Trial Discussion Thread #39 - 14.05.14 Day 32

[Interested Bystander]

Interested Bystander. Hope this works ;-)

http://youtu.be/WBnX2YDYRL4

Many thanks indeed. There is nothing quite like watching the real thing.

I am off now to find some sort of discussions by learned lawyers. Some of the programs I have listened to have been very enlightening.

 

[weeeva]

Heck, even when my hb went to the pain clinic to help with his phantom pain, they kept him for a full 6 weeks, the first 2 he wasn't allowed any visitors either because they felt it would interfere with the psychological treatment and after that only on weekends until he was done.

So for a full work up to determine whether OP's GAD was in fact at a stage on the 14th of Feb 2013 to have impacted on his ability to control himself, working under the assumption that he had been in a state of fear caused by his phobia of intruders, I don't see how stopping in for an hour or two daily or whatever the schedule will be, will be able to make a proper diagnosis or finding. Sleeping habits, eating/drinking habits, social interaction, even what might cause him any abdominal discomfort in the way of routine, or lack of it, can't be observed professionally... about the only thing they can do that may help, is perhaps call in other sources for past information/behaviour as OP was growing up and especially within the last few years. I suppose they could start by reading his book and any news articles of his escapades, that may help with some insight as well.

How come when I said all this yesterday I only got 2 thanks, and today you got 10? :furious:

 

[Nausicaa]

Yes, you are right. This latest event has quite thrown me to the point of wondering if OP has a chance of getting away with murder. I keep telling myself Nel knows what he is doing and then I wonder, as has been suggested, was Roux clever enough to bring this on. He seemed quite emotional when Nel threw this into the arena - was it a big act? Uncle Pistorius seems quite cool about the whole issue. I couldn't watch this morning's court proceedings as I had an appointment to keep. I need to search out a video to watch what happened.[snip]

At the end of the day, the result of the evaluation can only mean that his capacity for criminal responsibility is 1. totally absent, 2. somewhat diminished by a psychological factor, or 3. undiminished by any psychological factor.

I grant that in the case of 1. he will be found not guilty, but it will put him out of the way for a long long time - he will be a "broken man". He probably fears it most of the potential outcomes. If 2.the judge will have both to punish him for the culpable part of his acts and protect society from potential renewal of the inculpable part and if 3. we can forget about all evidence about mental conditions and judge his acts of 13 February 2013 as perpetated by a person who is mentally normal but morally abnormal.

None of those outcomes is a win for the defence. The only advantage for the defence was in leaving a cloud of doubt over his responsibility. Nel has rightly insisted that that doubt be removed.

 

[weeeva]

Agreed! She should have had him commited, not to jail but rather to a psychiatric hospital, the moment that she determined he was a danger. OP better be careful with this, I doubt that these new doctors, that OP isn't paying, will be so nonchalant. They will find a bed for him if needed.

Like most things in life there are degrees of danger.
I would prefer a psychiatric ward to a prison cell any day.

 

[BabaJ]

Sorry, I didn't mean any vitriol towards Nel.

I do think he would be upset at OP being treated as an outpatient, as I believe it was his intent and desire to have him locked up.

Wow, I am really surprised to hear this from you as I was under the impression that you were trying to be impartial and open minded with respect to both the defence and the prosecution, which I appreciated. That would mean that Nel has some personal vendetta against OP, which is hard to believe. As I mentioned yesterday, Roux really did not give Nel much of a choice by bringing this particular expert and testimony at this stage of the trial. Also, as per my previous posts, the expert's assessment was rushed and incomplete, which again raised doubts. In turn the judge did not have much choice either in my opinion. I do not see it as a major advantage or disadvantage that OP will not be committed, the most important thing is that there will be (hopefully) an objective, reliable and comprehensive assessment. I do not understand why this would not be the right thing to do.

Personally, I do not believe OP's versions but on the other hand, if I was in place of the prosecution or the judge I would want to know for sure that the person in question does not have any mental illness and if he/she does, whether this person is dangerous to the public. After all, no matter how it is twisted or turned, the person in question killed a human being under regular conditions.

 

[Cherwell]

I think you've hit on one flaw in the SA judicial system IMO. These bizarre happenings mid-trial could not happen if there were reciprocal discovery - meaning both sides have to disclose all witnesses and provide expert reports 30-60 days prior to trial.

The defence team would have been stuffed then, since they didn't have most of their witnesses and expert reports as early as that! :giggle:

Have you seen him retching in court and sweating and covering his ears? I think those are classic PTSD avoidance responses to triggers.

Triggers! now there's an appropriate word.

 

[Karmady]

Thank you Viper, i am not going to get into arguments with certain posters when it is clear to hear what the Judge said. Thank you again for your support! :cheers:

Looking back at the way your post is worded, I think the confusion is about what the court considers "punishment." She was referring to the inpatient aspect in light of the request for outpatient treatment, not the evaluation itself, as "punishment" imo.

 

[Magdalyn]

Well I'm not going to call or text my friend but my best guess would be because Oscar's mental health having anything to do with the events of the morning that Reeva was killed would have been scoffed at by the state. Roux has effectively through Nel made Oscars mental health that morning a far bigger focal point in the trial than it would have been if both the state and defense simply put psychiatrists in the box who had interviewed Oscar.

BBM:

It appears the state could scoff until they were blue in the face (as I understand Roux did yesterday, as did some OP supporters on this board.) The state wouldn't have had a choice, much like the defense didn't have a choice. The judge decides after a lawyer makes an application, as she did this morning.

 

[Carmelita]

BBM:

It appears the state could scoff until they were blue in the face (as I understand Roux did yesterday, as did some OP supporters on this board.) The state wouldn't have had a choice, much like the defense didn't have a choice. The judge decides after a lawyer makes an application, as she did this morning.

If you don't think that Nel has made a mental health defense more viable I will not try to convince you that it has.

 

[lithgow1]

How come when I said all this yesterday I only got 2 thanks, and today you got 10? :furious:

Bad grammar?

 

[Greater Than]

I doubt that would work... kinda like when the defence team tried to re-inact the screams/raised voices for the neighbours.

I was kidding.

 

[atthelake]

Of course he's concerned about what this means to him. How could a defendant facing many years in jail not be concerned about how his life will be effected? That's not realistic, and it says nothing about OP other than he's having a normal concern for his future.

You can come up with malignant reasons or excuses why OP is exhibiting those behaviors, but IMO those are classic PTSD behaviors.

And no, I wouldn't say that most PTSD sufferers feel guilt. A person with PTSD is typically a victim of violence or an observer of an extremely traumatic event. I don't think guilt is involved. But OP has said he feels guilty for killing Reeva in any event - but that's not related to PTSD

BRBM What other options for dx did you consider but discounted? NPD? or others?

 

[minor4th]

The defence team would have been stuffed then, since they didn't have most of their witnesses and expert reports as early as that! :giggle:







Triggers! now there's an appropriate word.

Yes and don't you think it would be more fair?

 

[Lyra500]

IMO, it's difficult to tell from the outside if someone is suffering from PTSD since the trigger of symptoms is a particular incident. But, IMO, I certainly think it's possible. He said early on that at night he can smell blood, he has trouble sleeping, etc. That's an awfully specific thing to claim. Certainly, one can have PTSD and still be guilty. And, IMO, if he's lying about those things then it will become known.

Surely whether he has PTSD as a result of killing Reeva or not should have absolutely no bearing on the verdict.

In a way it doesn't really matter whether he is lying about PTSD symptoms (apart from being another indication of his character) since these symptoms came on as a result of the crime he committed, so cannot be regarded as mitigation for his actions relating to Reeva's death.

 

[Carmelita]

BBM:

It appears the state could scoff until they were blue in the face (as I understand Roux did yesterday, as did some OP supporters on this board.) The state wouldn't have had a choice, much like the defense didn't have a choice. The judge decides after a lawyer makes an application, as she did this morning.

If you don't think that Nel has made a mental health defense more viable I will not try to convince you that he has.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Its not the job of mental health professionals to judge his actions that night at all, much less to determine if they were "excusable."

His defense is that because of his experiences and amputation he is vulnerable and hypervigilant and that is what caused him to react the way he did.

My point was that whatever diagnosis they come up with aside from insanity, it will not negate the fact he acted unlawfully.

I believe he knew it was Reeva and not an intruder so imo whatever the evaluators find will not bode well for OP

 

[minor4th]

BRBM What other options for dx did you consider but discounted? NPD? or others?

Of course I'm not an expert in psychiatry but I do have experience working with PTSD sufferers.

Depression and anxiety doesn't surprise me. I don't know about others

 

[Magdalyn]

If you don't think that Nel has made a mental health defense more viable I will not try to convince you that it has.

No, certain mental illness diagnoses make certain defenses more viable. Roux didn't need Nel to make that happen. In order to have a successful mental health defense, one must get a number of experts to agree on a diagnosis. Nel can't make the diagnosis happen or not happen. Conversely, Roux can't control these state employed psychiatrists.

If a section 78 is what made this all 'more viable', I ask you again, why didn't Roux ask for one?

Are you also suggesting that Roux was just pretending to argue against a section 78 yesterday?

 

[MeeBee]

Surely whether he has PTSD as a result of killing Reeva or not should have absolutely no bearing on the verdict.

In a way it doesn't really matter whether he is lying about PTSD symptoms (apart from being another indication of his character) since these symptoms came on as a result of the crime he committed, so cannot be regarded as mitigation for his actions relating to Reeva's death.

I never said it did.

 

[MeeBee]

No, certain mental illness diagnoses make certain defenses more viable. Roux didn't need Nel to make that happen. In order to have a successful mental health defense, one must get a number of experts to agree on a diagnosis. Nel can't make the diagnosis happen or not happen. Conversely, Roux can't control these state employed psychiatrists.

If a section 78 is what made this all 'more viable', I ask you again, why didn't Roux ask for one?

Are you also suggesting that Roux was just pretending to argue against a section 78 yesterday?

In the end, wasn't he very much on board with the evaluation?