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:
Isn't he related to her?
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.
Someone mentioned a parallel concept Freeze and Fold, whatever that is.
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?
Putative self defense.
Now what exactly is the states case?
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!
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 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.
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
Putative self defense.
Now what exactly is the states case?
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
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.