Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31

[BabaJ]

I didn't think Nel would file it but I am glad he did because to the contrary I think it is proper, i.e. morally correct, ethical and just, if there is a chance, as he said, "... the diagnosis was directly relevant to the accused's version and may have affected ability to act in appreciation of wrongfulness".

I have always heard it is not the prosecutor's job to get a conviction at any costs, rather for them try, in an imperfect system, to arrive at truth and justice. IDK, but IMO Nel might even be handing OP a line after his dreadful testimony, and it is not good for a prosecutor if a conviction is overturned on appeal on the basis that the defendant was not mentally sound, so it is a win win all round because if OP is cleared the trial will resume only a few weeks later.

And I know it's not the same, but as a volunteer advocate for adults with learning disabilities I know of cases here, and in the US too, that have been wrongly convicted and later acquitted, albeit many years later, because they were unable to properly defend themselves and their learning disability had not been brought to the court's attention. So I think it should be, if it isn't already, a duty of any officer of the court that when there is credible evidence about the capacity of a defendant then it should always be investigated.
I was trying to catch up going back through the thread but I am so tired can't keep my eyes open so I am off to bed!

This is exactly what I was trying to point out - you just said it better :seeya:

 

[Apollo]

He did not say the gun went off accidentally.

No one is claiming he didn't know right from wrong

He said words to that effect. That the gun was pointed at the door and went off before he could think. It was at the point in his testimony when Nel was trying to get him to say he shot at the door and he was doing his best to claim he didn't intentionally shoot at the door.

 

[wb180]

I really don't think that's what he is arguing.

Ok, so what is DT arguing because I have no idea. It is so totally unclear what defense they are trying to make.

Is it self defense? No because OP say it wasn't.
Is it involuntary accidental? No because he did pull the trigger.
Is it mental disorder? No because OP say he has no mental disorder.

What the heck is the defense?!

 

[BabaJ]

You would think it was in his interest, but OP does not come across as someone who would voluntarily submit himself to a psych evaluation.

I really think Roux made a big mistake in introducing Prof V at this stage. He obviously did not foresee how damaging her evidence would be.
Roux also underestimated Nel's ability to educe the responses he got from V regarding OP possibly having a mental illness and being a danger to society etc.
Nel is proving to be a very astute tactician imo.

Yes, exactly, when listening again it seems to me that Roux really did not give Nel a choice by introducing the expert at this stage. In my opinion Nel HAD to file the application. At this point I think that the prosecution HAS to know. I am not a lawyer so I am trying to figure out what the attorney's view is ie what they would do if they were in Nel's position.

 

[vansleuths]

Why does Oscar fight the psych testing that the prosecution wants done?

As Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory says, I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested.

 

[TorisMom003]

Why does Oscar fight the psych testing that the prosecution wants done?

As Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory says, I'm not crazy, my mother had me tested.

Because his freedom will be taken away from sometime between 3 to 30 days. Any other mental issues that he has, such as say NPD, will also be made public. If in a psych ward it is impossible to drink, go to parties, hang with friends, etc at his convience and leisure.

MOO

 

[TorisMom003]

Instead of using a psychiatrist that has spoken with/interviewed OP only twice, the Defense should have just used his pyschiatrist that sits in court day after day after day. Surely that woman knows OP well enough to have been able to testify about his "issues". But I suppose that since she has blurred the lines between professional and personal that she would be a witness that Nel would chew up and spit out on cross exam.

MOO

 

[ColonelMustard]

.. but then again, we don't actually know if she said that .. that's only what OP is telling us she said.

Great point. You're absolutely right.

Oddly, this is one thing I actually believed him about 100%. Part of it was the way he said it and part of it was the info from those who knew her, speaking in interviews, that she was very "motherly." I recall that they said she often talked about that quality in herself.

 

[K.T]

Jodi Arias tried to sack her lead attorney at least twice that I know of, and the judge denied her that option. :denied: :denied: :judge: :denied:

Apologies if this has already been discussed, I'm catching up on posts, but in the South African Griekwastad case of the grisly murder of mother, father and fourteen year old daughter the defense legal team was fired JUST before the the judge was about to make a ruling.

Defense and State had already rested and suddenly the legal team was fired under "irreconcilable differences".

New defense lawyer applied and was granted a three month adjournment to look over information...please, please let this not happen in Pistorius case. He seems controlling enough to use these types of delay tactics.

When the trial resumed, new lawyer asked if he could reopen case for one more witness, judge denied motion. In the end, the legal manoeuvre made no difference, teenage boy was still found guilty of shooting his parents, torture of his sister. Tragic irony is that the family's last name was Steenkamp.

Pistorius legal team could be fired at anytime. Long adjournments can happen, this case could just go on and on...yikes

Edit: Just to note, even though there are many different details to the Pistorius case, the teen murderer also had supporters in the community and an Uncle guardian. A witness testified to him crying too.

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/90f94d...ad-farm-murder-accused-back-in-court-20140318

 

[Estelle]

Because his freedom will be taken away from sometime between 3 to 30 days. Any other mental issues that he has, such as say NPD, will also be made public. If in a psych ward it is impossible to drink, go to parties, hang with friends, etc at his convience and leisure.

MOO

IMO Pistorius does not suffer from GAD and Nel knows that. Nel has been going on about "it is always about you". Nel has accused him of lying and OP has also been accused of acting in court. IMO if OP is sent to a Psych ward for 30 days, he will come out with another diagnosis and that is of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

It is important to expose the lies of a narcissist in court as they usually act very convincingly.

This is some of the advice of Sam Vakim, a narcissist himself:

How do you "break" a narcissist in court?

Distinguish the factual pillar from the psychological pillar of any cross-examination of a narcissist or deposition made by him. Narcissists are superhuman in their capacity to distort reality by offering highly "plausible" alternative scenarios, which fit most of the facts.

Narcissists find the following devastating:

1. Any statement or fact, which seems to contradict his inflated perception of his grandiose self.

2. Any hint that he is subordinated, subjugated, controlled, owned or dependent upon a third party.

3. Any hint that the narcissist is weak, needy, dependent, deficient, slow, not intelligent, naive, gullible, susceptible, not in the know, manipulated, a victim, an average person of mediocre accomplishments.

4. The narcissist is likely to react with rage to all these and, in an effort to re-establish his fantastic grandiosity, he is likely to expose facts and stratagems he had no conscious intention of exposing.

5. The narcissist reacts indignantly, with wrath, hatred, aggression, or even overt violence to any infringement of what he perceives to be his natural entitlement.

6. Narcissists believe that they are so unique and that their lives are of such cosmic significance that others should defer to their needs and cater to their every whim without ado. The narcissist feels entitled to interact or be treated (or questioned) only by unique individuals. He resents being doubted and "ridiculed".

7. Tell the narcissist that he does not deserve the best treatment, that his desires are not everyone's priority, that he is boring or ignorant, that his needs can be catered to by any common practitioner (medical doctor, accountant, lawyer, psychiatrist), that he and his motives are transparent and can be easily gauged, that he will do what he is told, that his temper tantrums will not be tolerated, that no special concessions will be made to accommodate his inflated sense of self, that he is subject to court procedures, etc. – and the narcissist will likely lose control.

8. Contradict him often, disagree with him and criticize his judgement, expose his shortcomings, humiliate and berate him.

http://narcissistpsychopathabuse.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/defeat-narcissist-abuser-in-court-by.html

I think that Nel has been doing an excellent job of exposing OP for what he really is. I therefore believe that if OP is now evaluated for 30 days, the "diagnosis" will change and it is time that his enablers and the court were informed about which disorder Pistorius actually has and it it is NOT GAD IMO!

http://narcissistpsychopathabuse.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/defeat-narcissist-abuser-in-court-by.html

 

[ColonelMustard]

.. but then again, we don't actually know if she said that .. that's only what OP is telling us she said.

.. and I've just realised :facepalm: .. we don't even know if the bit about him helping her with his contracts is true .. again, only his word for it :scared:

Another excellent point.

I have absolutely no basis upon which to state that I have never doubted this was, to some extent, true.

Regardless of whether he's trying to use it to bolster his claim of how close they were (which I absolutely think he is) it has still sounded totally feasible to me.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Can "flight" include deciding not to "fight", such as stifling the urge to yell at someone who irritates you? Would OP saying to Reeva of "the noise", "Did you hear that?" represent flight? Ditto taking 30 sec. to don his legs?

Someone mentioned a parallel concept Freeze and Fold, whatever that is.

 

[Estelle]

If Pistorius is diagnosed with NPD, the effectiveness of treatment is unknown because there are no randomized controlled trials. Individuals with this disorder seldom voluntarily present for treatment. However, individuals with this disorder may threaten suicide during a crisis. The individual may then use hospitalization as a manipulative ploy. Usually only brief hospitalization is required, with the goal being to de-escalate the crisis. Apart from such crisis intervention, most therapists believe that this disorder is very difficult to treat. However, with long-term therapy, some patients do gain insight into how they have become addicted to wealth, fame, or power, and how callous they have become.

Admitting that they do have this disorder is the first step to recovery.

That is why I think a 30 day evaluation of OP would be a good idea both for his own benefit and for this case. Narcissists never willingly present themselves.

http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis/p20-pe07.html

 

[atthelake]

He did not say the gun went off accidentally.

No one is claiming he didn't know right from wrong

Semantics and clarification.. you usually follow up. would you state that he (paraphrasing) said in court or to another witness that "i accidentally shot"?

 

[ColonelMustard]

http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Oscar-Trial-The-shrink-has-shrunk-20140513
13 MAY 2014
The latest witness to be called in Oscar Pistorius's defence was forensic psychiatrist Merryl Vorster. Cybershrink dissects her evidence:

"Her idea is at best a theory, not a fact. A great many children undergo surgery and other trauma at an early age, and hardly any of them grow up to shoot people".

"She claimed significance for, and used, the claim that Oscar’s mother suffered from anxiety (though whether at the level of an actual disorder, rather than as a natural and sadly normal response to being left alone to bring up children on her own after her husband disappeared, is not clear).
Yet she made no comment at all on Oscar’s father, who is said to have walked out on his wife and children, quarrelled with them, has failed to even appear in Court and refused to even sign an affidavit to assist Oscar in his trial. Is it not possible that the father might have a relevant disorder, perhaps a personality disorder, which Oscar might have inherited or been influenced by? ".

Professor MA Simpson is Health24's CyberShrink. [A South African psychiatrist, he qualified in medicine and in psychiatry in Britain. He has been a senior academic, researcher, and Professor in several countries].

"as a natural and sadly normal response to being left alone to bring up children on her own after her husband disappeared"

might also be why she drank.

 

[minor4th]

Semantics and clarification.. you usually follow up. would you state that he (paraphrasing) said in court or to another witness that "i accidentally shot"?

No he said it was an accident. Meaning he didn't mean to shoot Reeva. That's not at all the same as saying the gun went off accidentally. He was clear that he pulled the trigger

 

[minor4th]

Instead of using a psychiatrist that has spoken with/interviewed OP only twice, the Defense should have just used his pyschiatrist that sits in court day after day after day. Surely that woman knows OP well enough to have been able to testify about his "issues". But I suppose that since she has blurred the lines between professional and personal that she would be a witness that Nel would chew up and spit out on cross exam.



MOO

Isn't he related to her?

 

[sicknote]

IMO Vorster's testimony was added simply to Bolster OP's claim that he thought there was a dangerous intruder in the toilet, It's to assist the court in reaching a conclusion that OP's version is possibly true (in the main). The GAD testimony was not offered to excuse the act or get a reduced sentence - it was to explain how OP's mental state led him to believe there was an intruder in the bathroom.

I'm wondering why Vorster waited over a year to talk to anyone.

Why did she say her report could be used for sentencing if its not to get a reduced sentence?

 

[minor4th]

Ok, so what is DT arguing because I have no idea. It is so totally unclear what defense they are trying to make.

Is it self defense? No because OP say it wasn't.
Is it involuntary accidental? No because he did pull the trigger.
Is it mental disorder? No because OP say he has no mental disorder.

What the heck is the defense?!

Putative self defense.

Now what exactly is the states case?

 

[atthelake]

Well we're getting beyond the scope of the discussion we were having. His defense is that he shot at what he thought was an intruder in self defense. He's not claiming he shot Reeva but didn't know it was wrong.

I agree with a previous poster who responded to this post ....cut/paste katy...

He said he did NOT aim at the door, nor did he intend to shoot anyone...was not even thinking, gun just went off accidentally.