Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

here is Part 6. Nearly time for a new one.

I'm listening again now, under cross.

And apologies for my outburst.

she says.. if a person were to believe there were threats, when there weren't any, that would be a mental disorder. But OP's general anxiety disorder is different and OP hasn't lost touch with reality

One hour adjournment requested by Nell

Would that be lunch?

It is hard to listen to the stuff that OP went through as a child, the operations he was so young that he wouldn't have been able to talk about (Described as an Assault), the loss of his mother etc.

Heartbreaking for any child and I am sure these things DO have an effect on his psychology. I really do feel for that child and that young man, but it still doesn't negate firing four shots at a trapped person.

Unless he was delusional, in which case there are serious problems with the defence.

Nel's wrapping his adjournment into lunch.

From what I can tell, Nel's arguing that if he had diminished responsibility on account of having a mental issue, then that needs to be taken through proper legal channels including specific observations.

If he didn't, he didn't, and the evidence is inadmissible.

But he pointed out, he was given the report just now, and hasn't had time to read it, which is why he needs the hour.

I would assume that the defence don't think he has diminished responsibility, as if he did, that would have been their defence, and he'd have gone through the proper observations already. He's standing trial being of sound mind.

Bloody hell - Nel trying to make absolutely sure that it can't be said later i.e at any appeal that OP had diminished responsibilty, he's checking section 72 of an act during break then won't take lunch after that.

Psychiatrist saying it is up to court to decide if her diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder is enough to refer OP for observation of mental state under section 72.Her opinion is he should still be able to tell right from wrong.

Sounds a bit borderline, would have thought Roux might have gone for this option? Or is it because the report only delivered into court this morning that he hasn't been able to construct that as another defence?

Not sure what Nel is up to here - is he just trying to be ultra legal and fair or do you think he knows full well that there are not enough grounds for a defence of diminished responsibility so he is pushing to show that and then will dismiss the witness's evidence as totally irrelevant.

I think what the witness is trying to say is that, you can't judge what he did as more or less likely based on how you think you would behave in the same circumstances because he has a different psychological make up.

I can only commend Nel for his take on this. He is doing all he can to close down routes of possible appeal. By taking this stance he is ensuring that OP has a fair trial and to make any conviction there may (or may not) be safe.

I have no idea what it would mean to the case at this Kate stage if the court does decide that OP requires phycological assessment. If Nel does feel he has to make an application for assessment I would think that the case would be suspended while that application was heard. I don't know who would hear the application, if it could be heard as part of the on going case or not.
A spanner has been thrown by the defence, seems like an act of desperation, the last chance gamble.
If OP could have just accepted that some if his actions where incorrect and stuck to one defence he wouldn't be in this position. He went for the all or nothing approach and it isn't working for him. OP I think would still feel wronged even if he was found guilty of the mildest possible and was sentenced to a fine and a suspended sentence.

I also apologise fir my outburst. Raw nerve like looking, we have some similar childhood experiences sit seems.

Or is it that op first defence hasn't stood up, nor has his second.

So three times the charm?

I think what the witness is trying to say is that, you can't judge what he did as more or less likely based on how you think you would behave in the same circumstances because he has a different psychological make up.

I think you're right - this is exactly what she's trying to say. However, from a legal standpoint, Nel (and Roux) has to be very, very careful. If the Defence is going to stray into 'he wouldn't have reacted as normal' then they have to be pretty damned certain that he did not have diminished responsibility.

That's an entirely different court case.

So three times the charm?

I know this isn't funny, but I had a guilty snigger at that.

Can I also just say; I do feel sorry for what Oscar went through as a child. I'm not a cold heartless bitch in this respect. I just feel very uncomfortable about it being used in this way. If the case is at this point dismissed in order to be opened again under diminished responsibility, I will find that fascinating. It's just it feels out of place here. 'I didn't do it, I didn't mean to do it, it not even my fault anyway.'

(And hugs to you, Roadkill.)

If an order was granted for OP to be evaluated in a psychiatric hospital, would the case have to restart from scratch ?

It does smack of desperation to me because the psychiatrist is very non commital and keeps throwing the ball back by saying 'it's up to the court'. Surely if it's her area of expertise she shouldn't be quite so woolly on this?

I think this she says is very telling Generalised anxiety disorder is not uncommon. It doesn't imply one has lost the capacity to see right from wrong. and she also says his reactions may have been different to an able bodied person without generalised anxiety disorder.

Nel, understandably, is treading very carefully here. If it's to be part of the defence it needs to be investigated more.

Didn't she actually say something like in her opinion it (observation) would be a waste of time - so I don't think she feels that he has diminished responsibility. I think she has agreed to testify to what she has found but won't go as far as to say that it is diminished responsibility but it's the best the defence have got.

Quite, defence can't have it both ways; if important enough as a reason/excuse for behaviour on night of incident then important enough to be referred for evaluation. Agree bottom line is that he wasn't psychotic & could differentiate right from wrong.

If an order was granted for OP to be evaluated in a psychiatric hospital, would the case have to restart from scratch

This question is currently intriguing me.

Didn't roux promise the judge it would all be finished by tomorrow?

I know this isn't funny, but I had a guilty snigger at that

I don't think he promised exactly, Anya. He expected for that to be the case though.

Three times the charm also brought a smile to my lips, it really does feel like that doesn't it.

I keep getting this uneasy feeling that if OP has a guilty verdict on anything he will use the excuse of inadequate defence as means to appeal. I keep getting the sence the defence team are almost doing it on purpose! Rationally I can't see how that could be the case, surely a man like Roux wouldn't self sabotage his whole career like that however some deeper sense in me can't quite seem to shake it.

I do get what the phycologist is saying in relation to OPs responses due to the combined effect of disability and anxiaty however I do not agree that he didn't have the flight option open to him. I do not agree that of the two most likely possible reactions, confront the danger or flee to a safer place that OPs conditions would make the fight option the most likely. It really feels like grasping at straws.

I am very curious as to what is going to happen once we are back, what happens if Nel does feel an application must be made and also thinking that if Nel finds that an application is not the right action that surely makes the psychiatrists evidence either in admissible or gives it so little weight at to be negligible.

This is a very interesting legal point we are now finding our selves in, have to admit that I am finding to opera unity to learn fascinating. Just with I hadn't had to go through the emotiones that the initial questioning by Roux brought up. Hugs right back at you looking

OP's defence all along seemed to be saying, these were the actions of a reasonable man acting in self defence. Now, the psych comes along and says these actions were not reasonable, due to GAD. It puts the whole case on very shaky ground. I agree it is now a third line of defence, and does seem a bit desperate.

To be fair, I listened to OP's defence testimony this morning, and it's more "I fired out of fear, I wasn't aiming at the door and shooting to an intruder specifically, I was freaked out by the noise and really really scared".

When examined by Nel, who asked him what his exact defence was, because now he was mixing up his defences and changing his defence, he said he didn't understand the legal intricacies of what he was saying, he was just telling it how it was. I think in the light of the psychologist's testimony, what he blurted out under cross-examination doesn't seem that different.