The voice of the Parkland gunman has been silent in front of the jury. Until the prosecution’s rebuttal

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — There’s something very different about the Parkland gunman in videos that were shown most recently to the jury deciding his fate.

Until the prosecution began presenting its rebuttal case on Sept. 27, jurors had heard the voice of confessed gunman Nikolas Cruz only once, in three brief video clips he recorded as he was planning the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

In the earlier videos, Cruz spoke slowly, deliberately, almost theatrically, fully aware the videos would later be seen by a wide audience. But in the new videos, Cruz is disarmed, literally and figuratively — he speaks candidly, off the cuff, about issues as varied as chess, military entrance exams, rifles and the JROTC program, and the war between Russia and Ukraine. He talks about books he’s read and games he’s played.

He sounds educated and astute. Prosecutors hope the jury takes note, because it is a far cry from the defense portrayal of Cruz as the victim of a lifelong struggle with mental illness caused by, among other things, his mother’s abuse of drugs and alcohol while she was pregnant with him.

According to defense experts, Cruz struggled to retain the things he learned in school and lacked the ability to construct long-term plans. Forensic psychologist Charles Scott, whose testimony is scheduled to resume Monday, said his interviews with the defendant showed no such difficulty.

His knowledge of the life of Russian President Vladimir Putin was detailed. “His father served in World War II. He had a grandfather who served in World War I. … His mother lived in St. Petersburg. … He has two daughters.”

The details, culled from a book Cruz read in jail, were impressive for any student and reflected an academic aptitude that ran counter to the testimony of defense experts, said Scott. Cruz also showed a detailed understanding of the game of chess, outlining what each piece on the board could and could not do, though he said he wasn’t very good at the game.

He was never at a loss to answer questions from Scott, whether it was about the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and an automatic one or the leadership skills he learned in the JROTC program at Stoneman Douglas.

Defense experts said Cruz struggled to retain the things he learned in school and lacked the ability to construct long-term plans. Scott said his interviews with the defendant showed no such difficulty.

Scott’s testimony so far has fallen in line with what experts say is required of a rebuttal witness — challenge the mitigating factors raised by the defense by showing either that they are wrong or that they are not as severe as portrayed.

In trying to limit the impact of the prosecution’s rebuttal, lead defense lawyer Melisa McNeill told Broward Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer that her experts never said Cruz was incapable of understanding complex issues or forming long-term plans, but that his ability to do so was “impaired.”

In allowing Scott to testify, Scherer said she is leaving that analysis to the jury.

Cruz has pleaded guilty to 17 murders and 17 attempted murders he committed in a mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas on Feb. 14, 2018. The current trial is to determine his punishment. The 12-member jury must be unanimous in its decision to recommend a death sentence. It would only take one juror’s opposition to take the death penalty off the table and condemn Cruz to a sentence of life in prison.

Closing arguments, for now, are scheduled to take place Oct. 10.