Pistorius declared mentally sound
PRETORIA, South Africa — Oscar Pistorius was not suffering from a mental illness when he killed girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp and was able to understand the wrongfulness of what he had done, according to psychiatric reports submitted on Monday at the Olympic athlete's murder trial.
The conclusions by a panel of experts, read aloud by chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel, appeared to remove the possibility that the double-amputee runner could be declared not guilty because of a mental disorder, which would result in his being committed to a mental institution.
The court-ordered evaluation was conducted during a one-month break in the trial, after a psychiatrist testifying for the defense, Dr. Merryll Vorster, said that Pistorius had an anxiety disorder that may have contributed to the shooting in his home in the early hours of Feb. 14, 2013. Pistorius said he feels vulnerable because of his disability and long-held worry about crime, Vorster noted.
Nel had requested an independent inquiry into Pistorius' state of mind, suggesting that the defense might argue that the athlete was not guilty because of mental illness.
Nel announced the findings when the trial resumed. However, he quoted briefly from the conclusions, and the entire reports were not publicly released, raising questions about what else they contained.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pakistan fervent about anti-blasphemy law
- Kurds apply pressure to Islamic State
- Thousands in Spain protest ban on demonstrations, burning national flag
- Kurdish fighters in shattered Syrian town of Kobani confident of ISIS defeat
- Police end Sydney hostage siege after 16 hours
- Taliban siege at Pakistani school ends with 141 dead
- Cezanne likely to attract bidders
- Russia seeks 10 years in prison for Putin foe Navalny
- Pakistan resumes executions in response to Taliban school massacre
- North Korea proposes joint probe over hacking attack against Sony
- No movement yet on Afghan cabinet