Trial Discussion Thread #37 - 14.05.12 Day 30

[BritsKate]

BritsKate, how do you think judges in general accept psychiatric testimony?

It's a soft science and experts are very often diametrically opposed. As such, in general, I think it's accepted and considered but weight is limited, depending on whether the judge feels experts simply cancel each other out or if one gives stronger testimony.

Specifically, this is a good witness for the defence - she's intelligent, articulate, and her diagnosis fits with what the defence has put forward. I think the panel will consider her testimony in their deliberations IF they don't find he intentionally killed Reeva or an intruder. (It will likely be considered for reasonable person test/the putative private defence claim.) But, there's still cross and the State will very likely rebut with their own expert. That could very well change how I think the panel will interpret or weigh her testimony.

JMO

 

[zwiebel]

N: The way I read this, you've diagnosed a mental illness

V: I've diagnosed an anxiety disorder...it's not mental illness under the criminal procedure act....

 

[ColonelMustard]

I'll tell you who I think is one of the strongest, most amazing members of the PT is the woman who sits to Nel's left. She knows exactly where he is, where is going, what he needs, and what he's thinking - even before he does!

I've been watching her all during the trial and am so impressed.

 

[zwiebel]

OP has a cold maybe....just blew his nose very hard...

 

[Suthrnqt]

I think my dog must have his own disorder. He feels compelled to close all open shopping bags, and make groups of people all walk together, whether they know each other or not.

In bars or restaurants, he always heads for the table with the nearest blonde lady and pretends he doesn't know me and is a poor lost dog.

ETA: Yes, I know it's shocking, but dogs are allowed in many eating establishments here!

I remember dogs being a staple in restaurants when I was stationed in Germany.

ETA: No, no, no..... dogs were not on the menu, but rather by their masters feet. :floorlaugh:

 

[BritsKate]

Is the States psych expert there in court does anyone know?

RBBM

Oh yes.

 

[jay-jay]

Are you feeling anxious?

:floorlaugh:

 

[KarenUK]

I know of men who act the same way after they've battered their girlfriends/wives to within an inch of her life.
I too believe that OP's initial crying, retching and distress were genuine, I just don't think they are still.

If he doesn't got locked up in prison for the safety of others then he should surely spend a long time locked away in a psychiatric hospital.

:goodpost: The thanks button isn't enough for the bolded sentence - my Ex was exactly the same, but so many of OPs defenders insist that his emotional responses mean he couldn't possibly have intentionally killed her. OPs behaviour (and temper) remind me so much of him, probably whey I have had such a strong interest in this case

 

[Interested Bystander]

Great to hear someone who is up to speed.

 

[Suthrnqt]

If he cut ties with his dad many moons ago, then the ammo in the safe is likely not his dad's???

Good catch, Gryff.

 

[Trooper]

Nel.. the fact that you have diagnosed anxiety disorder? does it affect his knowledge of right and wrong>??

Vos. no. I am not saying that. no no. not that.


Nel. then I don't understand why you are bringing it up in this context. are you saying is he had diminished responsibility??

Vos. whagt I am saying is, the court should take into account his diminished capabilities, it is not for me to say.

Vos. what I am really saying, is whagt makes Mr P different to other offenders? ?he has a disability and an anxiety disorder so his reaction will be diferent. this doesn't constitute mental illness.

Nel. why are we hearing this evidence for then? if it isn't mental illness.. I am just asking you. . you don't know?? let us just deal with it like this. if you say there is a possibility that he has a diminished responsibility . he has to be referred to a mental observational regime section 22.

Vos whagt I am saying is his reactions would be different.. they are not the reactions of a normal able bodied person..

Nel. taking that into account, his physical disability, his disorder..

Vos. its for the court to take it under consideration.

Nel.., section 78 2.. if it is allegeded that by mental illness, the person isn't responsible.. or if it appears to the court there MIGHT be such a reason, the court SHALL direct a mental observation regime. you have diagnosed a mental disorder?

Vos. I would not consider it a mental illness , in the criminal procedure process.. whT I am trying to say, is his general anxiety disorder handicaps him. he isn't deluded about people entering his house ,in that sense. rather than it being a mental illness, as opposed to a phsyciatric disorder.

Nel. it is included in the dsmm5??

Vos, yes. but it isn't mental illness..

Nel. if the court is under the impression that he MIGHT suffer under a mental illness, the court is obliged to forthwith have a mental observation process.. ?

Vos.well. well. if it were severe, that one would start becoming paranoid about individuals or threats, to believe there were threats when there were not any, yes, that's a mental ill. but its not uncommon, this general anxiety. its affects a lot of people, it doesn't imply one has lost touch with reality , or right or wrong.

Nel. you were called by the defence, and you linked this anxiety disorder to this incident.. then it become a matter of referral for mental observation.

Roux. no. it must be linked to mental disorder.

aha. bit of argy bargy ,roux , nel and voster..

she doesn't belive an anxiety disorder limits the capacity to distinguish right or wrong.. he doesn't have a lack of the perception of reality.

 

[zwiebel]

V says if the anxiety led to paranoia, it could be considered a mental illness.

N: You were called by defence and you LINKED this disorder to the offence....and then the court has no choice but to refer it...

Roux up, trying to prevent his client being sectioned by the court, thanks to his defence witness!

 

[sleuth-d-]

if he can tell right from wrong... let's carry on then...

 

[JudgeJudi]

OP is breathing quite heavily.

 

[zwiebel]

V: I would go further...what's more important is what happened in the incident...I'm bringing to the court's attention....

and she lost me. Seems to be trying to backtrack?

 

[fox1lady]

So if I am hearing this right his mother's behaviour made him anxious and then when she died that made him more anxious. He was damned if she did and damned if she didn't.

...it's all his mother's fault, nothing to do with OP {rolling eyes}

 

[Trooper]

Vorster, is merely bringing this before the court for consideration.

Nel. the features of this general disorder, as described.. his fear of crime, etc. is very specific to this crime. its really relevant, because that is his defence.. doesn't that make it more relevant that he comes under section 77??


nEL I am trying to see if we can learn from all this experience, first of all we have the diagnoses. the relevance of this diagnoses goes straight to the defence of the crime .. you see? the fact of the matter is, we are dealing with an act.. lady, mahy I take an adjournment?? I have only received this report and I must look up the sections of the criminal statute to ascertain their relevance,

court is adjourned for one hour.

 

[Giles]

This is fascinating.

 

[lithgow1]

http://whoopwhoop.tv/pistoriusradio.htm

they will talk about it during the break

 

[Val1]

Sounds like OP is opting for the looney bin instead of prison.