Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31

[Val1]

i agree with you up to the point about it not affecting the state's case either way. imo, if she rules against an assessment, the slim corridor of doubt will be left in the air [whether the gad has contributed], and the defence will use this. so in effect this option weakens the state's case. moo.

aside from all this, with such a high profile case, where a heavily backed defence was likely to throw everything to aid acquittal/obtain minimum sentencing... i am still amazed that no assessment to show op was fit to stand trial medically/mentally was not done pre-trial. then we would have had non of this.

Perhaps there was, done privately and with full client secrecy(oops privacy ) of course. Isn't one of OP's Aunts one of the top profilers in SA and wouldn't she have both the access and knowledge to all the ins and outs? It's possible it didn't give enough oomph to get him off the charges, I don't think narcissism is a good enough excuse on its own... ergo GAD to imply more.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/narcissism

Btw, why haven't we heard anything about what if anything was done and the results from when OP was whisked away by the family friend to that medical centre??

 

[sleuth-d-]

It could be valuable in sentencing because of how his psych testified. How much so is anyone's guess though. He's not being referred for GAD but rather that his diagnosis MAY have impacted his decision making skills at the time of the murder. The eval, if granted, will be to make certain Oscar is competent to stand trial and is not so mentally ill as to not be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. Its also to insure he cannot claim, on appeal, that it was due to his diagnosis that he committed murder, limit Roux in summation, and block a mitigation argument.

And I'm just gonna say it point blank - practically any disorder or illness other than cluster B personality disorder could likely be manipulated and twisted by a decent defence team to be sympathetic for mitigation. Cluster B PD would be of no value to the defence though and I think they'd fight tooth and nail to keep such a diagnosis from ever being uttered in relation to their client.

Again, JMO

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

bbm.
imo; op fits so many of the npd traits, do you not agree?... and surely this would come out in the 30 day assessment - the defence will not be able to keep any of the 30 day assess report from being uttered in court. maybe this is why roux so, so doesn't what op to be referred.

 

[fox1lady]

If that happened he probably would show signs of mental illness in short order. :behindbar I have read somewhere, sorry I didn't note it down, that he most likely would be able to stay with Uncle Pistorius but I don't recall who said it or of what legal standing they were.

From what I've been listening to from the witness, he shouldn't be left unsupervised... especially near guns. I hope Arnold has locked the firearms away in case OP wants to go shooting in the night when he can't sleep again.

 

[Carmelita]

I do not understand this at all. The reference you posted is in regard to the United States. Then you say you don't know what it is in South Africa.

Yes, we are all aware that Nels said "three days" at one point.

But in the post I was referencing, you explained how they are kept for three days and if they don't show any signs of illness, etc. You were very specific as to the protocol. THAT is what I was asking about. Was that for the U.S.? Any specific state? And what relevance would that have to a South African case?

I guess I am just having trouble distinguishing when you are posting about the U.S. or are posting about this trial in South Africa. That's why I asked for the link.

But then you go on to say you don't know anything about South Africa. So you must be posting about the U.S., right? I'm confused!

Hi AlwaysShocked,

Sorry to have confused you.

This is what I said if no sufficient cause is found a patient will likely be released in 72 hours. That doesn’t mean that no mental health issues have been found, it simply means the patient is not deemed a danger to themselves or others. The mentally ill are released from mandatory holds on a daily basis.

I was referring to the mental health laws in the United States because that is what I am familiar with. I made a leap of faith that the SA law would somewhat mirror our laws as the “Mental Care Health Act” that was made effective a little over 10 years ago has also been talked about (though maybe not here).

I do think that Nel or Roux mentioned the MCHA in SA during the court session today. Nel originally said “3 days” when he began to speak about a mandated court referral (involuntary hold/section) and then 30 days was bandied about which would fit with US laws, so I made the correlation in my head without checking the facts as it seemed a pretty safe assumption. But I didn’t want to confuse anyone into thinking that my knowledge of US Mental Health laws necessarily correlated with SA Mental Health laws.

Anyhow I looked up the MCHA in SA and it is a 72 hour hold on an involuntary section. So my assumption was a safe bet



http://www.safmh.org.za/Images/AdmissionProcedures.pdf


72 hour assessment

This assessment provides for the exclusion of Physical Disorders, which may give rise to psychiatric signs. Once the Psychiatric Illness is confirmed and the need for further care has been identified; the Mental Health Care user will be transferred to a designated Mental Health Care facility for the further care, treatment and rehabilitation.

Unnecessary admissions to a Psychiatric Hospital are limited since some Mental Health Care Users may recover within the 72 hour assessment period.


Again sorry to confuse you.

I probably should add it would be highly unlikely almost impossible for someone to be involuntarily committed and then suddenly start behaving normally. The 72 hours is to determine if their condition is a physical one, a drug or alcohol induced one or a chronic or acute mental health issue and to get them the proper treatment.

 

[PPKik]

On the other hand it's a fact that OP can at any time sack his defence team if they don't act in accordance with his instructions. I have no time for this man whom I believe to be as guilty as sin, but I am all for civilized administration of justice and his right to be found guilty by the rejection of whatever defence he chooses to advance. He should not be able to get away with blaming his defence team for not respecting his instructions.

Are you saying that you know with certainty that "it's a fact that OP can at any time sack his defence team..."?

I am asking because I do not know SA court procedures, but do know that in the US a defendant usually can't just sack his/her attorney at the end of a trial if it doesn't look like he/she is getting a favorable verdict, or for any other capricious reason.

If defendants could, I imagine that would throw our judicial system even further into disarray, so I am curious to know if this is true in SA. If it is, OP should sack Roux asap!

 

[Interested Bystander]

Another view that he would be regarded as “unfit to stay on the street pending evaluation.”

Scroll down to WHAT NOW? for the comments on the likely outcome of an observation period is granted.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-...ade-runner-in-psychiatric-ward-163005151.html

“If the judge grants Nel's request, the trial will be halted until the observation period is over and results are presented to the court. Pistorius would also likely be taken into immediate custody, says Llewellyn Curlewis, head of South Africa's Law Society, as he would be regarded as "unfit to stay on street pending evaluation."

Given the several-months-long waiting lists at the nearest public psychiatric hospitals, it could be weeks before any further court dates become clear; although legal experts say that due to the high-profile nature of the case, it is likely the request for the celebrity athlete to be assessed would be fast-tracked."

 

[soozieqtips]

bbm.
imo; op fits so many of the npd traits, do you not agree?... and surely this would come out in the 30 day assessment - the defence will not be able to keep any of the 30 day assess report from being uttered in court. maybe this is why roux so, so doesn't what op to be referred.

BBM - I'm sure by Day 7 he'll be summoning people to peel grapes and brush his teeth for him. Let's not forget this is all about him. I'm sure he won't forget! And I'm sure his true character will emerge while he's being evaluated. He can't seem to hide the real him, and I doubt it will be any different in a hospital.

 

[Budgie]

There is a world of difference in receiving a psychological evaluation and receiving psychological treatment as an inpatient.

Evaluation consists of both interviews and the administration of a complete battery of psychological and even neuropsychological tests. And yes, certain tests have the ability to detect the suspicion of malingering. There are hundreds of questions to be answered. Photographs to be looked at, after which the subject is asked to tell a story about what is taking place in the photograph. The traditional "ink blot" test is still used. There are the broad screening tests and there are the specific, targeted tests.

A basic physical exam is normally done at the beginning of the process. Patients are observed throughout the process for things like affect, choice and use of language, eating patterns, and sleep patterns.

Some psychologists specialize in forensic evaluations. The results of all the testing are then evaluated by a psychiatrist.

I did not hear Dr. Vorster mention any standardized testing of OP other than some results of testing done by an industrial psychologist at some point in the past. She did not know who he was or why the testing was performed. She did give the opinion that it seemed to her the testing was done for "forensic reasons" rather than "treatment reasons".

Given all of the above, were I this judge, based on the import the introduction of GAD and Depression have on this case, based on the psychiatrist's warning about the increasing level of the disorder in OP, combined with the lack of solid testing at this point, and combined with the continuous wailing and puking throughout this trial, I would feel duty bound to order the extensive testing at this time.

------------

Some here seem to be mixing up the terms "conditional" and "intermittent". With GAD, it is not intermittent, it is there all the time. At some level. Then, when something stressful happens in the person's life, the symptoms of it become much more pronounced. That is what is meant by "conditional".

------------
Sometimes in delving into the world of medicine, psychology, and/or psychiatry, it helps to actually look up a term in a medical dictionary. They are online. Because oftentimes, even when you think you know what a word means, it can have a slightly different meaning within the medical world. Words that we think we know so well, like "delusions" "hallucinations" or even "dementia" can have many shades to them.

:goodpost:

 

[weeeva]

Do you have any suspicions at all about the fact that Oscar didn't see this Dr till May this year?, doesn't seem dodgy at all?.

Yes I do find it strange, but why should I be suspicious?
I have had little faith in Roux right from the start. Why would Roux leave it so late to have OP seen by a psychiatrist?
Genuine question, why has this happened? I am a bit slow on the up take.

 

[Val1]

Can you see the point of this evaluation? I honestly can not see how it is applicable in this case. If they are expecting to see signs of this GAD in a hospital situation it is not going to happen. If the assessors don't see it, which they won't, it does not mean that it was not present on the night in question.
All they can do is question him on his past behaviour. That won't take long.

bbm -Don't bet on it, just let OP take his precious watches with him... theft in hospitals is actually quite common.

 

[Duchy]

Nel: "I agree with Mr. Roux that emotion has no place in this."

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. STAB ---- THEN ----- TWIST

Your so funny CM hehe:silly:

 

[soozieqtips]

Yes, I noticed that too. I think it's the same thing.

Did you notice Nel calling her M'lord at one point during proceedings?

I heard M'Lordy!

 

[Myvice]

I'd like to thank all the posters for stating their opinions and especially to those that are transcribing. I'm a lurker and I so appreciate that you are sharing your thoughts with those of us that can't partake of the proceedings "in the moment".

I have a couple things that still bother me.

A person that needs vision correction needs glasses to see clearly. Are they considered disabled? IMO, no. If there is something available to correct your condition and restore it I would think you would be considered able bodied again.

OP has prostheses that make him whole. They have, in fact, helped him to compete in the Olympics against able bodied opponents. He has worn prosthetics from the time some people learn to walk. I've seen videos where putting them on is like putting on slip on shoes. I just don't get the idea that he was more vulnerable than a normal person when he is a competitive runner and inspite of the 30 seconds required to done his prosthetics could outrun a normal person.

I'm also not buying that his anxiety would cause him to choose fight over flight. Anger maybe, but not anxiety. I also have anxiety issues and one of my fears is flying. It would be preposterous to suggest that I would fly rather than drive if that were an option.

I also find that when I know I'm going to be forced into an uncomfortable situation I will do my best to preplan anything that might make me uncomfortable, such as, thinking of things I could converse about if certain people approached me that I'm not very familiar with. I think if OP was that afraid of intruders he would have had a plan in his head of how to react and it would certainly include putting on his prosthetics...just as someone would grab their glasses.

Thanks again for bringing the trial to us.

 

[nastasya]

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.

The killer stood in a room holding a 9 mm Parabellum. He was not being threatened or in imminent danger.

The explanation for his "fight" mode merely explains why he murdered the victim. It does not exonerate him for doing so.

 

[Carmelita]

At the present stage it's not about care, it's about evaluation.

The state cannot evaluate without caring for, the state cannot even incarcerate without "caring for" they are not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[Val1]

Hi AlwaysShocked,

Sorry to have confused you.

This is what I said if no sufficient cause is found a patient will likely be released in 72 hours. That doesn’t mean that no mental health issues have been found, it simply means the patient is not deemed a danger to themselves or others. The mentally ill are released from mandatory holds on a daily basis.

I was referring to the mental health laws in the United States because that is what I am familiar with. I made a leap of faith that the SA law would somewhat mirror our laws as the “Mental Care Health Act” that was made effective a little over 10 years ago has also been talked about (though maybe not here).

I do think that Nel or Roux mentioned the MCHA in SA during the court session today. Nel originally said “3 days” when he began to speak about a mandated court referral (involuntary hold/section) and then 30 days was bandied about which would fit with US laws, so I made the correlation in my head without checking the facts as it seemed a pretty safe assumption. But I didn’t want to confuse anyone into thinking that my knowledge of US Mental Health laws necessarily correlated with SA Mental Health laws.

Anyhow I looked up the MCHA in SA and it is a 72 hour hold on an involuntary section. So my assumption was a safe bet



http://www.safmh.org.za/Images/AdmissionProcedures.pdf


72 hour assessment

This assessment provides for the exclusion of Physical Disorders, which may give rise to psychiatric signs. Once the Psychiatric Illness is confirmed and the need for further care has been identified; the Mental Health Care user will be transferred to a designated Mental Health Care facility for the further care, treatment and rehabilitation.

Unnecessary admissions to a Psychiatric Hospital are limited since some Mental Health Care Users may recover within the 72 hour assessment period.


Again sorry to confuse you.

I probably should add it would be highly unlikely almost impossible for someone to be involuntarily committed and then suddenly start behaving normally. The 72 hours is to determine if their condition is a physical one, a drug or alcohol induced one or a chronic or acute mental health issue and to get them the proper treatment.

bbm - So is that what Roux was referencing when he said that Nel would probably ask for another "evaluation" after his next witness?

 

[jay-jay]

Are you saying that you know with certainty that "it's a fact that OP can at any time sack his defence team..."?

I am asking because I do not know SA court procedures, but do know that in the US a defendant usually can't just sack his/her attorney at the end of a trial if it doesn't look like he/she is getting a favorable verdict, or for any other capricious reason.

If defendants could, I imagine that would throw our judicial system even further into disarray, so I am curious to know if this is true in SA. If it is, OP should sack Roux asap!

It would be funny if he did, because he sure as hell wouldn't be able to get another one! I doubt anyone would be mad enough to take him on .. if Roux struggled with him, and he's about the best defence lawyer money can buy, then he's up sh** creek without a paddle!

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm also not buying that his anxiety would cause him to choose fight over flight. Anger maybe, but not anxiety. I also have anxiety issues and one of my fears is flying. It would be preposterous to suggest that I would fly rather than drive if that were an option.

Hi there Myvice. Interesting post and snipped by me for relevance.

BBM - I agree. He seems driven by anger and frustration rather than anxiety and vulnerability. Although he said it's not his 'personality' to walk away from danger, I don't think that charging towards a dangerous situation (when he himself could have been killed by the 'intruder' coming out of the toilet) indicates he felt vulnerable at that point (or at any point). On the contrary, he's aggressive and seems to enjoy courting danger (speeding, shooting guns in restaurants etc) which really doesn't sound the kind of thing an anxious and vulnerable person would do. It's more likely that people felt anxious and vulnerable around him.

 

[Cherwell]

It would be funny if he did, because he sure as hell wouldn't be able to get another one! I doubt anyone would be mad enough to take him on .. if Roux struggled with him, and he's about the best defence lawyer money can buy, then he's up sh** creek without a paddle!

Maybe he would conduct his own defence. That would be worth watching.

opcorn:

 

[ColonelMustard]

Someone upthread projected that M'Lady will not grant Nel's application because she wants to bring the trial to an end.

I got the sense that she just wanted to stop wasting time.