Oscar Pistorius

[Footsoldier]

Oscar is reportedly paying R150,000 a day for this fiasco!

What's that in sterling?

 

[knocky1]

8638.350 British Pound Sterling

 

[Bold Seagull]

No question Masipa and Nel are the only ones coming out of this with credit.

In the States Roux would have been sacked by now

Not sure Roux would. He's got a client who shot is girlfriend through the bathroom door as a complete fact. All he has to work with is a defence conjured up in the mind of OP.

I disagree with KZN a bit in that the defence hasn't actually been a shambles, they've just got very little to work with in this case.

If OP wants to chuck his money at all these expert witnesses, that is down to him, not his defence who can only suggest to him what to do. No doubt they started by suggesting he should plea bargain for one of the lessor charges, but OP appears to believe he is some how blessed with the ability to get away with murder.

I think in legal terms Roux has done the best he can. Not sure what else they could do to put doubt in the courts mind to their clients guilt.

 

[KZNSeagull]

What's that in sterling?

+- 8500 quid a day

 

[Footsoldier]

+- 8500 quid a day

That's a lot but I suppose he's not going to need it for where he's going

 

[KZNSeagull]

Not sure Roux would. He's got a client who shot is girlfriend through the bathroom door as a complete fact. All he has to work with is a defence conjured up in the mind of OP.

I disagree with KZN a bit in that the defence hasn't actually been a shambles, they've just got very little to work with in this case.

If OP wants to chuck his money at all these expert witnesses, that is down to him, not his defence who can only suggest to him what to do. No doubt they started by suggesting he should plea bargain for one of the lessor charges, but OP appears to believe he is some how blessed with the ability to get away with murder.

I think in legal terms Roux has done the best he can. Not sure what else they could do to put doubt in the courts mind to their clients guilt.

I see your point, but part of a defence is surely to ensure that your witnesses are not going to damage your case? Every one so far has, as far as I can see. Roux knew that Nel has worked with this psychiatrist a lot on prosecution work and knew that he would ask her extremely relevant questions and she would not tailor her evidence in any way. Very risky, as was calling that Roger Dixon twit to give forensic evidence. I have no doubt that this is the best he can do, but it does not look good in any way to me.

 

[KZNSeagull]

That's a lot but I suppose he's not going to need it for where he's going

We hope! I doubt that he has it anyway - I suspect that whatever money he did have has gone by now.

 

[severnside gull]

That's a lot but I suppose he's not going to need it for where he's going

He might want to pay someone to mind his back?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I see your point, but part of a defence is surely to ensure that your witnesses are not going to damage your case? Every one so far has, as far as I can see. Roux knew that Nel has worked with this psychiatrist a lot on prosecution work and knew that he would ask her extremely relevant questions and she would not tailor her evidence in any way. Very risky, as was calling that Roger Dixon twit to give forensic evidence. I have no doubt that this is the best he can do, but it does not look good in any way to me.

No, you are right, but my suspicion is that the defence team had a hard job finding experts that would support their case. If you were a renowned expert in your field, would you take on the State on this one? Would you risk your reputation?

I think the reason they've had the likes of Dixon, and Wolmarans, is because they probably couldn't find anyone else prepared to put themselves on the stand to try to refute the overwhelming evidence, and the 2 of them are both semi retired, acting as part time consultants, and probably glad of the pay day and not particularly worried about their careers at this point.

 

[KZNSeagull]

No, you are right, but my suspicion is that the defence team had a hard job finding experts that would support their case. If you were a renowned expert in your field, would you take on the State on this one? Would you risk your reputation?

I think the reason they've had the likes of Dixon, and Wolmarans, is because they probably couldn't find anyone else prepared to put themselves on the stand to try to refute the overwhelming evidence, and the 2 of them are both semi retired, acting as part time consultants, and probably glad of the pay day and not particularly worried about their careers at this point.

Yes indeed, I think that is definitely the case.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Oscar will start mental assessments on 26th May. He will be required to attend the facility between at least the hours of 9am and 4pm. They are to assess whether he appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions and whether he was criminally responsible for his actions. 3 psychiatrists and 1 psychologist on the assessment panel.

Quite controversial as normally a defendant referred by the court would be assessed 24 hours a day.

Court will resume 30th June.

 

[Footsoldier]

Oscar will start mental assessments on 26th May. He will be required to attend the facility between at least the hours of 9am and 4pm. They are to assess whether he appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions and whether he was criminally responsible for his actions. 3 psychiatrists and 1 psychologist on the assessment panel.

Quite controversial as normally a defendant referred by the court would be assessed 24 hours a day.

Court will resume 30th June.

What is the point in this? Are the defense going down the mentally insane route? Are they trying delay tactics, lighter sentence if found guilty and are they trying to fool everyone.

 

[KZNSeagull]

What is the point in this? Are the defense going down the mentally insane route? Are they trying delay tactics, lighter sentence if found guilty and are they trying to fool everyone.

It has been discussed on the previous page or pages, but essentially they called a Psychiatrist who says that Oscar suffers from a General Anxiety Disorder which MAY have affected his actions on that night (she diagnosed him with this at the beginning of may this year, after he had testified). Under SA criminal law, the prosecution had to bring an order to court for this disorder/mental illness etc to be assessed so that he can have a fair trial. The defence DID NOT want this to happen and opposed the order. They called this witness in an attempt to mitigate his actions a little (explain the fight or flight response to perceived danger amongst other things) but have just wound up having him having a 30 day psychiatric assessment.

What this witness did say was that Oscar told her that he WANTED to shoot an intruder. Again, a defence witness has hurt the defence.

But have a look back to on the thread to about post 530 or so and there is more detail there.

 

[jackanada]

If a defendant wants to pursue a particular defence then counsel is obliged to oblige. I know a few barristers and they all have stories of being forced to pursue a ridiculous defence as best they can. Sometimes after the case the judge will check with them that they were forced to take that line and aren't a maverick nutjob.

 

[Footsoldier]

It has been discussed on the previous page or pages, but essentially they called a Psychiatrist who says that Oscar suffers from a General Anxiety Disorder which MAY have affected his actions on that night (she diagnosed him with this at the beginning of may this year, after he had testified). Under SA criminal law, the prosecution had to bring an order to court for this disorder/mental illness etc to be assessed so that he can have a fair trial. The defence DID NOT want this to happen and opposed the order. They called this witness in an attempt to mitigate his actions a little (explain the fight or flight response to perceived danger amongst other things) but have just wound up having him having a 30 day psychiatric assessment.

What this witness did say was that Oscar told her that he WANTED to shoot an intruder. Again, a defence witness has hurt the defence.

But have a look back to on the thread to about post 530 or so and there is more detail there.

Surprised they didn't mention the hippocampus when trying to explain the fight or flight mode as it's rather common in murder trials these days. The fight or flight mode shouldn't apply in this case as he didn't fight as the so called intruder was defenseless by hiding in the toilet so didn't present any danger and he could of easily took flight but decided to arm himself and investigate someone in the toliet.

I'll go back and read, thanks

 

[KZNSeagull]

If a defendant wants to pursue a particular defence then counsel is obliged to oblige. I know a few barristers and they all have stories of being forced to pursue a ridiculous defence as best they can. Sometimes after the case the judge will check with them that they were forced to take that line and aren't a maverick nutjob.

Well the problem with this case is that there appear to be 3 defences, even though the defence say there is only 1. Self defence, accident and now perhaps mentally incapacitated. All of this has come about as none of the defence witnesses, especially Oscar, have helped the case.

 

[jackanada]

Well the problem with this case is that there appear to be 3 defences, even though the defence say there is only 1. Self defence, accident and now perhaps mentally incapacitated. All of this has come about as none of the defence witnesses, especially Oscar, have helped the case.

I agree with that, though I find it hard to attribute much blame to Nel. Started defence clearly enough aiming for self-defence. AFAIK Oscar introduced the accident defence during his somewhat disastrous testimony. I would have thought the 'anxiety' expert was originally just to reinforce his fear of crime, but that this element has been inflated and clung to desperately as Oscar feels and will have been told that it's not looking good for him.

 

[symyjym]

Oscar will start mental assessments on 26th May. He will be required to attend the facility between at least the hours of 9am and 4pm. They are to assess whether he appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions and whether he was criminally responsible for his actions. 3 psychiatrists and 1 psychologist on the assessment panel.

Quite controversial as normally a defendant referred by the court would be assessed 24 hours a day.

Court will resume 30th June.

Going for psychological assessment opens more doors because I am sure that they won’t just be checking for General Anxiety Disorder, as there multiple disorders out there. One that springs to mind is Morbid jealousy, also known as Othello syndrome or delusional jealousy. Chuck in paranoid and pathological liar, and other psychiatric disorders and it’s a minefield of possibilities.

If they discover that he has GAD or any other disorder it would more or less point the finger at him being guilty but with a psychological excuse for it. And if he is proved sane it will mean that he was in control of and conscious of his actions.

 

[Footsoldier]

The killer Pistorius is back in court today so will be interesting to hear the outcome of his mental assessment.

 

[Hillian1]

The killer Pistorius is back in court today so will be interesting to hear the outcome of his mental assessment.

I may have heard it wrong, but this morning on the news they were talking about this:

If all 3 independent assessors say he is not mentally fit either now or at the time of the killing a Not Guilty verdict will be recorded and he spends the rest of his life in a Mental Health institution.