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

[Gryffindor]

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.

Judge Masipa is more than qualified and entrusted to implement her role, ascertaining a decision based on SA law and the legal parameters.

 

[soozieqtips]

Judge Masipa is more than qualified and entrusted to implement her role, ascertaining a decision based on SA law and the legal parameters.

Yep. :liar: is going to :jail:

 

[cottonweaver]

What about the Standers' testimony did you find lacking in credibility?.

Hi minor4th
Re the Standers-
Both J & C are both friends of OP and attended the “Reeva private memorial” at Uncle P’s, but that, in itself doesn’t mean they are liars but it could mean they care about Oscar and understandably want to protect him and believe him. (I don't think that they would have been willing accomplices in a cover-up with the bags and duct tape. I wouldn't go that far)

Whilst the father appeared more genuine than his daughter -who also happens to be some kind of legal advisor and should've known better- I find the following showed bias:
-there was mention of keeping the press cars away as a priority on arrival at scene ( need to find link for that)
- that Johan appeared to be tailoring his testimony under cross x – “Oscar told me it was a mistake” aka accident.
-that he phoned the brother before the police and then got security to phone SAPS.
- that he was busy giving Stipp’s number to Oldwage but not the police.
- that he never seemed to mention in testimony the horror for this dead girl lying on the floor but was so articulate about OP’s devastation.
-Stander saying “he saw the truth that morning. I saw it, and I feel it.” *

Where to begin with the hand-bag rustling Carice and her musings in bed whilst hearing male shouting for help “but where is the lady?" (This was in total contradiction to her statement that she'd never heard a woman’s voice at all and didn't know a woman and man might be involved at that point.)
There’s a lot more of Carice on You Tube but she is so eager and breathless it's quite hard to listen to as it seems so rehearsed.

* For comparison at 4.10 mins in is Uncle P talking about knowing the exact truth again on a 7 min video from Feb 20 2013 as well as his certainty of Oscar bouncing back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut6-X8X7lEA

Plus pure speculation on my part- that no judge would ever consider as it’s based on instinct. ie. There’s a weird thing that unsettled me which is whenever Oscar could predict exactly a Defence witness’s loyal testimony – he never looked at them. Contrast that with the hard stares to Fresco, Taylor, Dixon when he was getting it wrong etc etc

 

[IfIMay]

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.

defensive or lying. take your pick. I'm sure he'll use the "confused" excuse a LOT. Not understanding... can't wait for his first written test of 500 questions and the observation of his behavior during it. :tantrum:

 

[patCee]

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

You might find this helpful,

http://batgunkick.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[G.bng]

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.

Oh dear... maybe you don't get the point... or maybe I'm not splaining myself proply!

What did I say about the reliability of these or those witnesses or the merits these over t'other ?

Read my reply again please. I was NOT, repeat, NOT, discussing the truth, reliability, honesty, sincerity, reasons, merits, honorability, of these two witnesses, not did I want to as I am generally happy to leave that to others to write pages on without adding my dime. I WAS discussing, FWIW, and I accept it may not have been interesting which could have affected your understanding what I was trying to say, the general agreement, not just for this trial but for ANY trial, that in an ideal world the sooner a witness comes forward after the event the better because it is generally accepted it adds weight to their testimony in respect of reliability and recall... you know, the idea that the event is fresher in the mind and there is little time for outside influences.

I did not opine about how Masipa would weigh these witnesses testimony but gave my guess at anywhere from 0% to 100% even adding an exclamation mark ! as a sort of wink ! All of which methinks should have been a big enough tell of my position, i.e. not controversial, merely discussing the workings of the judge to clarify things for myself, for others if they are interested, practice my writing skills and exercise that old grey matter a bit, no more. Maybe I'll just go tend my garden ❀❀❀❀❀❀❀

 

[luvmygarden]

Like the man who was actually in the house the incident occurred in but insists he heard nothing, the poor old Burger's get it in the neck and get put through hell on the stand but yet old dear old Frank gets to slip away insisting he heard nothing, it stinks to high heaven.

During Oscar's 30 days of evaluation can Frank be called because he knows Oscar well, especially because he was a daily fixture in Oscar's home?

 

[TorisMom003]

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!)

The defense "ear" witnesses where not the only ones that admitted on the stand that they had been following the trial in some form or fashion. I include those as well in my "allowed their testimony to be influenced by what they have seen, heard and/or read".

 

[lithgow1]

Oh dear... maybe you don't get the point... or maybe I'm not splaining myself proply!

What did I say about the reliability of these or those witnesses or the merits these over t'other ?

Read my reply again please. I was NOT, repeat, NOT, discussing the truth, reliability, honesty, sincerity, reasons, merits, honorability, of these two witnesses, not did I want to as I am generally happy to leave that to others to write pages on without adding my dime. I WAS discussing, FWIW, and I accept it may not have been interesting which could have affected your understanding what I was trying to say, the general agreement, not just for this trial but for ANY trial, that in an ideal world the sooner a witness comes forward after the event the better because it is generally accepted it adds weight to their testimony in respect of reliability and recall... you know, the idea that the event is fresher in the mind and there is little time for outside influences.

I did not opine about how Masipa would weigh these witnesses testimony but gave my guess at anywhere from 0% to 100% even adding an exclamation mark ! as a sort of wink ! All of which methinks should have been a big enough tell of my position, i.e. not controversial, merely discussing the workings of the judge to clarify things for myself, for others if they are interested, practice my writing skills and exercise that old grey matter a bit, no more. Maybe I'll just go tend my garden ❀❀❀❀❀❀❀

OK OK on re-reading your post it seems I must have missed your point but when a post starts off saying 'I think you know the poster's point is made...' there's an insinuation of sorts about my response to Carmelita, at least in my reading of it. She claimed to have proven her point and my response was to say you may have to your satisfaction but not to mine in the context of these particular witnesses in this particular case which is what we were discussing and which you chose to enter into.

Re the punctuation, not trying to be smart or anything but exclamation marks denote something being strongly emphasised - in fact there's a whole Seinfeld episode about the use (or lack thereof) of one, so I didn't see it as a wink or tongue in cheek, but I didn't find it controversial neither and nor did I think your post was uninteresting. Essentially I thought you were backing up C's argument that the Burger's are suspect witnesses and I strongly disagree with her on that so by extension I would also disagree with you were that also your position.

Anyway, for what it's worth I agree with your overall statement about reliabilty lessening with time but I also have no issue with the Burgers' reasons for why they waited until they did. And by now you are probably knee deep in your garden and if so, I hope all is growing well.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Judge Masipa is more than qualified and entrusted to implement her role, ascertaining a decision based on SA law and the legal parameters.

Will that still be your position when Judge Masipa's decision is to find OP guilty of all charges?? If she sentences him to 25 yrs., will you still be singing her praises??
I highly doubt it, but we shall see.
:cow:

 

[anagrammy]

Pretoria - Oscar Pistorius’s dead biological mother came to her in a dream and asked her to help her son.

This is what a woman who claims to have known Pistorius since he was a toddler is saying.

While Pistorius’s legal team was battling it out in the magistrate’s court to obtain bail for him, the woman approached a Pretoria High Court judge and demanded that he “immediately” put a stop to the bail proceedings, until Pistorius has been referred for mental observation.

The application was brought on Thursday by a woman calling herself “Annamarie”.

She said her last name was uncertain as she was previously Riethmiller and also previously Versfeld – “ex-wife of Oscar’s orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Gerald Versfeld.”

Annamarie told Judge Joseph Raulinga that Pistorius immediately had to be referred for 60 days of observation by a panel of independent psychiatrists. This, she said, was “to determine his sanity at the time of causing the death of Reeva Steenkamp”.

<snipped>

Annamarie explained to the judge that she felt Pistorius snapped the night he shot Steenkamp as this was not the “Oscar I knew as a little boy”.

She also said that she on Monday night saw Pistorius’s biological mother, Sheila, who died years ago, in a dream. “I could feel her presence and I knew she was asking me to do something. I also saw him vividly as he was as a disabled little boy. I just knew I had to do this in memory of Sheila. Was Oscar mentally sound on the night of the shooting? This is what it is all about,” the woman said.

According to her, his disability had a big mental effect on him. She said she was no stranger to mental problems, as her former husband (Riethmiller) also suffered from a mental condition.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-s-dead-mom-asked-me-to-help-him-1.1475017#.U33AluhX-uY


It's not clear to me if Annamarie knew OP's mother in real life, but it seems that OP's mother came in a dream to Annamarie and made suggestions.

The court actually took her up on one of her suggestions this week for 30, but not 60 days of observation...

ETA: Has it been verified that Annamarie is actually the ex-wife of Dr. Versfeld, the surgeon, or is that her claim only?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I distinctly recall Masipa saying that he could be given another 30 day evaluation, if the panel thinks they need more time to draw a conclusion.

Others have received back to back evaluation periods upon application at the end of the period, so there's a precedent.

Personally, having worked as a psych evaluation test administrator and report-preparer, I think they are going to need more than thirty days if he is an out-patient. They won't have the luxury of noting patient-to-patient interactions which take place at random times during the day. They may have to use structured situations.

Doctors can be very creative on how they structure situations to provide observation opportunities. We had one doctor who used a dog, another a parrot. He would ask questions (of children) like, "What do you think he is thinking?"

 

[CriLondon]

Will that still be your position when Judge Masipa's decision is to find OP guilty of all charges?? If she sentences him to 25 yrs., will you still be singing her praises??
I highly doubt it, but we shall see.
:cow:

You know ...not really in the context of your answer but it made me think...is it too simplistic to say that we'd all like him to be sentenced/judged for what actually happened?
I'll explain a bit better if i can....
There is no doubt that OP shot 4 times through a closed door and ceased somebody else's life . For that he WILL be punished and likely sentenced.
But what use is it to anyone to judge OP guilty of all charges if in fact he has mental issues ? A jail in that case , imo , is not the place to be.
And the same goes , if not even worse , if the upcoming assessment will indicate diminished responsibility to the court and the judge will accept that but in fact they got it all wrong ,then you'd have a murderer on the loose after a very short stint behind bars.

I think , with the utmost respect to all of you , that the upcoming assessment was an absolute must and will clear many doubts .
I've seen something in OP that rings alarm bells for me , i honestly didn't need Dr.V testimony to believe OP needs an evaluation.

I just really want the sentence to be the right one, and the successive punishment to fit the truth and the needs.

P.S. This is not about taking sides or bias , i have a strong opinion on what happened and it's not really nice towards OP. I just wanna know what caused that anger/rage that made him do what he did, for it's there...i want to know where it's from.

JMO

Peace & Love ...what else can i say?

 

[minor4th]

Hi minor4th

Re the Standers-

Both J & C are both friends of OP and attended the “Reeva private memorial” at Uncle P’s, but that, in itself doesn’t mean they are liars but it could mean they care about Oscar and understandably want to protect him and believe him. (I don't think that they would have been willing accomplices in a cover-up with the bags and duct tape. I wouldn't go that far)



Whilst the father appeared more genuine than his daughter -who also happens to be some kind of legal advisor and should've known better- I find the following showed bias:

-there was mention of keeping the press cars away as a priority on arrival at scene ( need to find link for that)

- that Johan appeared to be tailoring his testimony under cross x – “Oscar told me it was a mistake” aka accident.

-that he phoned the brother before the police and then got security to phone SAPS.

- that he was busy giving Stipp’s number to Oldwage but not the police.

- that he never seemed to mention in testimony the horror for this dead girl lying on the floor but was so articulate about OP’s devastation.

-Stander saying “he saw the truth that morning. I saw it, and I feel it.” *



Where to begin with the hand-bag rustling Carice and her musings in bed whilst hearing male shouting for help “but where is the lady?" (This was in total contradiction to her statement that she'd never heard a woman’s voice at all and didn't know a woman and man might be involved at that point.)

There’s a lot more of Carice on You Tube but she is so eager and breathless it's quite hard to listen to as it seems so rehearsed.



* For comparison at 4.10 mins in is Uncle P talking about knowing the exact truth again on a 7 min video from Feb 20 2013 as well as his certainty of Oscar bouncing back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut6-X8X7lEA



Plus pure speculation on my part- that no judge would ever consider as it’s based on instinct. ie. There’s a weird thing that unsettled me which is whenever Oscar could predict exactly a Defence witness’s loyal testimony – he never looked at them. Contrast that with the hard stares to Fresco, Taylor, Dixon when he was getting it wrong etc etc

Thanks for your reply.

I guess I just didn't see that the Standers added much for the defense, so I couldn't really find anything they would lie about.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Why would one accuse the judge of some conspiracy if she "throws the book at" the accused? Her rulings so far have been sound and well reasoned.

I am one of those who questions whether the state has met their burden for proving intentional murder, much less premeditated murder. Yet if the judge finds that the evidence is sufficient for a conviction, I will certainly respect that.

On the other hand, what if she acquits OP, or convicts him of culpable homicide and gives him a noncustodial sentence? How many will blame the judge and accuse her of being biased or incompetent? Can you say you'll respect her verdict if it's not as you predicted?

I am one who whole heartily believes that if OP gets acquited or is given a noncustodial sentence, it will be because of who he is....not because of the evidence that has been presented.
I will respect the Judge, nonetheless. :cow:

 

[lithgow1]

You know ...not really in the context of your answer but it made me think...is it too simplistic to say that we'd all like him to be sentenced/judged for what actually happened?
I'll explain a bit better if i can....
There is no doubt that OP shot 4 times through a closed door and ceased somebody else's life . For that he WILL be punished and likely sentenced.
But what use is it to anyone to judge OP guilty of all charges if in fact he has mental issues ? A jail in that case , imo , is not the place to be.
And the same goes , if not even worse , if the upcoming assessment will indicate diminished responsibility to the court and the judge will accept that but in fact they got it all wrong ,then you'd have a murderer on the loose after a very short stint behind bars.

I think , with the utmost respect to all of you , that the upcoming assessment was an absolute must and will clear many doubts .
I've seen something in OP that rings alarm bells for me , i honestly didn't need Dr.V testimony to believe OP needs an evaluation.

I just really want the sentence to be the right one, and the successive punishment to fit the truth and the needs.

P.S. This is not about taking sides or bias , i have a strong opinion on what happened and it's not really nice towards OP. I just wanna know what caused that anger/rage that made him do what he did, for it's there...i want to know where it's from.

JMO

Peace & Love ...what else can i say?

Like you, I also want Pistorius to be found guilty for what he truly did - if he genuinely thought it was an intruder then for that to be the basis on which he is sentenced and if he does have psych issues for those to be diagnosed and treated, no matter how unpleasant a portrait of Pistorius, the man, has emerged during this trial.

Re what this psych evaluation will find you seem to have much more knowledge of the subject than I - I'm always leery of diagnoses that determine that for example, and I have seen this written in relation to him, he was basically a fully aware human being except for those seconds when he fired those shots. There's no doubt some jargonistic term for it but in my book it's not GAD or PTSD or any other acronym other than BS. At this stage all I can do is have faith that Nel and his advisors know what they are doing and when compared to the shambolic defence I feel that faith is justified. Add to that a wise woman overseeing the whole thing and I think he'll get the verdict and sentence he truly deserves and it will be one that leaves the majority satisfied that justice has been done and only a small minority will be wailing and weeping and blaming everybody except the man who pulled the trigger.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Newbie posting - Hi all!:fence:

I agree with Carmelita in that the Burgers perhaps should have made their statements earlier. However the fact that they did "come forward", after 19th Feb first via an attorney, for the right reasons - their evidence - means ultimately they did their moral duty.
Not wanting to get involved unfortunately is a common trait today, surely? They expected closer neighbours to bear witness and gave up when the security call did not go through, went back to bed and then husband started considering his own need for his own security upgrade. Not great at all - but sadly quite common in large cities here in UK. Ultimately none of that makes me question their testimony- but no, I certainly wouldn't want them as neighbours.

Quoted from Juror 13 re Mr Burger(Johnson) phoning his wife Michelle on Feb 14th :
"He then told her that Oscar Pistorius was on the news and was saying that he mistakenly shot somebody he thought was an intruder. The husband immediately thought that wasn’t right because it didn’t match what they had heard. They eventually hired an attorney because they wanted to handle the matter privately and go to the police privately considering the intense media coverage. Apparently it was a few weeks after the event when they gave their statement and some have viewed that as suspicious."
http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-1/

:welcome6: Hi, I'm another newbie.

 

[CriLondon]

Like you, I also want Pistorius to be found guilty for what he truly did - if he genuinely thought it was an intruder then for that to be the basis on which he is sentenced and if he does have psych issues for those to be diagnosed and treated, no matter how unpleasant a portrait of Pistorius, the man, has emerged during this trial.

Re what this psych evaluation will find you seem to have much more knowledge of the subject than I - I'm always leery of diagnoses that determine that for example, and I have seen this written in relation to him, he was basically a fully aware human being except for those seconds when he fired those shots. There's no doubt some jargonistic term for it but in my book it's not GAD or PTSD or any other acronym other than BS. At this stage all I can do is have faith that Nel and his advisors know what they are doing and when compared to the shambolic defence I feel that faith is justified. Add to that a wise woman overseeing the whole thing and I think he'll get the verdict and sentence he truly deserves and it will be one that leaves the majority satisfied that justice has been done and only a small minority will be wailing and weeping and blaming everybody except the man who pulled the trigger.

bbm - Sorry i'll have to correct you on that , I have no knowledge of what can be found , the actual proceedings. Estelle , i believe , posted a lot of great info in relation to all this.
What i studied is only in relation to facial micro-expressions and emotions.
I'm now expanding that into the neurological side. (Veeeeery hard , again i have no background) .
That gives me confidence to say , imo and from all that i've learnt, that there's something deeply rooted in OP , for the way he displays symmetrical/negative emotions and asymmetrical/positive emotions is highly suspect to me.
And that's why i think this assessment is a must , i really do , regardless of what i believe has happened that night or how despicable i think shooting someone is.
The way i'm seeing OP has me on high alert....assessment=must

As always , just my opinion

 

[PrimeSuspect]

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

We can't put OP in the average householder who owns a gun category, he's been shooting since he was a child, stalking animals to shoot. Don't underestimate his expertise in maneuvering to get a clearer shot, by sight or by sound.

Pistorius’s confidence, speed and ease in handling firearms and his prowess as an experienced marksman is abundantly evident from the images.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-pictured-gun-used-3391594#ixzz32V28z5oVhttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-pictured-gun-used-3391594

 

[wb180]

Why would one accuse the judge of some conspiracy if she "throws the book at" the accused? Her rulings so far have been sound and well reasoned.

I am one of those who questions whether the state has met their burden for proving intentional murder, much less premeditated murder. Yet if the judge finds that the evidence is sufficient for a conviction, I will certainly respect that.

On the other hand, what if she acquits OP, or convicts him of culpable homicide and gives him a noncustodial sentence? How many will blame the judge and accuse her of being biased or incompetent? Can you say you'll respect her verdict if it's not as you predicted?

Yes I will say the Judge is incompetent. Any person knows he is lying. This has been proven.

There is also no way she will acquit OP or give him a noncustodial sentence. Come on. The lesser charges have already been proven.

I am sorry to tell you and other OP believers that he is going to jail. I know, it sucks :tantrum: (I am sure Kelly Phelps will cry)

(I, for one, thinks the verdict is going to be harsh but my opinion but let's not disappoint further.)

 

[JudgeJudi]

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.

No, from what I heard they didn't talk about footy. I listened to the You Tube recording at the Bar when they shared a drink and/or meal. The audio quality was extremely poor due to ambient sound and I could only transcribe the first part. I'd need headphones and a foot pedal in order to get the rest because you'd have to go over and over and over it, and even then it would be tough. I did hear them discuss things relating to the tests they conducted. This was a highly improper conversation as Wollie was yet to testify. Dixon was explaining, from memory, the difference between forensically moving things around as opposed to manipulating. The bat test was also mentioned. I didn't hear Dixon say they did anything dodgy in the tests but he did advise Wollie on an appropriate way to answer certain types of questions that were likely to be asked.