Elda Grin, psychologist and legal expert who provided forensic psychological evaluation for Volodya Muradyan, the husband of 35-year-old Diana Nahapetyan (pictured), accused of fatally stabbing his wife 21 times, in court on Monday, April 13, stood by her evaluation, according to which Muradyan was under "cumulative effect" when he committed the crime.
Note, this was the second psychological evaluation of the accused. Another medical examiner had previously found that Muradyan, though he was in a "highly emotional state," was sane and was of sound mind when he committed the crime.
Responding to a question about the presence of contradictions in the examinations, Elda Grin asked the court to direct the question to the experts who had provided the first evaluation.
The prosecutor, as well as the representative of the victim’s legal successors also wanted to know why there were contradictions between the testimonies of witnesses and the results of the second evaluation. In particular, one of the witnesses, victim Diana Nahapetyan’s daughter, said that after the incident Volodya Muradyan made several phone calls, got into his car and drove away, that is, his actions spoke of a lack of cumulative effect. Grin responded by saying that time perception is a subjective sense, and it is possible that the actions mentioned by the witness were not performed immediately after the incident.
Narine Mkrtchyan, the attorney of the victim’s legal successor, asked Grin what facts present in the case materials her evaluation was based on, besides the testimonies of the accused and a series of interviews with him. The legal expert did not name any other facts.
The second evaluation, as it turned out, did not provide answers to all of the questions either, the prosecutor said, and there is a need for a third, more complex evaluation. The prosecutor will file a motion for it at the next hearing, scheduled for April 18.
Recall, Volodya Muradyan was charged with RA Criminal Code Article 104 Section 2 Paragraph 5 (murder with particular cruelty). If convicted, he faces 12–20 years or life in prison. He has previously petitioned for a milder sentence, 6-10 years, citing his wife’s infidelity as the reason for murder. The court, however, refused the motion.