Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

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

Would a psychiatrist actually agree someone is lying? I find that odd? Does she believe him, I wonder.

She didn't agree he was lying, she said that it was possible, different things.

Sorry that is what I meant agree he could be. I thought medical professionals had to believe their client no matter what? That has been the case with my sister anyway. I know she told them some unimaginable things, we all knew they were untrue but the psychologist and psychiatrist had to believe her.

Morning all

So op is back on the intruder defence again?

How strange - Nel asks 2 questions and Roux wants a 10 minute adjournment after they've only been back for a couple of minutes.

That's true for if they are bring treated by the psychiatrist however this Dr was assessing him in the role if forensic psychiatry and in that role the Dr has to consider and give evidence on all the possibilities, including that the patient could be lying.

Morning Anya. Nel is pushing to establish if GAD played a part in all of this. If he does establish that, the Judge then has to decide if OP should be assessed. That's it really! Roux has little to say on all of it but he has just asked for 10 mins out, maybe he will come back with something. Nel has finished questioning the psychiatrist. (I think)

So to clarify, OP is not her client and as such patient client privilege does not exist nor does the requirement to accept as the truth what the patient tell them.

Thanks Roussette

Just seen this on the guardians live feed

GAD could have affected Pistorius not in his ability to tell right from wrong, but his ability to act in accordance with that, Nel says. Vorster agrees.

Nel turns to the definition of GAD, as listed in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which classifies mental disorders). It qualifies as a mental disorder, he confirms with the witness.

And that's it from Nel. A very short bout of questioning. Roux asks for a further adjournment to prepare for his own re-examination of the witness. So the court is on another break.

Very quick break and we are back with Roux doing the re exam

Thank you for clarifying that.

I don't understand what Roux wants from this witness?

I think they are trying to establish whether there is an element of delusion or paranoia within GAD.

She's good this judge.

She us on the ball ball she.
She isn't really buying what Roux is saying

oh, what a surprise, the glass was in the house, it just hadn't been fitted. The ladders, not sure what Roux is saying apart from OP was going to put them away. This is clutching at straws surely...

She is

But you don't need to suffer from GAD to want a broken window fixed

I am defiantly sacking the phone.
She is on the ball isn't she.

The witness is not allowing Roux to manipulate too much is she, really respect her integrity.

I think she is answering the questions as a true professional. She won't be swayed.

Nel bringing the application now. Handing up the arguments.

Ouch!
Roux is not a happy bunny with that last answer!

Not, application time, let's see what happens...

Argh! Now not not!!

He needs a better typist. I'm available. I'm just saying.

(He as in Nel - not Roadkill or her phone.)

You will have to send your CV looking!