Thread by @alysanmati

Crown prosecutor John Rinaldi is continuing his examination-in-chief of Dr. Scott Woodside today. Here is where you can follow along with a summary of Woodside's from yesterday: thestar.com/content/thesta…

We start off today with the judge suggesting the lawyers can make oral arguments on the facts and written submissions on the law (one way to save time). The trial was set to end on Dec. 18 but it's looking like we may go into the week of the 21st which creates staffing issues

She wants to hear oral arguments on the facts while the evidence is fresh in her mind which is why she doesn't want to put them off till later, but submissions on the law can come later.

Apparently Kamala Harris was counsel in one of the additional cases found by Justice Molloy's law clerk in this area.

Back to evidence now: Woodside asked what he'd have done if he couldn't have gone through with the attack that day. He said he'd have done it another day. What about a flat tire? Said he'd have gone ahead if it could be fixed.

(I am trying to recall what Minassian told Westphal about this because I think it was slightly different. He said he was hoping something would go wrong so he didn't have to go through with it. thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…)

Minassian said he was looking forward to media attention, and how his police video when it was released would be portrayed.

He said he knew his parents would be shocked: "(I) put those thoughts aside." He was nervous about screwing up his job and wanted the killing to be "upgraded" by associating it with the incel group. Needed a reason not to be just an average mass killer. Increase his infamy.

He was pleased not to have "chickened out." Knew the survivors and victims would be upset. Said he didn't know what to say to them but in a courtroom he might apologize. Would be lying if he said he had regrets.

If he could do it over he'd think about ways to get a higher kill count. He felt guilty hearing his father say on tv that he didn't think his son could do this, but he was aware that his family would be disappointed in his actions.

Woodside asked if he told anyone about his plans. He denied that, and denied anyone egged him on or encouraged him. He had read other posts about other attacks and was interested in tactics to get highest kill count, most media attention, most adulation from incels.

Woodside asked how he felt that he killed more people than Elliot Rodger. He was happy, and happy to be carrying the torch. "Now it is burning even brighter," he said. He said the attack changed nothing regarding women dating men like him, more about getting back at society.

(This again is real mixed stuff about how much of the incel motivation is genuine or not. How much it matters for this court proceeding is another matter as well)

Woodside now going over Dr. Wright's report as he included it in his own report.

Minassian has the intellect to understand social concepts, but also the intellectual capacity to understand and use/apply social concepts even if it takes him longer to get there than a neurotypical person, Woodside of how he took Wright's report.

Wright noted Minassian didn't seek out an accomplice and other peers who held the same views (different from some school shooters in this respect). Woodside said he does not disagree with Wright's conclusions.

There was an absence of psychotic symptoms including delusions and hallucinations in his interviews with Minassian, Woodside said. Also no evidence of that from any other material including from the day and Minassian's history.

He doesn't suffer from a major mental illness (which have the capacity to lead to psychosis) or personality disorder, in Woodside's view. Diagnosed him with autism spectrum disorder, as others have.

Minassian's form of autism spectrum disorder is associated with the "best outcomes over time" among people with autism, Woodside said.

Not aware of cases where autism spectrum disorder has been used successfully in an NCR case but in his view ASD could be considered a mental disorder and wouldn't end the court's analysis.

Looking now at the ability to appreciate nature and quality of the acts -- linked to ability to foresee physical consequences of actions. Little no evidence Minassian couldn't do that.

He planned the attack. He knew he was driving a van into pedestrians and knew that was likely to kill them and that was his intent.

Now to the other branch of the NCR test, the one that is relevant here (no one thinks the other one applies). Q is whether he knew his actions were morally wrong.

He knew his acts were illegal. Re moral wrongfulness, he's indicated "quite clearly" that he knew most people in society would find his actions "despicable" and wrong. Goes beyond that though.

Not just having concrete understanding knowing it was wrong but it was part of why he did this. He wanted to become infamous. Implies a clear knowledge people would see this as a terrible thing, that's how he is going to gain notoriety.

It is calculated. Do the worst thing: kill people, kill as many people as possible.

Nothing to suggest impairment in his ability to think rationally about this.

Now we are going to move to Woodside commenting on the testimony of the defence experts, starting with Dr. Chauhan.

She is a forensic psychiatrist who was brought into the case because she specializes in child psychiatry and has more experience with autism than her colleague Dr. Bradford, another forensic psychiatrist who first assessed Minassian.

She concluded that Minassian "demonstrated significant impairment in his ability to engage in reciprocal conversation." Woodside said her purpose, which was to administer autism diagnostic tests, was different from his.

Chauhan said Minassian felt obsessed with mass murder and Elliot Rodger, which suggestive of him becoming "hyper-focused" and "indoctrinated." She also says his "significant deficits" in capacity for appreciating other's thoughts and emotional experiences lends him to have

"significant impairment in his moral reasoning."

Woodside said he thinks when she says hyper-focus it's linked to what is described in the DSM-V re autism. Woodside said he thinks hpyer-focus and indoctrinated are different. Does think Minassian has a long interest in mass murder, which predated Rodger.

Woodside said he wished he asked Minassian how many times he read the manifesto before the attack but his interest did increase though he was still doing other things. Different from some other people with autism who can be very focused for hours on an object like a spinning top

Also not something where the person can't stop talking about and doesn't hide that interest. Minassian didn't show this to that degree. He's engaged in other activities leading up to the offence like school, connecting with his brother, playing video games.

Says there is no evidence of Minassian becoming delusional. Does think some "densensitization" that takes place when you immerse yourself in something like this, reading things about mass killing that are positive. Can dehumanize victims.

Crown asks if this led to any type of psychosis. Woodside said no evidence of this.

Chauhan said autism made Minassian vulnerable to Rodger's writing and facilitated his indoctrination. Woodside said Minassian does have a deficit in putting himself in other people's shoes.

But is NOT absent. In his case, it comes from his autism spectrum disorder. But he's able to use his intellect to figure that out. Can talk himself through or reason through more complex moral situation. Takes effort on his part.

Not everyone engages in high-level moral reasoning, Woodside notes. The highest level where you fully take into account your own and other experiences and come up with your own ethics is reached by very few people.

Most people don't think in a deep or significant way about our actions. Gives example about stopping at a red light. Just do it bc we are supposed to, don't engage in a long moral thought process about it.

When needed we can consider other people's perpsectives, and this is Minassian's deficit but he can still get to the answer using other strategies. Just takes longer. This is an issue in spur-of-the moment decisions, suddenly confronted with. Not the case here.

Minassian wanted to do a mass killing for a long time and didn't until he finally on April 23, 2018 did.

Minassian did have thoughts telling him not to do it, and he pushed those thoughts away. Cognitive dissonance.

Woodside says a classic example is from Gone with the Wind. Scarlett comes home to a devastated plantation and she says she'll think about it tomorrow, tomorrow is another day.

Minassian also tells other he has some ambivalence. He keeps his options open by finishing school. Seems odd to think about, we struggle to make sense of that but it does makes sense if you aren't sure you don't want to go through it or don't want to arouse suspicion.

I'm reliably informed by @jpnadeau_cbc that the Gone With the Wind analogy made by Dr. Woodside is factually incorrect (like the reports in this case, I have not seen it).

Back after the morning break. Now going into Dr. Westphal's report (the key defence forensic psychiatrist who spent 7 days on the stand).

Crown wants Woodside to comment on a section where Westphal quotes a paper that talks about a person with autism who had fantasies so strong they developed into disturbances in perception and the internal representation of reality.

Woodside said Minassian appeared grounded in reality. He didn't think he'd be crowned king. He thought he'd die or spent his life in jail. He does think about his victims in a more abstract way, doesn't feel in the same way. But knows what people would feel and think about it.

He knew he was more socially isolated and mourned that. It was part of his reality. His ASD and awkward communication style contributed to this, but there are other factors as well. Lots of people with ASD do form relationships. Minassian was fearful of failure.

Minassian doesn't have a grandiose delusion, Woodside said though his quest for notoriety is somewhat narcissistic

Minassian is able to recognize the incel ideology is flawed and it was not the underlying motivation. Doesn't think it's an "overvalued idea" for him, Woodside said.

Woodside, like the other experts, doesn't think Minassian is a psychopath.

Now getting into Woodside commenting on Westphal's evidence. He listened to all Westphal's testimony.

We are going to talk about the Grant article raised by Westphal, which seeks to tie ASD to NCR in the Canadian context -- the only article so far to do so (published in 2017/2018)

Woodside he's not sure what they mean by "higher order moral reasoning" in the article. Crown asks how this ties to moral wrongfulness. Woodside they link high-order moral reasoning with empathic responses. In much of literature on moral reasoning, that is a fundamental part.

To be able to take someone else's perspective, feel what someone else feels. Using that type of information to inform their decision.

Woodside said there is difference in higher order moral reasoning and from knowing something is wrong i.e. against the law. The more advanced form of moral reasoning involves perspective and feeling what others might feel. More about how you get there.

That is more akin to "appreciating" rather than "knowing."

(The Crown much earlier in this trial made the point about the test saying know, not appreciate).

Grant article says people with high-functioning ASD may be able to pass first and second order theory of mind tasks, but often have trouble with higher order theory of mind tasks. Woodside said no standard definitions of the orders.

The next line says high-functioning people with ASD can pass higher order theory of mind tasks but have trouble applying them in every day social interactions. Woodside this reflects Minassian's situation. He can reason out moral tasks but it takes him longer.

There is a concern about the article misstating the test for NCR. It's not about "appreciating" moral wrongfulness but KNOWING moral wrongfulness. Woodside said from his perspective there is a difference.

Crown is asking about Westphal's conclusion about Minassian thinking in a very concrete way and appearing baffled/unable to answer questions/giving off the mark answers. His autistic way of thinking distorted his thinking similar to psychosis.

Woodside says Minassian may have asked him to repeat a q or for clarification. Saw nothing unusual. Seeking clarification could reflect a strategy to help him figure things out.

Didn't think Minassian appeared baffled. He surprised when asked about a hypothetical where his name was never disclosed. He hadn't thought about it. (The question came from the NZ approach). He then gave an answer, which is he wouldn't like that.

Crown: Did you ask him about bullying as Westphal did. Woodside didn't ask him about whether he'd be seen as a bully. Woodside said Minassian did sometimes give too much detail but answered the questions.

Crown: Did he miss the point

Woodside: Not that I recall

Crown: What do you think about his thinking being distorted like psychosis. Did you see any of that in your interviews or Westphals?

Woodside: In my opinion, no.

Taking the lunch break.

Crown is now asking about much-discussed area of Westphal's report where Minassian's communication in everyday settings is described as more like a child, and skills in social relationships even lower.

Woodside said he thinks this is overstated in large part due to what Minassian can manage due to his intellect. Doesn't know what "lower" than child is. Does have difficulties with conversations and social skills. He looks "unbelievably" high-functioning compared to many with ASD

Minassian has a hard time socially but has had a lot of support and intervention. Has managed to make friends with like-minded nerdy guys. Made plans to see a movie. Struggle to describe his abilities as child-like or lower than a child.

Woodside says there is a gap between his intellect and actual functioning but wouldn't call it "vast" as Westphal report does. Underestimates his ability to use his intellect to address some of his deficits so he can function more normally than he could if his IQ were lower.

Westphal said Minassian's actions were "completely beyond his comprehension.

Woodside calls this a bit of an overstatement. It "mocks" the reality of what Minassian has said. He clearly comprehended what he did and made calculations to achieve certain results.

It would require you to ignore "everything Minassian said" with regard to the attack. Doesn't agree with the statement.

(Westphal kind of said we do have to ignore everything Minassian said).

Woodside also said it is grossly overstated to say Minassian didn't understand the terrible impact his acts would have.

Regarding Westphal's view Minassian had a fragmented mind between intellectual and moral thinking, Woodside says it's hard to understand.

Minassian has some social and perspective-taking deficits but he can use his intellect to reason to the right answer. Woodside said we can understand a bit about what it's like to be "mindblind" -- to not understand emotions. He points to text messages without emoticons.

Can't use inflection of voice to tell what they mean or non-verbal clues, so we use intellect to figure it out.

Woodside said Minassian struggles in this area but doesn't call it a distortion in thinking. Notes again this wasn't a spur of the moment situation. He PLANNED the mass murder. He thought about it for years and years. There is a universal rule that is bad to kill people.

He could have worked out the impact on his own family and others. He may not feel it as deeply "but he certainly has the capacity to think it through." He has expressed that know about the pain he caused. He also said he put those thoughts out of his head.

Woodside does say that Minassian does have difficulty articulating or expressing emotions. But that doesn't mean he is devoid of emotion or that his accounts of the attack are "chilling" in their lack of emotion.

The Crown is reading out a transcript of Westphal's final explanation of theory of mind and empathy to moral reasoning.

Some of that explanation is in my story here: thestar.com/news/gta/2020/…

In the most oversimplified terms, Westphal said Minassian's ASD affected the development of his ability to morally reason from his early childhood. In his view Minassian has a "really substantial defect in social development" and empathic understanding.

And thus he can't understand the consequences of his actions (i.e. that he sees other people as objects not full human beings in and of themselves).

Woodside said he disagrees with that. There is evidence Minassian can recognize individuals as independent entities. There are examples of him perspective-taking. Westphal's statement doesn't reflect Minassian's level of function. Overstatement to say he can't do that.

Crown: What about that he intellectually understands but doesn't morally understand his actions?

Woodside: Agrees Minassian may not feel as deeply as other people. Would put it differently:"Doesn't matter to him not because he doesn't understand but because it's not his focus."

He put it out of his mind. He wanted to morally outrage people. That's how he becomes famous. Do the worst thing and get the most fame. It requires contemplation of that. He really wanted to do it.

Woodside says again that we don't really know how people become mass killers. Why is that idea of killing a whole lot of people really appealing. Some aspect of that that involves thinking about that in the abstract, a means to an end.

Woodside again says this is something Minassian really really wanted to do. Would be dangerous to discount everything he actually says about why he commits this act and ignore how they could contribute to someone acting in this way. Feeling lonely, rejected, losing hope in future

He said that latter one, losing hope is an important one. Causes people to do desperate things against their own interests. Aspects of revenge, loneliness, narcissism, not being able to achieve the things many of us do.

Overlooks that for whatever reason, he found this interesting and something he wanted to do. This was not an impulsive decision. Also not a complex moral dilemma. Not like the trolleycar problem or sophie's choice.

It was a necessary calculation for infamy. Had to do something particularly horrific. Very difficult to accept he doesn't get people will be badly affect given that it was part of the underlying calculation for him.

Woodside said the kind of moral reasoning that requires one to take into account other's perspectives is a high-level. Not the way we automatically function in the day to day. We follow the rules and the laws.

Minassian, however, DID have a long time to think about what he was going to do. Does think he knows people have other interests. Doesn't know if he thinks other people's lives are as valuable as his own (from me: I don't know that lots of people think that anyway?)

Points out Minassian made choices leading up to and after he killed the first group of people, according to him. He thought through it and has awareness of the negative impact on people around him. Maybe not much focus on the victims. But that's not the most important thing.

He is focused on a selfish goal. The infamy etc was more important to him than the pain he was going to cause.

Woodside commenting on the view that Minassian doesn't really understand moral wrongfulness because he can't understand impact on other people. Misses that he is willing to ignore impact on others because he is focused on a selfish goal.

Westphal said Minassian doesn't see it as the worst thing he can imageine but Minassian DOES see it as the worst thing he can imagine. That was the whole point.

Woodside said the examples provided by the Crown in cross-examination of Westphal were meaningful examples of perspective-taking.

Can't dismiss examples of him taking perspective as just intellectual. Talks about cognitive vs emotional empathy. But theory of mind is primarily about taking other's perspective but not really about feeling it or having an emotional response.

Crown has another section of the transcript of Westphal's testimony. This part is about his view that Minassian had no good reason to commit the mass killing. Therefore he thinks Minassian had no comprehension of what it meant for people's lives.

Woodside said he does think Minassian had coherent motives. He saw no hope for the future. He wanted to leave his mark. "I honestly don't know why you would ignore these explanations." You'd never get me to say, "that's a good reason to do it...kill a lot of people."

We are trying to understand someone's behaviour, the why behind it....which is not really the purpose of his inquiry. Minassian's plainly stated motives seem as acceptable as anything Westphal suggests as a possible motive.

Not sure why those would be rejected for the idea that he must not have known the impact of what he was doing.

Re the idea that Minassian approached it like a video game. Woodside does think Minassian detached himself somewhat. Put the horrific impact aside because that would constrain him. There is an abstract quality to his actions. Not sure it's the same a graphic video game.

Nothing else that would change his view that Minassian knew it was morally wrong, Woodside said.

That's it for examination-in-chief.

We are breaking till 10:30 on Monday now, when the defence will start their cross.