Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31

[atthelake]

*Setting alarm clock*.. Please nudge me in 2 1/2 hours! A few zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzs :seeya:

 

[minor4th]

​

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion the assessment was very surficial, done in a hurry, while the psychiatrist did not have all the information and did not approach all relevant people. To my knowledge these assessments are usually very thorough and take sometimes months and numerous visits in order to reasonably evaluate the person in question. The doctor saw OP last week twice plus several members of his family (not his father). This is unbelievable.



I am overall disappointed with a lot of expert witnesses in this case, some for the prosecution but majority of them for the defence. This is one of the reasons I believe that OP deserves a proper assessment just in case.



Do you believe that there is no value in a more comprehensive psychological assessment/evaluation for OP? Isn't this even PT responsibility to make sure that he really does not have a mental issue that would be so serious that he could really be a danger to the general population? If you were in Nel's position, would you act differently (I understand that you are a trial lawyer)?



:fence:

I think it would be appropriate for the state to request to reopen their case to address the testimony from the psychiatrist. I do not think it's appropriate to refer him for involuntary hospitalization to confirm a diagnosis of GAD when there is no claim of diminished responsibility due to mental defect. It's particularly inappropriate for the state to make that request.

I think Nel is playing games and using this as a tactical maneuver.

Honestly, what could possibly be gained from a forced hospitalization and monitoring?

 

[TorisMom003]

Isn't he related to her?

Not that I'm aware of, no. I am referring to the woman with the silver short straight hair that wears glasses. Not Uncle Arnold's wife, although they do look similar in a way.

 

[minor4th]

I agree with a previous poster who responded to this post ....cut/paste katy...



He said he did NOT aim at the door, nor did he intend to shoot anyone...was not even thinking, gun just went off accidentally.

He did not say the gun went off accidentally! He said he pulled the trigger. Yes he made a mess of things by the way he testified and tried to avoid certain words - but on redirect he did say he pulled the trigger, the gun did not go off by accident and that he fired the gun out if fear that an intruder was coming out to attack him.

As Nel said, OP was not the most impressive witness.

 

[Estelle]

Someone mentioned a parallel concept Freeze and Fold, whatever that is.

Stress Responses. There are actually four:

withdrawal (flight),
immobility (freeze),
defensive aggression (fight),
submission. (appeasement)

 

[TorisMom003]

I think it would be appropriate for the state to request to reopen their case to address the testimony from the psychiatrist. I do not think it's appropriate to refer him for involuntary hospitalization to confirm a diagnosis of GAD when there is no claim of diminished responsibility due to mental defect. It's particularly inappropriate for the state to make that request.

I think Nel is playing games and using this as a tactical maneuver.

Honestly, what could possibly be gained from a forced hospitalization and monitoring?

To address if it can be used as a mitigating factor at sentencing.

To make sure OP even suffers from GAD, which I personally do not believe at all.

To make sure that this issue will not be able to be used after sentencing during an appeal.

Nel is covering all of the bases, as is his job. No one, not even OP himself I doubt, wants this is to be an issue that will drag this out even longer than is needed. The Defense decided to "go there" with the introduction of the Dr and her testimony that OP is a danger and that his "condition" is getting worse. If that is true than OP clearly is a danger not only to himself, but to others as well. That is something that needs to be cleared up now instead of later. One of the conditions of OP's bail is that the community would be safe with him out on bail. That is now being called into question.

MOO

 

[jassy writer]

Putative self defense.

Now what exactly is the states case?

It can't be putative self-defense when OP himself denied it under cross examination. That was one of the most dramatic moments in the trial, as it demolished the case that the defense had been working so hard to build.

 

[toevlugsoord]

I'm wondering why Vorster waited over a year to talk to anyone.

Why did she say her report could be used for sentencing if its not to get a reduced sentence?

She didn't wait a year...she only just assessed him this month!

 

[sicknote]

She didn't wait a year...she only just assessed him this month!

Maybe you should read my post again.

 

[Estelle]

I think it would be appropriate for the state to request to reopen their case to address the testimony from the psychiatrist. I do not think it's appropriate to refer him for involuntary hospitalization to confirm a diagnosis of GAD when there is no claim of diminished responsibility due to mental defect. It's particularly inappropriate for the state to make that request.

I think Nel is playing games and using this as a tactical maneuver.

Honestly, what could possibly be gained from a forced hospitalization and monitoring?

I think it is to prove that OP does not have GAD.

IMO they would use tests and a 30 day evaluation would be more thorough.

I do not think that the State Psychologist has been given access to OP for assessment so he would need time to do this rather than the two interviews V gave. This would also cause delay.

The State had no idea that this sort of evidence would be brought up in court so they are disadvantaged in that respect at the moment. It takes time to do an evaluation which would be meaningful and assist the court.

 

[Angela Carr]

I agree with a previous poster who responded to this post ....cut/paste katy...

He said he did NOT aim at the door, nor did he intend to shoot anyone...was not even thinking, gun just went off accidentally.

But he WAS thinking before he pulled the trigger x4, because he told Nel that he didn't aim at the shower cubicle because the bullet may ricochet and hit him.

 

[TorisMom003]

I'm curious, and wish that Nel had asked her, as to what extra security measures Vorster was referring to when she stated while on the stand that OP had taken some extra security measures. The list of things that OP appeared to not be concerned with points to no possible GAD, IMO.

There were no security bars on any of his homes windows or doors
OP did not check to make sure that the outside security monitors/sensors were in place and functioning correctly
OP did not check to make sure that the ladder was placed in the garage every night
OP "slept" with the balcony sliding doors open
OP's "watch dogs" were not the type to bark at strangers, much less burglars
OP did not keep his cars in his garage but instead left them out on the driveway
OP left a downstairs window broken for more than a couple of days

Are the above actions that a person suffering from GAD would do? I, personally, don't think so.

MOO

 

[TorisMom003]

But he WAS thinking before he pulled the trigger x4, because he told Nel that he didn't aim at the shower cubicle because the bullet may ricochet and hit him.

OP was thinking a lot for a person that "didn't have time to think".

 

[wb180]

No he said it was an accident. Meaning he didn't mean to shoot Reeva. That's not at all the sadness as saying the gun went off accidentally. He was clear tha he pulled the trigger

He said he pulled the trigger but didn't intend to shoot and you believe this guy. Facepalm

 

[TorisMom003]

I believe that OP was being somewhat honest when he stated that he fired his gun after hearing wood move in the toilet room. I think that he failed to mention that he heard this sound after already firing one shot into the toilet room door.

It seems to me that like most liars he has taken bits of truth and mixed them in his story of lies. The problem is figuring out which parts are the bits of truth and which parts are complete lies.

MOO

 

[Angela Carr]

Interesting that he was so concerned that there was a ladder outside the bathroom window with possibly another intruder on the ladder, yet he never looked out the window to check. Even after he had neutralised the so-called threat in the toilet room, he still never checked out the bathroom window.
And why should he have, because he knew it was Reeva behind the door.

 

[wb180]

Putative self defense.

Now what exactly is the states case?

That defense was rejected by OP.

You know exactly what the states case is as it hadn't changed one bit.

 

[Karmady]

To address if it can be used as a mitigating factor at sentencing.

To make sure OP even suffers from GAD, which I personally do not believe at all.

To make sure that this issue will not be able to be used after sentencing during an appeal.

Nel is covering all of the bases, as is his job. No one, not even OP himself I doubt, wants this is to be an issue that will drag this out even longer than is needed. The Defense decided to "go there" with the introduction of the Dr and her testimony that OP is a danger and that his "condition" is getting worse. If that is true than OP clearly is a danger not only to himself, but to others as well. That is something that needs to be cleared up now instead of later. One of the conditions of OP's bail is that the community would be safe with him out on bail. That is now being called into question.

MOO

Just jumping off your post for the attorneys in the room (minor?). Is a commitment the usual way to go about this? In the US I think, but don't know, that the state could/would typically request an independent psych eval. Should be the same in SA since the commitment standard seems similar if not identical. No?

 

[Estelle]

In making a diagnosis of NPD, it must be distinguished from the other 3 cluster B personality disorders, which are as follows:

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD)
Borderline personality disorder (BPD)
Histrionic personality disorder (HPD)

Patients with NPD may also meet criteria for separate axis I diagnoses. Alternatively, patients with only NPD may at times have symptoms that mimic those of axis I disorders.

No specific laboratory studies are employed to diagnose NPD; however, it is wise to obtain a toxicology screen to rule out drugs and alcohol as possible causes of the pathology.

Although there is some debate regarding their usefulness and reliability, personality tests such as the following may be administered to help elucidate character pathology and facilitate the diagnosis of NPD:

Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire–4 (PDQ-4)
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III (MCMI-III)
International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE)

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1519417-overview

Doing all of this takes time so therefore a 30-day evaluation is necessary IMO.

 

[seattlechiquita]

The defense is supposed to poke holes in the state's case to raise reasonable doubt.



Roux has managed to do the exact opposite by poking holes in his own case with each witness he has called to the stand.

including the defendant himself, who was an uber crappy witness. I am sure Nel The Man thanks the gods for his (Roux's) stupidity.