Oscar Pistorius Defense #2

[believe09]

One of the South African news outlets indicated the results of the assessment were unanimous but they didn't elaborate. I think we can all say he probably isn't mentally incapacitated and needs to be hospitalized.

That leaves either GAD or no mental illness at all. If it is GAD, I have a strong feeling the most he will get if found guilty is house arrest.

BBM-wouldn't that be something?

 

[jay-jay]

One of the South African news outlets indicated the results of the assessment were unanimous but they didn't elaborate. I think we can all say he probably isn't mentally incapacitated and needs to be hospitalized.

That leaves either GAD or no mental illness at all. If it is GAD, I have a strong feeling the most he will get if found guilty is house arrest.

But if the court has enough evidence to prove that he knowingly and intentionally shot Reeva, then it won't matter either way whether he has GAD or not. GAD is only relevant in Pistorius's 'intruder' story, it's not relevant in the more likely scenario of domestic violence/homicide.

 

[cottonweaver]

One of the South African news outlets indicated the results of the assessment were unanimous but they didn't elaborate. I think we can all say he probably isn't mentally incapacitated and needs to be hospitalized.

That leaves either GAD or no mental illness at all. If it is GAD, I have a strong feeling the most he will get if found guilty is house arrest.

Hi vansleuths,

Do you mean doesn't need to be hospitalised?

second bolded point- house arrest - I am interested in how do you come to that conclusion?

 

[vansleuths]

Hi vansleuths,

Do you mean doesn't need to be hospitalised?

second bolded point- house arrest - I am interested in how do you come to that conclusion?

Yes, you are correct in that it should be doesn't need to be hospitalized.

In terms of the second bolded point, if he is found guilty of culpable homicide, the punishment will be at the discretion of the judge and there is case law backing her that a defendant receives house arrest for acts of negligence.

 

[vansleuths]

But if the court has enough evidence to prove that he knowingly and intentionally shot Reeva, then it won't matter either way whether he has GAD or not. GAD is only relevant in Pistorius's 'intruder' story, it's not relevant in the more likely scenario of domestic violence/homicide.

When Dr. V testified, she did say that GAD could play a role both in the determination of guilt and in the sentencing phase of the trial

With GAD, there is the potential that the defence has raised enough reasonable doubt that a hyper-vigilant, vulnerable OP took the fight option in the flight or fight response to protect himself. If that doubt is there, it will play a role in sentencing and thus the potential reduced sentence of CH with house arrest.

From what I've seen, courts tend to error on the side of caution.

 

[believe09]

When Dr. V testified, she did say that GAD could play a role both in the determination of guilt and in the sentencing phase of the trial

With GAD, there is the potential that the defence has raised enough reasonable doubt that a hyper-vigilant, vulnerable OP took the fight option in the flight or fight response to protect himself. If that doubt is there, it will play a role in sentencing and thus the potential reduced sentence of CH with house arrest.

From what I've seen, courts tend to error on the side of caution.

This still doesn't work for me at all. Not with alarms not working/being off and screens not in the windows. How can only be hypervigilent enough to apply deadly force without knowing where your lover is, but not hypervigilent enough to secure your home?

 

[vansleuths]

This still doesn't work for me at all. Not with alarms not working/being off and screens not in the windows. How can only be hypervigilent enough to apply deadly force without knowing where your lover is, but not hypervigilent enough to secure your home?

I do agree with you. I do feel he is guilty of murder.

But, in a court of law, the PT has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt while the DT only has to put forward reasonable doubt. As much as I hate to say it, they may have done it with GAD. This of course is assuming that the psychiatric assessment says that GAD was a factor.

 

[believe09]

I would think that Nel would only need to show that GAD has not caused a rash of domestic killings by OP in spite of the number of times he has been armed and angry and reckless and fearful. Just this one time. Then again I am pretty naïve.

 

[cottonweaver]

Prof James Grant's always got the answer- yes they might if the psych report is disputed. (Media have already said panel was unanimous in their findings.)

"(3) If the finding contained in the relevant report is the unanimous finding of the persons who under section 79 enquired into the relevant mental condition of the accused, and the finding is not disputed by the prosecutor or the accused, the court may determine the matter on such report without hearing further evidence.
(4) If the said finding is not unanimous or, if unanimous, is disputed by the prosecutor or the accused, the court shall determine the matter after hearing evidence, and the prosecutor and the accused may to that end present evidence to the court, including the evidence of any person who under section 79 enquired into the mental condition of the accused.
(5) Where the said finding is disputed, the party disputing the finding may subpoena and crossexamine any person who under section 79 enquired into the mental condition of the accused"

http://criminallawza.net/pathological-incapacity-relevant-provisions/

 

[kittychi]

One of the South African news outlets indicated the results of the assessment were unanimous but they didn't elaborate. I think we can all say he probably isn't mentally incapacitated and needs to be hospitalized.

That leaves either GAD or no mental illness at all. If it is GAD, I have a strong feeling the most he will get if found guilty is house arrest.

It just makes no possible sense to me that a diagnosis of GAD would be unusual for a man who is on trial for murder with the additional shame and devastation to his career and his family.

This says absolutely nothing about his state of mind at the time of the murder.

What am I missing?
__________________

 

[Hatfield]

During this 30-day break, I went back and went through all of the testimony from the first day, all of which was available on youtube.

I recognize that the judge and her assessors are professionals, but with all of the delays in this trial, I sure hope they remember the finer points of this trial. I do know they have the court record at their disposal but seeing as how poorly the defence has presented their case, I can only think that these delays help them put some time between some of the more damming evidence. Memory does fade.

This is a good question. I agree with another poster that because we have a judge and her assistants then I am more confident they will have taken good notes and can jump right back in the fray.

Now if it was a jury of peers I would have reservatiions that what you bring up could be a concern.

The reason I wanted to reply is I think this is such a good point and in my opinion only from watching past cases like the Casey Anthony case and some others, I think the prosecution attorneys sometimes makes a big mistake by going into way too much detail on certain things.
I truly believe they get the jury so confused on certain points that they end up throwing the baby out with the bath water with that particular point. Meaning at first they probably had made their point and convinced the jury but because they hammered on it with way too much detail about it, then the defense finds opportunities to argue insignificant points about the evidence that doesnt amount to a hill of beans but does have a "win" for the defense because it ends up clouding up the point they were trying to make in the first place.

And then if each point is hammered to death with this approach, the trial ends up taking days and days and days and sometimes months. My point is further justified when you think how little time a jury really deliberates on those really long drawn out trials. Sure they may deliberate X days, but they surely are not going to ask the judge to hand them back for review all those fine points and materials that were discussed ad-nauseum throughout the trial. Sometimes a jury will only take a day or 2 to come to a verdict when the case took months.

So the point I am trying to make and probably am failing miserably. :floorlaugh: is I think attorneys should try to keep things simple and to the point as much as possible as each point they need to make is discussed. If too many days of fighting with the defense about very specific details, then the case as a whole kind of gets lost in the shuffle.
Especially if a defense attorney scores some big wins on minor pieces of evidence. The jury may remember the defense proved that some testing was wrong about something and that will score big but the evidence may have not even been that important. The jury will remember that part and then not trust some other parts where the prosecuture showed what really mattered.

Hope this makes some sense what I was trying to discuss.
Anyway, all JMO of course.

Cant wait for trial to start again here.

 

[Duchy]

Debora Patta ‏@Debora_Patta Jun 28
#OscarTrial The psychiatrist who examined OP and had a heart attack has now signed his mental health report - case resumes on Monday

 

[Hatfield]

Debora Patta ‏@Debora_Patta Jun 28
#OscarTrial The psychiatrist who examined OP and had a heart attack has now signed his mental health report - case resumes on Monday

Wow. Thanks so much for the update. Yipeee!!!!

I bet all our previous active posters will be back in a jiffy now.

 

[katydid23]

Okay Folks. Fasten your seat belts...:rollercoaster:

So what do you think they all agreed upon? Are they unanimous that he has No GAD, or the opposite?

 

[atthelake]

Okay Folks. Fasten your seat belts...:rollercoaster:

So what do you think they all agreed upon? Are they unanimous that he has No GAD, or the opposite?

Yeah ! Starting back ! Since I am travelling overnight I'll be up ! Darn forgot my earbuds grrrrrr . Looking forward to Zweibels food around 3:30 am eastern .

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[lisasalinger]

I do agree with you. I do feel he is guilty of murder.

But, in a court of law, the PT has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt while the DT only has to put forward reasonable doubt. As much as I hate to say it, they may have done it with GAD. This of course is assuming that the psychiatric assessment says that GAD was a factor.

BBM

You mean the GAD that was discovered in May 2014, from the doctor who only met with Oscar twice, that neither he or his family knew about, that wasn't even a consideration for the past year?

I have to respectfully disagree that the defense has done anything.

I agree with jay-jay, even if he does have GAD, it's only relevant IF the court believes Oscar's version of events. If they don't... then the GAD is just another smoke screen.

 

[lisasalinger]

Okay Folks. Fasten your seat belts...:rollercoaster:

So what do you think they all agreed upon? Are they unanimous that he has No GAD, or the opposite?

Honestly, the only thing that matters to me is their finding on whether or not he was mentally competent and could act accordingly at the time of the event. That's it.

Whether or not he had or has GAD means nothing to me at all because I absolutely do not buy his version of events that I believe has been disproven in court.

With that said, of course I would have loved to be a fly on the wall these past 30 days! I'm sure it has been interesting.

 

[lisasalinger]

This is a good question. I agree with another poster that because we have a judge and her assistants then I am more confident they will have taken good notes and can jump right back in the fray.

Now if it was a jury of peers I would have reservatiions that what you bring up could be a concern.

The reason I wanted to reply is I think this is such a good point and in my opinion only from watching past cases like the Casey Anthony case and some others, I think the prosecution attorneys sometimes makes a big mistake by going into way too much detail on certain things.
I truly believe they get the jury so confused on certain points that they end up throwing the baby out with the bath water with that particular point. Meaning at first they probably had made their point and convinced the jury but because they hammered on it with way too much detail about it, then the defense finds opportunities to argue insignificant points about the evidence that doesnt amount to a hill of beans but does have a "win" for the defense because it ends up clouding up the point they were trying to make in the first place.

And then if each point is hammered to death with this approach, the trial ends up taking days and days and days and sometimes months. My point is further justified when you think how little time a jury really deliberates on those really long drawn out trials. Sure they may deliberate X days, but they surely are not going to ask the judge to hand them back for review all those fine points and materials that were discussed ad-nauseum throughout the trial. Sometimes a jury will only take a day or 2 to come to a verdict when the case took months.

So the point I am trying to make and probably am failing miserably. :floorlaugh: is I think attorneys should try to keep things simple and to the point as much as possible as each point they need to make is discussed. If too many days of fighting with the defense about very specific details, then the case as a whole kind of gets lost in the shuffle.
Especially if a defense attorney scores some big wins on minor pieces of evidence. The jury may remember the defense proved that some testing was wrong about something and that will score big but the evidence may have not even been that important. The jury will remember that part and then not trust some other parts where the prosecuture showed what really mattered.

Hope this makes some sense what I was trying to discuss.
Anyway, all JMO of course.

Cant wait for trial to start again here.

Makes sense to me, and I agree

I think Nel has actually tried to be cautious of this by not digging in to everything that happened after Oscar carried Reeva out of the bathroom, as well as some other things that we all wanted to know out of curiosity (jeans on the ground outside, bedroom door, etc)...

I have to believe that there may be some elements of what you mention above in his strategy.

 

[vansleuths]

BBM

You mean the GAD that was discovered in May 2014, from the doctor who only met with Oscar twice, that neither he or his family knew about, that wasn't even a consideration for the past year?

I have to respectfully disagree that the defense has done anything.

I agree with jay-jay, even if he does have GAD, it's only relevant IF the court believes Oscar's version of events. If they don't... then the GAD is just another smoke screen.

I agree with everything you say about GAD being only discovered in May by a doctor that met him twice. But, the defence does have to throw a lot of cr*p (excuse my language) at the wall and see what sticks. If they didn't raise GAD and vulnerability, they probably wouldn't be doing justice for their client.

I found this on the ABC website which says that GAD WILL have an impact even if the judge believes the PT version of events.

Lawyer Gideon Scheepers said the second possibility is that the panel may have found that Pistorius has a mental disorder, which somehow diminished his criminal responsibility.
Scheepers said this finding would have no material impact on the determination of guilt or innocence, “but it would be taken into account as a mitigating factor during the sentencing phase of the trial" if Pistorius was found guilty.

"This would be the best possible outcome for the defense, as it might compel the judge not to hand down the minimum prescribed sentence,” the lawyer said. In South Africa, the mandatory sentence for murder is life in prison, which effectively means 25 years. This sentence may be lessened if the court finds there are compelling reasons to do so.

 

[lisasalinger]

I agree with everything you say about GAD being only discovered in May by a doctor that met him twice. But, the defence does have to throw a lot of cr*p (excuse my language) at the wall and see what sticks. If they didn't raise GAD and vulnerability, they probably wouldn't be doing justice for their client.

I found this on the ABC website which says that GAD WILL have an impact even if the judge believes the PT version of events.

Lawyer Gideon Scheepers said the second possibility is that the panel may have found that Pistorius has a mental disorder, which somehow diminished his criminal responsibility.
Scheepers said this finding would have no material impact on the determination of guilt or innocence, “but it would be taken into account as a mitigating factor during the sentencing phase of the trial" if Pistorius was found guilty.

"This would be the best possible outcome for the defense, as it might compel the judge not to hand down the minimum prescribed sentence,” the lawyer said. In South Africa, the mandatory sentence for murder is life in prison, which effectively means 25 years. This sentence may be lessened if the court finds there are compelling reasons to do so.

Trust me, you'll have to say A LOT worse than cr@p to offend me :giggle:

I agree that the Defense can and should try everything on behalf of their client. I'm not mad at them for trying.

As for the lawyer's opinion that you quoted... If OP is found to have diminished criminal responsibility, then doesn't the trial end? That's how I understand it. He could either act accordingly or not.

Let's say that OP is found to have GAD, but was also found to be able to act accordingly at the time of the event, then it's possible that Masipa could consider GAD as a mitigating factor (if guilty)... but I wouldn't go so far as to say that she "would" consider it.

If Masipa does not believe OP's story, which then in turn means that he fabricated a whole bunch of non-sense to save his back, and lied under oath, and he really intended to kill Reeva in that bathroom, and did so by shooting her 4 times including in the head... I'm not quite sure that anxiety is a strong enough mitigating factor to cut him a break. In my opinion, it absolutely would NOT be.