Trial Discussion Thread #37 - 14.05.12 Day 30

[soozieqtips]

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

BBM - Me too. Quite tiresome to keep reading the same derogatory comments about Nel over and over and over. He's just doing his job. OP is the murderer here. You'd never know that by the vile comments about Nel.

 

[Nausicaa]

no i am willing to discard it as I don't think Oscar said it, I think it was an inference and I think Roux will clarify it.

You think Roux will contradict the direct and unambiguous statement of his highly-paid expert witness?

 

[sleuth-d-]

Nothing! The psychiatrist wasn't evaluating him before he killed Reeva. She's evaluating him over a year later, when I have no doubt at all that he's depressed at the thought of :jail: - and probably anxious and nervous etc etc. But that's post murder, so I fail to see how this is relevant to his state of mind before the murder.

absolutely.

and imo his depression level 2may/7may should be deeper than it was even at the start of the trial - with good reason.

the dr should take into account when evaluating accused murderers - with one week left of their defence/possible freedom - how much the 'end of trial looming' factor could account for anxiety. ffs.

 

[TorisMom003]

Was Henke Pistorius in court today? If not, who is the man sitting next to Aimee after lunch?

 

[BritsKate]

Is it a done deal Masipa is going to agree allow the application, because listening to the exchange again she sounds not at all convinced.

I really don't know for certain. The judge is forced to consider that a psychiatrist for the defence considers him dangerous which may make all the difference in her decision. Without that, I don't believe he'd be evaluated at this late stage, but that's just a hunch.

Section 77 of the Criminal Procedure Act is what's relevant and that clearly says when a defendant is charged with murder, culpable homicide, or rape is considered to be a risk to the public, the defendant can be hospitalised in a psychiatric facility pending further ruling. (To paraphrase.)

I'll have to rewatch myself but I really don't know how she'll rule. Sorry.

 

[sleuth-d-]

You think Roux will contradict the direct and unambiguous statement of his highly-paid expert witness?

i think, even if op put down his pad, then stood up tomorrow and screamed 'ok, i did it', there would be argument here that it was only an inference, and that what he actually said was 'ok, i…frank did it'. and that it is not important anyway.

moo.

 

[DebinGA]

I admit this is a selfish plea, as I have no right to complain about others' posts, but .... When replying to someone's already extremely long post, would it not be helpful to quote only the relevant portion and not the whole epoch again? At times the board is dominated by the same post and many more succinct posts are prevented from being read and responded to. JMO

 

[Nausicaa]

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.

I too am banking that the good judge is not dullard enough to take Vorster's testimony seriously, but not on that point. After all, we all know perfectly well that he intended to shoot whoever was behind the door. The only conceivable doubt was whether he intended to murder a non-existent intruder or a highly existent young lady who had just been telling him a few unpleasant home-truths.

 

[Magdalyn]

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.

Bib

She inferred it from what he told her.

"He wanted to shoot an intruder, is that what he said?" Nel asked Vorster.

"That's what he told me, yes," she replied.

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar...ade-runner-in-psychiatric-ward-163005151.html

To be clear, if the judge decides to disbelieve this pro defense psychiatrist's verbatim statements, she 'has the brights'....

But if she believes this pro-defense psychiatrist, she's a 'dullard'?

 

[supernovaNic]

Does the psychiatrist mention at any time that Oscar used energy drinks and caffeine pills? I'm not sure the use of energy drinks and caffeine pills is verified but I have read it in several articles.

 

[Nausicaa]

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

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.

I am sympathetic to this argument, but against it you have the height and angle of the bullet holes, which is why the experts are saying he was on his stumps. This needs to be clarified.

 

[MsMarple]

I went ahead last night and voted over at the poll thread. I couldn't forsee the defense bringing in any more forensic testimony that would massively alter the case and I figured any psychological/psychiatric testimony would go more to sentencing rather than conviction.

But I sure didn't see today's testimony coming! Wow.

 

[sicknote]

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.

Are you saying the Dr is lying?

 

[james83]

i think, even if op put down his pad, then stood up tomorrow and screamed 'ok, i did it', there would be argument here that it was only an inference, and that what he actually said was 'ok, i…frank did it'. and that it is not important anyway.

moo.

I can see it now, Nel must have slipped something in Oscar's coffee that caused a false confession.

 

[sicknote]

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 totally wrong. You need to take the actual event into consideration.

 

[james83]

Are you saying the Dr is lying?

My god i've only just realised, the Dr is in on it now aswell, another one out to get Oscar.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I am sympathetic to this argument, but against it you have the height and angle of the bullet holes, which is why the experts are saying he was on his stumps. This needs to be clarified.

the stumps extend a way below the knees. so the difference in height is not huge.

leaning back against the bathroom/sink area corner wall and crouching can easily bring him down to the same level as the stumps. imo.

i also think he was wearing his prostheses.

[and... escalating argument/lights on in bathroom/never went to sleep. fwiw.]

 

[soozieqtips]

My god i've only just realised, the Dr is in on it now aswell, another one out to get Oscar.

It's easier to list the people who are not out to get OP.

Here's my list.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

"Within the laws of physics"? Really?

Re: The work of forensic psychiatrist Dr. Vorster
By its very nature a great deal of the information a psychiatrist receives comes from self reporting by the patient. However, especially in forensic psychiatry one would think that verification would also be a large part of it. Thus, the interviews with friends and family members.

In this particular case, there exists a wealth of very recent, easily accessed information about the specific subject being studied. And the information is given by the patient himself. This would be either transcripts or the videos of OP's very recent testimony at trial. Yet this forensic psychiatrist admits she failed to avail herself of this, stating she is not familiar with the "versions" presented by Oscar during his testimony? Why in the world would she not familiarize herself with this information?

This failure leaves gaping holes in her report. Things such as her reported "lack of mobility on his stumps" are refuted. His "great concern with security" is refuted. The fact that at times he is a facile liar is not seen.

This was a supposedly legitimate, recognized forensic psychiatry expert, yet she failed to garner a wealth of readily available, very recent information that would give insight into his mental state? This does not make good sense. At all.

Be that as it may, her report is what it is. It certainly sounds like it would be remiss for the Prosecutor in such a situation to NOT ask that OP be examined independently at this time. The laws concerning this were written in a specific manner and for specific reasons. The wording "the judge SHALL" is very clear.

Barry Roux did not allow this forensic psychiatrist onto the stand unknowingly. Not in a million years!

Is there some portion of the South African law that few know about that says if you are found to be mentally ill that instead of going into a state mental hospital you can go into a nice, cozy privately-owned mental facility? Something like Silver Hill Hospital in Connecticut, where the very wealthy in the U.S. send their mentally disturbed family members? (A 28 day stay with a private room at Silver Hill costs $86,000 per their website. Their "What to bring" list explains the facility cannot be held responsible for patients' personal possessions such as jewelry and fur coats.)

For someone who asked about this case being a strange one - oh, yes, it is. Plus even we experienced trialwatchers from the U.S. are having a bit of a time figuring out the South African way of conducting a trial, the laws, etc.

 

[DebinGA]

I am sympathetic to this argument, but against it you have the height and angle of the bullet holes, which is why the experts are saying he was on his stumps. This needs to be clarified.

Yes, but then came OP's description in court of his firing position as a "crouch". Mangena had allowed for the possibility OP could have fired wearing legs if his hands weren't shoulder height but nearer his waist. I think the PT decided either way OP was fully culpable and arguing over it wasn't worth it.