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

[PrimeSuspect]

Sorry if asked and answered but what exactly is the 'noise' he heard that sent him rushing to shoot at it with absolute certainty in his mind that it was an intruder - and so sure was he that he didn't bother to double check it wasn't Reeva when she didnt reply?

Or even check to see if Reeva had already been murdered in the bed and needed help? For all he knew, the 'intruders' had already been in, burgled, attacked etc and were on their escape route out?

In OP's bail application he stated it was a noise, but his testimony on the stand he says it was the sound of the window opening and hitting the frame that alerted him to someone being in the bathroom.
OP had spoken to Reeva moments before he moved fans from balcony, shut curtains and doors so no time for intruders to have attacked Reeva. But in OP's version, Reeva noiselessly slipped off to the toilet without him hearing.
It seems like to OP, such an odd thing for Reeva to do, get up and go to the toilet at 3am when by his account they had both been asleep 5 hours. Unbelievable. :facepalm:

 

[PrimeSuspect]

A bit more information here re Annamarie. In the article she denies the 'dream' story. She and Dr Versfeld became good friends of OP's parents and Henke was the master of ceremonies at their wedding. She has her own views on what she sees as OP's change of character.

http://www.all4women.co.za/entertai...ims-it-is-her-duty-to-protect-oscar-pistorius

Respectfully snipped from article, ty patCee

Annamarie also gave her opinion on whether she thinks Oscar Pistorius is innocent or guilty of murdering his girlfriend on Valentine's Day

"I don't believe the child I knew could commit murder. I think he's either had a change of character, or it was a very sad accident.

"Unfortunately, if the truth is not sought, it will not be uncovered, and if the law is applied to suit the media saga, it's unlikely that the trial will lead to justice."

Doesn't seem like she's siding with OP no matter how diplomatic her answer is, but I suppose she's been put in the 'crazy' basket so ....... gaslighting at its finest. :waitasec:

Hmmmm, I wonder where the ' I had a dream....' came from, who's the ventriloquist?

 

[Interested Bystander]

In OP's bail application he stated it was a noise, but his testimony on the stand he says it was the sound of the window opening and hitting the frame that alerted him to someone being in the bathroom.
OP had spoken to Reeva moments before he moved fans from balcony, shut curtains and doors so no time for intruders to have attacked Reeva. But in OP's version, Reeva noiselessly slipped off to the toilet without him hearing.
It seems like to OP, such an odd thing for Reeva to do, get up and go to the toilet at 3am when by his account they had both been asleep 5 hours. Unbelievable. :facepalm:

What also is very suspicious is that his previous long term girlfriend (up until the December prior to Reeva's murder) clearly says if he was worried about a noise he would wake her and ask if she heard anything. On being told "no" he would go back to sleep. One has to wonder why he would do anything different with Reeva. One also has to wonder why, if as he says RS was awake, did he not ask the same question. Of course, if he had, he then invalidates his alibi so it is easy to see why he didn't. Either she would have answered or it would have confirmed Reeva was not in the bed. IMO the window noise is another of his many lies.

 

[patCee]

Respectfully snipped from article, ty patCee



Doesn't seem like she's siding with OP no matter how diplomatic her answer is, but I suppose she's been put in the 'crazy' basket so ....... gaslighting at its finest. :waitasec:

Hmmmm, I wonder where the ' I had a dream....' came from, who's the ventriloquist?

Bursting into the court like she did at the bail hearing, is a bit odd to say the least. The article also claims she is an attorney. Maybe she dips in and out of reality, like someone else we know.

 

[CriLondon]

One thing that is deeply concerning about defense psychiatrist Dr Vorster’s testimony is she claimed Pistorius' response as authentic for anxiety issues, from his operation as a baby until the present day. Yet she had met him recently, only twice, and did not bother to read the court transcript.

Compare this to criminologist interviewed on Channel 199, Laurie Pieters, who was actually at the trial watching Pistorius testify and noted that the accused reactions were not in the end physiological – possible signs of malingering or an inauthentic response:


I’ve posted this information before but I think it’s important in terms of Pistorius' true mental and psychological state and an ability to possibly manufacture an emotional response.

Thank you for this!
I seriously believe the PT psych would have had a keen eye on OP during testimony, something we did not see ,but they did .
I also believe Nel was given a thorough assessment of OP during his testimony by his psych team . They picked things up that we did not see.

And other than , rightly , covering the legal aspects , i think Nel pounced when given a legal opportunity by Dr.V because he was given strong reasons to believe that the upcoming assessment will strengthen his case.

JMO

 

[G.bng]

Sorry! I just re-edited my post, Shrien Dewani was meant to be at Sterkfontein but now I just saw he is at Valkenberg Hospital.
http://www.news24.com/Live/SouthAfr...Shrien-Dewani-in-Valkenberg-hospital-20140521

When was Dewani ever "✄... meant to be at Sterkfontein...✄" ? IIRC, and I am pretty sure I do, from when the SA authorities had to give guarantees about his care if he were returned to SA they put forward Valkenberg! No?

 

[CriLondon]

Bursting into the court like she did at the bail hearing, is a bit odd to say the least. The article also claims she is an attorney. Maybe she dips in and out of reality, like someone else we know.

Dissociative Identity Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder) ....the Holy Grail of mental studies!

 

[CriLondon]

Sorry guys , not sure if it was asked/answered already :

If the PT hadn't brought fwd an application for a referral , could the Judge and/or the assessors have done it themselves on the grounds of Dr.Vorster testimony?

 

[Carmelita]

From previous thread:

Thank you minor4th for answering earlier , i find it difficult to see how the judge , in believing OP's version would still be able to consider the ear-witness testimonies as reliable...unless your line of reasoning is that she would consider Burger and husband only heard OP and not RS , at any point ,and Van Der Mewre yes heard a female voice at 1:56 but it wasn't RS and so forth....

Is that what you were saying? Just interested in how you are seeing this.

Thank you

There are several interpretations of the screams and they have been witnessed to, the judge may feel like me that testimony that came a week later on the heels of a media blitz is not credible enough to add to the column of viable evidence. Again eyewitness testimony (tossing in ear witness here also) is notoriously faulty.

I am not under the impression that Oscar’s testimony was as bad as many people believe it was, I think his testimony was what could have been expected if his version of that AM is true. He was not stoic, he was not dismissive, he was confused and emotional (one can attribute this to his remorse at killing Reeva and his fear of imprisonment or one can attribute it to him lying, having no remorse for having willfully killed Reeva and feeling sorry for himself).

The evaluation will be underway soon, that is a good thing.

 

[Carmelita]

no one knows why she would reject earwitness testimony on a whim to fit a variation of versions by the accused, .. not even you have an explanation for that.

No one is suggesting that the judge will act on a whim. There are valid reasons that the judge may dismiss some of the ear witness testimony, and then when the ear-witness testimony gets down to two people, a husband and a wife, and the wife changed her testimony to fit her husbands testimony the already shaky ear-witness testimony may not carry as much credence as many seem to think that it does.


This is not Judge Masipa's first rodeo.

 

[Carmelita]

I don't say how she will rule, I say how she DOES rule. she applies the Facts to the Law. the Assessors provide the collated facts TO the Judge so that she CAN apply the Law to them.


You are saying, you don't know how she 'will come out of this'. I say. she will apply the Facts to the Law.. YOUR theory is, she will reject certain facts ,etc. I say, the Assessors will have to 'reject portions earwitnesses" that is. the same portion, of the same witnesses together in concert ,and then get Masipa to accept that rejection of those facts and then apply the Law to the remaining facts..

I say. this isn't going to happen. It doesn't work like that.

Actually Judge Masipa will apply the law to the facts at least as well as she and her assessors can discern the facts. And “facts” when in question must be viewed by the judiciary in a light most favorable to a defendant.

I do agree that portions of the ear-testimony will be questionable before the judge and her assessors.

 

[lithgow1]

There are several interpretations of the screams and they have been witnessed to, the judge may feel like me that testimony that came a week later on the heels of a media blitz is not credible enough to add to the column of viable evidence. Again eyewitness testimony (tossing in ear witness hear also) is notoriously faulty.

I am not under the impression that Oscar’s testimony was as bad as many people believe it was, I think his testimony was what could have been expected if his version of that AM is true. He was not stoic, he was not dismissive, he was confused and emotional (one can attribute this to his remorse at killing Reeva and his fear of imprisonment or one can attribute it to him lying, having no remorse for having willfully killed Reeva and feeling sorry for himself).

The evaluation will be underway soon, that is a good thing.

It has been pointed out many times that the Burgers came forward when what they heard in Pistorius' bail application statement did not align with what they heard that night and yet you continue to put forward that it was media coverage that made them offer their evidence. In a purely technical sense you are correct that they heard the application via the media but in terms of being accurate you continue to push this 'the media made them do it' line as a way to discredit them. I don't understand why you do this when you claim to go by the evidence and the evidence in this instance suggests your mildly disparaging claims are grossly wrong.

 

[IfIMay]

It has been pointed out many times that the Burgers came forward when what they heard in Pistorius' bail application statement did not align with what they heard that night and yet you continue to put forward that it was media coverage that made them offer their evidence. In a purely technical sense you are correct that they heard the application via the media but in terms of being accurate you continue to push this 'the media made them do it' line as a way to discredit them. I don't understand why you do this when you claim to go by the evidence and the evidence in this instance suggests your mildly disparaging claims are grossly wrong.

If it does not benefit the latest of OP's versions, then it does not exist as evidence. Clearly those are the parameters of acceptance of evidence.

Mrs. Burger would not let OP and his lawyer change her version under unbelievably harsh cross... and she didn't vomit or cry once when the going got tough. She stuck to what she knows she heard and that just kills the other side's version.

 

[Carmelita]

It has been pointed out many times that the Burgers came forward when what they heard in Pistorius' bail application statement did not align with what they heard that night and yet you continue to put forward that it was media coverage that made them offer their evidence. In a purely technical sense you are correct that they heard the application via the media but in terms of being accurate you continue to push this 'the media made them do it' line as a way to discredit them. I don't understand why you do this when you claim to go by the evidence and the evidence in this instance suggests your mildly disparaging claims are grossly wrong.

Hi Lithgow1,

I have never said the media made them do it. I have said that their testimony carries less objective validity because they waited so long to come forward, that is my opinion in a nut shell.

 

[IfIMay]

Sorry guys , not sure if it was asked/answered already :

If the PT hadn't brought fwd an application for a referral , could the Judge and/or the assessors have done it themselves on the grounds of Dr.Vorster testimony?

I'm sure someone much more articulate and with more knowledge of SA law will answer you fully, but my understanding is that Nel argued that the onus was on the court because the defense presented evidence that could be argued as diminished responsibility. Even though Nel put forth the application, the Judge had the clear responsibility to clear up the matter for court record and get evidence via the assessment.

 

[lithgow1]

Hi Lithgow1,

I have never said the media made them do it. I have said that their testimony carries less objective validity because they waited so long to come forward, that is my opinion in a nut shell.

They waited until they heard the bail application Carmelita - they couldn't have known what Pistorius was going to say about the night's events until he actually said anything could they.

 

[TorisMom003]

Hi Lithgow1,

I have never said the media made them do it. I have said that their testimony carries less objective validity because they waited so long to come forward, that is my opinion in a nut shell.

So then the witnesses sort of tailored their testimony to fit what was heard in the media? But what reason would they have for not telling the truth on the stand? And what of OP? What about his testimony? Is it to be believed completely even though he changed his version while on the stand from one sentence to the next at times?

 

[Carmelita]

If it does not benefit the latest of OP's versions, then it does not exist as evidence. Clearly those are the parameters of acceptance of evidence.

Mrs. Burger would not let OP and his lawyer change her version under unbelievably harsh cross... and she didn't vomit or cry once when the going got tough. She stuck to what she knows she heard and that just kills the other side's version.

I do not question "evidence" because it benefits or does not benefit Oscar's version. I question testimony because it is questionable and not only questionable by a lay person but questionable by legal norms and standard.

To suggest that my parameters of acceptable evidence is subjective has no validity. Wild scenarios of contract knowledge one-up-man-ship, lunch date arguments, airguns, panels being broken out of doors to get a better (but still blind aim), ex boyfriends, jealousy, previous noises and Oscars response under very different circumstances, a break up, and so on certainly is of questionable veracity and without a doubt subjective speculation.

 

[james83]

No one is suggesting that the judge will act on a whim. There are valid reasons that the judge may dismiss some of the ear witness testimony, and then when the ear-witness testimony gets down to two people, a husband and a wife, and the wife changed her testimony to fit her husbands testimony the already shaky ear-witness testimony may not carry as much credence as many seem to think that it does.


This is not Judge Masipa's first rodeo.

It really is beyond laughable the way some refer to this shaky ear witness testimony, but yet appear to have no problem with the defence doing test's months into the trial, putting oscar in front of a psychiatrist months into the trial, defence witness's going for a beer together after one has testified and before the other was due to, one minute claiming double taps the next not, all this seems to slip under the radar when it doesn't suit.

 

[Carmelita]

They waited until they heard the bail application Carmelita - they couldn't have known what Pistorius was going to say about the night's events until he actually said anything could they.

They should have come forward sooner, what Oscar said should have not influenced them one way or another, they heard what a person of average intelligence would believe could very well be pertinent to a killing.