He is just fighting to save his skin though .. I don't think he truly believes that people will buy his version, just that it is worth a shot to see if there is some way of getting off an extremely long jail sentence. It probably has got to the stage now though that he believes his own version and believes his own lies, but I don't think he is properly delusional .. not in the true sense of the word.
Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
He is just fighting to save his skin though .. I don't think he truly believes that people will buy his version, just that it is worth a shot to see if there is some way of getting off an extremely long jail sentence. It probably has got to the stage now though that he believes his own version and believes his own lies, but I don't think he is properly delusional .. not in the true sense of the word.
Viper
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reaction score
- 1
I Agree with you on this and the 2 other posts you shared yesterday. I'm in the USA and IIRC ~60-70% of Americans own at least 1 firearm. And I think that it has been noted that ~4-6% of the population has GAD. But I haven't heard of GAD being used as a common excuse for murder or even other gun related crimes.
I understand that in the UK and AU it is very difficult to own most firearms, and yet there are still murders at high levels in both countries. If someone wants to kill or seriously injure another person they don't need a gun. A knife, a brick, a bat, two fists, any of them will do.
Almost every person has their quirks of the mind, their phobias, anxieties, their obsessions and compulsions. GAD is not an indicator of a violent person, IMO. Only OP and his specialness of having an "illness" that he never even knew he had until after he murdered.
Dr Meryl Streep?! lol! 01:13
Gryffindor
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 646
- Reaction score
- 0
LMAO! The reporter called Dr. Voster - Dr. Meryl STREEP!!!!!!! In first few minutes :O LOL :-D
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
BBM - neither do I. He's sly, manipulative and deceitful, no question about that. Even blaming everyone for lying and denying he pulled the trigger at Tasha's doesn't make him delusional. It just makes him look a complete idiot for thinking anyone with a functioning brain cell is buying his particular brand of turd.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
The argument doesn't seem to be that he is paranoid. Is this what I am missing? Is this assessment only to determine whether he is paranoid or not? He is being referred due to GAD which is probably less of a problem than NPD, HPD, BPD or any of the other personality disorders. What would be the effect if GAD was diagnosed again? Would it be of no value in sentence mitigation?
aoibhinn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 449
- Reaction score
- 0
BBM:
This is the reason why I thought Nel, yesterday, was trying to establish that OP did not have a mental defect (neurological).
A head injury, however slight, can damage the frontal lobe for example. Resulting from this, it can be argued that errors in judgement, inappropriate (or extreme) social and emotional responses, and an inability to foresee future consequences from current actions are all possible.
I just thought Nel might have foreseen this DT strategy and was covering for it, while he had the opportunity. He never misses a trick.
I don't even think things like NPD would be of any interest either, to be honest .. it may be something which contributed towards his killing of Reeva but NPD isn't in itself a reason for killing and plenty of people have NPD but don't kill (although in reverse it will probably be found to be the case that many killers have NPD or other personality disorders, but it doesn't work the other way around). He would actually have to be diagnosed as a psychopath or something for it to have any bearing on the type on incarceration when he is sentenced.
ETA .. and yes, what Viper above said too "He is not going to get a 3 year sentence in a psych ward with only GAD. He would have to be deemed criminally insane for something like that" ... and he clearly isn't.
The Devil Wears Prosthesis.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
I don't see any way he could be considered a psychopath. I felt Roux had Vorster testify that OP had GAD in order to attempt to shorten OP's sentence (assuming Roux now thinks that OP is going to be incarcerated, otherwise why introduce the psychiatrist at this stage in the trial).
Obviously OP is oblivious of the implications as he thought it went very well for him. Some might consider that delusional? :floorlaugh:
geevee
Well-Known Stickie
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 17,605
- Reaction score
- 16,505
I watched the YT of it last night and thought Nel did say "thirty" days, he said it rather quickly and was turning while speaking, but I don't think he misspoke.
That silly DT, thinking they could pull something like this on someone clearly as astute as Nel, for shame.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31
Dr. Lynette Roux in that video claims GAD is very common in SA due to the high levels of crime. OP, living securely within his fortress compound, had much less to fear than the vast majority of people there, as evidenced by his lack of security concerns the night he killed Reeva. It's a miracle he never killed anyone with his car the way he's reported to drive.
Gryffindor
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 646
- Reaction score
- 0
No you're right. Referral is for GAD
Viper
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reaction score
- 1
I don't recall if anyone posted information about GAD. I have not read it yet, but here is a link that includes clinical information from the DSM:
http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Generalized-anxiety-disorder.html
http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Generalized-anxiety-disorder.html
Whilst I understand the intention of that comment, as a Brit, I must post a link to the Wikipedia page with statistics for this, which shows that the UK and Australia have relatively low rates of homicide and roughly 1/4 of the USA's.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
Yes, I watched the video but she did say there could be advantages and disadvantages if this diagnosis was made and she agreed with Vorster that it was much more likely that OP would fight rather than flee due to this condition and his vulnerability. Sentence mitigation??
As I mentioned earlier, bringing in Vorster at this stage seems to suggest that Roux is expecting a long sentence. I am hoping we shall hear soon what exactly OP's plea is, as nowhere does there seem to be any indication of it, although Roux did, today, rule out automatism. Roux has had a nightmare trip with OP. Roux, poor guy must hope that this episode in his life will soon be over.
Viper
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reaction score
- 1
Thank you. I have lived in many different US cities over the years, including New Orleans for 10 years back in the late 80's -90's when it ranked as the Murder Capitol of the United States. The overwhelming majority of those homicides occurred in the poorest parts of the city and had some connection to gangs and drugs. People knew those areas and avoided them. I was newer afraid during the entire 10 years that I resided in that beautiful and vibrant city. I go back to visit as often as I can. But if I were to Google the FBI Crime Statistics website it would likely tell the very same story about homicide in other large American cities. It is not so much people having the right to own a gun that causes homicides, it is people wanting to kill other people over drugs and gang activity.
I no nothing about crime in the UK, only what I read about gun crimes there. So I really have no standing to argue with a Brit about the subject. Allow me to share one article that talks about gun crimes there after the laws were tightened with regards to gun ownership.
Quote from the link:
"The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold."
<snipped>
"The only guys who have guns in this case are the bad guys, since guns are banned for the good guys in the UK."
http://m./tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
Nothing changes that and he deserves the book to be thrown at him but the Defence will try every which way to get the sentence reduced.
Carmelita
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2014
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 1
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 13 May 2014, Session 1 - YouTube
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 13 May 2014, Session 2 - YouTube
Nel used the word "indication" and the phrase "reasonably possibly" interchangeably about section 78 to which the judge said
"When you say indication you said two things you said indication and you said reasonably possibility it can’t be one and the same thing"
Nel conceded to “indication” and went on to make an admission that it would “suffice to have an indication.”
Roux’s reading of the actual approach from the case that Nel brought to the table “But in my view nothing turns on that for section 78.2 does not mean that the mere making of such an allegation, per say, obliges the court to direct the inquiry, that would be manifestly absurd, although the conjunction or is used in the subsections to link the two requisites I think that it’s also used conjunctively, in this sense if such an allegation is made it must also appear to the court before it can direct the inquiry that the accused might not be criminally responsible for the offenses charged, ie there is some substance in the allegation”… at which point Roux begins to surmise.
And then Roux went on to site three SA cases where it is stated that the allegation “must be supported by grounds it’s not a mere indication."
Then Roux points out the legal differences in the cases in which Nel is comparing to the Pistorius case, which I also find “interesting”. Roux also pinpoints that Vorster indicates that at no time was Oscar’s inability to distinguish between right and wrong affected by his GAD. She repeated this many times. Nel only confused hera couple of times but the defense agrees with the state that Oscar is not delusional, paranoid or incapable of knowing right from wrong, nor was he on Feb 14th.
The subsection of section 78 which makes Nels argument for referral a bit of a bizarre request is this bit “which makes him or her incapable of appreciating the rightful or wrongfulness of his or her actions.”
Roux is not arguing a new defense, he is not arguing that GAD caused Oscar to have a mental break so that he was unaware of right and wrong, the defense position is that Oscar’s GAD coupled with his deformity caused him to overreact to a noise he heard in the bathroom which sent the horrific events of that morning into motion, it is being presented as a mitigating factor as to lend credence to the truth of Oscar’s version of events, nothing more or less.
Roux has left it up to the court how it uses the GAD diagnosis.
Neither Roux nor Vorster indicated automatism or incapacity. Roux is much cleverer than many are giving him credit for.
I did notice that Nel finally said the court was cautioned to do as Nel says rather than it had "no discernment in the matter". Hmm....
I personally can't see how the judge can ignore the "incapacity" hurdle.
And on a side note Roux, Nel and Voster all used the DSM V for their definitions of the mental health matters
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 13 May 2014, Session 2 - YouTube
Nel used the word "indication" and the phrase "reasonably possibly" interchangeably about section 78 to which the judge said
"When you say indication you said two things you said indication and you said reasonably possibility it can’t be one and the same thing"
Nel conceded to “indication” and went on to make an admission that it would “suffice to have an indication.”
Roux’s reading of the actual approach from the case that Nel brought to the table “But in my view nothing turns on that for section 78.2 does not mean that the mere making of such an allegation, per say, obliges the court to direct the inquiry, that would be manifestly absurd, although the conjunction or is used in the subsections to link the two requisites I think that it’s also used conjunctively, in this sense if such an allegation is made it must also appear to the court before it can direct the inquiry that the accused might not be criminally responsible for the offenses charged, ie there is some substance in the allegation”… at which point Roux begins to surmise.
And then Roux went on to site three SA cases where it is stated that the allegation “must be supported by grounds it’s not a mere indication."
Then Roux points out the legal differences in the cases in which Nel is comparing to the Pistorius case, which I also find “interesting”. Roux also pinpoints that Vorster indicates that at no time was Oscar’s inability to distinguish between right and wrong affected by his GAD. She repeated this many times. Nel only confused hera couple of times but the defense agrees with the state that Oscar is not delusional, paranoid or incapable of knowing right from wrong, nor was he on Feb 14th.
The subsection of section 78 which makes Nels argument for referral a bit of a bizarre request is this bit “which makes him or her incapable of appreciating the rightful or wrongfulness of his or her actions.”
Roux is not arguing a new defense, he is not arguing that GAD caused Oscar to have a mental break so that he was unaware of right and wrong, the defense position is that Oscar’s GAD coupled with his deformity caused him to overreact to a noise he heard in the bathroom which sent the horrific events of that morning into motion, it is being presented as a mitigating factor as to lend credence to the truth of Oscar’s version of events, nothing more or less.
Roux has left it up to the court how it uses the GAD diagnosis.
Neither Roux nor Vorster indicated automatism or incapacity. Roux is much cleverer than many are giving him credit for.
I did notice that Nel finally said the court was cautioned to do as Nel says rather than it had "no discernment in the matter". Hmm....
I personally can't see how the judge can ignore the "incapacity" hurdle.
And on a side note Roux, Nel and Voster all used the DSM V for their definitions of the mental health matters
- Status