V: If I may refer to my file?
V: 5 May, I interviewed all of the others, sister, manager, the friend, the brother and the coach and the 7 May I interviewed Mr. Pistorius again.
Nel: Can I ask you, what is the purpose of you?
V: To bring factors to the courts attention that may cause conviction or sentancing.
Nel: Factors that may have affected his wrong fullness at the time?
V: Yes, if the court sees it.
Nel: The fact that you made a finding of general anxiety disorder, is that it is relevant to his defense?
V: It may be relevant to his defense. I am not sure.
Nel: You also, said he is suffering from a general anxiety disorder that has worsened?
v: Yes, I looked at it and it is increasing.
Nel: For someone like this, it is dangerous for him to have a firearm or has access to a gun?
nel: Then you also would agree that, can I ask you, PTSD, people are being referred when they are referred for observation?
V: They have been referred in the past, that is correct.
Nel: That is my argument, in PTSD, they get referred and in your observation he should be referred.
V: There is no harm in that.
Nel: The court should get that, the act says that the court shall.
Roux: That is not the answer. If I may read it my lady.
Roux: So it gives you the two legs, a mental disorder and a mental defect. Those are the two legs and this is not reported.
Nel: This argument on an application that I haven't even brought forward yet.
Nel: One has to go through the evidence. When we started I asked Dr. Vorster, who has vast experience.
Nel: Now if that is diminished, then a person should be referred. It goes further, if it appears to the court that such person.
Nel: I asked the doctor is PTSD people get referred and she said yes. My lady that is my phone, I can only beg for forgiveness. I am embarrassed enough.
Nel: I then linked PTSD to general anxiety disorder is the same type of disorder. It is related therefor if the diagnosis is made, then the order should be made.
Roux: May Mr. Nel read sub section 7?
Roux: It deals with sentenancing, he brings it back. Not every person that is diagnosed with anxiety goes to Sterkfontein.
Judge: There must be an allegation.
Nel: it is more than an allegation, if it is found that the person has an anxiety disorder and it is relevant and could have played a role in the defense.
Nel: I know that Mr. Roux would say, please don't take it so serious. But we have a doctor that made a finding.
Nel: She made the findings on mental defects and the defence used her.
Judge: Are you saying that it falls under mental defects. If so you have every right to put it to the witness.
Nel: Yes, it is a disorder. Mental illness, it has been diagnosed.
Judge: Is that what the witness is saying?
Nel: Well my lady the witness is saying it is a condition. But in terms of the handbook of Mental disorders, it is listed as a disorder. If that is a disorder then it is a illness.
Judge: What do they say about it?
Nel: I am saying it is listed as a disorder and I am arguing it is an illness.
Nel: My lady if that is not the evidence, I think D.r Vorster said it could have affected his ability to act in his accordance. If we get the answer, then I think we would.
Judge: Did you write that done?
Nel: My colleague gave me her notes.
Nel: The witness answered "Possible, it plays in accordance to act in right and wrong".