Re: Oscar Pistorius

by aiyoyo 10.05.14 10:55

tiny wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Oscar PIstorius's housekeeper allegedly was living in the property on day of incident but not called as witness as he heard nothing, seen nothing, how strange is that ?

A dumb, deaf, and blind as housekeeper !

I think this is a case of ,he know which side of his bread is buttered

Compelled to say nothing by his boss, yes, that's expected.
Regardless, he's obliged to answer cross examination if he were put on the stand, but he was not called by either side.

Personally I don't believe he was at the scene or the first responders on the scene would have noticed. I suspect it was just a fabricated story by the Defence to support their case Reeva wasn't screaming.
He can't have slept through the commotion of OP continual screaming and wailing, Police siren etc.

by Angelique 12.05.14 11:20

Looks like Pistorius may be going for diminished responsibility - Nel takes a break from questioning psychiatrist Voster because of diagnosing general anxiety condition which usually means referral for observation.

by **PeterMac** 12.05.14 16:15

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
and then the next few entries - mercifully short and to the point -
is especially good on this at the moment.

by Angelique 12.05.14 23:43

PeterMac

Thank you for the link to lazzerie-lies-in-the-sun - this psychiatrist it's certainly causing an extraordinary amount of trouble for the Defence.

When I caught the trial this morning I couldn't work out the why and the wherefore. Late evidence, Roux surely should know that you let loose a psychiatrist at your peril in Court. But then I thought - was this going to change the plea and if so as Gerrie said, why now. Looks a bit snidy to me. But as has transpired - it backfired!

by aiyoyo 13.05.14 7:48

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Possible consequence for OP if Judge approves Mental Observation application.

by aiyoyo 13.05.14 8:49

Angelique wrote:Looks like Pistorius may be going for diminished responsibility - Nel takes a break from questioning psychiatrist Voster because of diagnosing general anxiety condition which usually means referral for observation.

Nope, it was not Defense intention to go for Diminished Responsibility when they brought in the Psychiatrist.
The Psychiatrist-witness said so - "that OP is not trying to mount a defense of sane autonomism (temporary insanity); that his defense is emotional autonomism".

OP will never admit to anything no matter what - he did not do anything wrong - his Generalised Anxiety Disorder is to be blamed for his action. He could't help it, he did not fire voluntarily, his GAD condition predisposes him and caused him to be irrational, that's his latest line of defense. No matter what he's looking for something to blame.

A psychiatrist brought in at the 11th hour, who saw OP for the first time earlier this month after a lot of water had gone under the Bridge, suggests a last desperate attempt by OP to use this as excuse to influence Court but it backfired spectacularly when NEL turned it on its head saying that's a third defence - that of "Diminished Responsibility".

I did not understand Roux's objection at first as it is usually Defense's onus to prove Diminished Responsibility, then it dawned on me they did not want to go down that route when Roux argued GAD is not to be confused with mental illness or mental defect and therefore does not justify the invoking of mental health observation.

In other words NEL called their bluff, and OP is now stuck nicely between a mental institution and jail; either one or the other, or a bit of both.

Expect Roux to do all he can to get out of that today. Let's see whether NEL (or the Judge) let him off this hook.

I can't fault the psychiatrist, she was very professional, clear concise and honest.

by Angelique 13.05.14 12:12

aiyoyo

Agreed. It was only what it looked like at first to me. But Nel has referred to three Defence now.

Roux is genuinely hot under the collar trying to back- track from the diagnosis of Vorster. Trouble is Court procedure will kick in I think. He threw the evidence in and also expects Nel not to sit up and react? He would damage his career if he ignored this diagnosis! But it seems one witness is not enough for Roux he holds the Court to ransom by his objection as he intends to bring another witness to Court on the "flight or fight response" and the vulnerability linked to disability? So wants to stay the Courts hand until after this witness - it's too early to bring this application according to Roux?

So why did Pistorius get the licence in the first place to own a gun?

As you say Pistorius will blame anything rather than yours truly!

I don't think Pistorius likes Nel much - when Nel got up to respond to Roux he turned his whole body towards Nel with a smirk on his face - just like someone else we know!

by Angelique 13.05.14 12:15

aiyoyo

Sorry could not quote your comment but on iPad and it won't let me do quotes.

Judge will give her decision on application for referral tomorrow.

by aiyoyo 13.05.14 15:29

Angelique wrote:aiyoyo

Agreed. It was only what it looked like at first to me. But Nel has referred to three Defence now.

Roux is genuinely hot under the collar trying to back- track from the diagnosis of Vorster. Trouble is Court procedure will kick in I think. He threw the evidence in and also expects Nel not to sit up and react? He would damage his career if he ignored this diagnosis! But it seems one witness is not enough for Roux he holds the Court to ransom by his objection as he intends to bring another witness to Court on the "flight or fight response" and the vulnerability linked to disability? So wants to stay the Courts hand until after this witness - it's too early to bring this application according to Roux?

So why did Pistorius get the licence in the first place to own a gun?

As you say Pistorius will blame anything rather than yours truly!

I don't think Pistorius likes Nel much - when Nel got up to respond to Roux he turned his whole body towards Nel with a smirk on his face - just like someone else we know!

Nel knows OP is not a mental case. He knows Defense used a change in line of defense and he's trying to pre-empt that being use for appeal.
If OP was not referred now, this could be used for appeal should there be a change in defense counsel as can happen.

OP wants to have his cake and eat it. You can't be GAD, knowing that, and collect guns.
If he's a mental disorder he would not be able to become who he is ie a professional athlete, because he would have been assessed yearly that he is fit for competitions at international level.
If his disorder does not prevent him from social and professional life it should not affect his judgement ability in other areas, can't use GAD to suit his convenient.

Roux is indeed hot under the collar and trying to back peddle but maybe too late. He opens this avenue for Nel to go down this route, so it's beyond his control now.

by Angelique 13.05.14 17:51

aiyoyo

You wrote

"Roux is indeed hot under the collar and trying to back peddle but maybe too late. He opens this avenue for Nel to go down this route, so it's beyond his control now."

I agree totally but what I don't understand if as you say Roux is back peddling which confirms he has made a big mistake then why is he bringing this other witness along to give evidence regarding flight or fight? It makes no sense.

by comperedna 13.05.14 19:12

People with GAD are apt to run away from what terrifies them and loads of things do... not just intruders... and anyway he ran TOWARDS them waving his gun about.

by aiyoyo 13.05.14 19:45

Angelique wrote:aiyoyo

You wrote

"Roux is indeed hot under the collar and trying to back peddle but maybe too late. He opens this avenue for Nel to go down this route, so it's beyond his control now."

I agree totally but what I don't understand if as you say Roux is back peddling which confirms he has made a big mistake then why is he bringing this other witness along to give evidence regarding flight or fight? It makes no sense.

We don't know yet who this 'fight or flight' expert is going to be. Very likely another mental or psychological health specialist - a psychologist this time (one of the four whose cases reports were given to the psychiatrist) I should think.
Maybe Roux hopes this expert will come to his rescue; relying on next witness to reinforce Psychiatrist's view that OP does not need a referral.

It's funny how the psychiatrist changed her mind.
Yesterday she said there is no harm in a referral, always good to have a second opinion.
Today she u-turned saying referral is not necessary, his condition does not rendered him incapable of standing trial.

I think I read somewhere, can't remember where, might be the BBC report that the Judge is unlikely to grant the approval.We shall see.
Whether she grants it or not Nel still has a strong case. He has argued that the timing of use of psychiatrist is suspect and not objective for purpose. Thus, from an objective viewpoint the Judge must disregard psychiatrist-witness evidence especially if she refused the referral.

by Angelique 14.05.14 9:29

aiyoyo

The Judge was agreed but it will be handed down next Tuesday - but with a hope that he can be treated as an out patient so as not to punish him twice?

He was stood up in the Court I presume whilst her verdict was given, I only caught the end summation, and appeared to effect frailty, wobbling etc.

It was as Nel said introduced late and has had a disastrous effect. What on earth was Roux thinking - he's opened the door to this it must have been as suggested by Nel very suspicious and I agree. It's almost like a desperate last shot?

Poor Pistorius Sad

ETA I did suggest on lazzerie site that it may be that Roux was thinking better a Medical Institute rather than Penal? But from what I understand they are pretty awful places anyway!

by Angelique 14.05.14 9:39

comperedna

Yes I agree the fact that he possibly has this disorder plus a disability one would think he would run away and take cover. But being brought up to stand up for himself could have the opposite effect, simply because he has a gun. His Mother taught him to think of himself as normal - which in itself is conflicting because his eyes tell him differently. So his mind must be dealing with this conflict all the time so it's possible he could have other problems that affect his response.

In Reeva's email/text she said she was frightened of him sometimes because of his reaction to something she did or said so we have an example of how he responds.

by aiyoyo 14.05.14 10:29

Judge's decision is out. She approves the mental evaluation.

OP looks seriously solemn today, the most solemn I've ever seen of him thus far.

IMO, his case did go well hence his anxiety condition - probably not a clinically serious one, but one more in line with a control freak - used as tactic to sway advantage for his defence is taken to the next level all because Defence misbelieved they can get away with it and misplayed their hands at damage control (or as fall-back as Nel posited), and thus that opens up the playing field for opposite side to do the same ie employ tactics. It is game-on time, only one side lawyer will emerge as more brilliant.

His condition can't be that serious since he was able to function daily on a very high level going by his achievements and celebrity status. He was well able to cope with the stress of trainings, competitions, and media exposure that comes with being famous, now suddenly all the glory merited to him for overcoming his disability that made him a national hero is coming under the spotlight by virtue of the law played out by lawyers.

It is quite bizzare really how this has taken a twist. Who'd have thought it will come to this ?

Usually "diminished responsibility" is Defence's defence from the outset, which then onus is on Defence to prove that, or it is introduced at appeal to improve chance of success. OP's defence was stated as Putative Self-Defence, so you have to wonder whose idea (OP or Roux) it was to introduce the stunt at this late stage and not expect to be challenged.
It's evident they did not foresee it will come to this which means either Roux was careless (if idea was his) or OP is a difficult client that won't accept advice. Difficult client or shortsighted lawyers is anyone's guess.

This reminds us of the infamous couple and their vertical-challenged lawyer with their under handed tactics that backfired.

by aiyoyo 14.05.14 10:56

Angelique wrote:aiyoyo

The Judge was agreed but it will be handed down next Tuesday - but with a hope that he can be treated as an out patient so as not to punish him twice?

He was stood up in the Court I presume whilst her verdict was given, I only caught the end summation, and appeared to effect frailty, wobbling etc.

It was as Nel said introduced late and has had a disastrous effect. What on earth was Roux thinking - he's opened the door to this it must have been as suggested by Nel very suspicious and I agree. It's almost like a desperate last shot?

Poor Pistorius

ETA I did suggest on lazzerie site that it may be that Roux was thinking better a Medical Institute rather than Penal? But from what I understand they are pretty awful places anyway!

I must have typed as you posted so our posts crossed.
Whatever the Defence/OP was thinking it was a bad move, but IMO premature to say disastrous or not, as it may turn out to be blessing in disguise depending on outcome of tests.

The judge is emphatic in allowing him as outpatient if feasible, which might not be ideal to prosecutor's case in my view as being outpatient could render a different end result from that collected from an inpatient. Inpatient testings is more intense, as environment makes a hugh difference to how patient will react. As well as that, inpatient is not open to outside (as in family for example) influence during the testing process.

I feel sorry for him that this has gone full blown for him when clearly it was not intended that way.
But the law is the law, and it shows you that you don't mess with the law and expect it to go your way.
Who knows, maybe OP is secretly relieved that finally his condition will be attended to and acknowledged and he does not have to hide it anymore. After the psychiatrist's testimony was over OP did say to one journalist that the day went "well" for him, unless he was being sarcastic.

From what I read if he were to be diagnosed/certified as having a mental condition severe enough to incapacitate his ability to appreciate right from wrong and/or to render him a danger to society he could be institutionalised until the doctors deemed him fit to return to society and then he will still have to face the penal. It's to prevent people from forging a condition to escape the penal.

by aiyoyo 14.05.14 11:00

Angelique wrote:aiyoyo

The Judge was agreed but it will be handed down next Tuesday - but with a hope that he can be treated as an out patient so as not to punish him twice?

He was stood up in the Court I presume whilst her verdict was given, I only caught the end summation, and appeared to effect frailty, wobbling etc.

It was as Nel said introduced late and has had a disastrous effect. What on earth was Roux thinking - he's opened the door to this it must have been as suggested by Nel very suspicious and I agree. It's almost like a desperate last shot?

Poor Pistorius

ETA I did suggest on lazzerie site that it may be that Roux was thinking better a Medical Institute rather than Penal? But from what I understand they are pretty awful places anyway!

I must have typed as you posted so our posts crossed.
Whatever the Defence/OP was thinking it was a bad move, but IMO premature to say disastrous or not, as it may turn out to be blessing in disguise depending on outcome of tests. He might walk free from penal as a mentally impaired person is not committed to prison. Facing the Mental Institution may be preferable if one really needs the care and treatment.
Personally I don't believe it will come to that.

The judge is emphatic in allowing him as outpatient if feasible, which might not be ideal to prosecutor's case in my view as being outpatient could render a different end result from that collected from an inpatient. Inpatient testings is more intense, as environment makes a hugh difference to how patient will react. As well as that, inpatient is not open to outside (as in family for example) influence during the testing process.

I feel sorry for him that this has gone full blown for him when clearly it was not intended this way.
But the law is the law, and it shows you that you don't mess with the law and expect it to go your way.
Who knows, maybe OP is secretly relieved that finally his condition will be attended to and acknowledged and he does not have to hide it anymore. After the psychiatrist's testimony was over OP did say to one journalist that the day went "well" for him, unless he was being sarcastic.

From what I read if he were to be diagnosed/certified as having a mental condition severe enough to incapacitate his ability to appreciate right from wrong and/or to render him a danger to society he could be institutionalised until the doctors deemed him fit to return to society and then he will still have to face the penal. It's to prevent people from forging a condition to escape the penal.

by aiyoyo 14.05.14 11:48

CNN's legal analyst Kelly Phelps lays out three possible outcomes for the trial following the evaluation:

1) The psychiatric evaluation could show that Pistorius was not mentally capable of determining right from wrong. If this happens, she says a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness will be declared and Pistorius could be committed to a mental facility. This is the most extreme outcome

2) The evaluation could contradict Dr. Vorster's testimony - a win for the state. The persuasiveness of Dr. Vorster's testimony would be downgraded. The case will then proceed.

3) The evaluation could back Dr. Vorster's testimony - also a win for the defense. This could help bolster Pistorius' version of events as the one which should be believed. The case would then proceed.

by ultimaThule 14.05.14 17:26

From: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

WHAT IS THE 'HYPER-VIGILANCE' CONDITION? AN EXPERT EXPLAINS

Professor Craig Jackson, Head of Psychology at Birmingham City University, explained to MailOnline more about the condition that it's claimed Oscar Pistorius has.

"Hyper-vigilance is more of a behavioural symptom of wider psychological problems than an actual psychiatric condition in itself,' he said.

Hyper-vigilance is when an individual is in a chronic state of high anxiety and arousal and is constantly scanning their surroundings - the environment they are in, as well as friends and the people they encounter - for threats.

This is often as the result of suffering a traumatic or frightening experience. After a while this state becomes second nature to the fearful individual and begins to shape their routine behaviours - for example always checking behind closed doors when entering a room, or assessing new places for the nearest emergency exit.

Those who are hyper-vigilant are often easily startled, suffer from poor sleeping patterns, may have difficulty concentrating, and can be quite quarrelsome, spontaneous and irritable.

Hyper-vigilance is one of the symptoms required in order for psychiatrists to make a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) alongside other symptoms of intense fear such as avoidance, re-experience, flashbacks and intense arousal.

Not everyone who suffers traumatic events will go on to develop PTSD or hyper-vigilance, and there may be other underlying personality factors or past experiences that make it more likely to manifest in some rather than others, such as narcissism or high intelligence."

If OP has exhibited symptoms of hyper-vigilance at any time I would have thought that there would be a wealth of anecdotal evidence from friends/relatives and, more particularly, from his fellow competitors/colleagues in the athletic world which should have not only been put before the court but, more importantly, disclosed to the prosecution prior to the commencement of the trial.

I'm surprised the judge has ordered psychiatric evaluation at this late stage in the proceedings and trust that OP will be evaluated by pyschiatrists acting for both sides.

by Guest 15.05.14 23:01

I just read a very interesting article. Please delete if already posted.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... ternative/

Does trial by jury really produce justice? Pistorius trial highlights strengths of an alternative

Posted on May 15, 2014 by newsroom

The trial of South Africa’s Olympic and Paralympic runner, Oscar Pistorius over the death by shooting on 14th February 2013 of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, which he admits doing, is utterly compelling for many reasons.

Essentially, what has been so gripping is the calibre, of the contributions of two key courtroom participants – the judge and the state prosecutor, their intellectual and intuitive abilities and their primary focus on justice and the delivery of justice.

This is such that it has been possible to view in operation a legal system very different from our own and to understand how far it may be superior to ours in its foregrounding of the processes of professional justice.

We have the ’12 good men [or persons] and true’ system of trial by jury under the guidance of the judge presiding over the presentation of prosecution and defence.

Serious criminal cases in South Africa’s regional High Courts are heard by a single judge, sitting alone – but, where the judge determines necessary, sitting with the assistance of one or two assessors. These are highly qualified and experienced legal people, usually themselves advocates or retired magistrates, and often strongly academic.

Assessors put their names forward for membership of a pool; and, where a judge decides that the assistance of an assessor or assessors is helpful in a specific case, the judge appoints the assessors from the pool.

The judge and the assessor/s each pay attention to the detail of the case as it is presented in evidence-in-chief and in cross examination. Together they are unlikely to miss anything and in complex cases it it is more secure to have two or three concentrating on what is done and what emerges.

Each assessor will be an acknowledged expert in a particular field – for example, in the Pistorius case, the female assessor, Janet Henzen-du Toit, is an expert in criminal justice. The second assessor, Themba Mazibuko, is a young academic not long out of University and not known yet in the courts. He may well have been appointed assessor as part of the development of a talented potential law giver than for any particular specialism he will yet bring to the process and to the Judge.

The judge, with the assessors, reviews the court record and associated documents at the end of the presentation of evidence at a trial; and together they compile the court report and agree the verdict.

What has not been mentioned anywhere in this country in relation to the Pistorius trial is that the finding of an assessor at the end of this process is of equal value to the judge’s.

If both assessors support the judge’s finding, then that, of course, is the verdict. If one assessor concurs with the judge and one does not, the majority view will carry. But the same is the case in the event of both assessors concurring in a finding at variance with the judge’s.

This is a professional legal system at work, focused on the law, the interpretation of the law and on the nature and direction of evidence; unmoved by courtroom stunts and appeals to emotion . Judge and assessor have seen it all before and routinely set it aside.

There is a very sound reassurance here of the quality of justice and the pre-eminence of the search for justice in the procedure of the court. To err, we say, is human and there will be mistakes – but they will not be born of the lottery that a jury trial can be.

The Pistorius trial is presided over by Judge Thokozile Masipa, with Gerrie Neil as the State Attorney, Janet Henzen-du Toit and Themba Mazibuko as assessors. On occasion, judge or assessor may ask a question of a witness, for the clarification of a particular issue. In general, each is silent.

Judge Masipa’s performance has been impeccable in every respect – her powers of still concentration and recall are on the far side of unbelievable. At one point, during his objection to the recent state application for the referral of Oscar Pistorius for psychiatric observation, Judge Masipa interrupted Defence Attorney, Barry Roux. ‘But what about……?’ she asked. He didn’t immediately know what she was talking about – yet it was about evidence he had led in his case – and her comprehensive grasp of it exceeded his own.

Tiny, composed, focused, thoughtful, quiet – she never raises her voice but when she speaks the court falls silent, with the occasional edge in her tone effective beyond storms. Where she has an opinion to give or a ruling to express, her interrogation is panoramic and her reasoning lucid and unchallengeable.

When she gave, as she did yesterday, 14th May 2o14, her ruling on the state’s application for the referral of the accused, she quietly went through the issue, the questions raised in witness evidence, the governing points of legislation, legal guidance and precedents – and stressed the overriding imperative of the delivery of justice before granting the application which, as she pointed out, the defence had ‘strangely’ opposed.

It is noteworthy that the balance and wisdom of Judge Masipa’s ruling was afterwards recognised outside the court by Oscar Pistorius’s sternly upright and supportive uncle, Arnold Pistorius, speaking for the family.

The equally quick minds and unshowy intellectual brilliance of Judge Masipa and state prosecutor Gerrie Nel have, together, made this trial something of an object lesson in how justice may be pursued.

That our jury system is born of ancient custom and is very long lived ought not to enforce our weddedness to it. The Gauteng division High Court at Pretoria has nothing of the ‘smart alec’ about it but is delivering a thoughtful and rivetting scrutiny which is maintaining a steady equilibrium between human and legal values.

The handling of the Pistorius trial in Pretoria asks us why we in Britain continue to employ a legal system based on the rough justice of the parish pump culture – when the parish pump has not been part of any of our lives for a very long time?

by Guest 16.05.14 11:14

aiyoyo wrote:
CNN's legal analyst Kelly Phelps lays out three possible outcomes for the trial following the evaluation:

1) The psychiatric evaluation could show that Pistorius was not mentally capable of determining right from wrong. If this happens, she says a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness will be declared and Pistorius could be committed to a mental facility. This is the most extreme outcome

2) The evaluation could contradict Dr. Vorster's testimony - a win for the state. The persuasiveness of Dr. Vorster's testimony would be downgraded. The case will then proceed.

3) The evaluation could back Dr. Vorster's testimony - also a win for the defense. This could help bolster Pistorius' version of events as the one which should be believed. The case would then proceed.

The problem with point 3 is that Oscar has stated that he consciously shot through the door at what he thought was an intruder in self defence and to protect Reeva. He then changed his testimony to say that he doesn't remember pulling the trigger and that he didn't fire deliberately and Dr Vorster has testified that he told her that he wanted to shoot an intruder.

If the evaluation backs Dr Vorster, it doesn't help Oscar's defence because he can't now use Dr Vorster or his mental health as mitigating circumstances in an appeal.

by aiyoyo 16.05.14 13:46

Poe wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
CNN's legal analyst Kelly Phelps lays out three possible outcomes for the trial following the evaluation:

1) The psychiatric evaluation could show that Pistorius was not mentally capable of determining right from wrong. If this happens, she says a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness will be declared and Pistorius could be committed to a mental facility. This is the most extreme outcome

2) The evaluation could contradict Dr. Vorster's testimony - a win for the state. The persuasiveness of Dr. Vorster's testimony would be downgraded. The case will then proceed.

3) The evaluation could back Dr. Vorster's testimony - also a win for the defense. This could help bolster Pistorius' version of events as the one which should be believed. The case would then proceed.

The problem with point 3 is that Oscar has stated that he consciously shot through the door at what he thought was an intruder in self defence and to protect Reeva. He then changed his testimony to say that he doesn't remember pulling the trigger and that he didn't fire deliberately and Dr Vorster has testified that he told her that he wanted to shoot an intruder.

If the evaluation backs Dr Vorster, it doesn't help Oscar's defence because he can't now use Dr Vorster or his mental health as mitigating circumstances in an appeal.

Unfortunately it has progressed beyond that - beyond the control of prosecutor and defence to follow their set out path of argument. They will henceforth when trial resumes have to be guided by the results of the observation.

His past evolving defence - what he said in Court and what he said to Vorster - is temporary on back burner, its value undeterminable until the observation results is known.

It is reported the referral was criticised by another doctor ( state psychiatrist maybe) as a waste of time that won't aid prosecutor or defense's case, and that it deprives more needy patients of beds; that Dr Vorster had detailed in a comprehensive report about the diagnosis then further observation is just pointless time wasting.

Despite being a paid hack for Defence, Dr Vorster came across as professional. Her answers seemed constant and impartial regardless which side cross examined her.
I'm inclined to the view state psychiatrists will uphold Vorster's diagnosis. At the very least I think their findings is going to coincide with Dr. Vorster, in that he suffers GAD to a degree. The possibility crosses people's mind that it was not a pre-existing condition (as in he did not have it up to during the incident) but that he developed it from PTSD post incident. Again, because Vorster's conclusion was based on analysis of history/biography of his life, and not just version of his account - this part is just to determine criminal responsibility purpose (his version that is) - I believe her diagnosis is credible and will stand up to scrutiny.

Except this time around the severity needs to be quantified more specifically in terms of the degree and whether or how it affects his action/judgement and criminality responsibility when applied to the State's version.
If found that it was mild and won't impact state's version then the Defence has truly lost chance to use "Diminished Responsibility" at mitigation or appeal stage. If, however, found that it was a severe pre-existing condition that could have affected his appreciation of criminal responsibility even on the state's version (which I think highly improbable) he will have been given a "Diminished Responsibility Pass" like a windfall out of a disaster of this obliged observation.

What seems certain is, be it 'murder' or 'diminished responsibility' I think he can't avoid the penal but may get a lighter sentence if returned results affirm he's GAD no matter the severity. Personally I don't foresee a severe mental illness result to come back, one that requires him to be sanctioned under the mental health act.

by aiyoyo 28.05.14 9:32

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There may be some truth in suggestions that he is receiving special treatment because of his wealth and fame.

Some even think Judge Thokozile Masipa has a soft spot for him. It was she who said last week that the aim of
sending him for observation should not be to punish him twice.
There are other, more practical considerations. For example, what would it be like for any double-amputee to stay in Weskoppies for a month?

Would their physical condition not be an extra burden in an already difficult environment?

In addition, the hospital is short of beds, as are several South African state psychiatric institutions.
Instead of complaining about special treatment for Pistorius, we could more productively ask why the outpatient option is not made available more frequently.
If it can be arranged for him, it can be done for others. Outpatient observation should become the norm.
It’s more convenient for the subjects, and it saves hospital bed space.

If concern about possibility of disability placing burden on the hospital is the reason he is an outpatient, then is the Court expected to sentence him to 'out-inmate' imprisonment when it comes to that ? If he's certified as a mental case they would have no choice but to detain him in indefinitely regardless of his physical condition.

by **PeterMac** 30.06.14 8:07

OP is back in court today.

by aiyoyo 03.07.14 21:36

Defence has put another "Dixon" as witness for OP. This time it is his physician who admitted he did not keep notes of his two meetings with OP when he met him to collect OP's accounts of the incident.

After one hour of very technical bullshitting about his physiological expertise, Nel cross examined him and within a few minutes mauled him to a stuttering fumbling wreck and nailed him to his mast by asking him:

"May I ask you what was your brief?"

"Was there any reason why you need the facts from the ACCUSED?"

Are you aware that as his physician you are bound by the Medical Professional Code to protect your patient's interest and therefore you cannot be objective to the Court, and effectively in you acting as Expert Witness it is a conflict of interest.

ha ha ha NEL is GOOD.

He was reduced to a whimpering witness.when NEL took him through the technicality ........oif the incident.

by ultimaThule 03.07.14 22:39

As I understand it, the pyschiatric evaluation has determined that Pistorius was not mentally ill when he killed Ms Steenkamp and this has removed the possibility of him being found not guiity by reason of mental illness.

Is this how you see it, aiyoyo, and what would be the probable sentence for murder and for manslaugher?

While writing, do you know if Nel intends to recall Pistorius for further cross-examination?

by Angelique 06.07.14 11:38

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In never-before-seen footage, the paralympic athlete is seen running awkwardly on his stumps through a living room - his right arm held out in front of him as if clutching a gun. The leaked clip is taken from a longer film to be shown on the Sunday Night documentary slot of Australia's Channel Seven. Pistorius is accused of deliberately murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp (pictured) in his Pretoria home last year. He maintains he shot her thinking she was an intruder.

Having trouble with copying but its very interesting.

by aiyoyo 07.07.14 14:53

ultimaThule wrote:As I understand it, the pyschiatric evaluation has determined that Pistorius was not mentally ill when he killed Ms Steenkamp and this has removed the possibility of him being found not guiity by reason of mental illness.

Thus his defence team desperate attempt to damage control by putting on qualified expert witnesses in their field to testify on the acoustic and his fight tendency because of his disability. These witnesses (like those before) turned out to be liability as NEL was able to get them to concede crucial points.

Is this how you see it, aiyoyo, and what would be the probable sentence for murder and for manslaugher?

Read that it would be 25 years for murder and 15 years for manslaughter. If his defence can't nail it in the closing summary, prosecutor appears to have a strong case.

While writing, do you know if Nel intends to recall Pistorius for further cross-examination?

NOPE

by aiyoyo 07.07.14 15:01

Angelique wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In never-before-seen footage, the paralympic athlete is seen running awkwardly on his stumps through a living room - his right arm held out in front of him as if clutching a gun. The leaked clip is taken from a longer film to be shown on the Sunday Night documentary slot of Australia's Channel Seven. Pistorius is accused of deliberately murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp (pictured) in his Pretoria home last year. He maintains he shot her thinking she was an intruder.

Having trouble with copying but its very interesting.

I clicked on the link and can't see find the footage.