Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

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

If she doesn't refer him, would that mean they have to (can't remember the right word, but ignore) the witness testimony? I wonder?

I think the psychiatrist's evidence is very powerful for the defence, hence Nel's rather over zealous response. I think the judge will deny his application, there's no suggestion from anyone that he didn't know right from wrong.

You do have to wonder why this psychiatric evaluation was done so late though. Did they only just think of it?!

I've been leaning toward OP telling the truth from the start though and nothing in this trial so far has made me change my mind.

I apologise for continually pilfering BB's Twitter but thought this link was interesting - "is Nel leading the witnesses?" here

I'm not sure that I'm following that argument. Most of the questions seemed to be statements of fact, then asking for agreement or disagreement.

Surely that's just what happens.

Certainly Roux hasn't objected that he's leading the witness.

Nel is trying to find out if OP having GAD is relevant to what he did on 14th Feb. Psychiatrist won't commit herself and says that it's up to the court.

Nel is now questioning her about OP's excessive security measures because of his disorder. And he didn't feel safe and was planning to move to Jo'burg. She says his security measures were more than the average person. I am now willing Nel to ask about broken windows, ladders etc....

And he is...

Nel is saying about the broken window downstairs, no burglar proofing as it had been like that for days, no burglar bars, and why didn't OP, if he was suffering from GAD, fix it straightaway.

And the ladders... he is asking that too.

And now saying about the balcony door open, not secured and locked. This GAD is coming across as something that suits OP for his defence. Nel is GOOD. He is showing this up to be rubbish - the psychiatrist is trying to say a person with GAD would leave a balcony door open in consideration of their partner if they wanted air. Nel is quite rightly saying surely a person with this disorder wouldn't be able to sleep for the worry of it being open.

I'm finding this diagnosis quite shaky now. Yesterday, GAD seemed to be a major mental consideration which would affect his ability to act on his understanding of right and wrong. Today it's more 'lots of people suffer from anxiety'.

It's tricky - I suffer from anxiety as part of the depression, but I don't think I have GAD. Well, it's never been diagnosed - it's been treated along with everything else, but not GAD specifically. I can't even say for certain whether I have uni-polar or bi-polar depression. I've been diagnosed with both, the uni-polar at either side of the bipolar. It makes the whole thing very wishy-washy.

I'm less certain this morning than I was yesterday about the referral thing. Yesterday it seemed more clear cut.

(Actually, I lie - I've been diagnosed with PTSD, which probably supersedes any GAD. I'd completely forgotten about that, so deep in psychiatric diagnoses am I.)

Agree Looking. To me there is some backtracking. And saying 6% of the population have GAD and live quite normally doesn't help. I just think Nel needs to be absolutely clear on this and if the Judge rules that OP doesn't need assessment, there can be no come back or appeal at a later date (I presume)

This is getting ridiculous now. Nel has asked that if the court rules that OP knew RS was in the toilet, would GAD play a role. The psychiatrist says 'yes'. Doesn't this give anyone who suffers from anxiety free licence?

And saying 6% of the population have GAD and live quite normally doesn't help.

No, that's what I thought. It's very sweeping, and unless they're going to have a straw-poll, not easily proved. Plus, there's the issue that there is with the 'Depression' thing, wherein it covers a lot. People may have experienced Anxiety for one period in their lives, and it may have been treated by rest or medication or short term counselling. But then, there's the other end of the scale, where it's crippling, constant medication, lots of debilitating behaviours.

You can see how one person on one end of the scale would be affected in a way that someone at the other end of the scale would not.

Doesn't this give anyone who suffers from anxiety free licence?

I'm not sure it does, but I think that Nel would be concerned that you would have to be determined to what extent the GAD inhibited his ability to act in accordance with their understanding of right or wrong.

This surely needs to be shown with absolute clarity. If it did inhibit his ability etc., then that is an issue for this court.

Yesterday Nel was very much flying by the seat of his pants and as said above, he has to be very sure that OP isn't going to try on appeal due to mental state if the state fails to explore this avenue.
This morning Nel has had some time to research and build suitable questioning to get to the bottom of the relevance of the GAD diagnosis.
Nel won't want the assessment as this stage and what he seems to be doing this morning is to get all the facts out.
It feels this morning so far like the witness could just as easily be a State witness. Re exam will redirect some if this stuff but damage is likely done.
This witness is the first one of the experts on both sides that seems truly independent.
The defence made a gamble. I think they lost.

To me (sweeping statement coming up) this is all an excuse. The psychiatrist is saying that someone with GAD could be prone to violence. Is this some sort of justification for what he did? I don't like this one little bit.

Totally agree Road. I think this witness has some integrity and this is not helping the defence.

Looking I'm not sure it does, but I think that Nel would be concerned that you would have to be determined to what extent the GAD inhibited his ability to act in accordance with their understanding of right or wrong. Didn't the psychiatrist say GAD would not affect his ability to tell right from wrong yesterday... thought she did, not sure.

I'm watching about 25 minutes behind live but the Doctor has just said that a person suffering with GAD would be anxious in all aspects. To me, shouldn't OP have also been anxious as to where Reeva was before he shot? Shouldn't he have been anxious to get Reeva to safety? Or even be anxious that it wasn't Reeva behind the bathroom door?

Can someone confirm if OP kept the cricket bat against his bedroom door holding it? I seem to remember that being said but don't have time to go back and look. If that was the case, that could be the reason OP never looked for Reeva out of the bedroom door? If the bat was there he would know she had not gone downstairs?

Quite rightly Nel is saying that any teenager losing their mother is traumatic and it's not unusual.

Agree bobble with your first para.. and also the broken window, ladders etc.. anxiety wouldn't stop.

Didn't the psychiatrist say GAD would not affect his ability to tell right from wrong yesterday... thought she did, not sure.

Yes. Yesterday she said that it MIGHT under specific circumstances, such as if he thought there was an intruder in the bathroom.

Now she's said it also MIGHT if he was having an argument and under stress, particularly if he thought he might lose a relationship.

It's the MIGHT that's a problem. She's not saying for certain, but it's a possibility, and as such, that needs to be considered.

Thanks Looking I couldn't remember what she said.

I am not sure that the Judge is going to allow this assessment. I think it's something they have had to explore but it does seem very woolly.

I doubt there will be an assessment, it's about going through the motions to close as many loop holes as possible.
The defence have to accept that either his mental state had a large role in why OP behaved as he did on that night and that is part of his defence in the matter. Now if they wish to claim that then he must be assessed.
If his mental state is not at a level that would have effected his actions then it can not form part of his defence, only part of sentence mitigation if he is found guilty of a crime.
The defence can't have it both ways. That us the core of all this.

The defence can't have it both ways. That us the core of all this.

I agree wholehearted with this.

I do like this witness, I think she really knows her stuff and she's un-flappable.

I also think Nel is doing a good job of cross-examining sympathetically.

I too have a great deal of respect for this witness.
She is truly independent, unflappable and accepting that there are many ways that things could have happened that night and is helping shed light on many of the different possibilities.

I find it hard to imagine that the defence didn't see the risk of putting this witness up. Surely they must have realised the potential can of worms they where batwing Nel with yet Roux seemed genuinely surprised with the route Nel has taken.
Maybe Roux gambled that Nel wouldn't go down the route of psychiatric assessment at this late stage as a finding of diminished responsibility would throw the state into disarray and negate all the work that had been put in, maybe Roux thought Nel wouldn't want anything that would hold up the case any further, after all, Nel is a salaried state employee while Roux gets paid (handsomely) by the day.
Overall I am struggling to explain the way the defence are acting, Roux is the best of the best yet this does not seem like anybody's a game. I guess a defence team can only be as strong as the case and the defendant allows them to be.
As I understand it if the defendant requests something is put forward as evidence on their own defence then they can only advise on the possible outcomes of doing so to make sure the defendant is informed, they can not refuse to put something forward if the defendant wants to.

Has anybody noticed that the legal team sitting behind Roux has gotten smaller and smaller as the case has gone on?
Logically I would think this is due to having the whole team there to hear the States case and then people being assigned jobs to go an do to prepare and deliver the actual defence however it gives the outward appearance of people jumping out of a burning building!

I also noticed how passively and calmly OP is while his mental state is being dissected. He didn't even react with a twitch when he was described as a danger to society yesterday. I wonder if he is on heavy medication to help him through and to stop any reactions to the personal criticism that would anger and upset most people.
He has always had his Mother up on a pedestal, he has always worshiped her and credited his success to her parenting so I find it odd the way he is so passively accepting her being criticised so much and blamed for much of his problems with anxiety and his particular fears towards becoming a victim of crime.

Yes, OP does seem quite passive through all of this. It must be awful to have your life, your personality and your parents dissected like this, yet he's not flinching.