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

[G.bng]

I suppose, since he just shot the dog and not the horrified owner....

Where does it say something about "the horrified owner"?

I have been horrified myself trying to help a badly injured animal out of it's misery, but not having the means, or the courage, to do it myself. And not finding anyone with any compassion willing to help having to drive several hours with a terrified animal, a stray dog, cat, deer, duck, agonising, in the back to get to the nearest emergency vet where they had to euthanise the poor thing but after 2, 3 or 4 hours of unnecessary suffering.

 

[G.bng]

You seriously think OP shouldn't be prosecuted for this? :facepalm:

I do think OP should be prosecuted, whether for murder or CH is separate point, but I think I understand the poster's point. With so many from the US where you can shoot a scrawny 18 year-old Japanese student for simply knocking on your front door to ask the way, just because you "perceive" them to be armed and about to make a violent attack when they are not even armed, makes a bit of a quandry of whether fighting to change laws over there might be a good role model for the rest of the world some of which unfortunately seems to tend to follow suit. JMHOSNNFS,I,OR

 

[Fuskier]

Well I think this is just another indication that his whole story is a completely ridiculous fabrication.

Don't tell me OP did not have some means of contacting Frank in an emergency via panic button or mobile phone.

Surely this blows his whole "I was so afraid for Reeva and myself and the only thing to do was get my gun for protection" story out of the water? it was ludicrous when it was just the two of them in the house, because all they had to do was push the panic button and go downstairs. Now it is clear that there was another man in the house it is just pathetic.

BBM Valid query IMO. Frank's employed role needs to be explored further. Gardener? Manservant? If manservant, then OP most likely had a means of 'calling' for his attendance inside the house. [In the past, employers used a bell, now probably an electronic means of calling]. If so, then did he or did he not call Frank for assistance or to open the front door? It is a fact: Frank was outside with Security when the Standers arrived.

 

[nastasya]

It sounds like you're saying that we don't even need a trial ...

OP admitted to killing Reeva.

The purpose of the trial was for OP to present a case that would explain how the admitted killing of the victim was not a violation of SA murder laws.

OP has been afforded ample opportunity to present his case. He has changed his explanation from saying he intended to shoot and intruder, to now saying he didn't intend to shoot the intruder, but that the gun went off in his hand.

He has been forced to add explanations for the state's evidence, like the broken bedroom door.

He has taken the opportunity to testify at his trial that he accidentally shot Reeva and purposely broke down his own the left side of his bedroom door from the outside minutes after the shooting.

Right.

:jail:

 

[JudgeJudi]

<Respectfully snipped>

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..

Exactly. She didn't change her testimony under brutal cross-examination, and why would she? She knows what she heard and no amount of relentless badgering was going to change her mind. She was awoken at 3am by the sound of a woman screaming very loudly. The woman screamed for help. She then heard a man&#8217;s voice scream for help 3 times. She said the woman&#8217;s screaming got worse and described it as blood-curdling, like someone who was in fear for her life. The woman&#8217;s screams escalated and 4 shots then followed. There was a noticeable pause after the first shot and then 3 additional shots rang out. There was some screaming throughout the duration of the shots, but it became quiet after that.

She was adamant that's what she heard and I see no reason at all for her to modify her testimony. Roux didn't like it one little bit but he couldn't break her. Why is it that it's only the PT who gets hauled over the coals for their style of cross-examination. Roux was, and I'll repeat it, brutal. I've seen many, many trials and I've never seen this sort of onerous badgering before. What's good for the goose is good for the gander IMO.

 

[katydid23]

BBM Valid query IMO. Frank's employed role needs to be explored further. Gardener? Manservant? If manservant, then OP most likely had a means of 'calling' for his attendance inside the house. [In the past, employers used a bell, now probably an electronic means of calling]. If so, then did he or did he not call Frank for assistance or to open the front door? It is a fact: Frank was outside with Security when the Standers arrived.

That ^^^ is a HUGE issue for me as well. If OP truly thought there were intruders, why wouldn't he call Frank for back up and/or to warn him.

It is also very odd that he claims to know nothing, and that he heard nothing. If he truly 'heard nothing', wouldn't that be helpful for OP? Why wouldn't Frank come forward to say that he heard nothing that evening? Maybe because that is not possible? We know he got dressed and went out front right at the time that security was arriving. So he had to know something was going on.

But the major issue for me is this: WHY didn't OP seek his immediate help after the shooting? Why call Stander for 'help' moving Reeva when you have a man servant right downstairs? Why yell 'help, help' out on the balcony when you have someone helpful at your beck and call?

I think this is the elephant in the living room. Why are both the PT and the DT ignoring Frank's existence and his silence, knowing he was present when the tragedy unfolded?

I don't think it is possible that he did not hear anything. I think it is obvious that he did hear soothing, which prompted him to get dressed and go outside.

But why didn't he go upstairs and assist his boss? Or call security? So strange that he was standing outside, like a random bystander, and not taking part in the event. If it was purely accidental, wouldn't Frank have run upstairs to help carry Reeva and help his boss?

 

[vansleuths]

So.... according to this, under South African law, it's institution or prison tomorrow for Oscar:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news...storius-denies-sinister-remark-reeva-s-friend

Opinions are all over the map.

From Twitter Oscar Pistorius will be referred to the Weskoppies psychiatric hospital tomorrow - as an outpatient. via eNCAnews

 

[Trooper]

That ^^^ is a HUGE issue for me as well. If OP truly thought there were intruders, why wouldn't he call Frank for back up and/or to warn him.

It is also very odd that he claims to know nothing, and that he heard nothing. If he truly 'heard nothing', wouldn't that be helpful for OP? Why wouldn't Frank come forward to say that he heard nothing that evening? Maybe because that is not possible? We know he got dressed and went out front right at the time that security was arriving. So he had to know something was going on.

But the major issue for me is this: WHY didn't OP seek his immediate help after the shooting? Why call Stander for 'help' moving Reeva when you have a man servant right downstairs? Why yell 'help, help' out on the balcony when you have someone helpful at your beck and call?

I think this is the elephant in the living room. Why are both the PT and the DT ignoring Frank's existence and his silence, knowing he was present when the tragedy unfolded?

I don't think it is possible that he did not hear anything. I think it is obvious that he did hear soothing, which prompted him to get dressed and go outside.

But why didn't he go upstairs and assist his boss? Or call security? So strange that he was standing outside, like a random bystander, and not taking part in the event. If it was purely accidental, wouldn't Frank have run upstairs to help carry Reeva and help his boss?

The odd part about Frank.. Frank , Frank .. where are you ,Frank? .. is that no one, no other person mentioned him except Carise.. was it a slip up?? I just don't know. Baba didn't mention Frank, Dr Stipp didn't mention Frank, Standar didn't, Van Rensburg didn't.. he just suddenly appeared up from the floorboards in a puff of sulphur in Carise's testimony. He walked, he talked, he was dressed , at 3.27am, he lived and breathed, and then , poof!!.. gone!!..

 

[Harmony 2]

mod note:

Once court commences, we will be remaining on this current thread since it is still fairly new and there aren't many pages.

Please bump up this post, as necessary, so others can be aware that there will not be a new thread for the day's proceedings.

Thank you!

 

[Suthrnqt]

mod note:

Once court commences, we will be remaining on this current thread since it is still fairly new and there aren't many pages.

Please bump up this post, as necessary, so others can be aware that there will not be a new thread for the day's proceedings.

Thank you!

Bump....

 

[Fuskier]

That ^^^ is a HUGE issue for me as well. If OP truly thought there were intruders, why wouldn't he call Frank for back up and/or to warn him.

It is also very odd that he claims to know nothing, and that he heard nothing. If he truly 'heard nothing', wouldn't that be helpful for OP? Why wouldn't Frank come forward to say that he heard nothing that evening? Maybe because that is not possible? We know he got dressed and went out front right at the time that security was arriving. So he had to know something was going on.

But the major issue for me is this: WHY didn't OP seek his immediate help after the shooting? Why call Stander for 'help' moving Reeva when you have a man servant right downstairs? Why yell 'help, help' out on the balcony when you have someone helpful at your beck and call?

I think this is the elephant in the living room. Why are both the PT and the DT ignoring Frank's existence and his silence, knowing he was present when the tragedy unfolded?

I don't think it is possible that he did not hear anything. I think it is obvious that he did hear soothing, which prompted him to get dressed and go outside.

But why didn't he go upstairs and assist his boss? Or call security? So strange that he was standing outside, like a random bystander, and not taking part in the event. If it was purely accidental, wouldn't Frank have run upstairs to help carry Reeva and help his boss?

Further, did Reeva call/text Frank for assistance? Given that it was possible, it is amazing that such questions have not been put before the Court IMO. Reeva may have called/texted Frank, OP may have countered that call/text. It's not impossible as it seems likely to have been a domestic argument that night before the shooting. MOO

 

[G.bng]

Any half-way decent person would be angry at themselves more than anyone else.

I'd still like to know if OP's supporters on here think he should have been given bail in the first place, if they care to respond.

Because most of us think he shouldn't have got bail in the first place.

I "care to respond" with this explanation written for another poster (above) even though I am neither a so called "OP supporter" nor "a NON OP supporter" either of which for me would be untenable.

It is not about what you, I, or anyone "thinks", but about what is written into law. And Courts don't determine according to what "most of us think" either, but by pondered laws, statutes, codes, precedents and ratiocinated argument. So to decide using facts and law, (and not just thoughts and emotions rarely the best of advisers), whether OP was dealt what SA law dictates or if he was given "special treatment" in his bail application as many object, I suggest you and others may like to read this dissertation linked here: "Oscar Pistorius and the granting of bail" from 19 February 2013. A legal reasoning by the constitutional and human rights lawyer Pierre De Vos who is also neither an OP "supporter" nor a "pistorion", nor is he one of too many bottom feeders hitched on to the OP trial band wagon, but a scholar and an equality activist who when he writes it is to say something about human rights and constitutional law so as to promote a better understanding of their importance, significance, and how they are meant to work.

The article is too long and dense to either resume or quote from meaningfully, so you or any others interested would have to read it if you haven't already, but the author shows how it was the South African laws and constitution that allowed OP's bail, not celebrity or wealth, and to firmly site his point into the ambit of human rights, equality, and fairness, the author ends with a sobering reminder about whom such laws (whether in SA, UK, or anywhere else) are written to protect... All of us! :

From, Constitutionally Speaking - Pierre de Vos (19 February 2013)
I know this is not a popular point to make. I am also aware that some people might wrongly believe that in pointing this out, I am demonstrating an insufficiently abhorrence of the crime that Pistorius is being charged with. But I would invoke the words of Justice Arthur Chaskalson in S v Makwanyane to answer this conceptually muddled charge:

The very reason for establishing the new legal order, and for vesting the power of judicial review of all legislation in the courts, was to protect the rights of minorities and others who cannot protect their rights adequately through the democratic process. Those who are entitled to claim this protection include the social outcasts and marginalised people of our society. It is only if there is a willingness to protect the worst and the weakest amongst us, that all of us can be secure that our own rights will be protected.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Oscar Pistorius will be back in court Tuesday to find out when he will get his head examined.

No mincing words. :floorlaugh:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/oscar-pistorius-learns-start-date-evaluation-tuesday-article-1.1798113

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news...storius-denies-sinister-remark-reeva-s-friend
Oscar Pistorius: will athlete receive 'special treatment'?
Under South African law, Pistorius must go into hospital or prison tomorrow, says criminal lawyer
Mon 19 May 2014
South African courts look set to face allegations of "special treatment" if Oscar Pistorius is not placed in custody tomorrow.
"...Mannie Witz, a criminal lawyer with the Bridge Group at the Johannesburg Bar, has said that under South Africa's Criminal Procedure Act Pistorius must be treated as an inpatient because he did not volunteer for the evaluation.
"He didn't ask to be referred, he opposed it," said Witz, who has been an advocate for more than 35 years and according to CNN once taught Judge Masipa. This means Pistorius would have to go immediately into custody, either in hospital or prison, once he is formally referred tomorrow.

... unless OP is awarded 'special treatment'.

 

[G.bng]

I suppose if one wanted to psychoanalyze this incident, you could come to the conclusion that he was subconsciously putting himself in the dog's place and thinking that in those conditions he'd be better off dead.

My oldest son who has TS with OCD and we believe he may also have a milder form of Asperger's, certainly struggles with suicidal thoughts, he's actually made 3 attempts, though so far they've all been cries for help as they were all committed where he could be rescued. Definitely stressful for everyone, talk about walking on eggshells... anyway, point is that when feeling low he wishes he hadn't been born.

So sorry to hear about you son. You don't say how old but I hope he may "grow out" of it if that's a possibility. My OH has one severely and one profoundly learning disabled adult sons (40s). Both have OCD to a greater or lesser degree and one a mild form of autism. They are cared for at home and need 24/7 attention and support and I know only too well the worries and that's without the addition of suicidal or aggressive thoughts. Their constant need for watching and attention is stress enough already!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I "care to respond" with this explanation written for another poster (above) even though I am neither a so called "OP supporter" nor "a NON OP supporter" either of which for me would be untenable.

It is not about what you, I, or anyone "thinks", but about what is written into law. And Courts don't determine according to what "most of us think" either, but by pondered laws, statutes, codes, precedents and ratiocinated argument. So to decide using facts and law, (and not just thoughts and emotions rarely the best of advisers), whether OP was dealt what SA law dictates or if he was given "special treatment" in his bail application as many object, I suggest you and others may like to read this dissertation linked here: "Oscar Pistorius and the granting of bail" from 19 February 2013. A legal reasoning by the constitutional and human rights lawyer Pierre De Vos who is also neither an OP "supporter" nor a "pistorion", nor is he one of too many bottom feeders hitched on to the OP trial band wagon, but a scholar and an equality activist who when he writes it is to say something about human rights and constitutional law so as to promote a better understanding of their importance, significance, and how they are meant to work.

The article is too long and dense to either resume or quote from meaningfully, so you or any others interested would have to read it if you haven't already, but the author shows how it was the South African laws and constitution that allowed OP's bail, not celebrity or wealth, and to firmly site his point into the ambit of human rights, equality, and fairness, the author ends with a sobering reminder about whom such laws (whether in SA, UK, or anywhere else) are written to protect... All of us! :

I'm afraid I disagree, OP has shown to be a public nuisance and should not have been granted bail. jmo This incident should have been investigated further imo.

What is of primary importance is whether his legal representative had provided evidence of exceptional circumstances that would demonstrate to the court that Pistorius had not been involved in similar crimes in the past, that he does not pose a flight risk or a threat to other members of the public and that he will not interfere with the investigation. If they had shown this, Pistorius should be granted bail.

A witness at the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius has said the South African athlete was responsible for a weapon being fired at a restaurant last year.

Restaurant owner Jason Loupis then took the stand and told the court that 220 diners had been present at the time of the incident, and confirmed that Mr Fresco had taken the blame for the gunshot.

His wife, Maria, also testified, saying a child had been sitting at the table next to the group.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26445206

Also, OP firing the gun through the sunroof of his friend's car. OP is definitely using his fame and celebrity to literally get away with murder. jmo.

 

[anagrammy]

Sounds likely, knowing his need for control.

It could also have been an argument about Reeva simply not wanting sex that nite.
He seems to fly off the handle for anything. The fact that he was watching *advertiser censored* alone earlier has always always raised my curiosity. According to Oscar they were both in bed asleep at 10pm which seems a little off to me too.

No point ever wondering tho. We'll never know the answer.

What we do know is this:

Reeva had a present for him with a card that said "I love you" and he had nothing for her.

While his gorgeous girlfriend was cooking, he was upstairs looking at *advertiser censored*.

After they ate stir-fry, she asked him to look at her contract, even though she is an attorney and he is not. She was probably proud of the contract.

We know she had a speech to give the next day and planned to get home early to get lots of rest.

She never slipped into something sexy to entice him.

The argument moved around the house, according to ear-witnesses.

--------
I have a hunch the argument was about her speech. After proudly showing him her contract, it seems natural that she would practice her speech on him. This presentation was on domestic violence and we know that OP had a DV case pending in the court against him already. He had also had recent violent or threatening encounters with a number of people, including Bachelor, the sunroof incident, the restaurant gun shooting, the rudeness Reeva referred to, etc.

Now we know how OP makes everything about himself, right? Doesn't it seem likely that he would be horrified that she was going to talk about violent boyfriends AND THAT THE MEDIA WOULD THINK IT WAS HIM!

He would absolutely freak and accuse Reeva of embarrassing him and the nerve of her to come up with such a speech right when he's going through his "hurdle." He would be thinking only of himself and accuse her of being insensitive and ORDER her to cancel her speaking engagement.

Reeva seldom stood up to OP because, according to her friends, she avoided any form of negative publicity, but this time he was striking at something which was her passion, a cause she very much cared about.

OP cannot be told "no" and the rest of the tragic evening unfolded with OP sending out that text to the Myers and him confiscating her telephones, throwing all the phones in the toilet as she was dying to make it look like she could have called the police any time, when in fact, he either confiscated them and/or broke them to keep her from reporting his earlier violence.

It's true that we will never know what happened, but I feel the issue at stake had to be a strong one for Reeva to go against the one she loved.

 

[fox1lady]

It is not hard for me to understand that if one was innocent of a deliberate and premeditated murder but had to face those charges it would be a profoundly difficult thing. If I somehow in some alternate universe accidentally shot a person I cared about I would be angry at cops like Botha leaking my 'guilt' to the media and at prosecutors' selective recounting of my life and their wrong and bombastic accusations. It's only human, and being ground up in the machines of justice is hard if they've got it wrong in some real and important way. To me this is about empathy among other things. You are either broadly capable of it, or you're not. You don't have to like Oscar or be any less angry about Reeva's death to get that he might reasonably be angry too.

I'm sorry but I just think anyone who picked up a gun after hearing a noise in their tiny toilet and shot four times, killing someone who was no threat to them deserves to be locked up for a very long time. I don't care what their name is!!!

 

[jassy writer]

<modsnip>

We have millions of people living here in SA, and many of our millions are firearm owners.

There have been two cases I know of where family members have been mistaken for intruders. And I am not including OP's scenario in this!

 

[lithgow1]

I "care to respond" with this explanation written for another poster (above) even though I am neither a so called "OP supporter" nor "a NON OP supporter" either of which for me would be untenable.

It is not about what you, I, or anyone "thinks", but about what is written into law. And Courts don't determine according to what "most of us think" either, but by pondered laws, statutes, codes, precedents and ratiocinated argument. So to decide using facts and law, (and not just thoughts and emotions rarely the best of advisers), whether OP was dealt what SA law dictates or if he was given "special treatment" in his bail application as many object, I suggest you and others may like to read this dissertation linked here: "Oscar Pistorius and the granting of bail" from 19 February 2013. A legal reasoning by the constitutional and human rights lawyer Pierre De Vos who is also neither an OP "supporter" nor a "pistorion", nor is he one of too many bottom feeders hitched on to the OP trial band wagon, but a scholar and an equality activist who when he writes it is to say something about human rights and constitutional law so as to promote a better understanding of their importance, significance, and how they are meant to work.

The article is too long and dense to either resume or quote from meaningfully, so you or any others interested would have to read it if you haven't already, but the author shows how it was the South African laws and constitution that allowed OP's bail, not celebrity or wealth, and to firmly site his point into the ambit of human rights, equality, and fairness, the author ends with a sobering reminder about whom such laws (whether in SA, UK, or anywhere else) are written to protect... All of us! :

Thanks for the link - I read it, somewhat bleary eyed and a bit too foggy to take it all in at this time in the morning. One thing I did note though was:

'But section 60(11) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for an exception to this general rule. It states that where an accused is charged with planned or premeditated murder; ... the court must deny bail unless the accused can prove to the court that &#8220;exceptional circumstances exist which in the interests of justice permit his or her release&#8221;.

I still cannot see what 'exceptional circumstances' existed in this case though obviously the judge saw some. From this admittedly hurried reading there also seems to be some weight placed on the fact that at the time of the bail hearing the accused had yet to be charged with 'premeditated murder'. I don't get that bit as I thought he had been charged. Anyway of course I'd bow to his greater knowledge of the law, though he should consider using a proofreader.

Re the comment about 'so-called OP supporters': the day people stop claiming 'confirmation bias' against those who have watched the trial and come to their conclusions is the day I'll stop labelling them as 'supporters'.