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

[G.bng]

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.

I agree... I reckon there has to be material in these threads for at least 20 movies, and several Tele Novelas !

And it's not a criticism because although brain storming is necessary and extremely useful, so is realising when to let go of fantastical theories so as to dedicate all efforts on those that show promise of a possible solution because in 10 seconds, what 4 shots even with a gap take at worst, aiming and firing looking for the target through cracks in a door while at the same time following the target by the screams despite the deafening sound of the shots and moving back and forth to change direction seems so incredible that I can't see Masipa will be able to deal with that.
JMHOSNNFS,I,OR

 

[Carmelita]

so I'm wondering why you would hold her concluding decision in any higher regard than anyone else who has studied it in depth?

>snipped by me for brevity<

Because I believe that she is unencumbered by confirmation bias, she is not getting pats on the back for her "opinions", she knows the law, she interprets the law, she has vast experience, she knows how to view the situation objectively and not make up scenarios about what would have could have happened in the hours when Reeva and Oscar were alone, she knows how to weigh testimony, she physically saw Oscar's testimony and she is physically there (which is very different than watching it on the internet), she is familiar with the levels of fear in which people even in gated communities live in SA and so on.

One can reasonably hope that a sitting judge will come to a a more well reasoned, lawful decision than a group of folks on the internet.

 

[lithgow1]

Awesome :-D x

Yes it is a thoughtful and sincere post that advances the debate and discussion.

 

[Carmelita]

Then how do you explain the numerous times he corrected Nel? Remember the morning when even the judge commented on the mistakes he was making and which he put down to being tired but within moments he was correcting the prosecutor on minor semantic points? It's things like that Carmelita that lead people to believe his emotions stemmed from the pressure of keeping a far-fetched story straight - I'd agree he was emotionally unwell but we part company when it comes to the reasons why.

May I put a hypothetical to you? If the photographic evidence stands as is, how do you think the bedroom images can be reconciled with the core of Pistorius' story? They completely shatter it IMO.

I will get back to you as I have to run off again

Short answer is that the mind is a terribly irrational place when it is under high stress (Oscar it appears more so than the average mind) and something the mind does, when it is in a state of confusion, is grasp hold of the small bits of information that it knows are true and by repeating those truths the mind tries to ground itself in reality.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I agree... I reckon there has to be material in these threads for at least 20 movies, and several Tele Novelas !

And it's not a criticism because although brain storming is necessary and extremely useful, so is realising when to let go of fantastical theories so as to dedicate all efforts on those that show promise of a possible solution because in 10 seconds, what 4 shots even with a gap take at worst, aiming and firing looking for the target through cracks in a door while at the same time following the target by the screams despite the deafening sound of the shots and moving back and forth to change direction seems so incredible that I can't see Masipa will be able to deal with that.
JMHOSNNFS,I,OR

:floorlaugh: Perhaps one film with alternative endings gauged to please everyone!

 

[Dphil]

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

I agree - gosh he's some guy - thank goodness Reeva has someone on her side. She needs it with all that money floating around.

 

[TorisMom003]

I'm sorry but I am a get involved type of person if they chose not to get involved knowing that they heard screams on the night of a killing then their character is questionable to me. The greater good and all that.

And yet the Stander's would not have gotten themselves involved (according to Ms. Stander) if OP had not called them. Then Ms. Stander sits by while evidence is removed from OP's house. Both Stander's also failed to mention the first trip that OP made upstairs before EMS arrived on scene. Yet the State's "ear" witnesses have been beaten up quite a bit around here. Frankly I just don't understand that type of behavior and/or thinking.

MOO

 

[G.bng]

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

I think you know the poster's point is made because it's I think obvious that an witness will always be considered more reliable if they come forward straight away before hearing or reading any other account.

I think the poster means that had Burger and Johnson not vacillated, Masipa would have no cause on account of delay, memory, time, influence, etc. to give less weight to Burger and Johnson's testimony but because they did she could, NOT WILL, lower its weight. Will she... well that's anyone's guess, mine anywhere from it 0% to 100%! But Masipa would not have had cause to deduct zilch for this had they come forward at first.

 

[TorisMom003]

I think you know the poster's point is made because it's I think obvious that an witness will always be considered more reliable if they come forward straight away before hearing or reading any other account.

I think the poster means that had Burger and Johnson not vacillated, Masipa would have no cause on account of delay, memory, time, influence, etc. to give less weight to Burger and Johnson's testimony but because they did she could, NOT WILL, lower its weight. Will she... well that's anyone's guess, mine anywhere from it 0% to 100%! But Masipa would not have had cause to deduct zilch for this had they come forward at first.

So then the defense witnesses that admitted to watching, reading, etc the trial are in the same boat (so to speak) as Burger and Johnson? After all, the majority of them decided to follow along with the trial before they themselves testified. I wonder how many of them allowed their testimony to be influenced by what they had seen, heard and/or read.

MOO

 

[Cherwell]

I have stated many times that I find all the ear-witness testimony nebulous at best and the fact that it is contradictory and there are so few ear-witnesses makes it even murkier in my opinion.

I am a pragmatist at heart.

I don't question a lot about his feeling for Reeva, feeling the curtains and so forth as I know what it is like to be in an extreme situation and I know how muddled reality can become. Psychological experts will bear this out, although everyone reacts differently some people having a second by second memory others by not remembering much of anything at all. The human brain does not like blanks in its memory so it fills in the gaps with what seems reasonably accurate.

There you are then. You have explained why the ear witness testimonies may be "nebulous" or do not match exactly.

The reason I said the judge will necessarily have to reject some ear witness testimony is because the ear witnesses contradict each other. And because we know now that there were not 6 gunshots separate by several minutes.

And you too are saying they contradict each other.
They don't. There are no major discrepancies.
We have people who heard parts of the same series of sounds. Just because they didn't all hear the entire series doesn't amount to contradiction.
And as Carmelita said, not everyone has a clear second-by-second memory. People may have different impressions or recollections of the number of bangs, but that's not really important because it's normal.

 

[lithgow1]

I think you know the poster's point is made because it's I think obvious that an witness will always be considered more reliable if they come forward straight away before hearing or reading any other account.

I think the poster means that had Burger and Johnson not vacillated, Masipa would have no cause on account of delay, memory, time, influence, etc. to give less weight to Burger and Johnson's testimony but because they did she could, NOT WILL, lower its weight. Will she... well that's anyone's guess, mine anywhere from it 0% to 100%! But Masipa would not have had cause to deduct zilch for this had they come forward at first.

No, you don't know what I think. Again, for the umpteenth time, they came forward because Pistorius' account differed markedly from what they heard. I have no reason to disbelieve that and as you yourself say Masipa may decide that that is enough to account for the delay, or she may not, and will then weigh the evidence accordingly.

Going by your own line of argument M'lady should treat Wolmerans' evidence with extreme caution since he went for a beer with Roger Dixon after Dixon took the stand and before he himself did. Maybe they only talked about the footy and maybe the Burger's came forward because they believed Pistorius was lying. Makes more sense to me than the Burgers choosing to essentially mislead the court in a murder trial because of an antipathy to someone they had never met.

 

[soozieqtips]

I think you know the poster's point is made because it's I think obvious that an witness will always be considered more reliable if they come forward straight away before hearing or reading any other account.

I think the poster means that had Burger and Johnson not vacillated, Masipa would have no cause on account of delay, memory, time, influence, etc. to give less weight to Burger and Johnson's testimony but because they did she could, NOT WILL, lower its weight. Will she... well that's anyone's guess, mine anywhere from it 0% to 100%! But Masipa would not have had cause to deduct zilch for this had they come forward at first.

Why would you state that lithgow 'knows' the poster's point is made when the post quite clearly states: 'I beg to differ'? Why would you presume to know the poster's own mind better than they know it themselves?

 

[soozieqtips]

So then the defense witnesses that admitted to watching, reading, etc the trial are in the same boat (so to speak) as Burger and Johnson? After all, the majority of them decided to follow along with the trial before they themselves testified. I wonder how many of them allowed their testimony to be influenced by what they had seen, heard and/or read.

MOO

The defence witnesses are beyond reproach it seems. Not such a balanced view, is it, when so many of us are being accused of being biased towards the State witnesses. Weird!

 

[CriLondon]

I'm sorry but I am a get involved type of person if they chose not to get involved knowing that they heard screams on the night of a killing then their character is questionable to me. The greater good and all that.

That's fine , Carmelita , i respect that and kudos for it. Absolutely no argument whatsoever . However i'm sure you can agree , considering how much media attention , public attention your name gets when you testify ( for PT or DT i see it as irrelevant) in such a high-profile case.
Not everyone would be comfortable with it , so many people choose to remain silent even in minor incidents.
I just think it is reasonable and possible to think that way, i wouldn't feel comfortable to judge them as colluded simply for a delay in reporting what they heard...and certainly wouldn't feel comfortable in discarding their testimony if that is all that can be put to them

Just respectfully my opinion , thats all

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm sorry but I am a get involved type of person if they chose not to get involved knowing that they heard screams on the night of a killing then their character is questionable to me. The greater good and all that.

BBM - If that's your criteria for judging whether someone's character is questionable or not, then I guess Carice Stander's character must be highly questionable to you?

 

[CriLondon]

I think you know the poster's point is made because it's I think obvious that an witness will always be considered more reliable if they come forward straight away before hearing or reading any other account.

I think the poster means that had Burger and Johnson not vacillated, Masipa would have no cause on account of delay, memory, time, influence, etc. to give less weight to Burger and Johnson's testimony but because they did she could, NOT WILL, lower its weight. Will she... well that's anyone's guess, mine anywhere from it 0% to 100%! But Masipa would not have had cause to deduct zilch for this had they come forward at first.

That's what i can't understand....how do you ( or any of us really) know how long it took them to weigh in not what happened but the effects their statements and subsequent testimonies/attending the trial would have on their lives ?

I really feel i cant blame them for thinking like that... Not everyone would enjoy doing what they've done. My point still is , would i want to discard their testimonies simply for that reason? I just think it'd b a bit unfair

Jmo guys

 

[Fuskier]

Just a note to fellow Websleuthers, there is a weird post #32 from my computer which I have just discovered this morning. I have asked that large sections of it be removed. I don't know what has happened here. My apology for any inconvenience.

 

[cottonweaver]

Going by your own line of argument M'lady should treat Wolmerans' evidence with extreme caution since he went for a beer with Roger Dixon after Dixon took the stand and before he himself did. Maybe they only talked about the footy and maybe the Burger's came forward because they believed Pistorius was lying. Makes more sense to me than the Burgers choosing to essentially mislead the court in a murder trial because of an antipathy to someone they had never met.

Quite so, it would be highly illogical for Burgers who initially wished to avoid all publicity to subsequently, for suspicious motives, wade in there and attract loads of publicity by then contradicting OP's account.

Do they wish they hadn't bothered now? Possibly, but they knew they HAD to - they do after all have a conscience.

 

[Val1]

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.

bbm - If this is the standard, then who wants to take on the onerous task of weighing the witnesses we've heard from so far using this criteria and whether their testimony is even relative to what occurred that night as far as OP's actions, words, and possible coverup?

Right off the bat(no pun intended..), I think we can eliminate all the "expert" witnesses, only using the evidence(accepted and numbered by the court) they may have brought that could be used to either discredit or support the witnesses' testimonies.

Called by the prosecution:
Burger, Van der Mewre, Johnson, Lerena, J.Loupis, M.Loupis, Dr.Stipp, A.Stipp, Taylor, Baba, Fresco, Rens(not sure if he'd qualify as an "expert" or just an independant witness).

Called by the defence:
OP, J.Stander, C.Stander, M.Nhlegenthwa, E.Nhlegenthwa, R.Motshuane.

[still waiting to hear from the other security guard that was supposedly with Baba, the locksmith that opened the safe, Piet, Aimee, Carl, Frank, Devaris and Greyvenstein, can't remember offhand who else was there that we know of, all of whom imo should be called to back up OP's versions... also wondering what happened to his good friend and contractor Christo Menelaou(who had been awoken by 3 thunderclaps at 3:08am http://drum.co.za/celebs/hes-heartbroken/), Dexter Azzi, Netcare(re that 66 second call), as well as the Myers(re the last text msg), Batchelor and van den Bergh(re S.Taylor), Lahoud(re RS's last outing?), anyone from Netcare...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-suicidal-reveals-best-1753776

Dexter was at the house two weeks before Christmas and recalled how he knocked over a fan and Pistorius became panic-stricken.

The athlete immediately grabbed his gun for protection before shouting to check if Dexter was OK.

Among the revelations is how Pistorius, 26, showed bravado after he was arrested over the Valentine’s Day shooting and told police: “I’ll survive. I always win.”

It was his response to a senior officer who had warned him: “You could go to jail for a very long time, Oscar.”

 

[MsMarple]

Quite so, it would be highly illogical for Burgers who initially wished to avoid all publicity to subsequently, for suspicious motives, wade in there and attract loads of publicity by then contradicting OP's account.

Do they wish they hadn't bothered now? Possibly, but they knew they HAD to - they do after all have a conscience.

Good point. They were concerned about their privacy but they did come forward.

Ironically, Charl Johnson's cell phone number was read into the record, resulting in his phone being innundated with voicemail messages to the point of disrupting his ability to conduct his business.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/20...day-three-of-the-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial

"Oscar is not guilty. Why are you lying in court?" -- voicemail message left on State witness Charl Johnson's phone.
---
"It keeps on ringing so I keep it off... I feel my privacy has been compromised severely." -- Johnson on his cellphone number being read out in court.