Trial Discussion Thread #39 - 14.05.14 Day 32

[LaLaw2000]

Yea when I first looked I was following you. It resembled a fancy shotgun or rifle. But the trigger was too oddly designed. So I looked again and it almost seemed anatomical, like a knee or elbow, but there were again too many odd things about it to match up with that. It's probably something related to science fiction, an alien weapon or something. I would still love to know.

Perhaps OP will do a John Gacy and become a prison artist. If he draws evil clowns though, I will personally go to the prison and break his hands! :smile:

OOOOHH, can I go to the prison with you??

*If you look at a trigger on a rifle or shotgun from the side, some triggers do look like that, IMO & LOL!

 

[Giles]

Outpatient procedure: have to report to the Psychiatric Hospital daily, possibly as early as 5am through till 9pm.

(Edit) taken from Barry Bateman interview.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

.. and from another link connected to that .. isn't it lovely to see OP looking so relaxed and happy in court (8 May) .. awwww ..

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-05-08-pistorius-trial-week-seven-day-three/#.U3NNunY8dEs

ETA .. pass the green bucket someone, please ..

Actually when I zoom in on his face I think it does look like things are getting to him despite the smile he looks tired and strained ,as he should be .
I can't believe he hasn't noticed how bad his defence has been ,unless of course he is still being overly soothed by his family.
Talking of which I know it shouldn't and I don't know why but it really annoys me how many of OP's family are sat there day in day out to support him when I think of Reeva's mother.It seems kind of intimidating for Reeva's loved ones When all said and done he did shoot Reeva ,some sensitivity on their part might have been better shown by them taking it in turns so there were smaller numbers JMOO

 

[BritsKate]

My prediction, based on what we know so far, and trial watching for 20+ years....

Oscar, unless diagnosed with a disorder so egregious that it affected his ability to differentiate from right or wrong, will be convicted of murder.

A GAD diagnosis without paranoid or delusional features isn't enough to bolster a putative self-defence claim when the accused's testimony has been as bad as it was. I believe that's why Roux wants to introduce further witnesses. This really has been a horrible outcome for the defence, really of their own doing since they tried to introduce psychological testimony to support the accused's account. (Though necessary.)

If the evaluation finds Vorster's diagnosis accurate, it may mitigate a sentence but it's unlikely to make a great deal of difference for determination - especially if the court finds the accused intended to kill someone. If the evaluation finds Vorster's diagnosis isn't accurate, the defence is unable to bolster the accused's testimony. On his testimony alone there is insufficient and contradictory evidence to support putative self-defence which puts us back to murder.

All JMO

 

[Jake18]

The referral ensures that he has three independent additional psychiatric reviews. Each psychiatrist will do a full work up. This will include OP's personal safety and any factors which may have resulted in diminished capacity. Dr Vorster introduced a psychiatric disorder but his whole psychological profile is to be explored in much greater depth, and not only just over two assessments. IMO all of the assessment findings will be welcomed in court, not just those related to the GAD issue. I doubt the judge will discard all of their additional findings and only concentrate on one specific diagnosis, my impression is that all thorough experts' opinions are welcomed in court. Whether this is a good thing for the defence or not depends on whether OP has diminished capacity. I don't think so and neither does the DT.

Just quoting myself, lol. It's a bit like someone with a confusing chronic condition that the family doctor seeks further advice on. There may be a very specific question the referring doctor wants answered, such as whether an antibiotic for skin infection should be changed but a good second opinion (and in this case a 2nd, 3rd and 4th opinion) involves a complete and thorough medical history and examination. People who have seen lots of doctors get annoyed about this "It's all in the file...", "I wait for months and months and have to answer the same bl**dy stupid questions all the time" but it's important that each clinician come to their opinion/diagnosis in their own and usual way. Now, if during a review about the antibiotic the second doctor became concerned about a chronic cough/foot deformity/nasal polyps then this information should be shared.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Which he will be allowed to serve at home, if it goes like everything else has. :banghead:

It seems there is still a problem in SA with the elite getting different justice from any old Joe.

 

[Greater Than]

Agreed! She should have had him commited, not to jail but rather to a psychiatric hospital, the moment that she determined he was a danger. OP better be careful with this, I doubt that these new doctors, that OP isn't paying, will be so nonchalant. They will find a bed for him if needed.

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?!!

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Does anyone think that this might have helped OP from a Public Relations point of view? For the next month or more, people and the media are going to be talking about his mental health and how it feeds into his version. There's going to be less focus on whether he deliberately killed Reeva.

It may well be the case but fortunately the judges will not be swayed by any of this unless it legally affects this case and it which case we would have to be supportive of that in the interests of justice .
I personally think the prosecution has disproved quite a few things in OP's version and the judge could be minded to disbelieve it so it is likely any mental illness will only effect sentencing ?

 

[Nausicaa]

imo it's a loss for the defence, and they DID offer a new defence just by calling Prof V as a witness.

Roux will be kicking himself as the defence cannot now pick and choose who will do the assessment and they have NO control over what Oscar will say to those assessing him.
Oscar is a loose cannon and will only incriminate himself further imho. He just can't help himself, as his testimony showed. He was terrible in the box.

I don't expect Roux will call his next Psych expert when the trial resumes either. I suspect the he has unwittingly lost in two ways. First, there will be no possible defence of diminished responsibility and second, there will be no appeal on the basis of diminished responsibility.

Today I realised that Oscar is definitely going to jail in the very near future, and for a decent amount of time.

Perhaps worth adding that Oscar giving evidence in court stuck to a simple principle: refuse to concede wnything that Nel wanted him to concede, no matter how obviously true it was. As a policy for a guilty man being examined by a competent barrister, that may be quite a good policy. But psychiatric examination is entirely different. Evasion of questions, refusal to answer, convenient amnesia, etc, cannot be used as means of escape as they all constitute part of the evidence to be assessed and will all influence the final report.

 

[Mango33]

I'm surprised she hasn't been called as a defence witness yet, maybe they are saving the best till last.

Actually Annemarie's ex- husband was scheduled to be the first witness today. Weird coincidence!

Barry Bateman @barrybateman
#OscarTrial Roux’s next witness is Oscar’s orthopaedic surgeon Dr Gerry Versfeld, the ex-husband of Annemarie [no-last-name]. BB

 

[Val1]

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?!!

Or fleeing the country while he still has some funds to live elsewhere, didn't he just sell his house?

 

[Greater Than]

The fact that the judge on her own has introduced mental defect as a possible defense is a huge win for the defense. Like it or not.

The judge on her own? Huh?? She didn't introduce anything!

Vorster introduced it not realizing the potential ramifications, Nel challenged her diagnosis, and the judge had no choice but to accept the application.

Please stick to the facts.

 

[BritsKate]

The fact that the judge on her own has introduced mental defect as a possible defense is a huge win for the defense. Like it or not.

I disagree. What the defence really wanted, in my opinion, was to suggest it was because of heightened anxiety and vulnerability (GAD) that Oscar reacted in putative self-defence in the manner he did.

I don't believe the judge stated that but trying an involuntary defence, not guilty by way of mental disease or defect, holds the defence to a much higher burden as South Africa follows the principles established in the M'Naghten rule. Involuntary is not a common defence. It is not something they'd prefer unless they have substantial evidence to prove it. It's not a 'win'. If they have the grounds to pursue it, so be it, but I really doubt they do. Involuntary defences are most often seen in people who have a clearly established psychiatric history spanning months and years before the crime(s) occurred. Andrea Yates and Julie Schenecker are just two such examples. There of course, the defendants were so ill, that their every day living situations were dramatically affected by their disease. They were unable, quite literally, to even function normally.

All JMO

 

[Val1]

Just quoting myself, lol. It's a bit like someone with a confusing chronic condition that the family doctor seeks further advice on. There may be a very specific question the referring doctor wants answered, such as whether an antibiotic for skin infection should be changed but a good second opinion (and in this case a 2nd, 3rd and 4th opinion) involves a complete and thorough medical history and examination. People who have seen lots of doctors get annoyed about this "It's all in the file...", "I wait for months and months and have to answer the same bl**dy stupid questions all the time" but it's important that each clinician come to their opinion/diagnosis in their own and usual way. Now, if during a review about the antibiotic the second doctor became concerned about a chronic cough/foot deformity/nasal polyps then this information should be shared.

Perhaps OP is allergic to all those chicken fingers/fillets he's been living on... I know some of my allergens really change my personality. I get totally fogged out and congested, sometimes with pretty intense headaches and will literally fall asleep in my chair within half an hour of ingesting some of them and that's after taking antihistamines to try and counter it. Yes yes, avoidance is the key.... :facepalm:

 

[Jake18]

Actually Annemarie's ex- husband was scheduled to be the first witness today. Weird coincidence!

Barry Bateman @barrybateman
#OscarTrial Roux’s next witness is Oscar’s orthopaedic surgeon Dr Gerry Versfeld, the ex-husband of Annemarie [no-last-name]. BB

This whole trial has been surreal at times. Truth really is stranger than fiction at times.

 

[jay-jay]

This whole trial has been surreal at times. Truth really is stranger than fiction at times.

I don't think it is, really .. this case is quite simple, and quite common .. i.e. Reeva being in an abusive relationship with OP, they argue, he turns violent and kills her. Nothing strange or unusual about it at all, imo. The trial itself has been surreal, but the actual case isn't at all strange.

 

[Ncl1968]

OOOOHH, can I go to the prison with you??

*If you look at a trigger on a rifle or shotgun from the side, some triggers do look like that, IMO & LOL!

To me it looks like curtains.... Oh sorry you was talking about his picture

 

[aoibhinn]

Good afternoon everyone! I've read the thread and watched this morning's proceedings on YouTube. I've several links open for perusal (Tks to those who provided).

Is that really OP sketching something? What is that he is drawing? It does not look like a gun to my eyes. At first it appeared to be anatomical, but probably not. What is it?

It's a doodle, as someone else correctly pointed out. I'm a doodler, too. He's quite good. It's a mixture of organic shapes and the lower part is more geometric, almost architectural. I thought it might be a pillar feature from the courtroom.

The interesting thing about 'doodling' is that it actually has a value. It's a calming exercise. But also, while you doodle, thoughts go through your head in the background. I do them on my study breaks, for example. I find they help me to process what I've just learned.

Any other doodlers out there? I'm not explaining this very well Feeling a little ill today.....

I'm glad to hear that OP will be a evaluated by a panel of experts - three psychiatrists and one psychologists, if I heard correctly. There's a section in the DSM-5 that covers impulse control and conduct disorders. Interestingly, ASPD is listed both in this section and under personality disorders section. There's a good summary on Wikipedia with embedded links to definitions of the disorders that fall within that category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5#Disruptive.2C_impulse-control.2C_and_conduct_disorders

Disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders

Some of these disorders were formerly part of the chapter on early diagnosis, oppositional defiant disorder; conduct disorder; and disruptive behavior disorder not otherwise specified became other specified and unspecified disruptive disorder, impulse-control disorder, and conduct disorders. Intermittent explosive disorder, pyromania, and kleptomania moved to this chapter from the DSM-IV chapter "Impulse-Control Disorders Not Otherwise Specified".

Antisocial personality disorder is listed here and in the chapter on personality disorders (but ADHD is listed under neurodevelopmental disorders).

Symptoms for oppositional defiant disorder are of three types: angry/irritable mood, argumentative/defiant behavior, and vindictiveness. The conduct disorder exclusion is deleted. The criteria were also changed with a note on frequency requirements and a measure of severity.

Criteria for conduct disorder are unchanged for the most part from DSM-IV. A specifier was added for people with limited "prosocial emotion", showing callous and unemotional traits.

People over the disorder's minimum age of 6 may be diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder without outbursts of physical aggression.Criteria were added for frequency and to specify "impulsive and/or anger based in nature, and must cause marked distress, cause impairment in occupational or interpersonal functioning, or be associated with negative financial or legal consequences"

Also, more detail here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5_codes#Disruptive.2C_impulse-control.2C_and_conduct_disorders_in_DSM-5

But particularly, this extract:

Intermittent Explosive Disorder

Rapid onset of recurrent impulsive, verbally or physically aggressive outbursts typically lasting less than 30 minutes, usually in response to minimal provocation by an intimate or associate, and causing marked impairment in functioning or legal consequences.

 

[G.bng]

Nel will settle for no less than maximum humiliation.

Respectfully snipped for focus and space and BIB

What could be the reason for a highly respected prosecutor as Nel, known for unimpeachable ethics, to settle "for no less than maximum humiliation" in the case of an accused he is prosecution, and not need to ensure that with each prosecution he takes on he is prosecuting the right accused for the right crime and punishment that that justice can be served ?

If prosecutors or judges, and juries when used, tasked with applying and upholding the law fairly and justly were to reduce their decisions to some kind of personal vendetta against an accused it would be unconscionable. JMHO

 

[Magdalyn]

How in the world will doing it on an out-patient basis resolve anything?

So if he's malingering, he only has to keep up appearances so many hours a day, 5 days a week? :waitasec: