Judge's Order re: OP's Mental Health Eval

[Dmacky]

Hi guys :wave:
I have not been over here since OP's trial was adjourned, pending a psychiatric evaluation. Does anyone know if
there actual court tomorrow, or just the referral being finalized with the judge on the details? I am wondering If I should set the alarm for 2 am. If that's all it is, I'll just check in later ~ TIA

 

[Really?]

Well nighty night to you all from here at the jersey shore. Got to catch some zzzz's so as to see OP's smacked arse face at 4 ...."or better yet" ....at 0400 hours. Night all. Sleep well.

 

[CriLondon]

Now this is what I call bias:

Oscar Pistorius off stand What's next - YouTube

Hi lithgow,

Just been analyzing that video.
I have made notes as to what i've seen and this time , before saying it , it would be interesting and curious what you (and other members too of course, more than welcome to ) see . I'll provide the timings , please keep in mind that we are talking 0.3-0.4 seconds length, you'll have to start-stop the video very fast.

1:05.8 - 1:06.4 (at 1:06.5 it's gone)
1:20.0 - 1:20.5 this is how the next one starts :drumroll:
1:20.7 - 1:21.1

and , curiously:

1:57.9 - 1:58.3

Just thought it would be a fun game for those who are interested and would like to try

I promise i'll say what i have seen if you can't , should you be interested

 

[PPKik]

I do like you minor..Really, going back to Arias days........including the leonard Cohen reference in minor forth.

cheers

The Arias days! To think we all (almost all) had the same common enemies and felt the same way about them. That was an incredible trial and forum.

Is that a Leonard Cohen reference? Even better!!

 

[CriLondon]

BIB Was this picture with the bullet paths extended with red lines presented in court or was this something that was just done by one of the sleuths on this forum? That's really damming!

The more i look at this picture the more convinced i am that shots A/B/C were taken from the same position , but not D.

JMO

 

[Really?]

:truce:

Hi lithgow,

Just been analyzing that video.
I have made notes as to what i've seen and this time , before saying it , it would be interesting and curious what you (and other members too of course, more than welcome to ) see . I'll provide the timings , please keep in mind that we are talking 0.3-0.4 seconds length, you'll have to start-stop the video very fast.

1:05.8 - 1:06.4 (at 1:06.5 it's gone)
1:20.0 - 1:20.5 this is how the next one starts :drumroll:
1:20.7 - 1:21.1

and , curiously:

1:57.9 - 1:58.3

Just thought it would be a fun game for those who are interested and would like to try

I promise i'll say what i have seen if you can't , should you be interested

Ok, I'll play,,,,,I didn't check the timin ...but?..one point is their highlighting of Dixon's testimony.

Second the reporter's 'absolutely ' agreeing.....

 

[CriLondon]

:truce:

Ok, I'll play,,,,,I didn't check the timin ...but?..one point is their highlighting of Dixon's testimony.

Second the reporter's 'absolutely ' agreeing.....

Just take the sound off , it's deviating. Then click your mouse to start-stop very fast. It's .3 of a second , it's fast

 

[Cherwell]

It may seem reasonable but it is not any kind of proof, which you need to convict a person of murder.

Well, perhaps nobody was coming down the street, but to be fair, how would any of us know? Thank you for identifying Mrs. Stipp. She seemed like a pretty honest and reliable witness, except for her time being way off, and, of course, the screaming from the street, which, if it was from the street, it was not Reeva she heard. Also, her screaming recollection doesn't fit with Burger's does it?

Who do you think was screaming, then?

Did Professor Saayman simply make a statement, or corroborate another statement? Saying that someone could scream after their hip was destroyed, their right arm was destroyed, and the back of their head was destroyed is quite incredible.

I repeat, he said that screaming would be an involuntary act. If he says it's possible, I believe him.
Death is a process, not a sudden stopping of all functions. One wouldn't think that a chicken could run around after being decapitated, but it happens.

Also, the toilet window was closed and the toilet door was closed. Are we really to believe that a woman mortally wounded in that many places could "involuntarily" scream (facing away from the closed window) so loud that Burger could hear her screams?

You are assuming that Reeva only screamed when she was inside the toilet. According to the witnesses, the screaming went on for some time. She may not have been in the toilet all that time, in fact I think it's unlikely that she was. You do realise that she was screaming before she was shot?

 

[BatGunKick]

Hello all, *yawn* 2:41am here in SA, but going to go now and check what you wonderful folk have been saying. I looked around today for some tidbits, here's what i have:

1. Another sleuth with some interesting stuff:
http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/05/oscar-pistorius-i-know-what-really-happened/

2. Judge Masipa tough on violence against women: see these sentences handed down in the past http://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/judge-masipa-tough-on-violence-against-women.htm

3. A rather harsh take on Gerrie Nel from a US trial lawyer, but I MUST object (lol)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...en-grounds-for-a-mistrial-in-a-u-s-court.html

Ok, I'm going to back-read the thread now. x

 

[Cherwell]

3. A rather harsh take on Gerrie Nel from a US trial lawyer, but I MUST object (lol)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...en-grounds-for-a-mistrial-in-a-u-s-court.html

I haven't got time to read that thoroughly now, but am tickled to see that he apparently thinks Judge Masipa is wearing a wig :floorlaugh:

Also, do we assume he missed Barry Roux's cross examinations?

 

[G.bng]

No worries. I don't think it would have been televised, if he wasn't well-known, as these occurrences are so common place in SA, wrongly assuming family members etc are violent intruders. :-(

From what I read it appears in the US wrongly assuming family, friends, neighbours, kids and innocent people asking the way are violent intruders is common place too. And the killers invariably walk or face a grand jury which more often than not, especially in Texas, acquits so they rarely go to trial.

Now I wonder if it could have something to do with easy access to guns, higher rates of crime, and a pronounced social divide... ;-)

 

[BatGunKick]

Who do you think was screaming, then?

I repeat, he said that screaming would be an involuntary act. If he says it's possible, I believe him.
Death is a process, not a sudden stopping of all functions. One wouldn't think that a chicken could run around after being decapitated, but it happens.

You are assuming that Reeva only screamed when she was inside the toilet. According to the witnesses, the screaming went on for some time. She may not have been in the toilet all that time, in fact I think it's unlikely that she was. You do realise that she was screaming before she was shot?

Hi ladies, I must say - I live on the second floor and across from us is a huge open area. At night sound travels a MAJOR distance - for example as I write this it's 2:49am and I can hear the bell from an old age home down the street (sounds like a bicycle bell, they ring it 4 times to signal something not sure what!) and I know for a fact it's more than 200m away. Also, and a sad fact to admit, I hear gunshots about once a month in the night air - and they travel very very far, as do the screams of homeless individuals fighting under a bridge a few blocks down I think that even with a closed door and window, screams would be audible from a huge distance. if you wake at 3am, and open your window, listen to how still it is - there is no interference of cars, no 'hum' that sits heavy in the air usually.

Another thing (may have been covered on here already) - I have been wondering about the bathroom window - anyone else have thoughts on this: Correct me if I'm wrong, but windows do not have handles on the outside... even sliding windows only have an actual handle/latch on the inside. So my question is, according to his version, why would Oscar think that it was even possible for an intruder to be able to open a window from the outside?

If the window was slightly open to begin with, it would make hardly a sound opening up or sliding open... AND if he was so 'security conscious' in his version, why sleep with a bathroom window open in the first place when there were workmen etc as he said.

I really wonder if, when OP left stander and disappeared upstairs, it was to quickly open the window. After all, Stipp testified the windows looked closed to him when he was looking out. Thoughts?

 

[BatGunKick]

I haven't got time to read that thoroughly now, but am tickled to see that he apparently thinks Judge Masipa is wearing a wig :floorlaugh:

Also, do we assume he missed Barry Roux's cross examinations?

I know right?!! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
Exactly, plus it's not like Oscar is in court for a traffic violation, why would Nel use kid gloves? ullhair:

 

[PPKik]

Who do you think was screaming, then?

I don't know. That is why I am still trying to keep an open mind. There were many other people living within ear shot. I simply don't know.

I repeat, he said that screaming would be an involuntary act. If he says it's possible, I believe him.
Death is a process, not a sudden stopping of all functions. One wouldn't think that a chicken could run around after being decapitated, but it happens.

I agree with you, in most cases, death is a process. With no disrespect meant toward you, I would not compare Reeva's shooting to a chicken with its head cut off. That is a totally different animal in all senses. I am not a medical person, but a gun person.

I cannot say that just because Dr. Saayman says a person could involuntarily scream after being mortally wounded three times in rapid succession, that I would believe him because he says so. I neither believe him nor disbelieve him. He says it is possible, not that it happened in this case. I do not know, and I didn't hear a succession of witnesses saying it is common for someone to scream after having their brains literally blown out. It is far easier to believe that Michelle Burger drastically wanted to "hear" something she did not hear, than to believe Reeva screamed loudly enough for Burger to hear her after the last shot.

You are assuming that Reeva only screamed when she was inside the toilet. According to the witnesses, the screaming went on for some time. She may not have been in the toilet all that time, in fact I think it's unlikely that she was.

As you will note from my earlier post, I was referring to Burger's claim of Reeva screaming after the last shot. She would have had to be in the toilet when Burger made THAT claim. That put all her testimony into question for me. That and her belligerent hostility. That was not an objective witness, nor a believable one.

You can read how unreliable ear and eye witness testimony is here in a scholarly article:

http://musicandspeech.voices.wooster.edu/the-reliability-of-ear-witness-testimony-changes-bolded/

A: The Reliability of Ear-Witness Testimony.
B: People would like to think that they perceive the world as it is, that they can accurately remember events that have happened to, and around them. However when put under experimental scrutiny it is found that a person’s recollection of the world is substantially less than accurate. As was shown by (Braun, Ellis, Loftus, 2002), it was possible to change a memory through suggestion alone.

 

[Trooper]

I haven't got time to read that thoroughly now, but am tickled to see that he apparently thinks Judge Masipa is wearing a wig :floorlaugh:

Also, do we assume he missed Barry Roux's cross examinations?

I laughed at this Zirin character.. a trial lawyer, in the US... First thing he states is SA law is different, ergo, its wrong. 'It just wouldn't be allowed in a US court!'.. what relevance that has is beyond my comprehension. . If he thought Nel was so awful and so cruel to poor Oscar, why didn't Zarin tear strips off Oscars Defence attorney for not objecting? .. a strange omission. . His observation of Masipa was plain rude and unnecessary. It moved his frail argument not one whit further.

besides.. this Zirin person has never prosecuted a murderer ,nor has he ever defended one. He is one of those who defend corporate bank accounts.. and even lost quite a few of those cases, poor clients..

 

[JudgeJudi]

Can a man declare for his whole life he doesn't consider himself disabled, become an inspiration for it and then when it suit's him pull out the disabled card?.

Here's a little gem about our Oscar.

"You can't hold up a gold medal in one hand and a pistol in another," said Ari Seirlis, chief executive of the lobby and advocacy group, QuadPara Association of South Africa. "We chose not to say a word, but then Oscar started the debate [and] said to the world 'I feel vulnerable because of my disability'. "And we're saying he didn't earn the right to use that as an excuse; when he earned the gold, he took away his right to use that excuse."

In many ways, people with disabled are considered a homogeneous group. Had he met the income and asset thresholds, Pistorius, one of the fastest men on the planet, would have qualified for the same state disability grant as a quadriplegic with little or no mobility.

The day before he shot Reeva Steenkamp, 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). But now Seirlis uses phrases such as "scraping the bottom of the barrel" about Pistorius.

"We feel he has downgraded the view that people have of us in order to try and get himself some leeway with the judge and the assessors," Seirlis said.

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

What a guy. uke:

 

[BatGunKick]

Guten Morgen all over the world! It is 08:20 in my country. Breakfast is done and now ...


... IMO

If OP had done anything to slow down Reeva's saving intentionally, then he has shot her before deliberately too. Reason: RS to not being able in testifying about that evening/night re threat/beating/poss. one shot.
The devilish only just begins with the shots and it deserved be punished too.
(I'm naive, maybe. :blushing: )

I don't understand at all Nel and his lack of interest in things happened after the shots.

Hi - I must say, I also wondered - OP seemed so sure of Reeva's passing - he always claimed she died in his arms, and he seemed so sure - yet (sorry to be graphic) blood in the lungs from injury could cause 'breathing sounds' if he was holding her tight. It's just a bit creepy that he was SO sure when she had died... I hate to be this morbid, but could he have prevented her living till paramedics arrived? (found it odd he kept mentioning his hands were in her mouth). I may be being waaaay too paranoid now.

 

[BatGunKick]

Interesting in that Henke Pistorius obviously shoots from the hip. :facepalm:

Edit: The article also mentions OP gave Reeva mouth to mouth. Is that true?

BIB - not sure about mouth to mouth, but OP made a point on more than one occasion of stating that his fingers were in her mouth. Suspicious?

 

[Trooper]

I don't know. That is why I am still trying to keep an open mind. There were many other people living within ear shot. I simply don't know.



I agree with you, in most cases, death is a process. With no disrespect meant toward you, I would not compare Reeva's shooting to a chicken with its head cut off. That is a totally different animal in all senses. I am not a medical person, but a gun person.

I cannot say that just because Dr. Saayman says a person could involuntarily scream after being mortally wounded three times in rapid succession, that I would believe him because he says so. I neither believe him nor disbelieve him. He says it is possible, not that it happened in this case. I do not know, and I didn't hear a succession of witnesses saying it is common for someone to scream after having their brains literally blown out. It is far easier to believe that Michelle Burger drastically wanted to "hear" something she did not hear, than to believe Reeva screamed loudly enough for Burger to hear her after the last shot.


As you will note from my earlier post, I was referring to Burger's claim of Reeva screaming after the last shot. She would have had to be in the toilet when Burger made THAT claim. That put all her testimony into question for me. That and her belligerent hostility. That was not an objective witness, nor a believable one.
You can read how unreliable ear and eye witness testimony is here in a scholarly article:

http://musicandspeech.voices.wooster.edu/the-reliability-of-ear-witness-testimony-changes-bolded/

A: The Reliability of Ear-Witness Testimony.
B: People would like to think that they perceive the world as it is, that they can accurately remember events that have happened to, and around them. However when put under experimental scrutiny it is found that a person’s recollection of the world is substantially less than accurate. As was shown by (Braun, Ellis, Loftus, 2002), it was possible to change a memory through suggestion alone.

BBM for clarity..


When Judge Masipa hands down her verdict, she will give a detailed summary of what witnesses testified to, and what weight she gives their testimony.. hopefully, some folks will resile from this absurd description, taken verbatim from Roux and not the posters original idea, that these ear witnesses were mistaken.

The phrase used of Ms Burger , 'belligerent hostility. That was not an objective witness, nor a believable one' has been used quite often , like a sort of mantra....Because she did not change her testimony to suit the defence.. This is the job of a prosecutorial witness. A witness is not on the stand to agree with whichever way the wind is blowing at the time. This is such an obvious rationale, it shouldn't need repeating..

However.. I look forward to Judge Masipa' s detailed report on each witness.. . Ms Burger is not going to come out as hostile , mistaken , belligerent, or non-objective, or unbelievable. Neither is Mrs VanDerMewre, nor Mr Charles Johnson, nor Dr Johan Stipp, nor Mrs Annette Stipp..

 

[BatGunKick]

Well if you really like the yolks runny but the white set ...

Seriously though there are some very strange justifications out there for Oscar Pistorius. In addition to the ones you mention I saw one person try to argue that five hours wasn't long enough for an argument to reach murderous intensity. WTF.

I've gotten to the point with this trial where I believe that anyone still supporting OP's version with its chain of ludicrous events has blinkers firmly clamped on. For some I think it is playing devil's advocate (or just being contrary more like) whereas others are essentially Pistorians who try to disguise that under a veneer of 'just looking at the evidence', which always seem to involve more and more excuses for OP's behaviour in terms of that same evidence. The biggest red flag for me now is anyone criticising Nel's cross-examination of Pistorius. If those who say all they want is the truth were being truthful themselves they wouldn't be in the least bit offended or upset by OP, an admitted killer, being subjected to a few gruelling days in the witness box. JMO

BIB- I chuckled for 2min solid. :floorlaugh: