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

[Angela Carr]

GAD or any other disorder that OP may or may not have is only relevant if you believe he thought there was an intruder in the toilet room.
As 5 witnesses heard a fight/ screams by a woman/a man and a woman's voice/blood curdling screams of a woman which were silenced by the last of 4gunshots.
Add to this that OP didn't even look out the bathroom window to see if there WAS a ladder up against the window.
I think we can safely say that there was no imagined intruder.

 

[patCee]

Wait a minute. That well respected retired South African judge is saying that Judge Masipa and the two assessors actually need to believe OPs story is true. He also said that all of this "reasonably possibly true" stuff gets canceled out if they don't actually believe his story is true. Not just possible, they must believe that it is true. So what's up with the past months worth of arguing here at WS to the opposite? Some here were saying that the court must give OP the benefit of any and all doubts on any and all of his lies and contradictions, IIRC.

BBM

That's exactly the point I was trying to make in my post 237. Find one piece of the law and there's another that contradicts it. Seems that a guiding principle is made in the law, but within some these acts are not totally prescriptive and there are some lee ways that err on the side of realism that can also be used.

There is also a sort of 'common usage' in the law on how it's interpreted, and occasionally a judge changes this. I guess that's how precedents are created.

The details of every case are different, however, and the judge may be able to "distinguish" the rulings of other courts and make a decision that breaks with precedent. And, of course, if a novel issue arises and there is no precedent to follow, the judge must craft a decision that breaks new ground but is consistent with the principles laid down in common law. Judges also consider common law precedents from other jurisdictions and countries. While not binding, these may offer guidance as to the best way to resolve a dispute.

http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/judges_decisions-en.asp?l=5

 

[james83]

I just listened again. My original post was accurate.

Roux: You heard this very loud crying. Could you hear what the person was saying?

Mr N: One thing that I picked up … it was basically “No, please, please, no” (immitating what he heard)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVh9WQES2qI

18:00

Do you honestly think asking "could you hear what the person was saying?", is the same as asking "is it possible you could make a sound that would resemble it"?.

 

[Cherwell]

In any case, the original discussion was not about witnesses following the trial after they had given their statement, it was the reliability or not of witnesses that didn't give statements immediately and how that could, not always, and not necessarily in this case, cause a judge or jury to give that testimony less weight than had the witness given it within days of the event.

I genuinely don't see why it might cause them to give it "less weight". Sometimes we actually remember more about an event after a delay than in the immediate few days following. I know this to be true from my own experiences. And I'm not talking about incorporating details that we have read or heard from other people.

 

[Giles]

Do you honestly think asking "could you hear what the person was saying?", is the same as asking "is it possible you could make a sound that would resemble it"?.

I understand what you're saying now.

I think Roux had coached them beforehand to imitate the sound they heard. He mentioned this at some point.

Anyhow, my point remains. All three of the direct neighbours imitated the sounds they heard, not just the two women. I really don't think this has much significance, but to say otherwise is inaccurate. I was simply highlighting this.

JMO

 

[Whole Truth]

I think it has been so badly produced I worry that Oscar will be able to sue for sloppy representation..


that said.. . I never thought a year was long enough for the defence, and possibly, but not as much as the defence, for the prosecution to prepare for this trial. As it's turned out, nothing seems to have got done that should have been, and what has been done seemed to have suddenly begun when the trial itself started..

From my layman's point of view I actually thought some of the PT's expert witnesses seemed a bit disorganised and assumed the Defence was going to run like a well-oiled machine...best that money can buy and all that.

Well, how wrong was I?!! The DT experts for the large part seem to have appeared more for their willingness to do so rather than actually having expertise in the subject! Loved Wollie though - bless him.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Hippity skippity day. :dance:
Been at WS for awhile now, but this acronym puzzles me.

JMHOSNNFS,I,OR

I get JMHO, but after that I am lost. TIA.

 

[soozieqtips]

Hippity skippity day. :dance:
Been at WS for awhile now, but this acronym puzzles me.

JMHOSNNFS,I,OR

I get JMHO, but after that I am lost. TIA.

I'm lost with IANAL - :giggle:

 

[Suthrnqt]

I'm lost with IANAL - :giggle:

That one is I Am Not A Lawyer.
:giggle:

 

[soozieqtips]

That one is I Am Not A Lawyer.
:giggle:

That's a relief :floorlaugh:

 

[Angela Carr]

How about: just my honest opinion so no need for sarcasm, idiocy or rebuke
.
???
Or
Just my honest opinion so no need for sarcasm,irony or ridicule

 

[fox1lady]

From my layman's point of view I actually thought some of the PT's expert witnesses seemed a bit disorganised and assumed the Defence was going to run like a well-oiled machine...best that money can buy and all that.

Well, how wrong was I?!! The DT experts for the large part seem to have appeared more for their willingness to do so rather than actually having expertise in the subject! Loved Wollie though - bless him.

... and Dixon, they've both had their 5 minutes of fame... bet they've been discussing it over a beer and a steak

 

[atthelake]

I think it is a US of A thing.

We smile and thank the toll booth operator, say have a nice day to the bank teller......say hi to strangers or just comment on what a nice day it is to a passerby. It is what we do......people outside of here think we are crazy or weird. My DH is from GB and he found it odd but nice....in an innocent way.

If I order from Amazon....the package will be on the porch when I get home. Boom.

Hope this helps.....

Sweet tea and southern hospitality is what my area of the country has a reputation for . (lol and negatives too)

Just this week I bought extra groceries for my next door neighbor. Two days later the family across the street made me dinner. Both for no reason.

I luvvvvv where I live.

I am very fortunate.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[Carmelita]

To clarify as there still seems to be some confusion about a Prima Facie case.


http://premisesliability.uslegal.com/negligence-as-basis-for-recovery/res-ipsa-loqu/



Res ipsa loquitur

Prima facie is often confused with res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"), the common law doctrine that when the facts make it self-evident that negligence or other responsibility lies with a party, it is not necessary to provide extraneous details, since any reasonable person would immediately find the facts of the case.

And the good news is that I learned how to c & p

Edited to add the correct link.

 

[Gryffindor]

To clarify as there still seems to be some confusion about a Prima Facie case.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prima+facie


Res ipsa loquitur

Prima facie is often confused with res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"), the common law doctrine that when the facts make it self-evident that negligence or other responsibility lies with a party, it is not necessary to provide extraneous details, since any reasonable person would immediately find the facts of the case.

And the good news is that I learned how to c & p

Cheers So with reference to Oscar's case, that means? :-\ I know you can explain ;-) Oh and very well done on your technical conquering. LOLZ Yay!

 

[Carmelita]

But that night, and only that night apparently, his 'disorder' was so acute it impinged on his differentiation between right and wrong?

>snipped by me for clarity<

I don't believe that will be the claim, I doubt that there will ever be a claim made from the panel that Oscar momentarily did not know the difference between right and wrong.

More likely mitigating circumstances will be opined in that Oscar's mental defect (if they find one), his disability, and a noise in the night caused a deadly storm.

 

[Suthrnqt]

How about: just my honest opinion so no need for sarcasm, idiocy or rebuke
.
???
Or
Just my honest opinion so no need for sarcasm,irony or ridicule

That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks so much. :seeya:

 

[Carmelita]

Cheers So with reference to Oscar's case, that means? :-\ I know you can explain ;-) Oh and very well done on your technical conquering. LOLZ Yay!

Thanks Gryf,

I try . My understanding of the Prima Facie case (which most cases apparently are else they would not be brought to court) the defense does have to lay out the circumstances as to why they are not guilty of the crime(s) charged but the prosecution must still prove its case.

Ciao!

 

[Gryffindor]

Thanks Gryf,

I try . My understanding of the Prima Facie case (which most cases apparently are else they would not be brought to court) the defense does have to lay out the circumstances as to why they are not guilty of the crime(s) charged but the prosecution must still prove its case.

Ciao!

Thank you :-D So the heavier burden, if you will, lies with the State/PT ?

 

[Angela Carr]

Hey guys,
Whilst OP is being evaluated, it's pretty quiet on here, so if you have some time on your hands, check out the Parking Lot on Websleuths, McStay family. If you know nothing about the case suggest you watch investigation discovery Mystery at the Border on youtube first. This case needs to be solved!