Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

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

It was 15 months after the crime and during his trial that she first me with OP looking, even more difficult to draw conclusions about his mental state before and during the events of that night.

Who is that blonde woman wearing the white jacket?

While he's at it, Nel is going to point out that he hasn't shown remorse.

She's also said that he 'feels guilty' which is possibly a dangerous statement in a courtroom.

Pressed post too soon.

I was saying that I would imagine OP's disability would impact his response to danger.

I think this is more about disability and its impact fight or flight, then necessarily about anxiety.

A lot of law concerns examining what the "reasonable man" would do. I think in UK law, this was nicknamed "the man on the Clapham omnibus".

OP'S actions were not reasonable, so the defence needs to justify this.

However, I'm surprised the State didn't see this argument coming and therefore had OP assesed themselves.

Also, by the State's version, OP is a very devious individual who has lied from the very start. He lied over his girlfriend's dying body, lied while in custody, lied in court. That is a whopping amount of falsehood and I'm surprised they haven't gone for their own psychological assessment to better shore this up.

This is now like a car crash. By arming himself and approaching the danger, his action was premeditated.

The psychiatrist agrees.

I'm surprised the State didn't see this argument coming and therefore had OP assessed themselves.

The defence have always claimed 'in sound mind'.

Interesting that I am looking at a different live feed which shows OP in view the whole time. The last feed I watched didn't show him. He is watching Nel quite carefully as opposed to head down.

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.

Seriously!?

I find it hard to believe that someone would still be vomiting every time they discussed the situation. Maybe I am hard and cruel but it seems weird.

The witness has just said that op isn't stable on his stumps.

Looking - you can be of sound mind, but still make a mistake/ take a course of action sensible people would not.

Again, mistaken self-defense implies premeditation, however the defence are arguing that you can purposely defend yourself without it being murder. Was he firing at the perceived danger vs firing to kill?

Looking - you can be of sound mind, but still make a mistake/ take a course of action sensible people would not.

Yes, apologies, but I wasn't clear. It's not what he was and wasn't capable of, but that the Defence have said he is of sound mind. If he of sound mind, then the State agree that he is of sound mind. There would be no reason and no call to go for psychiatric testing from the State. His defence say he's fine - so he's fine.

Gah, Roux is annoying me now. He's stated that there's no psychiatrist evaluation saying he didn't know right from wrong.

Surely Nel's point that there hasn't been a psychiatrist evaluation on that - so he would like one now.

Its all gone a bit strange, op looks a bit pissed

I think I am with Roux on this.
I get why Nel would have differences on his cross as a result of an application but Roux has a point, he can't be deny the right of re examination to clarify what exactly the witness is saying and in turn if a referral is warranted.
It's a catch 22 situation, Nel is having to pull this together at lightning speed and how well he has managed to argue is testement to his and his teams skill.
We shall see what happens when they come back.

It has just occurred to me that all the defence experts have been doing their tests and reports during the trial. Is that usual?

So the defence have introduced this information about his anxiety etc for what reason?
To show why someone might react in the way he did?

In which case that means they are saying his behaviour is acceptable (and so would anyone-elses be) because of his background and his experience which has made him the kind of person who would do this?

This is different to 'I thought there was an intruder and the gun just went off'.

I agree it's a tricky one, Roadkill.

GAD in my professional opinion and experience is not ever enough to have anyone observed in a psychiatric facility
If he had a co morbid panic disorder it still wouldn't be enough.
Not for observation.
He has capacity with those diagnoses.

Many many people suffer from anxiety disorders. Anxiety and depression hugely, hugely common.
This does not diminish that he has anxiety. It can be very hard to deal with but people deal with it every day.

I would expect to see high levels of anxiety in someone awaiting a trial for murder. I of course have not spent time with OP.
Contributing factors to his anxiety may be from his childhood but equally may not.
He seems to have firm attachment to his siblings.
His father was at all four days of the trial and had a close enough arrangement to store ammo in his safe.
( personally I believe this ammo was OP's as the story makes literally no sense whatsoever. They are shifting blame onto the father who is not commenting one way or another to try to get the police to prove ownership and possession and halt the charge. 'Hi, can I store this ammo in my estranged son's safe when he isn't about and has no knowledge and then take no responsibility for it when the police ask me about it?')
Maybe the father was at court to support the other siblings but not OP? Could be the case.

Was she his long standing doctor? Is he responding to treatment?
Or was this simply evaluation after the event? How many times has he been evaluated? By how many psychs?

Anya I agree... it's almost as if they've waited for the trial to start before they decide on their line of defence. V odd.

Missed the after-lunch resumption but getting the gist from here & twitter.Don't think Nel should give up his right to cross-examine.

Adjourned for the day

So the defence have introduced this information about his anxiety etc for what reason?

I think it's to beef up the defence 'I thought there was an intruder, because I am so worried about intruders constantly, so that's why it sprang into my mind rather than just thinking that the other person I know is in the house went into the bathroom. I am so desperately terrified of intruders that I heard noise and assumed. And then, I was so completely terrified that I was shaking and screaming and my heart was racing, and in that state, I was so panicked that the gun fired without me intending to fire it.'

Which is fine and fair enough, but they've introduced a psychiatrist who's given a diagnosis, and as such, that needs to be treated carefully.

At home so I get to listen for a little bit.

I do find it odd that reports are being submitted now, written really recently. I wonder if they have interviewed and observed and written newer versions as the past year has gone by (I noted the version control schoolboy error last week, hmmm).

I really do wonder what the Steenkamps think, and what they would do if they could determine sentencing....

I should state that obviously my previous post is not a direct quote from anyone. I probably shouldn't have used quote marks.

I think they have introduced it because it makes his reaction look more understandable and therefore his version of events more believable. Generalised anxiety can make you hyper-vigilant to threat. So explains him going way over the top and assuming an intruder. The problem is, that you would think that it would make you more careful too, i.e. no ladders outside house, locked windows, burglar bars, etc. So it doesn't sit easy.