Trial Discussion Thread #39 - 14.05.14 Day 32

[Hope4More]

I think Roux is afraid the experts will discover what we already know-- OP IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR and a person completely lacking in the most basic empathy for other human beings.

I don't think they care about narcissism or borderline --They are afraid he will be found to be a sociopath or even a psychopath. It will be hard for him to hide his complete contempt for anyone who imposes on his will.

Refer back to Jodi Arias. She refused to allow her DT to raise a mental illness defense or to even acknowledge problems other than the imaginary PTSD. Casey Anthony went ballistic when her attys even brought it up to her.

Consider the possibility- I'd say probability- that it has been OP, not Roux, who has opposed psych evaluation.

Nothing convoluted there at all, IMO. I bet Roux is relieved.

 

[BritsKate]

"Devastating legal consequences", why? She made a passing reference to punishment. She might even have meant it metaphorically. Some may think that he is already suffering for the consequences of his actions.

Firstly, I don't believe for a moment she has made her mind up. The outcome of the evaluation could well and truly change the direction of the trial.

But...if it's perceived she has already made a determination before all the evidence has been submitted - it could, at least in theory, lead to allegations of judicial misconduct which could force her recusal and would necessitate a mistrial. Even the appearance of such misconduct (which again, I firmly refute) in the best case scenario could still open a door for a conviction to be overturned on appeal.

Like you, I believe she intended her statement as nothing quite so literal because she has proven herself, over the course of her career, to be fair, cautious, stern when necessary, and above reproach. It's basically my (probably poorly worded) argument to those who are assuming she's hinting that she will find him guilty - that her doing so really wouldn't be such a good thing after all - not if they believe Oscar is guilty of murder and want to see him serve a very long prison sentence ASAP for it, with as limited appellate grounds as possible. KWIM?

 

[Gryffindor]

Or was the punished twice reference meaning the 1st was having to undergo psych assessment??

 

[G.bng]

The only thing Oscar has is awfulwitness syndrome.
I mean think about it, why did they only send him to this Dr on May 2nd 2014?, it really isn't rocket science, this whole nonsense was in readiness for appeal purposes
They thought they could just slip this in at the last minute under Nel's nose, they should have known better than that.

I do "think about it", and thought about it, and we will have to agree to disagree. As I have said there can never be a wrong time to look into a mental incapacity nor to bring it up and, and I am not saying there is one here as I am not convinced there is either except maybe one that affects sentencing, and only on OP's version of events, albeit that would be important enough per se.

Too many times mental problems sufficient to induce a confession, affect a testimony, cause a reaction, etc. are neither noticed or looked into early enough so that there are quite a few with mental health problems wrongly convicted of crimes and jailed for years before their condition is noticed. And once again, I am NOT saying that is what we have here which is still to be seen, but it's difficult to say who to test and who not more especially after the DR's evidence and it's fairer to err on caution than the other way.

And Masipa's reasoning was so clear about why she was allowing it that if I didn't consider it should be before, (I did and especially after re-listening to Nels submissions last night in which his ethical standards in his search for truth and justice shine out), I would certainly have changed my mind by now. JMHO

 

[BritsKate]

Don't you think that it is possible that he has developed GAD? Basically it is simple anxiety, but it includes worrying about three or more things 4-5 days of the week for 6 months or more, IIRC, something along those lines.

Here are some things that OP is likely worrying about:

1. Getting convicted.
2. Going to prison for the rest of his life.
3. Being able to continue to pay his enormous legal bills.
4. Having his bail revoked.
5. Has his defense trumped the State's case against him?
6. Wondering what other evil things Mr. Nel will be doing to him and his defense case.
7. Never again driving a McClaren automobile, drinking with his mates, dressing in designer clothes, eating his exact foods, iPadding , dating beautiful young women, etc...
8. Not being able to return to his life of fame and fortune ever again.

Frankly I would be shocked if Osca' did not have GAD! LOL!!! But just because he does now and it is getting worse, that is not going to get him anything less when it comes to his prison sentence.

I'd argue just following this case has likely given us all GAD. Most of my posts lately reference this case driving me crazy by how bizarre it is and the necessity of tequila shots. 'Nuf said. :biggrin:

 

[Budgie]

In other words....

Can I get my guns back Judge?

Do I drive Oscar...or will there be a driver for Oscar to the facility daily?

As this is court appointed, who pays for the daily outpatient transportation, from home to facility?

Will this be a 9am- 5pm Mon thru Wednesday order; or full Sun thru Sat request?

My Lady?

I was completely off my Birthday noodle when I typed the above, albeit, it was fairly good what I posted. Don't deny me.

I have since recovered from recent events...Me, alcohol, Birthday Dinner ,Sing song, Birthday cake, family and my god forsaken friends.

One last moment before I sign off till Tuesday...

Thank you to every single one of you on Web Sleuths for even saying Hi to me.

You, yes you.....! Behind your screens, as am I, are actually quite a nice bunch...who don't fire without establishment or qualification, when we hear a noise.

And in all truth I don't even know what I just said ....I don't even own a gun.
I'm pickled......
What a day....
Night all.

 

[sleuth-d-]

BBM - yes! And don't forget that Nel asked Dr V if the accused could simply be lying - and Dr V said "yes, he could be lying."

i remember very early on in his cross exam, nel accused op of being a liar. at the time the judge said he couldn't call op a liar.

after the assessment, if the pathological lying is part of the report, then maybe nel will be allowed this description.

[and if this happens, op's version will be worthless... we will be left with just op shooting four times, witnesses hearing a woman screaming, and reeva lying dead in the toilet]

 

[Viper]

i remember very early on in his cross exam, nel accused op of being a liar. at the time the judge said he couldn't call op a liar.

after the assessment, if the pathological lying is part of the report, then maybe nel will be allowed this description.

[and if this happens, op's version VERSIONS, PLURAL, will be worthless... we will be left with just op shooting four times, witnesses hearing a woman screaming, and reeva lying dead in the toilet]

BIB. I corrected that for you. :smile:

 

[Gryffindor]

i remember very early on in his cross exam, nel accused op of being a liar. at the time the judge said he couldn't call op a liar.

after the assessment, if the pathological lying is part of the report, then maybe nel will be allowed this description.

[and if this happens, op's version will be worthless... we will be left with just op shooting four times, witnesses hearing a woman screaming, and reeva lying dead in the toilet]

Only thing is polygraphs cannot and are not used in court matters.

 

[lithgow1]

I am not convinced it is the "usual course of events" and it has not been the case here as bail has not been revoked albeit that's not to say it won't be on Tuesday.

Sorry I took you more seriously than a rant. I get touchy when a person's capacity and/or vulnerability is a question, and both Nel and Masipa must think there is a minimum chance or there would be no tests, not least because I am a voluntary advocate for people with no or diminished capacity. And I am not saying this is OP's case, nor yours either, but I have seen so much hate and injustice dealt them because of a lack of understanding or sympathy it upsets me. Sorry.

Thanks G.bng. I see where you are coming from and would agree with all you say in a general sense. I would not make light or fun of someone's mental health issues as, as with any other disease, the person generally is not responsible for what they suffer from.

Why I have no qualms being snarky about OP is because I think he has revealed himself to be a thoroughly unpleasant and unlikable person. At the start of the trial I had no impression of him other than someone charged with a serious crime and a very suspect story as per the bail application. Since then I've come to the point of not believing his story whatsoever and at the same time have gotten the impression of someone who would do, say and pay anything to get out of this situation. Even the early comment about 'I've put my life on hold' made me squirm in a 'well guess what mate, you are charged with murder and your life being disrupted is a by-product of that' kind of way. And as I've mentioned before I did have sympathy for him early on because of his distress, but that has evaporated as I now see it as much more about his own predicament than over what he actually did. But of course I don't know that, it's just an impression I've gained.

The other reason why I would have liked to see him dragged off would have been to highlight that being famous and wealthy does not necessarilly get you special privileges, though I know that is very rose-coloured of me as of course it does and we all know that. It would also have been a nice juxtaposition to his response that the state's claim was a joke and the reporter should go read the law. Call me mean, but it's always somewhat satisfying to see an arrogant person taken down a peg or two, or down to the cells in the basement in this instance. But it didn't happen as you say and therefore the way the court is dealing with it must be appropriate. Still seems a bit odd to me that a person charged with murder who is now being sent for a psych evaluation is allowed to remain out on bail, especially after his psychiatrist said he could be dnagerous. I don't think for a minute he's about to shoot anyone else but even so it seems strange that he still has his basic freedoms.

Anyway, I shall continue to make jokes about Mr P and be snarky from time to time I am sure but the remarks will only be directed at an unpleasant and overprivileged individual who at this point in time is still classed as 'sane'. If that changes then I'll cease and desist as ultimately I agree with you. Thanks again and sorry for the long post but I felt that your's deserved a considered response and wanted to try and make my thinking and comments clear.

 

[G.bng]

I am not saying that she will give a verdict now but I know which side she is leaning.

A judge's training, professionalism and ethics will not allow them to "lean" one "side" or t'other before hearing ALL the evidence and most certainly NOT to the extent that someone outside their inner circle, if then, would be able to "know". And if they did lean and it was "known" that could be cause for a mistrial. So, you you may think you know, just as I sometimes think I "know", but really KNOW, my bet is you do NOT.

 

[G.bng]

I'm honestly surprised that no news outlet hired a lip reader for this... or one of those little things from spy stores that pick up conversation 50 feet away.

I would think that is disallowed and contempt of court for any journalist trying.

 

[BritsKate]

i remember very early on in his cross exam, nel accused op of being a liar. at the time the judge said he couldn't call op a liar.

after the assessment, if the pathological lying is part of the report, then maybe nel will be allowed this description.

[and if this happens, op's version will be worthless... we will be left with just op shooting four times, witnesses hearing a woman screaming, and reeva lying dead in the toilet]

This is my understanding of how this will play out...if something incriminating is found in the evaluation (that doesn't work in the defence's favour, like malingering) the State will only be able to present it at such time as to rebut the defence. I doubt Nel will be allowed to call Oscar a liar full on, regardless, but he'd very likely be able to present an expert to testify to malingering or deceit being a core feature of something Oscar is diagnosed with. To this end, Nel may also put up his own character witnesses since he was precluded from doing so in his CIC.

I believe his version is already worthless and what's more, I believe his defence team thinks so too and that's why Vorster was brought in to begin with. Even IF GAD is established, it has to be to such a degree that it impacts Oscar so severely I don't think he could maintain everyday, normal life without exhibiting it to a great many people and without it severely impacting his life. Vorster pretty much said his disorder doesn't rise to such a severe level so I expect that either to be confirmed or such a diagnosis to be dismissed entirely.

JMO

 

[G.bng]

Just a thought.

Could it have been Frank who was screaming for help?

:drumroll:

Now you say it there is a possibility it could have been him but it hasn't been put forward and even though one witness said it came from a different place, as if outside the house, that also would appear to fit with OP's version of going out to scream on the bedroom balcony.

 

[Interested Bystander]

RBBM

No, there really isn't. In fact, a murder conviction may be even more likely depending on the outcome of the evaluation. Oscar's entire defence rests solely on his state of mind at the time of Reeva's killing. His testimony alone was horrible and therefore insufficient to prove he was in fear for his life. So the defence sought to bolster his testimony and we are where we are.

The prosecution was forced to bring it up - and if they hadn't - Masipa herself may have. Doing anything else may have reversed a conviction in the future.

As to your possible outcomes:

1. If it is established his 'illness' was such that he couldn't differentiate between right and wrong, it does NOT equal a not guilty ruling. What will happen is a mistrial will be declared, the State can refile charges, and Oscar will be tried again. If he's found to be incompetent to stand trial he will be committed and receive compulsory treatment until such time as he is fit to proceed. Then, and only then, guilt or innocence would be determined on a not guilty by mental disease or defect (involuntary) defence in a new trial. 2. You're right but how much so is largely up to what the diagnosis, and how it affects him, actually is.

3. Obviously the best outcome if you believe Oscar is guilty of murder. But by the same token it's wholly possible a less mitigable disorder could be established as well which could also work to the State's favour.

JMO

After reading Llewellyn Curlewis, head of South Africa's Law Society comments yesterday, I am not so sure OP will face another trial when released if he is found to have had a mental disorder but will defer to your superb knowledge if you think the following statement is wrong or just incomplete. This is not the first time I have read this comment by a learned Lawyer or professor.

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

“If Pistorius is found to have a mental illness that affected his "criminal responsibility," then he cannot be convicted, says Llewellyn Curlewis, head of South Africa's Law Society.

However, the athlete would have to be institutionalized until as such that a panel of psychologists decides in the future that he is now of sound and sober mind," he told Yahoo Sports, at which point Pistorius would be sent back to court procedurally to be released.

It could be a briefer custodial fate than if found guilty of murder, which carries a minimum 15-year sentence."

 

[jilly]

I'm finding it hard to believe that Oscar will be out on bail while undergoing a 30 day psychiatric evaluation. Does the Court in SA not have the option of making an Order for Committal?

 

[G.bng]

David Dadic RT: defence is putative self defence due to heightened state of fear caused by GAD. I think that's it.

That sounds exactly what it is... but of course it will only take effect if Masipa's findings discard the State's version.

 

[wb180]

A judge's training, professionalism and ethics will not allow them to "lean" one "side" or t'other before hearing ALL the evidence and most certainly NOT to the extent that someone outside their inner circle, if then, would be able to "know". And if they did lean and it was "known" that could be cause for a mistrial. So, you you may think you know, just as I sometimes think I "know", but really KNOW, my bet is you do NOT.

Of course I am not in her inner circle. Come on. No one really knows except her. That's why we are all here. Of course she won't say anything because it would be a mistrial.[modsnip]

 

[Carmelita]

Hmmm… I had to run into work for a short bit. I talked with an attorney friend of mine (malpractice not a criminal attorney) and gave him a condensed version and we both came to the conclusion that Roux is crazy like a fox in the hen house. There is simply no way Roux did not know that Nel would request a state assessment, I think the referral may have been a surprise but the result is what Roux wanted, Oscar’s capacity is now in play due to the state’s request. Instead of the Defense bringing up Oscar’s mental health and the possibility of incapacity and the prosecution arguing against it, the prosecution has actually put the possibility of it on the table.

My friend said that an attorney goes to trial but a master plays a game of chess. Roux is playing chess and the first witnesses were pawns.

Oscar is emotionally unstable, even the good judge is on the record as saying that Oscar has been “emotional throughout” the defense witnesses have been odd, Roux never brought up diminished capacity but Nel has now laid it right in his lap. Oscar’s diagnosis and behavior give credence to his putative self-defense version and it will now likely be enhanced by an independent panel of experts. I guess there is some chance that the panel will declare Oscar of stable mind, and not afflicted with any compromising mental disorder but I can’t imagine that will be the case.

As to malingering, here in the US there is a long test to see if you are malingering (I want to say it has over 250 questions but I might be off on that) I imagine SA has a similar test, coupled with interviews, past history and observation, I think an accurate assessment can be made about Oscar’s mental state now and during the morning of February 14th.

Also I still think that Oscar’s status as SA Golden Boy has farther reaching ramifications than some of us would like to believe. As does the power and wealth of the Pistorius family. I’m sure that the powers that be would much rather see the Golden Boy acquitted or deemed incapacitated at the time of the killing. I know Judge Masipa has a very good track record but I was quite surprised by her saying"We can't punish him twice" and I do think that could have legal repercussions.

My thought on what could happen, not that I think it should happen or would be right for it to happen but I believe it is a possibility.

Oscar’s life story is sensational enough; he is a double amputee who ran in the able bodied Olympics. Then he tragically kills his beautiful girlfriend.

Now for the next chapter, he over comes the debilitating mental disorder that made him have such an unreasonable response to a noise in a bathroom , he overcomes the grief of having tragically killed Reeva, and he emerges as a champion of the disabled both physically and mentally as he puts his life back together.

Stranger things have happened.

 

[BritsKate]

After reading Llewellyn Curlewis, head of South Africa's Law Society. comments yesterday, I am not so sure OP will face another trial when released if he is found to have a mental disorder but will defer to your superb knowledge if you think the following statement is wrong or just incomplete. This is not the first time I have read this comment by a learned Lawyer or professor.

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

“If Pistorius is found to have a mental illness that affected his "criminal responsibility," then he cannot be convicted, says Llewellyn Curlewis, head of South Africa's Law Society.
"However, the athlete would have to be institutionalized until as such that a panel of psychologists decides in the future that he is now of sound and sober mind," he told Yahoo Sports, at which point Pistorius would be sent back to court procedurally to be released.
It could be a briefer custodial fate than if found guilty of murder, which carries a minimum 15-year sentence.”

I'd defer to South Africans as most of my legal knowledge comes from US cases, though thank you kindly for the lovely comment. I'm quite happy to be proven wrong. It seems very unfair though to have allowed the entire State's CIC on the presumption he wasn't mentally ill and not allow them to pursue a retrial on the basis he is.

Either way though, the point is the same - a not guilty by mental disease or defect verdict - whether it's at the end of this evaluation or at the potential culmination of a retrial does NOT mean Oscar receives no punishment at all for his crimes. As you so correctly posted, he would be committed. And in some cases, convicted murderers have spent longer hospitalised than they would have incarcerated as the decision to release them is wholly determined by a different set of criteria. He absolutely does not simply walk out of court a free man, which seemed to me (apologies if I'm mistaken) to be the implication.

MOO