Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31

[ColonelMustard]

A succinct precis of what happened this morning if anyone missed it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...most-impressive-witness-says-prosecution.html

“Oscar Pistorius ‘was not the most impressive witness’ says prosecution”

That OP was not the most impressive witness is an epic understatement.
I've listened to his complete testimony 4 times now and, in doing so, have learned two things.

1. I have no life
2. He's the poster child for how not to testify on the stand if you're the accused.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Someone upthread projected that M'Lady will not grant Nel's application because she wants to bring the trial to an end.

I got the sense that she just wanted to stop wasting time.

yes i agree about the time wasting. she brought the timing question to roux, during the two days where he was not filling the day with witnesses i believe. the two days where roux was on a go slow as he was waiting for the vorster report.

surely it would be grounds for a miscarriage if she was suspected of rushing the trial to an end. i don't believe she is in any hurry, other than to get to a just outcome

 

[Val1]

I have not disappeared down the rabbit hole. I agree that the GAD only applies if his version is true.

Ha, Easter is gone and so is the rabbit... even the chocolate eggs have disappeared. I think OP's version has collapsed the rabbit hole under the weight of all the defence's own witness's testimony for many of us.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Yes, I was just thinking that! I wouldn't mind betting he thinks he could do better than someone with years and years of experience.

he did seem to enjoy picking nel up on minor mistakes, and arguing with him during cross examination. [claiming to be an "expert" at many things -narcissism yet again.]

 

[Carmelita]

Iirc, Roux had said something about his next witness was to do with the "other" aspect of the fight or flight response, which in my mind can only mean OP's physical limitations(notwithstanding his prowess as an olympic athlete...), and how that would have impacted OP psychologically in conjunction with OP's "personality" disorder(GAD).

So in that sense, then yes I think a full assessment is in order and should this be denied on what this Dr. testified to(OP being more dangerous than the average person when under stress), any further evidence that points to OP being psychologically disturbed should then cement one.

That could be that the next witness will testify as to how Oscar's disability would affect his flight or fight response. Which Roux seems to indicate will likely be tied to Oscar's GAD thus causing Nel to call for another 78 referral.

In my opinion Nel would have done better to ask for an independent psych evaluation of Oscar rather than a section 78 referral as the 78 referral has the clause about "know the rightness or wrongness of his or her actions" I think it is going to be a tough bill to sell that Oscar does not know that he acted wrongly, he knows that killing Reeva was wrong, he even stated under cross examination that he didn't want to kill anybody. (And yes I know that 95% of you believe that he with malice intended to kill Reeva but that is not what is being addressed in this post).

 

[BritsKate]

I'm getting the distinct impression, for what it's worth, that having psychological testimony presented in a trial in which the defence is largely self-defence is the exception and not the rule in South Africa. Which goes a long way to illustrate just how bad Oscar's testimony really was.

Most legal experts are calling this a 3rd defence but I disagree. I think it's an addendum to the first defence, putative, and the defence never wanted to go anywhere near involuntary. They were pushed very nearly there once by Oscar and again by this expert which has left their entire case in a muddle to even the legal eagles.

JMO

 

[Greater Than]

I think it greatly depends on what he has and how it really affects him. When I think of diminished responsibility, I can't help but think of a woman who has been abused by her husband for years and kills him. And, just to be totally fair, I honestly believe diminished responsibility is so overused, its just ridiculous. We've heard every sob story imaginable - sometimes they are appropriate and applicable to determination but often they're not. Where do you draw the line? A hypothetical person commits murder and states he never would have done so were it not for the abuse he experienced as a child, his alcoholic parent, being a loner in school, being the middle child, not getting an allowance, etc?

As such, diminished responsibility has to be case by case. So what in this case rises to the level of diminished responsibility? He is a double amputee? Oscar has always fought to be treated no differently, until now. Quite obviously too, not every other double amputee commits murder. He's been diagnosed with GAD but he's neither paranoid or delusional so again, nothing that millions who never hurt anyone deal with. He lives in SA? He was afforded every opportunity for the best security imaginable and still was lax. He lost his mother young? Its horrible but we're not judging the actions of someone 15 years old.

So when does someone become responsible for their actions? He chose to own a firearm and sought to own many more. He was trained for said firearm. He damn well knew he was impulsive, had a temper, and provoked fear in others and he did absolutely nothing to seek any help and still refrains from accepting any culpability for doing so. Instead he's defiant, arrogant, insincere - lacks remorse, acts superior, is egocentric and displays a sense of entitlement.

So I just can't see diminished responsibility. He had so many opportunities afforded him over the course of his life others can only dream of. So much possibility to succeed - but like many who commit murder - was truly his own worst enemy.

All JMO

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

BIB - Nothing

Diminished capacity isn't a medical diagnosis, it's a legal concept. If a clinically diagnosed mental illness or defect diminished his ability to form the intent to kill Reeva ( the intruder?) then his responsibility could be reduced.

Unless arrogance and self-righteousness diminish one's ability to differentiate between right and wrong he can kiss diminished capacity goodbye. MOO

 

[jay-jay]

he did seem to enjoy picking nel up on minor mistakes, and arguing with him during cross examination. [claiming to be an "expert" at many things -narcissism yet again.]

.. and don't forget how he 'helped' Reeva with her contracts .. yes, I'm sure he knew more than she did :facepalm: .. he was probably more of a hindrance than a help (and quite possibly the cause the argument that night, who knows ..)

 

[sleuth-d-]

Isn't the Holmes report from years ago, probably done for OP during that challenge to the Olympic panel re him running against able-bodied athletes? Will need to review that bit...

my mistake, the richard holmes report she mentioned was dated 18 feb 2014.
[i thought she said 2013]

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 12 May 2014, Session 1 / 1:36:05

 

[LauraT]

Oscar Pistorius Murder Trial - YouTube

Anyone happen to see Uncle A giving Nel the finger in court on Monday? Should be done for contempt.

 

[Val1]

Isn't the Holmes report from years ago, probably done for OP during that challenge to the Olympic panel re him running against able-bodied athletes? Will need to review that bit...

I wonder if this Holmes report has any connection with this pic? Note the blonde sitting beside OP's sister in the clip above...
http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Oscar+Pistorius/April+Holmes/International+Paralympic+Day+Trafalgar+Square/mtxqJ7GRDoe

 

[jay-jay]

I personally feel quite uneasy that all discussion everywhere now, all across the media, etc, has drifted away from the real facts of the case .. the facts that there are huge holes and inconsistencies in OP's, many of which go to prove that his version is BS. I would like to get back to thinking about the evidence provided by various ear witnesses, the proof of the phonecalls (and I would much rather be hearing tapes of the hospital recordings of when OP was supposed to have called Netcare than all this psycho-analysis rubbish) and to keep all of it right at the top of the list because this GAD thing is just a deflection from what actually happened that night, and seems quite deliberate too and this is all the case seems to be about now .. all the rest of it has been shoved in the dim and distant past, imo.

 

[Cherwell]

i didn't know he was whisked away by a family friend, i assumed the hospital trip at the time was under police authority. maybe this 'whisked away' business resulted in the report by holmes that vorster cited.

I don't think it was how that sounds. This has been discussed before. He was accompanied by Brig. Gerard Labuschagne, who has subsequently been sitting on the prosecution bench at times during the trial. It was suggested that OP's aunt Micki asked GL, who was or had been her colleague, to look after him on the night of the shooting, and that is as far as it went.

 

[Myvice]

No, but since this GAD thing came up, it seems we're all disappearing down the rabbit hole of actually thinking OP's intruder version is fact when it quite likely isn't. The GAD thing only applies if OP's version is true, many of us don't believe it is true, and therefore the GAD thing doesn't (or shouldn't) apply as far as we (i.e. those who don't believe OP's version) are concerned.

I agree with this.

IMO, if OP was NOT wearing his prosthesis it tells me he knew it was RS. There's no way I can believe he ran to confront an intruder without his prosthetics.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Why does this witness say "Your Ladyship", is it because she doesn't want to use "My Lady" or is it just the same thing anyway?

It's more "high brow." I wouldn't doubt that Oldwage also calls her "Your Ladyship" (while appropriately raising his brows.)

 

[Budgie]

A quick question not related to OP's mental health....

Does the type of gun with the bullets he used that night leave gun residue? I know nothing about guns and I do have a further question depending on the answer.

Thanks.

 

[Val1]

That could be that the next witness will testify as to how Oscar's disability would affect his flight or fight response. Which Roux seems to indicate will likely be tied to Oscar's GAD thus causing Nel to call for another 78 referral.

In my opinion Nel would have done better to ask for an independent psych evaluation of Oscar rather than a section 78 referral as the 78 referral has the clause about "know the rightness or wrongness of his or her actions" I think it is going to be a tough bill to sell that Oscar does not know that he acted wrongly, he knows that killing Reeva was wrong, he even stated under cross examination that he didn't want to kill anybody. (And yes I know that 95% of you believe that he with malice intended to kill Reeva but that is not what is being addressed in this post).

bbm - The whole issue here is that "know the rightness or wrongness of his or her actions" is not what Nel wants the evaluation for, it's the "or" following that in the code.

or
(b) of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/oscar-pistorius-trial-reeva-steenkamp-murder-12-may

 

[DebinGA]

If OP didn't know killing Reeva was wrong, his first call wouldn't have been to Johan Stander.

 

[Val1]

A quick question not related to OP's mental health....

Does the type of gun with the bullets he used that night leave gun residue? I know nothing about guns and I do have a further question depending on the answer.

Thanks.

Is this in relation to OP washing his hands, face and possibly his chest before he was tested for it at the scene?

http://www.ask.com/question/how-long-does-gunpowder-residue-stay-on-your-hands

 

[ColonelMustard]

No, but since this GAD thing came up, it seems we're all disappearing down the rabbit hole of actually thinking OP's intruder version is fact when it quite likely isn't. The GAD thing only applies if OP's version is true, many of us don't believe it is true, and therefore the GAD thing doesn't (or shouldn't) apply as far as we (i.e. those who don't believe OP's version) are concerned.

Yes, but what if M'Lady and/or her two Assessors believe it?