Trial Discussion Thread #37 - 14.05.12 Day 30

[kaos]

Here you go Section 78

http://bama.ua.edu/~jhooper/southaf.html

78 directs that the assessment consider whether the mental illness or disability interferes with the defendant's appreciation of wrongfulness, or his ability to act in accordance with such an appreciation. It is an interesting anomaly in that the question of criminal responsibility is assumed to be juridical (in that only the court can decide this) but the Act requires psychiatrists to comment on this.

This is not what Voster claimed. She specifically said again and again that neither Oscar’s deformity or his psychiatric condition made the discernment of right and wrong impossible for Oscar. There was one point where Nel had confused her to the point that she gave a confused answer. Both Roux and Voster insisted that the claim was not that Oscar could not discern right from wrong.

Thus the judges not understanding Nel's request.

<modsnip>, don't you think it's best for OP and more importantly Reeva's family, to actually have this assessment?

 

[aoibhinn]

If OP suffered a "traumatic assault" because he had his legs amputated as a baby, his parents never allowed him to consider himself disabled, his parents divorce led to feelings of anxiety and insecurity, his mother abused alcohol, he had a difficult time when his mother passed away, he became estranged from his father, is hyper vigilant, and suffers from generalized anxiety disorder... I would like to know why this psychiatrist, who met him just 10 days ago, is the only one offering testimony on his behalf. If all this is true, surely he would've seen another mental health professional throughout his lifetime that can vouch for all this?

He would certainly have been attended to by occupational therapists and child psychologists as a toddler during- and post-operation.

I wouldn't be surprised, if, when he reached competition level, particularly when he was competing with able bodied athletes, he opted for some type of therapy by choice for assistance with his mindset. At least a life coach or similar.

I doubt that type of testimony would help the defence. It appears he was confident and driven.

 

[aoibhinn]

Nel : Then, you said for sentencing purposes and when you mentioned that .. for somebody that suffering from GAD and would possess guns, that would make him a dangerous person.
FP : Yes.
Nel : Yes, and having done matters before, I'm sure that you'd agree that a person suffering from GAD would be a danger to society if he has access to a gun?
FP : Yes.

I like what Nel did there

 

[Jake18]

i found the comment about OP viewing his amputation as a 'traumatic assault' a bit weird, because he was only 11 months old and wouldn't have even been conscious. Thousands of children have major operations all over the world every single day. Do they all grow up with an anxiety disorder because they weren't able to verbalise their feelings about it? I'm confused about the point she was trying to get across.

And because he was "pre verbal" he couldn't adequately be soothed. It seems to imply that babies/toddlers can never have their needs met until they can verbally describe them. Does she think parents are incapable of working out when their babies need food/sleep/cuddles before the age of 2-3 years? (Granted, it's not always easy, lol).

It's quite insulting to paeds surgical teams as well who put a lot of time into making the whole experience of surgery as atraumatic for children as possible. As Col Mustard stated, even 20 odd years ago parental involvement was encouraged.

I'm not minimising OP's disability or the effect it may have had on his self esteem/psychological well being but I do wonder if anyone could see a forensic psychiatrist and not have some aspect of their childhood "blamed" for later issues.

 

[Hatfield]

Lol, I believe OP will more than likely go to Weskoppies if sectioned, if he isn't unstable now, he will be by the time he comes out- apparently it's hell on earth.

Does anyone know if the term "sectioned" mean "committed" to a phychiatric facility?

I have never heard the term "sectioned" before used in this way and just want to be sure I am understanding what it means.

 

[Greater Than]

BBM - That's a VERY good point.

It's unsettling that the defense did not bring forth anyone who has ever evaluated OP before the night he killed Reeva...only after.

Which leads to the question: is the fear and anxiety genuine, or just an excuse for murder?

I say the latter. MOO

 

[Hatfield]

Nel has to file a formal request to the court first, which I expect he will do first thing tomorrow. There will be D/P arguments, and then the court/judge will decide based on the arguments. I can't see the judge denying the request. imo.

I agree. I think she will agree to the assessment. The old adage....
"Be careful what you ask for" or more closely "Be careful to claim something in a court of law because the prosecution may just try to officially have it validated".

 

[Viper]

Respectfully snipped by me.

... but I do wonder if anyone could see a forensic psychiatrist and not have some aspect of their childhood "blamed" for later issues.

I'm sure that you were very serious when you wrote that, and I Agree. But immediately after reading just that last bit, I burst out in laughter! It is so true!!! Unfortunately.

 

[ColonelMustard]

When Nel whipped out Section 78, Roux (who immediately morphed into Wollie on his first day of cross -- flustered and stuttering) said, "...it's a factor to be taken into account ... so you can see when a person is very nervous, at the end, the court will take this into account, and that's all."

Since I'm on the top of "flustered," up thread there was some discussion about Nel had been flustered. Yes. Absolutely. But I thought he was flustered because his mind was racing faster than OP drives a car. That, and all the terms like mental defect, mental disorder, mental illness, mental whatever etc., were flying around.

He knew where he was going he just had to work to simultaneously think like a wizard and form cohesive sentences using correct terms. It was pretty funny, earlier, how "Generalized Anxiety Disorder" tripped him up so much that he asked M'Lady if they could all switch to "GAD".

I thought it was just fascinating watching Nel yesterday as he stood, his mind just whirring. That man is seriously intelligent. ... and a real "artisan"!

 

[Trooper]

Does anyone know if the term "sectioned" mean "committed" to a phychiatric facility?

I have never heard the term "sectioned" before used in this way and just want to be sure I am understanding what it means.

yes, hat, it means exactly the same thing. The phrase is used as a hold over from long usage in British law, and consequently among those nations who retain the basics of British jurisprudence, ( for a good reason, it is a workable system ) ..

The difference in committed is . to be committed can imply some sort of assent.. one can be committed by the law, though, ..

to be sectioned is entirely a legal format of obtaining psych evaluation of an accused, either at trial or at bail. ..


to simplify.. a doctor can commit one to a mental health facility.. it requires a legal procedure, indeed, but it can be promulgated by a concerned family member in consultation with a doctor, but still requires a legal response and assent to it..

to section, requires the officers of the court to obtain supervised and reportable evaluation for the purposes of testimony, or /and evidence tabled , in the matter of a process before, or to be upcoming before a court, in the matter of a criminal act.

to be sectioned, is often used as slang to mean the same thing as to be committed.. it implies a harder outcome, or a harder reason... ..

 

[aoibhinn]

Does anyone know if the term "sectioned" mean "committed" to a phychiatric facility?

I have never heard the term "sectioned" before used in this way and just want to be sure I am understanding what it means.

'Sectioned' has the same meaning as committed, an involuntary admission. It's no longer typically used where I come from (Ireland). It referred to a 'section' of the older Mental Health Act (pre-2001). I assume it has the same meaning in SA.

ETA : Trooper (above) gave a clearer and better definition.

 

[Fuskier]

One last little read - 'see' you all tomorrow.

http://abcnews.go.com/International...estimony-questioned-experts/story?id=23683612

Thank you lithgow1 for this link. It provides a brief synopsis of the current state of the case. Appreciated.

 

[Jake18]

I'm sure that you were very serious when you wrote that, and I Agree. But immediately after reading just that last bit, I burst out in laughter! It is so true!!! Unfortunately.

I wouldn't say "very serious", I was definitely being a bit tongue in cheek. But I do think it's true as well. This sort of defence always makes me think of that Philip Larkin poem "This Be The Verse" <modsnip>

 

[toevlugsoord]

It's unsettling that the defense did not bring forth anyone who has ever evaluated OP before the night he killed Reeva...only after.

Which leads to the question: is the fear and anxiety genuine, or just an excuse for murder?

I say the latter. MOO

Her super-late-in-the-game evaluation is almost an insult to the judge and everyone. I lost a lot of respect for the DT/Roux pulling this sort of stunt, saying "oh by the way he suffers from all this trauma by his horrible childhood" when one of the first things he talked about in his evidence in chief was how wonderfully loving his mom was. I don't remember him mentioning her being an alcoholic or anything like that. Yes, scared and had a gun but nothing extreme. It's really disappointing to have these experts only called last minute. Can't imagine it gives the judge a good impression either.

 

[DebinGA]

.

He knew where he was going he just had to work to simultaneously think like a wizard and form cohesive sentences using correct terms. It was pretty funny, earlier, how "Generalized Anxiety Disorder" tripped him up so much that he asked M'Lady if they could all switch to "GAD".

I thought it was just fascinating watching Nel yesterday as he stood, his mind just whirring. That man is seriously intelligent.

~rsbm~

There was a funny moment toward the end when m'lady asked Nel in her gentle way something like, "Is that what you are saying?" and Nel, who'd been getting advice from a bald fellow behind him that I hadn't seen before, smilingly answered something like, "A moment please m'lady while I turn around and find out what I'm saying." lol

 

[Viper]

I wouldn't say "very serious", I was definitely being a bit tongue in cheek. But I do think it's true as well. This sort of defence always makes me think of that Philip Larkin poem "This Be The Verse" <modsnip>

Stop it. It is painful when I laugh this hard!

 

[toevlugsoord]

I thought it was just fascinating watching Nel yesterday as he stood, his mind just whirring. That man is seriously intelligent. ... and a real "artisan"!

RSBM

YES, completely 100% yes I am really growing to love those moments where he is clearly thinking very very carefully and cautiously and quickly to say exactly what he wants to say and how he wants to say it. It's like he has a 1,000 piece puzzle memorized in his head and he's picking out the pieces and putting them where he wants them to go, in his head in lightning speed.

Very impressive! Roux just pales in comparison. He tries to do a coy charming smile instead, but the skills just aren't there behind it.

 

[Murphys_Law]

I agree. I think she will agree to the assessment. The old adage....
"Be careful what you ask for" or more closely "Be careful to claim something in a court of law because the prosecution may just try to officially have it validated".

Right on Hatfeld!

Just another mistake of many by Roux.
The thing that surprizes me most about this case is just how many mistakes Roux has made as the chief lawyer... and they started before he was out of the gate ... If you recall in the plea statement, where he responds on OP's behalf to the charges, he spent several minutes of those precious plea moments criticizing W/O Hilton Botha ... pinning all the woes on him. Well that fell flat cuz Nel didn't call H. Botha to the stand. That pi$$ed R. off.

His double tap theory that he used to try (and failed) to bully Mangena into submission resulted in a court apology 1 week later.

His inability to understand the mathematics behind Mangena's Bullet B pathway, distance etc borders on pure incompetence, because unwittingly, he has been arguing by inference that OP was on his prosthetic legs simply because of where he insists OP was shooting from.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #37 - 14.05.12 Day 30

enough said....

 

[JudgeJudi]

She's been following the trial and on the 5th of May she interview sister, brother, Uncle and coach. And on the 6th of May she re-interviewed Pistorius!

I'm actually amazed, this is beyond rushed. What is going on in this defense team...

I can't believe this is all Advocate Roux's doing. The Pistorius Channel 199 legal roundtable just wondered who was really pulling the strings of the team, they thought about Oldwage or Pistorius lawyer Brian Webber or even a media strategy (I wondered about Pistorius' Uncle Arnold) because they felt the defense line-up and prepping of their witnesses did not seem at all professional.

We know that OP is a controlling person, not only of his environment but of people as well. It may well be him who's telling Roux what he wants to do. Advocates take instructions from their client, and can only advise them as to the best course of action. They cannot force the client to heed that advice. OP blames anyone and everyone for absolutely everything. I think we can now do the same and blame OP for this most monumental of stuffups, not Roux.

 

[aoibhinn]

I wouldn't say "very serious", I was definitely being a bit tongue in cheek. But I do think it's true as well. This sort of defence always makes me think of that Philip Larkin poem "This Be The Verse"<modsnip>

But you were absolutely right in your original post. Psychology is not a hard science, it is highly subjective and diagnoses are open to interpretation. As it applies to a court of law, for example, I can see the value in profiling, perhaps. But in this instance it is too ambiguous.