Trial Discussion Thread #37 - 14.05.12 Day 30

[zoran]

BBC's Andrew Harding says from what he has heard it court, he thinks it's unlikely Judge will grant Nel's application.

Adds he thinks she will decide the matter tomorrow.

And that if granted, it can mean up to 30 days committal.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27371430

Speaking in court immediately after the adjournment, Oscar Pistorius told me the prosecution's application to refer him for further psychiatric evaluation was "a joke" and insisted that today's evidence from Dr Merryll Vorster had "gone well".


wow Im surprised that OP is actually commenting to the press. Cant help himself..

 

[Nausicaa]

bbm. like i said, nel has the defence between a rock and a hard place again. although even with the report torn up, you would think he would like to keep some of the comments that he drew out of this witness today... not so?

Oh yes. Vorster's firm insistence that OP had told her he deliberately shot the supposed intruder was worth its weight in gold to the prosecution especially as he must have said this subsequent to his own testimony when he utterly refused to concede anything of the sort to Nel despite being repeatedly pressed.

I think her "expert" witness status is worthless, but being an expert doesn't stop you from being a witness to facts too. Here she has told us that OP firmly contradicted his own insistence that he did not intend to shoot anyone. He is back to square one.

 

[Viper]

In the USA, the 30 day eval is for a NGRI defense and every defense attorney and defendant is A-okay with doing it..because if they get the psychiatrist to say the person is legally insane it is a pretty good possibility they will spend some time in psych but not go to jail. Of course the patient/defendant can go back to the jail that he came from if he chooses. Never seen one who wanted to do that. Our hospital was pretty swanky compared to the jail. Again, the people ordered for 30 day eval were so ordered by a judge to the benefit of the person accused of serious crime (usually murder); they didn't snatch people off the streets and do a 30 day eval so the "holding someone against their will" issue does not apply. They are free to go back to jail and accept the consequences anytime.

Was that a county hospital? The one county hospital prison ward that I visited had fencing behind the entry door, a guarded Sally Port, and all of the prisoners were shackled to the metal bed frame. I'll never forget the first time I walked in to it, they had the one TV tuned to the show Cops and the song "Bad boys whatch gonna do" was playing! LOL!!!

Thanks for sharing that information. But at your facility they were all previously awaiting trial in confinement at a jail it seems, CMIIW. OP will be in for quite a shock if he is stuck in a hospital prison ward. Is that where you are saying that he is going, a prison ward? That's worse than what I initially envisioned. I don't know why I envisioned him going to just the normal psychiatric unit.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I do not agree with you. Nel would not waste his time on this if it were not an obligation, and exactly what he wanted to see happen. In addition, Nel specifically requested that a 3 day confinement for psychiatric evaluation be Ordered, before the trial should resume.

My concern here is that if the psychiatrist who does assess him happens to think he does have a real problem OP will get off scott-free. That would be an abomination. I am not sure he would even have to spend time inside a psychiatric unit, maybe external supervision and treatment. Someone please tell me I am wrong.

 

[Fuskier]

I read it as presenting the defence with a binary choice: either

1. OP is fully responsible for his actions, or
2. OP has a psychiatric condition that makes him not fully responsible for his actions.

<respectfully snipped>

The crucial point is that you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't be a poor plaything of circumstances when you're killing people but a suitable person to be at large and to own firearms the rest of the time.

Absolutely agreed. Nel is doing what is ethically required all round IMO.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

A fascinating day today. Not least for the revelation that Merryll Vorster only examined Pistorius earlier this month, after his histrionics on the stand. Given that she also contradicted the Bail Application by stating someone with a disorder that owned a Gun would be a danger to the public, and you can see that Nel is actually using the defence witnesses against Pistorius.

Add that to Wolmarans & Dixon submitting new evidence as fact after the start of the trial and how they managed to contradict each other, it is clear to see what is happening here.

Nel is dismantling the defence piece by piece. He made a great start with Pistorius on the stand, managing to get him to change his defence. Now, he is making the defence team look rather incompetent and disorganised, with their last minute witnesses & attempts to put pressure on the State.

The Psychiatric Assessment is a very clever move by Nel and Roux should have seen it coming. He will obviously object - because he knows full well that OP is likely be cleared as sane, otherwise they would have used this excuse themselves. Nel is removing this as a fall back position for them and it proves he knew what he was doing. What makes this a very cute move, is even if OP is classed as not fit for trial, it will not matter because they State will be able to argue that there is no way of knowing if he was when it started. (i.e. Vorsters assertion that his condition is deteriorating actually being used to back up the claim of the defence team tailoring their responses.)

I actually think he will not go for assessment. Deep down, Roux must appreciate that if he does, they have nowhere left to go and any outcome will reflect badly.

 

[zwiebel]

Gosh, we can't take ours anywhere in Oz. Only on beaches very, very early in the morning or late afternoon, never in shops, department stores, restaurants, buses, trains, taxis, the majority of parks. The list is endless, and this is supposed to be a dog-loving country!!! The only exceptions are seeing eye dogs. I don't understand it at all.

That's sad. The UK is getting more and more like that too. I couldn't believe the general welcome in Germany, and kept sending hubby in ahead, to check it was okay - kept getting suspicious German owners asking if we had some kind of attack dog or something....

He's actually small, a bit fat, and more than a bit old. He did go for something in a bar once though; it was in France, and they'd stuck a real stuffed boar's head on the wall. That led directly to the time he invaded a French art gallery (to the delight of the artist) to selflessly save her from another dangerous boar. Which was her own artwork, carved from a lump of wood...

 

[lithgow1]

Kelly Phelps admits she's never seen the state's tactic done before. That's all she says but at least they've acknowledged the story.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/12/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial/?hpt=hp_t3

 

[Hatfield]

I read it as presenting the defence with a binary choice: either

1. OP is fully responsible for his actions, or
2. OP has a psychiatric condition that makes him not fully responsible for his actions.

From there, if the Defence choose 1., Vorster's report is totally irrelevant, and if they choose 2., his bail is cancelled and off he goes for assessment.

I don't think Nel is determined to get Choice 2 through. On the contrary, I think he would prefer them to avoid Choice 2 by getting Vorster to backtrack and admit that he has no diminished responsibility.

The crucial point is that you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't be a poor plaything of circumstances when you're killing people but a suitable person to be at large and to own firearms the rest of the time.

Good Post.

The problem with the Defense Team is they have no clear defense. They are just throwing out a whole bunch of witnesses and trying to confuse everyone on purpose.

Their whole approach to defending OP is "Babble them with BS".

And the sad part is it is working to some extent. Here we are now going in a whole other direction because of why? Because the defense team is just throwing up witnesses with no clear direction of their defense.

The big question for the defense team is .....What is your defense for why OP should not go to jail for killing Reeva?

Their answer: "Babble them with BS and hope for the best"

 

[G.bng]

I have to point out: Last but one person whose phone went off in court, was sent out in disgrace by Judge M. Nel managed to escape with a smile and wry reminder....

Loved that bit. Very sweet she can be, especially telling him not to promise never to do it again as he surely will.

 

[jay-jay]

My concern here is that if the psychiatrist who does assess him happens to think he does have a real problem OP will get off scott-free. That would be an abomination. I am not sure he would even have to spend time inside a psychiatric unit, maybe external supervision and treatment. Someone please tell me I am wrong.

I dearly hope you are wrong, too ! :scared: I'm banking on Nel to know what he is doing and I doubt he would've risked it if it meant that would be the end result .. I hope!

 

[soozieqtips]

She also said OP was hyper vigilant about security. I take that to mean he had a constant awareness of anything that might cause him harm? Intruders, etc? If that's so, how does that remotely fit in with him being relaxed enough to sleep with his balcony doors open? You're at your most vulnerable when you're asleep, so the fact he was able to snooze without worrying about anyone entering through those doors directly contradicts his alleged paranoia and fear. And he could have regularly slept with them open. Other residents had their doors and windows open that night, so it looks as if OP had the same 'fears' as anyone else on the estate, ie, none.

 

[jay-jay]

The Psychiatric Assessment is a very clever move by Nel and Roux should have seen it coming. He will obviously object - because he knows full well that OP is likely be cleared as sane, otherwise they would have used this excuse themselves. Nel is removing this as a fall back position for them and it proves he knew what he was doing. What makes this a very cute move, is even if OP is classed as not fit for trial, it will not matter because they State will be able to argue that there is no way of knowing if he was when it started. (i.e. Vorsters assertion that his condition is deteriorating actually being used to back up the claim of the defence team tailoring their responses.)

I actually think he will not go for assessment. Deep down, Roux must appreciate that if he does, they have nowhere left to go and any outcome will reflect badly.

~snipped~ BBM ... phew!

 

[zwiebel]

Speaking in court immediately after the adjournment, Oscar Pistorius told me the prosecution's application to refer him for further psychiatric evaluation was "a joke" and insisted that today's evidence from Dr Merryll Vorster had "gone well".


wow Im surprised that OP is actually commenting to the press. Cant help himself..

I think this is an indication Roux and the team are not in full control of their client, and have no hope of being. And another legal team would likely have the same problem.

It demonstrates to me that OP's seeming compliance and acquiescance in court is not the whole picture....

 

[Viper]

My concern here is that if the psychiatrist who does assess him happens to think he does have a real problem OP will get off scott-free. That would be an abomination. I am not sure he would even have to spend time inside a psychiatric unit, maybe external supervision and treatment. Someone please tell me I am wrong.

BIB. You're wrong. :smile:

OP has "a snowball's chance in h*ll" of walking away from this. Don't worry.

 

[soozieqtips]

That's sad. The UK is getting more and more like that too. I couldn't believe the general welcome in Germany, and kept sending hubby in ahead, to check it was okay - kept getting suspicious German owners asking if we had some kind of attack dog or something....

He's actually small, a bit fat, and more than a bit old. He did go for something in a bar once though; it was in France, and they'd stuck a real stuffed boar's head on the wall. That led directly to the time he invaded a French art gallery (to the delight of the artist) to selflessly save her from another dangerous boar. Which was her own artwork, carved from a lump of wood...

BIB - LOL zwiebel!!! I read that description as being about your hubby, and I thought, awwww, poor hubby :floorlaugh:

 

[Interested Bystander]

I dearly hope you are wrong, too ! :scared: I'm banking on Nel to know what he is doing and I doubt he would've risked it if it meant that would be the end result .. I hope!

This is the sort of situation where I worry that it is who you know that makes a difference.

 

[zoran]

I dearly hope you are wrong, too ! :scared: I'm banking on Nel to know what he is doing and I doubt he would've risked it if it meant that would be the end result .. I hope!

If it were remotely possible, DT would jump at it and not fight it.

 

[BritsKate]

My concern here is that if the psychiatrist who does assess him happens to think he does have a real problem OP will get off scott-free. That would be an abomination. I am not sure he would even have to spend time inside a psychiatric unit, maybe external supervision and treatment. Someone please tell me I am wrong.

I've never seen this firsthand midtrial but it's my understanding if charges were dismissed (and they would be; a mistrial would have to be declared) the State simply refiles charges and Oscar is retried when he's found competent to stand trial.

I really don't think it will come to that, but by no means does he get off entirely - it is nowhere even near an acquittal. More like hitting the pause button.

HTH

 

[patCee]

I really don't think Nel had any real choice. Asking the witness if believed OP is dangerous supports the state's case. Once the witness agreed and said his GAD is worsening and that he could be dangerous if he had access to a gun, Nel had to act on that whether it supported the state's case or not. JMO

In any court there must be some responsibility for public safety if there's information of risk to this, not unlike the paramount principle for a child's safety? I hope...

The witness was clear, precise, easy to follow and was clearly not intending to compromise her own professional integrity.