Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

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

Blimey, I pop out to Tescos and now all of this happens, I thought the thread have grown suddenly.

Louise, so sorry for what you have and are still going through

I think the Psychiatrist for the Defence has been the most impressive witness for the Defence so far, very professional manner when giving details of her report and how she responded to the questions put to her. Not sure if her evidence is favouring the Defence with all this brouhaha though, but at least she is confindent in her abilities and findings.

I haven't had chance to watch anything today so will watch the summary tonight.

louise I was sorry to read that too . I haven't been through all that you have but I can really relate to the worrying - I imagine the worst all the time, eg my DH doesn't answer the phone and straight away I visualise him in the ambulance. My mum doesn't answer and I see her and my DDs in a heap at the bottom of the stairs having fallen down. It's exhausting! I also check and double check everything. It takes me ages to check all doors are locked, gas taps are off etc at night, but then there are parts of my house that aren't very secure at all and I keep thinking we should do something but we never get round to it. I guess it's because day times aren't as scary so by the morning it never seems as important. Anyway, that turned into a bit of an essay, but basically I am like that too and I don't even know why.

And maybe that's another reason why I don't find it so odd that OP was anxious about security but hadn't had everything fixed (because I'm the same).

and why are the Defence so against it?
Perhaps they think another psych won't have the same opinion or come up with something worse (for them).
OP was a pretty poor witness they probably don't want to expose him to any more scrutiny.

OneStep and Bonnie thanks.

Bonnie, you sound like me! It's OCD (I forgot to mention that!) My brother has OCD too but his is worse than mine. I'm sure that's why I can feel sympathetic to OP, he reminds me in many ways of my little brother - health issues as a child, bullying at school, an absent father (but ours was absent through chronic illness requiring long hospitalisation and he died when my brother was 12.) He also is a control freak and gets worked up over nothing. He's not at all driven though, which OP obviously is.

Jill I think your last post is spot on about OP not wanting to be labelled. I also think he's spent his whole life trying to show he's just as good as able bodied people, from his brother onwards.

And for those who are finding different buttons are being pressed by this trial.

Just to rehash one of our favourite arguments on the thread... ...

According to Barry Bateman's Twitter feed, "It is not in dispute that shots preceded bat."

Hopefully he should know, he's writing a book on the trial to be published shortly after its conclusion apparently.

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

I really don't know. My gut feeling is that if he is shown to have diminished responsibility, that might call all of his testimony into doubt. If he actually lacks the ability to tell right from wrong under certain circumstances, i.e. when he's under attack, what's to say he's even capable of telling the truth when he's in that situation; i.e. a courtroom. For diminished responsibility, you're sort of assuming guilty. If you're innocent, then it doesn't matter if your judgement was clouded, because you haven't done anything wrong.

I suppose, thinking it through, that's why they're so clear on 'extenuating circumstances but not diminished responsibility'. That's what they want the witness testimony to be viewed as.

Jill, despite you being concerned about not saying it right, I understand completely what you're saying.

I can completely see OP not wanting to be labelled. He's utterly determined not to be seen as disabled, all through his life, and a psychiatric disorder would be very hard for him to take. If it is referred, if there is a diagnosis (and that's a huge IF), then I hope that it's handled appropriately.

Having said that, I think on a purely practical level for his defence team, having him evaluated for 3 days might open a whole can of worms that they might struggle to close again.

In short; God, what an absolute mess.

Also, huge hugs to you, Louise.

AGnu makes you wonder who's in the driving seat with regard to who gives testimony here

• the defence lawyer
• the accused
• the accused's family

Of course, media are having a field day with this. Now, did Roux know the psychiatrist would take this line, or is this a surprise to him too.

Isn't this more about the fact that Nel suspects that the report will come back as saying nothing of note, in which case everything that Vorsten says will be inadmissible? ie. either he has a mental disorder - in which case the whole case has to start again, or he doesn't - in which case nothing she says matters.

You know, initially I thought that was the case, Godot, and then my imagination went on a flight of fancy as to what Nel might be thinking right now.

It might well be as simple as 'diminished responsibility? Let's get rid of that possibility right now'.

I will get my imagination well in check!

I didn't mention the OCD either Louise but I have that too! It doesn't stop me doing things and I don't do hand washing and stuff but I kind of do the odd thing as an insurance policy. I can't seem to stop because I think the one time I do then something bad might happen. I don't even know why I'm like that although my sister did drop something heavy on my head once (jealousy when we were little!), maybe that's why ;)

According to Barry Bateman's Twitter feed, "It is not in dispute that shots preceded bat." hooray. But I bet someone will still argue it is!

Bonniel I was reading something the other day which connected sensory hypersensitivity to head trauma. So maybe that is literally why, only it's manifested as OCD rather than sensory hypersensitivity. Though it may be something else entirely.

I love brains. They are strange and wonderful and brilliant. Even my incredibly faulty one is at least interesting.

I`m so confused.

Meant to say earlier also sorry to read about today's evidence proving a trigger for some.

so, couple of questions for anyone in the know....

Could he be sent to a psychiactric hospital for however long, if hes found to have a disorder that may have had am impact on the shooting?

What are they like in SA?

If he is indeed to be found to have an anxiety disorder then surely the case cannot continue.

Again, if he was found to have a disorder then someone/or somepeople in his close circle have let him down badly...

Changes everything...

If he doesnt, then what the hell was that all about?

I don't know looking, my sister can't remember it happening so it's one of those things where we're not sure if it was made up at the time or not (I was too little to remember). I hope it was made up because my DDs play with the alleged toy now and it's bloody heavy! Have a feeling mine is more likely to be linked to a couple of friends mums dying when I was about 8, as all the little rituals back then were related to making sure my mum stayed ok.

Anyways, we digress :)

I think Nel is trying to frame this GAD diagnosis. I think it was unfair that he was expected to cross having not seen it or had any knowledge that the defence team would claim OP has GAD

I don't think Roux imagined for a moment that Nel would ask for an evaluation. I think that was far from Roux's consideration. I agree that if GAD is to be accepted by the court as a factor in his reasoning and actions then he should be required to have an appraisal of this fact by the prosecution.

OP would be sent for a 30 appraisal as I heard it.

If OP was suffering from GAD before the incident then this evidence can be considered useful to mitigate.
I would want to see or hear evidence that this was the case.

Diagnosing as a psych; having only consulted with my patient after 4 weeks of a murder trial ( which I was also aware of ) seems very questionable and if I were her I'd be very cagey for fear of professional reprimand. She is experienced and this really concerns me!

If I were her I would be very clear tomorrow that my diagnosis was based purely on what I had observed and what OP had reported and on the basis of this info I felt that OP fitted criteria for GAD.
The issue is trying to wind that diagnosis back to before the night of the killing which must be speculatively based ( at best ) upon what OP has reported to her.

Evidence might support heightened anxiety which they, as a family, may all have to some extent. His mother apparently had a gun at all times via OP's testimony.

His previous gf said he heard intruders and asked her about them
He approached a car with his loaded gun when he perceived the car had been following them
He went def con thinking there was an intruder when it was his washing machine

I also think her saying flight was not an option is not quite true. He may have perceived his options were more limited but certainly he had enough mobility on his stumps to flee.
His physical strength and fitness was greater than many others without disability. He maybe says that he perceived himself as vulnerable but I might suggest that evidence shows that he saw himself as anything other than vulnerable and was often an aggressor.

It would be relatively easy to get a prosecution psych to rebut this evidence but as they have rested can they do this?

I am very very confused by this witness.

Also even confirmation of GAD prior to the incident does not mean he did not have capacity.
He would have had a larger appreciation of things that might cause anxiety, those things will be different for each individual

I feel pretty sure that if he had actual GAD before the incident he would have been being treated for it. It isn't simply anxiety..it is an anxiety disorder and it would have seriously affected his life

You are in my brain again Ronald yay to all!

". But I bet someone will still argue it is"

Thanks for the comments everyone, and it's good to know I'm not on my own with my weird ways!

Apparently the state can reopen their case in light of this testimony & ask for their expert witness to address issues raised.

Agree Ronald- need to take dd to swimming!

I`m suprised a psychiatric report was not done before hand tbh.

I am very very confused by this witness.

You, me, Nel, and at some points, possibly Roux and Pistorius as well.

I seem to recall (I'll have to re-listen, because it was one of those Nel asides) that the witness said she couldn't say precisely why the Defence had called her, and Nel muttered something like 'no, me neither'.

Why would they if the defence was saying he was of sound mind?