Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31

[DILLIGAF]

Does anyone have an idea which defence Roux is actually putting forward?

1. Putative self defence?
2. Automatism?
3. Diminished responsibility?

It appears that the DT is casting a wide net in the hope that one defence will stick. In other words, "tailoring" it's defensive argument.

 

[Viper]

Hi Jake!

 

[DebinGA]

Does anyone have an idea which defence Roux is actually putting forward?

1. Putative self defence?
2. Automatism?
3. Diminished responsibility?

It appears that the DT is casting a wide net in the hope that one defence will stick. In other words, "tailoring" it's defensive argument.

I think Roux is going with 1 and 3, and OP is going with 1 and 2.

 

[wb180]

Well we're getting beyond the scope of the discussion we were having. His defense is that he shot at what he thought was an intruder in self defense. He's not claiming he shot Reeva but didn't know it was wrong.

I don't think it is outside of scope.

DT is arguing that we should consider GAD as part of OP's excuse because it is logical and reasonable for OP that upon hearing a noise (not threat), to go straight into danger (not leave), and shoot four times into a door at another supposed noise (no warning shot, no identification, no apparent attack).

If he had GAD, he shouldn't be given a firearm in the first place. But he passed with flying colors. Funny that.

On your point about his self defense, OP knew it was a BS defence and that's why he gave such a vague answer when he was asked a direct question on this.

 

[Greater Than]

Well we're getting beyond the scope of the discussion we were having. His defense is that he shot at what he thought was an intruder in self defense. He's not claiming he shot Reeva but didn't know it was wrong.

You mean putative self defense.

Regardless, he pulled the trigger without allegedly even knowing what he was shooting at. That is against the law. And there is documented proof in evidence that he was well aware of its unlawfulness.

 

[Viper]

Does anyone have an idea which defence Roux is actually putting forward?

1. Putative self defence?
2. Automatism?
3. Diminished responsibility?

It appears that the DT is casting a wide net in the hope that one defence will stick. In other words, "tailoring" it's defensive argument.

BIB. No. And Mr. Roux has not added any clarity. In the US we refer to it as the shotgun approach. Hit everything that you can.

 

[wb180]

Does anyone have an idea which defence Roux is actually putting forward?

1. Putative self defence?
2. Automatism?
3. Diminished responsibility?

It appears that the DT is casting a wide net in the hope that one defence will stick. In other words, "tailoring" it's defensive argument.

Yep agreed - they are going with whatever sticks. I guess sorta like conspiracy theories. That's how Roux has been working anyway. Make all these random theories.

Here are some others that they can consider:

1. Demonic possession
2. Alien abduction
3. Cyborg chip insertion (aka Robocop style)
4. Violent transformation (aka the HULK)
etc

 

[DILLIGAF]

Just wondering, it cannot be denied that OP's reaction was unusual (if we consider his version as true version) ie not checking whether RS is in bed, fight vs flight reaction, shooting at the door four times, running around afterwards on his stumps looking for Reeva in a dark room with his gun in his hand etc. It is surprising that he was not properly evaluated earlier with respect to psychological issues. Isn't it in his interest as well to have a proper evaluation? Just for the sake of the argument, what if he really has a condition, which would explain his behaviour?

You would think it was in his interest, but OP does not come across as someone who would voluntarily submit himself to a psych evaluation.

I really think Roux made a big mistake in introducing Prof V at this stage. He obviously did not foresee how damaging her evidence would be.
Roux also underestimated Nel's ability to educe the responses he got from V regarding OP possibly having a mental illness and being a danger to society etc.
Nel is proving to be a very astute tactician imo.

 

[Viper]

Goodnight all. Talk with you tomorrow.

 

[Greater Than]

BIB. No. And Mr. Roux has not added any clarity. In the US we refer to it as the shotgun approach. Hit everything that you can.

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.

 

[wb180]

As far as I know Oscar has not made a peep about dismissing Roux so I am wondering why so many posters here are discussing it as if Oscar has made such a move.

Man, read the posts again - no one mentioned Oscar made such a move. Posters are suggesting he should sack him.

 

[Jake18]

Could this application to have OP committed not be considered a double edge sword for the PT?

If OP is committed and an independent psychiatrist finds he does have GAD, the DT could argue that he is innocent due to diminished capacity.

Anxiety disorders are very common through and shouldn't cause diminished capacity in a legal sense. The thing is though, the DT were arguing initially that OP's GAD was increasing and he was potentially dangerous. Nel is arguing that if OP is that impaired he needs to be assessed. He also stated the he (Nel) doesn't believe OP has a significant mental illness, however if the DT is going to introduce this as a possible mitigating factor - and one which could be used for appeal later - then the PT want it properly addressed now. GAD by itself, although certainly debilitating for many, shouldn't result in the person being unable to tell right from wrong or in them being a danger to the community.

It seems to me that the DT was trying to have their cake and eat it too- OP has GAD which is common and he's not struggling with reduced capacity from it but we should feel sorry for him and consider it during sentencing. There was also what seemed like a conflicting approach with Dr Voster emphasising the significance of GAD and then de-emphasising it after Nel intimated that he wanted OP assessed.

Either way, I think Nel's ensured it won't be a part of OP's defence strategy. He may well be independently diagnosed with GAD but I doubt that an independent review will diagnose reduced capacity because of it. My personal view is that the judge will rule no, on the basis that neither the PT nor the DT actually think OP has diminished capacity due to mental illness but I am sort of hoping for a yes.

All IMO.

 

[wb180]

Just wondering, it cannot be denied that OP's reaction was unusual (if we consider his version as true version) ie not checking whether RS is in bed, fight vs flight reaction, shooting at the door four times, running around afterwards on his stumps looking for Reeva in a dark room with his gun in his hand etc. It is surprising that he was not properly evaluated earlier with respect to psychological issues. Isn't it in his interest as well to have a proper evaluation? Just for the sake of the argument, what if he really has a condition, which would explain his behaviour?

Because everyone knows this whole GAD is BS. OP, Roux, Nel, Judge - they all know.

Roux was trying it on BUT the stupid psych women was trying to help OP so much that she use this to suggest OP is now a dangerous person and so whatever he does, you can blame it on this disorder which lead to Nel to do what he did.

 

[katydid23]

Well we're getting beyond the scope of the discussion we were having. His defense is that he shot at what he thought was an intruder in self defense. He's not claiming he shot Reeva but didn't know it was wrong.

That was his original defense. yet on the stand he backpedaled big time. 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 was in FIGHT mode and in a panic and suffers from GAD.

 

[geevee]

I agree with this.

IMO, if OP was NOT wearing his prosthesis it tells me he knew it was RS. There's no way I can believe he ran to confront an intruder without his prosthetics.

Agree with that, I also can't believe he went out on the balcony and carried in a floor fan if he's not mobile or stable without them on (as has been testified to).

 

[nastasya]

Putative self-defense, Roux once again stated today, Oscar's defense has not changed, I don't think Mi'lady or her assessors are confused about this as they have never questioned it.

There has been substantial evidence presented that the defendant did not shoot in self-defense.

This evidence was put forth by Mr. Oscar Pistorius, the accused, when asked if he shot in self-defense. He said that no, he did not shoot in self-defense. He was very clear, and repeated that testimony when asked again.

Nel immediately ended cross-examination. Pistorius just eliminated any significance of the intruder, his belief about the intruder, his vulnerability, not warning Reeva, and every other bit of testimony that was put forth to convince the judge that he shot in self-defense.

He said, "No, that's wrong. I did not shoot the gun in self-defense. I didn't mean to shoot anybody," or words to that effect.

 

[minor4th]

That was his original defense. yet on the stand he backpedaled big time. 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 was in FIGHT mode and in a panic and suffers from GAD.

He did not say the gun went off accidentally.

No one is claiming he didn't know right from wrong

 

[minor4th]

I don't think it is outside of scope.

DT is arguing that we should consider GAD as part of OP's excuse because it is logical and reasonable for OP that upon hearing a noise (not threat), to go straight into danger (not leave), and shoot four times into a door at another supposed noise (no warning shot, no identification, no apparent attack).

If he had GAD, he shouldn't be given a firearm in the first place. But he passed with flying colors. Funny that.

On your point about his self defense, OP knew it was a BS defence and that's why he gave such a vague answer when he was asked a direct question on this.

I really don't think that's what he is arguing.

 

[BabaJ]

​

I think that's what the psychiatrist was there for. She evaluated him and essentially gave an explanation of how his version could be true if you consider his anxiety and vulnerability.

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:

 

[wb180]

There has been substantial evidence presented that the defendant did not shoot in self-defense.

This evidence was put forth by Mr. Oscar Pistorius, the accused, when asked if he shot in self-defense. He said that no, he did not shoot in self-defense. He was very clear, and repeated that testimony when asked again.

Nel immediately ended cross-examination. Pistorius just eliminated any significance of the intruder, his belief about the intruder, his vulnerability, not warning Reeva, and every other bit of testimony that was put forth to convince the judge that he shot in self-defense.

He said, "No, that's wrong. I did not shoot the gun in self-defense. I didn't mean to shoot anybody," or words to that effect.

Agreed - OP is so BS. Can't believe people still agree with OP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rcVtBcvCTo