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

[TorisMom003]

Something that still doesn't make any sense to me at all, even after he was questioned about it, was the need for OP to move the duvet to get off the bed. He testified that he wasn't under the duvet at all. Reeva had the duvet covering only her legs. Yet OP stated that he had to move the duvet to get off the bed. Why? If it was not covering him, why did he need to move it?

MOO

 

[IfIMay]

I personally find it really weird that they would interview anyone other than OP himself. The only place where they should be providing any information is within the court itself (imo).

They do it to provide context. We already know that OP will lie when it suits him and his version. They will attempt to corroborate his stories/experiences/versions to vet out the truth. At least that is the hope.

Above all, I hope OP is completely honest and not trying to spin things one way or another. :wink:

 

[Val1]

Pretty much everyone the State has called has come across as more credible and having more integrity ultimately than the Standers. Ultimately* the Burgers did the right thing.

Moving on to the forthcoming Weskoppies evaluation I wonder if some of OP's associates ( as opposed to his family) will feel - outside of the pressure of a televised trial and beyond Oscar's jaw-clenched cold stare- they can be a little more impartial?

I'm thinking of his coach Ampie Louw and agent Peet van Zyl who will surely be called for interview by the psych panel. If OP had had longstanding GAD they would have seen the symptoms. Equally they could recount many instances which link to NPD/APD. Or, is everyone going to lie? ( Which links back to my initial Burger point.* Even if one can't do the right thing initially..... there's often an opportunity later.) Although I perceive that OP has a difficulty with remorse, still hope that others who know him well might have reflected and be honest in their interviews.

I'm not saying van Zyl/Louw will push him under the bus now that OP is no longer an income-generating asset. That would be too cynical. But according to sports reports OP and Louw already "had planned to give up track together after the next Olympics and Paralympics in Rio" in 2016.

http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/athletics/203719-oscar-pistorius-agent-begins-canceling-races

bbm - That reminds me, re motive or just another stressor?

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-04-10-oscar-pistorius-tests-new-limits-of-disability

The day before he shot Reeva Steen*kamp, Seirlis said, Pistorius phoned him for help with the paperwork that would allow him to import a Maclaren sports car without paying the usual duty (which is waived for vehicles modified for use by disabled people).

That could easily have been the "hurdle"(financial) and if that was the first time RS found out that the McLaren OP had been driving around implying was his and was in fact just another lie, then that could easily have been a factor in any argument, she'd already told him that she couldn't be with someone that lied.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/24/world/oscar-pistorius-trial-whatsapp-messages/

RS to OP: I'm just very honest

RS to OP: I won't always think before I say something just appreciate that I'm not a liar.

OP to RS: I know. It was just when you got back from tropica you made it sound like you had only smoked weed once and then last night that came out. I don't know how many times you took or if you took other things or what you did when you were on them

RS to OP: I'm sorry if it upset you it wasn't my intention

OP to RS: I do appreciate it. could never be with someone that was

RS to OP: Me neither

 

[lithgow1]

Something that still doesn't make any sense to me at all, even after he was questioned about it, was the need for OP to move the duvet to get off the bed. He testified that he wasn't under the duvet at all. Reeva had the duvet covering only her legs. Yet OP stated that he had to move the duvet to get off the bed. Why? If it was not covering him, why did he need to move it?

MOO

Maybe it rustled and made him feel anxious?

 

[seattlechiquita]

bbm - That reminds me, re motive or just another stressor?

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-04-10-oscar-pistorius-tests-new-limits-of-disability



That could easily have been the "hurdle"(financial) and if that was the first time RS found out that the McLaren OP had been driving around implying was his and was in fact just another lie, then that could easily have been a factor in any argument, she'd already told him that she couldn't be with someone that lied.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/24/world/oscar-pistorius-trial-whatsapp-messages/

So once again, OP is NOT disabled when it suits him, and when he wants a *advertiser censored* MACLAREN he claims disability import exception? Wow. Keep it classy.

 

[Val1]

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.

Does the judge not have the phone records proving when Burger/Johnson called their security and whoever else about the screams?

 

[jay-jay]

They do it to provide context. We already know that OP will lie when it suits him and his version. They will attempt to corroborate his stories/experiences/versions to vet out the truth. At least that is the hope.

Above all, I hope OP is completely honest and not trying to spin things one way or another. :wink:

Yes, but most of the information they will glean about OP's personality traits will be gained by various tests (psychometric, etc), and not by anything he himself tells them or by anything various other people tell them.

 

[Really?]

I've experienced both - UK suburban MYOB and South African white middle class suburban living - albeit in CT which is very different to Pretoria. Anyway it is like an English suburbia x 10. Amazing, fabulous country but definitely the conditions (due to cultural & historical reasons) mean that you Mind Your Own Business. Then you have to factor in the wariness of crime - which you would have to do in many UK city centres, less affluent places here.
No facts yet on whether OP has anxiety disorder but SilverWoods is not a scary, crime-prone enclave. But I agree totally on neighbour's wariness to intervene. For balance, there are plenty of places just the same in the UK.

I think it is a US of A thing.

We smile and thank the toll booth operator, say have a nice day to the bank teller......say hi to strangers or just comment on what a nice day it is to a passerby. It is what we do......people outside of here think we are crazy or weird. My DH is from GB and he found it odd but nice....in an innocent way.

If I order from Amazon....the package will be on the porch when I get home. Boom.

Hope this helps.....

 

[Suthrnqt]

Just checking in on my peeps.
I've been really busy with some other cases I follow. No new developments till May 26th, correct? :seeya:

 

[minor4th]

I personally find it really weird that they would interview anyone other than OP himself. The only place where they should be providing any information is within the court itself (imo).

I believe it's pretty standard to get info from collateral sources in this type of evaluation. I could be wrong though.

 

[minor4th]

Hi Minor :-D



Is it Oscar and his immediate family who they're taking to? Thank you x

I have no idea how these things are done in SA, but my experience with this type of evaluation for court is that the evaluators will talk to any collaterals requested by either side.

 

[minor4th]

They do it to provide context. We already know that OP will lie when it suits him and his version. They will attempt to corroborate his stories/experiences/versions to vet out the truth. At least that is the hope.



Above all, I hope OP is completely honest and not trying to spin things one way or another. :wink:

He will most likely be defensive about what he says, if his trial testimony is any indication. I'm sure that will be noted and considered by the evaluators.

 

[Val1]

Well obviously, the 6 "gunshots" Stipp heard are not in line with the physical evidence.

True, though iirc he'd woken during the first set of "bangs" so may not have heard them all, plus that doesn't gel with what Stander had testified that Stipp had told him(4+4)... so yea, there are questions as to the actual number of "bangs" that he heard but not that there were some.

 

[Val1]

Just checking in on my peeps.
I've been really busy with some other cases I follow. No new developments till May 26th, correct? :seeya:

Not unless OP is spotted at international departures...

 

[Val1]

I think it is a US of A thing.

We smile and thank the toll booth operator, say have a nice day to the bank teller......say hi to strangers or just comment on what a nice day it is to a passerby. It is what we do......people outside of here think we are crazy or weird. My DH is from GB and he found it odd but nice....in an innocent way.

If I order from Amazon....the package will be on the porch when I get home. Boom.

Hope this helps.....

Haha, your neighbours to the north live much the same way, just without so many guns...

 

[G.bng]

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 posters were discussing Burger and Johnson's testimony, I was merely adding my interpretation of what the poster said about how the judge works... I gave no opinion about the witnesses or their testimony.

But what you say is funny if you take a step back because the defence's ear witnesses basically testified to zilch so if they "✄... allowed their testimony to be influenced by what they had seen, heard and/or read." they must be pretty unimaginative as iirc their testimony joined together didn't amount to much more than a man crying and one solitary bang !

(BTW, iirc the Defence's ear witnesses were all on the State's witness list so methinks maybe the State didn't bother to call them because they pretty much had zilch to say!)

 

[G.bng]

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



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.

Anyone know if there is anywhere a graphic (visual) timeline showing the ear witness testimony, call to Stander, arrival Stipp, etc. etc. ?

 

[Gryffindor]

Anyone know if there is anywhere a graphic (visual) timeline showing the ear witness testimony, call to Stander, arrival Stipp, etc. etc. ?

Steve did construct one although I can't recollect which thread number it was :-(

 

[Suthrnqt]

Not unless OP is spotted at international departures...

:floorlaugh:


O/T
Oh...btw, I Googled the word w*nker. Being from the US, I had no idea what it meant. It was being thrown around this thread yesterday and I was curious.

Well, it is not a nice word in some context, but it can mean 'jerk'. Also, when I typed the word, WS didn't censor it. I censored myself out of respect for my fellow sleuthers.
End of O/T.

:loveyou:

 

[Carmelita]

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



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.

We disagree about the discrepancies and contradictions but the good judge shall use her wisdom, her assessors, and her years of experience on the bench to sort it all out. I'm sure she will weigh the evidence that is what she is morally bound to do.