Trial Discussion Thread #40

[Trooper]

the very worst thing for Oscar is that all and any findings made by this panel will be the property of the Court, the Proscution and by extension , the defence.. it is a huge and irreversible mistake that Oscar, and Roux, under Oscar's instruction, didn't have an impartial assessment done way before the trial began, the findings of which would have been under Oscar's control. It must be quite horrible for him to have this get away from his management, something he could have so easily avoided.

The date of Vorsters consultation with Oscar , after the trial began, after the prosecution witnesses, after his own evidence states clearly that this was a sudden and urgent catchup, and even then , only 2 sessions with Vorster were able to occur. Some one was in a very big hurry, . or someone finally decided that ones attorney may have been right all along.

But even then, I doubt if Oscar had any insight into what Vorster would testify to. He couldn't possibly have .

 

[Hatfield]

Hi Hatfield.

I didn't like the out-patient proposal but it's been explained to us here that if it is, he will be there from 5am-9pm. Not sure if it's everyday or weekends off.
If he were to be committed to the institution, he'd have a wait of months before getting a bed. There are hundreds already on the list, apparently.

It won't be official until Tuesday when Her Ladyship gives the order. Pros and Def, in the meantime are working out the order for her to sign.

Thank you. This helps to understand.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when the DT talks to OP about the requirements. :floorlaugh:

I can hear it now.

DT: We really need you to show up once a day from 5 AM - 9 PM
OP: WTH!!! No way. I will agree to no more than once a week for 1 hour only and its whenever I decide to get there.

DT: Uhhhhh. Listen OP. If you dont agree to this then they may have you committed 24 X 7 for a month.
OP: Let them try. Just let them try. Me, Mr Smith + Mr Wesson will be waiting for them.

:floorlaugh:

 

[Trooper]

Here are your exact words;







Psychiatrists are physicians they take the Hippocratic Oath. If you think that anyone in the mental health field will treat Oscar as Nel did you are simply mistaken. What your are suggesting would be the willful harming of a human being by mental health professionals.

Mental health professionals that are not doctors also have the moral and legal obligation to not harm patients/clients in their care.

It is a simple case of morality.

This panel is not gathered together to heal Oscar. They are appointed by the court to evaluate IF he has the disorder, or any other, that his own witness claimed. its that simple. It isn't complicated. That is their job, appointed by the court to do, with impartiality. And then to testify to their findings , be there any findings or not. . Oscar is not ordered to attend to be treated for a disorder , at all. This is a mistake and leads to confusion. He is ordered by the court to attend to ascertain if his witnesses claims have substance, or not.

If, for example ,he does have all manner of disorders, his treatment will not be the task nor the responsibility of the panel. It will be Oscars responsibility to seek treatment, should he chose to, unless and until the court, in its wisdom finds that he is incapable and there fore comes under the auspices of the court for treatment, involuntarily , in a safe and secure environment.
Because, either way.. Oscar is an accused person of the major crime in SA law, and as such, he would be detained until he is able to instruct his attorneys to the courts satisfaction. He doesn't go free, to wander around being disordered and prone to murder.

 

[Apollo]

Thank you. This helps to understand.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when the DT talks to OP about the requirements. :floorlaugh:

I can hear it now.

DT: We really need you to show up once a day from 5 AM - 9 PM
OP: WTH!!! No way. I will agree to no more than once a week for 1 hour only and its whenever I decide to get there.

DT: Uhhhhh. Listen OP. If you dont agree to this then they may have you committed 24 X 7 for a month.
OP: Let them try. Just let them try. Me, Mr Smith + Mr Wesson will be waiting for them.

:floorlaugh:

This is really going to turn into a mess if he pulls a Martin MacNeil and refuses to meet with the mental health experts and just doesn't show up. Then what are they going to do?

 

[TorisMom003]

I hardly think an intruder upon hearing a 9mm fired a spit away would continue up the ladder and in a window toward the shots. I also hardly think a man in such an extreme situation as Oscar describes himself as perceiving to be in, would have the presence of mind to think after shooting 4 bullets into the toilet that he should now focus his attention on the window. But then again the mystery of stopping at 4 bullets could be solved as Oscar may have been subconsciously saving bullets for any further intruders. But that is just farcical speculating on my part.

OP himself stated while on the stand that he backed out of the bathroom down the hallway into the bedroom because he was concerned with someone being on the ladder and coming after him. And since there was no intruder to begin with, then of course it doesn't really make much sense for us to talk about what an intruder "might" do. However, since OP claims that he was certain that an intruder was in his home (up until he "realized" Reeva wasn't in the bedroom) then we do have to look at what he should have done to protect himself against the perceived intruders. And as I said in my post that was quoted, OP had the presense of mind to have his eyes move from the bathroom window to the toilet room door, back and forth, until he heard the wood sound and fired.

If one is claiming that his version/s could be true, then one should understand that when someone brings up things that should have been done that it would be wise to rethink or recheck OP's testimony for what he actually claimed.

MOO

 

[Magdalyn]

Psychiatrists are physicians they take the Hippocratic Oath. If you think that anyone in the mental health field will treat Oscar as Nel did you are simply mistaken. What your are suggesting would be the willful harming of a human being by mental health professionals.

Mental health professionals that are not doctors also have the moral and legal obligation to not harm patients/clients in their care.

It is a simple case of morality.

Nel has been willfully harming Oscar? And the judge has been allowing it?!

:thud:

 

[PPKik]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
He's guilty of killing her. He's not been found guilty of murdering her;
he is innocent of murder until proven otherwise.

No. He is presumed innocent. Big difference.

I would love to know the difference between "innocent of murder until proven otherwise" and "presumed innocent." What is the big difference?

Aren't all people, not-yet-convicted, but accused of crimes, "technically" and legally innocent?

 

[Trooper]

This is really going to turn into a mess if he pulls a Martin MacNeil and refuses to meet with the mental health experts and just doesn't show up. Then what are they going to do?

The first thing that would happen in that event is Roux would retire from the case as his attorney. Roux has already agreed to this procedure , on behalf of Oscar , so Roux would be Oscars first casualty. The next , would be Oscar's bail. That would be instantly revoked and he would become the accused at large, being sought for non compliance.


I don't put it past Oscar to try it on, though.

 

[Trooper]

Nel has been willfully harming Oscar? And the judge has been allowing it?!

:thud:

:dramaqueen: that is such an absurd claim . it just has no place in rational discussion.

 

[Viper]

Here are your exact words;

Psychiatrists are physicians they take the Hippocratic Oath. If you think that anyone in the mental health field will treat Oscar as Nel did you are simply mistaken. What your are suggesting would be the willful harming of a human being by mental health professionals.

Mental health professionals that are not doctors also have the moral and legal obligation to not harm patients/clients in their care.

It is a simple case of morality.

Oh, alright, so you were not saying that OPs observation will be different than what is prescribed in section 77-79. You are at odds with my including Mr. Nel's cross examination of OP as an analogy. That's fine, if you perceive Mr. Nel's cross examination as being cruel or unusual or harmful to OP. But it really was not. Mr. Nel simply asked OP questions related to his actions that led to him killing Reeva. And now three psychiatrists, one psychologist, several nurses, and perhaps one occupational therapist will do the same. The three distinct differences are 1) they will do it for 30 days straight, 2) they have criminal psychiatric and psychological training, and 3) they will have the transcript of what OP and others said in court. So they will be digging much deeper than Mr. Nel was allowed to do.

 

[TorisMom003]

Nel has been willfully harming Oscar? And the judge has been allowing it?!

:thud:

Oh yes. Nel should have offered him tea and cookies, rubbed his back, taken it easy on the poor boy. After all, OP was just protecting himself, oh yea and Reeva too, from the bad scary intruder/s that decided to rummage through his toilet room.

But on the other hand, Oldwage and Roux can bash and batter and go as hard as he wants to against the State's ear witnesses that have committed no crime and are not on trial for murder.

:banghead:

 

[jilly]

Thank you. This helps to understand.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when the DT talks to OP about the requirements. :floorlaugh:

I can hear it now.

DT: We really need you to show up once a day from 5 AM - 9 PM
OP: WTH!!! No way. I will agree to no more than once a week for 1 hour only and its whenever I decide to get there.

DT: Uhhhhh. Listen OP. If you dont agree to this then they may have you committed 24 X 7 for a month.
OP: Let them try. Just let them try. Me, Mr Smith + Mr Wesson will be waiting for them.

:floorlaugh:

lol - It's going to be nice just to witness (on Tuesday) someone else calling the shots!. I wonder if he grinds his teeth because if so, he's really going to wear them down from now until then.

If you haven't already, you should read Cape Town Crim's post #58 on page 3.

 

[TorisMom003]

This is really going to turn into a mess if he pulls a Martin MacNeil and refuses to meet with the mental health experts and just doesn't show up. Then what are they going to do?

Simple, arrest him and put him in jail until a bed opens up at the hospital for him. He's out on bail right now, however that doesn't mean that he has to stay out on bail.

MOO

 

[Murphys_Law]

I thought what was so telling was that OP told Dr Vorster that he "shot at the noise". IMO we can then assume that he shot at the person behind that door who made that noise. This implies that he shot at that person.

...and the noise was Reeva screaming

 

[Carmelita]

This panel is not gathered together to heal Oscar. They are appointed by the court to evaluate IF he has the disorder, or any other, that his own witness claimed. its that simple. It isn't complicated. That is their job, appointed by the court to do, with impartiality. And then to testify to their findings , be there any findings or not. . Oscar is not ordered to attend to be treated for a disorder , at all. This is a mistake and leads to confusion. He is ordered by the court to attend to ascertain if his witnesses claims have substance, or not.

If, for example ,he does have all manner of disorders, his treatment will not be the task nor the responsibility of the panel. It will be Oscars responsibility to seek treatment, should he chose to, unless and until the court, in its wisdom finds that he is incapable and there fore comes under the auspices of the court for treatment, involuntarily , in a safe and secure environment.
Because, either way.. Oscar is an accused person of the major crime in SA law, and as such, he would be detained until he is able to instruct his attorneys to the courts satisfaction. He doesn't go free, to wander around being disordered and prone to murder.

He doesn't go free, to wander around being disordered and prone to murder.


Eh? Surely no one has suggested this, if he is found delusional or dangerous he will be committed until he he restored to sound mental health.


Oscar is being sent for a court mandated evaluation. We won;t know the details until Tuesday.


If the panel finds clear indication of a manageable mental disorder on day 3, 5 or 29 of Oscars evaluation are you suggesting that they will not advise a course of treatment or refer Oscar to a non-paneled colleague for treatment.

By this reasoning if a defendant shows indications of having a heart attack but the State thinks that they are faking it but they send the defendant to a doctor for a medical evaluation the good doc could just say yes or no the guy is having a heart attack but not seek treatment for him? Surely we are more enlightened and educated than that in 2014.

 

[Val1]

I was going to post about this earlier and decided not to. But since you've asked the question, I have the same one. I think I've seen earlier posts where there has been disagreement about what exactly was said and the fact that Americans tend to equate the word "toilet" with the actual fixture rather than the room where the fixture is found. jmo

Poor reporting? On redirect OP says "I saw that her cell phone was in the toilet" so unless it was during direct, which I am not going to listen to again(well not today... ), I suppose you could take it either way.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-...oss-examination-gets-combative-153124242.html

Realizing then that she was still breathing, Pistorius said he pulled her into the bathroom, gently laying her head on a bathmat. Finding her cellphone in the toilet bowl, he tried to call for help, but couldn't access the iPhone without her passcode, he said.

Start at 3:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbz64-Ie0BM

 

[Carmelita]

Oh, alright, so you were not saying that OPs observation will be different than what is prescribed in section 77-79. You are at odds with my including Mr. Nel's cross examination of OP as an analogy. That's fine, if you perceive Mr. Nel's cross examination as being cruel or unusual or harmful to OP. But it really was not. Mr. Nel simply asked OP questions related to his actions that led to him killing Reeva. And now three psychiatrists, one psychologist, several nurses, and perhaps one occupational therapist will do the same. The three distinct differences are 1) they will do it for 30 days straight, 2) they have criminal psychiatric and psychological training, and 3) they will have the transcript of what OP and others said in court. So they will be digging much deeper than Mr. Nel was allowed to do.

It has nothing to do with what I think of Nel's prosecuting style. It has to do with ethics and doing no harm, a physician can not harm a patient and calling Oscar a liar ect. and trying to goad him for 30 days would not be ethical for a mental health professional.

It doesn't matter if Oscar is there for an evaluation or treatment the doc's first rule is not to harm him. It would be highly unethical for them to treat him as Nel treated him on the stand.

Simple. They are not there to determine Oscar's guilt or innocence they are there to give an assessment of his mental health.

 

[Trooper]

He doesn't go free, to wander around being disordered and prone to murder.


Eh? Surely no one has suggested this, if he is found delusional or dangerous he will be committed until he he restored to sound mental health.


Oscar is being sent for a court mandated evaluation. We won;t know the details until Tuesday.


If the panel finds clear indication of a manageable mental disorder on day 3, 5 or 29 of Oscars evaluation are you suggesting that they will not advise a course of treatment or refer Oscar to a non-paneled colleague for treatment.

By this reasoning if a defendant shows indications of having a heart attack but the State thinks that they are faking it but they send the defendant to a doctor for a medical evaluation the good doc could just say yes or no the guy is having a heart attack but not seek treatment for him? Surely we are more enlightened and educated than that in 2014.

His own witness ,Prof Vorster has already stated that the disorder she believes he has is treatable and should have been diagnosed and treated for a very very long time. That is not the issue.

It is not the responsibility OR the task of the panel to treat, or manage whatever disorder they may find. Or not. . he would be referred onwards. The panel itself is not formed to the view to treat Oscar's disorder, should he have one. This is the mistake that is being made. Their job is an impartial evaluation. And evaluation ONLY. nothing more. They have no mandate to treat Oscar.. has Oscar expressed a wish to you that he wants to be treated?? Absolutely not. Their impartiality would be compromised should they suddenly become his counsellors. This irrational thinking is probably due to a misreading of the statute, or the concept of court appointed evaluation. Keep in mind, this is not at the request of Oscar. far from.

 

[Karmady]

Oh, alright, so you were not saying that OPs observation will be different than what is prescribed in section 77-79. You are at odds with my including Mr. Nel's cross examination of OP as an analogy. That's fine, if you perceive Mr. Nel's cross examination as being cruel or unusual or harmful to OP. But it really was not. Mr. Nel simply asked OP questions related to his actions that led to him killing Reeva. And now three psychiatrists, one psychologist, several nurses, and perhaps one occupational therapist will do the same. The three distinct differences are 1) they will do it for 30 days straight, 2) they have criminal psychiatric and psychological training, and 3) they will have the transcript of what OP and others said in court. So they will be digging much deeper than Mr. Nel was allowed to do.

Comparing how Nel treats the defendant with how an independent mental health professional treats the defendant is a non-starter, imo. If a doctor did what Nel does, he would, imo, be violating his ethics and potentially causing harm. The doctors roles and ethical responsibilities are completely different than Nel's. jmo

 

[Carmelita]

Nel has been willfully harming Oscar? And the judge has been allowing it?!

:thud:

No you have misstated what I posted, I said for a mental health professional to treat Oscar as Nel treated Oscar would go against their ethical code.