Trial Discussion Thread #37 - 14.05.12 Day 30

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting that the psych witness was brought on board so recently, interviewing OP May 2 and May 7, just days ago. I wonder if the defense had someone else lined up prior to this.
 
Viper said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is 30 days, not 3... Nel misspoke.

I think he is calling his bluff....
You want to pretend you have a mental problem, FINE - go to the mental institution, get prodded and poked and listen to the inmates howling at the moon and lets find out for real.

As Nel says to Roux - "this was your idea, you bought the shrink, now I need to test the evidence".

Roux however has one thing on his side - OP has admitted he knows right from wrong, the shrink says he does, he doesn't claim memory loss, he doesn't claim insanity as his defense, he doesn't claim have had a psychotic episode.
Nel is one step away from having him committed and I do not think he will succeed. Just my opinion.
 
Viper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zinn said:
Interesting that the psych witness was brought on board so recently, interviewing OP May 2 and May 7, just days ago. I wonder if the defense had someone else lined up prior to this.
Click to expand...

There were two days last week that ended before lunch because Roux ruefully told the judge he'd expected Nel to ask his witnesses more questions and his next witness wasn't available. Trial was also delayed mid morning while a Roux neighbor witness was fetched from home. Then there was the bizarre social worker witness who had contacted Roux several days before with the vital info that she didn't think OP was faking his tears. Finally, Wollie, an actual expert showed up, but did more harm than good for OP imo. And Roux seems to be ending his case with someone he brought on board a week ago. I hope OP has spent money out the wazoo for this.
 
04009margaret said:
The major link is depression. I suffer from both, my anxiety triggers panic attacks. I DON'T try to control my environment, I'm not arrogant & I don't have an ego. I don't go gallivanting around, if anything I withdraw from the company of others. If I was talented enough to compete in a competitive sporting environment, I would never be able to compete because the effect of the competitive environment would make my anxiety uncontrollable. I call BS to this testimony from first hand experience. He may have anxiety now because of the experience he has experienced because of his actions but not prior to that.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting. I just heard the same thing on the radio where a clinical psychologist said he found it more than a little odd that OP could compete in the Olympics and not suffer from anxiety but now he has it. He didn't buy it all.

Keep well.
 
Judgejudi said:
That's very interesting. I just heard the same thing on the radio where a clinical psychologist said he found it more than a little odd that OP could compete in the Olympics and not suffer from anxiety but now he has it. He didn't buy it all.

Keep well.
Click to expand...

And I have just listened to Prof of Psych say exactly the opposite. That Anxiety can be a driver to success. The fear of failure pushes him further on the track.

Just shows you what a guess so much of this all is.

Reeva remains dead behind the locked door...
 
Surely whether or not a referral for assessment is made it is now up to the court to decide, depending on the witness' confirmation re OP being, (potentially at least, dangerous), not the PT or DT.

Or is it OK whatever the witness says as long as both sides agree on action/no action? Bearing in mind that the witness, as a psychiatrist, is also an appropriately qualified person.

Interesting that the judge did not seem overly concerned either way today and was willing to adjourn. I'm wondering if she will need to make some comment re the court's position tomorrow, not just about a possible referral, but about OP's bail.

I will be 'gobsmacked' if nothing happens.
 
I usually get up to watch the trial, which is at 0330 here in Canada, but my daughter was up most of the night with a stomach flu. She finally went to sleep just before 3am and I decided to lie on the couch for 30 minutes. Nope, just woke up about and hour ago. What a day to miss. Thanks for this board. And Youtube.
 
JimCricket said:
It is 30 days, not 3... Nel misspoke.

I think he is calling his bluff....
You want to pretend you have a mental problem, FINE - go to the mental institution, get prodded and poked and listen to the inmates howling at the moon and lets find out for real.

As Nel says to Roux - "this was your idea, you bought the shrink, now I need to test the evidence".

Roux however has one thing on his side - OP has admitted he knows right from wrong, the shrink says he does, he doesn't claim memory loss, he doesn't claim insanity as his defense, he doesn't claim have had a psychotic episode.
Nel is one step away from having him committed and I do not think he will succeed. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that Mr. Nel misspoke. I am in the USA and am not familiar with the requirements in SA to hold a person that represents a danger to themselves or others. But in the USA a psychiatrist has an obligation to have such a person held for up to 72 hours for observation. It seems that the same is true in SA for an accused to be held for 72 hours to test whether or not he truly has a mental illness that could affect his culpability during his trial. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post a link that explains that it is 30 days in SA.

Mr. Nel and Roux had a very long and contentious argument about this, and it was not just them arguing, they were both using the Law. Didn't you see the reference books that they each had and were quoting from exhaustively? When two lawyers do that one of them, Mr. Nel, means business! In the article that Mr. Nel was using was the word "shall." The court shall. That means that Judge Masipa has no other option than to Order OP to be evaluated, for 72 hours.
 
james83 said:
Oscar's going to end up sharing a room with Dewani at this rate.
Click to expand...

Each would try to outdo the other over who's doing a better job fooling everybody that they're innocence.

"Hey, guys, newsflash. NEITHER of you!"
 
Nausicaa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi Nausicaa!

Regarding the BIB... Nel threw down the gauntlet on this. He told the court that if roux needed to redirect before Nel could submit the application, fine, and he turned the witness over to roux. Masipa stepped in and asked Nel to reconsider, which he did. But by releasing the psychiatrist to roux Nel was saying that's it, finish up with her so that I can get my application submitted to the Court. Nel did not want, and I believe does not expect, the psychiatrist to change her testimony. Respectfully, only OP does that.
 
Viper said:
I do not believe that Mr. Nel misspoke. I am in the USA and am not familiar with the requirements in SA to hold a person that represents a danger to themselves or others. But in the USA a psychiatrist has an obligation to have such a person held for up to 72 hours for observation. It seems that the same is true in SA for an accused to be held for 72 hours to test whether or not he truly has a mental illness that could affect his culpability during his trial. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post a link that explains that it is 30 days in SA.

Mr. Nel and Roux had a very long and contentious argument about this, and it was not just them arguing, they were both using the Law. Didn't you see the reference books that they each had and were quoting from exhaustively? When two lawyers do that one of them, Mr. Nel, means business! In the article that Mr. Nel was using was the word "shall." The court shall. That means that Judge Masipa has no other option than to Order OP to be evaluated, for 72 hours.
Click to expand...
Hey Viper, I thought it was 3 days too, but just saw this.

"In an unexpected twist, state prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the court he would consider filing an application for the athlete to be referred for 30 days of psychiatric evaluation at a state mental hospital in South Africa".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ng-athlete-for-mental-evaluation-9356618.html

But it also says: "If approved, Pistorius could spend up to 30 days in observation at a mental health institution".
 
Whoop just stated up to 30 days. 3 days is likely the minimum requirement for observation. Usually, it's a mandatory 72 hour hold if a person is assessed to be a danger to themselves or others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 104 more.
Total: 4,426 (members: 105, guests: 4,321)

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
4,321
Total visitors
4,426
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,488
Messages
17,969,700
Members
228,788
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top