Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Pengy:

Embedded image permalink

 

<small class="time"> 1m</small>

PIC: Pistorius crying during the psychiatrist's cross-examination. Make of it what you will.

 

 

so asking for an adjournment till tomorrow 

 

 

he's crapping himself  and is it finished now...I was out paying the gardener 

  FRANK FRANK FRANK  Moonie Moonie Moonie are you safe?   if you're under a paving stone tap once for yes or twice for no 

*taps twice*

Moonie
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Aimee:
Are they carting him off to the funny farm now then

they've decided finally that Nel will continue questioning tomorrow after he's had time to digest her report - then Barry will get to cross examine then hopefully a referral will be made for him to be carted off to the funny farm - I don't know who makes the decision mind as to who agrees to the referral?  M'lady or someone else nor how long it takes 

 

 

me either to all of that ^^^^^ 

Dame_Ann_Average
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Aimee:
Are they carting him off to the funny farm now then

they've decided finally that Nel will continue questioning tomorrow after he's had time to digest her report - then Barry will get to cross examine then hopefully a referral will be made for him to be carted off to the funny farm - I don't know who makes the decision mind as to who agrees to the referral?  M'lady or someone else nor how long it takes 

 

 

me either to all of that ^^^^^ 

useless as ever   I'm h'aaart broken 

FM
Originally Posted by Roxan:

BBC are saying 30 day mental health assessment possible = anyone heard anything? I canr watch live with the time difference

It depends on if the referral is accepted - there has been no decision yet Roxan.  Nel will continue to question Dr Vorster tomorrow after he's read and understands her report which he only received today.  Roux will get a chance to cross examine I believe then Nel will again ask for OP to be referred.

 

What I'm not sure of is whether that referral will be decided by My lady or another judge [I'm sure My lady will do it] nor do we know if it will be made that day or if the judge will take a few days to consider.  

 

Personally I think in all likelihood, he will be referred although the defence will do everything they can to stop it.  This case could go on to Christmas at this rate  

FM
Originally Posted by Roxan:

Thanks Pengy! The case is certainly a bit of a circus isn't it. I didn't think you were allowed to introduce mental capacity defense without declaring it pre trial.

well it is the third defence posited if it is accepted but Barry Roux doesn't want to put it forward because in South Africa, it's a very hard defence to defend   defence lawyers aren't very successful with it!

 

we shall see 

FM
Originally Posted by Roxan:

Really? So he can introduce the concept but not submit it as a defense? Bet Nel is fuming about this twist!

to be honest I'm not sure which defence they are supposed to be defending and neither does the Defence by the look of it 

 

the official defence is one putative private defence but OP himself deviated from that so many times.  Nel will be loving it Roxan because it shows what a liar OP is and if he does get OP psych evaluated/assessed, the report might confirm his lies but there is the risk that OP could be shown to be bonkers and that could help his case but I doubt the latter  hence why Barry doesn't want it as a defence 

FM
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:

 ^^^^^^^

 

I'm not sure why Roux is fighting this  He must have faith his client is being truthful surely 

I'm wondering if it's because 1) if he's observed too closely, he won't be able to pull the wool [as opposed to Wolley] over trained psychiatric eyes and would be shown to be the liar that he is or 2) because he knows if OP is deemed to have some sort of medical issue defence, it's very difficult to prove it in SA hence why there aren't that many successful cases.  If OP was truly mentally ill whether because of PTSD or GAD or defective brain due to encephalitis and boating brain injury, it would have been the defence from the start and they would have had reams of medical evidence to prove it - they don't so it's a none starter.

 

I really believe Roux is afraid they'll pick holes in him and see he's lying 

FM
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:

 

 

I totally agree Pengy, hence my sarcastic post  I truly do not know why Roux thought this was ever going to be a good idea whichever way it turns out 

I think this last witness has totally thrown him - she's conceded many points and has opened the door for Nel to walk through and prove him a liar.  In some ways I feel sorry for Roux because OP has done him up like a kipper 

FM
Originally Posted by Pengy:
Originally Posted by Dame_Ann_Average:

 

 

I totally agree Pengy, hence my sarcastic post  I truly do not know why Roux thought this was ever going to be a good idea whichever way it turns out 

I think this last witness has totally thrown him - she's conceded many points and has opened the door for Nel to walk through and prove him a liar.  In some ways I feel sorry for Roux because OP has done him up like a kipper 

 

OP hasn't helped is own case, I also think Roux is not in the same league comparing him to Nel. 

Dame_Ann_Average

 

Does the state have a case to refer Pistorius for mental health assessment?

 

Nel wants to make an application for Pistorius to be observed and assessed under section 78 of the Criminal Procedure Act. I've found a copy of it here (pdf).

Here is an extract from the relevant section, titled "Mental illness or mental defect and criminal responsibility":

(1) A person who commits an act or makes an omission which constitutes an offence and who at the time of such commission or omission suffers from a mental illness or mental defect which makes him or her incapable-

  1. (a) of appreciating the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission; or
  2. (b) of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission,

shall not be criminally responsible for such act or omission.

(2) If it is alleged at criminal proceedings that the accused is by reason of mental illness or mental defect or for any other reason not criminally responsible for the offence charged â€Ķ the court shall in the case of an allegation or appearance of mental illness or mental defect, and may, in any other case, direct that the matter be enquired into and be reported on.

This is a key point, but presumably one that Nel is seeking to disprove (not that the defence has made a case for diminished responsibility):

(7) If the court finds that the accused at the time of the commission of the act in question was criminally responsible for the act but that his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to act in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of the act was diminished by reason of mental illness or mental defect, the court may take the fact of such diminished responsibility into account when sentencing the accused.

  The court will resume on Tuesday morning. Vorster is expected to be back on the stand for more questions from both state and defence.

You can read a report of today's developments here.

 
FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×