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

[Estelle]

The problem with the defense argument is that even an anxious person has a duty to exercise reasonable caution to avoid shooting through closed doors with intent to kill the person on the other side without determining if she be friend or foe and when the use of deadly force is not reasonably necessary to protect themselves from death or serious bodily injury.

Barry Roux knows this and that is why he so vigorously resisted the 30 day commitment. He also probably fears that the team will come back with the APD and/or NPD diagnosis.

http://frederickleatherman.com/2014...-game-why-defense-fears-pistorius-evaluation/

This is also what I believe to be the case.

 

[james83]

Didn't the earlier article describe Frank Chiziweni as living in a "Set-In district" from your quote? (I can't find that either and the Telegraph says I reached my limit.)

Is that a typical term for a type of room or a location of a room in relationship to the rest of the house? Could this room be on the opposite side from the upstairs bathroom?

What is particularly odd to me is not that Frank Chiziweni didn't hear anything, because the house may possibly be well-insulated, and it looks large, but that he was up and dressed when the Standers arrived. I wonder if the police asked him why he got up? Perhaps he did just hear the gunshots.

In which case he would have been a good witness for the defence because he didn't hear the alleged argument.
Frank doesn't want to get his boss locked and is unwilling to lie under oath, that is the only likely reason for his silence IMO.

 

[Cherwell]

This quote from that Telegraph article is food for thought:

Asked why the defence would not call Mr Chiziweni either, the source responded: “He is an employee of Mr Pistorius's. What you don’t hear can be as damaging as what you do.”

What is particularly odd to me is not that Frank Chiziweni didn't hear anything, because the house may possibly be well-insulated, and it looks large, but that he was up and dressed when the Standers arrived. I wonder if the police asked him why he got up? Perhaps he did just hear the gunshots.

The house doesn't look particularly large to me, especially in comparison with those around it which are much bigger. But I don't believe Frank heard nothing.

 

[Estelle]

http://news.iafrica.com/sa/939297.html

 

[CriLondon]

I actually have a question about the pics you posted, what does RS's face tell you? To me she looks sad, that smiling through her tears kind of look, in the first one(nbc) and the second(times) more confused.. like she's thinking, I got what I thought I wanted, now what?

Hi Val1,

It's very important to say that , even if one sees something there , one cannot know why.
There could be a million and one reasons why RS could appear to not be smiling genuinely. A sad phone call 5 minutes earlier? A photographer saying something silly? Something even simpler like a belly ache? (try and smile genuinely when you have belly cramps if you can !).
Or , something even simpler still , a simple pushed smile for the cameras for PR/contract purposes ?

I can only agree to the extent of the smile not being a complete/full expression of happiness (the eyes are only slightly involved) but to pin-point a reason , would be just imagining it.

JMO

 

[PrimeSuspect]

In which case he would have been a good witness for the defence because he didn't hear the alleged argument.
Frank doesn't want to get his boss locked and is unwilling to lie under oath, that is the only likely reason for his silence IMO.

I read in the article above, Frank actually was on the Prosecutor's list, but after PT's team questioned police, they remarked he heard and saw nothing. :drumroll:

 

[Estelle]

I am surprised Dr. Carly Danielle described the MMPI rather than its more recent iterations, the MMPI-2 and, especially relevant here, the MMPI-2-RF (MMPI-2-Restructured Form) which has only 338 questions but has some fairly exquisite scales to measure “faking good,” under-reporting, over-reporting, prevaricating and exaggerating. The MMPI, with over 500 questions, was primitive compared to the newer versions. I sure hope the government-run psych hospital is not still using the outdated forms!

IMO the defense is in real trouble with this ploy. Roux may be the best defense lawyer in the country down there but really, he should have had Pistorius totally evaluated BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN and then soberly and wisely considered how to present the information that resulted.

I’m not saying that Pistorius’s psychology was unrelated to the crime; obviously Fogen’s psychology was very much related to HIS crime (and his jury, suffering from the same psychosocial gangrene that affected him and stinking from it just as odiously) too. But if an insane level of rage engendered by running smack into the fact that your disaffected lover (or some “up to no good” stranger) does not have to bow to your every will and whim motives you to kill, does that mental defect make the act of killing un-criminal?

http://frederickleatherman.com/2014...-game-why-defense-fears-pistorius-evaluation/

 

[Fuskier]

Thank you for this link Estelle:http://news.iafrica.com/sa/939297.html

Impartiality
"...Both Del Fabbro and De Klerk emphasize that it is important for forensic mental health experts to remain impartial - they must not allow themselves to be pressured by the parties concerned...Del Fabbro said experts should "remain focused on one's responsibility to the court".

"The role of the psychologist as expert is not to argue for either the prosecution or defence but to remain an objective individual who assists the court in understanding certain aspects of the case," said Del Fabbro. "One may be called by either the prosecution or defence but this does not mean that one is arguing for either side."

"De Klerk said it is a good thing that the psychology behind the crimes has been considered, but that it should not be misused in court cases"...
"It should not serve the purpose of excusing behaviour that is purely criminal."

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Hi Val1,

It's very important to say that , even if one sees something there , one cannot know why.
There could be a million and one reasons why RS could appear to not be smiling genuinely. A sad phone call 5 minutes earlier? A photographer saying something silly? Something even simpler like a belly ache? (try and smile genuinely when you have belly cramps if you can !).
Or , something even simpler still , a simple pushed smile for the cameras for PR/contract purposes ?

I can only agree to the extent of the smile not being a complete/full expression of happiness (the eyes are only slightly involved) but to pin-point a reason , would be just imagining it.

JMO

How unfortunate there is no video of OP and Reeva together in an interview setting. I think you would have found something interesting.

 

[Estelle]

The validity scales in all versions of the MMPI-2 (MMPI-2 and RF) contain three basic types of validity measures: those that were designed to detect non-responding or inconsistent responding (CNS, VRIN, TRIN), those designed to detect when clients are over reporting or exaggerating the prevalence or severity of psychological symptoms (F, Fb, Fp, FBS), and those designed to detect when test-takers are under-reporting or downplaying psychological symptoms (L, K, S). A new addition to the validity scales for the MMPI-2-RF includes an over reporting scale of somatic symptoms scale (Fs).

Abbreviation New in version Description Assesses
CNS 1 "Cannot Say" Questions not answered
L 1 Lie Client "faking good"
F 1 Infrequency Client "faking bad" (in first half of test)
K 1 Defensiveness Denial/Evasiveness
Fb 2 Back F Client "faking bad" (in last half of test)
VRIN 2 Variable Response Inconsistency answering similar/opposite question pairs inconsistently
TRIN 2 True Response Inconsistency answering questions all true/all false
F-K 2 F minus K honesty of test responses/not faking good or bad
S 2 Superlative Self-Presentation improving upon K scale, "appearing excessively good"
Fp 2 F-Psychopathology Frequency of presentation in clinical setting
Fs 2-RF Infrequent Somatic Response Overreporting of somatic symptoms

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cherwell]

Hi Val1,

It's very important to say that , even if one sees something there , one cannot know why.
There could be a million and one reasons why RS could appear to not be smiling genuinely. A sad phone call 5 minutes earlier? A photographer saying something silly? Something even simpler like a belly ache? (try and smile genuinely when you have belly cramps if you can !).
Or , something even simpler still , a simple pushed smile for the cameras for PR/contract purposes ?

I can only agree to the extent of the smile not being a complete/full expression of happiness (the eyes are only slightly involved) but to pin-point a reason , would be just imagining it.

Note that she appears to be wearing a glossy or sparkly highlighter around her eyes in the first pic. That might be adding to the perceived "teary" effect.

 

[Estelle]

An overriding issue in any type of forensic assessment is the issue of malingering and deception. An evaluee may intentionally exaggerate or feign mental disorder symptoms. The forensic psychologist must always keep this possibility in mind. If the forensic psychologist has the opportunity to observe the evaluee across time and/or in diverses settings, the probability that he or she will detect deception likely increases as usually have difficulty maintaining false symptoms consistently over time and across situations.

In some criminal cases, the court views malingering or feigning illness as obstruction of justice and sentences the defendant accordingly. In United States v. Binion, malingering or feigning illness during a competency evaluation was held to be obstruction of justice and led to an enhanced sentence. As such, fabricating mental illness in a competency-to-stand-trial assessment now can be raised to enhance the sentencing level following a guilty plea.

Forensic psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Estelle]

The forensic psychologist may also be appointed by the court to evaluate the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense. These are defendants who the judge, prosecutor or public defender believe, through personal interaction with the defendant or through reading the police report, may have been significantly impaired at the time of the offense. In other situations, the defense attorney may decide to have the defendant plead not guilty by reason of insanity. In this case, usually the court appoints forensic evaluators and the defense may hire their own forensic expert. In actual practice, this is rarely a plea in a trial. A plea for insanity is actually used in only 1 in 1000 cases. Assessments that would be used can include the Mental State at time of Offense (MSO), an assessment that judges the individual's mental state when the offense was committed, helping to decide whether they should be held liable for the crime. The individual can also plea 'Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity' (NGRI) or 'Guilty but Mentally Ill' (GBMI), cases where the individual will start their sentence in a mental health facility and then complete it in a correctional facility. Usually any judgments about the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense are made by the court before the trial process begins.

Forensic psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Estelle]

Even in situations where the defendant's mental disorder does not meet the criteria for a not guilty by reason of insanity defense, the defendant's state of mind at the time, as well as relevant past history of mental disorder and psychological abuse can be used to attempt a mitigation of sentence. The forensic psychologist's evaluation and report is an important element in presenting evidence for sentence mitigation. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of a lower court because counsel did not thoroughly investigate the defendant's mental history in preparation for the sentencing phase of the trial. Specifically, the court stated that such investigation should include members of the defendant's immediate and extended family, medical history, and family and social history (including physical and mental abuse, domestic violence, exposure to traumatic events and criminal violence)

Forensic psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Estelle]

Forensic psychologists are frequently asked to make an assessment of an individual's dangerousness or risk of re-offending. They may provide information and recommendations necessary for sentencing purposes, grants of probation, and the formulation of conditions of parole, which often involves an assessment of the offender's ability to be rehabilitated. They are also asked questions of witness credibility and malingering. Occasionally, they may also provide criminal profiles to law enforcement

Forensic psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Estelle]

The ethical standards for a forensic psychologist differ from those of a clinical psychologist or other practicing psychologist because the forensic psychologist is not an advocate for the client and nothing the client says is guaranteed to be kept confidential. This makes evaluation of the client difficult, as the forensic psychologist needs and wants to obtain all information while it is often not in the client's best interest to provide it.

The client has no control over how that information is used. Despite the signing of a waiver of confidentiality, most clients do not realize the nature of the evaluative situation. Furthermore, the interview techniques differ from those typical of a clinical psychologist and require an understanding of the criminal mind and criminal and violent behavior. For example, even indicating to a defendant being interviewed that an effort will be made to get the defendant professional help may be grounds for excluding the expert's testimony.

Forensic psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Estelle]

http://bama.ua.edu/~jhooper/southaf.html

 

[Fuskier]

http://bama.ua.edu/~jhooper/southaf.html

Thank you Estelle. I found this article particularly informative. Your posts are educative and help us to gain a better grasp of the roles and limits of psych professionals in the evaluation. Appreciated.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

And there is a third opinion Roux was genuinely surprised that Nel brought capacity into the equation as Roux stated that he was not arguing whether or not Oscar knew the rightness or wrongness of his actions, Roux was not arguing whether Oscar had a break with reality ie Roux’s example was if a door had not been shut, a window had not been opened or closed and Oscar had only imagined those scenarios, then a referral would certainly be appropriate. IMO Roux was genuinely perplexed as he put Vorster on the stand to bolster Oscar’s defense of putative self-defense which in Oscar’s case incorporates his hyper response to a perceived home intruder.

The judge decided to grant the request of the referral on her terms which is an outpatient evaluation, in other words, she has covered all her bases. IMO the referral opens the door to a mental illness defect defense as to diminishing Oscar’s awareness of right and wrong if he thought there was an intruder in his toilet. If the state can prove Oscar knew Reeva was in the toilet and willfully shot her point blank then a mental health evaluation is pointless.


BTW I am interested in your analysis of Oscar's smile. When he has run a race or is relaxed he smiles with his whole face, red carpet events, still shots for interviews, his right eye squints slightly and his left side of his mouth turns slightly downward.

Thank you!

As much as some posters would like there to be a caveat in SA law that states, it is okay to shoot someone if you are paranoid and vulnerable there just isn't.

The defense trying to bring mitigation evidence in at this time turned out to be a disaster. IMO Diminished capacity on the night of the murder is not even an option. He was responsible for his actions and knew what he was doing. I believe any diagnosis will not bode well for OP or his defense team would have welcomed the evaluation and not fought so hard to stop it. Although some feel it was a brilliant ploy by Roux :floorlaugh:

Look at what most posters here feel he is afflicted with: impulse control issues, anger issues, control issues, maladaptive. How is he not a danger to other people? Being anxious is not a defense imo

Does anyone else feel that the longer this is dragging out the more damaging it is for the defense? Everything is being scrutinized and rehashed...

 

[Carmelita]

This quote from that Telegraph article is food for thought:

Asked why the defence would not call Mr Chiziweni either, the source responded: “He is an employee of Mr Pistorius's. What you don’t hear can be as damaging as what you do.”




The house doesn't look particularly large to me, especially in comparison with those around it which are much bigger. But I don't believe Frank heard nothing.

The house is 8000 square feet.