Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

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

What do people think?

I think it needs to be dealt with now, and not at a later date.

I admit to watching Nel give his final bit of argument there while indulging in some fantasy. My fantasy was largely around an intimate dinner debate... But it may have got a little dirtier after that!

'I put it to you, RoadkKillBunny, and with the utmost respect, that this roast beef is of the finest quality.'

'I prefer the risotto.'

'It cannot be!'

'Let's shag.'

Arfffff!!! Sound about right looking

We have all been following this for so long we have developed the black courtroom humour. Much easier to see the lighter side while embroiled in debate about legal points.

Still not getting the nel sexual tension

Is this a gamble for Nel though? What if the assessment comes back supporting everything this psychiatrist has said? It's powerful for the defence.

Me neither Anya and intellect is a major factor for me. I don't find his style appealing or impressive at all.

As someone who has been rather unwell with severe anxiety very recently (on treatment, but feeling much better now), the assertions regarding what someone with GAD would or wouldn't do haven't resonated with me. I haven't found that being cripplingly anxious about a specific thing made me act in the most rational way in order to relieve that anxiety - for instance obsessive anxiety about my health didn't lead to me adopting an extremely healthy lifestyle. I was irrational, that's rather the point.

What if the assessment comes back supporting everything this psychiatrist has said?

Then that will be taken into account by the court.

It's not solely about finding him guilty - it's about delivering a verdict in possession of all the facts relevant to the case.

There's also the secondary consideration; if he lacks the mental capacity to act in accordance to his understanding of right and wrong, then that raises the possibility that under similar level of stress, he may not be a reliable witness to the events that happened.

I think if the Defence thought that all that would happen is that another psychiatrist would agree with the diagnosis, then they wouldn't be too worried about it happening, other than the fact that it would cause an unnecessary delay.

The thing is, the risk to them, is that for an amount of time, he will be under intense scrutiny, and everything he says or does will be reported back to the Prosecution. That may be a huge risk for them. It may not, but it may.

I was listening but not watching.

I enjoyed the argument but admit that I am lost as to what way the judge will go. I don't think it's as clear cut as some think

I don't see the attraction of Gerrie Nel at all, but I do find it funny when he makes a mistake and turns Scottish as his response is always "ach"

I have heard that barry "i put it to you" roux has the sweetest smile.

Neither are my type

Now if you can remember the advocate who argued for the broadcast of professor saymaan's evidence. He was nice

One of the things Nel brought up in his argument was that if the referral showed that OP was effected by a mental health condition at the time of the shooting then his evidence would become unreliable and could be struck from the court record.
That would be an unmitigated disaster for the defence. My best guess at why the defence are so opposed is largely due to this.

I don't get the Mr Nel attraction either but yet, there it is!!

I've been lurking on these threads for the last few weeks and finding them very useful for making sense of the trial.

There are some interesting interviews on this website when they're not streaming the audio of the trial. Many of them seem to be with SA legal experts and have their analysis and opinions on the latest developments.

ewn.co.za/Features/oscarpistorius/live-audio

It seems that one of the reasons that Nel wants OP referred is because of access to the very detailed notes from that will emerge during the observation.

I like Nel's smirk.

Bloody hell roadkillbunny, it gets worse and worse.

What were the defence thinking?

Looking back at some of the posts. The legal team today was missing Oldwage that's all

And on sky last night and some photos I've seen OP had his head down and was crying when dr vorster was talking about his mum and his childhood

Nel is completely the type I'm attracted to. Older, extremely clever, erudite, twinkly eyed, a kind smile, utterly unobtainable and safely on the other side of the world.

Roux doesn't do it for me at all. He's all the above, but with the added element of 'slippery' which puts me right off.

Road. Based on his performance in the witness box would that be such a disaster for the defence ?

Perhaps I just go for the simple types

The observation is 30 days, not 3. I think there was some confusion there. 30 days of OP talking about his state of mind and emotions - Nel probably thinks that he could some damage with that.

When I was listening to the trial yesterday I thought he had quite a horrible childhood and was let down by both parents in their own way, but especially his father, if all that was said was true. (Regardless of what contact OP may have chosen to have with him as an adult and I am NOT saying this excuses what he did.)

Nel is hot. Would be played by a younger James Caan perhaps?

I've said it before, but I think there is no need for a psych assessment. I think it seems quite plausible that he has GAD, and I think that GAD is a part of the background to why he might have behaved as he did, but is NOT mitigation; he is not less responsible as a result of such a diagnosis. So no need for the referral. I have no legal knowledge though, so the judge might see it differently.

When Roux is outside court and he smiles at people I think it looks like he was quite a looker when he was younger. Sadly I have not been able to find any photos of a young Roux on Google images.

he is not less responsible as a result of such a diagnosis.

The difficulty is, the psychiatrist has said that it MIGHT make him less responsible as a result, in certain circumstances.

For what it's worth, I agree with you; I think he's both culpable and responsible (though I am not a psychiatrist). But the fact that there MIGHT be mitigating circumstances needs to be addressed. They can't just ignore it and say 'Oh, OK then.'

From what I understand it, Masipa now has to read all the reports, checking the quoted test cases, and decide whether in her evidence, the witness was able to diagnose a mental illness, and then decide whether that mental illness has a bearing on his ability to act in accordance to his understanding of right or wrong. But the psychiatrist has already said that in certain circumstances, it might do. Nel asked her yesterday and today and she said the same thing - it might well.

It may be that she now comes back from her own research and says 'it does not impair his ability to act...' in which case, his defence that his heightened levels of fear caused the incident may well be ignored.

Another Nel fan but not to the extent of dirty fantasy! Just admire his meticulous ways/thinking on feet & being a couple of steps ahead in constructing an argument. As someone observed on twitter recently, his mother must have been one hell of a person; imagine trying to get a young Nel to tidy his room or eat his greens

Nel teaches wrestling to children when not working www.rapport.co.za/Nuus/Nuus/Bulhond-Gerrie-n-gunsteling-onder-kleintjies-20140412

Or imagine Nel is your dad!

Speedwell I agree about Roux.

Do you know what REALLY annoys me? The erm large guy with dark hair that sits with Nel and was behind him today. The way he just slouches about in his seat and across the desk looking totally uninterested and like all he can think about is donuts, and today giggling with that other man like a naughty school boy during Nels appeal application. If I were the judge Id tell him off!

Rant over.