During cross-examination of the defence’s final witness at the Richard Kachkar murder trial, the Crown suggested that the now 46 year-old man’s rampage in a stolen snowplow occurred because he was “feeling inadequate, angry (and) impulsive…(an) opportunity to show power and gain notoriety.”

Crown attorney Christine McGoey pushed forensic psychiatrist Dr. John Bradford on his belief that Kachkar was psychotic at the time of Sgt. Ryan Russell’s death in January of 2011 and that his illness prevented him from understanding right and wrong.

“He was not aware that what he was doing was wrong,” testified Bradford on Day 20 of Kachkar’s trial.

Kachkar has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and his lawyer is arguing that he should be found not criminally responsible in Russell’s death.

There is no dispute that he was driving the stolen snowplow that struck Russell on Avenue Rd. near Davenport Rd. just after 6 a.m. on January 12^th 2011.

Bradford has attributed Kachkar’s behavior that morning to fear and paranoia stemming from a psychotic episode.

But McGoey suggested there are signs from his actions that show “whether he is ill or not he knows what he is doing and he knows what he is doing is wrong.”

For example McGoey suggested to Bradford that after close to half an hour of U-turns on Avenue Rd., Kachkar leaves the area immediately after the death of Sgt. Russell.

“That would be consistent with being aware what’s happened and the moral wrongfulness.”

“That’s possible,” responded Bradford. “(But) I don’t think that’s the case.”

The crown has suggested at various times throughout the trial that Kachkar was attempting to commit “suicide by cop.”

“I don’t think this is comparable suicidal behavior,” Bradford told the court.

McGoey also appeared skeptical about Kachkar’s fear and paranoia because he offered a pedestrian a ride in his snowplow along Avenue Rd.

“If you are fearful it’s a little unusual to be inviting people along,” she said.

“(The) trouble is you are using logic in a situation that’s not logical,” Bradford said during her cross-examination.

“I think if you take aspects it may appear to be logical…if you look at the whole it’s not logical,” he said.

Bradford was the final witness in Kachkar’s defence.

Because Kachkar’s lawyer is arguing that his client is not criminally responsible for murder it’s up him to prove the point.

The crown has decided to call further evidence in response. Five witnesses are expected to take the stand beginning Wednesday.

All evidence is expected to be presented by Monday.