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

[jay-jay]

I'm curious as to when OP's mother's anxiety presented itself. Was it only at night? OP claims she slept with a gun under her pillow, yet during the day she allowed her children to play outside. So is that where OP gets his "anxiety issues" from and why they seem to "present themselves" at night as well? But then why isn't he more concerned with home security? Why "sleep" with balcony doors open, not making sure that the alarm is in proper working order, that his dogs will actually alert him to possible danger, that a broken downstairs window was fixed immediately, that he had bars installed on his windows, that any ladders were securely put up before dark, and that his cars were secured in the garage? His actions seem to be the total opposite of his words.

MOO

.. and let's just remind ourselves of how much OP's mother meant to him (since he managed to throw her under a bus several times throughout the trial so far) .. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...spirational-late-mother-Sheila-Pistorius.html .. terrible, terrible woman she must've been! :facepalm::banghead:

 

[jay-jay]

Oooh .. from that link I just posted .. (BBM)

In an interview with Sportsmail before the London Olympics, Pistorius said: 'She was very special to us. She was very cool; a very hectic, free spirit. She didn't really comply with much and had a very carefree approach to life.

'She didn't take anything too seriously. she wrote us hundreds of letters and taught us hundreds of things and never made decisions for us.

'Those are important lessons, when you try to do things sometimes and you don't succeed and you give up, and you never really know what the potential could have been if you had stayed dedicated to something.'

And he paid tribute to her again after becoming the first double amputee to compete in the Olympic Games at London 2012.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...spirational-late-mother-Sheila-Pistorius.html

.. so no hint there then of her creating feelings of anxiety .. :facepalm:

 

[MsMarple]

There's no reason why he couldn't have had something like this installed on the inside though .. many big, expensive homes in London have them ..

ETA: .. and yes, you're right, why even buy the house in the first place if he's supposed to be that obsessed with security. Clearly he isn't that bothered.

That's actually kind of pretty, at least for security bars

For that matter one of those metal bars you lay accross the rail would work too. I've even used a sawed-off broomstick in the past. And of course locking the window in the first place helps too.

Funny how so many of us have simple security solutions that apparently never crossed OP's terrified mind. ullhair:

 

[44ALLAN]

Shouldn't matter what he's like now anyway. Obviously he's anxious and stressed. So he should be, he deserves it. The important thing is was he sane on the night of 13/14 Feb 2013 and I have neither seen nor heard anything to suggest that he wasn't.

I disagree quite strongly.

His girlfriend is a gorgeous/sexy model and he testified he went to sleep with his head 'burrowed/resting' on her tummy !!!

The man's insane IMO :blushing::floorlaugh:

 

[44ALLAN]

bbm


oh don't worry about it. it really isn't important... unless one is thinking of buying real estate in Pretoria.. which, frankly, no one has expressed any desire on that matter on this forum..

its just not an excessively large home. that's how it is.. . of course, that is subjective.. someone's not excessively large home may be someone else's palace, I don't know.. but for a gated estate thingy, Oscars place is mediocre.. and was very badly kept.. tiles falling off, windows broken, Jacuzzi broken, air conditioner broken..... interior decoration substandard..
???
why would anyone have been bidding in dollars for this place.. = $500,000?????

And

Nosey neighbours listening to every scream /shout and argument !!
No privacy at all eh ?

 

[44ALLAN]

The relationship of servant and 'master' or 'madam' is complicated...say no more....
BTW I have to say Malawians are awesome !

Well I may be controversial but I say stick a needle in their arm with truth serum in all trials then take the results as ' 1st base'

Sod human rights.

I have 3 kid's and if this was my 'trial' because OP had killed one of them then I want him to allow a truth drug in his arm.
It should be compulsory for murdering/thieving/raping.....................the list is endless.
I agree completely with innocent till proved guilty.
but.
No-one who is innocent would refuse this test..............no-one.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

IIRC burglar bars weren't allowed in the compound. Which leaves me scratching my head over why he didn't bother to lock the friikkin' windows. Hyper-vigilant, really? More like hyper-Pinocchioism... :liar:

Excellent point. Let's not forget the bedroom doors that apparently did not lock properly and needed to be reinforced with the cricket bat. Pretty sure with a construction crew on hand doing repairs Jan and Feb they could have fixed that in a pinch....but wait painting was more important then safety:facepalm:

 

[jay-jay]

That's actually kind of pretty, at least for security bars

For that matter one of those metal bars you lay accross the rail would work too. I've even used a sawed-off broomstick in the past. And of course locking the window in the first place helps too.

Funny how so many of us have simple security solutions that apparently never crossed OP's terrified mind. ullhair:

.. yes, funny that isn't it?! :genie:

 

[jay-jay]

Excellent point. Let's not forget the bedroom doors that apparently did not lock properly and needed to be reinforced with the cricket bat. Pretty sure with a construction crew on hand doing repairs Jan and Feb they could have fixed that in a pinch....but wait painting was more important then safety:facepalm:

Yes, but don't forget there was a real problem with that door in the way that it would shrink one minute and then swell the next due to the humidity .. I don't think Mr Repairman would've known whether he was coming or going with it :scared:

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Yes, but don't forget there was a real problem with that door in the way that it would shrink one minute and then swell the next due to the humidity .. I don't think Mr Repairman would've known whether he was coming or going with it :scared:

:floorlaugh: My mistake!

 

[james83]

I doubt his disability will play much of a part, as he's heard numerous noises before, and hasn't shot anyone dead.

Well would you believe it, look who apparently agree's with you, or at least she did back on April 4th

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion weekend Thread #18

 

[east2west]

A policeman confirmed Mr Chiziweni had been sleeping in a room off the kitchen and was awake when they arrived... Police said Frank Chizweni spoke good English, but upon request "What did you hear?” replied: “No, no, no, I didn't hear anything”... Police had been unconvinced by his response: “We were all asking ourselves how he could not have heard anything,” he said...

Usually when someone responds after a binary question with "No No No", they indeed mean to say "Yes Yes Yes". "No" would have been suffice. Every word after the first "No" probably was subterfuge.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[CriLondon]

Usually when someone responds after a binary question with "No No No", they indeed mean to say "Yes Yes Yes". "No" would have been suffice. Every word after the first "No" probably was subterfuge.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Spot on , quality answer imo

 

[minor4th]

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...

I really don't think it's the defense case that it's ok to shoot someone because the shooter is paranoid and suffers from an anxiety disorder. I think this was brought up only to explain how it could be believable that OP did actually think there was an intruder and that he was trying to protect himself.

That's the first hurdle - whether it's possible that OP really did think an intruder was about to attack him.

The next hurdle, if it's possible OP really thought a bad guy was about to attack him, is to determine whether OP's response to that perceived threat was reasonable or excessive.

So I don't think the GAD and history of paranoia (overreacting) does anything for OP other than support the possibility that his version is true. It wouldn't excuse his conduct though if it is found that he over reacted or used excessive force

 

[Feynman]

It's been going on for 7 years on the Madeleine McCann forum, longer on Jonbenet's.

There is a section of society who is extremely gullible.

These OP supporters for example - I mean, wth?

I believe you are totally unbalanced if you think that someone blowing an unknown person away through a locked bathroom door, is acceptable, ON ANY LEVEL.

But there you go.

Some Americans believe "shoot first ask questions later" which means they can justify his actions to themselves.

Absolutely remarkable to those of us with common sense and working brains and a sense of social justice, but there you go.

South Africa has always been where America is headed.

Ugly society, deeply ugly, gun and crime ridden. This is where the USA is headed, some parts are already there.

Sad. Avoidable. Worst of all, it nurtures evil and gives it credibility.

SA has always been where America is headed? So the US was headed to apartheid in the 60's? Don't think so.

On crime, it's worth noting that violent crime in the US is down, way down, over the last few decades. You can look this up anywhere. For example, see

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html

So how is it the US is headed towards the crime rates in SA?

 

[G.bng]

respectfully ✄ for focus:

And how can they tell if his self-reported night terrors of being unable to sleep, smelling blood, hiding in cupboards, etc. are true without observing him while he sleeps? I suppose his sister could verify being called in the middle of the night to 'comfort' OP but that doesn't establish a persistent pattern.

The court ordered evaluation is not about OP's present mental, e.g. whether his claims about "✄... night terrors of being unable to sleep, smelling blood, hiding in cupboards, etc....✄" are true or false, therefore what would be the benefit of "✄... observing him while he sleeps... ✄" since these correspond to his alleged mental state since the night he killed Reeva not at the time he shot her which is the court's enquiry.

Indeed WTH would it demonstrate even if OP's claims of sleepless nights and smelling blood etc. were proven 100% true? At very most that he suffers from PTSD since shooting Reeva but irrelevant to the time of the offence, and he could be suffering PTSD whether he intentionally murdered Reeva or he mistakenly took her for an intruder (ask Dewani!) so even if they were determined to be true it would take the court no nearer to the truth of that night as they mean zilch in respect of whether he had diminished criminal responsibility "at the time of the commission of the offence" the purpose of the evaluation and the only question the court has required it to answer.
JMOSNNFS,I,OR☯

 

[Lochlynsmom]

I really don't think it's the defense case that it's ok to shoot someone because the shooter is paranoid and suffers from an anxiety disorder. I think this was brought up only to explain how it could be believable that OP did actually think there was an intruder and that he was trying to protect himself.

That's the first hurdle - whether it's possible that OP really did think an intruder was about to attack him.

The next hurdle, if it's possible OP really thought a bad guy was about to attack him, is to determine whether OP's response to that perceived threat was reasonable or excessive.

So I don't think the GAD and history of paranoia (overreacting) does anything for OP other than support the possibility that his version is true. It wouldn't excuse his conduct though if it is going that he over reacted or used excessive force

The flaw with this is he advanced on the perceived threat so he was no longer in punitive self defense mode. And can you please remind me...we are up to the 3rd defense now right? Or is this 4th?

 

[Feynman]

Yep, it kind of makes one think that OP liked the house well enough w/o burglar bars to go ahead and purchase it. How exactly does that fit with his high anxiety over safety?:scared:

Standar testified burglar bars were permitted only if they were part of the original construction and cannot be added afterwards.

http://cnnworldlive.cnn.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_trial_4?Page=114

We've actually discussed this point a million times. Open balcony windows, car in the driveway, etc. Yet paranoid about crime. Doesn't make sense.

Yet we have witnesses (friend who stayed over, Samantha Taylor, his own Tweet) to his "gun drawn hyper-vigilance" after hearing noises in the house. I guess I don't know why we keep discussing this. People can be inconsistent, sometimes wildly so, on topic X without lying about X.

Really, I doubt Masipa is going to spend too much time on this.

 

[Carmelita]

I doubt his disability will play much of a part, as he's heard numerous noises before, and hasn't shot anyone dead.

I have read this position many times before and I have not responded because it seems to be such odd reasoning to me that I can barely wrap my head around it.

Anyhow the simple answer is that Oscar in the two incidences that I am aware of did not shoot because in incident (one) Oscar entered a room gun drawn where he immediately saw his friend and the friend said that he had made the noise, the second incident, we don’t really know a lot about, other than Oscar said that he went into “full recon mode” when he heard the washing machine going upon his arrival home, did he draw a gun? I don’t think that is a known, he was awake, he was most likely alert, and on his prostheses when he went into “full recon mode” because of the washing machine noise and satisfactorily found the source of the noise.

So personally I don’t see the perpetual comparisons of those two incidents and the killing of Reeva under the scenario that “Oscar pulled his gun before when he heard noises and no one was shot so why did he shoot this time.” It is very peculiar logic to me.

JMO

 

[G.bng]

Hi and welcome!!!

Well , there are 2 groups ( from what i've seen so far , one more numerous than the other!) and it more or less goes as follows:

- The DT argued so badly against the evaluation as it could , potentially , open very dangerous avenues to OP's actual state of mind. This goes along with a theory that his DT would have had him assessed way before the trial started and could , potentially, know what it means to have OP assessed and what the following report for the court would contain.

- The DT introduced DR.V as witness late into the trial due to realizing that their case wasn't strong enough for acquittal . Hoping Dr.V testimony would be used for mitigation/sentencing . In short , they were foreseeing a conviction and hoped the GAD diagnosis would be used to make the stay in jail a bit shorter. In fighting the State's request , they were probably trying to disguise the fact that they introduced this witness so late into the trial which could be seen by the court as a desperate measure.

I'm not saying any of this is correct , or that any of it is what i personally think...i think only the evaluation report will give answers to your questions...and mine for that matter.

:seeya:

BIB I agree the DT had OP assessed/evaluated, but IMO not "✄... way before the trial started... ✄" rather just as the trial ended! What Dr Vorster did was in effect an evaluation of OP's "mental state at the time of offence" even if not as complete as it probably should have been, i.e. she interviewed OP in depth twice, interviewed persons in his circle etc., and IIRC she read his testimony (or watched the video), and read a few court papers. In the US and UK the same evaluations can often be 3 intensive interviews, collateral interviews with a subject's circle and others, with the rest of the investigation looking into past history, psychiatric and criminal, court papers, etc. Snap!
JMHOSNNFS,I,OR☯