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

[lithgow1]

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.

Everything that you say in your second paragraph is speculation here and elsewhere so of course it's not evidence. This discussion was about the ear witness testimony presented in court and now it's gone off on a tangent of putting internet speculation into the same category. Let's stick to evidence presented in court wouldn't you agree?

 

[lithgow1]

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.

Of course what Pistorius said would influence their decision to come forward if it didn't gell with what they heard that night.

 

[Cherwell]

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.

It seems clear to me that they would have preferred not to be involved, and that they almost certainly expected that there would be testimony from plenty of witnesses who were closer than they. It's to their credit that they came forward when they realised that the accused's account of events was substantially at odds with what they had heard.

 

[Carmelita]

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?

There are a myriad of reasons why they may have waited to bring forth their recollection of that AM, one could be they believe that they heard exactly what they claim they heard and didn't think it was of value until they heard Oscar's account of that AM, but it is not the unassailable definitive, only possible reason that their ear-witness evidence was brought forward so late.

The judge will have to consider different scenarios and weigh how much credence to give their testimony, she may find it very valid.

Masipa is the judge it is in her court.


Have a good day folks

 

[Carmelita]

Of course what Pistorius said would influence their decision to come forward if it didn't gell with what they heard that night.

See this is where we disagree, and I think my point is made as if they had come forward on that AM rather than a week later then there would be no question as to whether or not their "memory" was influenced by anything at all.

 

[lithgow1]

See this is where we disagree, and I think my point is made as if they had come forward on that AM rather than a week later then there would be no question as to whether or not their "memory" was influenced by anything at all.

Well you may think your point is made but I would beg to differ.

 

[Carmelita]

Everything that you say in your second paragraph is speculation here and elsewhere so of course it's not evidence. This discussion was about the ear witness testimony presented in court and now it's gone off on a tangent of putting internet speculation into the same category. Let's stick to evidence presented in court wouldn't you agree?

I would agree

I was responding to the post I quoted where my objectivity was questioned. I was illustrating a point that, no indeed it is not me who needs to be introspective when it comes to objectivity. I listed some speculations that have been presented to validate my point about the "perceived" objectively with which many believe they are interpreting this case.


I think if a poster can wildly and subjectively "speculate" as to events that occurred between Reeva and Oscar between 7 PM and 3:17 AM just perhaps their "objectivity" about other aspects of the case such as late to the ball ear-witness testimony may be a bit influenced by their confirmation bias.

The judge will try not to afford herself the luxury of speculation or subjective inference.

 

[Carmelita]

Well you may think your point is made but I would beg to differ.

Thanks Lithgow1 you have brought back a happy memory for me, my husband and I were once having a conversation and he said something, to which I responded, “I disagree” to which he said, “Well, I don’t.” we both just started laughing as of course he didn’t disagree as he had just said it. :floorlaugh:


I am running late. Have a good day

 

[Lyra500]

See this is where we disagree, and I think my point is made as if they had come forward on that AM rather than a week later then there would be no question as to whether or not their "memory" was influenced by anything at all.

So if the PT ear witness evidence is compromised because they did not come forward until after the bail hearing a matter of days after the crime, what is your view of the defence 'ear witnesses' and Stander family who admitted to having watched and listened to the entire trial before appearing for the defence?

 

[Cherwell]

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.

Except for Oscar's.

 

[JudgeJudi]

bearing in mind, that the Assessors can , and have in past times, overridden a decision by the judge, but only on matters of fact.. they cant over ride her on matters of Law.. .. but you know this, because it was all outlined much earlier. and I understand you said you had done 'extensive research' into South African law recently?

I know you're aware of this Trooper, but for the benefit of others I'll post this again.

"They are there to help the judge decide whether Pistorius is guilty or not.

They are only meant [to] try on the facts and can overrule the judge. But they can only overrule her on the facts. When it comes to sentencing they play no role whatsoever.” … At the end of the case, the assessors will give their opinions to the judge. She is allowed to disregard their views and decide the verdict on her own.

However, the assessors can overrule the judge when it comes to a verdict on the facts in a majority finding. According to Professor Annette van der Merwe, a criminal procedure law expert at the University of Pretoria, if the two assessors were to rule in favour of murder, or the judge and one assessor were to rule so, that verdict would be the accepted one. The same would apply if two of them were to rule in favour of an acquittal."

http://www.thesouthafrican.com/news...rs-have-in-deciding-oscar-pistoriuss-fate.htm

 

[screecher]

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.

And I believe the judge and her assessors will disbelieve most all of OP's ever changing and evasive testimony.

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?

BBM

Exactly.

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.

BBM

Do you 'question' any or part of OP's testimony concerning 'evidence'? If so, what parts?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Here’s a bit of history on Dr Leon Fine, Pistorius’ chosen defense forensic psychiatrist.

He’s also on the panel for Sterkfontein Hospital, (Edit: Sorry, Shrien Dewani is not there he is at Valkenberg Hospital)

In 1995, Dr Fine was the defense team’s psychiatrist for heinous murderer Moses Sithole who raped and killed 37 women. Dr. Leon Fine wrote a letter to the court about how Moses Sithole needed clinical observation as his head injuries from boxing matches may have “prevented [Sithole] from realizing the wrongness of his actions.” Sithole was sent by the court to the hospital for three thirty-day assessments (3 months!) until finally psychiatrist reports concluded no evidence of injury and that the accused had a full comprehension of right and wrong.

Micki Pistorius, Pistorius' Aunt, was the police psychologist on the Sithole case and saw the first ten dead female victims. She wrote a book about the case ‘Catch Me a Killer – Serial Murder a Profiler’s Story’.

She obviously knows Dr Leon Fine and his special interests in: “Psychosis, Depression, all Anxiety Syndromes, Personality Disorders and Interpersonal or Interfamilial Conflict Situations.”

Uncle Arnold is adamant the whole family is behind his nephew and Micki Pistorius was there every day of the bail hearing supporting the athlete.

I wonder if Micki Pistorius recommended Dr Leon Fine. Is Dr Fine going to be writing another letter about head injuries possibly diminishing Pistorius' sense of right and wrong…

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/moses_sithole/10.html

Is this the Leon Fine to which you refer:-

Dr. Leon Fine
M.B.B.Ch. (Wits), D.P.M. (Rand), F.C. Psych.,
B.A. Hons (Psychology) (S.A.),
Certificate in Medicine and Law (Unisa / Pretoria)

He seems to work at the private Mayo Clinics, Johannesburg part time and lives in Victory Park, Randburg, Gauteng.

 

[CriLondon]

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.

I think it could be argued that not everyone would want to get involved in such a high profile case to start with , let alone go and testify. If it was me , i'd have to seriously think about it. Jmo

 

[Cherwell]

I think it could be argued that not everyone would want to get involved in such a high profile case to start with , let alone go and testify. If it was me , i'd have to seriously think about it. Jmo

Same here. I cannot see why it would invalidate or alter what I heard or saw. That would still be the same.

 

[wb180]

If Carmelita hates some of PT witnesses coming forward late, she must really hate some of the DT witnesses given some of them only came forward a month ago.

But she doesn't. Haha

 

[IfIMay]

If Carmelita hates some of PT witnesses coming forward late, she must really hate some of the DT witnesses given some of them only came forward a month ago.

But she doesn't. Haha

Especially that sad social worker woman who called and inserted herself last minute. Horrible! How can anyone take her seriously!? :scared:

 

[wb180]

And I believe the judge and her assessors will disbelieve most all of OP's ever changing and evasive testimony.



BBM

Exactly.



BBM

Do you 'question' any or part of OP's testimony concerning 'evidence'? If so, what parts?

Of course she and other people who believe OP blames Nel for confusing him. The best argument is that OP "core" version is correct.

So he can lie so much (not just once or twice but the whole damn thing) but somehow he still telling the truth. How weird is that! Haha.

 

[lithgow1]

Especially that sad social worker woman who called and inserted herself last minute. Horrible! How can anyone take her seriously!? :scared:

That really did seem pointless didn't it. She saw him the day after and witnessed a 'heartbroken man' but in the immediate moments after the shooting, when he saw the damage that three of his bullets had done, he was simply 'saddened' and stopped screaming because what would be the point. I'm really surprised the DT even put her on as her testimony was useless unless it was a filler before the next expert witness had finished typing up their report.

 

[IfIMay]

That really did seem pointless didn't it. She saw him the day after and witnessed a 'heartbroken man' but in the immediate moments after the shooting, when he saw the damage that three of his bullets had done, he was simply 'saddened' and stopped screaming because what would be the point. I'm really surprised the DT even put her on as her testimony was useless unless it was a filler before the next expert witness had finished typing up their report.

To be fair, he didn't know the full extent of impact to HIM until the next day. That's when he became "broken". People, other than the select few, would no longer admire him and give him attention and perks. Just another ordinary killer. That will break any narcissist.