The scenario outlined above requires an understanding of circumstance to be driven by logic, not emotion. A convincing narrative does not have to be true.

Is that about my comment on self-defence?

A claim that the accused was acting in self-defence involves a factual judgment about their state of mind at the time - whether they perceived a danger, and whether it was reasonable and justifiable to perceive a danger and act accordingly. It requires complex modelling of the way other people think, and the guy I'm talking about certainly couldn't do it. Nothing whatever to do with what emotions anybody might have about the events. (I've no idea whether this trial actually does involve self-defence, but most criminal accusations involve similarly complicated logic to decide culpability - and autistic/Asperger's people often lack the brain circuits to carry out that logic).

Daniel Dennett's thinking about higher-order intentions is relevant here. If you don't know what they are and can't reason about them, you can no more decide somebody's guilt than a potted plant can.