It does seem that the lady doctor over egged the pudding a wee bit. I've e read a few things and none mention that people with GAD can be dangerous.
I was shocked when she said that. There must be many thousands of people with GAD who are also gun owners and who haven't shot and killed someone. I don't know what she was thinking of.
I've always said for weeks that the game is to spin things out whilst keeping OP away from Prison for as long as possible. When sentenced eventually, to launch an Appeal and one of those will relate to the incompetency (or around that) of his original legal team. I've noted Roux for sometime doing the most strangest things to the point I have question whether consciously or sub consciously he wants OP to go down. I have stated that I think Roux has always been willing to fall on his sword.
Roux like so many of the Expert Witnesses can be bracketed in that they are towards the end or beyond normal working life. It has been reported that he may be on £3,000+ a day. Some might say that this is a "last Hurrah" situation for these people and perhaps a understanding of some nice sinecure doing something later exists beyond this trial.
Agree it's certainly possible but hope it's not the case as never ending appeals would be a very unfair situation for the Steenkamp family. It does sometimes seem as if Roux know he's on a hiding to nothing in terms of the verdict as his approach has often appeared somewhat casual. I can't imagine he doesn't also see the case from an objective POV and is unaware of public opinion but financially speaking it's clearly a very different matter.
That would be a big gamble though, if that was his hope. From what I've heard from the experts it seems that m'lady had very little choice but to grant a referral once Roux had put in court the possibility that mental disorder issues played a part in the shooting. Roux must've known that.
I wonder if Roux just isn't a little bit incompetent.
It maybe that Roux was put in that position by OP and his family and therefore had no choice but to proceed with the witness. As was clearly the case with the ammunition in the safe not guilty plea when his advice was in all probability ignored. I would guess the Pistorius family went for the best so I doubt he is incompetent although I imagine the bulk of his legal experience is not in the realm of murder trials.
Do you think perhaps that Roux believed Pistorius' story at the beginning and then as case progressed he came to the realisation himself that he is defending a murderer?
I think Roux new from the start, but kept his thoughts to himself, lets face it nothing makes sense. However he may have given him the benefit of the doubt, but when the Autopsy report came back, he must then have known. What we don't know is whether the Client and the powers that be around him, will allow Roux to make a sensible plea.
This shoe horning of the Defence to the impossible Bat last Gun first is quite incredible and doomed to fail. Was that Roux's idea or OP's insistence?
I'd like to feel that Roux is having an inner struggle but who knows?
OP doesn't really have it anyway but is still dangerous, thus he should go to prison,
Before this trial I knew who OP was but I was indifferent to him. Never went out if my way to read about him or watch him in any races or whatnot.
I don't really idolise anyone famous, I realise that behind close doors they are pretty much the same as the rest of us and we rarely see the real them.
My kind of hero is someone who saves lives.
My dislike of him grows daily but I try to be fair. It's not always easy.
I was shocked when she said that. There must be many thousands of people with GAD who are also gun owners and who haven't shot and killed someone. I don't know what she was thinking of.
I think that Psychiatrist woman is more dangerous than OP, as the woman testifies in Court and says things like a murderer had temporary amnesia when he stabbed his wife 11 times, she's the dangerous one, couldn't stand her voice or what she said and how she describe OP in such a sympathetic light, she was totally unprofessional and unethical as she was happy to base her report on just OP's version the man accused of murder, and speak to anyone , who's not even trained as she is, and they'd tell the daft woman that THE MAN ACCUSED OF MURDER IS PROBABLY LYING ABOUT THE EVENTS OF THE NIGHT HE KILLED SOMEONE !! dohhhh
BiB...Yes …Nel even suggested it yesterday in his submission to Masipa…
Nel said that even if Roux would give the Court assurances today that he had no intention of pursuing diminished capacity, OP could fire Roux and the new attorney would not be bound by Roux's previous assurances to the Court….
This was one of the many points Nel gave to the Court to support his submission in favor of a referral.
i particularly enjoyed nel sneaking that bit in there. very cheeky of him
I think Roux new from the start, but kept his thoughts to himself, lets face it nothing makes sense. However he may have given him the benefit of the doubt, but when the Autopsy report came back, he must then have known. What we don't know is whether the Client and the powers that be around him, will allow Roux to make a sensible plea.
This shoe horning of the Defence to the impossible Bat last Gun first is quite incredible and doomed to fail. Was that Roux's idea or OP's insistence?
I'd like to feel that Roux is having an inner struggle but who knows?
I agree, I think Roux knows the reality of it and did from the beginning. I don't think he is suffering too much of an inner struggle though as that's his job and also I think Roux believes justice will be done, he will have played his role to the best of his ability but that doesn't mean he expects OP to be found not guilty.
And with that goodnight to those hardy souls remaining around the forum camp fire! ;-)
I was shocked when she said that. There must be many thousands of people with GAD who are also gun owners and who haven't shot and killed someone. I don't know what she was thinking of.
Hey just think what they maybe thinking, suddenly a SA Law, no GAD's to own a gun! Then Intruders especially targeting GAD suffering House Owners. Biggest danger to life in this Court may not be OP but actually this so called Expert Witness..... seriously though, she could be setting precedencies that have far reaching and unexpected outcomes including death.>:(
BIB - I don't, however, believe you're right on that. OP is of majority age and he's the one who was illegally in possesion of the ammo. I don't believe that him saying it didn't belong to him and that it was in a safe place is an effective defense.
That reminds me a little bit of a cop show on TV in the states. When a car is pulled over and cops ask if person has any kind of drugs in the vehicle they always, it seems to me, say no. Then when cops find the drugs, the perp says "they don't belong to me." The cops seem only concerned with who is in possession of them. (:
But the statute reads that anyone who has a license for the ammo can secure it. This can be done even in a public place. So extrapolating that to saying he stored it in Oscar's safe would be securing it. Otherwise the same rules for a public place couldn't apply.
The difference is OP doesn't have a license for the ammunition which he must have to secure it as his own.
It's actually less restrictive regarding the firearm itself. You can give anyone else your firearm as long as they are over the age of 16 (I believe if I remember) and as long as they are under your supervision it is within the statute as permissible. Very odd.
I read the full statute. I think he could be covered if the dad said it was his.
Well he certainly has a holey story so maybe he should be.. ;-)
:D he does, i'm still the pope if OP is declared to have a mental illness
I saw a post on here , last couple of pages that OP's Aunt looked like a Stepford Wife, and I can't find it now, it was funny !! I think the poster was referring to the lady who sits next to a robust man with grey hair next to OP's Aunt and Uncle.
This lady has shoulder length dark hair..... she does have a fixed permanent smile , that doesn't move, her expression doesn't change,... every day , she's there, with this odd smile - I think it's for the camera, and the poster was right.......she does look like a Stepford Wife !!
but OP's Aunt, who sits next to Uncle Arnold...., short grey hair ,large black glasses, looks permanently 'startled' ...........
I was shocked when she said that. There must be many thousands of people with GAD who are also gun owners and who haven't shot and killed someone. I don't know what she was thinking of.
It was an extraordinary statement to make. In fact her entire testimony focussed on the very extreme end of GAD without at any point making a judgement as to where she would place OP on the (very broad) scale of the disorder. I think that was the defence tactic - to raise the spectre of extreme GAD without ACTUALLY ever saying OP suffered to that level.
Nel with his cross-examination pointed out areas which suggested that if he does have GAD it is probably very mild - similar to millions of others who pose no risk to anyone, in ANY situation. But of course his lay opinion on GAD has no legal weight.
In real life, only noticeably extreme GAD sufferers, who find it impossible to operate in the world, would be referred for such a lengthy examination. And yet, off goes OP. What will they find!?
The "trap" was set by Roux from the get go, in my opinion. When OP said that "I never said whisper," I knew they were going to go for a psych excuse, diminished capacity, what have you. I found myself wondering how Mr. Nel could ask, "If someone said you said that, then they were lying," instead of, "...then they would be crazy." The Defense have been working this angle since OP took the stand, and Mr. Nel knew it.
No trap; when you see it, you can walk around it.
One way or another, though, it's a good thing OP is getting evaluated. I think he'll be diagnosed with a pervasive personality disorder, but if not, I'm relieved Mr. Nel will know definitively who/what he is dealing with.
Judging by what a last ditch attempt the mental health angle seemed to be and how it appears things are not going too great for his case (in particular struggling to settle on a solid defence) I think it is reasonable to wonder if OP will try to convince them of a condition, or exaggerate responses. But I do have pretty good faith that they will be well trained in spotting the signs that someone isn't being truthful. Involentary movements will give this stuff away. Also posture, gestures, even the direction you look whilst recalling a real memory vs a false one can be indicative of how truthful you are being. So many things.
He will have to be very knowledgeable and consistent to fool them for 30 intensive days. If he is thinking too much about what he is saying i.e calculated in his responses that should be picked up upon too. He would have to be good, but not TOO good!
Mind you, I am not indicating that I definitely think he will try to dupe but I think those who are wary do have reason to be (as I said above) Personally I will probably be inclined to trust their findings
The "trap" was set by Roux from the get go, in my opinion. When OP said that "I never said whisper," I knew they were going to go for a psych excuse, diminished capacity, what have you. I found myself wondering how Mr. Nel could ask, "If someone said you said that, then they were lying," instead of, "...then they would be crazy." The Defense have been working this angle since OP took the stand, and Mr. Nel knew it.
No trap; when you see it, you can walk around it.
One way or another, though, it's a good thing OP is getting evaluated. I think he'll be diagnosed with a pervasive personality disorder, but if not, I'm relieved Mr. Nel will know definitively who/what he is dealing with.
Thanks for replying, Tissy.
I'm not convinced about the trap theory. I think the defence has just blundered from one fiasco to another. I've been very disappointed, tbh. Dixon (especially) and Wollie didn't seem to make a great impression on the forensics front. Pistorius's performance was spectacular although perhaps not for all the right reasons. And now this psychiatrist has said that he's a danger to the public?!
Benjamini, could you post the number to your post? I didn't see it, but would very much like to read it.
I don't know how anyone in the public eye--be it actors, athletes, politicians, whoever--can function with any degree of normality...too stressful all.of.the.time.
Benjamini, could you post the number to your post? I didn't see it, but would very much like to read it.
I don't know how anyone in the public eye--be it actors, athletes, politicians, whoever--can function with any degree of normality...too stressful all.of.the.time.
Thanks, benjamini.
Benji's in bed. There ain't nobody here but us chickens.
It was an extraordinary statement to make. In fact her entire testimony focussed on the very extreme end of GAD without at any point making a judgement as to where she would place OP on the (very broad) scale of the disorder. I think that was the defence tactic - to raise the spectre of extreme GAD without ACTUALLY ever saying OP suffered to that level.
Nel with his cross-examination pointed out areas which suggested that if he does have GAD it is probably very mild - similar to millions of others who pose no risk to anyone, in ANY situation. But of course his lay opinion on GAD has no legal weight.
In real life, only noticeably extreme GAD sufferers, who find it impossible to operate in the world, would be referred for such a lengthy examination. And yet, off goes OP. What will they find!?
Nel addressing the Court , says that the Dr said that OP is a danger to himself and society and should not be allowed to possess a firearm !
Ridiculous woman. I can't believe for a moment the defence wanted her to say that in a million years. Also, it puts people who do suffer from GAD in a very bad light.
I think it is reasonable to wonder if OP will try to convince them of a condition, or exaggerate responses. But I do have pretty good faith that they will be well trained in spotting the signs that someone isn't being truthful.
Very reasonable. The problem he has is to decide which condition to go with! Should he act out the GAD to get an 'extreme' reading. What about his anger/control issues. His narcissism? How about his relationship behaviour pattern? He will be assessed on all aspects and often will not know WHAT it is that being assessed.
If he does try to act out, it will be inconsistent and any acting will itself be part of their evaluation. Best case for OP is that they confirm his GAD and only that. Worst case, they suggest he has a personality disorder that makes him prone to domestic violence, or that he is just a normal bloke with normal anxieties and a bad temper.
Comments
I was shocked when she said that. There must be many thousands of people with GAD who are also gun owners and who haven't shot and killed someone. I don't know what she was thinking of.
Agree it's certainly possible but hope it's not the case as never ending appeals would be a very unfair situation for the Steenkamp family. It does sometimes seem as if Roux know he's on a hiding to nothing in terms of the verdict as his approach has often appeared somewhat casual. I can't imagine he doesn't also see the case from an objective POV and is unaware of public opinion but financially speaking it's clearly a very different matter.
Aj suggested that OP could change his Defence team during THIS trial ! I don't think so, surely ?
It maybe that Roux was put in that position by OP and his family and therefore had no choice but to proceed with the witness. As was clearly the case with the ammunition in the safe not guilty plea when his advice was in all probability ignored. I would guess the Pistorius family went for the best so I doubt he is incompetent although I imagine the bulk of his legal experience is not in the realm of murder trials.
I think Roux new from the start, but kept his thoughts to himself, lets face it nothing makes sense. However he may have given him the benefit of the doubt, but when the Autopsy report came back, he must then have known. What we don't know is whether the Client and the powers that be around him, will allow Roux to make a sensible plea.
This shoe horning of the Defence to the impossible Bat last Gun first is quite incredible and doomed to fail. Was that Roux's idea or OP's insistence?
I'd like to feel that Roux is having an inner struggle but who knows?
Before this trial I knew who OP was but I was indifferent to him. Never went out if my way to read about him or watch him in any races or whatnot.
I don't really idolise anyone famous, I realise that behind close doors they are pretty much the same as the rest of us and we rarely see the real them.
My kind of hero is someone who saves lives.
My dislike of him grows daily but I try to be fair. It's not always easy.
I think that Psychiatrist woman is more dangerous than OP, as the woman testifies in Court and says things like a murderer had temporary amnesia when he stabbed his wife 11 times, she's the dangerous one, couldn't stand her voice or what she said and how she describe OP in such a sympathetic light, she was totally unprofessional and unethical as she was happy to base her report on just OP's version the man accused of murder, and speak to anyone , who's not even trained as she is, and they'd tell the daft woman that THE MAN ACCUSED OF MURDER IS PROBABLY LYING ABOUT THE EVENTS OF THE NIGHT HE KILLED SOMEONE !! dohhhh
With OP anything is possible I suppose.
i particularly enjoyed nel sneaking that bit in there. very cheeky of him
I agree, I think Roux knows the reality of it and did from the beginning. I don't think he is suffering too much of an inner struggle though as that's his job and also I think Roux believes justice will be done, he will have played his role to the best of his ability but that doesn't mean he expects OP to be found not guilty.
And with that goodnight to those hardy souls remaining around the forum camp fire! ;-)
Hey just think what they maybe thinking, suddenly a SA Law, no GAD's to own a gun! Then Intruders especially targeting GAD suffering House Owners. Biggest danger to life in this Court may not be OP but actually this so called Expert Witness..... seriously though, she could be setting precedencies that have far reaching and unexpected outcomes including death.>:(
Yes...Perhaps 'cheeky' but also a very real risk that Masipa could not ignore
Wrong again. From the one who always respects everybody's opinions.
What a laugh.
But the statute reads that anyone who has a license for the ammo can secure it. This can be done even in a public place. So extrapolating that to saying he stored it in Oscar's safe would be securing it. Otherwise the same rules for a public place couldn't apply.
The difference is OP doesn't have a license for the ammunition which he must have to secure it as his own.
It's actually less restrictive regarding the firearm itself. You can give anyone else your firearm as long as they are over the age of 16 (I believe if I remember) and as long as they are under your supervision it is within the statute as permissible. Very odd.
I read the full statute. I think he could be covered if the dad said it was his.
I saw a post on here , last couple of pages that OP's Aunt looked like a Stepford Wife, and I can't find it now, it was funny !! I think the poster was referring to the lady who sits next to a robust man with grey hair next to OP's Aunt and Uncle.
This lady has shoulder length dark hair..... she does have a fixed permanent smile , that doesn't move, her expression doesn't change,... every day , she's there, with this odd smile - I think it's for the camera, and the poster was right.......she does look like a Stepford Wife !!
but OP's Aunt, who sits next to Uncle Arnold...., short grey hair ,large black glasses, looks permanently 'startled'
. just saying
It was an extraordinary statement to make. In fact her entire testimony focussed on the very extreme end of GAD without at any point making a judgement as to where she would place OP on the (very broad) scale of the disorder. I think that was the defence tactic - to raise the spectre of extreme GAD without ACTUALLY ever saying OP suffered to that level.
Nel with his cross-examination pointed out areas which suggested that if he does have GAD it is probably very mild - similar to millions of others who pose no risk to anyone, in ANY situation. But of course his lay opinion on GAD has no legal weight.
In real life, only noticeably extreme GAD sufferers, who find it impossible to operate in the world, would be referred for such a lengthy examination. And yet, off goes OP. What will they find!?
The "trap" was set by Roux from the get go, in my opinion. When OP said that "I never said whisper," I knew they were going to go for a psych excuse, diminished capacity, what have you. I found myself wondering how Mr. Nel could ask, "If someone said you said that, then they were lying," instead of, "...then they would be crazy." The Defense have been working this angle since OP took the stand, and Mr. Nel knew it.
No trap; when you see it, you can walk around it.
One way or another, though, it's a good thing OP is getting evaluated. I think he'll be diagnosed with a pervasive personality disorder, but if not, I'm relieved Mr. Nel will know definitively who/what he is dealing with.
Thanks for replying, Tissy.
Judging by what a last ditch attempt the mental health angle seemed to be and how it appears things are not going too great for his case (in particular struggling to settle on a solid defence) I think it is reasonable to wonder if OP will try to convince them of a condition, or exaggerate responses. But I do have pretty good faith that they will be well trained in spotting the signs that someone isn't being truthful. Involentary movements will give this stuff away. Also posture, gestures, even the direction you look whilst recalling a real memory vs a false one can be indicative of how truthful you are being. So many things.
He will have to be very knowledgeable and consistent to fool them for 30 intensive days. If he is thinking too much about what he is saying i.e calculated in his responses that should be picked up upon too. He would have to be good, but not TOO good!
Mind you, I am not indicating that I definitely think he will try to dupe but I think those who are wary do have reason to be (as I said above) Personally I will probably be inclined to trust their findings
I'm not convinced about the trap theory. I think the defence has just blundered from one fiasco to another. I've been very disappointed, tbh. Dixon (especially) and Wollie didn't seem to make a great impression on the forensics front. Pistorius's performance was spectacular although perhaps not for all the right reasons. And now this psychiatrist has said that he's a danger to the public?!
Benjamini, could you post the number to your post? I didn't see it, but would very much like to read it.
I don't know how anyone in the public eye--be it actors, athletes, politicians, whoever--can function with any degree of normality...too stressful all.of.the.time.
Thanks, benjamini.
Benji's in bed. There ain't nobody here but us chickens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHScuFgtO10
Tuesday 13 May 2014, Session 2 - 54 mins in
Nel addressing the Court , says that the Dr said that OP is a danger to himself and society and should not be allowed to possess a firearm !
Ridiculous woman. I can't believe for a moment the defence wanted her to say that in a million years. Also, it puts people who do suffer from GAD in a very bad light.
Very reasonable. The problem he has is to decide which condition to go with! Should he act out the GAD to get an 'extreme' reading. What about his anger/control issues. His narcissism? How about his relationship behaviour pattern? He will be assessed on all aspects and often will not know WHAT it is that being assessed.
If he does try to act out, it will be inconsistent and any acting will itself be part of their evaluation. Best case for OP is that they confirm his GAD and only that. Worst case, they suggest he has a personality disorder that makes him prone to domestic violence, or that he is just a normal bloke with normal anxieties and a bad temper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LSWSo3i4R8