In the context of the general mode of the rules text, “No.”
My answer is basically the same as Nobody’s fine answer, with the exception that I disagree that allowing this to work would be significant “generosity” on the DM’s part. The rules are consistently written from a single-classed, starting-from-1st-level perspective. In almost all cases, each rules element only considers the general, default rules for whatever it is modifying. In other words, D&D 3.5e is what’s known as an “exception-based ruleset.”
Unfortunately, the written text doesn’t inherently hint at this. They rely on the reader’s knowledge of context—the fact that it is an exception-based ruleset—and write their statements quite absolutely even though there winds up being exceptions. For example, Complete Arcane explicitly says a sorcerer/wizard can cast spells prohibited as a specialist wizard from sorcerer spell slots, even though the rules for school specialization say
Spells of the prohibited school or schools are not available to the wizard, and she can’t even cast such spells from scrolls or fire them from wands. She may not change either her specialization or her prohibited schools later.
(Player’s Handbook, Wizard Class Features, School Specialization sidebar, pg. 57)
Here, a sorcerer/wizard is an exception to the rules about wizards casting these spells. (So is a wizard using the Use Magic Device skill, even though “she can’t even cast such spells from scrolls or fire them from wands.”) This could have—arguably, should have—been written “Being a specialist wizard does not allow you to cast spells of the prohibited school or schools, nor even cast such spells from scrolls or fire them from wands,” but that is simply not the way that they write the rules. It’s wordier, it’s arguably harder to read for new players, etc., so they just don’t, and let the exception-based nature of the rules handle it.
Both Wild Talent and Psicrystal Containment are exceptions to the base rules of the psicrystal creature—we expect each to consider those rules. But we don’t expect either to consider the exceptions provided by the other—each is going to be written in a vacuum assuming they are the only relevant exception to this particular rules facet. And in that vacuum, it’s true that “the psicrystal cannot focus itself.”
Ultimately, this is getting into a semantic argument about what exactly is considered to be a part of the rules, as written, particularly the “simple” rules as written that the question requests. RAW analysis is many things, but “simple” isn’t really one of them. Anyway, I would argue that the nature of the system as an exception-based ruleset is absolutely necessary to understanding the text they wrote. It certainly was something the authors assumed was understood. So I would not call it “generous” to understand Psicrystal Containment’s statement in that context, and see Wild Talent as creating an exception to that statement. There is some ambiguity, some room to rule otherwise, but I’d consider this position—that is, a “No” to the title question—the much more likely conclusion.
Finally, it wasn’t part of the question, but it seems relevant: if we rule that a psicrystal with Wild Talent, whose matter has Psicrystal Containment, can still gain its own psionic focus, how do those interact? Unfortunately, the answer to that is anyone’s guess, since we have basically nothing to go on. I guess, strictly speaking, they don’t interact, and each works fully and independently, but that is firmly in the “nothing says they can’t” rules hole that tends not to fly at tables. I would strongly recommend asking the DM for clarity on that point if it is relevant to you.