Hannah Leflar’s killer scored ‘extremely low’ on psychopathy tests
The man responsible for the first-degree murder of Hannah Leflar may not meet the benchmark for being labeled as a “psychopath,” court heard Wednesday.
On the stand, the defence’s expert witness, Dr. Terry Nicholaichuk, testified that the youth scored an “extremely low” score on the psychopathy test.
Out of a score of 40, Leflar’s killer scored 8.4 on the psychopathy checklist. According to Dr. Nicholaichuk, a score of 30 or higher is the cutoff for being a psychopath.
‘Agreed statement of facts’ reveal events before and after Hannah Leflar’s death
Hannah Leflar’s killer bullied, threatened at Paul Dojack Youth Centre
‘I think I might become a serial killer’: Hannah Leflar’s killer
Last week, court heard a contrasting view to that testimony. Psychiatrist Dr. Brent Harold believed the teen had “psychopathic tendencies” – something he saw in less than 5 people of the 5,600 patients he has treated.
Child psychiatrist believes Hannah Leflar’s killer has ‘psychopathic tendencies’
Dr. Nicholaichuk said the word psychopath was “pejorative,” and could do some damage.
In several meetings with the youth between spring 2016 and spring 2017, Dr. Nicholaichuk said the youth was “soft spoken, downcast, and “rather emotionally flat.”
He added the youth was pretty “forthright” about his crime in their conversations, and he didn’t think the youth knew “how difficult it’d be” to kill Leflar.
When asked about recidivism, Dr. Nicholaichuk said his violent risk scale tests showed there was a 19 per cent risk of a re-offence and an 8 per cent risk of a violent re-offence.
The tests are at odds with another testimony heard last week that showed the youth at being 54 per cent of reoffending.
Risk assessment says 54 per cent chance Hannah Leflar’s killer would re-offend
The psychologist also believes there to be a presence of borderline personality disorder and a depressive disorder.
The psychologist also spoke about the teen’s lack of maturity, saying “I wouldn’t take him for a 19-year-old,” and the “immature” youth was obsessive of television shows and thin metal knives.
Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the youth cannot be identified. If sentenced as an adult, he faces a mandatory automatic life sentence of 25 years, with no chance of parole for ten years.
A second youth pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of second degree murder in February. He is expected to learn his fate in the fall.