Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

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

Does it seem right and fair that this psychiatrist only met and interviewed OP after he had been in court and been cross examined? I dunno, I would have thought she would have been involved from day one, straight after the crime.

You would have thought Roussette

The interview on 2 May 2014 was Vorster's first contact with Pistorius. She then interviewed family members and friends, before interviewing the athlete again on 7 May.

This does seem late: the trial was well under way. The shooting of Reeva Steenkamp took place on 14 February 2013.

The interview on 2 May 2014 was Vorster's first contact with Pistorius.

Yes. At this point, he's got the trauma of the court case going on, as well as the trauma of the actual event. I'm not sure how you'd tease all of those things apart.

Nel is demanding an assessment of OP and says the court has no choice if that is the defence. He said words to that effect, and sat back down! Roux is arguing this (I think!)

Yes, this is what they're arguing. It would appear that he is going to bring an application for the assessment thing.

Oh God, Nel's phone is going off.

Jumping ahead..... I think Nel is pushing for this assessment which may well show that General anxiety disorder has no effect on what he did, which may then well strengthen the prosecution case (but I don't know this, just hearsay on my part)

just having a quick read in my luunch hour, its all gone very odd. The State seem to want to have OPs mental health checked by the defence don't!

The Guardian says Vorster says the purpose of her report was "to bring psychiatric factors to the court's attention that might be relevant to the court" – for determining guilt and, "if necessary", for sentencing.

I wonder if this evidence was to help with no getting a custodial sentence in for OP and it has now back fired slightly.

I don't think it's supposed to be a defence. It's just supposed to bolster his version of events.

Ironically, it also casts doubt on the DV angle because would he really be having a row with her, chasing her to the bathroom, while on his stumps?

This is fascinating. Nel and Roux arguing the point. And OP has just passed his defence a note.

I don't think it's supposed to be a defence. It's just supposed to bolster his version of events.

This is what Roux would like to bring.

Nel is pointing out that despite that, the psychiatrist has diagnosed him - if that is the case, they need to take this seriously and according to law.

This argument feels quite perverse, wouldn't it normally be the other way round?
The defence saying 'my client wasn't responsible, he is ill!'
The state saying 'no, he knew it was wrong!'

Yes Roadkill totally agree. I imagine Nel is trying to rubbish this line of defence, because if the defence knows he was totally compis mentis despite suffering from anxiety, I suppose they know he can't use it as a defence. In which case, why is this psychiatrist testifying all this when she only met OP 3 months after the crime. (hearsay again)

OP's defence is putative self-defense, that he was mistaken about his need for self defence.

So it does seem obvious to look into why he might make that mistake and you can imagine psychology and disability playing a huge role.

The problem is that such a why does come rather close to diminished responsibility.

On the other hand, I would expect a disability like OP's would imo

she only met OP 3 months after the crime.

The interview on 2 May 2014 was Vorster's first contact with Pistorius.

Can I just clarify, because I was doing the post when this was said - did she meet him in 2013 or 2014?

I think you are on the ball there Rousette

In fact I think Nell just said as much!

More notes from OP to his defence and Roux looking a tad fed up. Nel has applied for OP to be referred for assessment.

Oh dear. She now appears to have said that there may have been diminished responsibility if it was about an intruder.

It would not have been diminished responsibility if he knew it was Reeva.

He's putting the procedure through now.

State applies for Pistorius to be referred for mental observation

Nel is relentless: on this version, the court has no other option but to refer the accused. He makes a formal application to the judge.

looking a tad fed up.

I don't think he wants three days of psychiatric evaluation. I'm not surprised - I avoided inpatient hospitalisation with utter horror.

Guardian was reporting 2014 looking.

Roux is also looking a tad fed up.

Yes Looking

Nel is now saying if Roux wants to bring this psychiatrist to the Stand, there must be a reason, and the reason must be that he should be evaluated, otherwise why bring her to testify.

Just as an aside, I find that when Nel puts his foot up on the stool... he is going for it like a rottweiler...