Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend
Discussion
Observation approved: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/...
KTF said:
Observation approved: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/...
This comment seems relevant."This is just to determine whether he will sit in a jail or in an institution and I cannot imagine which is worse"
SydneyBridge said:
could he be deemed mentally unfit to stand trial then?
I think the prosecution are looking to pre-empt any defence ruse to plead mental issues in mitigation. Prosecution perhaps think OP is not mental so they want to squash it before the defence tries to use it either now or in appeal after a (guilty) verdict?toppstuff said:
SydneyBridge said:
could he be deemed mentally unfit to stand trial then?
I think the prosecution are looking to pre-empt any defence ruse to plead mental issues in mitigation. Prosecution perhaps think OP is not mental so they want to squash it before the defence tries to use it either now or in appeal after a (guilty) verdict?There's no expectation that he will be found mental. That's not what they are pursuing. Nobody with an anxiety order will get off with murder or serve time in a mental institution. The psychologist herself said she wouldn't even consider him mentally ill, just mentally abnormal.
Nel yesterday referred to a case where he himself was prosecuting - and lost - where the accused was a really poor witness on the stand, answering questions with "I don't remember". The defence were then able to argue that the reason he couldn't remember certain things was because of a mental defect diagnosed by an expert witness for the defence. The court accepted this, and so the judge couldn't consider a verdict using the poor quality of those answers (remember, unlike with a jury who can hear things in court and then be told to forget them, but probably never really do come verdict time, a judge would be duty bound to do so, so in SA this could be a worthwhile tactic)
So essentially, Nel is worried that they are going to say that any variations in Pistorius' story on the stand, or inability to account for certain factors - basically his peformance as a whole - could be blamed on his anxiety. I'm sure his wretching and vomiting and trembling voice could be seen as supporting this.
As it is a lay court, they can not decide if these allegations of GAD are true, so these must now be investigated by the state. It was revealed today that the psychologist on the stand only had two interviews with OP over two days. The tests he will now undergo won't be to establish if there is a myriad of things wrong with him - it will only serve to prove or disprove his GADs. So while they can have up to 30 days to prove if someone is criminally insane, in this case they only need to focus on one diagnosis, so will probably only need a couple of days I'd imagine.
So basically, in a nutshell, I think Nel is relying on OP's version of events and his defence changing throughout the trial as an indicator of guilt (or at least tailoring). The defence might seek to excuse this on mental health grounds, and therefore the judge wouldn't be able to condemn OP with it. Nel isn't taking the chance, and hopes a court psychiatrist and psychologist might disagree on the GAD diagnosis, in which case, all of OP's evidence can be used.
Nel yesterday referred to a case where he himself was prosecuting - and lost - where the accused was a really poor witness on the stand, answering questions with "I don't remember". The defence were then able to argue that the reason he couldn't remember certain things was because of a mental defect diagnosed by an expert witness for the defence. The court accepted this, and so the judge couldn't consider a verdict using the poor quality of those answers (remember, unlike with a jury who can hear things in court and then be told to forget them, but probably never really do come verdict time, a judge would be duty bound to do so, so in SA this could be a worthwhile tactic)
So essentially, Nel is worried that they are going to say that any variations in Pistorius' story on the stand, or inability to account for certain factors - basically his peformance as a whole - could be blamed on his anxiety. I'm sure his wretching and vomiting and trembling voice could be seen as supporting this.
As it is a lay court, they can not decide if these allegations of GAD are true, so these must now be investigated by the state. It was revealed today that the psychologist on the stand only had two interviews with OP over two days. The tests he will now undergo won't be to establish if there is a myriad of things wrong with him - it will only serve to prove or disprove his GADs. So while they can have up to 30 days to prove if someone is criminally insane, in this case they only need to focus on one diagnosis, so will probably only need a couple of days I'd imagine.
So basically, in a nutshell, I think Nel is relying on OP's version of events and his defence changing throughout the trial as an indicator of guilt (or at least tailoring). The defence might seek to excuse this on mental health grounds, and therefore the judge wouldn't be able to condemn OP with it. Nel isn't taking the chance, and hopes a court psychiatrist and psychologist might disagree on the GAD diagnosis, in which case, all of OP's evidence can be used.
Wrathalanche said:
There's no expectation that he will be found mental. That's not what they are pursuing. Nobody with an anxiety order will get off with murder or serve time in a mental institution. The psychologist herself said she wouldn't even consider him mentally ill, just mentally abnormal.
Nel yesterday referred to a case where he himself was prosecuting - and lost - where the accused was a really poor witness on the stand, answering questions with "I don't remember". The defence were then able to argue that the reason he couldn't remember certain things was because of a mental defect diagnosed by an expert witness for the defence. The court accepted this, and so the judge couldn't consider a verdict using the poor quality of those answers (remember, unlike with a jury who can hear things in court and then be told to forget them, but probably never really do come verdict time, a judge would be duty bound to do so, so in SA this could be a worthwhile tactic)
So essentially, Nel is worried that they are going to say that any variations in Pistorius' story on the stand, or inability to account for certain factors - basically his peformance as a whole - could be blamed on his anxiety. I'm sure his wretching and vomiting and trembling voice could be seen as supporting this.
As it is a lay court, they can not decide if these allegations of GAD are true, so these must now be investigated by the state. It was revealed today that the psychologist on the stand only had two interviews with OP over two days. The tests he will now undergo won't be to establish if there is a myriad of things wrong with him - it will only serve to prove or disprove his GADs. So while they can have up to 30 days to prove if someone is criminally insane, in this case they only need to focus on one diagnosis, so will probably only need a couple of days I'd imagine.
So basically, in a nutshell, I think Nel is relying on OP's version of events and his defence changing throughout the trial as an indicator of guilt (or at least tailoring). The defence might seek to excuse this on mental health grounds, and therefore the judge wouldn't be able to condemn OP with it. Nel isn't taking the chance, and hopes a court psychiatrist and psychologist might disagree on the GAD diagnosis, in which case, all of OP's evidence can be used.
What a very well considered opinion, unlike some of the ill-advised guesswork on here.Nel yesterday referred to a case where he himself was prosecuting - and lost - where the accused was a really poor witness on the stand, answering questions with "I don't remember". The defence were then able to argue that the reason he couldn't remember certain things was because of a mental defect diagnosed by an expert witness for the defence. The court accepted this, and so the judge couldn't consider a verdict using the poor quality of those answers (remember, unlike with a jury who can hear things in court and then be told to forget them, but probably never really do come verdict time, a judge would be duty bound to do so, so in SA this could be a worthwhile tactic)
So essentially, Nel is worried that they are going to say that any variations in Pistorius' story on the stand, or inability to account for certain factors - basically his peformance as a whole - could be blamed on his anxiety. I'm sure his wretching and vomiting and trembling voice could be seen as supporting this.
As it is a lay court, they can not decide if these allegations of GAD are true, so these must now be investigated by the state. It was revealed today that the psychologist on the stand only had two interviews with OP over two days. The tests he will now undergo won't be to establish if there is a myriad of things wrong with him - it will only serve to prove or disprove his GADs. So while they can have up to 30 days to prove if someone is criminally insane, in this case they only need to focus on one diagnosis, so will probably only need a couple of days I'd imagine.
So basically, in a nutshell, I think Nel is relying on OP's version of events and his defence changing throughout the trial as an indicator of guilt (or at least tailoring). The defence might seek to excuse this on mental health grounds, and therefore the judge wouldn't be able to condemn OP with it. Nel isn't taking the chance, and hopes a court psychiatrist and psychologist might disagree on the GAD diagnosis, in which case, all of OP's evidence can be used.
Andy Zarse said:
Wrathalanche said:
There's no expectation that he will be found mental. That's not what they are pursuing. Nobody with an anxiety order will get off with murder or serve time in a mental institution. The psychologist herself said she wouldn't even consider him mentally ill, just mentally abnormal.
Nel yesterday referred to a case where he himself was prosecuting - and lost - where the accused was a really poor witness on the stand, answering questions with "I don't remember". The defence were then able to argue that the reason he couldn't remember certain things was because of a mental defect diagnosed by an expert witness for the defence. The court accepted this, and so the judge couldn't consider a verdict using the poor quality of those answers (remember, unlike with a jury who can hear things in court and then be told to forget them, but probably never really do come verdict time, a judge would be duty bound to do so, so in SA this could be a worthwhile tactic)
So essentially, Nel is worried that they are going to say that any variations in Pistorius' story on the stand, or inability to account for certain factors - basically his peformance as a whole - could be blamed on his anxiety. I'm sure his wretching and vomiting and trembling voice could be seen as supporting this.
As it is a lay court, they can not decide if these allegations of GAD are true, so these must now be investigated by the state. It was revealed today that the psychologist on the stand only had two interviews with OP over two days. The tests he will now undergo won't be to establish if there is a myriad of things wrong with him - it will only serve to prove or disprove his GADs. So while they can have up to 30 days to prove if someone is criminally insane, in this case they only need to focus on one diagnosis, so will probably only need a couple of days I'd imagine.
So basically, in a nutshell, I think Nel is relying on OP's version of events and his defence changing throughout the trial as an indicator of guilt (or at least tailoring). The defence might seek to excuse this on mental health grounds, and therefore the judge wouldn't be able to condemn OP with it. Nel isn't taking the chance, and hopes a court psychiatrist and psychologist might disagree on the GAD diagnosis, in which case, all of OP's evidence can be used.
What a very well considered opinion, unlike some of the ill-advised guesswork on here.Nel yesterday referred to a case where he himself was prosecuting - and lost - where the accused was a really poor witness on the stand, answering questions with "I don't remember". The defence were then able to argue that the reason he couldn't remember certain things was because of a mental defect diagnosed by an expert witness for the defence. The court accepted this, and so the judge couldn't consider a verdict using the poor quality of those answers (remember, unlike with a jury who can hear things in court and then be told to forget them, but probably never really do come verdict time, a judge would be duty bound to do so, so in SA this could be a worthwhile tactic)
So essentially, Nel is worried that they are going to say that any variations in Pistorius' story on the stand, or inability to account for certain factors - basically his peformance as a whole - could be blamed on his anxiety. I'm sure his wretching and vomiting and trembling voice could be seen as supporting this.
As it is a lay court, they can not decide if these allegations of GAD are true, so these must now be investigated by the state. It was revealed today that the psychologist on the stand only had two interviews with OP over two days. The tests he will now undergo won't be to establish if there is a myriad of things wrong with him - it will only serve to prove or disprove his GADs. So while they can have up to 30 days to prove if someone is criminally insane, in this case they only need to focus on one diagnosis, so will probably only need a couple of days I'd imagine.
So basically, in a nutshell, I think Nel is relying on OP's version of events and his defence changing throughout the trial as an indicator of guilt (or at least tailoring). The defence might seek to excuse this on mental health grounds, and therefore the judge wouldn't be able to condemn OP with it. Nel isn't taking the chance, and hopes a court psychiatrist and psychologist might disagree on the GAD diagnosis, in which case, all of OP's evidence can be used.
So, if I've got it right Wrathalanche, Roux was caught between a rock and a hard place. If he hadn't brought in the psychiatrist as a witness, he couldn't say at a later date that OP had mental issues at the time. By bringing the witness he risked Nel would do exactly what he has done. Clever.
It makes sense now, whereas yesterday I was struggling to see how the prosecution could benefit and wondering why Roux was so set against the examination.
It makes sense now, whereas yesterday I was struggling to see how the prosecution could benefit and wondering why Roux was so set against the examination.
Wrathalanche said:
There's no expectation that he will be found mental. That's not what they are pursuing. Nobody with an anxiety order will get off with murder or serve time in a mental institution. The psychologist herself said she wouldn't even consider him mentally ill, just mentally abnormal.
Nel yesterday referred to a case where he himself was prosecuting - and lost - where the accused was a really poor witness on the stand, answering questions with "I don't remember". The defence were then able to argue that the reason he couldn't remember certain things was because of a mental defect diagnosed by an expert witness for the defence. The court accepted this, and so the judge couldn't consider a verdict using the poor quality of those answers (remember, unlike with a jury who can hear things in court and then be told to forget them, but probably never really do come verdict time, a judge would be duty bound to do so, so in SA this could be a worthwhile tactic)
So essentially, Nel is worried that they are going to say that any variations in Pistorius' story on the stand, or inability to account for certain factors - basically his peformance as a whole - could be blamed on his anxiety. I'm sure his wretching and vomiting and trembling voice could be seen as supporting this.
As it is a lay court, they can not decide if these allegations of GAD are true, so these must now be investigated by the state. It was revealed today that the psychologist on the stand only had two interviews with OP over two days. The tests he will now undergo won't be to establish if there is a myriad of things wrong with him - it will only serve to prove or disprove his GADs. So while they can have up to 30 days to prove if someone is criminally insane, in this case they only need to focus on one diagnosis, so will probably only need a couple of days I'd imagine.
So basically, in a nutshell, I think Nel is relying on OP's version of events and his defence changing throughout the trial as an indicator of guilt (or at least tailoring). The defence might seek to excuse this on mental health grounds, and therefore the judge wouldn't be able to condemn OP with it. Nel isn't taking the chance, and hopes a court psychiatrist and psychologist might disagree on the GAD diagnosis, in which case, all of OP's evidence can be used.
That was very interesting; thank you.Nel yesterday referred to a case where he himself was prosecuting - and lost - where the accused was a really poor witness on the stand, answering questions with "I don't remember". The defence were then able to argue that the reason he couldn't remember certain things was because of a mental defect diagnosed by an expert witness for the defence. The court accepted this, and so the judge couldn't consider a verdict using the poor quality of those answers (remember, unlike with a jury who can hear things in court and then be told to forget them, but probably never really do come verdict time, a judge would be duty bound to do so, so in SA this could be a worthwhile tactic)
So essentially, Nel is worried that they are going to say that any variations in Pistorius' story on the stand, or inability to account for certain factors - basically his peformance as a whole - could be blamed on his anxiety. I'm sure his wretching and vomiting and trembling voice could be seen as supporting this.
As it is a lay court, they can not decide if these allegations of GAD are true, so these must now be investigated by the state. It was revealed today that the psychologist on the stand only had two interviews with OP over two days. The tests he will now undergo won't be to establish if there is a myriad of things wrong with him - it will only serve to prove or disprove his GADs. So while they can have up to 30 days to prove if someone is criminally insane, in this case they only need to focus on one diagnosis, so will probably only need a couple of days I'd imagine.
So basically, in a nutshell, I think Nel is relying on OP's version of events and his defence changing throughout the trial as an indicator of guilt (or at least tailoring). The defence might seek to excuse this on mental health grounds, and therefore the judge wouldn't be able to condemn OP with it. Nel isn't taking the chance, and hopes a court psychiatrist and psychologist might disagree on the GAD diagnosis, in which case, all of OP's evidence can be used.
Can I get your opinion on this?
OP's story is that he thought Reeva was an intruder and that his life was at risk. However, it's quite clear even from his version of events that there was literally nothing that would give rise to a fear or suspicion that such a threat existed, or at least not to a normal person.
Do you think it is possible that Roux intended to argue that this anxiety disorder caused Pistorius to over-react, and to perceive a ''threat'' where none actually existed?
Anxiety research in children has shown that an anxious child will scare more quickly. Not many accepted theories show a link between anxiety and aggression however. The feeds for aggression, according to the most popular theories, are either 'drive' (frustration aggression) 'instinct' (born with a fighting instinct similar to animals) and SLT (aggression is learned). It'll be a good psychologist who can show a supported link between fear and aggression - especially violence of this kind. Lashing out is one thing but what Pistorius did was far more than that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff