I have read through Vorsters assessment again and here is a thought I feel is worth considering. In just three days, OP has now been under professional observation for longer than Vorster spent with him.
Remember, she only interviewed him on the 2nd & 7th of May and managed to arrive at the conclusions she did with supplementary information from his close friends & family. Four of these people, Aimee, Carl, Peet & Ampie were interviewed on the same day - 5th of May. ( I bet most of you know where I am going with this already
The other interview with Mrs Binge, was also carried out on the same day that OP's first session took place, May the 2nd
.
So not a full day of assessment on the 2nd of May, followed by four interviews on the 5th of May (which was a trial day too.) Vorster then has a couple of days to let all this sink in before (and this is giving the benefit of the doubt here,) one full day of assessment on the 7th. From that, Vorster had enough collateral to sit on the stand for a day and a half.
OP has already has had more professional, clinical assessment in three days, than he had in this botched attempt to shroud proceedings with a diminished responsibility defence.
The detail these assessors will already have is greater than Vorster managed, and there are potentially three more weeks of analysis. It is only my humble opinion, but I cannot see this assessment lasting the full 30 days. It must already be becoming clear to these professionals the likely diagnosis, (if any,) when compared to the ad hoc shambles of Vorsters testimony.