Trial Discussion Thread #39 - 14.05.14 Day 32

[aa9511]

I am confused about this whole testing thing. Isn't this favorable to the defense? B/c if it turns out he has some psychological disorder, even if it had nothing to do with the events of Reeva's murder, can't the defense claim that his anxiety was raised and thus he acted in a way a normal person wouldn't? I am just not seeing how this is good for prosecution and bad foe Oscar? The prevailing sentiment on here seems to be that this is bad for Oscar?

 

[katydid23]

I don't think the assessment will involve OP having to answer questions about the night he killed Reeva though, that's not my understanding about the way a person is psychologically assessed. I thought it would be more like a combination of psychometric testing, putting forward various scenarios to see how he would react in certain situations, then maybe going into various things throughout his life prior to the event, that sort of thing. As Nel would say, "Am I right?" :crazy:

I will have to try and find the Whoopwhoop panel I listened to. I am almost certain they said that he WOULD be questioned in depth about the night in question.

 

[Viper]

~snipped~

BIB .. I'm not talking about that type of thing, and am a bit taken aback that you've belittled the point I was making, especially considering that things like psychometric testing along with a whole raft of other tests are actually what psychologists *normally* use in determining and diagnosing a psychiatric condition. Sorry it's only wiki, but it's concise .. take your pick from this list Categorysychiatric assessment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BIB. I had no intention of doing that, I had no idea that I did until I just now read your reply. But I don't want you to be offended, so please accept my sincere apology.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Good post, and I totally agree. It's somewhat naive to assume the judge has no feelings one way or another at the moment. Of course she does. She's sat through endless witness testimony, heard the numerous lies OP has told under oath, heard him discrediting perfectly credible witnesses in order to bolster his own lies, and watched as he categorically denied the Tasha's incident. There is no way she hasn't got some idea in her head already about which way this is going to go, and I don't believe she needs 'removing from the bench' simply for formulating her own impressions as the trial's progressed.

She also "experienced him" first-hand.

When Nel had to stop during OP's testimony and was ask him whether he was too tired to go on, M'Lady inquired, herself. She asked OP the same question and he rambled off in another direction for awhile (as he is wont to do). She stopped him. "Mr. Pistorius, you haven't answered the question. You must answer the question."

 

[IfIMay]

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.

You gave him YOUR version and he agreed with you. Amazing. Got to hand it to you.. you are with OP to the end. I hope he proves himself crazy into a psych ward the rest of his life. That would be poetic justice.

 

[Val1]

I can't understand why there isn't 100% agreement that a psych eval of OP is a good and fair thing, regardless of what the evaluation produces.

Reeva's loved ones deserve that the trial be fair. OP deserves a fair trial. Since much of the case rests upon OP's state of mind, what could be more logical than having his state of mind examined? The judge's point of having him examined isn't to bolster either the State's case or the defense, nor to harm either, whatever Nell was or was not trying to accomplish.

Examine him and let the chips fall where they may.

I don't think any opposition to it is on whether it's a good and fair thing in and of itself, regardless of the results, at least for me it's about whether the evaluation itself will be a good and fair thing... how can a proper evaluation be done on an outpatient basis when the tests are designed for an inpatient, fully supervised 30 day commitment? Surely by letting OP go home each day and replenish himself both mentally with the support of his family, friends and legal counsel, and physically with his accustomed diet, social activities and rest quarters it will skew any results?

 

[katydid23]

Forensic psychologist on Sky News talking about the assessment process.

Typed as said.

"Each panel member has their own personal interview. And also if a clinical psychologist sits in, they have their own individual interview and assessments that they will redo. So you have individual interviews, you have interviews together with your panel members. The basic question, and there's a basic formula going to this, is that they get the history, as far as they can from his developmental history, as he's grown up, when his amputations happened, etc etc - so, background history.

And then they go into specific detail as to the night of the alleged offence... when Miss Steenkamp was killed.
And that basic questioning will be repeated in the days that he goes for observation. They will every time ask him what happened on the day, please tell us what happened on the day, so they can check if there's consistencies in the version, so they can check for psychiatric or psychological symptoms, so it's a repetitive process that happens from then on."

THANK YOU for transcribing the above excerpt.

That right there convinces me that Roux did NOT want his client to be referred.
No way. OP did a terrible job trying to stay consistent with his story of that night. This will be devastating to that narrative, imo. No wonder Roux was so passionate and urgent in his opposition to this referral. anic:

 

[ColonelMustard]

Well I hinted at it before and I'll hint again
I think Roux has pulled a masterstroke here I really do.............this was all planned when they realised their case was lost.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and OP is now going to try for 'crazy' so it wasn't his fault.

Hope I'm wrong.

I, respectfully, disagree. )

One interesting thing I noticed was as soon as Nel finished raising the spectre of Section 78 for the very first time, Roux immediately jumped up to oppose it. At the very same time he rose, he reached under the lecturn and brought out a law book that seemed to already be open to section 78 because he just started reading from the page he was on.

It made me think that, somehow Roux saw the possibility of Nel raising 78 but felt ( and you could tell from his vehemence) that he was on the correct side of arguing the opposite of what Nel did on what saw as a "two-part" statute(?).

I'd love it if someone curious would go back and look at that and tell me what you think. Again, it was during the first segment of the first day of Dr. V's testimony.

 

[Hope4More]

As a professional athlete, one that represented SA in the ParaOlympics, wouldn't OP have had (along with the other athletes) some sort of counseling with a professional? And if he did, then why was any of his problems not discovered then?

I've no idea whether or not SA athletes do mandatory counseling. I guess I can't imagine why they would.

I used to compete in white water racing at the national level in the US. Counseling never came up or was offered.....nor for the friends I had that went on to compete internationally. Dunno.

 

[screecher]

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.

Oh please.

 

[Carmelita]

You gave him YOUR version and he agreed with you. Amazing. Got to hand it to you.. you are with OP to the end. I hope he proves himself crazy into a psych ward the rest of his life. That would be poetic justice.

Well I gave him a bare bones version but it did come through my lips.

I have never said I am with OP that is an over simplification of my viewpoint.

I am with the evidence.

If hating Oscar and believing he was a cold blooded killer despite exculpatory evidence would bring Reeva back I could see some fruit in the behavior. I just don't see how ignoring evidence does anything for Reeva.

I think it is horrific that she died at Oscars hands, I think it is horrific that she will not take another breath, I think it is a parents worst nightmare to bury their beloved child.

I don't think all that horror and sadness allows me to label Oscar as a cold blooded killer given I don't believe that it has of yet been proven that his version of that AM is not very close to the truth.

 

[Val1]

In response Carmelita and BritsKate,

Sorry for not quoting both of your lists but I just have one explanation that imo accounts for both lists.... "adrenalin junkie". Now how to fit that in with any narcissistic tendencies, anger management issues or cluster type personality traits, I'll leave up to you experts.

 

[MeeBee]

I am confused about this whole testing thing. Isn't this favorable to the defense? B/c if it turns out he has some psychological disorder, even if it had nothing to do with the events of Reeva's murder, can't the defense claim that his anxiety was raised and thus he acted in a way a normal person wouldn't? I am just not seeing how this is good for prosecution and bad foe Oscar? The prevailing sentiment on here seems to be that this is bad for Oscar?

I think it could go either way, depending on the findings. It could be very helpful or hurtful to either side. I don't know if Nel requested the evaluation for a "gotcha" so much as he did for thoroughness and veracity. Of course, he's probably hoping for a gotcha, but I'm not sure it's his main goal.

 

[katydid23]

I think Oscar likes power and control. I believe he enjoys others being fearful of him. I find him to be egocentric, narcissistic, selfish, with a sense of entitlement, manipulative and callous. I think he's reckless, impulsive, and aggressive.

That describes many world class athletes.


Since you have listed 9 things that you believe disprove hyper vigilance I will list 9 things that lean toward hyper vigilance. In my opinion a list does not prove it one way or the other though;

Having a firearm in the home loaded with black talon bullets

Reinforcing the bedroom door with a cricket bat because the lock was working but weak

Having the glass in the house for the broken window and giving the contractor an order to fix it

Telling the contractor to secure the ladders ( I think we will have to disagree about his diligence on this one a bit because I believe since Oscar came from privilege and grew to even greater privilege he assumed that his orders to contractors would be carried out).

Having an alarm system that included different safeguards so if one part of the system wasn’t working there was still a working alarm

Living in a gated community

Almost always carrying a firearm

Rushing out with his gun drawn when his friend knocked over a fan

Going into combat mode because he thought his washing machine was an intruder
I guess it is a subjective matter.

BBM

Speaking of the alarm, why didnt he push that panic button that night?

Isn't that the main purpose of having such a device. Being able to summon immediate emergency aid?

And why did he turn off the alarm when he went downstairs to open the front door? Didnt he want an emergency response?

 

[BritsKate]

I am confused about this whole testing thing. Isn't this favorable to the defense? B/c if it turns out he has some psychological disorder, even if it had nothing to do with the events of Reeva's murder, can't the defense claim that his anxiety was raised and thus he acted in a way a normal person wouldn't? I am just not seeing how this is good for prosecution and bad foe Oscar? The prevailing sentiment on here seems to be that this is bad for Oscar?

Theoretically, yes which is why it's usually defence attorneys to request an independent psychological exam and usually pretrial, if it's warranted. This is a very rare, very strange occurrence, in my opinion. Stranger still for the defence to contest it.

What I believe is that the defence wanted to float (and bolster Oscar's testimony) that he's more anxious and vulnerable than the average person and as such, reacted in self-defence, in a way others may not without actually having to prove he's sufficiently mentally ill to warrant diminished responsibility or, worse yet, an involuntary defence. I personally believe he isn't so mentally ill he meets the requirements for either.

Now, through the evaluation, they're required to prove it or rely solely on a putative private defence case with no psychological testimony to bolster it. By most accounts, Oscar's testimony was horrible to establish sufficient state of mind to prove his defence so without psychological testimony to support it - he could well be looking at a murder conviction.

By the same token, there may be something less 'sympathetic', less mitigable diagnosed that could favour the State and hurt the defence. And - as a bonus - it opens previously closed doors to the State in terms of history, the events of that night, etc. as katydid and lithgow have both pointed out.

But yes, you're right - it could well swing in the defence's favour too - depending on the outcome of the evaluation.

JMO

 

[Val1]

Hi all,
One thing I do not understand is, why didn't the defense do all of this (psychological testing) before the trial??

Do we know for sure that they didn't?

 

[katydid23]

I am confused about this whole testing thing. Isn't this favorable to the defense? B/c if it turns out he has some psychological disorder, even if it had nothing to do with the events of Reeva's murder, can't the defense claim that his anxiety was raised and thus he acted in a way a normal person wouldn't? I am just not seeing how this is good for prosecution and bad foe Oscar? The prevailing sentiment on here seems to be that this is bad for Oscar?

According to what I heard on a whoopwhoop panel, this can be very bad for OP. The reason is that he will be interviewed in great depth, by at least three professionals, about the details of the night in question. And he will be assessed according to consistency and truthfulness and whether the story holds together.

After seeing him on the stand, i think this might be a disaster awaiting him. These are not paid people handpicked by his team/ and they are given ALL the evidence, not cherry picked by the DT. Also, they are forensic psychs, so they are totally experienced working with prisoners, criminals, malingerers and innocent defendants.

This is a potential mine field for OP. For example, he told Vorster that he did intentionally shoot towards the scary noise, and didn't know it was Reeva. Yet he insisted under oath that he did NOT aim at the door, but shot without thinking, thus it was accidental shooting in that way. These kinds of glaring inconsistencies will be noted by three separate professional forensic experts.

Now I understand why Roux fought so hard agains this referral.

 

[ColonelMustard]

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

The interview (video) of Judge Landsman (JL) posted by someone in here is really interesting, as are all the interviews with him.

M'Lady asked who had the onus in this and somehow the defense accepted it. JL said:

1. The court did
2. Yesterday, he would have given his decision ( that he be admitted) within ten minutes, stating that his reasons would follow.
3. He said it didn't need to be an application by Nel but rather a submission reminding the court that it was her duty to follow this course.
4. He said that he would not have begun the trial without a full workup on OP because -- it was completely contrary to anything in his life before this, so something could very possibly be wrong with him.


I can't quite see what the downside of getting a psych eval on anyone EXCEPT that is the state has access to those records at the beginning, the accused, imho, wouldn't be getting a fair trial.

Also, at least from the little I know about anything or anyone involved in any of this, I strongly agree with ALL of Nel's perceptions of Oscar past, present, and during.

The one thing that I find much more interesting than GAD is his boating accident. I feel certain that they will try to assess that in his eval and whether it marked a noticeable or evolving change in his behaviors, moods, frustration tolerance, etc.

 

[Cherwell]

I'm not a big fan of quickie psychiatric diagnoses done in one or two interviews for use in the courtroom by either side but in a mostly circumstantial case like this it really can't be avoided. Better OP is examined properly by a team of experts than to rely on one potentially biased psychiatrist.

So far the forensic testimony hasn't exactly been stellar IMO. I'm not familiar enough with forensic science to challenge any expert's opinion directly but it seems that at least some of the differing views among them could be resolved by consulting experts with specialized knowledge - goodness knows there are enough out there to choose from. I was thinking about the Jonathan Richardson case (he murdered Teghan Skiba) and how overwhelming and clear the evidence was. Not so in this case, which makes me seriously question why the defense didn't seek out the best of the best for their team.

One area I am familiar enough with to challenge is acoustics, though from a musician's stand point. Evidence presented (or not!) so far doesn't even approximate proper investigation. Sound waves are very predictible: with the proper data you can do the math, apply the physics and you'll get accurate results. There's also an element of how the brain proccesses sounds but even that is well understood. IOW, Wolmaran's tinnitus has exactly zero relevance to any scientific testing.

I understand that we're not privvy to all of the forensic information so it's hard to accurately make judgements based on sound bites and media reports but some of it reeks worse than a dead fish on a sidewalk in July. Hopefully OP's psychiatric evaluation will be conducted in a professional manner.

BIB
Short answer, it's no good hiring the best of the best if they're not going to say what you need them to say.

 

[Estelle]

I'm surprised he wasn't remanded to a mental health facility immediately upon her ruling. If she found just cause to approve the 78 application, how can she be sure this possible mental illness/defect will not contribute to him harming someone else while he awaits evaluation?!!

IMO if he is an outpatient, there is more a danger that he could commit suicide or do a runner now.