Judge's Order re: OP's Mental Health Eval Thread #42

[Mysteeri]

Fortunately there really is no objective reason for the judge to dismiss ear witness testimony given under oath about a woman and a man arguing and screaming.

 

[Viper]

IANAL but, from what I have read it is more accurate to apply what a reasonable person would do or believe, not beyond a reasonable doubt - and here people are applying the later principle in piecemeal. The reasonable doubt does not mean a verdict of not guilty, and it is an easy argument to make on any single one of the numerous lies and inconsistencies that OP has put forth. But the reasonable person principle is impossible when all of the lies and inconsistencies are considered and weighted against the evidence that the prosecution has put forth, which is what the three judges will do.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Symptoms of pure anxiety without depression:

http://www.amenclinics.com/conditions/anxiety-issues/

So it is freeze not fight in emotionally charged situations for people suffering from GAD. Roux and Vorster have suggested that OP's response was "fight".

I agree, they're just muddying the waters with OP giving the exact opposite response than most people who suffer from GAD. They've factored in he's an international sportsman (he-man iow) and a gun lover, so it would be against the grain for him to flee. Poppycock I say. :twocents:

 

[Trooper]

Fortunately there really is no objective reason for the judge to dismiss ear witness testimony given under oath about a woman and a man arguing and screaming.

It would require Judge Masipa . on the advice and consultation with the two Assessors and all three to agree to dismiss their evidence. . the only grounds for dismissal would be a prima facie case of collaboration, perjury , determination to pervert the course of justice along with a conspiracy intent to do so, which would result in charges laid against all those ear witnesses.

charges laid with a provable case to adjudicate. That is. there would have to be evidence of their collaboration, documented, witnesses to their collaborative plot, history of criminal conspiracy, and the big one, .. motive. .

 

[Carmelita]

Cuba has reasonable doubt enshrined in its law.. it practises it. It has precedent , it has application .. what makes you think it isn't applied??


China, ditto. In fact, a recent case , a Mr Bo. It attracted world wide attention, due to the fact that his wife murdered a British business man. Mr Bo was , in fact, due to be appointed the next leader of the Chinese Communist Party Committee.... had been groomed for it for years, schooled at Harvard , an engineer. ( chemical , I think) .. He was indicted for undue profiteering.

DUE to reasonable doubt enshrined in Chinese Law. he was found guilty but was not , as is usual in Chinese sentencing , executed.. the reasonable doubt factor used by his attorney to escape execution was the minor matter of his involvement with the murder his wife committed.. he is currently serving 24 years in prison.

We will have to agree to disagree. There are always exceptions to the rule. Last I looked China is a communist country and generally the only people who reasonable doubt applies to are those in power, ever wonder what happened to "Tank Man" .

 

[Trooper]

I agree, they're just muddying the waters with OP giving the exact opposite response than most people who suffer from GAD. They've factored in he's an international sportsman (he-man iow) and a gun lover, so it would be against the grain for him to flee. Poppycock I say. :twocents:

There was a poster here, someone will recall her name, I am sure, who was a psychiatric registered nurse.

She provided a lot of links that expanded the Flight or Fight proposal. The gist of it was, that there is not just Flight or Fight. There are four states of mind ..

Flight,

Fight

Freeze

Fawn..

 

[Carmelita]

I think I will leave the interpretation of reasonable doubt, how she applies it and/or incorporates it into her evulation of the various testimonies and evidence up to Judge Masipa, I think she has a pretty good understanding of what is required by her in rendering a decision.

 

[Trooper]

We will have to agree to disagree. There are always exceptions to the rule. Last I looked China is a communist country and generally the only people who reasonable doubt applies to are those in power, ever wonder what happened to "Tank Man" .

Tank man was a friend of a Professor at Hong Kong University. An archaeologist, from Changsa who came to Beijing for the protests. Some say he now works in the National Palace museum in Taiwan.

One thing is for sure, the CCCP doesn't have him , other wise he would have been put on trial.

oh, I forgot to add , about the unfortunate Mr Bo.. his wife, and her name wasn't officially Mrs Bo. . she had another name which escapes me, was sentenced to , I think 25 years, escaped execution on the grounds of reasonable doubt that she may.. not absolutely did or was , but possibly may have been beginning to , as the Chinese judge so delicately put it, her time of childlessness. . . .


True!

 

[bessie]

We will have to agree to disagree.

<rsbm>

:thumb:

 

[BritsKate]

Whatever suits you.

My point, Trooper, is that in general, many liberties have been taken with stating "the law". We'd all do well to be more conscientious about providing links.

Thanks.

To be fair, I've posted plenty of links directly to SA attorneys and law professors blogs, appellate cases, general law facts, etc, and was still told I was mistaken (and sometimes something less kind was implied) so I've kinda given up. The law is whatever it is and the determination in this trial will be what it will be.

I am not an attorney but apparently even when an attorney (or judge) from South Africa says the same thing I have, it seems to carry very little weight with some posters. Their prerogative, I guess, but I just don't have the time to argue the links mean what they say on top of that they say it at all.

JMO and FWIW

 

[PrimeSuspect]

This is a PDF file if anyone is interested in reading it, , sorry if it's been posted before.

http://www.justice.gov.za/salrc/ipapers/ip26.pdf

7. STANDARDS OF PROOF

3.11 The standard of proof in criminal and civil matters is well established, namely
proof beyond reasonable doubt and proof on a balance of probabilities.40 A
seemingly intractable problem is how to quantify these generalised seemingly
intuitive standards. This has been the focus of much evidence scholarship in the last
30 years and is not something that can be remedied through codification. Another
question that arises from these well established standards of proof is when do they
apply - do they only have application at the end of the trial when the presiding officer
is making his or her final determination or are they also applicable to the admissibility
of evidence? In one instance the standards are clearly applicable to the admission of
evidence: the admissibility of a confession must be established beyond a reasonable
doubt. But must the admission of similar fact evidence or hearsay evidence be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt or on a balance of probabilities? In criminal trials
what standard of proof, if any, must be applied to the admissibility of evidence
adduced by the accused?

40 In criminal trials where the burden is placed on the accused (and constitutes a
justifiable llmitation of the right to be presumed innocence) the accused will be
required to discharge his or her burden on a balance of probabilities.

 

[Trooper]

as an aside. .. the period of South African law, when Reasonable doubt was a very iffy and highly arbitrary matter ,. was during the apartheid years.. it took the destruction of apartheid in South Africa to absolutely nail the concept of Reasonable Doubt into exquisitely regulated and formulated statutes in Law..

Judge Masipa spent the first 45 years of her life under apartheid.

 

[patCee]

This may be the part that addresses the PT's responsibility. Of course it needs to be taken within the context of the whole article, and that again makes exceptions e.g. mental incapacity.

What though does it mean that the prosecution must prove that the accused is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt? It means that the accused needs to only raise a reasonable doubt that s/he is guilty – even a single reasonable doubt – even in respect of a single requirement for liability. This is the extent of the onus on the prosecution. It ultimately gives effect to the deeply entrenched principle that, given the serious consequences of a conviction, an accused should be given the benefit of any doubt.

http://criminallawza.net/overview-of-the-requirements-of-criminal-liability-to-follow/

BBM

Scroll down to 'Onus of Proof'.

I can't find anything to do with witness testimony so I have to rely on my own logic. That is that the judge must consider witness testimony seriously and decide whether or not they are credible. In this case they were IMO. Also that 'on a balance of probability' they are telling the truth. This is turn would then be balanced with the other evidence against the accused and the defense evidence.

In this case I believe the PT witness' had credibility; the DT witness' did not.

If witness' are not considered seriously, on the balance of probability, then what's the point of them being called at all.
The most confusing thing for me is that it's easy to find these paragraphs with particular points, but there always seems to be another one somewhere that creates uncertainty, e.g. Prime Suspect's 2nd quote.

 

[bessie]

To be fair, I've posted plenty of links directly to SA attorneys and law professors blogs, appellate cases, general law facts, etc, and was still told I was mistaken (and sometimes something less kind was implied) so I've kinda given up. The law is whatever it is and the determination in this trial will be what it will be.

Yes, and it hasn't gone unnoticed. Thank you!

I am not an attorney but apparently even when an attorney (or judge) from South Africa says the same thing I have, it seems to carry very little weight with some posters. Their prerogative, I guess, but I just don't have the time to argue the links mean what they say on top of that they say it at all.

JMO and FWIW

That's the beauty of posting an appropriate link. Once you have that to back you up, there's no need to argue. Scroll and roll, as they say.

 

[Trooper]

except that in the case of Oscar Pistorius V the State of the Republic of South Africa, its a prima facie face that Oscar has been adjudicated as having a case to answer. . .

to simplify. in this case, the burden is on Oscar to prove that the prima facie case against him is unfounded...he is already guilty. its the degree of guilt that is being tried here.

 

[Lyra500]

IANAL but, from what I have read it is more accurate to apply what a reasonable person would do or believe, not beyond a reasonable doubt - and here people are applying the later principle in piecemeal. The reasonable doubt does not mean a verdict of not guilty, and it is an easy argument to make on any single one of the numerous lies and inconsistencies that OP has put forth. But the reasonable person principle is impossible when all of the lies and inconsistencies are considered and weighted against the evidence that the prosecution has put forth, which is what the three judges will do.

Thank you. I would agree wholeheartedly with your view.

It is indeed possible to pick individual aspects of the prosecution evidence and describe ways in which they could be given an alternative explanation.

I think my response to this would be two-fold
1. Just because something is possible does not mean it is probable.
2.The more borderline possible things that are added into an account, the smaller the likelihood of overall probability.


I will try to illustrate with this case. This is just a small sample. To believe OP's defence, we have to believe the following possibilities which I would suggest are actually improbable even taken separately, but when added together become almost impossible:

*The ear-witnesses are all wrong and did not hear a woman screaming.
*The PT witnesses are lying.
*The prosecution pathologist is wrong and Reeva did not eat 2 hours before she died
*The bedroom door and bath panel have damage which is perfectly innocent
*OP chose not to alert Frank for assistance.
*OP heard the bathroom window open whilst he was faffing about with the fans but did not hear Reeva getting up out of the bed he was standing right next to.
* OP stated that he chose not to fetch Reeva and head out of the bedroom and downstairs because the tiled floor outside the bedroom was slippery on his stumps and yet he chose to go towards the claimed perceived threat in the tiled bathroom on his stumps with a loaded and cocked gun.
*OP chose not to attempt to interact directly witth Reeva whilst he was right next to the head of the bed fetching his gun.
*OP did not wait for a response from Reeva before rushing off to shoot.
*OP heard the window frame open and then the bathroom door slam shut as he moved down the relatively short passage to the bathroom - meaning that when he ran down the corridor screaming, Reeva was in the toilet and made no effort to talk to him or let him hide with her.
*Op heard a sound in the toilet and started firing but he wasn't firing at the sound
*Op didn't consciously fire the gun (having specifically gone to fetch it and *advertiser censored* it ready for firing) - it just somehow went off FOUR times when it is a confirmed fact that each discharge requires active pressing of the trigger.
*OP was told by Netcare to pick up Reeva with her multiple gunshot wounds, stick her in the car bleeding profusely and take her to the hospital himself.
*The police tampered with the crime scene in precisely the right way to disprove OP's version of events with the fans etc before they even knew what his version was.

There is more, but I trust this is enough to illustrate the point I am trying to make. In my honest opinion, it simply is not possible for all of the above rather unlikely individual points (and all the others I have not listed) to have miraculously happened together on that evening/night and therefore make OP's version a credible truth.

 

[Mysteeri]

Even if OP had GAD and it affected his reactions I do not believe that the thought did not cross his mind that it was Reeva in the bathroom/toilet before he shot and that he did not check if she was in bed.

BTW. If OP heard the magazine rack moving then wouldn`t he have also heard the toilet flushing (Reeva`s bladder was empty and her pants were on), even if he was screaming?

 

[Lyra500]

Even if OP had GAD and it affected his reactions I do not believe that the thought did not cross his mind that it was Reeva in the bathroom/toilet before he shot and that he did not check if she was in bed.

BTW. If OP heard the magazine rack moving then wouldn`t he have also heard the toilet flushing (Reeva`s bladder was empty and her pants were on), even if he was screaming?

Logic would say yes he would.

Just another of the improbable things required for his version of events.

I actually don't see how he can claim to have heard the magazine rack move if he was doing the screaming which the ear witnesses heard right up until the shooting started.

Not that we have had any meaningful evidence provided to show that it was indeed him screaming.

 

[Estelle]

How Is GAD Diagnosed?

If symptoms of GAD are present, the doctor will begin an evaluation by asking questions about your medical and psychiatric history and perform a physical exam. Although there are no lab tests to specifically diagnose anxiety disorders, the doctor may use various tests to look for physical illness as the cause of symptoms.

The doctor bases his or her diagnosis of GAD on reports of the intensity and duration of symptoms -- including any problems with functioning caused by the symptoms. The doctor then determines if the symptoms and degree of dysfunction indicate a specific anxiety disorder. GAD is diagnosed if symptoms are present for more days than not during a period of at least six months. The symptoms also must interfere with daily living, such as causing you to miss work or school.

http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/guide/generalized-anxiety-disorder

IMO It appears that Pistorius did not miss any of his training days (or dates with RS) due to his Generalised Anxiety Disorder in the six months before Reeva's death! The psychiatrist and psychologist will study this for the last six months before February 14, 2013 which brings us back to August 13, 2014.

Pistorius carried the flag for South Africa at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Summer Paralympics on 29 August. He entered the men's 100 metres, 200 metres and 400 metres races in the T44 classification, and the T42&#8211;T46 4 × 100 metres relay.

In the 200 metres competition Pistorius established a new T43 world record of 21.30 seconds in his heat on 1 September, but he was defeated in the final the next day by Alan Oliveira of Brazil. Pistorius took silver, and then created a controversy by complaining about the length of Oliveria's blades. He later apologised for the timing of his remarks, but not the content of his complaint.

The IPC confirmed the length of Oliveira&#8217;s blades were proportional to his body, with all the finalists measured before the race. The IPC also confirmed that Pistorius had raised the issue of blade length with it six weeks prior to the race. SASCOC issued a statement welcoming Pistorius's apology for his outburst and declared their full support for him and promised to assist him in discussions with the IPC about the issue of lengthened prosthetics after the conclusion of the Games. The IPC expressed willingness to engage with Pistorius about the issue. Australian runner Jack Swift, USA runner Jerome Singleton, and other athletes also expressed support for Pistorius's position.

Pistorius won a gold medal on 5 September running the anchor leg as part of the South African 4 × 100 metres relay team. The team set a world record time of 41.78 seconds. He was unsuccessful in defending his Beijing Olympics 100 metres title when he came fourth with a season's best time of 11.17 seconds, and the race was won by Great Britain's Jonnie Peacock. On 8 September, the last full day of competition, Pistorius won gold in the T44 400 metres with a time of 46.68 seconds, breaking the Paralympic record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#2012_Summer_Olympics

So I cannot see how a man suffering from Generalised Anxiety Disorder would be able to achieve what he did. His behaviour was IMO not one of an anxious man but that of a poor loser but also a successful athlete.

 

[soozieqtips]

Logic would say yes he would.

Just another of the improbable things required for his version of events.

I actually don't see how he can claim to have heard the magazine rack move if he was doing the screaming which the ear witnesses heard right up until the shooting started.

Not that we have had any meaningful evidence provided to show that it was indeed him screaming.

BBM - Yes. Roux let us all down with his empty promise of providing evidence that OP screamed like a woman! Did that go down the toilet with his 'proof' that the head shot came first?? Double tap theory in the toilet too? Doesn't really matter since that's where most of OP's testimony is, so they can all keep each other company.