Trial Discussion Thread #40

[lithgow1]

I suspect that Emz was not thinking of footballers when she spoke of athletes. Broadly speaking I suppose all sportspeople can be described as athletes, but in the UK the term is principally understood to mean those in track and field sports, maybe swimmers, cyclists, tennis players etc. Less so for team sports like football, cricket or rugby.

Certainly we have had more than our share of badly-behaved footballers, no one would deny that! I include home-grown ones, although note that your examples are not British. There are a lot of foreign football players here in the UK.

I can proudly say we Australians have troublemakers, yobbos and bogans in just about all those sports! Once more our great sporting nation punches above its weight on the world stage! But we do have some gentlemen and women too.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Yobbo

 

[sleuth-d-]

More than a few!!

Here's just three

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

apologies, i was being a bit flippant with the word few, here are a few more:

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal.

Other Related Qualities:

Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Extreme narcissism and grandiose
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)

 

[screecher]

apologies, i was being a bit flippant with the word few, here are a few more:

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal.

Other Related Qualities:

Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Extreme narcissism and grandiose
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)

yeppers. that's op for sure. a sociopath. oh and an admitted killer.

 

[Nausicaa]

Yes. And I'm still waiting. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Waiting for him to commit murder ? Or waiting for the court to pronounce because you think only judges have brains ?

Let's remember what this "presumption of innocence" means and does not mean.

1. It most certainly does not mean that murderers are not guilty until convicted. They are guilty when they intentionally kill a non-aggressor.

2. It most certainly does not mean that private individuals are forbidden by any law of God or man to believe or state that a murderer is guilty of murder until he has been convicted.

3. It does mean that for legal purposes guilt must be established by a fair trial before the murderer can be punished as such or officially treated as such.

4. It also (and chiefly) means that during the trial the burden of proof rests on the prosecution at least as to material facts. Hence, unless the prosecution excludes all reasonable doubt, the accused is pronounced not guilty and is immune to further legal pursuit in connection with the same incident.

5. However it does not generally mean that the burden of proof is on the prosecution once the physical fact has been established that the accused caused the death of the victim. At that point it is generally incumbent on the defence to prove that some exceptional circumstance enabled the guilty act "actus reus" to occur without the usually accompanying evil intention ("mens rea").

6. Nor does it mean that, even after acquittal, anyone who calls the acquitted party a murderer is necessarily guilty of slander before the law. Nor does it mean that civil action against the murderer for damages due as a result of the murder of which he has been acquitted is necessarily doomed to failure.

The above is correct in UK law and I think is pretty well universal.

I would summarize it by saying that the slogan "innocent until proven guilty" does not prevent anyone from making up his own mind when he thinks the evidence is sufficient. I have made up mine in the case of OP.

In fact the case of OP is complicated by the fact that he may be guilty of knowingly murdering Reeva or just of murdering some person he believed to be behind the W.C. door and who was clearly not in the act of attacking him. I think he knew who was there, but I'm not yet sure that the court will be able to reach that conclusion formally. I think the court already has sufficient data to judge that he intentionally killed someone.

 

[lithgow1]

apologies, i was being a bit flippant with the word few, here are a few more:

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal.

Other Related Qualities:

Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Extreme narcissism and grandiose
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)

Good grief! Glad I don't know any sociopaths. Don't reckon I could go as far as that with OP. Is NPD the one where you are basically a completely selfish smart-a jerk who doesn't like to be opposed or told what to do or lose at anything and who gets extremely upset and sometimes angry and vicious with people that don't recognise your superiority or do what you want? Whatever that one is, that's what I choose.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Yes. And I'm still waiting. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, remember?

But he is guilty of murdering Reeva by pumping 4 BT bullets into her. He has admitted he killed her. So what is he innocent of??

 

[lithgow1]

What side of the looking glass are you on? His version is NOT criminal homicide, or he would have just pled guilty and been done with it. Its is very refusal to NOT say he murdered Reeva that so many here mock and that riled folks up.

He won't plead guilty to illegally firing a weapon in a public place or unlawful posession of ammunition when he obviously broke those laws so my money's on there being no way he'd ever plead guilty to criminal homicide.

 

[Val1]

Very extreme. But is has been done. I just can't think of the case.

I'm quite happy with the outpatient ruling. I feel folk are far more pathetic and 'anxious' when institutionalized than what they are when they 'feel' they are in control.

OP would be certain he was in control and 'special' because he would only be visiting Weskoppies from 5am until 9pm daily, not staying there.

Him thinking he is in control is far more beneficial for an accurate diagnosis. IMHO.

His sitting sniveling in a padded cell; sleeping on a mattress on the floor, whilst listening to sociopaths taunt him would make a diagnosis of GAD very easy........... Not as easy if he doesn't have that 'fear' of sleeping there, and losing control. He believes this is going to be a 'diddle' for a manipulator such as he..... :facepalm: because he is 'special' and in control. I say, "the computer says no"

I do hope he gets to do some art and music therapy though. :drumroll:

bbm - As I previously posted:

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?

That said, I also have concerns that OP will be accompanied by one of his caretakers(legal counsel, psychologist, Uncle A., brother or sister, etc.) during these "interviews"... do you know if that will be allowed? I can just picture one of his caretakers being allowed to sit in with pre-arranged signals as to when to keep his mouth shut or break into tears and retching.:/

 

[Nausicaa]

But he is guilty of murdering Reeva by pumping 4 BT bullets into her. He has admitted he killed her. So what is he innocent of??

Here is the decadent scholastic's answer to your question:

1. He is not guilty of murdering Reeva because he thought it was an intruder.
2. He is not guilty of killing an intruder because there wasn't one.
3. THEREFORE he is not guilty!

Case dismissed.

 

[Suthrnqt]

What side of the looking glass are you on? His version is NOT criminal homicide, or he would have just pled guilty and been done with it. Its is very refusal to NOT say he murdered Reeva that so many here mock and that riled folks up.

Which version are you referring to? IMO, OP would never have pled guilty, because he has never in his life took responsibility for any of his actions.

 

[Hope4More]

Can we all agree on killer?

Yep...

 

[Hope4More]

Which version are you referring to? IMO, OP would never have pled guilty, because he has never in his life took responsibility for any of his actions.

Any of his versions. The latter was a rhetorical point.

 

[Hope4More]

He won't plead guilty to illegally firing a weapon in a public place or unlawful posession of ammunition when he obviously broke those laws so my money's on there being no way he'd ever plead guilty to criminal homicide.

Of course he wouldn't . I don't think there is a single person posting on this case who believes OP is willing to take responsibility for anything.

I was making a rhetorical point in reply to the assertion that OP's version conceded he had commited murder. He said no such thing in any of his versions....

 

[lithgow1]

Here is the decadent scholastic's answer to your question:

1. He is not guilty of murdering Reeva because he thought it was an intruder.
2. He is not guilty of killing an intruder because there wasn't one.
3. THEREFORE he is not guilty!

Case dismissed.

Who or what is the decadent scholastic? TIA. I have heard that 1 = 2 = 3 justification put forward elsewhere. It's short but still takes some time getting your head around that anyone could think along those lines. Well except for OP.

 

[lithgow1]

Of course he wouldn't . I don't think there is a single person posting on this case who believes OP is willing to take responsibility for anything.

I was making a rhetorical point in reply to the assertion that OP's version conceded he had commited murder. He said no such thing in any of his versions....

Why do you think he is not guilty of murder when all the circumstances and evidence would suggest he is? I can only say I think he intended to murder Reeva but feel on much more solid ground in saying he intended to kill the intruder in the toilet. He grabbed and cocked his gun and went and shot four times through the door of the tiny room he knew they were in. How is that not murder when it was done by someone thinking clearly enough to not fire a warning shot because the ricochet would have been dangerous?

 

[Hope4More]

Waiting for him to commit murder ? Or waiting for the court to pronounce because you think only judges have brains ?

Let's remember what this "presumption of innocence" means and does not mean.

1. It most certainly does not mean that murderers are not guilty until convicted. They are guilty when they intentionally kill a non-aggressor.

2. It most certainly does not mean that private individuals are forbidden by any law of God or man to believe or state that a murderer is guilty of murder until he has been convicted.

3. It does mean that for legal purposes guilt must be established by a fair trial before the murderer can be punished as such or officially treated as such.

4. It also (and chiefly) means that during the trial the burden of proof rests on the prosecution at least as to material facts. Hence, unless the prosecution excludes all reasonable doubt, the accused is pronounced not guilty and is immune to further legal pursuit in connection with the same incident.

5. However it does not generally mean that the burden of proof is on the prosecution once the physical fact has been established that the accused caused the death of the victim. At that point it is generally incumbent on the defence to prove that some exceptional circumstance enabled the guilty act "actus reus" to occur without the usually accompanying evil intention ("mens rea").

6. Nor does it mean that, even after acquittal, anyone who calls the acquitted party a murderer is necessarily guilty of slander before the law. Nor does it mean that civil action against the murderer for damages due as a result of the murder of which he has been acquitted is necessarily doomed to failure.

The above is correct in UK law and I think is pretty well universal.

I would summarize it by saying that the slogan "innocent until proven guilty" does not prevent anyone from making up his own mind when he thinks the evidence is sufficient. I have made up mine in the case of OP.

In fact the case of OP is complicated by the fact that he may be guilty of knowingly murdering Reeva or just of murdering some person he believed to be behind the W.C. door and who was clearly not in the act of attacking him. I think he knew who was there, but I'm not yet sure that the court will be able to reach that conclusion formally. I think the court already has sufficient data to judge that he intentionally killed someone.

We part ways that OP intended to kill whoever was behind that door. Your obviously firmly believe he did. I think there's reasonable doubt. Those are both opinions, and yeppers, everyone's entitled to have them and shout them and otherwise do what they will with them.

Does not change the fact that OP is not a murderer until he is legally convicted of murder--if that happens. Your thinking him so does not make him so, no matter how many times you say so.

And thanks for the list, but think I'm up to speed already on the legal definitions and implications you itemize.

 

[Hope4More]

Why do you think he is not guilty of murder when all the circumstances and evidence would suggest he is? I can only say I think he intended to murder Reeva but feel on much more solid ground in saying he intended to kill the intruder in the toilet. He grabbed and cocked his gun and went and shot four times through the door of the tiny room he knew they were in. How is that not murder when it was done by someone thinking clearly enough to not fire a warning shot because the ricochet would have been dangerous?

I think you are on far more solid ground too that OP shot to kill an intruder, not Reeva. And your point about clear thinking because of richochet awareness is a good one.

I just don't agree that he necessarily shot to kill. I think his shooting demonstrated a reckless disregard for life, no matter if he was afraid or not. But looking at his past I can absolutely believe he shot in rage at an intruder with the same disregard he showed in the car, on his boat, and in the restaurant.

 

[Val1]

More than a few!!

Here's just three

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

I was reading up a bit online and a few articles I came across were quite interesting(revealing) imo.

Living with Antisocial Personality
http://nurseleah.hubpages.com/hub/antisocialpersonalitydisorder101
Narcissistic Rage and Narcissistic Injury: The Intermittent Explosive Narcissist
http://samvak.tripod.com/journal86.html
Narcissism at a Glance
http://samvak.tripod.com/narcissismglance.html

 

[CriLondon]

yes i agree, about the time op was giving evidence.

i was also referring to the time when others are being questioned, and he is in the background. particularly when the police were going through the photos... pausing at certain points:
the open window, with blinds half way down...
the bedroom thermometer... 'was it on, or off'; 'it was off'
the repeated photos of the air rifle in the open doorway.
the blood on the back [and front?!?] of the cricket bat.

I'll admit to not having gone through that phase properly so i would have to watch again , as i only realized late that he was not going to be televised.

Lately i have been busy between real life and following the developments so could not play catch-up as i wished.

What i can say , quite strongly , is that he must be on some sort of muscle-relaxant medications . There's so often little involvement in his facial expressions that not even the best coaching can do. Thing is with micro-expressions... they act from a sub-concious level , they are very hard to control/conceal/feign. It can be done but a huge amount of training and understanding of emotions must be involved.
From what i have seen so far , he face has been like stone even in difficult moments...moments one would expect to see something.

I have no expertise to judge his breakdowns but i will agree that to that extent they are hard to fake.

I shall use this break from the trial , like i intended , to catch-up on the earlier phases and go through the moments you suggested with a more clinical eye

 

[katydid23]

Some posters have said that Nel hit the jackpot because of info about OP"s behavior leading up to Reeva"s death that has not been presented in court. Any links to that info? Is this rumor info or from a reliable source? Thanks!

There are some links and some excerpts from Whoowhoop Radio panels, upthread, which say that. Actually, they are probably in the previous closed threads, so I will try and find them. I heard one of the panels myself, in which this was discussed. They called it a 'treasure trove' for Nel.