Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

999 replies

Roussette · 08/05/2014 11:55

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

OP posts:
Roussette · 12/05/2014 13:38

What I find odd is the fact these reports by various experts have been written during the trial. Each time Nel asks if they have followed the trial and each time they say 'no' or 'not much' but how does anyone know that to be the case, surely they are influenced by what is going on.

OP posts:
LookingThroughTheFog · 12/05/2014 13:39

Was she his long standing doctor?

No, though he has been diagnosed with depression and is being treated. But not by this doctor.

Is he responding to treatment?

I'm wondering why they didn't get a psychiatrist who had been working with Oscar for longer.

RoadKillBunny · 12/05/2014 13:43

I think it could be a little unfair to judge the defence as odd due to it's reactionary nature.
It's not the defences job to prove things happened in OPs version but rather to prove that it could not have been what the state says. The defence goes second because they need to hear all the stares points and then go about disproving them or casting doubt.
I think given the time scales and the fact that due to OPs disability makes him more vulnerable has been a mainstay of the defence from day one I would have expected a phyc report to have been done before the start if the trial but then again, they wouldn't be sure exactly which points needed to be addressed.
I can say that I like the adversarial system and this is part if what I don't like, it's a dance, a game and often the truth is low on the priority list when it comes to defence.
We have to work within the confines of the system though and that us exactly what Roux is doing.

RoadKillBunny · 12/05/2014 13:45

I can't say I like, not can say I like! Bloom in fingers!

AnyaKnowIt · 12/05/2014 13:46

Thanks for explaining roadkillbunny.

Do have to admit I'm looking forward to skys special programs tonight. Just to see what the SA experts make of today.

JillJ72 · 12/05/2014 13:52

And that's why I'm on the fence - because I can accept that his version of events may well be the truth, that he acted out of fear, he decided to fight, not flee.

But I don't understand the lapses in security as they conflict with heightened security awareness. Unless those lapses heightened his fear.

emotionsecho · 12/05/2014 13:54

Hello everyone - I am totally confused, I heard most of the Psychiatrist evidence but missed the start of Nel's cross examination and came in when he was asking the Judge to refer (what's that?) and then heard the lengthy legal debate (and got totally lost) and the rest of the State's cross examination, and heard the Psychiatrist say that OP intended to shoot the intruder???

Help me ladies please, what is Nel arguing? why is he asking for a referral? what is a referral? what is the impact of this on the case? and why are the Defence so against it?

member · 12/05/2014 13:55

Apparently the Dr on the stand had access to the psychologist that treats OP notes. There is a long waiting list for evaluation in State psych hospitals, then the person being evaluated is observed for 30 days so pursuing this would mean a long delay for the case.

LouiseBrooks · 12/05/2014 13:55

"Maybe the father was at court to support the other siblings but not OP? "

Ronald there's actually a quite heartrending picture at the bail hearing of Henke Pistorius reaching out his hand to OP and it looks like OP is ignoring him. So perhaps he was there to support his son, having obviously failed to do so in the past, but OP doesn't want to know?

I have a couple of friends who have no contact with their parents for various reasons - their parents didn't do anything really vile by the way - but it's obviously had a big effect on them. Personally I think it's awful but then I don't have any parents anymore so my view tends to be "forgive them while you've still got them"

RonaldMcDonald · 12/05/2014 13:58

Okay...sorry trying to read now

First saw OP on 2nd May 2014.
Why would they wait until this date to see a psych? Makes no sense. After case was on it's head in some respects....?
His GAD would of course be increasing at this point in the trial. Normal for anyone and to be expected.

Why would she see his family members? Hard to get a fair read given his current predicament. Not saying they weren't completely truthful but I know what I'd say regarding my brother.....

Saw him again on the 7th of May. She felt he was getting worse but again understandable given circumstances. I am not negating his worry.

She I think is saying that this may be used in mitigation if found guilty. May as he will need to be assessed by others and really will need to have a pre killing reading

(GAD isn't PTSD as well Nel knows )

AnyaKnowIt · 12/05/2014 13:58

30 days Shock

RoadKillBunny · 12/05/2014 14:00

We have adjourned until tomorrow according to twitter and that would seem reasonable, it's very late for proceedings to go on.
Will have a real think about what I am thinking and get some more info I think.

RoadKillBunny · 12/05/2014 14:02

When Nel was talking about observation and assessment he was talking 3 days, not 30

AnyaKnowIt · 12/05/2014 14:02

I don't understand, if the defence say op is of sound mind why get a psychiatrist to take the stand?

RoadKillBunny · 12/05/2014 14:02

Unless I misheard?

LouiseBrooks · 12/05/2014 14:03

"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."

Majestic

I have this. With regard to security I will check several times that all the downstairs doors and windows are locked before I go to bed (or leave the house) but I always sleep with my window open which might sound odd but there's no drainpipe, there is a streetlamp outside my house and a care home across the road which has 24 hour staffing so I kid myself that anyone trying to climb up would be spotted.

However when I lived in a flat I would stifle because I was too scared to sleep with the window open and if I go on holiday I can't sleep in a ground floor apartment.

That said, next door left their ladders in their back garden and I spent two days wondering if a burglar could use them .....

AnyaKnowIt · 12/05/2014 14:06

Does the state have a case to refer Pistorius for mental health assessment?

Nel wants to make an application for Pistorius to be observed and assessed under section 78 of the Criminal Procedure Act. I've found a copy of it here (pdf).

Here is an extract from the relevant section, titled "Mental illness or mental defect and criminal responsibility":

?(1) A person who commits an act or makes an omission which constitutes an offence and who at the time of such commission or omission suffers from a mental illness or mental defect which makes him or her incapable-

(a) of appreciating the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission; or
(b) of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission,
shall not be criminally responsible for such act or omission.

(2) If it is alleged at criminal proceedings that the accused is by reason of mental illness or mental defect or for any other reason not criminally responsible for the offence charged … the court shall in the case of an allegation or appearance of mental illness or mental defect, and may, in any other case, direct that the matter be enquired into and be reported on.

This is a key point, but presumably one that Nel is seeking to disprove (not that the defence has made a case for diminished responsibility):

(7) If the court finds that the accused at the time of the commission of the act in question was criminally responsible for the act but that his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to act in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of the act was diminished by reason of mental illness or mental defect, the court may take the fact of such diminished responsibility into account when sentencing the accused.

From the guardian

MajesticWhine · 12/05/2014 14:12

Yes Louise - it's very common actually. I see a lot of it in my work. Have you tried any self help books?!!

member · 12/05/2014 14:14

Ah, ok - 72 hour evaluation possible

STERKFONTEIN HOSPITAL (SFH) - [ Adj. Prof U Subramaney]

Services:

  • General and Forensic psychiatry (approximately 50% each)
  • Tertiary level inpatient care - Southern Gauteng
  • Forensic services - Southern Gauteng (Mental observations as well as care treatment and rehabilitation of state patients)
  • Forensic services for North West Province (Mental observations: 30 male beds (+3 at Krugersdorp prison), 5 adolescent male beds, and 5 female beds). State patients: 20 female beds, 10 adolescent male beds and 250 male beds.

-Male adolescent psychiatry (Forensic, for which there are 10 beds), OPD assessments of children (aged 10-14) in terms of Criminal Capacity

  • Centre of Excellence: Dual Diagnosis Unit. an inpatient unit for the management of substance use disorders in the context of other psychiatric diagnoses (15 beds, mixed gender with separated units).
  • Integrated Living Unit (ILU)
  • ARV Centre/ Neuropsychiatric Unit
  • HCT Centre
  • Staff Clinic
  • Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)

Sterkfontein Hospital is a designated specialized psychiatric health establishment which renders care, treatment and rehabilitation services to mental health care users in accordance with the Mental Health Care act no.17 of 2002, after they have undergone a 72 hour assessment from a facility listed to conduct such an assessment in line with the provincial plan. This means that patients are referred for further involuntary care (Sec 34).Occasionally users are transferred under Sec 33.

The hospital also provides Forensic services - both mental observations and rehabilitation of state patients (latter under section 42 of the MHCA). These are patients that would have undergone a 30 day observation period (CPA section 77, 78 and 79) following the commission of a major crime for which they were found not fit and/or not responsible by virtue of the insanity defence.

Referral procedures

  • All mental health care users shall be discussed with the doctor on-call/the consultant prior to admission; telephone contact (011 951 8000); Unbooked cases may be returned to the referring institution assessment of the user and the referring health practitioner. Sec 42(State patient) referred by the courts shall not be sent back, unless discussed with the consultant on call.

-Any patient with serious medical or physical problems will not be accepted unless the doctor on call, upon consultation with the consultant on call if necessary, is satisfied that the referral is appropriate and the resources at the hospital are equipped to manage the patient.

-For referrals to the DDU, all potential users to be referred formally thereafter will be screened at an interview by the MDT to establish appropriateness for the programme. (Consultant Dr Tiaan Schutte)

-For ECT referrals, patients will be admitted following a discussion with the consultant (Dr Fiona Maynard /Dr Zaheeda Ibrahim). Documentation to be discussed - currently the institution will accept these referrals as assisted or involuntary patients.

Criteria for patients to be admitted to SFH

Mental health care users who have undergone 72 hour assessment (Section 34 – for further involuntary care).
Section 33 (involuntary patients); criteria in terms of MHCA NO 17, of 2002 (limited number only, upon discussion as stated above)
Section 42 (state patients)
Mentally ill prisoners
Observandis (male and female, including adolescent males). These are awaiting trial detainees referred in terms of the CPA
DDU admissions - see above.
ECT admissions - see above.
Any patient who comes as a walk-in or an inappropriate referral will be thoroughly assessed by the on-call doctor and be discussed with the consultant before being referred to a facility listed to conduct 72 hour assessment or be admitted for 72 hours assessment depending on his/her mental status.

Patients referred with incorrect or incomplete forms will not be accepted unless the referring institution takes necessary steps to ensure that these are corrected and the on call doctor is satisfied with the criterion after discussing the matter with the consultant. To note again, that a certification to Sterkfontein hospital is a legal process and incorrect paperwork amounts to an illegal detention of the MHCU.

The patient’s family shall be notified about his admission as per the hospital admission policy.

A report of all "sent back" patients will be completed by the on call doctor who would have seen the patient stating:

  • date and time; reason for sending the patient back; name of the doctor who saw the patient; consultant spoken to; nurse present at the time of; consultation; referring facility/person; physical and mental status at time of consultation; adequate notification of referring practitioner as necessary.

From www.wits.ac.za/academic/health/clinicalmed/clinical%20services/23486/specialist_hospitals.html

LouiseBrooks · 12/05/2014 14:20

Majestic I've seen a psychologist and a psychiatrist, at different times, due to major anxiety-based depression (brought on by severe trauma in childhood) in the past. The security thing came about because of burglaries experienced as an adult.

I also have a horrible tendency to expect the worst, eg if my family were to go off on a long car journey without me I would be worried until I knew they had safely reached their destination.

I am a lot better than I used to be but I don't think it will ever go.

LookingThroughTheFog · 12/05/2014 14:24

Help me ladies please, what is Nel arguing?

He is arguing that the Defence have brought forward a witness who has made a genuine psychiatric diagnosis of a mental disorder, and that witness has stated that this disorder may effect Pistorius' decision making in specific circumstances, particularly if an intruder has broken into his house.

why is he asking for a referral?

He wants a referral because he wants to find out if this is the case or not - does OP have a mental disorder which would incapacitate his ability to use rational thought.

what is a referral?

I believe it's the technical term for requesting that OP is given full psychiatric evaluation. It will be 3 days observation.

what is the impact of this on the case?

I'm not sure. I don't know whether it would mean a complete retrial, or just three days adjournment while it takes place (and reports are written).

and why are the Defence so against it?

Not sure here, but I'm willing to bet that OP doesn't want to spend 3 days in a psychiatric hospital just for its own sake. There are also issues as to what other things they may find. It puts OP under more scrutiny than he's been since he was on the stand, and that information will be available to the State as well as the Defence. I suspect there's a lot of reasons, but if they're suddenly told that he is not of sound mind, and he's not capable of clear judgement, then it will also shine a light on all of his own testimony.

I can see it being hugely problematic for the defence.

Coming back to the point of why the State hasn't already done so - I wonder if they have wanted to, but have to have just cause or something. Nel certainly seemed to jump at the chance very quickly.

emotionsecho · 12/05/2014 14:37

Thanks Looking, it seemed to come out of left field and I was struggling to hear and understand what was going on.

Another thought, why are the defence so set against a finding of diminished responsibilty, or are they hoping the court will conclude he has diminished responsibility and either acquit or be very lenient to him?

I also noted Nel made a sarky comment about the Defence using a third line of defence.

How much impact will the Psychiatrist saying OP intended to shoot at the intruder have, didn't she also agree his guilt on the charge of doualis eventualis?

Would be interesting to hear what SA legal experts make of all this.

Katz · 12/05/2014 14:40

It does seem odd. I listened briefly over my lunch break and the expert seemed to be saying that OPs GAD could have caused him to respond differently but it wasn't diminished responsibility.

JillJ72 · 12/05/2014 14:46

Ah, I'm not going to phrase this correctly....

I wonder if OP himself would not want to be "labelled" as having a mental disorder because it will go against how he has worked to brand himself - not being prejudged by his disabilities, his parents divorcing, estrangement from his father, the loss of his mother, people not "feeling sorry for him".... It's been more of a presentation of "Look what happened, and still the buggers couldn't get me down" - the sense of being untouchable.

And again I won't say this right, but I can see how it's possible to lose oneself in a highly charged, highly stressful moment, so that sense of "the gun fired itself" (although we all know it didn't). It's the action, without thinking of the consequence.

But it doesn't mean he doesn't know right from wrong.

And it doesn't mean he shouldn't be sentenced.

Wouldn't everyone try that as a get-out clause otherwise?

AGnu · 12/05/2014 14:47

Hypothetical legal question - if a lawyer was defending a very head-strong person who wanted to present something in court which the lawyer advised against, would said lawyer be obliged to either present it or resign as their lawyer or could they just point blank refuse & risk being sacked? It just occurs to me that in a case such as this one where there seems to be rather random new things being brought in, could it be that the defendant had said "this defence isn't working, I want to try a different approach" & the lawyer just had to go along with it?

Obviously, I'm not saying that is what's happening in this particular case, I just wondered if such a thing were theoretically possible!