Trial Discussion Thread #37 - 14.05.12 Day 30

[BritsKate]

Surely she is intelligent enough to think "well this is odd that we are doing this 2 month's into the trial", the whole thing stinks of desperation, it's an utter joke.

It's not a coincidence she was brought in so late. Oscar's defence rests on his state of mind and he was a terrible witness to prove it himself. I think they were left with being forced to bolster anxiety/vulnerability as a result.

I'm not sure she really cares as long as she gets paid but the fact they brought her in so late was really a disservice to her as well.
It afforded her so little time - ironic that she so quickly came up with a dx that could have potentially helped the defence (until examined under scrutiny). Because of her testimony, I have a very strong suspicion much of her opinion is based on what she was told, and she took that at face value, rather than any testing. That weakens her diagnosis a fair bit. Unless I missed her conducting tests or she hasn't testified about them yet?

JMO

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[nastasya]

The "court shall" if a person is having a psychotic break, has the inability to distinguish right from wrong, that is when "the court shall" the witness made none of these claims about Oscar.


Roux is correct when he said the inability to act on right and wrong is not in question nor is the question of whether or not Oscar had a psychotic break when he killed Reeva. The witness, Dr. Voster has said it again and again. Nel’s would have better luck with a jury than judge Masipa with this particular shenanigan.




And just to be clear neither the witness Dr. Voster or Roux at any point indicated that Oscar is an immediate danger to himself or others in the present moment. He may be suicidal and Nel would do better to argue that point for a section rather than this nonsense of a long running psychotic break.


Good gravy, I realize it is a much more casual atmosphere than a US court but Nel argued for quite a bit to have the extraordinary latitude to re-examine Dr. Voster at his convenience, to which the judge seemed properly stunned.


Then finally he says “No more questions.”

Judge Masipa says, “Are you sure.”

To which Nel replies “My lady I’m not that sure about it.”

I also agree with whoever said that Nel seems absent minded, the judge said court will reconvene in an hour but because Nel asked for a break until 1:30 he went ahead and came back at 1:30.

Nel isn't the one on trial here.

The killer, Oscar Pisorius, is on trial for the premeditated killing of the victm.

Reeva is the victim, not Pistorius.

 

[MsMarple]

That was before today. He uses everyone and then just tosses them away when they've reached their use by date.

"My Lady, I saw no point in continuing to love my mother..."*



*This is a joke – he didn't really say it.:giggle:

 

[Carmelita]

There was a legal expert on the oscar radio that stated that Nel had to go this route, if he didn't he explained that Roux could use the diminished responsibility argument in his closing.

Roux can still use used diminished culpability in his closing argument, which will revolve around the "extreme situation" that Oscar thought he was in, Roux can state that Oscar's physical deformity and his anxiety disorder coupled together should be part of the judge's discernment process whilst she is coming to her decision.

As the good doctor said she is there to give the judge food for thought.


It is a very clever and proper introduction to the case and Nel is beside himself.

 

[james83]

The "court shall" if a person is having a psychotic break, has the inability to distinguish right from wrong, that is when "the court shall" the witness made none of these claims about Oscar.


Roux is correct when he said the inability to act on right and wrong is not in question nor is the question of whether or not Oscar had a psychotic break when he killed Reeva. The witness, Dr. Voster has said it again and again. Nel’s would have better luck with a jury than judge Masipa with this particular shenanigan.




And just to be clear neither the witness Dr. Voster or Roux at any point indicated that Oscar is an immediate danger to himself or others in the present moment. He may be suicidal and Nel would do better to argue that point for a section rather than this nonsense of a long running psychotic break.


Good gravy, I realize it is a much more casual atmosphere than a US court but Nel argued for quite a bit to have the extraordinary latitude to re-examine Dr. Voster at his convenience, to which the judge seemed properly stunned.


Then finally he says “No more questions.”

Judge Masipa says, “Are you sure.”

To which Nel replies “My lady I’m not that sure about it.”

I also agree with whoever said that Nel seems absent minded, the judge said court will reconvene in an hour but because Nel asked for a break until 1:30 he went ahead and came back at 1:30.

Your are wrong she said the mental order was dangerous and would have made him respond differently.
That was what made Nel spring into action.

 

[Fairynuff]

The "court shall" if a person is having a psychotic break, has the inability to distinguish right from wrong, that is when "the court shall" the witness made none of these claims about Oscar.


Roux is correct when he said the inability to act on right and wrong is not in question nor is the question of whether or not Oscar had a psychotic break when he killed Reeva. The witness, Dr. Voster has said it again and again. Nel’s would have better luck with a jury than judge Masipa with this particular shenanigan.




And just to be clear neither the witness Dr. Voster or Roux at any point indicated that Oscar is an immediate danger to himself or others in the present moment. He may be suicidal and Nel would do better to argue that point for a section rather than this nonsense of a long running psychotic break.


Good gravy, I realize it is a much more casual atmosphere than a US court but Nel argued for quite a bit to have the extraordinary latitude to re-examine Dr. Voster at his convenience, to which the judge seemed properly stunned.


Then finally he says “No more questions.”

Judge Masipa says, “Are you sure.”

To which Nel replies “My lady I’m not that sure about it.”

I also agree with whoever said that Nel seems absent minded, the judge said court will reconvene in an hour but because Nel asked for a break until 1:30 he went ahead and came back at 1:30.

nel asked vorster based on her evidence, is OP a danger? to which she replied "yes". she also stated clearly that he has GAD and because of this so called mental disorder, he is a danger. this led nel to apply the relevant sections of the act with immediate affect. whether or not it will applied by the judge will only be seen tomorrow.

 

[Carmelita]

Wasn't she great?, i especially loved the part where she confirmed Oscar had committed Dolus Eventualis, thanks Doc.

Yes I caught that also. I would guess Roux will clear it up or that Judge Masipa has the brights not to convict a man on a few sentence's that can easily be taken out of context. I doubt that Oscar said he intended to shoot the intruder but that is what the good doc inferred from the fact that he did shoot Reeva.

On this one I will have to just bank that the good judge is not a dullard.

 

[james83]

Yes I caught that also. I'm would guess Roux will clear it up or that Judge Masipa has the brights not to convict a man on a few sentence's that can easily be taken out of context. I doubt that Oscar said he intended to shoot the intruder but that is what the good doc inferred from the fact that he did shoot Reeva.

On this one I will have to just bank that the good judge is not a dullard.

In other words you caught that also, but as it not something that's positive towards Oscar your willing to discard it?.

 

[Carmelita]

Do you have a link. This sounds about right to me, but I'd like to listen myself rather than just base it on the posts. This whole working for a living thing is highly overrated :seeya:

Here you go, I think Dr. Voster comes in about an hour after video one starts :seeya:.

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 12 May 2014, Session 1 - YouTube


Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 12 May 2014, Session 2 - YouTube

IMO Nel is willfully ignorant on this point.

 

[DebinGA]

This is another article that i highly recommend.

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-05-12-pistorius-trial-week-8-day-1#.U3EW6fldV24

Another good one, James. This bit from Dr. Vorster confirmed something I've suspected and thought very important:

In sexual relationships he felt embarrassed revealing the extent of his disability, and this too heightened anxiety.

I think that's unquestionably true, and the main reason I've thought OP was most likely wearing his legs when he killed Reeva, since they'd argued for quite awhile and he wouldn't have done so on his stumps.

 

[whiterum]

@2:28:04

Vorster: "When exposed to a threat, Mr. Pistorius is more likely to respond with a fight response rather than a flight response as his physical capacity for flight is limited."

Now, if OP's physical capacity is such that flight is pretty much out of the question, then how in the world can he overcome that physical impairment to fight someone? Unless of course it is not a fair fight and OP has a gun. But even then, with that gun and the kick back that gun has, firing it while on his stumps while he has "limited mobility" and is "easily knocked off balance" is a better option than taking the 2 seconds it takes to put on his prosthetic legs and run for it?

MOO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GYBnyelinBI

Exactly, if his physical capacity is limited making it more likely that he would respond to a threat with a fight response rather than flight, what would have been his reaction if he had no gun handy.

On hearing the noise would he have walked on his stumps to confront the danger or would he have taken Reeva's hand and took flight through the bedroom door. I would expect it to be the latter, as I would presume that it is not his disability or anxiety that put him in the fight, not flight mode but his gun in hand and his ability and training in the use of it.

But IMO he was in fight mode because he knew all along who was in that toilet and she would have been more vulnerable than he would ever be on his stumps.

 

[Carmelita]

One thing I have to wonder, considering the limited and recent interviews, is whether she really even had the opportunity to consider malingering.

I really can't wait for the State's psych expert.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

I think that would have been a legitimate question for Nel to put before her and I assume he will ask it tomorrow when he has his wits about him.

 

[nastasya]

Exactly, if his physical capacity is limited making it more likely that he would respond to a threat with a fight response rather than flight, what would have been his reaction if he had no gun handy.

On hearing the noise would he have walked on his stumps to confront the danger or would he have taken Reeva's hand and took flight through the bedroom door. I would expect it to be the latter, as I would presume that it is not his disability or anxiety that put him in the fight, not flight mode but his gun in hand and his ability and training in the use of it.

But IMO he was in fight mode because he knew all along who was in that toilet and she would have been more vulnerable than he would ever be on his stumps.

Vorster just gave the PT the explanation for the murder -OP's personality causes him to "fight" instead of flee.

But it's still murder. She did a great job of meshing her observations of his personality with what happened.

He's an aggressor. The law doesn't stipulate that violent people with anxiety should be treated wit kid gloves. In fact, that's why they have the laws and put people who are dangerous in jail.

 

[Carmelita]

When Vorster was debating with Nel about the level of OP's GAD, and if it was severe or not, it was said that unless OP had delusions of people out to get him (paraphrasing) then she would not consider it (his GAD) to be of such where he would need a referral. Wouldn't the fact that OP has claimed while one the stand that not only are the SA police out to get him (my moving things around before taking photos to "frame him", stealing his watch, etc), but also some witnesses that testified against him are out to get him and willing to lie on the stand as well, be enough to say that OP is having said delusions?

MOO

No Voster is speaking clinically about delusions which cannot be physically true. Someone can have the misconception that their husband is cheating on them every night with a different woman and they may be wrong or right as it is a possibility. So it is not in the world of psychiatry considered delusional.

Now on the other hand if someone thinks their husband is having relations with a gerbil on the moon every night and sending her video tape of the event, that is delusional.

It is within the laws of physics that the police are out to get Oscar so it is not considered a delusion.

 

[BritsKate]

I think that would have been a legitimate question for Nel to put before her and I assume he will ask it tomorrow when he has his wits about him.

I highly doubt a defence psych expert would even begin to contemplate malingering, Nel's wits aside.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[DebinGA]

IIRC he also RAN back to the bedroom to don his prostheses.

Yes, and that was his second bathroom to bedroom "run". The first was the "feel around bed/curtains for Reeva and then try to shoulder-butt wc door open while still holding cocked gun" run.

 

[Karmady]

Karmady the link for the youtube of today's 1st session is above in my post. I'll get you the youtube for the 2nd session for today also.

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 12 May 2014, Session 2 - YouTube

Thanks so much Torismom. I haven't had a chance to watch yet, but having the links handy makes it easier. :seeya:

 

[Nausicaa]

Surely she is intelligent enough to think "well this is odd that we are doing this 2 month's into the trial", the whole thing stinks of desperation, it's an utter joke.

...so I'll double my invoice.

 

[Carmelita]

The killer's disability does not diminish his culpability, especially since the 9 mm Parabellum in his hand eliminated any actual vulnerability.

The fact is he intended to kill the person behind the toilet door. Case closed. :jail:

Voster testified to diminished culpability due to the confluence of his status as a double amputee and his psychiatric disorder of GAD, that is what happened, that is why Nel was so flustered.

 

[TorisMom003]

No Voster is speaking clinically about delusions which must cannot be physically true. Someone can have the misconception that their husband is cheating on them every night with a different woman and they may be wrong or right as it is a possibility. So it is not in the world of psychiatry considered delusional.

Now on the other hand if someone thinks their husband is having relations with a gerbil on the moon every night and sending her video tape of the event, that is delusional.

It is within the laws of physics that the police are out to get Oscar so it is not considered a delusion.

Is it also within the laws of physics that all of the State's witnesses are out to get Oscar as well? After all, that is what OP himself has tried to claim by saying that this person lied on the stand, the Dr behaved as if he didn't know what he was doing, that person lied on the stand, etc.

I also find the use of "have his wits about him" used in another post to be of bad taste.

MOO