Theater trial blog: Day 38
Kelly Sommariva, KUSA
5:17 p.m. MDT June 26, 2015
(Photo: Kelly Sommariva)
5:03 p.m.: Judge Samour reminds the jury about his advisements for over the weekend.
Court is in recess until Monday.
4:47 p.m.: Ms. Brady for the defense calls Dr. Kimberly Indovina, who works at Denver Health. At the time Holmes was admitted, she was the overnight physician, and she was asked to follow up on lab tests, specifically his potassium levels.
Holmes' potassium level was low so she ordered IV and oral potassium. Low potassium indicates someone is not getting enough, possibly if they were not eating.
She prescribed a sedative medication for Holmes. She thinks he was there from Nov. 15-Nov. 20. He was prescribed the sedative on Nov. 19. She circles on a calendar what dates Holmes was in the hospital.
This sedative is given for agitation or insomnia.
The prosecution has cross examination. Dr. Indovina says she never had any contact with Holmes and has not had contact since.
The low potassium could have been caused by someone who voluntary chose to stop eating and drinking. She cannot remember why she ordered that drug that night, typically it would be to respond to a nurse's request.
Today in court, she has had more contact with the defendant than she did in Denver Health.
The jury has some questions.
What was the potassium level? The lowest was 2.9, a reasonably low level. Normal levels are about 3.5.
She answers that Lorazepam can make a person sedative.
The prosecution asks if those levels were alarming. Dr. Indovina says they were low enough to take action, but not immediately alarming.
Dr. Indovina also ordered several tests including a bladder scan.
With no further questions, she is released from her subpoena.
4:34 p.m.: Brauchler now asks about Holmes' 'bored' demeanor. Dr. Woodcock says it is possible he may have been bored by repeated questions over several days on things like class schedules.
There is a difference between a human being and having a recording device in an evaluation. Holmes knew Mr. Bishop was a part of his defense team, and Dr. Woodcock knows Mr. Bishop may have coughed, laughed, made noise and he can't be sure he didn't make any facial expressions.
Now, Brauchler says doctors never diagnosed Holmes as psychotic prior to him falling off the bed, "That may be," Woodcock replies after a defense objection is overruled.
Prior doctors struggled to diagnose him as psychotic because of information Holmes was withholding from them. Dr. Woodcock says that is correct.
Brauchler approaches with the Hillary Allen Gmail chats. On page 59, Dr. Woodcock does see 'the floodgates have opened,' as time-stamped on July 8, 2012.
Brauchler has nothing further.
4:25 p.m: It is clear the psychosis preceded the shooting, Dr. Woodcock says as Mr. King resumes questioning him after juror questions have finished.
Holmes' self-diagnosis of being tired and depressed was not catatonia, it was a name Holmes put to it, Woodcock answers.
Dr. Woodcock understands Holmes' change to having a flat affect occurred during middle and high school.
There's no indication Holmes did any of this for personal profit? No, Woodcock answers.
King goes through more indicators out of the DSM for antisocial personality disorder, and King answers primarily no to most of the questions, including that he had reckless disregard for others.
Brauchler has some follow-up questions.
4:05 p.m.: Dr. Woodcock begins answering jurors' questions.
Editors note: for clarity, Dr. Woodcock's responses have been denoted in italics beneath each juror question asked, in the order they were asked.
3:14 p.m.: Court is back in session. Outside the presence of the jury and Dr. Woodcock, counsel goes over the jury's questions.
The juror's questions are as follows:
1. Are all people who have delusions and who murder are legally insane? No. Whose opinion was it that the defendant's devices were set up improperly at his apartment? Defense objects, but it will be asked, the judge says. I don't recall. That was his impression from police reports.
2. From an ethical standpoint, do you stand by your opinion based on two hours of interviewing and reviewing other reports, not viewing everything on your own, and basing your decision partially subjectively? The defense objects and the prosecution does not. The judge agrees with the defense and it won't be asked.
3. Is it true that cognitive testing scores can change? Defense objects saying this witness is not the expert in this area. Brauchler does not object, saying Dr. Woodcock did opine on this earlier. The judge says he will allow it, given the testimony elicited on redirect. Yes, and yes.
4. When do you believe Mr. Holmes' delusions took over his ability to know right from wrong? A progression, but started when he said 'the floodgates were opening.' Does being delusional automatically preclude the ability to know right from wrong? Does being psychotic do the same? If the answer to either is no, what other evidence did you see that rendered your opinion the defendant was legally sane? Defense objects because the last part was confusing. The judge will not ask the last question. No and no, Woodcock answers to the first part.
5. If someone is suffering from catatonia, is it possible for that person to 'schedule' these episodes? Defense objects, the prosecution does not, and the judge will ask the question. To some degree there is some ability to manipulate that.
6. Is it common for a person with schizoaffective disorder to be or to become violent? No objections. Yes.
7. Are the questions in the checklist in the insanity chapter mandatory to ask in terms of forensic psychology? No objections. They are suggested guidelines.
8. How does a person with schizophrenia change in the early to mid 20s? No objections. The mid-20s is a very common time for schizophrenia to come on, and the degree really depends. People can go from being very normal to having a lot of symptoms.
9. Aside from homicidal ideations, why did you rule out an autism spectrum disorder? No objections. This is very typical for schizoaffective disorder, not very typical for autism spectrum disorders, such as symptoms coming out after adolescence, which is uncommon for autism spectrum disorders.
10. If Holmes had no empathy for others, how did you rule out antisocial personality disorder aside from no rule-breaking history? No objections. It is the lack of anti-social, rule breaking behavior that distinguishes this, he answers. Holmes had too much ambivalence to be antisocial.
11. Per your testimony, how did you know that Mr. Holmes was psychotic when he went backwards off the bed? No objections. By the time he had seen that video, he saw him as psychotic. He didn't have a lot of other information regarding his treatment, but it happened before his psychotic break the required admission to the hospital.
12. When you reviewed the police video, did you see the calendar with the dates of July 19 or 20 marked with a symbol (when you consider the defendant did not know the date of the event)? Some objections, the judge will rephrase the question 'police materials' and ask it. He does recall that information, his point about knowing on July 12 if Holmes had decided to do this, he thinks he was psychotic at that time. Assessing his decision-making capacity at that time is obscured by density of his psychosis.
13. You mentioned that you don't videotape interviews because the camera can impact the content of the interview. In what way does having an observer impact the interview in a similar way? No objections. The impact can be very similar.
14. Did Mr. Bishop's presence impact the evaluation in any way? No objections. If not, what distinction do you draw between having an observer or by videotaping? The judge will play it by ear depending on how the first questions are answered. It may have impacted it some since Holmes was aware he was there. He felt Holmes was responsive to his questions. This was unique in his experience to have a clinical observer.
15. If it wasn't in your position to give recommendations to Dr. Moser for medication why would you even have/give initial observations? No objections. He was in a position to give his impressions, and therefore they did discuss treatment with anti-psychotics. He didn't have the role of actually treating Holmes. The implication of his observations would be medication.
16. Ethically, why would you not return his phone call, even to let him know you would not be consulting? No objections. He says he possibly should have. He immediately called King, who said he was in a meeting about that very thing at that time and he would get back to Woodcock. He thought there would be further communication about this. He didn't receive 'permission' to call back.
17. You stated 'flat affect' is typical of psychosis, were you made aware that many witnesses and doctors have stated that his 'affect' has almost always been described as flat? Would that, or did that, have any effect on your idea of psychosis during the interview?Is it a possibility this is typical of him and not something due to the incident?No objections. Yes, and he thinks that's still true. He tried to point out in July, 2012, was that this was still to an extraordinary degree. He considered in that same interview was there was a lot going on, emotionally. He doesn't think you can separate illness and his flat affect.
18. Did Mr. Holmes appear anxious during the interviews? No objections. Not at all.
19. Did Mr. Holmes report any anxiety during the interviews? No objections. He doesn't believe he did. In the second interview, he described feeling anxious.
20. What was the total time you spent with Mr. Holmes? No objections. Two hours, 45 minutes.
21. Did Mr. Holmes ever refuse to answer any questions? No objections. No.
22. Was Mr. Holmes able to communicate effectively? No objections. Yes.
23. Were his pupils enlarged? No objections. The first time, yes.They were mid-position the second time.
24. What is catatonia? Can you control it? No objections. Degree of control is variable. Generally, when people are very, very ill and cognitively disorganized. What he had was not catatonia.
25. How can you tell how long someone has been psychotic? No objections. It can be very difficult unless they indicate it through behavior or verbally.
26. You said it was surprising to you that Holmes seemed annoyed or bored during the interview. Have you seen this when interviewing others who have committed murder? How many times, if so? No objections. He has not interviewed very many people who have committed murder, four or five, and he has not seen it in those people. It was more unusual than surprising.
27. How do you rule out he wasn't just bored or annoyed at having to be interviewed? No objections. He thinks Holmes was annoyed and bored to be interviewed, which is what makes that so extraordinary.
28. Do you feel there is a conflict in interest representing the defense due to your and the defendant's association with neurology and CU's school? No objections. No. I didn't know Mr. Holmes there, ever.
29. You testified the defendant said if he said his plans out loud, he would have to go through with them. What was his aversion at having to go through with his plan and his ability to distinguish between right from wrong? No objections, it will be asked. To keep him on track so he wouldn't act on either ideation, he was in school. That was his struggle early on. As he became sicker, he lost that ability and couldn't control his delusions and their sense of compulsion.
30. Is it possible for a person who commits a crime to have a psychotic break by the very act of committing that crime -especially murder? No objections. That would be possible.
31. Why did the Boulder clinic close after only two years? Defense says it isn't relevant, the prosecution says it is relevant because Dr. Woodcock did testify about it, so the judge agrees he will ask it. The Department of Health decided to impose on the facility to update building codes.
3:09 p.m.: Dr. Woodcock says he chose not to call back Dr. Moser, the psychiatrist at the jail, after being told more or less not to by Mr. King.
Dr. Woodcock had a conversation in April with Holmes about his seeing shadows. Holmes never told him several things about the shadows, the only reference is he maybe saw a shadow on the wall or ceiling.
The jury is given a 35 minute break so that counsel and Judge Samour can go over all of their questions they have prepared.
2:57 p.m.: Dr. Woodcock is advised by Judge Samour he must answer the question asked. If he can't answer it, he needs to say so.
If it is a yes or no question, or a true or false question, and you can't answer it the way it was asked, say you can't and explain why, Samour advises, from here on out.
"In Colorado, is there clinical insanity?" Brauchler asks.
Dr. Woodcock says he can't answer the question because he's never heard that term before.
Brauchler's line of questioning on Holmes' transcripts begins. Dr. Woodcock says he doesn't recall reviewing Holmes' transcripts or his writings from his philosophy class.
Dr. Woodcock can't seem to find the notes he was referring to when Mr. King was questioning him earlier regarding Holmes' response of 'I hate everybody,' in their July interview, and Woodcock can't remember how he followed that question up. He continues looking through his report.
He asks Brauchler if he knows where in his own report that note would be.
Woodcock concedes he asked Holmes, obliquely,not directly, in follow-up about his suicidal thoughts.
Brauchler has to ask the question several times, true or false, and Dr. Woodcock does not answer using those terms.
Before speaking to any clinical professionals, Holmes researched online symptoms of mental illness, Woodcock agrees.
"Are there any rational reasons for shooting 12 people in a movie theater?" Brauchler asks.
"Well, terrorism," Dr. Woodcock says.
He says it would be oversimplifying to say 'killing people after saying you hated everybody' is rational.
Samour advises Woodcock, yet again, to answer direct questions with an answer.
2:50 p.m.: Societal standard of morality includes knowledge of legality, Dr. Woodcock sort of agrees.
There is no clinical insanity, Brauchler says, there's only forensic insanity. "What is clinical insanity?" he asks Woodcock.
He begins to answer, but Brauchler interrupts. Brauchler asks, "Do you know if there is clinical insanity in Colorado?"
"I don't know what you're talking about," the doctor answers, and begins speaking again.
The defense objects to the question – the objection is overruled.
Judge Samour instructs Dr. Woodcock to answer the direct question: if he knows if there is 'clinical insanity' in Colorado.
The defense asks to approach the bench.
2:37 p.m.: The defense is now talking about a clinical assessment and how it is important for a sanity evaluation.
King asks Dr. Woodcock about the 'regret' conversation. It doesn't mean Holmes was sane on July 20, he could have expressed regret at any time afterwards.
Of all the things Brauchler raised today and yesterday, does anything he said change your opinion that Holmes suffers from schizoaffective disorder? King asks. Dr. Woodcock: No.
Despite what King calls Brauchler's 'criticism' of Woodcock's techniques - he still reached the same conclusions as three other doctors, Woodcock says.
King: Do you have an opinion- absent serious mental illness - we would even be here today? An objection on this question is overrruled.
"No, I don't this would not have occurred but for the mental illness," Woodcock answers.
King finishes and Brauchler is back with more re-cross examination.
Woodcock's report was 13 pages in March and eight pages in April. Other reports were in excess of 50 or 100 pages.
He also didn't talk to Holmes' parents as other doctors had done. Dr. Reid and Dr. Metzner both believed Holmes was sane – Dr. Woodcock did not.
'Irresistible influence,' included in Woodcock's report, is no longer a part of Colorado law on insanity. It was removed more than 30 years ago.
All information is relevant and should be carefully considered, but not all of it tells us whether Holmes was delusional, Woodcock tells Brauchler.
2:20 p.m.: After he felt comfortable rendering an opinion on sanity, then King asked him to put it in a report to be turned to the report.
They go back to the manual. The discussion about wearing gloves, waiting until darkness. Insanity in Colorado is based on a moral recognition, not a legal recognition. Holmes knew it was legally wrong to shoot people.
Now King asks about the 'escape' plan the prosecution says Holmes was planning. Did he make a rational assessment to turn himself in? Dr. Woodcock believes his behavior was consistent with delusional thinking.
He was not in control of his thoughts and actions, but rather his delusional thought was. Woodcock says he was organized in his pursuit of his delusional goal.
Not all delusional people, including Holmes at the time of the crime, are incapable of organized activity. That's consistent with what we know about mental illness, Dr. Woodcock says.
When Holmes opened fire in the theater, he was in a state of psychosis and multiple intersecting delusions, goal directed in killing people, and the origin of that was not rational. Actions like going to the gym and riding a bike can't be an indicator of sane-ness, Woodcock says.
2:11 p.m.: The jury is brought into the courtroom, including juror 118.
Dr. Woodcock resumes the witness stand for Mr. King's redirect examination.
When asked if he ever told Dr. Moser that he was a treating physician to treat Holmes, he says no. He never wanted that to be his role.
"Is there any reason Dr. Moser would need permission from you to write a prescription?" King asks. No, and it wouldn't have been appropriate for him to write an Rx either, Woodcock answers.
The DSM manual is introduced again. They are discussing the three areas to review when evaluating sanity.
Understanding the motivation behind the person's actions is critical, King reads from the manual. Dr. Woodcock says he did consider that in his evaluation and he could not come up with any rational reason for the shooting.
He also applied the relative insanity test against Colorado Law, so therefore he completed all three steps, according to his answer to King's questions.
The questions Brauchler read in cross examination were 'sample' questions, the questions he said he had not asked in earlier testimony.
Dr. Woodcock says if he feels that question has already been answered, then he will not ask it again in an evaluation. He does not put in his report every single thing he has taken into account in making his opinion.
If he didn't list a specific piece of evidence in his report, that doesn't mean he didn't he consider it at all.
They now move on to the timeline of when Dr. Woodcock was asked to be an expert witness on the case. He had difficulties speaking to Mr. King because of his schedule and some of the materials were not available until November of 2014.
He didn't believe he was ordered to render an opinion on sanity. He believes he was asked to review the materials in order to see what impression he received from them in terms of mental illness, diagnosis, and principally he discussed with Mr. King the possibly of discussing an opinion on sanity. And no conclusion on sanity was reached until after he reviewed those materials.
2:01 p.m.: Counsel returns from their lunch break.
Mr. King says Juror 118 appears to be very tired or even sleeping at times. He says he has noticed it intermittently.
Judge Samour hasn't noticed her sleeping, he has seen her looking down, but will inquire to be on the safe side.
Juror 118 is called in to the courtroom.
The wind is blowing on her eyes, she says, so it's drying her eyes out and she has to close them at times.
12:30 p.m.: "Do people who are psychotic incorporate philosophy into their delusions?" King asks. Yes, they can, Dr. Woodcock says.
Not having any delusional content in emails doesn't mean he wasn't delusional, Woodcock says.
"It appears for a long, long time he was very careful not to let people know what he was thinking in regards to suicide or homicide," Woodcock says.
In all his interviews after the crime Holmes expresses delusions, Woodcock testifies.
Dr. King says he anticipated taking 20 minutes, it has now been 30 and he has 10-20 more minutes of re-cross. Judge Samour says they will take their lunch break now.
12:22 p.m.: He did not list every single specific item he reviewed in making his report, Dr. Woodcock says. He omitted the law enforcement records and emails.
"Is it hard to recall one specific piece of information you may have reviewed or who it came from?" King asks.
"I can't do that," he answers. Dr. Woodcock doesn't believe that makes his report inaccurate.
Mr. King dives into the 2014 testing Dr. Woodcock earlier said he had not heard of, done by Dr. Gray. King tries to refresh his memory.
Just because there was a lot of video of Holmes' evaluation, Woodcock doesn't believe watching all of that would have altered his opinion. There wasn't anything there, indicated by Dr. Reid in his reports, that would have altered his conclusions.
Dr. Woodcock assumes Dr. Reid filtered out the most important pieces from that video interview.
Holmes' 'philosophical ramblings' didn't make sense and weren't well constructed. Woodcock felt they reflected cognitive disorganization. The 'ramblings' didn't reflect delusions, but reflected disorganization.
12:11 p.m.: Despite being intelligent, there were deficits with Holmes associated with his mental illness, Woodcock says.
Between 2013 and 2014, Holmes' IQ decreased. That is consistent with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
There are a number of statements Holmes said that made no sense, Dr. Woodcock says.
Regarding the phrase, 'human capital,' he never used it with Dr. Woodcock.
He recalls that Holmes said to him he turned the people in the theater into numbers, he thinks those things are similar.
It is expected to have inconsistent answers when asking someone who is psychotic similar questions years apart.
They discuss Holmes' 'catatonia' during his trip to Denver Health. Dr. Woodcock remembers Holmes mentioning feeling suicidal in 2012.
Between January and June of 2012, Holmes activities hadn't changed much, but he did cut off all contact with his friends and broke up with his girlfriend.
Holmes went on spending sprees, drove at excessive speeds, and failed preliminary exams at school. He had lost interest in things he had pursued his whole life, which was different for him, Dr. Woodcock says.
Other doctors believed he was experiencing a psychotic level of thinking.
11:59 a.m.: Mr. King of the prosecution reexamines Dr. Woodcock.
He asks if he intends to mislead anyone in his resume, which he says he does not.
It was at Dr. Reid's request for Dr. Woodcock to re-transcribe his notes in 2014. He could have gotten 'a number of words' incorrect in his transcription, but that would not affect the overall accuracy of his determination.
He has never videotaped an examination himself. He says video recording is not a recognized standard for evaluation.
The failure to videotape an exam does not affect how you would determine the results of that exam, he says.
Woodcock testifies a more reliable examination would be to filter information through a psychiatrist as it's easy to misinterpret, instead of say, showing all the videos to a jury without experience in evaluations.
They discuss 'shadows' Holmes mentioned having.
There were questions about Holmes leaving school as a matter of choice, King says. "Do you believe that choice was affected by his psychosis?" he asks the witness.
"Yes, a main determinant," Woodcock says.
Holmes said he was asked to leave school, even though he was encouraged to stay. There are a number of contradictory statements that can be attributed to delusional psychosis and ambivalence – that Holmes feels more than one way and recalls more than one way about the same thing at the same time.
11:57 a.m.: The nature of Holmes' delusion determined his behavior, and his delusion was telling him to kill people, says Woodcock.
Brauchler says, "I can't think of any more questions, your honor."
The defense would like to redirect examine the witness.
11:48 a.m.: There are three important areas to consider when rendering an opinion on insanity, according to the previously referred to textbook/manual. Dr. Woodcock says he did all three, even though Brauchler suggests he only completed two.
Evidence Holmes' apartment explosives were not successful was evidence he was cognitively declined.
Woodcock didn't believe Holmes' devices were constructed in such a way they would have blown up, even if the door was opened. Woodcock thought Holmes should have been able to construct a successful bomb, given his intelligence.
Chemistry and the internet were all Holmes needed to make these bombs, Woodcock believes.
Holmes didn't use fake gasoline or chemicals, and Woodcock says, if he had, he would have determined Holmes didn't mean to do any harm.
Brauchler cited FBI testimony that if that trip wire in Holmes' apartment had been triggered, the building would have caught fire.
"It doesn't mean he didn't do anything that was effective," Woodcock says, just that Holmes did some things that didn't work.
Brauchler argues between if Woodcock believes the wire was tripped so the bombs didn't go off, or if the bombs themselves just didn't go off because they were constructed improperly. Since the bombs didn't go off, Woodcock says that is a sign of cognitive decline.
11:37 a.m.: "Irresistible impulse," was written in his report, but not a factor in determining Holmes' sanity. He was opining on his sanity and a clinical assessment simultaneously, Dr. Woodcock says.
Holmes did appreciate that what he was planning was against the law and would be considered wrong by others, Dr. Woodcock wrote.
Colorado Law on sanity asks if a person realizes what they were doing is wrong. His delusions prevented him from understanding societal standards, Dr. Woodcock says.
Delusions were telling him 'it was right, and if people understood, they would know it was right,' Woodcock says.
So, from a societal standpoint, he does not have an understanding it was wrong, Dr. Woodcock says.
There is a difference between cognitive awareness and the nature of his delusions, he testifies. Holmes wouldn't have done the planning he did if he didn't have cognitive awareness, but that did not override the delusional beliefs that he had.
"The defendant knew what he was going to do was going to kill other people?" Brauchler asks.
"Yes," he replies.
He did not know that they did not want to be killed, Dr. Woodcock says. That is based on another psychiatrist's report.
"He believed they would not 'mind' being killed. That's what his delusion told him," he says.
Holmes believed people would resist attempts for him to take their lives.
"He knew it would be killing, but not murder," Dr. Woodcock says.
A delusion is a fixed false belief, meaning there is no evidence that can change it, not that the delusion itself cannot change, Dr. Woodcock testifies.
Right after the shooting, Holmes expressed concern for having killed a child.
"Yes, it's inconsistent with believing he was 'doing a favor,' but the question is at what level did he feel bad. I got the sense he regretted that, he hadn't wanted to kill children, but if that was another price to be paid, that would still increase his worth," Dr. Woodcock said.
Holmes did not see it as 'so wrong' to avoid doing what he did, according to Woodcock.
11:28 a.m.: He shot at people leaving the theater. He bought body armor, but Dr. Woodcock doesn't remember why.
He recalls Holmes saying he bought it to make himself look ominous so people wouldn't 'rush him' in the theater.
He bought tear gas for 'crowd control.'
Brauchler continues to thank Dr. Woodcock for adding words like "irrational" and "delusion" to the ends of his answers. An objection by the defense is overruled.
Holmes bought different kinds of bullets for his assault rifle, including steel-penetrating rounds.
Holmes never laments he couldn't help more people die. He only is concerned with he wasn't able to kill more than 12 people.
He makes reference to 'hate' numerous times. Dr. Woodcock did not ask Holmes about hatred.
They now discuss the term "rescue delusion," which is not in a copy of a DSM manual. "If I did invent it, it was meant to be descriptive," Dr. Woodcock says.
He also uses the term "command delusion," which is used as an adjective for hallucinations.
"There is a lot of information I did not review," he says, but says he had enough information to make his conclusion.
11:18 a.m.: His behavior after the shooting was unusual, Dr. Woodcock says. "He gave up when he was approached," he says.
Dr. Woodcock didn't ask him that directly. It was cited in other reports he reviewed, but he can't recall the answer.
He thought the fact that Holmes didn't flee the scene spoke to his delusional state.
Evidence is that Holmes walked out of the theater and didn't leave the scene, when Brauchler asks Dr. Woodcock to review all the measures Holmes took to make plans to leave after the shooting.
One of his explanations for not fleeing, was Holmes said he was outnumbered and it would be hard to drive in ballistic pants.
Brauchler goes through several measures he believes Holmes took to try to escape after the crime including: purchasing road stars (yes, he had them, Dr. Woodcock says), money in his pocket (I don't recall), and statements about wanting to flee to the airport (I don't recall).
"If he tries to escape he's sane, if he doesn't, he's insane?" Brauchler asks. Dr. Woodcock gives a long answer which says it's not so cut and dry.
In one report, another defense-hired psychologist reported Holmes say that killing these people would be good for them. "Is there any other record of him making this statement?" Brauchler asks.
"I don't know," Dr. Woodcock says.
There is evidence he stated contradictory things to other psychologists regarding this statement, Dr. Woodcock says.
He purchased handcuffs to lock the doors to the theater so people inside the theater couldn't flee, Holmes wrote in his notebook, Dr. Woodcock confirms.
11:08 a.m.: They move into Holmes' capacity to know right from wrong. In his report, Dr. Woodcock cited the model penal code, even though that does not govern the State of Colorado.
One of these parameters are efforts to avoid detection. Woodcock agrees Holmes' efforts to avoid detection before the crime were well documented. He did not ask Holmes about that since it had been covered by other examiners, with different answers.
"The problem with reconstructing someone's psychotic mind," Dr. Woodcock says, "Is with different questions and different context."
Other considerations noted in this law should be wearing gloves, waiting for the cover of darkness, wearing a mask or disguise, and concealing a weapon prior to the crime.
Holmes did all of these things.
Dr. Woodcock did not ask Holmes about these himself, instead saying he had direct information from other reports.
Dr. Woodcock says there is no research that proves things on this list correlate with someone being sane at the time of a crime.
11:00 a.m.: Dr. Woodcock read a textbook on forensic psychology evaluations before doing his report. He considered all the evidence, decided what was most relevant, and let that guide his conclusion. He didn't have time to review everything, he says.
Dr. Woodcock had about nine months to complete his evaluation, from June 2014 to March 2015.
He did discuss with Mr. King that he wouldn't be able to review everything, but he was able to reach a conclusion based on that evidence and 'sincerely, professionally' believes this evidence supports his decision on Holmes' sanity.
Brauchler now moves to sample questions used to help evaluate mental state, according to the textbook Dr. Woodcock cited in his report.
One suggested question in the textbook is, "Did you prepare for this? If so, how?" Dr. Woodcock did not ask Holmes that.
"What did you do immediately following this offense?" He did not ask that question.
"Did you know it was against the law?" He did not ask that question.
"Would you have done this if a police officer was nearby?" No, Dr. Woodcock says, I didn't ask that.
"I knew that answer to that question based on materials I reviewed," Dr. Woodcock says.
The question, "Tell me why you think what you did was right?" was also not asked. But, Dr. Woodcock says he asked similar questions.
10:42 a.m.: Brauchler continues with his cross examination, handing Dr. Woodcock some of the documents admitted into evidence: his notes.
Dr. Woodcock says he doesn't recognize "two inches of paper."
Brauchler begins to ask him about reviewing emails in that paper stack. Dr. Woodcock says yes, he has testified about this.
Woodcock pauses before answering a question about Hillary Allen's texts to Holmes. He did not cite law enforcement recordings, nor the email provided by the prosecution in his evaluation.
Brauchler asks what he considered, but didn't put in his report. Dr. Woodcock says he can't do that. He is asked to look through his notes and emails and say which ones demonstrated disorganized thoughts.
He says Holmes' emails were not disorganized, but delusional. Brauchler asks him to show where the delusional thoughts were in those emails and Dr. Woodcock says they aren't in there.
Brauchler approaches and points out a Hotmail email sent on July 12, 2012 and asks Dr. Woodcock to take a look at it. His mom or dad are asking if they can come visit in August, unless he's busy that particular weekend.
At this point, Holmes already had all the weapons he would use in the theater shooting.
In the email, Holmes responded with, "I don't have any plans for that weekend."
Woodcock doesn't agree that Holmes knew at this time whether or when the shooting would occur with any certainty.
Brauchler brings up Holmes' purchase receipts from Fandango, some of which were dated July 7.
He was psychotic and delusional on July 12, Dr. Woodcock says. His behavior was lost in that psychotic state. But, that behavior is not manifested in these emails, Woodcock says, when asked by Brauchler.
Woodcock says Holmes chose to leave his courses because he was increasingly stressed and struggling with delusional impulses, that's why he can't say on July 12 Holmes knew what he was doing.
"Going with the flow," is in the nature of his psychotic disorder. Holmes demonstrates organized behavior through this time, Dr. Woodcock testifies, but it's driven by delusional impulses he's been fighting for months.
It's also reflected in his flailing attempts at socialization, Woodcock says.
"None of us have reviewed 100,000 pages [of reports]," Woodcock says. He says yes, he's sure of it, then says, no, that's a guess. He didn't ever call these psychologists on the phone, he relied on their reports.
Two doctors reached out to him for further information, but Dr. Woodcock had not produced a report.
10:39 a.m.: Court is back in session. In court, Holmes is clean-shaven.
The jury files in.
10:05 a.m.: Holmes' mental state at the time of the crime is the only thing to be considered, Dr. Woodcock confirms, as opposed to his mental state on July 24. He did not consider the audiotaped conversation between Holmes and Detective Appel in his sanity evaluation.
He believes he did read some of it though, and he read other people's reports which included it.
Holmes recounts the crime to Dr. Reed in their videotaped evaluation, and Dr. Woodcock did not watch that.
He did not discuss text messages from Holmes to Hillary Allen in his report.
"Do you recall watching a video of the crime scene?" Brauchler asks several times, and the defense objects. The judge overrules, saying it has been asked, but it has not been answered.
Dr. Woodcock says yes.
He says he never reviewed Holmes' notebook with him.
Sometimes we see a person's mental state reflected in their written communication, Dr. Woodcock testifies. Brauchler would like to approach with some of Holmes' text messages prior to the shooting.
At this time, the judge asks if they can take their morning break and the jury files out.
9:49 a.m.: They are now discussing Woodcock's notes regarding Holmes' notebook. Dr. Woodock wrote about details in the notebook, about the theater and philosophical ramblings Holmes had wrote.
They are discussing where documents like Holmes' medical history were filed in his reports. Dr. Woodcock considered all the jail records he had been presented with, which the defense had given him.
He considered testing done by another doctor in April, 2013. He did not consider testing done by that same doctor (Dr. Gray) in 2014. Woodcock doesn't think he knew about the 2014 testing, but would have considered it if he knew about it.
"Is this the first time you have heard of additional testing in 2014?" Brauchler asks.
"I can't tell from this summary," Woodcock says.
Brauchler asks about other reports from a different psychologist, and Woodcock says he was never presented with those.
The defense asks Judge Samour to approach the bench and they do. The objection on the form of the question is sustained. Brauchler rephrases. Was Dr. Woodcock aware of any additional testing done by this psychologist? Dr. Woodock says no.
Dr. Woodcock did not watch the video of Holmes falling in his jail cell, he was shown that by Mr. King in 2015, after his report on Holmes' sanity had been already completed.
He did not watch the 22 hours of videotaped interviews by Dr. Reid, in which the doctor spent a significant portion of time discussing Holmes' motivations for the crime. He did read part of the transcripts.
Dr. Woodcock watched part of the videos of Dr. Reid, possibly a half an hour of different parts, to observe Holmes' demeanor. Brauchler asks, is it safe to say, that people in the courtroom have observed more of Holmes' videotaped interviews than you have?
Yes, Woodcock says.
He read about 100 pages of the interview's transcript. The first 100 pages, he believes, but there are more than 600 pages total.
He watched different video segments totaling the 30 minutes.
9:38 a.m.: It was two years after his initial evaluation before Dr. Woodcock was contacted by the defense attorneys. At that time, the defense asked him to review records and get an impression based on records. Dr. Woodcock insists the defense was not asking for a formal sanity evaluation.
They asked Woodcock earlier this year to give a formal statement of Holmes' sanity. He did not give them a written evaluation, but thinks it was over the phone or in a meeting.
Woodcock says he doesn't remember what month he was officially asked to come in to give his opinion on sanity as an expert witness. He felt he had sufficient information to render an opinion.
Now they are going over Woodcock's statement, which said he wanted another opportunity to speak to the defendant.
He asked the public defender's office permission to interview Holmes again to confirm his opinion (based on the prior interview in July 24, where he did not ask Holmes about the crime).
Woodcock rendered his opinion, then went to interview Holmes again. The defense didn't limit any of his interview questions going in to the second interview. He decided to interview Holmes five days after rending a sanity opinion and spoke to him for one hour. Woodcock says he never explored the crime and Holmes' preparation for the crime.
Woodcock believes Holmes is insane.
9:29 a.m.: Brauchler now asks Dr. Woodcock about an interview he had with Holmes where Holmes used the word, "wronged." Specifically, Dr. Woodcock had written down Holmes said, "Prosecutors are seeking justice for those wronged."
After this session, Dr. Woodcock thought Holmes needed anti-psychotic medications.
Now they are talking about the jail's psychologist, Dr. Moser, who told Dr. Woodcock he was not able to go in to see Holmes unless the public defenders allowed him to.
Moser had to ask Dr. Woodcock which medications Holmes should be on. Woodcock says he wasn't prescribing medications for him, but was asked for his professional opinion by Dr. Moser.
Woodcock says no, he did not tell Dr. Moser he needed to get permission from the public defender's office to share that information with him. He said he told Dr. Moser anti-psychotic medications were his recommendation.
Brauchler is reading notes from the jail's psychologist which say Dr. Woodcock will 'keep him apprised of recommendations,' but Woodcock says, no, that is not true. Mr. King (defense attorney) told Dr. Woodcock not to return his calls. Woodcock says he does not recall.
There were several messages from Moser, left for Dr. Woodcock, asking for recommendations on which medications he should prescribe. Dr. Woodcock did not return those calls, per the defense's request.
"Dr. Moser did contact me," Woodcock says at first. "Based on those conversations, my understanding of the treatment. No, I didn't get back to him because I was not in a treatment relationship."
In those messages, Dr. Moser was specifically asking for Dr. Woodcock's recommendation on treatment, and that he was waiting to prescribe anti-psychotic medications until he heard from him. Woodcock never returned those messages.
The defense objects and counsel approaches the bench.
9:18 a.m.: Dr. Woodcock is brought back onto the stand so that D.A. Brauchler may continue his cross-examination.
Was Holmes consciously aware he was substituting thoughts of harming others for instead, thoughts of harming himself? "Yes," Dr. Woodcock says.
Brauchler reads from Woodcock's notes, where he wrote that Holmes said he decided he would not do suicide, but do homicide instead.
This was on July 24. The shooting was "a way to deal with his suicidal thoughts," Woodcock says. These were thoughts he was having since before high school.
Woodcock says he doesn't know if Holmes had ever told anyone else about his suicidal thoughts.
They discuss Holmes' prior meetings with other psychologists, and Dr. Woodcock can't recall him having told any of those doctors he was having suicidal thoughts. There is no documentation in his notes to indicate this.
Dr. Woodcock says there was one occasion where Holmes tried to cut his wrists with cardboard. Holmes had told Dr. Woodcock this on July 24. There was no documentation before then, however, Woodcock concedes. Holmes also never mentioned this in any of his emails to his parents.
9:15 a.m.: The jury is brought into the courtroom. Samour asks the jury about July 17, if the jurors have any appointments or other reasons to take that day off. It was a planned day off, but if they don't need to take it they won't.
9:10 a.m.: Counsel has approached the bench for a conference.
8:43 a.m.: Counsel and Judge Samour file into the courtroom.
The defense predicts they will finish their presentation of evidence about July 7 or 8. Ms. Brady asks the court when a possible timeline for a sentencing trial may be in order to plan when to call sentencing witnesses.
The prosecution doesn't disagree with Brady's suggestion of a schedule, but adds it is hard to predict since the defense hasn't finished their arguments.
Closing arguments are planned for Monday, July 13. Judge Samour says he will give each side two hours for closings. They joke a bit, and Samour says if he gave them no time limit, they would go on forever. "You know, lawyers," he jokes.
After more discussion on scheduling, the defense asks the judge to consider allowing them to have short opening statements before each phase of the sentencing trial. The prosecution objects. The judge says he will think about it, but the prosecution brings up valid points in their objection. The prosecution believes opening statements would be unfair and could confuse the jury.
Next, the prosecution says they will be requesting that after the jury reaches a verdict, the jury be asked to wait several hours before presenting their verdict so that victims and those who want to be in the courtroom for the verdict can make time to do so.
Guests cannot see links in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see links.