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

[minor4th]

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. HTH

ETA: it seems as though my earlier posts were misread or misinterpreted. I was not predicting that the judge will rule in OP's favor - I was saying we don't know exactly what she'll accept and what she'll reject. That includes the possibility she'll reject OP's whole testimony.

 

[cottonweaver]

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.

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/

 

[jay-jay]

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.

Well, the judge does actually have the luxury of having more information available to her than we do, so we are having to speculate about some of it, but the rest is just plain sleuthing which is what this forum is about .. we are taking the court testimonies given by OP and a number of different witnesses from both sides, all the photographic evidence, the phone calls and text message evidence, ear witness accounts, OP's bail statement and plea explanation... and for many of us who have gone through all of those things rigorously, we are left in no doubt as to what the reality of that night was. This is not just 'wild' speculation, it's an opinion that people have arrived at after sitting through all the court proceedings and trying to piece it all together (with various bits missing which the judge has in her possession, but which we do not have).

I would also say that it's quite easy to dismiss every conclusion that people arrive at on here, much in the same way that OP was able to counter virtually everything put to him ... people do it all the time on the internet, not because they really believe in what they are saying but they say it just because they can.

ETA (to first paragraph) .. and if the judge doesn't actually have anything extra in her possession, then at the end of the day all she will be doing is the same as what we have been doing, in order to find him guilty/not guilty of whatever charge .. so I'm wondering why you would hold her concluding decision in any higher regard than anyone else who has studied it in depth?

 

[Emz73]

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. HTH

ETA: it seems as though my earlier posts were misread or misinterpreted. I was not predicting that the judge will rule in OP's favor - I was saying we don't know exactly what she'll accept and what she'll reject. That includes the possibility she'll reject OP's whole testimony.

Do we have to keep going over this again and again.

 

[minor4th]

Do we have to keep going over this again and again.

Yes, we do, as long as my posts are misinterpreted and then piled on.

 

[BritsKate]

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.

Not necessarily pointless if one of your goals is swaying public opinion. I believe she was a witness for the PR campaign rather than the trial - especially considering Greenland's assertion much, if not all, of her testimony will likely be 'tossed out'.

I doubt I'm alone that such a blatant attempt to persuade (read manipulate) the view of the public leads me to believe his account even less. Ultimately, I think stunts like that only stoke public ire.

JMO


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[lithgow1]

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/

Good first post and welcome from another relative newbie. Maybe the Burgers wouldn't be the best neighbours as you say, but neither would Carice Stander, who didn't even try to call security despite her father being the former manager of the estate. IMO Dr Stipp comes out of this as the best witness and neighbour.

With the Burgers, perhaps they thought the police would contact them if need be.

 

[lithgow1]

Well, the judge does actually have the luxury of having more information available to her than we do, so we are having to speculate about some of it, but the rest is just plain sleuthing which is what this forum is about .. we are taking the court testimonies given by OP and a number of different witnesses from both sides, all the photographic evidence, the phone calls and text message evidence, ear witness accounts, OP's bail statement and plea explanation... and for many of us who have gone through all of those things rigorously, we are left in no doubt as to what the reality of that night was. This is not just 'wild' speculation, it's an opinion that people have arrived at after sitting through all the court proceedings and trying to piece it all together (with various bits missing which the judge has in her possession, but which we do not have).

I would also say that it's quite easy to dismiss every conclusion that people arrive at on here, much in the same way that OP was able to counter virtually everything put to him ... people do it all the time on the internet, not because they really believe in what they are saying but they say it just because they can.

ETA (to first paragraph) .. and if the judge doesn't actually have anything extra in her possession, then at the end of the day all she will be doing is the same as what we have been doing, in order to find him guilty/not guilty of whatever charge .. so I'm wondering why you would hold her concluding decision in any higher regard than anyone else who has studied it in depth?

i think it's worth noting too that not all the speculation has come from one 'side'. I have read scenarios here that attempt to explain how Pistorius may have lied about some things because they were indeed arguing and he went out on the balcony to cool down (emotionally) and then the whole mistaken identity story kicked off as per his version. In fact IIRC the poster you were replying to came up with one of these scenarios.

 

[soozieqtips]

Good first post and welcome from another relative newbie. Maybe the Burgers wouldn't be the best neighbours as you say, but neither would Carice Stander, who didn't even try to call security despite her father being the former manager of the estate. IMO Dr Stipp comes out of this as the best witness and neighbour.

With the Burgers, perhaps they thought the police would contact them if need be.

And the Standers didn't even bother to call an ambulance until Dr Stipp asked them to.

 

[wb180]

Good first post and welcome from another relative newbie. Maybe the Burgers wouldn't be the best neighbours as you say, but neither would Carice Stander, who didn't even try to call security despite her father being the former manager of the estate. IMO Dr Stipp comes out of this as the best witness and neighbour.

With the Burgers, perhaps they thought the police would contact them if need be.

I mean thats the point right. If we want to toss out some of PT testimony, then we better be tossing out the majority of OP and DT witness testimony.

Even after tossing all of that, we are left with screaming, gunshots, OP admitting to shooting 4 times. With no credible defense.

And people STILL believe OP "core" version. Weak analysis skills.

 

[G.bng]

Every US state has legislation stating that if a person is a danger to themselves or others, it is grounds for involuntary civil commitment. Every state has different criteria for determining such danger.

Not every state even allows for outpatient commitment.

The important aspect here is that each state has different statutes and standards for determining commitment - and only inpatient is available in some states. To me, it's kind of like comparing 50 country's laws to that of one. I take the same issue with comparing self-defence laws for the same reason - as they differ state to state.

JMO

BIB & Teal colour mine:
Sorry to cross threads but I was trying to write this reply and apologise to you in stops and starts over the day between other duties an trying to play catch-up but the mods shut the thread "temporarily for review" when I was near to posting in the early hours before I went to bed. Today I see the closure was permanent so I hope you don't mind my posting the reply here.

Respectfully you appear to have either misunderstood my post or the purpose of the Court Order that Masipa handed down on Tuesday (others seem to misunderstand its purpose too!). I mean, not wanting to be rude, but WTH does an "Involuntary Civil Commitment" ("ICC"), under SA's Mental Health Care Act (MHCA), have to do with this order under the SA Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) for OP to undergo what is commonly called a "Mental State at Time of Offence Evaluation" ("MSO" or "MSE-Offence"), the exact limitations of which are very clear ?:

To enquire into whether the accused by reason of mental illness or mental defect, was at the time of the commission of the offence criminally responsible for the offences charged whether he was capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his act or of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his act.
(transcribed from the court order)

Contrary to what I think you are inferring by noting, "Not every state even allows for outpatient commitment.", OP has neither been civilly nor criminally committed... not even on an outpatient basis! He has not even been ordered to undergo an evaluation to ascertain whether he should be committed, whether for treatment, rehabilitation, or as a restraint from being a danger to himself or others. OP has merely been ordered to attend a psychiatric hospital 5 days a week at set, albeit eminently flexible, times and undergo a psychiatric evaluation whose sole purpose is to assist the court in determining whether he is entitled to either an "insanity defence" (legal insanity not medical insanity) or a mitigation plea by way of his state of mind "at the time of the commission of the offence", which is a "Mental State at Time of Offence Evaluation", and the same procedure I was referring to in my post and which I have been describing here since the ruling last week, both from my own personal experience through my voluntary work over many years, as well as from my research.

Unlike an "involuntary civil commitment" a "Mental State at Time of Offence Evaluation " is not normally on an inpatient basis in the UK, US, Canada, or any country with minimally up to date mental health laws; not unless the subject is suspected of being a danger to themselves or others, in which case committal, a very intrusive and restrictive measure modern mental health legislation only permits when absolutely necessary, is justifiable to assess that risk, but not for an "MSO" on its own, for which there is no need whatsoever for 24/7 observation as the evaluation format is based on interviews, tests, and research into past history, court docs, etc. Nor would internment be justifiable except in unavoidable circumstances under most modern mental health legislation, including that of SA whose "Mental Health Care Act", (in force since 2004), is considered one of the more progressive in questions of mental health issues in the world. That said, OP's suitability to remain in the community safely is clearly not in issue, otherwise the court would have ordered his committal and an enquiry into whether he was a danger to himself or others, so I think it safe to assume that an "involuntary commitment", whether civil or criminal, is neither applicable nor relevant to OP's "Mental State at Time of Offence Evaluation", at least not at this time, and as I see it will never be.

OTOH, if I misunderstood your reference to "involuntary civil committal" in respect of the evaluation order, please accept my apology but in which case I would still like to know of states you know of that legally oblige inpatient "MSOs", as it is of personal interest to me as I have not found any unless where there are grounds to believe the subject is a danger to themselves or others, where an accused is in prison, or where there are no psychiatric facilities near an accused on bail so an inpatient basis can be ordered for convenience.

In respect of your 2nd point, I absolutely agree that you should take issue with those of us who in your words are "comparing 50 country's laws to that of one", grouping all laws under one loose term, i.e. "in the US". You are right and it is a wrong for which as a "pecador" I apologise, more especially because I should know better as I am well aware that each State has their own laws, whether simply nuanced from those of other states or vastly different as is often the case.

That said, just a few words in my, and possibly others', defence. It may be we unfairly generalise because US laws that hit the headlines here do so because they don't fit with our traditions or with principles set out in our laws, e.g., torture, SYG, death penalty, life sentences without possibility of parole, GBMI verdicts and in some states the abolition of the insanity defence, these last of particular concern to me in view of my voluntary work. And I think the generalisation may be exacerbated by the perception that controversial laws, (controversial here of course!), appear to spread so that other states seem to often follow suit giving the impression, wrongly or rightly, that implementation across all States is inevitable. Nonetheless, you are right and I should not generalise so I will try hard to refrain from doing so in the future. Again my apologies to you and others of the US for any unintended offence caused.
JMHOSNNFS,I,OR☯

 

[kittychi]

Good first post and welcome from another relative newbie. Maybe the Burgers wouldn't be the best neighbours as you say, but neither would Carice Stander, who didn't even try to call security despite her father being the former manager of the estate. IMO Dr Stipp comes out of this as the best witness and neighbour.

With the Burgers, perhaps they thought the police would contact them if need be.

Exactly. Perhaps the Burgers began to wonder if the police maybe weren't doing such a bang-up job, since they never contacted neighbors who would have been in earshot. They wanted to make sure the police got their statements.

 

[Carmelita]

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?

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.

 

[G.bng]

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?

Yes. And I will check the CPA again, as I think even in the case of a possible "insanity" at time of offence defence, the Judge may be obliged to make the referral if none of the other parties do. And certainly if she suspects an accused may have an intellectual deficiency and neither defence nor prosecution bring it up, or if she receives credible information that an accused might have a lack of capacity or an intellectual deficiency she would I am sure have to refer. That's how it works over here and advocating for learning disabled I have had to call the police or the court's attention to their situation more than once. It's for the protection of vulnerable adults, but I don't think it can go as far with OP as in normal life skills he is clearly competent.

 

[Carmelita]

Except for Oscar's.

Just for clarity and a reality check let’s revisit what I have said about Oscar’s time in the box, I have said Oscar lied during his testimony, I said he was emotionally an unwell man, that he was easily confused, that I don’t think his version is entirely true but that the core of his story has not been logically dismissed through the state’s case and that Oscar did sound like a woman to me as he became more emotional. I have also said that I believe that Oscar’s words and inflections of voice while on the stand were what we could expect if he did shoot Reeva accidentally.

Again I don’t know what happened that morning I trust the judge will deliver a just verdict.

 

[Gryffindor]

Just for clarity and a reality check let’s revisit what I have said about Oscar’s time in the box, I have said Oscar lied during his testimony, I said he was emotionally an unwell man, that he was easily confused, that I don’t think his version is entirely true but that the core of his story has not been logically dismissed through the state’s case and that Oscar did sound like a woman to me as he became more emotional. I have also said that I believe that Oscar’s words and inflections of voice while on the stand were what we could expect if he did shoot Reeva accidentally.

Again I don’t know what happened that morning I trust the judge will deliver a just verdict.

Awesome :-D x

 

[cottonweaver]

Exactly. Perhaps the Burgers began to wonder if the police maybe weren't doing such a bang-up job, since they never contacted neighbors who would have been in earshot. They wanted to make sure the police got their statements.

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

 

[Carmelita]

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?

Yes I do question parts of Oscar's testimony. I don;t question incidentals like "low tone" or "whisper".

He is obviously not telling the truth about pulling the trigger at the restaurant.

So he is lying when it would do him well to tell the truth. That is an interesting maladaptive trait right there.

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.


My biggest question is if Oscar's version is true why did he not make certain of Reeva's location? (His answer is that he was certain of her location in his mind). That is a lot of what the evaluation is all about, what was his state of mind, what (if anything) could allow him to be so wrong. Does he have a mental defect so great that he was so overcome with panic/fear/horror that all his actions after hearing a sound in the night projected him toward self preservation and the protection of Reeva to the point of incapacity or mitigation of his actions.

 

[lithgow1]

Just for clarity and a reality check let’s revisit what I have said about Oscar’s time in the box, I have said Oscar lied during his testimony, I said he was emotionally an unwell man, that he was easily confused, that I don’t think his version is entirely true but that the core of his story has not been logically dismissed through the state’s case and that Oscar did sound like a woman to me as he became more emotional. I have also said that I believe that Oscar’s words and inflections of voice while on the stand were what we could expect if he did shoot Reeva accidentally.

Again I don’t know what happened that morning I trust the judge will deliver a just verdict.

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.

 

[Carmelita]

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

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.