I'll answer that, OP has hardly said a word of truth. If he couldn't or wouldn't answer the question he pretended to cry.
He's a lying bastard and I hope he gets jailed for a long time. I doubt the Judge believes half the shit he has said.
It's amazing how good his memory is but can't remember much about the shooting
This is what mildly worries me. Sometimes she appears to be behind on understanding matters, not grasping things very quickly. I really hope she has been sharp enough to catch all of the things highlighted by Nel and is able to keep track of OP's multiple fabrications on the stand.
This is what mildly worries me. Sometimes she appears to be behind on understanding matters, not grasping things very quickly. I really hope she has been sharp enough to catch all of the things highlighted by Nel and is able to keep track of OP's multiple fabrications on the stand.
I believe you can rest easy… this isn't Judge Masipa's first rodeo.
We can multitask. Aaand our arousal generally speaking doesn't take up vital blood supply from the brain.
Yes my wife's like that, I always thought I was in a threesome when she was hovering. Its not been the same since she brought in Dyson, Henry was well put out.
Why did Nel claim that the Dr said in evidence that the Generalised Anxiety Disorder could affect Pistorius's ability "to tell right from wrong"? The judge disagreed. Roux disagreed. I've rewatched it back and she said the exact opposite i.e. that GAD would NOT affect his ability to tell right from wrong.
God, Nel is such a dirty low snake.
You seem to have entirely missed the essence of the debate. It is not whether he could distinguish between right and wrong, but whether he could act in accordance with the distinction.
Either of the two effects (ability to tell / ability to act) can require the court to send him for 30 days mental health assessment. It is this latter feature that is the subject of all their discussion. Please try and pay attention! The detail is important.
It's quite a simple argument really - if his ability to act in accordance with the distinction is diminished, then that could in theory affect sentencing (or indeed verdict). If the defence wish to play that card, they can only do it after a full psychiatric assessment - not just a couple of sessions writing down OP's life story.
I thought the psychiatrist was professional and objective, but also a bit proud of her experience with criminal cases. I had the feeling that Nel exploited that by producing the term 'dolus eventualis' quite casually, as if he were engaged in a consultation between professionals. She agreed with the term, which is doubtless a coup for the prosecution.
But her diagnosis of an anxiety disorder seems consistent with what we've learned of OP's behaviour in recent years. It's hard to imagine there NOT being a lot of psychological pressure building up, OP's disability was handled by his parents by insisting that he ignore it completely and toughen up. There does not seem to have been any channel for him to express the vulnerability he undoubtedly felt. I'm not sure this is a typical situation for children with such serious disabilities? I'm sure there are complex psychiatric terms for the kind of splitting that happens in this scenario, but much of what we've heard of OP's activities suggest moments of serious loss of control and wild acting-out, which seems hardly surprising.
When it comes to Reeva, it seems to me that she was the first 'grown-up' partner he'd had. She was older than him, calm, intelligent and kind. It strikes me that for a boy whose mother had died when he was young, a woman like Reeva might unconsciously feel like a mother-replacement. In that case, perhaps everything she did and said felt a little like being judged by a mother? Which is a much more intense and volatile arrangement than just someone you want to sleep with.
Whatever went on that night, I think there was blood on fire in OP's head.
You cannot attain professionalism until you have some sort of understanding of how you should conduct yourself as a person in the first place. Turning up at the court in a serious Murder Trial and dumping the Prosecution with your report at the same time is beyond disrespectful. This is not the action of a professional Expert Witness. Additionally building a "case" based on a few meetings with OP and his Family plus supporting parties, over the last week or so, shows no intention to undertake a unbiased assessment. She is little more than a Ghost Writer come Mouth Piece, used to tidy up the wording and give a dubious rubber stamp of professionalism. Suspect she falls into the Dixon / Woolie age or and approaching end of Career category? and some might say less worried about future income.
I don't believe the psychiatrist falls into the same category as Dixon… not at all.
Be she was retained and paid to do a specific job, under specific circumstances and conditions.
She did a professional job, with what she had to work with and the time that was given to her.
The result is that her assessment isn't probative… that's not her fault it's the Defence's fault.
Whilst agreeing in part, she went along with this. She knew this was a serious Murder Trial. She went along with the idea that you could walk in and dump the Prosecution with your Report as you take the Stand. She went along with the idea that a few hours of assessment, but only with Defence supporting witnesses was somehow balanced? She knew what the game was. She is supposed to be an Expert Witness with all the requirements that are expected. "I was only following Orders" "I was paid to do the Job" comes to mind.
It's fascinating.
Roux only intended to lead evidence that OP was vulnerable but it over shot the mark spectacularly.
He opened a can of worms that Nel wants to capitalise on, probably wrongly.
Judge steered Nel to rethink, and he will I'm sure.
I suspect a flurry of phone calls and some sort of compromise reached.
This not going in a direction the prosecution or defence envisaged or wanted.
Will be interested in how it's resolved.
Its along the lines of Double Bluffs. Overall what the Judge and Nel want to make sure of, that any Appeal grounds (there will be one the instant he is found guilty of anything) can't be successfully launched. His mental state and how this evidence was treated could be one of them. Defence also slipped in after a break, a Woolie now saying he could organise a field trip for the Judge and Co, to show the sound etc. tests to the Court so everyone could be sure.
If an Appeal is launched application will be for OP's Bail to be effectively extended in its current form. This would seem madness that he would be let out perhaps for another year, but he's been on holiday, met a new girlfriend etc. His mental state and danger to the public would play a part in any assessment.
I read in the paper there is a 6 month wait for a bed in the unit where he is likely to be sent to.
I hope Nel backs away from this one, although if he is suspicious that Roux is going to try and run this as some sort of defence it would need to be examined .
A bit of a mess really.
Whilst agreeing in part, she went along with this. She knew this was a serious Murder Trial. She went along with the idea that you could walk in and dump the Prosecution with your Report as you take the Stand. She went along with the idea that a few hours of assessment, but only with Defence supporting witnesses was somehow balanced? She knew what the game was. She is supposed to be an Expert Witness with all the requirements that are expected. "I was only following Orders" "I was paid to do the Job" comes to mind.
My thoughts exactly
One has to ask why the psychiatrist accepted the brief in the first place – well apart from the money!
Surely she must have realised that any report she could prepare in the limited time and resouces would be nowhere near comprehensive enough to meet the exacting standards of a psychiatric assessment.
Such an assessment should ideally include social and biographical information and direct observations from specific psychological tests taken over a period of time. It is a multi-disciplinary process involving nurses, psychologists, occupational therapists, etc.
All she could hope to do was provide a mere psychiatric ‘snapshot’, a very limited ‘report’ which as Nel rightly points out is totally insufficient in this instance.
Even this report can be viewed as being ‘tainted’ as it is substantially supported by interviews with only a very small section of people who are dedicated to securing Pistorius’ freedom. Indeed one has to speculate as to who decided this list of people?
Did she not for one moment ask herself how this ‘report’ would be viewed in the world’s media with regard to her professional standards?
I can only assume she was sufficiently well paid to lower her standards in order to work within a very limited time frame, with only extremely biased persons, including the accused and without access to full background information.
One has to ask why the psychiatrist accepted the brief in the first place – well apart from the money!
Surely she must have realised that any report she could prepare in the limited time and resouces would be nowhere near comprehensive enough to meet the exacting standards of a psychiatric assessment.
Such an assessment should ideally include social and biographical information and direct observations from specific psychological tests taken over a period of time. It is a multi-disciplinary process involving nurses, psychologists, occupational therapists, etc.
All she could hope to do was provide a mere psychiatric ‘snapshot’, a very limited ‘report’ which as Nel rightly points out is totally insufficient in this instance.
Even this report can be viewed as being ‘tainted’ as it is substantially supported by interviews with only a very small section of people who are dedicated to securing Pistorius’ freedom. Indeed one has to speculate as to who decided this list of people?
Did she not for one moment ask herself how this ‘report’ would be viewed in the world’s media with regard to her professional standards?
I can only assume she was sufficiently well paid to lower her standards in order to work within a very limited time frame, with only extremely biased persons, including the accused and without access to full background information.
Just goes to show everyone has their price
But in her defence she is a defence witness. She has not been presented as Independant. . I think Nel and the State missed a trick here. They should have had him assessed independently .
But I agree the way she has been shoe horned in at the last minute and presenting her report along with herself yesterday was very unprofessional, but I blame Roux for that.
Nel should have asked for an adjournment until he could read the report and discuss with his own experts. Poor show really .
My prediction for today is that M'lady will not allow Nel's request. Good on him though for calling Roux's bluff. If Oscar's GAD is so severe that he killed an innocent person then he needs to be medically assessed. If he doesn't need to be medically assessed then his GAD is too insignificant to have influenced his killing of Reeva.
I don't doubt that Dr Voerster is a skilled psychiatrist but it seems to me she has cherry-picked incidents in Oscar's life and put her own interpretation of them. It's a shame if Nel has ended his cross-examination of her. I would like to know her opinion of the behaviour evinced in Reeva's text messages and her interpretation of incidents such as Oscar's encounter with the traffic cop or his confrontation with Mark Bachelor.
But in her defence she is a defence witness. She has not been presented as Independant. . I think Nel and the State missed a trick here. They should have had him assessed independently .
But I agree the way she has been shoe horned in at the last minute and presenting her report along with herself yesterday was very unprofessional, but I blame Roux for that.
Nel should have asked for an adjournment until he could read the report and discuss with his own experts. Poor show really .
But she has to be independent. The first duty of an expert witness is to present an unbiased report to the court. The fact she is being paid by the defence or even the prosecution is irrelevant, her duty is to the court only.
She didn't have to be 'shoe horned' she could have been professional enough to say no to the money
Why did Nel claim that the Dr said in evidence that the Generalised Anxiety Disorder could affect Pistorius's ability "to tell right from wrong"? The judge disagreed. Roux disagreed. I've rewatched it back and she said the exact opposite i.e. that GAD would NOT affect his ability to tell right from wrong.
God, Nel is such a dirty low snake.
Her answer to the question was 'It should be taken into consideration'
My prediction for today is that M'lady will not allow Nel's request. Good on him though for calling Roux's bluff. If Oscar's GAD is so severe that he killed an innocent person then he needs to be medically assessed. If he doesn't need to be medically assessed then his GAD is too insignificant to have influenced his killing of Reeva.
I don't doubt that Dr Voerster is a skilled psychiatrist but it seems to me she has cherry-picked incidents in Oscar's life and put her own interpretation of them. It's a shame if Nel has ended his cross-examination of her. I would like to know her opinion of the behaviour evinced in Reeva's text messages and her interpretation of incidents such as Oscar's encounter with the traffic cop or his confrontation with Mark Bachelor.
He as not finished his cross examination.
The call for an assessment came after partial cross examination.
Roux said he couldn't call for an assessment until he had an opportunity to re examine
Nel said 'You re examine, then I will make an assessment application'
Roux said that he would object.
M'lady told Nel to finish cross examining.
Nel said he would but needed time to consult with the state psychiatrist and they
adjourned.
When he came back he said he needed an adjournment to finish cross this morning
The truth is what happened yesterday was Roux tried to sneak in a low level psychiatric report under the radar in the hope it may influence the judge’s thinking but without raising it to a level that the prosecution could claim his client had any real mental defects.
It was a high risk strategy, a high wire legal balancing act.
Unfortunately for Roux it was picked up of Gerrie Nel’s radar and a missile, far bigger than he could have anticipated, was launched in response.
The truth is what happened yesterday was Roux tried to sneak in a low level psychiatric report under the radar in the hope it may influence the judge’s thinking but without raising it to a level that the prosecution could claim his client had any real mental defects.
It was a high risk strategy, a high wire legal balancing act.
Unfortunately for Roux it was picked up of Gerrie Nel’s radar and a missile, far bigger than he could have anticipated, was launched in response.
I think this should have been presented as mitigation at sentencing . If his condition does not impinge on his understanding of right and wrong and his cognitive thinking is not diminished by it, then none of what she said in any way lessens his culpability.
The truth is what happened yesterday was Roux tried to sneak in a low level psychiatric report under the radar in the hope it may influence the judge’s thinking but without raising it to a level that the prosecution could claim his client had any real mental defects.
It was a high risk strategy, a high wire legal balancing act.
Unfortunately for Roux it was picked up of Gerrie Nel’s radar and a missile, far bigger than he could have anticipated, was launched in response.
But in her defence she is a defence witness. She has not been presented as Independant. . I think Nel and the State missed a trick here. They should have had him assessed independently .
But I agree the way she has been shoe horned in at the last minute and presenting her report along with herself yesterday was very unprofessional, but I blame Roux for that.
Nel should have asked for an adjournment until he could read the report and discuss with his own experts. Poor show really .
Unprofessional or devious ?
Did he really think he could produce this witness nearing the end and think the state would readily accept her findings without question
Doubt Milady slept well last night either, she wants this case over with and Roux has put a spanner in the works.
Wonder if OP got a price for the whole job or is paying Roux by the day ;-)
Comments
I'll answer that, OP has hardly said a word of truth. If he couldn't or wouldn't answer the question he pretended to cry.
He's a lying bastard and I hope he gets jailed for a long time. I doubt the Judge believes half the shit he has said.
It's amazing how good his memory is but can't remember much about the shooting
This is what mildly worries me. Sometimes she appears to be behind on understanding matters, not grasping things very quickly. I really hope she has been sharp enough to catch all of the things highlighted by Nel and is able to keep track of OP's multiple fabrications on the stand.
I believe you can rest easy… this isn't Judge Masipa's first rodeo.
Yes my wife's like that, I always thought I was in a threesome when she was hovering. Its not been the same since she brought in Dyson, Henry was well put out.
You seem to have entirely missed the essence of the debate. It is not whether he could distinguish between right and wrong, but whether he could act in accordance with the distinction.
Either of the two effects (ability to tell / ability to act) can require the court to send him for 30 days mental health assessment. It is this latter feature that is the subject of all their discussion. Please try and pay attention! The detail is important.
It's quite a simple argument really - if his ability to act in accordance with the distinction is diminished, then that could in theory affect sentencing (or indeed verdict). If the defence wish to play that card, they can only do it after a full psychiatric assessment - not just a couple of sessions writing down OP's life story.
You cannot attain professionalism until you have some sort of understanding of how you should conduct yourself as a person in the first place. Turning up at the court in a serious Murder Trial and dumping the Prosecution with your report at the same time is beyond disrespectful. This is not the action of a professional Expert Witness. Additionally building a "case" based on a few meetings with OP and his Family plus supporting parties, over the last week or so, shows no intention to undertake a unbiased assessment. She is little more than a Ghost Writer come Mouth Piece, used to tidy up the wording and give a dubious rubber stamp of professionalism. Suspect she falls into the Dixon / Woolie age or and approaching end of Career category? and some might say less worried about future income.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-30--prosecution-drops-bombshell-that-could-land-blade-runner-in-psychiatric-ward-163005151.html
Plus a reminder that conviction for D.E. carries a 15-year sentence.
Whilst agreeing in part, she went along with this. She knew this was a serious Murder Trial. She went along with the idea that you could walk in and dump the Prosecution with your Report as you take the Stand. She went along with the idea that a few hours of assessment, but only with Defence supporting witnesses was somehow balanced? She knew what the game was. She is supposed to be an Expert Witness with all the requirements that are expected. "I was only following Orders" "I was paid to do the Job" comes to mind.
Its along the lines of Double Bluffs. Overall what the Judge and Nel want to make sure of, that any Appeal grounds (there will be one the instant he is found guilty of anything) can't be successfully launched. His mental state and how this evidence was treated could be one of them. Defence also slipped in after a break, a Woolie now saying he could organise a field trip for the Judge and Co, to show the sound etc. tests to the Court so everyone could be sure.
If an Appeal is launched application will be for OP's Bail to be effectively extended in its current form. This would seem madness that he would be let out perhaps for another year, but he's been on holiday, met a new girlfriend etc. His mental state and danger to the public would play a part in any assessment.
His fans are called Curlie's Girlies in line with Nel's Belles and Roux's Flouxsies. I haven't heard of many Wollie's Dollies though.
I hope Nel backs away from this one, although if he is suspicious that Roux is going to try and run this as some sort of defence it would need to be examined .
A bit of a mess really.
Join the club. Abandon hope of a life until it's over.
I know, i have been here since the beginning, lurking mainly and also a good place to catch up when you're on earlies
My thoughts exactly
One has to ask why the psychiatrist accepted the brief in the first place – well apart from the money!
Surely she must have realised that any report she could prepare in the limited time and resouces would be nowhere near comprehensive enough to meet the exacting standards of a psychiatric assessment.
Such an assessment should ideally include social and biographical information and direct observations from specific psychological tests taken over a period of time. It is a multi-disciplinary process involving nurses, psychologists, occupational therapists, etc.
All she could hope to do was provide a mere psychiatric ‘snapshot’, a very limited ‘report’ which as Nel rightly points out is totally insufficient in this instance.
Even this report can be viewed as being ‘tainted’ as it is substantially supported by interviews with only a very small section of people who are dedicated to securing Pistorius’ freedom. Indeed one has to speculate as to who decided this list of people?
Did she not for one moment ask herself how this ‘report’ would be viewed in the world’s media with regard to her professional standards?
I can only assume she was sufficiently well paid to lower her standards in order to work within a very limited time frame, with only extremely biased persons, including the accused and without access to full background information.
Just goes to show everyone has their price!
But in her defence she is a defence witness. She has not been presented as Independant. . I think Nel and the State missed a trick here. They should have had him assessed independently .
But I agree the way she has been shoe horned in at the last minute and presenting her report along with herself yesterday was very unprofessional, but I blame Roux for that.
Nel should have asked for an adjournment until he could read the report and discuss with his own experts. Poor show really .
I don't doubt that Dr Voerster is a skilled psychiatrist but it seems to me she has cherry-picked incidents in Oscar's life and put her own interpretation of them. It's a shame if Nel has ended his cross-examination of her. I would like to know her opinion of the behaviour evinced in Reeva's text messages and her interpretation of incidents such as Oscar's encounter with the traffic cop or his confrontation with Mark Bachelor.
But she has to be independent. The first duty of an expert witness is to present an unbiased report to the court. The fact she is being paid by the defence or even the prosecution is irrelevant, her duty is to the court only.
She didn't have to be 'shoe horned' she could have been professional enough to say no to the money
Her answer to the question was 'It should be taken into consideration'
He as not finished his cross examination.
The call for an assessment came after partial cross examination.
Roux said he couldn't call for an assessment until he had an opportunity to re examine
Nel said 'You re examine, then I will make an assessment application'
Roux said that he would object.
M'lady told Nel to finish cross examining.
Nel said he would but needed time to consult with the state psychiatrist and they
adjourned.
When he came back he said he needed an adjournment to finish cross this morning
That is where we are up to.
It was a high risk strategy, a high wire legal balancing act.
Unfortunately for Roux it was picked up of Gerrie Nel’s radar and a missile, far bigger than he could have anticipated, was launched in response.
I think this should have been presented as mitigation at sentencing . If his condition does not impinge on his understanding of right and wrong and his cognitive thinking is not diminished by it, then none of what she said in any way lessens his culpability.
I disagree with her. It should only be in mitigation at sentencing that perhaps the judge might consider it.
Good summing up Jeremy.
Unprofessional or devious ?
Did he really think he could produce this witness nearing the end and think the state would readily accept her findings without question
Doubt Milady slept well last night either, she wants this case over with and Roux has put a spanner in the works.
Wonder if OP got a price for the whole job or is paying Roux by the day ;-)