Both Victor Weiner and Arthur Wolff can be proven guilty under the cognitive interpretation. The cognitive interpretation basically says that they are aware of and can describe the act committed, as well as aware that the committed act went against societal rules. In Victor Weiner's case, he was aware of his action - cutting off a girl's ponytail - as well as aware of the fact that this was wrong. We know he was aware of these things because he said that he had made various efforts to distract himself from cutting ponytails - the action. He also claimed to have attempted to prevent himself from performing the action, therefore making it clear he knew it was wrong. In Arthur Wolff's case he was very aware that what he was doing was wrong. We can determine this by paying attention to the fact that: 1) he attempted to kill his mother the day before the actual assault but stopped because she realized he was in the room (as opposed to telling her "I am here to kill you" and preceding to do it) 2) after he attacked his mother he went to tell the police, a sure sign he was aware that it was a crime and 3) he read the Bible preceding the act which could be a sign of remorse. He also could describe the committed act; he specifically told the police what he had done. .
Under IIR one is insane if he has "lost power to choose between right and wrong. Under this Wolff is guilty but Weiner can be classified as insane. Weiner knew of the impulse and made attempts to control his urge to wrong - cut the girls hair- but eventually he could no longer resist. IIR is not a rule about knowing wrong from right even though he clearly knew the difference; it is a matter of control. Clearly, from the given information, Weiner had no control. Wolff, from the information given had total control. This can be said because he had a prior attempt to kill his mother but because she was aware of his presence on his initial attempt he held off for another day.