Visser was back in the dock on sex charges in the wake of weekend reports that her former lover, fugitive Dirk Prinsloo, had been arrested in Belarus.

Proceedings resumed with head of clinical psychology at Weskoppies Hospital, Professor Jonathan Scholtz, being cross-examined by State prosecutor Andre Fourie.

Acting Judge Chris Eksteen was told that the trial would soon be concluded, with defence Advocate Johann Engelbrecht SC indicating that he would probably only call one more witness ? a social worker ? who would be ready to testify on Wednesday.

The case stood down until Wednesday for Fourie to look over his notes in order to decide whether there were any more questions he wanted to pose to Scholtz.

Eksteen said he hoped that the parties would be ready to deliver their final arguments this week, as he wanted the case to conclude as soon as possible, as it had been dragging on for a very long time.

Engelbrecht said it would not be possible to argue so soon, as his written heads of argument at this stage stretched over more than 300 pages, and he still had a lot to add.

Neither her nor her mother, Susan Lemmer, wanted to speak about Prinsloo's arrest, stating that Engelbrecht instructed them not to speak to the media about it.

Scholtz, who earlier testified that Visser fitted the profile of a battered woman, on Monday reiterated this point.

He said while Visser could distinguish between right and wrong and had a will of her own, her ability to act accordingly was "severely compromised and curtailed".

He said Prinsloo, during the time they were a couple, wrote the script and she enacted it.

Fourie stated to Scholtz that one of the problems the State had with Visser's defence that she was a battered woman and had no will of her own, was that in many of the instances she took the initiative.

One such example, Fourie said, was where she fetched a child from an orphanage for a weekend visit to their home.

Fourie said that at this point Visser told the child to "watch carefully as this is how it is done" while Prinsloo told the child that she did not need to stay and watch if she did not want to.

"Here she took an important initiative," Fourie said.

Visser has denied this evidence.

Scholtz has argued that the child did this because she wanted to please Prinsloo.

He denied a suggestion by the State that Visser acted in this manner because she wanted to groom the child for further sexual encounters.

"It may have been Prinsloo's intention, but I do not believe it was her's [the child's]. It is my opinion that she wanted to please Prinsloo," said Scholtz.

The State said another worrisome aspect was that Visser, even after she knew what would happen to the children after spending a weekend at their home, persisted in obtaining more children from children's homes for weekend visits.

Scholtz said it was Visser's aim to always please Prinsloo.

"I gained the impression that she exactly knew what Prinsloo needed -what would keep him happy and satisfied."

Scholtz admitted that Visser in certain instances satisfied her own interests and when it came to her mother, she had certain boundaries.

Using as an example, he said, when Prinsloo gave her permission to go to Cape Town for a holiday with her mother it was on the proviso that she groomed her mother for future sex with him.

Visser, however, never did this.

Scholtz further admitted that when it came to people with whom Visser did not have a close emotional bond, she was prepared to overstep the boundaries.