Theater trial blog: Day 24
Allison Sylte
5:16 p.m. MDT June 3, 2015
(Photo: Colorado Courts)
5:15 p.m.: Court adjourns for the day.
5:14 p.m.: The prosecution says it has one video disk left of the interview between Reid and the defendant, and then speak to Reid again. The defense will start cross examination Thursday afternoon.
5:11 p.m.: Judge Samour wants to talk about a motion by the defense asking the court to preclude any expert testimony concerning the specific crime scene reconstruction evidence, and specifically the large-scale model of the theater.
The prosecution was only planning on using the model as a demonstrative exhibit.
Samour says he will sustain the defense's objection, and not allow the prosecution to enter the model into evidence.
5:10 p.m.: The jury is dismissed for the day. It's about 10-minutes later than unusual. Judge Carlos Samour thanks the jurors for their time.
5:03 p.m.: Reid asked the defendant about his questions toward a psychiatrist about his cast.
"I thought he might be hiding a Taser or stun gun in there," the defendant said, adding that he thought it was a fake.
Reid said there was a point where the defendant said he thought the psychiatrist was testing him to see if he'd express empathy.
"I think I expressed empathy," the defendant said. He says he's "not sure" if he thought it was a test at the time.
Reid shuffles papers in the background on the video. The defendant sits in silence, staring blankly forwarded.
"We talked several times about the hatred of mankind that you wrote down," Reid said. "I'm still confused about whether and how much the shooting had to do with hating mankind and as you say it here, being freed by the medication, perhaps."
Reid asks the defendant whether the shooting had to do with his hatred of mankind versus the means to gaining value.
"Right, so like …" the defendant mumbles, asking Reid to ask the question again. "I didn't really hate any of the people in the theater. I just hate mankind in general."
"Were they representatives of mankind to be hated or killed?" Reid asks.
"As a crowd, they were," the defendant responds.
Reid asks the defendant why he wanted or needed for the people to die.
"So my value increased," the defendant responded.
The defendant said he didn't kill the people in the theater because he hated mankind.
"But I still hate mankind," the defendant said, adding that his hatred of mankind slightly factored into the murder.
He said it was 10 percent his hatred of mankind, and 90 percent his need to increase his worth.
4:56 p.m.: The defendant says eviscerate means to disembowel, and to take apart.
"That seems like a pretty radical cure," Reid remarks. He mentions the next sentence the defendant wrote: "I could not sacrifice my soul to have a normal mind."
Reid asks the defendant to move back into other philosophical concepts, like the five pages of "Why?" written in the notebook.
"I guess it just really bugged me," the defendant said.
Reid asked him what he was feeling while he was writing that over and over.
"Inquisitive," the defendant responded.
Reid says inquisitive doesn't suggest emotion.
"A thinking, rather than a feeling or emotional why?" Reid asked.
"I was trying to figure out the why in a thought process," the defendant responded.
The defendant said it took a while to write "why?" 250 times.
"There wasn't that much. It didn't take that long," the defendant said. '
Reid says it's one thing to ponder. It's another to repeatedly write "why?"
"That seems a little unusual," he said.
"I don't know the state of mind I was in," the defendant responded. He said he wrote "why?" repeatedly during the afternoon.
He says he wrote that entry in between dropping out of school and the shooting.
Reid asks the defendant about the section of the notebook that dealt with his plan. He says he wrote it in about June or July.
"When you did these, obviously did the whole notebook, were you anticipating that this would go to Fenton?" Reid asked. "This looks like a worksheet for your own purposes. Not a communication to someone else."
"That was just a detail of my own plans," the defendant said. "Scoping out locations. The tactical situation."
The defendant said it was intended to be a description, not a brainstorming session.
The defendant said he didn't start going to movies to scope out which theater to attack until late June or early July.
4:45 p.m.: Reid asks the defendant about something he wrote that said "in order to rehabilitate my broken brain, my soul must be eviscerated."
The defendant says he doesn't remember writing that part. Reid shows him the part of the notebook.
"I don't know what I meant by soul. Sorry," the defendant said.
"That's a striking phase. Striking sentence," Reid remarks.
The defendant sits in silence.
Reid asks him what pictures come to mind.
"I'm not sure what I meant by soul," the defendant repeats.
Reid asks him what comes to mind right now.
"I guess the core of my being. That's my soul," the defendant says. "So I guess the broken part of me is so essential, it's a part of my soul."
Reid asks the defendant how he got from broken mind to broken soul.
The defendant doesn't answer.
4:40 p.m.: Reid asked the defendant if a broken brain can see itself accurately, if it's still broken.
The defendant's answer is hard to hear.
Reid asks the defendant if he views people as good, bad or truthworthy. Is he a good judge of character?
"A pretty good judge," he said.
Reid asked if he was a good judge of his girlfriend's emotions. He said yes.
"I remember you said you got candles on Valentine's Day. You made baked chicken. I remember asking if you made them for her, or you made them for yourself. You said you got them for you, because you like candles," Reid said.
"Yeah, the scented candles are nice," the defendant said with a laugh.
"How much did you do for [your girlfriend] because you thought it was something she would like?" Reid asks.
The defendant says he got her a Slurpee while she was studying for a test.
"In general, has it usually been more about James than other people?" Reid asks.
"No, it's usually been a balance," the defendant says.
4:37 p.m.: The defendant said he had "continuous thoughts to kill" in mid-2012 – right before the shooting.
Reid says he got a hold of some of the defendant's drawings from family counseling.
He said the counselor had the defendant draw a house and a family.
"I am not a very good interpreter of children's drawings. I'm not a child psychiatrist. But they didn't involve killing anybody," Reid said.
Reid talks about a remark the defendant made about mass murder at the movies being "the last escape."
"I guess death is an escape," the defendant said.
Reid reads a segment of the notebook that says, "so anyway, that's my mind. It's broken, I tried to fix it … but using something that's broken to fix itself proved insurmountable."
"That's a logical statement," Reid says.
"Can't use a broken tool to fix something," the defendant responded.
"Do you think you viewed yourself erroneous, or do you think you have a rational view of yourself?" Reid asked.
The defendant said he thought he was normal when he was six.
Reid says when the defendant turned 10, he thought about killing people. The defendant agrees that's not normal.
"Did it worry you that you thought about killing people?" Reid asked.
"Kind of, I don't know," the defendant said. "No, not really."
4:24 p.m.: "You submitted to falling in love. How did you succumb to falling in love?" Reid asks the defendant.
The defendant says he fell in love with his first serious girlfriend.
"I got to know another person," the defendant said. "And care for another person. Have that returned as well."
"So lots of good things happened?" Reid asked.
"Yes," the defendant responds.
The defendant said he made a pact not to fall in love when he became angry at his mom as a child.
"It seems like the single most important person you to want to value you is your mother," Reid remarked.
"Yes," the defendant said.
"Has your mom ever threatened to leave you?" Reid asked.
"No," the defendant says.
The defendant says he kept his pact to never hate his mother. And he says that kept him from expressing his anger at his mother.
"I suppressed it," the defendant said.
Reid takes a detour back to the defendant's obsession to kill.
The defendant said it progressed over time.
4:16 p.m.: The defendant said because he has a broken brain, the shadows were just another abnormal thing, and no big deal.
"I'd never thought of that before," Dr. Reid remarked.
Reid asks the defendant if the phrase "broken brain" came from something he'd read. The defendant said it came from himself.
The defendant says when he was a kid, he thought he'd never fall in love.
"Didn't want to fall in love," the defendant said, "because girls are very different."
Reid reads a paragraph where the defendant said "the latest battle I lost was the one where I fell in love."
The defendant says he couldn't overcome his biological need to procreate or fall in love.
"I was fighting my biology," the defendant said. "I resisted trying to fall in love."
"You didn't fight the biology of hunger," Reid remarked. "You didn't fight the biological drive of thirst …"
"Right," the defendant said. "But I kind of made a pact when I was a kid not to fall in love."
"That's not a promise you can keep," Reid said.
"I guess not," the defendant said.
Reid asks the defendant if he ever made a pact that he wouldn't have sex or masturbate.
The defendant says no,
"A lot of guys, at some point, believe they're masturbating too much or it gets in the way … did you ever make a promise not to do this again in adolescence?" Reid asks.
"No," the defendant said. "I think I did that with drinking."
4:11 p.m.: The defendant says he was never frightened, worried or concerned about the shadows.
"Really? You're a neuroscience major, and you just had something that would bring up the idea of a hallucination or delusion?" Reid asked.
"I don't think I thought of it that way," the defendant responds.
The defendant said he thought he needed to see a psychiatrist. He said he thought the visions might be a sign of schizophrenia.
"You weren't worried for yourself?" Reid asks.
"I don't know," the defendant responds.
"You said it was surprising, but you're acting like it almost felt natural. Nothing to write home about," Reid said.
"Yeah," the defendant agrees.
The defendant said he initially went to see Dr. Fenton because of anxiety – not the shadows.
"I just kind of accepted it for what it was," he said.
The defendant said he wasn't worried when the shadows came back.
"I didn't consider it harmful or bad in any way," the defendant said.
4:06 p.m.: The defendant says he started seeing "the shadows" before his third lab rotation.
He says the shadow appeared in the divider of his lab seat.
"So something roughly in front of you?" Reid asked.
The defendant agrees. He says he watched the shadow split into two and start gobbling each other up, before jumping around.
He says they were just blobs. Not recognizable shapes.
Later, the defendant says "some of them looked like people."
He says the first experience lasted around 30 seconds. If he turned his head to the side or looked away, he wasn't able to see the shadows anymore.
The defendant said the shadows appeared on the ceiling about a week later when he was going to bed.
4 p.m.: Reid touches on the defendant's desire to be remembered for things other than the legal case.
The defendant's answer is unintelligible.
"The notebook was written during a time when you've said you had things wrong with your mind," Reid said.
"Right," the defendant responds.
Reid asks the defendant about the sentence "brief periods of invincibility."
The defendant said in those moments, he thought he couldn't be hurt. He says he would drive twice as fast as he usually would.
Reid says the defendant would feel that way three or four days a week, all day.
3:48 p.m.: Reid asks the defendant about how he felt during his past few months about graduate school.
"Nobody cared if I stayed in the program or not," the defendant said, before saying that his "chosen career was pretty much over."
Reid asks him how it made him feel that nobody cared if he continued in the program.
"I felt bad. Underappreciated. Outcasted," the defendant said.
He also said it gave him anxiety. Reid remarks that it doesn't show in his pupils.
"I would be very natural for emotions to come up as you feel those things," Reid said.
Reid mentions that he spoke with the defendant's parents.
"Did you talk to them? Did you talk to my sister? Did you clear up the abandoning thing?" the defendant asked.
Reid says the defendant's sister mentioned that they didn't communicate all that much while he was in school.
"It's kind of different now," Reid said.
"It's still the same thing," the defendant responded.
Reid said he asked the defendant's sister if she would communicate with him if he were sick in a hospital or off in Afghanistan.
"Probably not. She would maintain radio silence," the defendant said.
"You know that's not what I mean," Reid retorted.
The defendant later agrees that his sister would've spoken to him if he weren't in jail for killing lots of people.
The defendant says he thinks his sister still values him.
"This is an odd question. Do you think she values you as one or 13?" Reid asks.
"Seven," the defendant says with a laugh, before seriously answering one.
3:40 p.m.: The defendant says he likes being able to look out the window "because it makes the cell look bigger."
He says he also likes seeing people through his cell window.
The defendant says the other prisoners aren't supposed to talk to him, because he's in isolation.
"And your feeling about that part of the isolation is?" Reid asks.
"It doesn't matter," the defendant responded.
Reid asks him if it would have mattered in May or June 2012 if his friends didn't talk to them.
"Well, May and June I didn't text them or talk to them," the defendant said.
The defendant said he would've felt like an outcast if he was this isolated before that.
3:30 p.m.:
The defendant tells Reid he thought he was under surveillance before the shooting.
He didn't believe there were bugs or video surveillance in his apartment.
Reid asked the defendant if he watched news before the shootings.
"No, I don't watch news," the defendant said.
When asked why, the defendant said "It's not entertainment."
The defendant said he didn't have much interest in what's going on the rest of the world.
"It's just very basic," he said, adding that he does care about new presidents about the world.
Reid asks the defendant where the most reliable places to get news were. The defendant says the science section of the New York Times.
The defendant describes the time where he saw President Obama nodding at him before he went to Denver Health.
"Before the shooting, have you ever had that experience?" Reid asks.
"No," the defendant responds.
Reid asks the defendant if he ever noticed paranormal activity. He says no.
3:25 p.m.: Reid asks the defendant if he's ever delusional.
"I thought I was delusional for wanting to kill the whole world," the defendant said.
The defendant also thinks he thought his belief in "human capitol" is a delusion.
"It's pretty unusual for people to say 'I have a very strong belief, and by the way, it's a delusion,'" Reid said.
The defendant says it's not a delusion according to him.
"If I believe in multiple universes based on string theory, but lots of people don't understand string theory and say that's stupid, would I likely be delusion or have some other difference from the other people, rather than a delusion?" Reid asks.
"You'd have a difference of opinion," the defendant said. "Some people agree with you. I don't know anybody who agrees with me."
"Good point," Reed responds.
3:14 p.m.: Court is back in session. The video starts up again.
2:50 p.m.: The video pauses, and court adjourns for a 20-minute break.
2:40 p.m.: Reid tells the defendant that everyone he talked to called him a pretty "straight-arrow guy."
The defendant said he treated people with common courtesy because "it's the right thing to do."
He said he held back when he was going to be rude, because it's not the right thing to do.
Reid tells him that shooting people isn't the right thing to do, but he did it anyway.
The defendant's response is unintelligible.
He says he held open doors because "it's just a nice thing to do."
The defendant said he did nice things because of social expectation.
2:38 p.m.: Reid asks the defendant if society could exist if everybody was a "moral relativist."
The defendant said "yes, if I was the 'top dog.'
Reid asks the defendant if he ran red lights because he thought he could get away with it.
"No, I don't think I've ever ran a red light intentionally," the defendant responded. "Because I don't want to get T-Boned."
Reid tells the defendant: "You killed and wounded a lot of people. I think that's a wrong thing to do."
The defendant said he doesn't think he's a bad person because of it.
2:21 p.m.: Reid asks the defendant about his statement that he likes to keep his shootings impersonal.
"Right, I don't think I could do it if it was personal," the defendant responds.
Reid tells the defendant that his shooting wasn't personal; he could see the shooting even though he was wearing a gas mask.
"Right, I could see people running away," the defendant said.
Reid mentions one witness who was in the first row, and who saw the defendant initially shooting above him. Later, that witness said he saw the defendant shoot directly at him.
Reid then asks the shooter how he could do this, while the shooting was "impersonal."
"I thought the majority of it was impersonal," the defendant said.
Reid asks the defendant what the difference us between "impersonal" and "indifferent."
"They're very similar," the defendant said.
2:13 p.m.: The defendant talks about visiting Dr. Lynne Fenton. He tells Reid that him telling him that he was depressed was the first time he learned he was depressed.
The video is largely unintelligible – the volume is far more quiet than it has been in the past.
Reid is heard asking the defendant how often he sees psychiatrists in jail. The defendant said it depends.
Unlike during previous videos, the defendant isn't watching. Instead, he's rocking back and forth in his chair.
In the video, Reid asks the defendant what he thought about visiting him. The defendant said he was worried Reid would draw conclusions.
"There are lots of things I don't know," Reid says.
The defendant called psychiatrists visiting "just another break in routine."
1:58 p.m.: Brauchler asks Reid about his questioning about the defendant's choice to quit graduate school.
Reid calls the defendant's argument that he "didn't know what to study" for his preliminary exam a cop-out.
Brauchler asks him about the defendant's decision to withdraw from graduate school after failing the exams, rather than before, because he didn't want anyone to be suspicious.
"It shows a lot about his capacity to know right from wrong," Reid said.
Reid talks about his line of questioning about the defendant's belief in "moral relativism" – or his belief in making up his own rules.
Brauchler asks his moral relativism means he can't tell the difference between right and wrong.
Reid says no, he still believes the defendant was legally sane.
1:48 p.m.:Reid tells the defendant that he's surprised he doesn't write anymore. The defendant said he just doesn't know the point.
The defendant said he spends a lot of time sleeping in jail because it's the "easiest way to pass the time."
He says he gets melancholy during the summer, because it brings up old memories.
The video ends, and Prosecutor George Brauchler questions Dr. Reid again.
First, Reid is asked about the defendant's pupil size.
"One of the largest parts of the pupil size is the anxiety he's feeling," Reid said, adding that pupils tend to get wider when people are nervous.
Brauchler asks Reid why he asked the defendant to read the alphabet backwards. Reid said it was so he could compliment him on it to help their relationship.
1:27 p.m.: The defendant talks about the notion of forgiveness in his writing.
Reid asks him to talk about forgiveness more.
"That's where you forgive somebody," the defendant said, before breaking off into a mumble.
"What does forgiveness do to you?" Reid asks.
"It reestablishes the balance," the defendant responded.
Reid asks the defendant if he's the wronged person, what does forgiveness do for him?
"It makes the situation equal again," he responded.
One of the parts of his writings reads "Mankind causes wars. And destroying mankind would end wars. And that's a good thing."
Reid reads the defendant that section, and asks him what he thinks about wars. Then, he asked the defendant the difference between hating mankind and his aversion of mankind.
1:15 p.m.: Court is back in session. The video resumes with a new sound system that eliminates a lot of the ambient noise.
The defendant is continuing to discuss his philosophy that one back act doesn't make someone a "wronger."
12:02 p.m.: Reid asks the defendant if the size of the wrong has anything to do with how much of a wrong it was.
"Magnitude matters," the defendant says, after Reid describes the 12 people killed, the scores of people injured and hundreds of others affected by the theater shooting.
"I would say I was selfish, but not morally wrong," the defendant said.
Reid asks the defendant if someone cut off his leg in an effort to kill him if the action was wrong.
The defendant says he wouldn't be whole, and it would impact him, but it wouldn't make the person a "wronger."
The lights turn on, and Judge Carlos Samour dismisses the jury for an hour-long lunch break.
11:57 a.m.: The defendant talks more about his personal philosophy. It's unintelligible, and consists of him mainly agreeing with statements by Dr. Reid.
Reid asks the defendant to confirm that he "didn't commit a wrong."
"Now I believe I did," the defendant responded.
"You said you shouldn't be considered a 'wronger,'" Reid said.
"I think I should be punished, yeah," the defendant responded.
The defendant said he believes in "moral relativism."
He says only one event makes him a 'wronger.'
"The rest of my life was ok," the defendant said.
In the courtroom, the defendant sits listlessly, not paying attention to the screen.
11:48 a.m.:The defendant wrote about reincarnation while in jail, Reid says, and also more about his concept for "ultraception."
He refers to the "philosopher's stone" about the answer to all questions.
Reid asks the defendant how killing people makes him more valuable.
"It's kind of like the value of a dollar. Where you attribute value to it," the defendant said. "And if you attribute value to killing people, then you have more value."
The defendant said the killer is the one who attributes the value.
"Is there anyone else or any other entity that recognizes the value that you now have?" Reid asks.
"There might be," the defendant said. "It's possible."
The defendant talks more about his personal beliefs. Most of the conversation is unintelligible.
11:34 a.m.: Reid asks if the victims would have wanted to be shot on July 20, 2012.
The defendant's answer is unintelligible.
He says what they wanted wouldn't have mattered.
"In the end it wouldn't have mattered to them," was his nihilistic response.
"At the time, what you were going to do them mattered to you?" Reid asks.
"Right," the defendant said.
"Whether [the victims] wanted to die or be injured, did that matter to you?" Reid asks.
"It didn't come up at the time," the defendant said. "I can only answer that in what it means now, in retrospective."
He adds that he thinks it would probably matter a great deal to them whether they lived, died or were injured.
Reid asks the defendant to confirm that he knew the consequences for others, but that didn't matter to him.
"I guess that made it easier, or I wouldn't have been able to do it," the defendant responded.
11:23 a.m.: The defendant said perception is similar to the "philosopher's stone," kind of a solution to all problems.
"And that can be related to death," the defendant said.
The defendant's writings also included ruminations on the nature of space and time. It talks about God.
"Because God is everything," the defendant said.
Reid asks the defendant about his "ultraception" concept, about how his thoughts come from him.
He calls the Bible "analogous" to the ultraception concept.
Reid says the defendant's ramblings remind him of quantum physics.
"Quantum physics deals with like the smallest possible particles, and their relation to the rest of the universe," the defendant said.
The next page is called "awareness basis," according to Reid.
"You talked about awareness arising from the nervous system," Reid says.
"Yep," the defendant responds.
One of his bullet points deals with how one can be alive and not aware – and how that's similar to the "dreamless state." The defendant asked "can one be aware and not alive?"
The defendant says he has not answered that question for himself.
The defendant says old age and natural causes are the best reasons to die. He says answers about questions about death will come when he's ready.
"There's no reason to hasten it," the defendant said.
"What about for people that you kill?" Reid asked.
The defendant said that doesn't factor into his thinking.
Reid asks the defendant if he thought the victims would mind being killed back in July 2012.
"I didn't really consider it," the defendant said. "I was focused on increasing my value over their needs."
"Is it fair to say that you were indifferent to their needs or wants or should?" Reid asks.
"Yeah, that's fair," the defendant responds.
11:15 a.m.: Reid asks the defendant about the writings he did in his cell. He asks if he has any interest in continuing to write.
"No," the defendant said.
Reid says one of the writings refers to "galactic colonization." The defendant said he wrote that section while reading sci-fi novels.
"Without galactic colonization, the human race, we'd die out eventually, because we don't have enough resources, or the sun with expand," the defendant said.
Reid says he reads a little bit of science fiction himself, and that a lot of the defendant's writing was consistent with the ideas in sci-fi novels.
The defendant said some of the ideas came from himself, some were inspired by what he was reading.
Reid asked if the officers in the jail knew he was writing. The defendant said yes, because there are cameras at the jail.
"I don't know if you would be able to hide it," he says.
The defendant's writing talked about how "death is infinite." He talked about pre-life and post-life. He called both of things a "dreamless sleep."
Reid asks about another piece of the defendant's writing that says "how can you attribute meaning to life when such ideals exist in nonexistence?"
"Life is an eternal struggle to obtain these ideas," he went on to say.
"Life's a struggle because it's imperfect," the defendant clarified.
Reid reads another section talking about the dreamless sleep is the epitome of "truth, justice and freedom."
"That sounds accurate," the defendant said. "When you're in a dreamless sleep, you're just kind of in a perfect state."
He says "nothing's holding you back from freedom" and that you're kind of "floating" in the dreamless sleep.
11 a.m.: The defendant said there were three professors in the room when he took the preliminary exam.
Reid asks him what he remembers.
"Well, they asked me about compound x when it turns into a neuron," the defendant said, describing the questioning as "casual."
He said he felt like he wasn't answering the problem correctly when he was being questioned.
When asked to elaborate, the defendant said "I didn't feel one way or another" because "it didn't matter if I passed or failed."
Reid asks why it didn't matter.
"Because I was going to complete my mission, get locked up and killed," the defendant said.
Reid asks him if the outcome of "I'm going to die or I'm going to be in prison" was locked up by early June.
"Yeah, those were the two options," the defendant responded.
The defendant said he thought it would be conspicuous if he just "dropped out" of school earlier than he did.
"I dropped out with the reason of the preliminary exams being failed," the defendant said.
He said he didn't want to do it for another reason, because he thought Dr. Fenton would raise an alarm.
During his exam, the defendant said he'd sometimes know an answer but not say it.
Reid asks him if he was certain that he had failed at the end of the exam.
"I had a pretty good idea that I had failed," the defendant responded.
The defendant said he had the chance to retake the exam, but that he decided not to.
"I failed the prelim needing an excuse to drop out of school, so it wouldn't make sense for me to go and retake the exam," the defendant said.
10:55 p.m.: The video resumes. Dr. William Reid asks the defendant about one of his professors, Mark Dell'Aqua, one of his professors. Reid says the defendant described Dell'Aqua as spouting a lot of "esoteric knowledge."
"He didn't teach me anything," the defendant said. "He didn't have a teaching jobs."
The defendant described him as "kind of standoffish, I guess."
Reid asks the defendant about what led up to his preliminary exams academically.
"Well, all of the core courses were finished by then, and the third rotation was going on," the defendant said.
The defendant said he spent May studying.
"I didn't study for the prelims, though," the defendant said, admitting that the other students were probably studying.
"They didn't give me much direction on what the prelims were going to be on, so I didn't study much," the defendant said.
He said that was unusual for him, because he usually studied a lot for tests.
The defendant said he asked his advisor about the test, and his advisor told him to study everything.
He said he also didn't study because he was focused on "my mission."
"Was the mission filling up the time and pushing other important things out of the way?" Reid asked. "Or was it that you didn't know what to study for prelims?"
"It was a little of both," the defendant said. "Twenty five, 75. Where twenty five was the mission, and 75 percent was not knowing what to study."
The defendant said he "didn't really care" if he failed the prelims by June.
10:38 a.m.: Court is back in session outside the presence of the jury. Judge Carlos Samour proposes stopping at noon for the lunch break. It will be an hour today instead of 90 minutes because court was let out early.
10:12 p.m.: The video is hard to hear. You can hear an air conditioner blaring in the bathroom.
The defendant says he knows how to juggle. He says he can juggle three things at a time. Early in his incarceration, Reid says he saw the defendant juggling in his cell.
"It's hard to do with different weighted, shaped objects," the defendant says.
Reid tells the defendant he ran across his resume from a few years ago.
"It's not dated, but it looks like it might have been mid-2010," Reid said. "Maybe after you graduated from Riverside."
The resume lists an internship as an objective. Reid asks the defendant if it's tough to find a job.
"Yes," the defendant said, adding that he was looking for a lab research position.
Reid asks if the defendant planned on going to graduate school. He said yes, but that he was looking for a job in between.
"I originally applied to a bunch [of graduate schools], but didn't get accepted," the defendant said.
He said he only got one interview. Reid asks the defendant if he thought he interviewed well.
"Not well enough, apparently," the defendant responded.
Reid says the defendant wrote a lot of "philosophical stuff" in jail.
"Yeah, I thought it was important to write down," the defendant said.
He said he wrote it before he went to Denver Health. The defendant said he wrote a poem and a game design after getting back from Denver Health in December 2012.
He said he stopped writing after that.
"I just thought they were important ideas," the defendant said when Reid asked him why he thought it was important to write.
"Through history, a number of people have written important history from prison cells," Reid remarks.
"I didn't know that previously," the defendant said. "I know that now," he added with a slight laugh.
Reid said he ran across a mention of a fellow named "Jonathan Murphy." The defendant said he was a fellow grad student.
"Well my desk was next to his, and he helped me with learning the procedures," the defendant said.
Judge Carlos Samour pauses the video so that the jury can take a morning break.
10 a.m.: The new video starts playing. The defendant is in an orange jumpsuit in the Arapahoe County Jail.
The defendant says he remembers Dr. Reid.
Reid comments that the defendant's pupils appear smaller. The defendant nods and said yes. Reid takes the defendant's pulse.
The defendant is asked the date. He says August 27, 2014. He is correct.
Reid asks how he keeps track of time.
"Well, every Wednesday is laundry day, every Friday is commissary day," the defendant responded.
He says he also tells the day of the week by TV schedules. He does not have a calendar in his cell. He's also not allowed to have a watch or clock.
The defendant said he also keeps track of time by when his meals are delivered.
Reid said he notices that the defendant tends to go to bed pretty late, and wake up fairly early.
"They wake me up early for breakfast," the defendant said.
Reid asks him what he can see from the window.
"I can see the guard's tower, and when they have their lights on, I try to see inside of it," the defendant said.
This tower is indoors and not outdoors, the defendant said.
The defendant said he hasn't gotten in a letter in the past three weeks.
Reid asks him what it's like coming back to the jail versus the mental hospital.
"The food's not as good," the defendant said.
The defendant said he prefers jail to the mental hospital, because there's less "forced conversation."
9:50 a.m.: Brauchler asks Reid about the defendant's use of the cell phone as a "ruse" to leave the theater and put on his gear.
"It showed he had a plan," Reid said. "It showed he didn't wanted to be discovered, didn't want to be stopped. It has to do with a kind of … deductive reasoning."
Reid talks about the conversation he had with the defendant about how he saw someone outside of the theater while he was changing into his gear. The defendant told Reid if that person had interfered, he would've shot him or her.
"That is a rational way of carrying out a crime," Reid said. "It is a rational way of thinking. It is personal, for one thing. That's a person whose face he probably would've seen if that had happened."
The defendant sits back in his chair, watching Reid's testimony.
Brauchler asks Reid about the defendant's admission that he called what he thought was CU's mental health hotline before the shooting.
"As he describes it, he still had some ambivalence about committing the crime, assuming its judged to be a crime. There was a part of him that still wanted to be stopped, I believe, and a larger part as he said it that didn't want to be stopped," Reid said. "It was a last resort effort to see if someone could stop him."
Brauchler asks what that means.
"He's aware that what he's doing is a bad thing, a wrong thing, and that if he contacts someone else or if someone if aware he's doing it, they will try to stop him, because that person … believes it's a wrong thing and he should not do it," Reid said.
Reid said the defendant was apparently wrestling with things a bit, but that he was prepared to go further.
Brauchler asks Reid if the planning of the crime impacted his analysis.
Reid says it proved the defendant was rational, and had a very clear purpose.
"It's very consistent with not being in an acute psychotic state," Reid said.
Brauchler asks Reid if there was a deliberate change in the way he questioned the defendant about the "collateral damage" topic.
The defense objects, but it's overruled.
Reid said during that part of questioning, he became a bit more assertive, "in part to see how he would handle that, whether he would keep up."
Brauchler asks Reid about another segment of the video that was filmed about three weeks after the initial segments. This is despite him telling the defendant that his questioning was done.
Reid said he asked if he could come back after learning more information.
Brauchler asks to public that video.
9:40 a.m.: Brauchler questions Reid about the video. He asks if there's anything in the video that is "psychiatrically significant."
Reid says he thought the section of the interview where the defendant discussed the burned $20 bills was significant.
"As I asked him about sending the partially burned money … I was reminded as I was listening today that his memory of the explanation two years before was that the reason was not clear, it was something that was consistent with irrational reasoning – not necessarily irrational – but it was odd," Reid said.
The defendant told Reid that he sent the money in part because he didn't have use for it anymore. Brauchler asks Reid about if the defendant told him about the cash he had on him when he went to theater.
Reid says no.
Brauchler asks Reid about his questions about the defendant's diet. He asks how that's impactful.
"I was curious about and looking for the possibility that he was on some sort of bizarre diet that changed his emotional and physical functioning," Reid said.
He says his answers, two years later, were that there was nothing significant.
Brauchler asks Reid if there's anything significant about people who "let themselves go" before events.
"Letting yourself go would be consistent with someone not paying attention perhaps for a mental illness reason," Reid said. "He didn't do that."
Brauchler asks Reid about the defendant's concept of "value," and that it's arbitrary and something he created.
"It's significant in that he didn't see that value as coming from God or some special organization, something outside himself. The arbitrariness suggests to me that it had nothing to do with some external power forcing him to do something," Reid said.
Brauchler asks Reid about his conversation with the defendant about whether he had any doubt about killing people in the theater.
"I wanted to find out whether he recalled knowing that's what he wanted to do," Reid said.
9:30 a.m.: The defendant said he was eating a donut a day, as well as carrots and a "balanced meal."
He said he was smoking cigarillos before the shooting.
"Did you regular smoke anything?" Reid asks.
"No," the defendant responded. He also says he didn't take any nonprescribed drugs.
Reid asks him about his caffeine intake.
"Low compared to most people these days," the defendant said. He says he didn't drink energy drinks, even when he was preparing for the shooting.
The defendant says he had a couple of glasses of soda a day. There was no homeopathic medication involved.
He did take a daily vitamin.
Reid tells the defendant that his work is done.
"I will wish you what I wish everybody I talk with: 'And that's that I hope whatever happens is fair,'" Reid says, ending the conversation.
He shakes the defendant's hand. The video ends.
Reid is back on the stand.
9:23 a.m.: The defendant tells Reid that he didn't think he'd be able to afford prescriptions if he continued treatment after his insurance was up.
Reid tells the defendant that he had money, and that his parents had money. The defendant agrees.
Reid changes courses, asking the defendant if there's anything he thought let him know that he forgot to mention.
"No, [my attorneys] just said 'be yourself,'" the defendant responds.
The defendant says he has nothing else to share.
Reid stops to take the defendant's pulse again.
The defendant is asked about his self-diagnosis of dysphoric mania. Reid says one of the symptoms they haven't talked about are "times when he doesn't need sleep."
The defendant said he can't remember times where he didn't need sleep.
Reid asks the defendant if he ever went on major spending sprees.
"Yeah, on all the weapons and ammo and stuff," the defendant said.
"You described a purpose for those things … " Reid said.
"Yeah, but I didn't need them," the defendant responded.
The defendant said there was nothing else he spent a lot of money on before the shooting.
Reid asks the defendant about his mentions of PTSD.
"I think it's more stress," the defendant said. "I don't think I have PTSD."
Reid asks the defendant if there are times when he thinks a lot about shootings.
"In court," the defendant said. "Well, the jail reminds me of shootings as well."
The defendant said thinking about the shooting "distracts" him from sitting alone his cell.
"Distraction while sitting alone sounds like it might be a good effect," Reid said.
"It does pass the time, but I don't think it was a positive thing," the defendant responds.
Reid asks the defendant about his medical history.
The defendant said that he's never had a serious illness. He has had mono, but he wouldn't "consider that serious."
9:15 a.m.: The defendant said Dr. Woodcock say him at the Arapahoe County Jail. Another psychiatrist also met with him.
He wanted to know if the defendant's medications came with side effects.
Reid tells the defendant that he's noticed that in jail, no one really talks to the defendant.
"Expect at dinner," the defendant responds. "I think they're open to communication."
The defendant tells Reid that the fact that the state mental health is "a little bit more social" is a downside for him.
Reid asks the defendant about the burned money he put in the envelope with the notebook.
"I didn't see any use for money afterward," the defendant said.
Reid asks him how he got the $400. The defendant said he rode his bike to the ATM, and tried to take out as much as he could with his debit and credit card.
He said he did so close to the date that he mailed the money.
Reid asks what he thinks Dr. Fenton would have thought about the money.
"One of the reasons I didn't stay with Dr. Fenton was because my insurance was going to be cancelled when I dropped out of school, and she charged like $80 a session," the defendant said. "I sent the money with the notebook to say that money didn't matter anymore."
Reid tells the defendant that this doesn't really answer the question. The defendant says he was trying to say that money didn't matter anymore.
"At the time, I don't know what I was feeling," the defendant says.
Reid asks the defendant why the money was burned on the corners, and not elsewhere.
"So it could still be identifiable as money," the defendant responded.
Reid tries to ask the defendant what Dr. Fenton would think about the burned money again.
"That money was an issue," the defendant said.
"An issue for what?" Reid asks.
"That money was an issue for the shooting," the defendant responds.
Reid says he still doesn't understand.
"Well if I stayed and got further treatment, I might have not done the shooting," the defendant said.
Reid tells the defendant it indicates to him that he had money to continue the sessions.
"Yeah, I could've paid for it," the defendant said.
9:05 a.m.: The video interview between the defendant and Dr. William Reid resumes where it stopped yesterday. The prosecution had to add redactions before it could be shown.
Reid asks the defendant what he was doing with the bags on his hands while he was waiting to be interrogated.
"I was doing sock puppets or something," the defendant said.
He said he was thinking about "what's gonna happen next."
"Any other feelings come to mind?" Reid asked.
"Just the feeling that it's finished," the defendant said.
The defendant said he was taken to Arapahoe County Jail the day of the shooting. He said he was offered food and water in the jail, and that he was in a cell with a restroom.
Reid asks the defendant what it was like to go to court the first time.
"I don't remember," the defendant said. "I think I was trying to pay attention."
The psychiatrist continues to press the defendant about court.
"I don't remember," the defendant said, saying he remembered sitting at the table, and seeing where the jury and prosecutors sat.
Reid asks the defendant if court made him nervous.
"I don't think so, no," the defendant said. "I don't do anything. I just sit there."
Reid asks the defendant about the other times he'd appeared in court.
"They all sort of blend together," the defendant responded. "I remember some of the witnesses and stuff."
8:58 a.m.:After calling the defense's motion "meritless," Judge Carlos Samour asks to bring the jury in. The defense is heard objecting, but Samour silences them with "nope, we're done."
8:55 a.m.: The defense asks for a mistrial, claiming that the testimony from Dr. William Reid violates the defendant's constitutional rights.
The video of the interview between Reid and the defendant has been playing in full for the past four days.
"It makes no sense to do now. What can I do now?" Judge Carlos Samour said, sounding exasperated. "It's untimely!"
Defense attorney Kristen Nelson said the defense has no issues with Reid's testimony – only the video tape.
"I'm not hearing it right now," Samour said of the argument.
Nelson said the argument is targeted at the statements about the offense that were made on Tuesday. She says she "respectfully disagrees" with Judge Carlos Samour.
"This is a complete surprise to us," Prosecutor George Brauchler said, adding that they're unable to respond since they didn't know the defense was going to raise this motion.
"Prosecution is completely right," Samour responds, chastising the defense and saying their call for a mistrial is "unprofessional" and "improper."
Samour said he rejects the defense's argument about the video, because it is untimely.
"I'm not going to call a mistrial because the defense either forgot or chose not to raise the argument in a timely fashion," Samour said.
Samour adds that he stands by his previous ruling when it comes to the defense's arguments about the video.
"By definition almost, a court-appointed sanity examiner has to talk to the defendant about the offenses in question," Samour said, adding that the defense didn't object when the psychiatrists agreed with their argument that the client was legally insane.
"You can't have it both ways," Samour said. "There's nothing improper about Dr. Reid talking to the defendant about the offenses in question."
8:40 a.m.: Court is back in session outside the presence of the jury. The attorneys discuss the DVD that had to be redacted in parts, and how to approach showing it to the jury.
These redactions forced court to end about an hour and a half early on Tuesday.
Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links.