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

[Carmelita]

The time line in an extreme situation is often fluid for those involved in the situation. It would be unusual for a person to have things down minute by minute. The forensic evidence in this case does not negate Oscar’s version of the general time line of events.

 

[fox1lady]

Oscar conveniently loses track of time at that part where he holds Reeva feeling 'saddened '... he says.. ' a long time'..( also, this is where he 'screams like he never has before'.. .. )... hard to pin down, isn't it, Viper..

but at the same time being unable to hear himself scream much less Reeva!!! He really ought to try his hand at screenplay, he might do alright in the comedy genre

 

[Trooper]

but at the same time being unable to hear himself scream much less Reeva!!! He really ought to try his hand at screenplay, he might do alright in the comedy genre

Astonishingly, Oscar can recall second by second , even how many trips he made running back and forth from bedroom to bathroom, to bedroom, to bathroom, lights on, lights off, this sound, that sound, exactly what he said to Reeva, exactly what he said to the mythical intruder, exactly how he fired, and oddest of all, exactly, as Oscar puts it, how he was standing when he fired.. . why he did this, why he did that. . what netcare said to him, and at this stage, the situation was so beyond extreme as to defy measurement..

its.. well. its like a very off script, indeed..

 

[Trooper]

a script that falls apart entirely with the ear witnesses hearing those screams from a 'terrified, terrified' woman, ( as Annette Stipps testified) ..

 

[Cherwell]

Astonishingly, Oscar can recall second by second , even how many trips he made running back and forth from bedroom to bathroom, to bedroom, to bathroom, lights on, lights off, this sound, that sound, exactly what he said to Reeva, exactly what he said to the mythical intruder, exactly how he fired, and oddest of all, exactly, as Oscar puts it, how he was standing when he fired.. . why he did this, why he did that. . what netcare said to him, and at this stage, the situation was so beyond extreme as to defy measurement..

its.. well. its like a very off script, indeed..

He even remembers rubbing his face when he woke up. Ridiculous.

 

[Carmelita]

Carmelita , it all started here , it was your argument and i bib what i find relevant. It is a valid point to discuss imo:



Which , i've tried to express an opinion about here whilst answering FromGermany:






So in short , again , i think you have a valid point to discuss.
imo , the only difference is the use of "overcome" implying no other thing can be felt. It's either an inaccurate statement from OP , which would makes sense to me , when he adds "i was panicking"=FEAR "i was shocked"=SURPRISE because it doesn't go together with "overcome".
The only question in your original post , correct me if i'm wrong, was to differentiate being "sad" and "overcome with sadness" and i just thought the subsequent example/comparison wasn't the best to emphasize the point you were , rightly ,trying to make. Sorry if that seemed offensive or irrelevant but at no point i said i couldn't discuss it , just that , imo could be discussed better.

Respectfully

Hi Cri,

I am one of those odd ducks that needs no affirmation so whether you think I have a point worth discussing really isn’t important to me, so no worries as to having offended me. I questioned you about it as I thought that might be what your post meant so my apologies in not understanding your post . And in all reality I am not sure that I understand this post of yours either.

I do understand that you thought I gave a poor example. Fair enough.

I see from this post that you are ill at ease with Oscars use of the word “overcome” as in your mind it negates any feeling other than sadness. From a linguistic point of view your opinion has merit but from mental health point of view one has to look at all the emotions the speaker (Oscar) would encompass with the word sad. Which can be a multitude of feeling which he did testify to feeling. Assessing someone is much more complicated than the literal parsing of their words or watching their expressions or correlating known facts to their words or gaging their emotions or looking for inconstancies in their statements. Reading someone involves a myriad of assessments, it should incorporate all kinds of data and knowledge of human behavior both general and specific and it is the very reason credible folks in the mental health field will never give a diagnosis of someone that they have only watched on TV or the internet. An opinion, sure, but certainty of that opinion, nope.

 

[Greater Than]

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.

Good grief. The only difference between "sad" and "overcome with sadness" is the degree to which one is sad.

 

[lithgow1]

This is quite interesting IMO.

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

 

[Cherwell]

BBM...Imagine the money the State could have saved if OP had come out with the truth from the get-go. Instead he is circling and circumventing the truth at every possible turn.

IMO a despicable human being. What an affront to his country that worshipped him as a hero.

ITA. If he'd at least pleaded guilty to culpable homicide (oh, and the firearms offences) I might have had some sympathy for him.
But this determination to get off with everything is not the mark of an honourable person. :shakehead:

 

[Viper]

The time line in an extreme situation is often fluid for those involved in the situation. It would be unusual for a person to have things down minute by minute. The forensic evidence in this case does not negate Oscar’s version of the general time line of events.

That was the answer that I had expected, unfortunately.

But there has to be a timeline for OP and the DT. The following things are needed because witnesses heard these things and OP has given testimony that they occurred:
1. What time did the murder take place?
2. Between what times was OP screaming like a man and a woman? And what was he doing for all of that time?
3. What time did OP bash the door with the cricket bat thereby producing gunshot sounds, and he stopped screaming?
4. What time did OP bring Reeva out of the toilet and hold her in his arms for five minutes? I have the impression from his testimony that it was immediately after he broke down the door; but he would have broken down the door within a minute or two of killing Reeva, am I right? If so what was he doing for all of that time before he called Stander?

Really the only timeline that is understandable is the one that follows the PTs version of events. OP held Reeva captive from ~ 3:00, he bashed up his bathroom, creating the first set of bangs. After holding Reeva captive and screaming at her and listening to her screams and cries for help he shot her dead at 3:15 30, creating the second set of bangs that awoke more neighbors and most of their dogs, including Carise's dog some 200m away. A minute later OP (or Frank) yelled help help help. That's it.

I hope that someone can offer an independent timeline using OPs evidence and version(s) of the events. Independent, not arguing against the State's timeline. I would love to read it.

As has been documented here, the judge and the assessors must believe OPs story, and for that to happen his story has to be told with credibility. Roux will not be able to escape pesky inconveniences such as the approximate times that OP says things happened; he will have to clearly state these things when recounting OPs story and it has to be believable, not just possible; those "possible" and "reasonable doubt" falsehoods have been burned to dust over the past 24 hours thanks to links provided by savvy posters here.

 

[CriLondon]

Hi Cri,

I am one of those odd ducks that needs no affirmation so whether you think I have a point worth discussing really isn’t important to me, so no worries as to having offended me. I questioned you about it as I thought that might be what your post meant so my apologies in not understanding your post . And in all reality I am not sure that I understand this post of yours either.

I do understand that you thought I gave a poor example. Fair enough.

I see from this post that you are ill at ease with Oscars use of the word “overcome” as in your mind it negates any feeling other than sadness. From a linguistic point of view your opinion has merit but from mental health point of view one has to look at all the emotions the speaker (Oscar) would encompass with the word sad. Which can be a multitude of feeling which he did testify to feeling. Assessing someone is much more complicated than the literal parsing of their words or watching their expressions or correlating known facts to their words or gaging their emotions or looking for inconstancies in their statements. Reading someone involves a myriad of assessments, it should incorporate all kinds of data and knowledge of human behavior both general and specific and it is the very reason credible folks in the mental health field will never give a diagnosis of someone that they have only watched on TV or the internet. An opinion, sure, but certainty of that opinion, nope.

As long as it's clear that there's no hostility on my behalf , then it's all fine for me.

I agree , and again what i say here is my opinion from what i've studied and researched , i'm not qualified to give facts on the points you put to me.
I've said this from the very first day , i can provide links to arguments if it becomes necessary but in reality i'm here to give opinions and hopefully be useful somewhere to someone.

That said i'll state again that i simply believe OP expressed himself incorrectly and there's nothing else to it.
One can be desperate , beside himself (sadness) , panicking (fear) and shocked (surprise) at the same time , there's no question about that.

 

[Gryffindor]

a script that falls apart entirely with the ear witnesses hearing those screams from a 'terrified, terrified' woman, ( as Annette Stipps testified) ..

Only thing is - Oscar claimed not to have heard any screams. Wouldn't that testimony only carry weight if Oscar himself heard them?

 

[Carmelita]

Good grief. The only difference between "sad" and "overcome with sadness" is the degree to which one is sad.

Hi Greater,

IMO "sad" is not the salient word in the equation "overcome" is the important word.

 

[Carmelita]

That was the answer that I had expected, unfortunately.

But there has to be a timeline for OP and the DT. The following things are needed because witnesses heard these things and OP has given testimony that they occurred:
1. What time did the murder take place?
2. Between what times was OP screaming like a man and a woman? And what was he doing for all of that time?
3. What time did OP bash the door with the cricket bat thereby producing gunshot sounds, and he stopped screaming?
4. What time did OP bring Reeva out of the toilet and hold her in his arms for five minutes? I have the impression from his testimony that it was immediately after he broke down the door; but he would have broken down the door within a minute or two of killing Reeva, am I right? If so what was he doing for all of that time before he called Stander?

Really the only timeline that is understandable is the one that follows the PTs version of events. OP held Reeva captive from ~ 3:00, he bashed up his bathroom, creating the first set of bangs. After holding Reeva captive and screaming at her and listening to her screams and cries for help he shot her dead at 3:15 30, creating the second set of bangs that awoke more neighbors and most of their dogs, including Carise's dog some 200m away. A minute later OP (or Frank) yelled help help help. That's it.

I hope that someone can offer an independent timeline using OPs evidence and version(s) of the events. Independent, not arguing against the State's timeline. I would love to read it.

As has been documented here, the judge and the assessors must believe OPs story, and for that to happen his story has to be told with credibility. Roux will not be able to escape pesky inconveniences such as the approximate times that OP says things happened; he will have to clearly state these things when recounting OPs story and it has to be believable, not just possible; those "possible" and "reasonable doubt" falsehoods have been burned to dust over the past 24 hours thanks to links provided by savvy posters here.

Yes you have stated this on various occasions I do not come to the same conclusions that you have in order for the Judge to find Oscars story within reason.

 

[Trooper]

Only thing is - Oscar claimed not to have heard any screams. Wouldn't that testimony only carry weight if Oscar himself heard them?

who's testimony??

weight with whom??

Currently, it carries weight with the court, the hearing of screams as testified to by earwitnesses, precisely because Oscar denies hearing any such of a thing.. at any time. this is impossible.

 

[Carmelita]

As long as it's clear that there's no hostility on my behalf , then it's all fine for me.

I agree , and again what i say here is my opinion from what i've studied and researched , i'm not qualified to give facts on the points you put to me.
I've said this from the very first day , i can provide links to arguments if it becomes necessary but in reality i'm here to give opinions and hopefully be useful somewhere to someone.

That said i'll state again that i simply believe OP expressed himself incorrectly and there's nothing else to it.
One can be desperate , beside himself (sadness) , panicking (fear) and shocked (surprise) at the same time , there's no question about that.

Then it is fine because I did not take any hostility from any of your posts Peace

 

[soozieqtips]

Only thing is - Oscar claimed not to have heard any screams.
Wouldn't that testimony only carry weight if Oscar himself heard them?

BBM - Well of course the killer claims not to have heard any screams.

Why would you think he'd admit hearing them and incriminate himself?

This is a pathological liar trying to wriggle out of a murder charge!

 

[Greater Than]

Hi Greater,

IMO "sad" is not the salient word in the equation "overcome" is the important word.

"Sad" is the emotion, not "overcome."

 

[Trooper]

Only thing is - Oscar claimed not to have heard any screams. Wouldn't that testimony only carry weight if Oscar himself heard them?

why would Oscars testimony be the only one carrying any weight??

I don't understand that premise..


this trial isn't about what Oscar says.. its about what is.

 

[CriLondon]

"Sad" is the emotion, not "overcome."

Of course , although if used together , imo , would imply different things like i tried to express an opinion about upthread. I just think OP expressed himself incorrectly , it'd be nice to ask him why but that's another story.:twocents: