Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #521
R:...every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental illness until the contrary is proved...
 
  • #522
  • #523
He is going on about automocisim?? and I don't even know what the heck that is....
Automatism. Involuntary. Diminished Responsibility. The "I did it but can't be held accountable for doing it because I was a) crazy; b) sleepwalking; c) hopped up on (insert prescription med here) when I did it Defence".

Also called by some (drum roll please) the Twinkie defense. ;)
 
  • #524
No, she said she looked for paranoia and did not find it (paraphrasing)

I seem to recall her saying OP's security concern was the paranoid factor of his GAD, maybe she was talking about his mom ... or something to that effect. Iirc it was yesterday.
 
  • #525
hahahhahaaa. nel: we should not be emotional.
 
  • #526
Thank you for correct sp! You can spell it so you must know what it means too. Can you explain, pleeaase?

I'm not sure about my spelling either..... But it means he acted automatically without realising what he was doing. Like when he said "I didn't have time to think" and "the gun went off"
 
  • #527
Nel is back up. cool smooth suave, ..

we must remove emotion from this. he cites another case, one of his own , actually, he says modestly..
 
  • #528
Immediately after this, Roux will joining Dixie and Wollie for a few cold ones ... maybe a few hard ones, too -- DOUBLES!

I think I might be joining them!

:scared:
 
  • #529
Nel agrees with Roux about not being emotional. I love it.
 
  • #530
R:...the burden of proof shall be on the party who raises the issue. WE DO NOT RAISE IT.

Nel up, agreeing with one thing: 'We should not be emotional'.
 
  • #531
Roux just said 30 days of observation. Yesterday Nel said that he wanted a 3 day observation. Did Nel change his mind and request 30 days in his application today?

Not good, not good at all. I'm ready for closing arguments FFS!
 
  • #532
Hahahahaha..

Nel: " one thing i will agree with counsel, is we should not be emotional...and I agree."

Nel is so funny sometimes....
 
  • #533
and I lost that case, milady.. we mentioned the matter.. I stand by what I have quoted and it went back to the appeals court !..

this business of having 'another witness' is redundant. they could do this, and Roux says I can bring the application after that, but that isn't how its to work.
 
  • #534
Nel: "I agree with Mr. Roux that emotion has no place in this."

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. STAB ---- THEN ----- TWIST
 
  • #535
N: I in fact was arguing for the matter not to be referred - I lost......it's there for the court to read Milady....

Nel says Roux's 'I will call another witness' is 'May I now say it, unfortunate'....it's holding the court to ransom'.
 
  • #536
The Mahosi (forgive my spelling) case was actually Nel's!
 
  • #537
Roux just said 30 days of observation. Yesterday Nel said that he wanted a 3 day observation. Did Nel change his mind and request 30 days in his application today?

Not good, not good at all. I'm ready for closing arguments FFS!

I have posted a number of times in y'days thread - Nel misspoke on 3 days.
In SA it is 30 days!
 
  • #538
  • #539
Ah! OP is smiling, smirking at Mr. Nel. Smart a**.
 
  • #540
Why do they need ANOTHER psych witness??? More tailoring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
1,328
Total visitors
1,475

Forum statistics

Threads
632,404
Messages
18,626,012
Members
243,139
Latest member
LAHLAH11
Back
Top