Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

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

Redcoats yep US crime dramas have certainly skewed our understanding of the justice system, I do know some of the stuff they do in these dramas would never be allowed in a UK court, but I did think that the Defence couldn't "surprise" the Prosecution with witnesses or reports both of which have happened in this case.

Straw poll; totally on the fence. Like most of the rest, I want her to, but think she probably won't.

If she doesn't, I want to know if that means he's fine, he's totally in control, etc.

Ok, if she refuses an assessment where does that leave the pysch evidence? Am I being too simplistic but surely it would be better to have all the facts, including if OP has a psych disorder, that would change everything wouldnt it? Human Rights etc...? Wouldnt sentencing being different? Prison vrs Secure Hospital?

I don't know really. I'm guessing refuse because this observation work has happened very late after the event, so it may be very difficult to say for definite what OP's mental condition was prior to that (unless he had been consulting with professionals for some time before 13 /14 Feb 13 and it's all on record and noted as such that he had anxiety issues, etc). Maybe the judge feels she has more than enough of a handle on her observations, and her assistants are in agreement?

Yes, meant arguments in mitigation - sorry, taxi driving craziness tonight!!

What's the chances of her basing her decision on whether she feels he is guilty or not. I know she couldn't use that as her reasoning but if she feels he is not guilty anyway, why put him through an observation?

I think she will grant it. With the doubt there could be a mental health issue, could she give her verdict without actually knowing. Is it fair on OP to not be observed?

Has anyone followed any leagle beagles (I know some of you do)? What do they say?

I would think that she would want no stone unturned, shes placed this trial in the spotlight, she`ll want to make sure everything is correct.

if she feels he is not guilty anyway, why put him through an observation

This doesn't make any sense to me. If she is going to find him guilty, or is erring on the side of guilty, she'd probably be more inclined to close the door on any potential mental health appeal.

Plus, if she's erring on the side of guilty, it's entirely possible that they'll come back with a consideration of mental health before she decides the sentence. Again, she'd probably want to know the ins and outs now rather than then.

I don't know if you meant not guilty in the top paragraph or misread what I wrote but my thoughts were if she felt he was not guilty.

My thoughts were, if the judge believes OP; believes that he did not mean to shoot Reeva and did not mean to kill who was behind the door (if she believes he thought she was an intruder), why would she send him for observation. If she did not believe before the psychiatric witness that he had any mental health issues and still doesn't, would she feel that there was no need to send him, as she would be finding him not guilty.

I know we do not know what she believes at the moment but I was just wondering if that were a possibility.

bobble I think OP will be found guilty on one of the charges he did after all kill Reeva. I think it is the severity of the charge he is found guilty of that is up for question and that depends on the proof or otherwise of intent and this is where I think his mental state comes into play.

Like another poster I wonder if Judge Masipa doesn't allow the referral whether that implies he is/was of sound mind and therefore culpable?

Either way I think it will be interesting to hear Judge Masipa's reasoning on this.

OneStep someone on one of the earlier threads was following an SA legal expert which was fascinating, but for the life of me I can't remember either the poster or the legal eagle. I have tried googling but no luck so far.

Oh God, sorry, Bobble! I completely misread you! And in fact, agree.

So much to catch up on. I started to listen to Nel's argument on the way home, and will listen to the rest once DD is in bed

I think the judge won't give it. But as with the whole case so far, I might change my mind later

I also don't think the judge will decide based on whether she thinks he is already guilty. I don't think she will allow anything to cloud her total objectivity and analysis of the evidence.

Also, as an aside, when I listen on headphones I hear Barry Roux whispering to his team, in my right ear

Rousette do you think the request for psychiatric referral was part of a cunning plan on Nel's behalf?

AmI can you hear what Roux whispers?

Sorry Jill, is this more to your taste?

Don't worry Looking!

I was just thinking that there could be many reasons as to why she makes her decision on whether he is sent for observation or not.

I believe that OP should be found guilty on one of the charges but that doesn't mean he will get a custodial sentence does it? If he is found guilty of CH, could he not have no sentence due to having suffered enough? Could that be what the psychologist was aiming for. Laying out how much he has suffered, which 'caused' him killing Reeva; now he will suffer more by going to prison?

I know this should be said in sentencing but did the defense want the judge to pity him? (Doesn't seem the right word to use but I can't think of another atm) You can clearly see she has tried to be fair to both sides. Maybe the defence wanted to push her a bit more.

Schnarf! Ah, after my day the G&T I'm developing a taste for, along with that, has made me

And with all of this, I wonder what the Steenkamps think; if they want to see him locked up for a (very) long time or if they will consider this trial brings them some peace and they will be content with due process, if they would acquiesce to him having a lighter sentence...

Just to complete the set! (I'll stop now!)

Excellent AGnu

I think her decision will be made on points of law and don't imagine her personal feelings will enter into it.

I actually wondered if this was some sort of double bluff for the defence.

Reading twitter from today and yesterday, it is clear OP is emoting during these arguments. I said earlier I had seen a photo of him yesterday with tears absolutely dripping down his cheeks, taken while the psychologist was giving evidence

emotions. It's dead weird. It is mostly him whispering things like "have we got that yet" "do you have it" etc, but when OP was on the stand and was being cross examined by old Gerrie, you could hear him start to say to Oldwadge that going "onto" the balcony was open to interpretation.

It's quite freaky. I also hear the judge asking her assessors if they have any questions for the witnesses.

Just a quick question, since OP is a professional sports man surely as part of his training he'll have been seen by psychologists, granted for sports reasons. I guess since the state didn't know the defence was going to use GAD then they'd have not known to call those who've been working with him for years. But surely given what the defence psychologist has said they might want to talk to those who know him now.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-is-a-liar-says-reeva-steenkamps-sister-9257193.html

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-trial-reeva-steenkamps-3434188

The African National Congress’ Women’s League is funding June Steenkamp’s accommodation and travel costs so she can listen to the gruesome details of her daughter’s death.

I didn't know that

I'm trying to find a way to donate, but their website isn't very up to date.

Does anyone know if the Steenkamps can bring a civil claim?