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

[PrimeSuspect]

Its not at all what britskate said. Not knowing bw right n wrong is legal insanity. That's not the issue and no one thinks that.o

There appears to be two definitions of insanity.

The Insanity Defense comes in two main forms. First, a defendant may argue that because of mental disease or defect, he or she lacked the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. This is cognitive insanity.

Second, a defendant may argue that because of mental disease or defect, she or he was unable to act in conformance with the law. This is volitional insanity, and it is known as the irresistible impulse defense. Under this defense, a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity even though she or he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the offense.

http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Irresistible+Impulse

INSANITY AND DIMINISHED CAPACITY
BEFORE THE COURT

1. The legal test for insanity in South Africa has a biological component
(ie the presence of mental illness) and a psychological component (the
impairment of cognitive and/or conative functioning).
2. The diagnosis of mental illness falls within the domain of psychiatrists
and psychologists while the assessment of criminal responsibility falls
within the domain of the court.
3. In the defence of automatism the voluntariness of the act is in question.
The person cannot be held criminally liable because the act is
committed while he or she is an altered state of consciousness and is
unable to perform goal-directed actions.
4. The defence of non-pathological incapacity allows for temporary
emotional states to be used as grounds for exculpation.

This paper covers what Dr Vorster stated, pretty much word for word. No wonder the PT jumped in and ordered a psych assessment on OP, play that card now or remove it permanently from the table.

A person who commits an act or makes an omission which constitutes an offence and
who at the time of such commission suffers from a mental illness or mental defect
which makes him or her incapable

(a) of appreciating the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission; or

(b) of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his or her act
or omission, shall not be criminally responsible for such act or omission.

Section 5 of the Criminal Matters Amendment Act 68 of 1998

http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/psychology/psy400w/insanity.pdf

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Oscars timeline challenged.

http://phil51089.wordpress.com/2014...rius-timeline-as-offered-by-donmack/#comments

I agree with his disbelief of OP's version.
As I read through it a thought came into my head about OP yelling 'Help, Help, Help' from the balcony. I couldn't understand his reasoning behind it from the start, but now I wonder if he wanted it to seem like they were under attack from an intruder. But he changed his mind. Hmmm, jmo.

 

[BritsKate]

BIB. On another website one gentle soul explained that she would be "sad" if she had put a cake in the oven to bake and later learned that she had left the butter out. But if she had killed a person, "sad" would not be her choice of words. I agree with her.

We both agree. I get very sad at the anniversaries of my parent's deaths, years later, but at the time of their passing (both unexpected and sudden, neither violent); I was devastated and utterly bereft. There aren't words to encapsulate what I felt - but sad would be pretty far down the list of 'grieving' words.

But this is something I've noted before about cluster B personality disordered people - many use really improper vocabulary, often in describing emotions. Whether that's the reason for Oscar doing so or not obviously remains to be seen. But I won't be surprised if such a diagnosis is reached and that will be just one more puzzle piece that fits into place.

All MOO


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[sicknote]

I know it's hard to believe, but it is fact, some people believe in tooth fairies, gold at the end of rainbows, Santa Claus and Oscar Pistorius.

Oscar Pistorius wants a Judge to believe that all ear witnesses never heard a single sound from Reeva that morning. Not only that, he wants her to believe that it was infact him that sounds like a woman. Seriously? Nel must have loved part.

He is going to take some stick from his fellow inmates over his tale.......thats for sure.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I'm on a bit of roll tonight, sorry folks. :blushing:

Statement Analysis of OP's testimony. Very revealing. :moo:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/oscar-pistorius/page-two/

 

[BritsKate]

The comment I made that's being debated wasn't made specifically to address any view here...which may be why no one is quoted.

It was general snark to allude how ridiculous I find it that his disorder is being touted as a reason for his actions that night.

And a great many people all over the web have certainly proposed his 'disorder' rises to the level to negate criminal responsibility. Whether alone or coupled with other factors.

I'm well aware of the many differences between a mitigating circumstance and an automatism defence. I believe, but could obviously be wrong, that Oscar's diagnosis will not rise to such a degree to be either (that's the heart of my earlier comment however poorly I may have phrased it).

Greater Than nailed it.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[BritsKate]

Sure seems that way, otherwise what is the use of even having a prosecutor, the defense presents its case and if no one refutes it then they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that their version of the event is true.

<modsnip>

<modsnip> this isn't a normal case. Oscar has raised an affirmative defence and as such, the onus is automatically higher on the accused than what is standard. It's for this very reason that Oscar ever testified. He didn't have to - but if he didn't, it would be very difficult to ascertain 'state of mind' required to establish a putative private-defence claim.

Conversely, if no such defence was raised, the burden to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt would be higher on the State.

An affirmative defence is, in effect, admitting Oscar shot someone four times resulting in that person's death but he should not be held responsible because of x, y, z. So in reality, part of the burden normally on the State (like proving Oscar was there, fired the weapon, etc.) is already done for them. They're mainly left with proving intent. If the State proves Oscar intentionally killed anyone (to include an intruder), murder is in effect proven. And murder can also possibly be proven via indirect intent.

The only thing that can rebut this intent (and with it, a murder conviction), is to convince the court of Oscar's affirmative defence. As you correctly stated, the defence does have a case to answer. It's simply not enough to suggest such a defence, it absolutely must convince the court.

By the way, if it helps, a very simple way to explain 'prima facie' is that facts are presumed true until disproven. (e.g. Oscar fired his gun four times; in so doing Oscar killed someone (and all killing is unlawful, prima facie, so he has to disprove this). The term can apply to the whole case but can also apply to individual items of evidence too.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...criminal-defense-case/affirmative-defense.htm

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

http://law.jrank.org/pages/9373/Prima-Facie.html

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hFM3d6sA-SY


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Mysteeri]

Yes, that's exactly what he did. 'No witness heard screams after shots? Got it. I will say I didn't scream afterwards because it would've been pointless. OH and also because I was so sad. That sounds legit. I got this!!! I will win. I always do.'

"What would be the point"? He is not supposed to know what is behind the toilet door and if the bullets hit the "intruder/s". So the point would remain the same as before the shots.

 

[BritsKate]

"What would be the point"? He is not supposed to know what is behind the toilet door and if the bullets hit the "intruder/s". So the point would remain the same as before the shots.

Well, supposedly he was screaming while running all over the house because he didn't find Reeva and he had a lightbulb moment that it could have been her he shot...after also screaming at the intruder to get out.

For me, if there was ever a moment for blood-curdling screaming it would be when I was faced with the reality of the worst rather than just believing the worst was possible. I'd be trying to convince myself I was wrong until faced with irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

So very coincidental he didn't see the point just as the last of those blood-curdling screams faded.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Viper]

I agree with his disbelief of OP's version.
As I read through it a thought came into my head about OP yelling 'Help, Help, Help' from the balcony. I couldn't understand his reasoning behind it from the start, but now I wonder if he wanted it to seem like they were under attack from an intruder. But he changed his mind. Hmmm, jmo.

Just food for thought. Many people suspect that it was Frank that yelled "help help help" after hearing all of this go down. That does make more sense to me. But Frank isn't talking, so...

 

[Karmady]

There appears to be two definitions of insanity.



http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Irresistible+Impulse



This paper covers what Dr Vorster stated, pretty much word for word. No wonder the PT jumped in and ordered a psych assessment on OP, play that card now or remove it permanently from the table.


http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/psychology/psy400w/insanity.pdf

Agree theres a diminished capacity defense but still not sure its identical to insanity even under sa law. But in any case it does not require a finding that the defendant not be able to distinguish bs right a d wrong --which is what the op said. Here the doc said he could tell the difference but couldnt act accordingly. Thats a big difference imo

 

[CriLondon]

Yeah, 'sad' is an odd emotion to feel at such a tragic moment.

Panicky, anxious, shocked, angry (at himself), distressed, horrified?

Nope, he felt.........sad. :therethere:

Yes , i agree. Sadness should sink in much later , in the immediate aftermath one would expect to see what i bib. And if it's a true mistake i'd add DESPERATE and beside himself.
IIRC OP used ( at different times , never in the same sentence , a problem imo)
during his testimony "i was overcome with sadness" and also think he said "i was panicking".

 

[CriLondon]

Well, supposedly he was screaming while running all over the house because he didn't find Reeva and he had a lightbulb moment that it could have been her he shot...after also screaming at the intruder to get out.

For me, if there was ever a moment for blood-curdling screaming it would be when I was faced with the reality of the worst rather than just believing the worst was possible. I'd be trying to convince myself I was wrong until faced with irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

So very coincidental he didn't see the point just as the last of those blood-curdling screams faded.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

bbm - and in that context , one suddenly ties up Dr.Stipp first set of bangs being the cricket bat (RS facing the reality of the worst, OP is attacking her trying to smash the door) RS screams (now Burger and Johnson wake up) , blood-curdling screams , this is what makes OP shoot , she is screaming and he's compromised , he loses it . bang x4.

 

[Lyra500]

bbm - and in that context , one suddenly ties up Dr.Stipp first set of bangs being the cricket bat (RS facing the reality of the worst, OP is attacking her trying to smash the door) RS screams (now Burger and Johnson wake up) , blood-curdling screams , this is what makes OP shoot , she is screaming and he's compromised , he loses it . bang x4.

Sadly I think this is it in a nutshell.

It is such an awful and terrifying way to die - at the hands of someone you felt should be your protector and champion.

The thought of those last terrified screams as she realised what was about to happen is shocking and heart-breaking. I really feel for those who witnessed the killing as they heard the screams. No wonder Mrs Burger was so upset as she recalled what she heard.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Now, though it is too late for all, I want to know:

How does a 9mm cartridge fabricate one 5mm hole into Reeva's pants??? Anybody knows this?

 

[Carmelita]

<modsnip> this isn't a normal case. Oscar has raised an affirmative defence and as such, the onus is automatically higher on the accused than what is standard. It's for this very reason that Oscar ever testified. He didn't have to - but if he didn't, it would be very difficult to ascertain 'state of mind' required to establish a putative private-defence claim.

Conversely, if no such defence was raised, the burden to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt would be higher on the State.

An affirmative defence is, in effect, admitting Oscar shot someone four times resulting in that person's death but he should not be held responsible because of x, y, z. So in reality, part of the burden normally on the State (like proving Oscar was there, fired the weapon, etc.) is already done for them. They're mainly left with proving intent. If the State proves Oscar intentionally killed anyone (to include an intruder), murder is in effect proven. And murder can also possibly be proven via indirect intent.

The only thing that can rebut this intent (and with it, a murder conviction), is to convince the court of Oscar's affirmative defence. As you correctly stated, the defence does have a case to answer. It's simply not enough to suggest such a defence, it absolutely must convince the court.

By the way, if it helps, a very simple way to explain 'prima facie' is that facts are presumed true until disproven. (e.g. Oscar fired his gun four times; in so doing Oscar killed someone (and all killing is unlawful, prima facie, so he has to disprove this). The term can apply to the whole case but can also apply to individual items of evidence too.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...criminal-defense-case/affirmative-defense.htm

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

http://law.jrank.org/pages/9373/Prima-Facie.html

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hFM3d6sA-SY


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

<modsnip>

Oscar has a higher onus as there is no debate as to whether or not Oscar shot and killed Reeva, that is a simple deduction. but that does not negate the states onus as to proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

To sum up the rest of your post more simply Oscar laid out a brief scenario of his defense in his bail statement in order to get bail that in and of itself shows that the court will be looking for a defense that negates the know facts of that AM. He could not just plead not guilty and hope that bail would be set he had to give “some” reason for his plea.

Intent is of course the lynchpin. That has been my point since I first started posting here.

 

[Carmelita]

I see a lot of musing about the proper and improper use of the word sad.

Oscar said something other than it made him sad. He said he was overcome with sadness. The is a large difference, overcome with sadness is different than sad, if a movie is sold out and someone says that they are sad because they can&#8217;t see the movie, that might be rather normal, if on the other hand that same person says that they are &#8220;overcome with sadness&#8221; it would be a very odd statement. &#8220;Overcome&#8221; is a very emotionally and psychologically significant word.

 

[CriLondon]

Now, though it is too late for all, I want to know:

How does a 9mm cartridge fabricate one 5mm hole into Reeva's pants??? Anybody knows this?

just a guess on my part : the nature of the fabric perhaps? the way it was sewn , maybe someone can help here , as in cross-thread ? a bullet would make a hole but not being like scissors or a blade i don't think it can cut straight through , or rather , make a clear cut and leave a hole of its own size.

just an idea

 

[CriLondon]

I see a lot of musing about the proper and improper use of the word sad.

Oscar said something other than it made him sad. He said he was overcome with sadness. The is a large difference, overcome with sadness is different than sad, if a movie is sold out and someone says that they are sad because they can’t see the movie, that might be rather normal, if on the other hand that same person says that they are “overcome with sadness” it would be a very odd statement. “Overcome” is a very emotionally and psychologically significant word.

I think that would classify as "disappointed". Please make a better comparison , kindly , if possible , so that your next point can be discussed better

 

[Trooper]

just a guess on my part : the nature of the fabric perhaps? the way it was sewn , maybe someone can help here , as in cross-thread ? a bullet would make a hole but not being like scissors or a blade i don't think it can cut straight through , or rather , make a clear cut and leave a hole of its own size.

just an idea

just an off the top guess on my part , is, it could be because it went thru a Mercanti wood door panel first?