"Don't dig too deeply. You will see him twice and will only hear from his family and friends. We think he has a minor anxiety disorder.........."
Tragically it seems evident that Wollie Wolmarans dragged the good Mr Dixon on board on the day of Oscar's bail hearing.
The two are obviously good friends, and Wollie was simply giving a mate a 'good gig'.
RSBM
That it all went south was unfortunate for both. (This due to Oscar planning, managing and for all intents 'handling' his own defense through his instructing attorney Brian Webber. Roux simply takes instruction, with Oldwage I'm sure adding little due to his rather limited experience in such matters.)
Cape Town Crim:I fully believe that Oscar WAS evaluated by clinical teams before the trial, and it was decided very quickly to bury those reports and not use them at all.
Brian Webber must be a saint.. he has enough on his plate to try the patience of a saint..
Oscar bigging himself up and complaining at the same time. par for the course.. it has only escalated, too.
RSBM
Whilst I agree largely with the above, questions are nagging me. In the UK there are occasions when a defendant dispenses with the services of a lawyer, for reasons that are not usually made clear. The court would need to give permission for this I believe. Some here have commented that this would be extraordinary, or even not allowed by the courts.
What I noticed with Dr V was that she didn't compromise her professional integrity, and was willing to say what she thought regardless of which side had retained her. This apart from the short time she had to make her assessment.
My issue is why would a lawyer compromise professional integrity because they had an awkward, forceful client who does not accept proper legal advice? Why not refuse to represent them any longer on these grounds?
If a pre-trial report was done and withheld due to information that could be incriminating, surely that is grossly unprofessional with regard to the safety of others?
These issues have been puzzling me throughout.
To our Trooper, thank you for contribution to the thread, reporting on the Trial as it happens and providing informative, witty commentary as well.
Much appreciated by all IMO. Look forward to you and your dog stories, many of which have made me laugh aloud. Keep up the great work. :cheers:
Can you imagine the pressures of defending an undiagnosed Narcissist?
I believe they are all saints.
OP rules like Joffrey Lannister did, before his unfortunate end.
Interesting that his room mate during the Olympics moved out of their shared room due to OP shouting at people over his phone 24/7.
I can only imagine the DT meetings. :facepalm:
His family on the other hand just seem to be plain scared of him and his reactions. His sister's entire demeanor is that of a 'fearful woman' - pardon me for saying this.
Furtive glances the entire time to make sure her brother isn't going to implode, the praying, the silent begging, the pandering to his ego during every break, the consoling. Fear. fear. fear. It's the only reason a seemingly intelligent woman would take a hand bag from a crime scene. IMHO of course.
Hello all! First time poster here (been lurking to an unhealthy degree during this trial however)! I thought posting this might be useful:
79 Panel for purposes of enquiry and report under sections 77 and 78
(1) Where a court issues a direction under section 77 (1) or 78 (2), the relevant enquiry shall be conducted and be reported on-
(b) where the accused is charged with murder
(i) by the medical superintendent of a psychiatric hospital designated by the court, or by a psychiatrist appointed by the medical superintendent at the request of the court;
(ii) by a psychiatrist appointed by the court and who is not in the full-time service of the State unless the court directs otherwise, upon application of the prosecutor, in accordance with directives issued under subsection (13) by the National Director of Public Prosecutions;
(iii) by a psychiatrist appointed for the accused by the court; and
(iv) by a clinical psychologist where the court so directs.
(1A) The prosecutor undertaking the prosecution of the accused or any other prosecutor attached to the same court shall provide the persons who, in terms of subsection (1), have to conduct the enquiry and report on the accused's mental capacity with a report in which the following are stated, namely-
(a) whether the referral is taking place in terms of section 77 or 78;
(b) at whose request or on whose initiative the referral is taking place;
(c) the nature of the charge against the accused;
(d) the stage of the proceedings at which the referral took place;
(e) the purport of any statement made by the accused before or during the court proceedings that is relevant with regard to his or her mental condition or mental capacity;
(f) the purport of evidence that has been given that is relevant to the accused's mental condition or mental capacity;
(g) in so far as it is within the knowledge of the prosecutor, the accused's social background and family composition and the names and addresses of his or her near relatives; and
(h) any other fact that may in the opinion of the prosecutor be relevant in the evaluation of the accused's mental condition or mental capacity.
(2) (a) The court may for the purposes of the relevant enquiry commit the accused to a psychiatric hospital or to any other place designated by the court, for such periods, not exceeding thirty days at a time, as the court may from time to time determine, and where an accused is in custody when he is so committed, he shall, while he is so committed, be deemed to be in the lawful custody of the person or the authority in whose custody he was at the time of such committal.
(b) When the period of committal is for the first time extended under paragraph (a), such extension may be granted in the absence of the accused unless the accused or his legal representative requests otherwise.
(3) The relevant report shall be in writing and shall be submitted in triplicate to the registrar or, as the case may be, the clerk of the court in question, who shall make a copy thereof available to the prosecutor and the accused.
(4) The report shall-
(a) include a description of the nature of the enquiry; and
(b) include a diagnosis of the mental condition of the accused; and (c) if the enquiry is under section 77 (1), include a finding as to whether the accused is capable of understanding the proceedings in question so as to make a proper defence; or
(d) if the enquiry is in terms of section 78 (2), include a finding as to the extent to which the capacity of the accused to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act in question or to act in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of that act was, at the time of the commission thereof, affected by mental illness or mental defect or by any other cause.
(5) If the persons conducting the relevant enquiry are not unanimous in their finding under paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (4), such fact shall be mentioned in the report and each of such persons shall give his finding on the matter in question.
(6) Subject to the provisions of subsection (7), the contents of the report shall be admissible in evidence at criminal proceedings.
(7) A statement made by an accused at the relevant enquiry shall not be admissible in evidence against the accused at criminal proceedings, except to the extent to which it may be relevant to the determination of the mental condition of the accused, in which event such statement shall be admissible notwithstanding that it may otherwise be inadmissible.
BBM for emphasis..
well darn spotted, Capey.. well spotted indeed.. I have seen her as 'the enabler' all this time, but your post shed another light .. I saw her only in the light of one who strokes and assists.. .. as a good Boer woman should do. knowing her place etc.. . but fear. for sure. fear is there , its oozing out of her, and a hell of a lot of it is fear OF Oscar, not for him.
'and you musn't argue with him. .. you know what I mean.. .what he says is what goes.. just go with it. . arguing with him is counterproductive, but don't say that... just don't do it..
oh.. and by the way, prepared to be maligned in court by Oscar at some stage.. . you'll be told you appeared overwhelmed, you don't know what you're doing, etc. .. just harden up for that.. and ..
oh.. another thing.. ( and so on and on) ....
Thank you for this post Pandax81. Very informative. Appreciated. "A statement made by an accused at the relevant enquiry shall not be admissible in evidence against the accused at criminal proceedings..." This was an interesting piece of information IMO. So hypothetically, if Oscar makes a statement of admission during the enquiry, it cannot be used as evidence against him in criminal proceedings?
5. Gerrie has managed to enter into evidence, by means of this evaluation, ALL SORTS of things he would not have been able to before. Be reminded that Dr Vorster had statements from Oscar’s friends (Divaris etc) and family – this panel is entitled to delve a little further if they feel it necessary (and they will....) by asking the state to provide them with statements from let’s say for example, The Myers sisters; Bachelor; Sam Taylor’s mother etc. They might not – BUT, the psychiatrist appointed by the prosecution, will most certainly be interested in exploring his ‘behavioural history’ with relation to this case and the build up of events leading to Feb 13. This of course, would include the escalation in Oscar’s behaviour from Sept 2012 until the Feb 13. This folk, is GOLD. Everything the defense worked so hard to ‘keep out’ is now being let in – albeit in a rather backwards manner. Remember, this usually happens during the sentencing phase so I am going to give you an example of how detailed SOME sections of the evaluation may be – there will be forensic social workers, the 3 appointed psychiatrists (defense, prosecution, and state institution), clinical psychologists etc.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/killer-teen-taught-that-men-don-t-cry-1.1688381#.U3Rjcyg0ojg
~respectfully snipped~
I don't know if it's just that I live in the UK, but I just find all this really weird that what seems to be happening is that a large part of OP's trial is now going to be carried out via a panel of psychologists .. they are consulting with member's of OP's family, his friends, possible even his ex friends now .. and then even questionning OP about the night in question in order to diagnose what type of mental illness he has.
I'm almost certain that this would not be allowed in the UK and that a defendant and their friends and family(/witnesses, character witness or whatever) would only be allowed to 1) provide statements to the police and 2) give evidence in court.
I just find all this 'behind the scenes' stuff with psychologists really disconcerting and I'm sure that this is not the way we would go about it here in the UK and that the only time a defendant would be obliged to give their version of what happened during a crime they committed would be to the police, and then directly to a court in front of a judge and a jury because anything else done behind the scenes could be open to misinterpretation. Obviously psychologists may be involved at some stage, but I don't believe that a defendant would ever have to explain their version of involvement in a crime to them, not in this country they wouldn't .. I think that they would have the right to remain silent in any such situation (I think they even have that right when being questionned by police, in case anything they say is misconstrued? I can't remember if this is still the case or not .. I know it used to be)
~respectfully snipped~
I don't know if it's just that I live in the UK, but I just find all this really weird that what seems to be happening is that a large part of OP's trial is now going to be carried out via a panel of psychologists .. they are consulting with member's of OP's family, his friends, possible even his ex friends now .. and then even questionning OP about the night in question in order to diagnose what type of mental illness he has.
I'm almost certain that this would not be allowed in the UK and that a defendant and their friends and family(/witnesses, character witness or whatever) would only be allowed to 1) provide statements to the police and 2) give evidence in court.
I just find all this 'behind the scenes' stuff with psychologists really disconcerting and I'm sure that this is not the way we would go about it here in the UK and that the only time a defendant would be obliged to give their version of what happened during a crime they committed would be to the police, and then directly to a court in front of a judge and a jury because anything else done behind the scenes could be open to misinterpretation. Obviously psychologists may be involved at some stage, but I don't believe that a defendant would ever have to explain their version of involvement in a crime to them, not in this country they wouldn't .. I think that they would have the right to remain silent in any such situation (I think they even have that right when being questionned by police, in case anything they say is misconstrued? I can't remember if this is still the case or not .. I know it used to be)
So legal minds are saying it's extreme that Nel wants Pistorius to be examined on an inpatient basis? That seems strange since one SA psychiatrist was saying she'd never heard of this type of investigation being done on an outpatient basis and someone on the previous thread linked to a comment from the psych hospital that this particular type of court-ordered evaluation had never been done as out-patient there before. If I got all that right then wanting him to be an outpatient would be the extreme position.Thanks CCC. I'm about to go for a run - procrastinating cos it's dark and rainy - but I agree that there prob already has been a psych assessment that the DT organised but didn't like. To me it seemed like a big feature of his defence was to be his emotional "vulnerability" resulting from his disability - so why was there only a psych assessment a few weeks ago (and when things weren't going well)?
I'll be surprised if he's found to suffer from a form of mental illness that's so severe that he can't be held "criminally responsible" but I wouldn't be surprised if his evasiveness, narcissistic traits etc are noted.
Nel's request for inpatient assessment seemed to cause a lot of consternation and although appropriate many legal minds found it "extreme". I'm seriously wondering if there's a "mole" in the DT who disclosed how damaging the findings in any previous report could be. Nel's already known a few secrets like the sound test tampering.
And here's Kelly, spinning like a top. It's interesting that the accompanying article only states this development is a possible blow for Pistorius because it will extend his trial.
Next time CTC is on here I'd be interested in their thoughts as to why Phelps, a senior law lecturer, seems so reluctant to acknowledge or discuss any flaws in the defence strategies or testimonies. Bear in mind this is a woman who thought Roger Dixon was a good witness for the defence. My theory is two-fold: a) there's a bit of the 'Pistorian' in her and b) it's CNN's editorial policy. With the latter I think the logic is a heartbroken broken-down hero who mistakenly shoots his beautiful model girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder is a much more palatable story to try and sell when compared to an angry over-entitled jerk who shoots his beautiful model girlfriend dead in a fit of rage. Who's going to care much at all about such a person and what happens to them.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/14/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-what-next/?hpt=wo_c2
So legal minds are saying it's extreme that Nel wants Pistorius to be examined on an inpatient basis? That seems strange since one SA psychiatrist was saying she'd never heard of this type of investigation being done on an outpatient basis and someone on the previous thread linked to a comment from the psych hospital that this particular type of court-ordered evaluation had never been done as out-patient there before. If I got all that right then wanting him to be an outpatient would be the extreme position.
