Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31

[Hope4More]

The comparison to CMJA's defense is interesting. CMJA's attys were stuck with a client whose arrogance and personal agenda forced her DT to go with a less believable (and nastier) case than they might have chosen.

OP's team is stuck with a client who hopes he can avoid all responsibility for his actions that night, and whose defense seems convoluted by that imperative.

He probably does have an anxiety disorder of some sort, IMO, and fight it flight is believable too....just not to the degree the DT feels the need to assert.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I'm a tech nut, so can feel your joy. Hope you have fun with them. I use mine with my phone too when I'm out walking to listen to music.

My phone is Windows OS and I haven't managed to get them to connect but I haven't given up trying. LOL Where there's a will there's a way.

SOLVED Nothing to do with OS.

 

[Cherwell]

There was the NYT Magazine fellow writing an article about OP:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/oscar-pistorius.html?pagewanted=all

Again, things like this cannot be taken into account by the court unless they have been presented as evidence. The prosecution wasn't allowed to bring character witnesses, so it's hard to see how it could be introduced.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Okay...this is a big answer, sorry in advance.

The defence really doesn't want involuntary because the burden on them is so high and it is extremely difficult to prove. Its also not what they're putting forth - what they want the Court to believe is Oscar is more anxious and vulnerable than the hypothetical reasonable person and because of that, its reasonable he would shoot 4 bullets into a closed door killing a human being.

The defence is going to argue putative with 'special' factors - anxiety and vulnerability. They want Oscar 'ill' but not so ill it holds them to a higher burden.

There's a series of stages for determination. If the judge and assessors believe putative self-defence, they look first to murder, dolus eventualis. To determine intent - under dolus eventualis, its basically could Oscar foreesee the consequences and did he proceed anyway - the reasonable person test is applied.

If Oscar is acquitted of murder, then they look to CH, also using the reasonable person test to detetmine culpability.

If she doesn't believe his defence, and feels the State has proven intent, he will be convicted of murder. They'll start with dolus directus (did he intend to kill Reeva?) Sentencing, in theory and IIRC, could range from 15 years to 'life' (in practice roughly 25 years).

His disorder could be a mitigating circumstance, how much so is debatable. There are mandatory minimums but I believe in SA sentencing is mostly at the judge's discretion.

HTH and apologies - I'm not well known for brevity.

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

Thanks for the detailed response
I personally think he knew it was Reeva but for arguments sake I did believe his version I think even if he is super anxious( which he didn't live like he was ) I still feel it was an over the top reaction shooting 4 times through a door.
He was calm enough to think of not hurting himself with potential ricochet shots

 

[weeeva]

Sorry so if you have an anxiety disorder one of the golden rules of gun safety doesn't apply?.

No, it would be conditional, so it could make a difference. A person with no anxiety disorder would be expected to act differently under the same circumstances as the person with the disorder. If OP's disorder was particular to his fear of being burgled and killed, and this fear was due to his physical disability (not being able to escape quickly enough), it is understandable that he would overreact due to his anxiety disorder.

 

[DebinGA]

Again, things like this cannot be taken into account by the court unless they have been presented as evidence. The prosecution wasn't allowed to bring character witnesses, so it's hard to see how it could be introduced.

TY. I've deleted that post.

 

[DebinGA]

Something I'd missed from Dr. Vorster:

Asked by Nel if GAD would have “played a role” if Pistorius had known that Reeva was in the toilet, Dr. Voster said it could have if he was “anxious about losing a relationship.” It would have played a role in the build-up, she said, not in the shooting itself. ... If there had been an argument about the relationship a person with GAD would have been more anxious.

http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/oscar...nxiety-disorder-needs-psychiatric-evaluation/

 

[AlwaysShocked]

72 hours is a common time frame for a mandatory psychiatric evaluation in many states.

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/get-help/know-the-laws-in-your-state


Emergency hospitalization for evaluation (sometimes called "psychiatric hold" or "pick-up") in a treatment facility for psychiatric evaluation; typically short intervention of fixed duration (e.g., 72 hours).


I don't know what it is in SA but Nel's first reference to it was "3 days".

I do not understand this at all. The reference you posted is in regard to the United States. Then you say you don't know what it is in South Africa.

Yes, we are all aware that Nels said "three days" at one point.

But in the post I was referencing, you explained how they are kept for three days and if they don't show any signs of illness, etc. You were very specific as to the protocol. THAT is what I was asking about. Was that for the U.S.? Any specific state? And what relevance would that have to a South African case?

I guess I am just having trouble distinguishing when you are posting about the U.S. or are posting about this trial in South Africa. That's why I asked for the link.

But then you go on to say you don't know anything about South Africa. So you must be posting about the U.S., right? I'm confused!

 

[Julian]

(...) I felt Roux had Vorster testify that OP had GAD in order to attempt to shorten OP's sentence (...)

I am fairly confident that Vorster was primarily called in to attempt to bolster the idea that Pistorius could not have murdered Reeva if he did not know it was her in the toilet.

This has to do with the issue of intent. Remember: in South Africa, you can only be convicted of murder if you killed someone intentionally. Intent is therefore essential.

Intent is also, in South Africa, subjective. In other words, what matters is what the accused was actually thinking at the time (and whether that mental process constitutes intent or does not).

Vorster was called to testify because the defense believed that she might offer evidence to ascertain that Pistorius had no intent to kill.

Simply put, if an "ordinary" person gets a gun, heads off towards a different part of his house and then shoots four bullets through a toilet door because there might be a burglar hiding there, intent might well be considered present. Vorster's testimony attempted to explain that this might not be true in Pistorius's case, given his disability and his anxiety disorder.

 

[Viper]

If the judge does grant Nel's request it will be interesting if OP retracts a lot of the statements that he made to Voster just so he can be out super quick .
He could say she was lying or misunderstood him
unless of course his defence team have told him mental instability is his best chance out of this in which case he will likely be there for the 30 days
On this subject is temporary insanity brought on by him being so over anxious likely to be the best outcome for him if the judge does believe his version ? Or would culpable homicide be best ?
If she doesn't believe him then it is only going to make a difference on sentencing ?

This is funny! I was thinking about it earlier, wondering how OP is going to carry on worrying about [at least three things] for 30 days. But when you think it through OP is primed to complete the task, it will be effortless for him IMO.

The trouble is the staff will have information about the case and information about OP that V did not have. They will also have a need to test OP, that is also something V apparently did not have. So I would not be surprised if they confirmed the diagnosis of GAD but also found some other issues more closely related to his capability to lash out and harm another person.

If he had such a severe case of GAD that he was temporarily insane at the time that he committed the murder I am sure we would have heard that from V. I don't know about the other things really, but this "worrying" illness is not going to push the charge down to culpable homicide. I posted a link that has the information about GAD. Check it out. It is not what some may believe.

 

[weeeva]

I am puzzled what is going to be looked for in this assessment. If OP's disorder manifests itself only under particular circumstances, they will not see this manifestation during a stay in hospital, as he will feel safe there. Also he is on medication which he was not taking on the night in question.

 

[DebinGA]

If Roux wanted to maximize OP's anxiety level when he fired at Mr. Intruder, why didn't he ask him about "the hurdle" he'd dealt with that day? That he didn't makes me believe this GAD claim was a last minute SOS ploy after HMS Dixon hit the iceberg.

 

[patCee]

Something I'd missed from Dr. Vorster:

http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/oscar...nxiety-disorder-needs-psychiatric-evaluation/

Asked by Nel if GAD would have “played a role” if Pistorius had known that Reeva was in the toilet, Dr. Voster said it could have if he was “anxious about losing a relationship.” It would have played a role in the build-up, she said, not in the shooting itself. ... If there had been an argument about the relationship a person with GAD would have been more anxious.

I understand the above quote as that the anxiety state with GAD is separate to OP's actions when he fired the shots, killing RS. Dr V then seemed to contradict herself when she described OP as dangerous if access to a gun, as though it was part of his GAD.

 

[weeeva]

They were discussing this later this evening on the Oscar channel.

Apparently the reason for 30 days is that it is possible to malinger / feign symptoms for a few days, but impossible to do it over a thirty day period when under continuous observation from trained nurses and a rigorous programme of evaluation etc.

In OP's case I can't see why they will be looking for malingering. According to Dr. Vorster OP's GAD is conditional which would mean that he would need to be seen under the same circumstances as the night in question. Obviously that can not be reconstructed. The stay in hospital will serve no purpose as it will just consist of questioning OP's behaviour prior to and on the night of February 14th.

 

[aoibhinn]

Someone on here kindly suggested I buy some Bluetooth Wireless headphones so that I could still carry out wifely chores without being wired up to my iPad. They arrived today, a bit late I know, but they are brilliant. I can walk all over the house and still listen in. Why I stuck to my wired OTH type I shall never know. So, whoever you were, many thanks for pushing me in the right direction.

That was me! I'm delighted that you're happy with them and, more importantly, that you can secret squirrel your trial addiction while doing all the family stuff too

 

[weeeva]

All this fight or flight is nonsense... There was no intruder just a murder

The fight or flight is not nonsense. It is the description of how living creatures react when confronted with danger. None of us knows for sure what took place that night. So everything has to be taken into consideration.

 

[Interested Bystander]

That was me! I'm delighted that you're happy with them and, more importantly, that you can secret squirrel your trial addiction while doing all the family stuff too

Many thanks indeed. I am hoping to at least use them to listen to the Dewani trial (whenever it gets off the ground) and I can use them to listen
to music too. Great!

 

[Cherwell]

In OP's case I can't see why they will be looking for malingering. According to Dr. Vorster OP's GAD is conditional which would mean that he would need to be seen under the same circumstances as the night in question. Obviously that can not be reconstructed. The stay in hospital will serve no purpose as it will just consist of questioning OP's behaviour prior to and on the night of February 14th.

Oh, his anxiety is conditional, I wouldn't disagree with that. He's facing a long stretch in an unpleasant prison, who wouldn't be anxious?

I haven't much time for this so-called "Anxiety Disorder" of his. I don't believe he suffered from any more anxiety than the average person - less probably, since he enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle backed by family money and support, and the adulation of his supporters and fans. :twocents:

Of course he's anxious now, and so he should be.

 

[james83]

No, it would be conditional, so it could make a difference. A person with no anxiety disorder would be expected to act differently under the same circumstances as the person with the disorder. If OP's disorder was particular to his fear of being burgled and killed, and this fear was due to his physical disability (not being able to escape quickly enough), it is understandable that he would overreact due to his anxiety disorder.

I don't see how, he was stood against the wall screaming "for some time", wouldn't he have shot straight away if he was so anxious?.

 

[james83]

In OP's case I can't see why they will be looking for malingering. According to Dr. Vorster OP's GAD is conditional which would mean that he would need to be seen under the same circumstances as the night in question. Obviously that can not be reconstructed. The stay in hospital will serve no purpose as it will just consist of questioning OP's behaviour prior to and on the night of February 14th.

Do you have any suspicions at all about the fact that Oscar didn't see this Dr till May this year?, doesn't seem dodgy at all?.