There are several big question marks hanging over Dewani's alleged mental health:
(1) At his initial extradition hearing, evidence in the form of a joint statement was accepted by the court from two supposedly independent psychiatrists - Professor Nigel Eastman hired by the defence, and Professor Michael Kopelmann hired by the prosecution. It was discovered a year later, that these two supposedly independent expert witnesses had formed a business partnership a fortnight before their statement was presented, and further, that they did not declare that relationship to the court. At that time the Crown prosecution Service promised to investigate, but strangely, the CPS have since primly asserted that there is no confllict of interest that they can see, and The Sun newspaper has mysteriously pulled its report on the subject published 1st September 2012.
The Sun's decision to pull the story is itself interesting, because the article contained nothing except information which is on the Government public record at Companies House.
(2) In hearings since then, it has been Dewani's TREATING psychiatrist, Paul Cantrell, who has provided all evidence regarding his mental health. There is an inherent conflict of interest between the duty of a treating psychiatrist, and that of a forensic psychiatrist, well-attested in the professional literature, yet there is no hint in the current court proceedings that such a distinction has been recognised, let alone provided for.
(3) The police evidence which forms the case which Dewani is asked to answer, strongly suggests that Dewani was never actually in the traumatic situation which he claims as the cause of his "PTSD". The diagnosis offered to the courts is entirely based on Dewani's self-reported symptoms, which are remarkably convenient to his case, and when challenged by the presiding judge the psychiatrist experts agreed, that no objective tests for malingering had been done.
(4) An acknowledged expert on PTSD and depression, Professor Michael Simpson, has written several articles in which he severely criticises the validity of the diagnosis, and asks pertinent questions of the legal process being followed.
Here's one of those articles:
http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Dewani-start-from-scratch-20130210So we should await with interest the upcoming July 2013 hearing, and trust that all the above issues will eventually be dealt with, fully and transparently.
