Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

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

emotion that is pretty much how I am thinking

Roux was arguing that the state should have requested when op was in the stand when he was saying that he couldn't remember certain things

I think it's a bit more complex then that charlie but I'm not comfortable speculating on any phycological conditions that OP could have as I am neither in posset ion of all the information a diagnosis would require nor am I qualified.

For all those lusting after Nel, perhaps this will cool your ardour, can you imagine him critiquing your performance??

I missed that part of Roux's argument Anya but I think he is being a little reaching with that, he has never said he can't remember what happened in the minutes before, during or right after the shooting. He says he can't remember a few little things, when and if he switched of the alarm, put the lights on etc. the type if memory blank that would trigger a referral would be, like in the case Nel was referring to, I took the knife and I can't really remember what happened but my wife was stabbed to death.

Not sure if I was clear, I should have said so he's accused of narcissism.

I don't know emotion, I really do love a good debate/argument...

What something else entirely?

Sorry, was picking up a child so lost track of the thread.

My fear, from my mean little voice, that 'pathological liar' might come back.

It's the restaurant one that made me think it. The first instinct, if you believe the witness there, was for him to say 'say it was you.' He said that before checking that everyone was OK. He moves to the lie extremely easily, and he expects people to just follow it and accept it.

'It's my Dad's ammunition' is another one. He said that, but under testimony as to why he had that particular type of ammunition he said 'it's the ammunition for my gun'. Now maybe, maybe it is his Dad's ammunition. But it doesn't sit easily with me that his Dad, who also collects guns, would randomly choose to save some random bullets in his son's safe, when they just happen to be compatible with his son's gun. Ditto; my legal team told me it was legal. What? No they didn't. He lies very, very easily.

The thing is, none of these things have been proven to be lies (apart from the legal team one), but my feeling is that he lies a lot.

Ah.... I come to this at the end of the day and I see "gallows humour" has surfaced. Who's hot and who's not. And Nel has earned a luffley badge.

On appearance only, no accounting for intellect or courtroom presentation, I go with Roux because he looks like a cuddly bear.

From your many posts it sounds like the trial is twisting and turning in ways that either weren't foreseen or were hoped to be glossed over.

On the one hand I wonder who is deciding who goes on the stand. And on the other hand I wonder if the Steenkamps will find peace.

Anya the State are not arguing that OP had a mental illness/impairment that could have led to the crime, they have resolutely stated that in their opinion he was fully compus mentus and aware of what he was doing and what the outcome of his actions would be so there is no reason for them to have wanted or requested a psychological assessment.

However, the Defence have introduced testimony which suggests that OP had a mental condition which might have affected his actions and thought processes on that night/early morning, hence the State are seeking to challenge this by way of the referral. It could backfire equally on either side if it is done and the State are taking a gamble by pushing for it, but the Defence took a gamble by introducing the evidence in the first place.

Hope the brain bleach worked!

Straw Poll - will Judge Masipa grant or refuse referral?

I know but Roux was saying that the state had the chance but missed it

I might need some more the way this thread it going. I think Roux is worse then nel, sorry!

In another thread, I linked to quite a key SA case where the defence of putative self defence was used, it's known as the De Olivera case.

The defendant in that case did not testify and was convicted of CH and given a lengthy sentence.

One of the main reasons the defence was deemed to have failed is because the defendant lack of testimony + no psychological reports meant there was little to no insight into the defendant's state of mind during the incident.

Knowing this, it's clear why the OP defence are keen to illustrate has clearly as possible what OP's thought processes were during the shooting.

Also a big part if the judge's assessment will be to consider what is reasonable. If a defence has what could be considered mitigation for why their client may not act in a way deemed reasonable, they would be remiss if they didn't submit it.

I think* she will have too

• not an expert and a bit thick

Roadkill you are braver than me!!

One thing I wonder if knowledgeable UK and SA legal people could answer for me is, the Prosecution seem to be caught on the hop by Defence witnesses and their reports, is it not standard practice to supply both sides with reports, etc.,? Or is it only the Prosecution (in both countries) that have to supply the Defence with full details of their case?

Watch far to many American TV crime dramas and it seems there that both sides have to provide full disclosure of the case, but that could just be Hollywood!

Refuse but I want her to grant

But they could have submitted such a diagnosis at the arguments stage Gosh

Member this is the defence arguments stage. This is exactly when they'd submit it.

The state brings their case, then the defence brings theirs.

Feel simillar Mary21 but only really want her to grant because I feel Nel's reasoning/argument is more sound.

Straw poll - refuse.

But doesnt Nel want the application refused so OPs mental state cant be used for Appeal?
I think the judge willrefuse actually

member and Gosh I think this particular testimony would have been better utilised at the mitigation stage, if necessary. I think the use of the report for "conviction" purposes was wrong on behalf of the Defence.

I think Dr Vorster was a very impressive witness, but unfortunately for the Defence introducing this evidence of diagnosis and mitigating circumstances to disprove intent did not wholly work in their favour, it muddied the waters somewhat and if they are following up with yet more psychological assessments it does seem to me that they are pushing more for "diminshed responsibility" that putative self defence.

Emotions - it would appear not, Nel hadn't seen the psych report till it was submitted as evidence yesterday.
US crime dramas have ruined us for real life court cases.

Straw poll - refuse

Although Nel has sound argument there are parts if Roux argument that are sound. There is the chance of setting presidents so not just important to this case.
I think that the line may be a little to thin and therefore judge will refuse application and everybody will be happy as no one really wants it!