood, that they were "devoid" of interactions with other people.

Wright: Those were my observations. In keeping with concept of ASD.

Defence: He struggled to describe his brother in detail, you said.

Wright agrees. He said you'd be surprised at how many people with no mental disorder struggle to describe their family members with fidelity.

Defence: He said his loneliness in high school increased and was "shy, awkward and lonely" in college.

Wright agrees, and said there was sense of purpose in college for a bit which dissipated the school shooting fantasies for a bit.

Defence: You don't know exactly what he said to others, others didn't note this point

Wright agrees, though notes he read the Westphal transcript

Defence: You said he told you he spent a long time in the library listening to people speak but no one was speaking to him. Not a direct quote. A summary.

Wright said it's not a direct quote.

Defence: He told you about asking a woman out in the library. Something similar was heard from Dr. Chauhan.

Wright said he read something about a similar thing but didn't hear Chauhan's testimony.

Defence: You noted he didn't dwell on it, got over the rejection.

Wright: He said he was "naively optimistic" about getting a girlfriend.

Defence reads the report: You said he was socially motivated but didn't know how to go about it.

Wright: Socially motivated but also socially avoidant. Not skilled at it, but wouldn't preclude someone with ASD to find someone not bothered by his social style. His social skills are a significant deficit. But not all that's going on here.

Defence: Did he tell you who the person was he asked out in the library, any more about the encounter?

Wright: No

Defence: What if it was someone who was reading a book, he never met before.

Wright: Sounds like something he'd do.

Defence: Most neurotypical people wouldn't do this, would have an innate sense about this.

Wright agrees.

(I am not so sure re approaching women in public places...)

Defence: In reference to a school shooting (not the van attack), Minassian said he knew people would be upset that people were killed but he would get a high score.

Wright agrees.

Defence: He had the same high score approach re the van attack.

Wright: He did but it shifted to more emphasis on leaving his mark on history and not being known as someone ineffectual.

Defence: You can't say if you asked him if people would be upset or if he volunteered that information

Wright: My memory is that he volunteered that information and that he said he'd target people he disliked and avoid people he liked

Defence: But you have no note about it

Defence: Minassian said his ideal number of "kills" was 100 people and he'd make the mass killer list on Encylopedia Dramatica and recognition in a reddit group.

Wright agrees he took it seriously.

Defence: He was focused on the importance of the leaderboard. He didn't bring up the satire nature of that list

Wright agreed, it was Wright himself who noted the list was a parody or satire

Defence: Minassian said to you if he killed 100 people he'd set a world record. Saw it as a significant accomplishment.

Wright agrees Minassian was not joking and was very serious about it.

Defence: 1.5 yrs later, Minassian said he felt "very happy" that people were watching tv and talking about what he'd done. Despite not meeting his goal of 100 kills, he was satisfied with his count of 10 and said he "had not wasted anything, I was effective enough."

Wright agrees this is what Minassian told him.

On a short break.

Defence asking what he spoke to Minassian about re the Bible.

Wright said they didn't speak about it but agrees it was noted in other assessor materials.

Dr. Wright is testifying from his office at CAMH so we take momentary pauses when the codes come over the speaker system.

Defence: You noted his parents said he was oblivious to the experiences of others

Wright agrees, notes their example about Minassian's reaction to his brother's distress.

Defence: There is a reference to moral reasoning at least at intellectual level. Moral reasoning only in your report twice. Didn't respond to Dr. Chauhan noting issues in this area

Wright agrees.

Defence: You said his history and testing show he could have friendships with "like-minded" males.

(Another break for a code alert)

I think Wright said Minassian was still able to master most day to day living skills, though struggled socially.

Defence: You said you can't point to a social concept he cannot understand on an intellectual level

Wright wants to clarify. Re the data and his parents saying he didn't respond in a sensible was to his brother's distress, it points to "the automatic triggering piece." In most people who see picture of non-consent, they automatically look at facial expression of the victim.

Easy for most to say not right. Minassian is the opposite. That lack of more innate emotional reaction to the suffering of others shows him not having that emotion-based empathy...and we all sort of saw that, when he was talking about the index offences.

Don't want to get confused, it doesn't impact his ability to know they are wrong. Not our legal standard, but appreciating the understanding of impact on others it would require a degree of emotional empathy I don't think he has. Part of understanding why this tragedy occurred.

Gives him less tools to restrain himself. This "weakness" he has wouldn't be an issue if he hadn't for reasons other than ASD become involved in these school shooting fantasies to deal with his anger.

Wright's report does say the angry school shooter narrative doesn't explain everything here. And he also agrees that Minassian did not show empathy for his victims before, during or after the attack.

Wright notes Elliot Rodger had a whole lot of axes to grind, rage in addition to wanting to make a mark. Don't see the same emotion-based push with Minassian though some of the same avenging school shooting elements.

Defence: More on the traditional side of anger, not just for Rodger but for everyone who does things like this.

Wright disagrees, they may not always be driven by rage. Some people can be just as chilling as Minassian, though his approach was different.

Wright said a number of factors combined in Minassian's case. Do I think this wouldn't have happened without him having ASD, probably not. It can be a burden to bear and contribute to an offence, but doesn't rob you of ability to know it's wrong. Some of the most tragic cases.

Wright said if Minassian was hyper-focused on incels, that would be atypical, he wasn't blurting out about it. Thinking about committing a homicide can dehumanize people and affect thinking. Need to keep all that in mind.

Defence: Not being neurotypical could make it even easier to engage in this dehumanizing thinking, to see people as objects.

Wright agrees, says emotion-based empathy can factor in.

Defence asks if Wright saw Westphal's powerpoint. He did not. Now looking at a rainbow scale ranging from "very autistic/low-functioning" to "a little autistic/high-functioning"

Wright said it leaves out the IQ piece. He says people labelled high-functioning can be quite autistic. Minassian showed more severity some areas when he was young, Wright said. Do you mean as an adult, he says.

Defence asks Wright to put marks on the spectrum, can show Minassian as a child and adult if he prefers.

Defence says Dr. Bradford said he didn't feel he was qualified re autism. Does Wright feel he does?

Wright says he has expertise in violent behaviours. He's assessed about 35 people with known ASD, whether makes me an expert, I don't know. Includes people in his private practice

Defence: Ever diagnosed autism?

Wright: Yes. Typically people I are already diagnosed. Have done it where I think autism has been missed. 5 or 6 cases.

Defence asks about any kind of NCR case involving ASD, with no co-morbidity.

Wright said there is one. A person first thought to have an "eroto-manic" psychotic disorder. He saw the person after found NCR, thought this diagnosis was wrong. Was not delusion but ASD preoccupation

Wright said in his opinion it was actually autistic spectrum disorder.

Justice Molloy clarifies, the court decision was based on the person being psychotic. Not to do with ASD.

Molloy said Dr. Wright shouldn't be sharing the person's name with anyone because this information/diagnosis occurred in treatment and the person deserves privacy.

This doesn't advance the current situation. The case has not returned to court, and the issue hasn't been re-litigated in any way. Just says he can't be telling the Crown the NCR was wrong, let's send him to jail now.

We are on a break now, back shortly

Back. Wright says he's not a "go-to" person for autism, but does do work for conduct issues with regulatory bodies.

Defence notes expertise in autism not reflected on his resume. Wright has attended training for assessing people with autism, but not autism testing instruments

He's not certified to administer the ADI, but he is qualified to use it, he said.

Defence: Are you certified on the ADOS?

Wright: Is there a certification for that?

Defence: Also no certified for Vineland

Wright said he's used it for years

Defence points out he hasn't published on autism or given presentations on it.

Wright agrees.

Wright says he's gone to some training sessions on autism not reflected on his CV.

Defence is pointing out an error Wright made in speaking about the autism-related test and in stating what the acronym of the ADI stands for.

Defence: You did no tests to independently confirm autism spectrum disorder with Minassian, just relied on the tests done by others.

Wright agrees. Also agrees the Vineland is among the gold-standard tests for adaptive functioning.

Has used the test for years. Test is about what someone does, not what they understand about what they should do.

Defence: the test is critical for determining if someone can function in day to day life

Wright says it can show how someone navigates demands of every day life.

Defence: You didn't consult a colleague of yours who is a leading expert in autism.

Wright: It's not about micro-details of autism

Defence: It's about his criminal responsibility. Not your role to determine minutia of his ASD and it's manifestations?

Wright: No

Wright: Looking at whether someone is dealing with ability to look at some very basic things. Danger of getting a non forensic person involved is that you can look at irrelevant things.

Wright: My role was to provide as much info as i could about his through process, trajectory of behaviour that could interfere with basic thing that he didn't know what he did was wrong. Reason doesn't use ADI, trying to find out how unsafe they feel. Were they fearful for life?

Those are the kinds of things being looked for in NCR assessments. Is it a continuation of a pattern of the person, or does it flow from something else, a delusional belief that prevented them from knowing what was going on.

Defence said Dr. Bradford brought Dr. Chauhan into the case for her autism experience.

Wright said he thinks she does have some forensic experience (she said she did).

Wright said the expert brought in needs to understand the NCR questions and it's not about the fine minutia of a person. Wright said he's referred cases in the past to this expert and it's not what he's wanted to do.

Defence is reading some work from this other autism expert about how to determine whether someone is high or low-functioning. Refers to Vineland as a way to better capture functioning in everyday life. Wright agrees can be disparity between IQ and function.

This is true not just for autism but for many mental disorders. Sadly, he said, high IQ can mean you function well below your potential and you'd be aware of that. Has contributed to criminal behaviour in some people.

Wright says Minassian is verbal, not as socially skilled as he'd like but he could talk to me and figure things out. The more severe cases he's seen, you can't even give the WAIS test to. Not that he can't navigate things. He navigated university, difficult IQ questions.

Not someone who can't sit still for more than a few minutes, or only talk about one thing. He doesn't have autism to the degree that it distorts his ability to function at all.

Sorry, I took a quick break for an interview. Looks like we are going through Wright's critiques of the Vineland. He basically thinks it skews the current functioning of Minassian based on some of his childhood difficulties.

Still going through the test findings, which doesn't lend itself well to live-tweeting. The judge just said I "fundamentally don't understand" and that sums up where my notes are at.

She wishes we had the raw data that showed the answers the parents gave vs how the answers have been scored in the testing algorithm thing.

Judge observes he isn't scored for violence or much for self-harm. Does this include the offence and his apparent suicide attempts? Doesn't seem to.

The judge is now picking out inconsistencies in the test between how he was as a child and how he is now. (This may have backfired a bit for the defence).

Well we are done for the day. Cross isn't over but I hope we get to the Crown's forensic psychiatrist tomorrow.