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

[Deleted member 102539]

If you want to kill 5-6 minutes, take this test but fill it in to the best of your ability with answers that OP would "honestly" give. My test results came back with a laundry list of disorders and repeated information about the Suicide Hotline toll free number! LOL!!! :scared:

My list included: PTSD, Social Phobia, GAD, Manic Episodes, borderline Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Relational Difficulties, Panic Disorder, Substance Abuse, and OCD as defined by the DSM-IV.

......(12 x)................ Disorder

Your answers indicate that you show some of the signs of ......................(12 x)................... Disorder, but not enough of them to meet all the criteria.

My resultat - if I were OP - comprises 12 x indistinct disorders. So I'm not really healthy and I need to be at Westkoppies.

 

[Fuskier]

Snap! I just wrote about this and had the same link but you bet me too it. Great post! (Here's mine anyways...)

I find there is a serious issue with celebrity worship syndrome around Pistorius, in terms of pressure on witnesses. On one hand it's important for people to be allowed to support anyone they think is relevant and valid, on the other I think it's quite clear how noxious the fervour and blind faith for a random celebrity accused whose best defense may be that he is either mentally ill or extremely reckless and thoughtless.

These supporters may even effect the case (or they wish too) because if you look on social platforms they have seemed to swarm on prosecution witnesses and troll them until they have to close accounts or lockdown for privacy. Perhaps they have done even worse, who knows?
(http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/new-age-celebrity-worship?page=2)

In South Africa there seems to be a great difficulty in bringing witnesses forward in court for fear of retaliation, real or imagined. I think many people know Pistorius' frenzied fan club could go beyond the realms of rational behaviour...

More daunting is that Pistorius larger family is exceptionally weathly and connected. He/they even had British public relations giant Stuart Higgins fly out and reportedly he helped set out some strategy with the local public relations firm Vuma before they took over. These could be seen as significant odds against independent witnesses.
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-02-22-00-media-masters-work-to-win-two-trials

<respectfully snipped>

Just reading posts now. Saw this one. Thank you for posting this K.T. It captures 'contributing' factors which impinge upon witnesses who are brave enough to give evidence at the Trial and factors which may impinge upon the Judge and her assessors, but with which they must deal with to uphold the fundamental tenet that Justice must be seen to be done. The world is watching. In my opinion only.

 

[Fuskier]

Thanks Jake.

I am not expecting a smoking gun, but some professional confirmation of the aspects of OP's personality which might have bearing on the crime and his testimony would be useful:

<respectfully snipped>

The quotes about the way he has been treated having created a monster ring very true for me.

• the way he was raised before and after his mother's very sad death appear to have produced an individual who thinks that his feelings take precedence over everyone and everything else.
• every time his family or friends or 'psychoanalyst' pet him and soothe him as if he were still a three year old, I think his feelings of being the most important person on the planet are reinforced and he is given permission to totally ignore his responsibility as an adult to deal with set backs and things which displease him - and learn that sometimes he just needs to 'suck it up' like the rest of us.
• Every time his transgressions such as the boat crash are glossed over or ignored by the authorities it increases his feelings of self-importance, exemption from the normal requirements for living in society and superiority over everyone else.
• the addition of fame, wealth and a borderline delusional fan-base has merely added the final drops of poison into the toxic mix.

When you combine a personality like this with copious numbers of guns and live ammunition, it is surely a question of "when" not "if" something will go horribly wrong.

Thanks Lyra500 for another insightful post which capture precipitating, contributing and perpetuating factors IMO. Good stuff!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I can't help but feel that some might have misunderstood some of my latest posts , or might have inferred (wrongly) that i was "siding" with OP when i reasoned he did show remorse/guilt at some stages.

I really hope not , but just in case it was so:

- I don't think that OP has ever shown true/genuine empathy/remorse towards RS and her family . I think some of his testimony whilst in cross-exam was damning , in fact. If this is all true then it is horrible and despicable ime.
- The only times i've seen OP showing guilt/remorse is towards his family. I was simply using this in discussing whether it's appropriate or not to define a LACK OF or ABSENCE OF.
Which, thankfully and kindly, Estelle has defined in which category , the selective feelings of remorse fall into and i agree.

Sorry all for OT and thank you.

I am wondering cri, if OP displays shame with regard to his family? Shame that he has brought the family name into disrepute. As much as he is the pride and joy of this family and everything is riding on his success, his public downfall effects them all, probably a huge burden?

IMO, that's why he wants it swept under the carpet like it was some tiny mistake because everyone in the past has allowed that to be the case, why not now?

I still get the sense of all the crying and fingers in ears is his intolerance to others negative words, his frustration that they are displaying his handiwork, the bullet ridden body of poor Reeva and he is being judged. His narcissistic personality would deem himself above reproach and judgement by lessor mortals. Iow, a real headcase. jmo

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/694...steenkamp-death-trial-to-begin-again-june-30/

Two things which struck me about this article are:

1. Did Vorster go too far?

Legal analysts said the defense team&#8217;s decision to introduce Vorster&#8217;s testimony may have backfired. John Welch, former deputy director of South Africa&#8217;s public prosecuting authority, said Pistorius&#8217; lawyers may have called the psychiatrist to the stand at such a late stage in the trial to &#8220;remedy&#8221; the athlete&#8217;s own testimony, which has been viewed as unconvincing. But in testifying that Pistorius was anxious, felt vulnerable to crime and may not have intended to kill Steenkamp, Vorster possibly &#8220;went too far&#8221; in her description of the psychiatric disorder, according to Welch.

2. There could be a two month delay

After his tests, the experts who assess Pistorius would take additional time to compile a report and submit it to the court. That could take another month, raising the possibility of a two-month delay in the trial.

Thanks for posting this information Estelle. It's reassuring to learn of differing views on the DT's use of Dr V, that critical minds are thinking, not just gullible to it. Appreciated.

 

[Fuskier]

I thought side-traits because it appears there are indicators of anti-social and narcissistic , but BPD ticks all the boxes , always IMO.

Lack of empathy or remorse , not completely convinced about that. Perhaps diminished sense , but not complete lack of . Some things i've seen appeared too genuine to be fake. Always IMO

This area is difficult to discern accurately as influences around OP contribute too. E.g. OP has 'coaching' around him. From msm articles we have learned that he is supported legally, emotionally with family, psychologists and spiritual guides, and may be subjected to significant 'coaching' which influences him to 're-interpret' his perspective IMO. :twocents:

 

[Greater Than]

It just seems odd to me that the clinician treating OP for depression - whether it be family doctor or psychiatrist - missed all these anxiety symptoms in OP. Especially when anxiety and depression can be intermingled and/he she should have specially asked about both.

I think that's the point though. This alleged GAD was just diagnosed a couple weeks ago by Vorster, who after only seeing him twice, claimed he's actually had it all his life, yet no one else, including OP, ever knew he had it.

It's BS. He's never been treated for GAD because he doesn't, nor has he ever, had it.

MOO

 

[Suthrnqt]

I think that's the point though. This alleged GAD was just diagnosed a couple weeks ago by Vorster, who after only seeing him twice, claimed he's actually had it all his life, yet no one else, including OP, ever knew he had it.

It's BS. He's never been treated for GAD because he doesn't, nor has he ever, had it.

MOO

ITA. A person who suffers from anxiety would know, as would his family, ime. Being in the public eye and having cameras shoved in his face would had brought on a panic attack of epic proportions, ime. I definitely call BS. :cow:

 

[CriLondon]

It's interesting you picked that photo, from what I observed it appears to have been more about an opportunity for them to exchange info(see note the bro is reading), a good photo op for the trio to "prove" that it's them against the world and as for OP's lack of empathy/remorse I see his displays towards his siblings/family as more about him than them. ie. because they're openly upset it reflects badly on him(don't forget alot of his obsession seems to be about "his" brand). Imo.

I simply picked it to show what i meant with him showing remorse , and the only images i can find are when he is near/around or has seen AP cry.
Look at her , in this picture , the whole body is slumped fwd , i'm willing to bet that every muscle in her face is just dead dropped , looking into nothing.
Deeeeeep sadness.
Look at him instead , same face down , shoulders down (thank god there's something to hold on to an all that) , but mostly and it's what does it for me , his forehead "creasing" right in the middle. That's guilt , hard to fake .
Well yeah CP seems to have just finished reading something , don't know if that's what caused OP/AP's reactions.

I don't know about what i rbib , i believe one can say he has a deep bond with AP, especially AP towards him. The only times ever he's lowered his head in guilt/shame/embarrassment/remorse i've noted them to be when AP is around.
I seriously tend to line up alongside Estelle mentioning sociopathic traits when one considers such selective (almost unique in this case)displays of remorse.

JMO

 

[CriLondon]

I am wondering cri, if OP displays shame with regard to his family? Shame that he has brought the family name into disrepute. As much as he is the pride and joy of this family and everything is riding on his success, his public downfall effects them all, probably a huge burden?

IMO, that's why he wants it swept under the carpet like it was some tiny mistake because everyone in the past has allowed that to be the case, why not now?

I still get the sense of all the crying and fingers in ears is his intolerance to others negative words, his frustration that they are displaying his handiwork, the bullet ridden body of poor Reeva and he is being judged. His narcissistic personality would deem himself above reproach and judgement by lessor mortals. Iow, a real headcase. jmo

Hi Prime

rbbm - Well put , i agree.

About guilt/remorse , it implies having an important feeling of affection towards somebody , imo. Causing great pain to somebody you care about/have a strong bond with generates important levels of guilt/remorse especially , like in OP's case , when one's helpless and can't repair.
I've only ever seen that when AP is around and if i go with the first lines of your post's reasoning i'd probably say that what he feels towards uncleA is probably embarrassment/shame , not guilt and/or remorse , i don't see those.

JMO

 

[CriLondon]

This area is difficult to discern accurately as influences around OP contribute too. E.g. OP has 'coaching' around him. From msm articles we have learned that he is supported legally, emotionally with family, psychologists and spiritual guides, and may be subjected to significant 'coaching' which influences him to 're-interpret' his perspective IMO. :twocents:

Yes I agree , keeping in mind these displays i've seen are very rare , and dedicated to his sister only , in minor forms to uncle A and auntie.

my :twocents: plus your :twocents:

 

[CriLondon]

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Thursday 10 April 2014, Session 2 - YouTube

Can somebody , legally , clarify if the exchange at 1:18:43-1:19:56 is where Nel proves intent , or just dis-prove accidental discharge?
How would the court have seen this?

Thank you

Edit: The answer at 1:19:56 , when totally nailed to the wall "Mylady i'm getting confused" .....i though was bad , REALLY bad.

 

[beach]

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Thursday 10 April 2014, Session 2 - YouTube

Can somebody , legally , clarify if the exchange at 1:18:43-1:19:56 is where Nel proves intent , or just dis-prove accidental discharge?
How would the court have seen this?

Thank you

Edit: The answer at 1:19:56 , when totally nailed to the wall "Mylady i'm getting confused" .....i though was bad , REALLY bad.

BBM

Both.

A couple of times earlier than the time stamps you cite (and again afterwards IIRC), Oscar admits he remembers pulling the trigger. During this exchange, he never claims he accidently fired the gun. In fact just the opposite when Nel offers an "accidental discharge of the weapon" as one of OP's "versions", Oscar corrects him to clarify that he never claimed it was an accidental discharge.

Very interesting exchange -

Nel: "We know for a fact there were no intruders in your house that night."

OP: "That's correct, Milady."

Nel: "We know for a fact there was no ladder against the wall."

OP: "That's correct, Milady."

Nel: "We know for a fact that was Reeva in there."

OP: "That's correct, Milady."

Nel: "So there was no reason for you to shoot. Objectively speaking, after the fact....As we stand here today, you had no reason to shoot."

OP: "That's correct, Milady."

Nel: "If you had waited a second to see if the door had opened, you would not have fired?"

OP: "That's a possibility, Milady."

Nel: "She was in there. We know it now! If you had waited, you would not have fired."

OP: "If Reeva had come out or she had spoken to me, then I wouldn't have fired."



BBM #1: I cannot believe Oscar said, "That's a possibility..." A possibility???

It's truly a miracle we didn't see Roux grab the green bucket to puke when he said that.


BBM #2: When nailed to the wall, in typical OP fashion, he shifts the blame. If only Reeva had come out and spoken to him, this would never have happened.

And as you cite above, he claims confusion. This happens continuously throughout his testimony. This time it looked particularly bad considering intent is the crux of the legal issue that will seal his fate.



Regarding the earlier exchange I referenced (approx. 1:16:30 - not exact as I was listening and not marking.)

OP: "I fired the gun out of fear. At the time I interpreted it as somebody coming out of the bathroom."

Nel: "You never wanted to shoot at intruders coming out of the toilet?"

OP: "That's correct, Milady."

Nel: "So whatever happened...noises, whatever...never caused you to pull the trigger. It went off accidently"

OP: "That's the opposite of what I'm saying, Milady."



As to how the Court will interpret it, well.... who knows? I do think Judge Masipa will review the record very carefully and from what I've read, she's nobody's fool.

eta for clarity in re. your original question: If OP didn't accidently discharge the firearm (as he admits), then he intended to shoot.

 

[Jake18]

I think that's the point though. This alleged GAD was just diagnosed a couple weeks ago by Vorster, who after only seeing him twice, claimed he's actually had it all his life, yet no one else, including OP, ever knew he had it.

It's BS. He's never been treated for GAD because he doesn't, nor has he ever, had it.

MOO

I agree.

The one thing that made me wonder that he may be seeing a psychiatrist for his post shooting depression is that I think he was on quite a few medications? (Correct me if I'm wrong). Family doctors see a lot of depression (and anxiety disorders) and are usually very comfortable and competent managing it, however if a lot of drugs are deemed necessary then this might be entering more into specialist territory. The important point though, is that that clinician did not diagnose an anxiety disorder.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Thursday 10 April 2014, Session 2 - YouTube

Can somebody , legally , clarify if the exchange at 1:18:43-1:19:56 is where Nel proves intent , or just dis-prove accidental discharge?
How would the court have seen this?

Thank you

Edit: The answer at 1:19:56 , when totally nailed to the wall "Mylady i'm getting confused" .....i though was bad , REALLY bad.

OP -"yesterday it was put to me it was an accident, and today it is put to me it wasn't by accident, I don't understand my lady....I didn't intend to shoot."

OP is trying to be too clever by half. I feel like shouting, just answer the damn question! :tantrum: :blushing:

BBM

Both.

A couple of times earlier than the time stamps you cite (and again afterwards IIRC), Oscar admits he remembers pulling the trigger. During this exchange, he never claims he accidently fired the gun. In fact just the opposite when Nel offers an "accidental discharge of the weapon" as one of OP's "versions", Oscar corrects him to clarify that he never claimed it was an accidental discharge.

Very interesting exchange -

Nel: "We know for a fact there were no intruders in your house that night."

OP: "That's correct, Milady."

Nel: "We know for a fact there was no ladder against the wall."

OP: "That's correct, Milady."

Nel: "We know for a fact that was Reeva in there."

OP: "That's correct, Milady."

Nel: "So there was no reason for you to shoot. Objectively speaking, after the fact....As we stand here today, you had no reason to shoot."

OP: "That's correct, Milady."

Nel: "If you had waited a second to see if the door had opened, you would not have fired?"

OP: "That's a possibility, Milady."

Nel: "She was in there. We know it now! If you had waited, you would not have fired."

OP: "If Reeva had come out or she had spoken to me, then I wouldn't have fired."



BBM #1: I cannot believe Oscar said, "That's a possibility..." A possibility???

It's truly a miracle we didn't see Roux grab the green bucket to puke when he said that.


BBM #2: When nailed to the wall, in typical OP fashion, he shifts the blame. If only Reeva had come out and spoken to him, this would never have happened.

And as you cite above, he claims confusion. This happens continuously throughout his testimony. This time is looked particularly bad considering intent is the crux of the legal issue that will seal his fate.



Regarding the earlier exchange I referenced (approx. 1:16:30 - not exact as I was listening and not marking.)

OP: "I fired the gun out of fear. At the time I interpreted it as somebody coming out of the bathroom."

Nel: "You never wanted to shoot at intruders coming out of the toilet?"

OP: "That's correct, Milady."

Nel: "So whatever happened...noises, whatever...never caused you to pull the trigger. It went off accidently"

OP: "That's the opposite of what I'm saying, Milady."



As to how the Court will interpret it, well.... who knows? I do think Judge Masipa will review the record very carefully and from what I've read, she's nobody's fool.

OMG! The slip ups OP was making are just monumental! He's practically given it away that he shot Reeva because she wouldn't come out and trying to blame her even in his 'version'. :facepalm: jmo

 

[Fuskier]

http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/murde...rius-shrein-dewani-and-other-accused-killers/
Murder Madness: Oscar Pistorius, Shrien Dewani and Other Accused Killers
by Penny Swift on May 24, 2014.

"In South Africa, a charge of murder may be straightforward. The Criminal Procedure Act states that a charge of murder or culpable homicide is &#8220;sufficient if it alleges fact of killing.&#8221; Both charges refer to unlawful killing; the difference is that murder is intentional and culpable homicide is not. If evidence on a charge of murder does not prove murder, the judge can find the accused guilty of several lesser offences including culpable homicide and &#8220;assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.&#8221;

"In fact Pistorius is charged with &#8220;Murder &#8211; read with the provisions of Section 51 (1) of Act 105 of 1997.&#8221; This piece of legislation, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, states that Pistorius could receive a life sentence if convicted of murder. In addition, Pistorius has been charged with three contraventions of the Firearms Control Act".

"For Pistorius to be convicted of murder, the state needs to prove he intended to kill Steenkamp. Dadic explains that intent is essentially a &#8220;wrongful state of mind&#8221; that can be attached to the crime. This is not the same as motive, which, he says &#8220;relates to reasons or factors&#8221; that induce a person to commit a wrongful act".

 

[Emz73]

http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/murde...rius-shrein-dewani-and-other-accused-killers/
Murder Madness: Oscar Pistorius, Shrien Dewani and Other Accused Killers
by Penny Swift on May 24, 2014.

"In South Africa, a charge of murder may be straightforward. The Criminal Procedure Act states that a charge of murder or culpable homicide is “sufficient if it alleges fact of killing.” Both charges refer to unlawful killing; the difference is that murder is intentional and culpable homicide is not. If evidence on a charge of murder does not prove murder, the judge can find the accused guilty of several lesser offences including culpable homicide and “assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.”

"In fact Pistorius is charged with “Murder – read with the provisions of Section 51 (1) of Act 105 of 1997.” This piece of legislation, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, states that Pistorius could receive a life sentence if convicted of murder. In addition, Pistorius has been charged with three contraventions of the Firearms Control Act".

"For Pistorius to be convicted of murder, the state needs to prove he intended to kill Steenkamp. Dadic explains that intent is essentially a “wrongful state of mind” that can be attached to the crime. This is not the same as motive, which, he says “relates to reasons or factors” that induce a person to commit a wrongful act".

What about intending to kill the intruder though?

 

[Feynman]

Theres a very telling part of Oscars original affidavit, the part where he breaks the door down and finds Reeva slumped over but alive, the only way this is possible is if the gunshots were the 2nd set of sounds, the DT know this hence the change to Reeva was not breathing.

When did the DT change to "Reeva not breathing"? OP's testimony went like this:

"She was sitting with her weight on top of the toilet bowl. I checked to see if she was breathing and she wasn't," he told the court.

"I pulled her weight on to me and I sat there crying for some time. I felt her head on my shoulder and I could feel the blood running down me."

"I thought I felt her breathing. I could see her arm was broken.

"I was trying to pick Reeva up. I could see she was still breathing. She was struggling to breathe."*

So there it is: still breathing.

Also, in the bail application, OP says "A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive."

So how could he tell she was alive without observing she was breathing?

 

[Feynman]

partial quote:

Now go back to the versions of the screams & bangs.

The shots that killed Reeva were followed by him walking back to his bedroom, checking the bed & curtain area, going back to the toilet, trying the door, going back to the bedroom, opening the curtains, blinds & balcony door, screaming for help, putting on his Prosthesis, going back to the toilet, breaking into it with the bat, discovering a lifeless Reeva, stopping screaming, going back to his bedroom, calling Stander, calling Netcare for 66 seconds, picking Reeva up & carrying her down stairs

So according to his own testimony of the timeline, Reeva was dead before the last set of bangs from the bat which knocked the door panel down. He is not denying that the witnesses heard anything, but they were wrong on what they heard. If what they heard was OP's version playing out, he had killed Reeva way before his own timeline suggested. Either the neighbours versions are correct, & OP is lying, or OP's version is correct, but he is still lying.

No, in his testimony he has Reeva breathing, and in his bail affidavit he says she was alive, in both cases after he breaks into the toilet with the bat.

 

[soozieqtips]

partial quote:No, in his testimony he has Reeva breathing, and in his bail affidavit he says she was alive, in both cases after he breaks into the toilet with the bat.

"I sat over Reeva and I cried. I don't how long I was there for," he testified while his voice broke.
"She wasn't breathing," he said shaking with loud sobs that prompted an early adjournment for the day.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-shooting-Reeva-Steenkamp-what-we-learnt.html

He said various things. She was slumped over, but still alive. She was struggling to breathe. She wasn't breathing.