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

[Gryffindor]

You're right, it probably wouldn't be televised if he wasn't well known, but he most certainly would would be on trial right now regardless.

I don't understand your opposition to it being televised. After all, you've been watching it yourself.

Where did I say I disagreed with it?

 

[anagrammy]

This is an off the wall question, but it is something that has been bothering me.

It's about the toilet. We saw streaks on the toilet bowl from the flushing jets underthe lip of the toilet, which meant that the toilet had been flushed and wetness existed in some places. Reeva's blood did not stick to the moist areas.

Doesn't that mean that OP flushed the toilet while she was still bleeding into the bowl? Or is there some other explanation?

 

[Val1]

For the life of me I can't remember. (Imagine that) So I am asking my wondeful fellow WSers for :help: Is it Uncle A or Daddy H that has a disparaging remark concerning women carved into an archway at his home?? Double bonus points if you recall the epitath. jk. TIA

Here's the article:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/special-features/oscar-pistorious/doors-trouble-pistorius-clan-since-1844-1.1677202

According to the website of the Maccauvlei Golf Club, located across the river from present-day Vereeniging, Carel Pistorius’s fierce misogyny and obdurate nature resulted in his being dubbed “Kwaai Angus” (Angry Angus) by his neighbours.

“This formidable character had a particular mistrust of women and cheques. His mistrust of women evinced by the fact that into his heavy wooden front door were carved the words 'Women Deceiveth Ever'.”

 

[Cherwell]

Oscar is charged with the deliberate murder of Reeva. If his story is fundamentally true he not only has a right to vigorously defend himself, he has a right to a degree of anger. If he was charged with accidentally shooting her, as others were, you might have a point.

"he has a right to a degree of anger"

:hand:

I've heard it all now.

 

[Really?]

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?.

Once again, thanks.....lmao

 

[nastasya]

Oscar is charged with the deliberate murder of Reeva. If his story is fundamentally true he not only has a right to vigorously defend himself, he has a right to a degree of anger. If he was charged with accidentally shooting her, as others were, you might have a point.

The thought that OP should be angry, even if his story is true, is pathetic.

The dumbass shot four times through a toilet door two minutes after his girlfriend was awake in bed beside him, asking him whether he was able to sleep.

Of course people have a right to be angry about anything. Only a total douche bag would be angry at anybody after killing somebody the way OP killed Reeva.

 

[44ALLAN]

Question: Why does anyone want to see his bail revoked or see him be committed for inpatient evaluation if outpatient would suffice?

My opinion is because he lied in his bail application and it should be revoked forthwith.
He said he mistook Reeva for an intruder but it is plain for every man woman and their dog he executed her...............the 5 witnesses to Reevas 'SCREAMS' have proved that beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Bang him up and throw the key away for at least 25 year then ask him again what happened on the night he deserves nothing.

I feel so sorry for his family having to play this charade.............they know what he did and it's heart breaking to watch their faces when his lies are proved to be lies.

How anyone cannot see this is beyond me it really is.

 

[lithgow1]

The thought that OP should be angry, even if his story is true, is pathetic.

The dumbass shot four times through a toilet door two minutes after his girlfriend was awake in bed beside him, asking him whether he was able to sleep.

Of course people have a right to be angry about anything. Only a total douche bag would be angry at anybody after killing somebody the way OP killed Reeva.

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.

 

[Val1]

I'm good thanks!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/24/oscar-pistorius-end-of-rainbow

Here's the bit in the article about the dog:

A couple of years ago, two journalist friends of mine spent an afternoon with Oscar Pistorius. For much of the time, they recall, Oscar was quiet and self-contained. And then, apropos of nothing, he told a story. He was driving on the outskirts of a black township, he said, when a dog ran under his wheels. In his rear-view mirror, he watched as it dragged itself off the road by its front legs, its hind legs useless to it now. Its back was clearly broken. He stopped and got out of his car to find that the dog's owner had come out on to the street, shouting, cursing, gesticulating. What to do? Oscar grabbed his gun, shot the dog through the back of the head and drove off.

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.

 

[nastasya]

He hasn't been found guilty of committing murder yet, either.

This is another sad diversion. He hasn't been found guilty yet in court. True.

What he has done is confess to grabbing a loaded 9 MM Parebellem, and then walking down two passages into another room to fire the gun at them, putting a bullet through the victim's brain.

So that makes him an admitted killer. It's now up to OP to prove that his killing of Reeva did not violate SA murder laws.

 

[minor4th]

My opinion is because he lied in his bail application and it should be revoked forthwith.

He said he mistook Reeva for an intruder but it is plain for every man woman and their dog he executed her...............the 5 witnesses to Reevas 'SCREAMS' have proved that beyond any doubt whatsoever.



Bang him up and throw the key away for at least 25 year then ask him again what happened on the night he deserves nothing.



I feel so sorry for his family having to play this charade.............they know what he did and it's heart breaking to watch their faces when his lies are proved to be lies.



How anyone cannot see this is beyond me it really is.

Well, that's what the trial is for, and if it is found that he executed his girlfriend as you say, then he will be locked up.

 

[Lyra500]

The thought that OP should be angry, even if his story is true, is pathetic.

The dumbass shot four times through a toilet door two minutes after his girlfriend was awake in bed beside him, asking him whether he was able to sleep.

Of course people have a right to be angry about anything. Only a total douche bag would be angry at anybody after killing somebody the way OP killed Reeva.

I am quoting this for truth as thanks are not enough.

I am afraid I have had to filter out a growing number of posts because they were doing nothing but send my blood pressure through the roof due to their combination of extreme reverence for OP, misconstruing of the facts, incredible explanations and justifications. Really, there comes a point when enough really is enough.

A vibrant lovely young woman with her whole life ahead of her was killed in the most terrifying and awful way. I would suggest that any tribulations which OP is undergoing are self inflicted and cannot compare to losing one's life in such a violent manner.

 

[jilly]

Quick question - Is the televising of this trial a one time event?

 

[minor4th]

In the interests of equality, or at least some semblance of it, is my answer to both parts of your question.

Why do you think he should have been granted bail in the first place and be assessed on an outpatient basis when neither of those are the norm in these particular circumstances?

I don't know that these circumstances are normal, so I don't really have anything to compare it to. But on the bail issue, I think the judge granted bail because of weaknesses he perceived in the state's case. As far as outpatient evaluation, my guess is because Masipa knows that GAD is something that requires involuntary commitment for inpatient services.

I don't see either of those decisions as really abnormal.

 

[Really?]

Question: Why does anyone want to see his bail revoked or see him be committed for inpatient evaluation if outpatient would suffice?

I do because he killed Reeva. A vital young woman who had so much to contribute......needlessly, recklessly....and IMO intentionally.

Let karma do it's thing......

 

[minor4th]

Can't speak for others but perhaps a plain sense of him being treated like any other defendant would? He is most definitely getting special treatment.

I don't know how it can be said he's getting special treatment - but the fact that he gets some favorable rulings is at least partially because he can afford a very good lawyer who knows how to present arguments.

 

[minor4th]

I do because he killed Reeva. A vital young woman who had so much to contribute......needlessly, recklessly....and IMO intentionally.



Let karma do it's thing......

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

 

[james83]

Once again, thanks.....lmao

You know the quote

I don't see myself as disabled. There's nothing I can't do that able-bodied athletes can do.

Soon he can replace the word athlete with prisoners.

 

[pandax81]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ

3min20s to 6min. Darren Fresco is giving evidence as a key witness to serious gun charges, in a murder trial. The camera is on the accused, unbeknown to him.

Does this look like an anxious man to you?

 

[lithgow1]

I don't know that these circumstances are normal, so I don't really have anything to compare it to. But on the bail issue, I think the judge granted bail because of weaknesses he perceived in the state's case. As far as outpatient evaluation, my guess is because Masipa knows that GAD is something that requires involuntary commitment for inpatient services.

I don't see either of those decisions as really abnormal.

From memory, most commentators said that granting bail for such a serious charge required showing special circumstances or similar wording. His fairly extensive sworn statement at the time (offered in lieu of actually taking the stand) was one way of him getting bail - apparantly most people just enter a plea and an application. You are probably right about the quality of his defence - Roux lacerated Det Botha at that hearing and that probably helped OP a lot.

However, I think you are mistaken about the perceived weakness of the state's case - the presiding judge had many issues with OP's version and they are mainly the 'oddities' we've been debating ever since. He also applied very strict bail conditions and Pistorius, despite saying at the time he would comply with anything the court imposed re bail, was appealing against them within months.