Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Yes, I watched the video but she did say there could be advantages and disadvantages if this diagnosis was made and she agreed with Vorster that it was much more likely that OP would fight rather than flee due to this condition and his vulnerability. Sentence mitigation??

As I mentioned earlier, bringing in Vorster at this stage seems to suggest that Roux is expecting a long sentence. I am hoping we shall hear soon what exactly OP's plea is, as nowhere does there seem to be any indication of it, although Roux did, today, rule out automatism. Roux has had a nightmare trip with OP. Roux, poor guy must hope that this episode in his life will soon be over.

I actually think this is a huge mistake if it is the case to introduce Vorster now, with a view to getting a reduced sentence. My reasoning is that what the introduction infers, is GAD might have been a reason for acting the way OP did, which would be the third defence excuse.

On balance, if I were Roux, I would have been saying to OP "Look, in my professional opinion, this is not going well and you are going to get some form of Custodial sentence. Remember, there are the firearms charges to contend with too. However, I can bring Vorster in after the verdict to lessen any sentence."

It would appear that someone has taken that potential approach out of Roux's hands. Maybe the family have pushed the defence team in their desperation to see OP walk. It would certainly be a logical explanation to this and other witness behaviour, namely Dixon & Wolmarans' carrying out 'Tests' after OP's evidence whose results remarkably back up his version.

Nel was right when he said "You cannot have two defences," following OP changing his version. If you cannot have two defences, then suggesting a third this late in the day, is asking for a pretty long sentence if convicted.

 

[Interested Bystander]

A succinct precis of what happened this morning if anyone missed it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...most-impressive-witness-says-prosecution.html

“Oscar Pistorius ‘was not the most impressive witness’ says prosecution”

 

[DebinGA]

I don't recall if anyone posted information about GAD. I have not read it yet, but here is a link that includes clinical information from the DSM:

http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Generalized-anxiety-disorder.html

Generalized anxiety disorder, or GAD, is a disorder characterized by diffuse and chronic worry. Unlike people with phobias or post-traumatic disorders, people with GAD do not have their worries provoked by specific triggers; they may worry about almost anything having to do with ordinary life. It is not unusual for patients diagnosed with GAD to shift the focus of their anxiety from one issue to another as their daily circumstances change.

That correlates with reports of OP's frequent irritability, leading to his often "losing it". Reeva's msgs indicate lots of things she did irritated OP, even though he supposedly loved her (not). When he told Dr. Vorster that his romantic relationships were of short duration, I bet he blamed his being away from home so much, not his self-absorption.

 

[wb180]

All this talk about mental disorder is so typical of Roux strategy to deflect the attention.

Double-tap
Head shot first
Screaming like a woman
....
Mental disorder

We spent so much time talking about each of the things and now we are talking about this mental disorder even though it is all BS. I mean come on, they didn't suggest this mental disorder about this until now?! Come on.

Man what other BS excuses can the DT come up with?

We have three bloody defenses now - self defense, accidental killing and not mental disorder.... this is ridiculous

 

[Carmelita]

i think it was part of his hypothetical argument. saying that the 30 day assessment could be re-introduced each time a witness mentions a 'disorder'.

but it was a bit difficult to follow... he was getting emotional...

I believe Roux was referring to the next witness who will likely state what psychological factors made Oscar on his stumps with a 9mm available to him more likely to respond with a fight mode rather than a flight mode.

 

[Carmelita]

Someone linked to it earlier and it actually states. "up to 30 days".

It is likely a 3 day mandatory evaluation with the time frame of 30 days being the first possible release date if within that first 3 days mental health experts find sufficient cause to keep a patient under mandatory psychiatric care. If no sufficient cause is found a patient will likely be released after 72 hours.

 

[jassy writer]

Well spotted. Kate! :seeya:The article was in the sidebar of the page under 'Most Read'.

We’ve been punked. The Oscar trial gets truly ridiculous.
http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Weve-been-punked-The-Oscar-trial-gets-truly-ridiculous-20140509

My new favourite blog on the case, with insightful gems

on the anaesthetist,


on the Probation Officer

(while managing to get a dig in at Dixon),

and on Wollie ...


Light-hearted and irreverent, but very true.

Can't explain how much I love all those quotes. Totally brilliant!

 

[jassy writer]

It is likely a 3 day mandatory evaluation with the time frame of 30 days being the first possible release date if within that first 3 days mental health experts find sufficient cause to keep a patient under mandatory psychiatric care. If no sufficient cause is found a patient will likely be released after 72 hours.

They were discussing this later this evening on the Oscar channel.

Apparently the reason for 30 days is that it is possible to malinger / feign symptoms for a few days, but impossible to do it over a thirty day period when under continuous observation from trained nurses and a rigorous programme of evaluation etc.

 

[Carmelita]

I didn't follow Roux's argument at the end re his next witness. Was he saying the next witness will answer the questions raised by Dr. Vorster re OP's disorder, or that the next witness's testimony will raise additional questions, so m'lady ought to delay the OP evaluation decision until she's heard from both psych witnesses? Or something else?

I think Roux was indicating that the psychology of a flight or fight mentality is going to be discussed from a psychological perspective and likely the GAD will come into account so the court by Nel's standard would have to establish through Referral whether or not GAD would particularly in Oscar's case have a bearing on capacity.

 

[Viper]

They were discussing this later this evening on the Oscar channel.

Apparently the reason for 30 days is that it is possible to malinger / feign symptoms for a few days, but impossible to do it over a thirty day period when under continuous observation from trained nurses and a rigorous programme of evaluation etc.

Ah, alright. Thank you. It seemed unfair to me when I first read about the 30 day confinement for observation, because OP has not been convicted of anything, yet. But it seems that SA law can compell an accused to submit to this. Wow.

OP is not going to be pleased with this. I and others would like the observation to be shorter, just to get this trial over with! But it would be so interesting to see the results of his psychiatric evaluation conducted over a 30 day period! I can wait it out.

 

[lithgow1]

Short but sweet:

http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/529234/category/0

 

[Duchy]

My favorite is when he asks something and then immediately looks around a little bit....

Yes and then he suddenly turns his head to the witness.:scared:

My daughter made this comment about milady sitting cupping her chin looking thoughtful, then writing something down:

Sudoku

 

[Ncl1968]

All this fight or flight is nonsense... There was no intruder just a murder

 

[Duchy]

How can she POSSIBLY come to any opinion on what was up at the time of the event.

Xactly...tis really silly.

 

[Carmelita]

They were discussing this later this evening on the Oscar channel.

Apparently the reason for 30 days is that it is possible to malinger / feign symptoms for a few days, but impossible to do it over a thirty day period when under continuous observation from trained nurses and a rigorous programme of evaluation etc.

I would find that highly unusual. If a patient is presenting no signs of a mental illness or disorder what would be the sense of keeping them 30 days? If they are presenting signs then sure part of the 30 day evaluation will be to consider malingering.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

"It is likely a 3 day mandatory evaluation with the time frame of 30 days being the first possible release date if within that first 3 days mental health experts find sufficient cause to keep a patient under mandatory psychiatric care. If no sufficient cause is found a patient will likely be released after 72 hours."

I've not seen or heard this explanation anywhere else but here. Could you please provide a link to your source for this information?

 

[KarenUK]

Just been watching the trial today since I got home from work. I know it's said often but June Steenkamp is a fantastically strong woman - I can't imagine myself being as stoic if I were in her shoes

 

[Cherwell]

I would find that highly unusual. If a patient is presenting no signs of a mental illness or disorder what would be the sense of keeping them 30 days? If they are presenting signs then sure part of the 30 day evaluation will be to consider malingering.

You answered your own question. If they are showing no signs etc, then they don't need to keep them in.

 

[Duchy]

Favourite Nel-ism:- The gown-shrug....usually with specs perched on end of nose.

I like it when he puts his foot up on chair. Yum.

 

[atthelake]

Pfft. I'd be behind the wheel of my car heading to Mozambique. LOL!

And if Oscar, behind the wheel of someone elses car :giggle: