Trial Discussion Thread #40

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Have a super evening (morning/afternoon).

I'm off to bath and practice screaming like Oscar for 15 minutes non-stop in a manner in which I have NEVER screamed before. I want to see if my voice would be hoarse after an exercise like that. (I don't think Oscar's voice was................)
 
OP has the right to not incriminate himself in any way, shape or form. I believe these tests were carried out shortly after the shooting, as is standard. The state can not enforce them, but as a matter of procedure in cases such as this, the DT usually runs the necessary. I'm sure Oscar performed and whinged insisting there is nothing wrong with him, but would have begrudgingly participated.

Apart from what one would expect from a traumatized person, I do believe there might have been a few concerns. Bury them - in the same way the DT under a blanket of silence can bury pretty much anything it wants to in SA.

Barry has in no way misled the court by doing this. Tis their right. Their tests, their decision in what to do with them.

That said, Barry might have suggested from the get-go that Oscar plead and utilize an illness of the mind (real or fabricated) - but I'm sure our friend would have none of it.

The last thing OP wants it to be seen even MORE different. He believes in his own perfection.

I have no way of ever proving these tests took place, and I might be terribly wrong. I just reckon they DT have some indication that all is not 'grand' in the psyche.......due to previous evaluation.

We will never know I guess, in the same way we will never know what really happened that evening :banghead: Frustrates me no end.

having the thirty day assessment will go some way towards an answer. if op comes out clear then it is unfounded. if he comes out with a long list... then it is possible a report was buried.

my view is towards a longish list [pathological lying/npd], but i do not think roux knew this from before the start of the trial... i imagine he knows it now.
 
Hi :seeya:

Sorry, I realize now that what I wrote I didn't make much sense. Roux himself would not have had the chat with her - he leaves that to Brian Webber and Roxanne Adams. But: his instruction, pre-discussed with instructing attorney Webber and candidate attorney Adams. One of them usually goes to 'fetch' the next witness for the DT - sometimes leaving the courtroom quite some time before the witness is actually called. In the same way Mike van Aardt collected the PT witnesses.
There is always a last minute instruction for them in a high profile case like this (in run of the mill cases, a court orderly usually calls witnesses) which is why a member of the team will want that few minutes with an important witness. I.e: don't fall into a trap re: diagnosis, focus on the vulnerability more than than the anxiety etc - or whatever Roux's instructions were.

Adams did run out to fetch her, and I firmly believe wanted to relay final messages etc - ESPECIALLY in Dr Vorsters case, as the DT would only have had the 'bare' outline of her hastily compiled report.
Adams stays away for some time, and no-one comes in. Barry asks for 5 mins. The M'lady says, "someone has come in". Adams returns and then Barry lambasts her. She attempts to explain that Dr Vorster had gone round the other way (Barry smartly turns back to camera position at this stage).

I believe he asked her if she had spoken to Dr Vorster, and she said NO, then tried to explain why.

The whole event was too weird for words.

All IMHO of course - but that's what I read from it. :blushing:

I'm not seeing that at all. What I see is that Roux announced the next witness as soon as the court excused the male expert. That expert took forever to pack his gear and exit, yet the next witness is still nowhere to be seen even though Roux's been told she is there. After turning around to look for her and his colleague who went to get her, he asks for an adjournment and tells the court he was told the witness was present -- he's confused about where she is since she's in the courthouse but not in the courtroom. Adams comes back and sits down but still no witness, so Roux is like wth? where'd she go? That's seriously all I see. jmo
 
being able to look at micro-expressions here, could give you some very interesting insights. imo. i hope you share more.

The biggest shame , as far as micro-expressions go , is that OP chose not to be televised during EIC and cross-exam. I suspect that is one of the reasons why.

Under that sort of intense cross-exam by Nel (and Roux seems to know him well , so i speculate he would have advised OP not to be televised) OP would have given a lot away. Not necessarily implicating or damning , but he would have.

So when i learnt that the State had a psych at the trial he was also there to "read" OP. When you factor all this together i'm sure you can see why Nel seems to know about OP personality and then pounced when given the opportunity for a referral.
 
She didn't realize she would be undermining the case by being 'honest'. Her suggestions that 'observation' and a 2nd opinion might be a good idea were honest ones.

Notice how here entire 'tone' changed from day 1 to day 2. No mention of all the 'honest' opinions she shared so freely on Day 1. The backtracking was sensational. Why backtrack if one feels strongly about certain issues?

Simple: because the DT grabbed her like a stray after proceedings, and explained how dangerous her honest opinions stated from the stand in fact were.

Day 2 - backpedaling.

Experts don't call the shots IMHO - the money they are being paid does.....

(In all honesty though, Dr Vorster is respected in her field, which is why I believe her Day 1 evidence a little more than her Day 2 version)

What I mean by the expert calls the shots is before they're retained. They don't testify if they don't want to -- if they disagree with the defense position, for example -- period. And after they're retained they most definitely aren't going to get up there and say someting against the defense. That's where the money talks. As I mentioned, if she went against the witness that retained her, she wouldn't be a testifying expert for long. No one would use her....ever. jmo

I guess it's possible she was that poorly prepared. Not very likely, but far more likely imo than her going rogue.
 
There has been a hint that it was submersed in some form of liquid ... OP says he retrieved it from the toilette bowl. Nel, while leading Von Rensburg through the scene as he saw it, made special note of the fish pond near the front door. Nel did not mention the phone at the time, so this is speculation on my part.

The phone, which was found in two separate pieces, is severely scratched ...not what you would expect from being dropped on a smooth tile floor...more like a skid across cement or something with an uneven surface. I say this because I have the iphone1 and it has been dropped numerous times on cement (from less than 1 metre high) and it bears similar scratches though not as many nor as deep as those seen on RS's phone.

bbm

i didn't realise op had said he found the phone in the toilet 'bowl', are you saying he fished it out of a blood filled toilet bowl?

which phone is that in your photos? op's or reeva's?
a second phone was found under towels... it was a white iphone.

lots of unanswered questions regarding the phones. imo
/. were they both found 'on'?
/. nel has made reference to charging... were they both found charged, or uncharged?
 
What I mean by the expert calls the shots is before they're retained. They don't testify if they don't want to -- if they disagree with the defense position, for example -- period. And after they're retained they most definitely aren't going to get up there and say someting against the defense. That's where the money talks. As I mentioned, if she went against the witness that retained her, she wouldn't be a testifying expert for long. No one would use her....ever. jmo

I guess it's possible she was that poorly prepared. Not very likely, but far more likely imo than her going rogue.

i think it is v possible she was poorly prepared, as was roux. she saw op on wed 7th. was on the stand on mon 12th.
 
bbm

i didn't realise op had said he found the phone in the toilet 'bowl', are you saying he fished it out of a blood filled toilet bowl?

which phone is that in your photos? op's or reeva's?
a second phone was found under towels... it was a white iphone.

lots of unanswered questions regarding the phones. imo
/. were they both found 'on'?
/. nel has made reference to charging... were they both found charged, or uncharged?

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
 
The biggest shame , as far as micro-expressions go , is that OP chose not to be televised during EIC and cross-exam. I suspect that is one of the reasons why.

Under that sort of intense cross-exam by Nel (and Roux seems to know him well , so i speculate he would have advised OP not to be televised) OP would have given a lot away. Not necessarily implicating or damning , but he would have.

So when i learnt that the State had a psych at the trial he was also there to "read" OP. When you factor all this together i'm sure you can see why Nel seems to know about OP personality and then pounced when given the opportunity for a referral.

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.
 
Hello all! First time poster here (been lurking to an unhealthy degree during this trial however)! I thought posting this might be useful:

79 Panel for purposes of enquiry and report under sections 77 and 78

(1) Where a court issues a direction under section 77 (1) or 78 (2), the relevant enquiry shall be conducted and be reported on-
(b) where the accused is charged with murder
(i) by the medical superintendent of a psychiatric hospital designated by the court, or by a psychiatrist appointed by the medical superintendent at the request of the court;
(ii) by a psychiatrist appointed by the court and who is not in the full-time service of the State unless the court directs otherwise, upon application of the prosecutor, in accordance with directives issued under subsection (13) by the National Director of Public Prosecutions;
(iii) by a psychiatrist appointed for the accused by the court; and
(iv) by a clinical psychologist where the court so directs.

(1A) The prosecutor undertaking the prosecution of the accused or any other prosecutor attached to the same court shall provide the persons who, in terms of subsection (1), have to conduct the enquiry and report on the accused's mental capacity with a report in which the following are stated, namely-
(a) whether the referral is taking place in terms of section 77 or 78;
(b) at whose request or on whose initiative the referral is taking place;
(c) the nature of the charge against the accused;
(d) the stage of the proceedings at which the referral took place;
(e) the purport of any statement made by the accused before or during the court proceedings that is relevant with regard to his or her mental condition or mental capacity;
(f) the purport of evidence that has been given that is relevant to the accused's mental condition or mental capacity;
(g) in so far as it is within the knowledge of the prosecutor, the accused's social background and family composition and the names and addresses of his or her near relatives; and
(h) any other fact that may in the opinion of the prosecutor be relevant in the evaluation of the accused's mental condition or mental capacity.

(2) (a) The court may for the purposes of the relevant enquiry commit the accused to a psychiatric hospital or to any other place designated by the court, for such periods, not exceeding thirty days at a time, as the court may from time to time determine, and where an accused is in custody when he is so committed, he shall, while he is so committed, be deemed to be in the lawful custody of the person or the authority in whose custody he was at the time of such committal.
(b) When the period of committal is for the first time extended under paragraph (a), such extension may be granted in the absence of the accused unless the accused or his legal representative requests otherwise.

(3) The relevant report shall be in writing and shall be submitted in triplicate to the registrar or, as the case may be, the clerk of the court in question, who shall make a copy thereof available to the prosecutor and the accused.

(4) The report shall-
(a) include a description of the nature of the enquiry; and
(b) include a diagnosis of the mental condition of the accused; and (c) if the enquiry is under section 77 (1), include a finding as to whether the accused is capable of understanding the proceedings in question so as to make a proper defence; or
(d) if the enquiry is in terms of section 78 (2), include a finding as to the extent to which the capacity of the accused to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act in question or to act in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of that act was, at the time of the commission thereof, affected by mental illness or mental defect or by any other cause.

(5) If the persons conducting the relevant enquiry are not unanimous in their finding under paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (4), such fact shall be mentioned in the report and each of such persons shall give his finding on the matter in question.

(6) Subject to the provisions of subsection (7), the contents of the report shall be admissible in evidence at criminal proceedings.

(7) A statement made by an accused at the relevant enquiry shall not be admissible in evidence against the accused at criminal proceedings, except to the extent to which it may be relevant to the determination of the mental condition of the accused, in which event such statement shall be admissible notwithstanding that it may otherwise be inadmissible.

Welcome pandax81

:wagon:
:balloons:
:fireworks:
 
Absolutely. Before concluding that he was a murderer too you would wait for him to commit a murder...

Yes. And I'm still waiting. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, remember?
 
Are these not UK athletes? (Serious question -- I don't know anything at all about UK sports) Or maybe you're being facetious :)

snipped from the link:

The victim claims she repeatedly told the men to stop and to get off her but she was overpowered and repeatedly raped.

The woman met the Colombian-born footballer on a night-out with friends in Romford nightclub Liquid, and remembers leaving the club with them before losing her friend.

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/football_star_accused_of_part_in_gang_rape_1_3429456

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.
 
And here's Kelly, spinning like a top. It's interesting that the accompanying article only states this development is a possible blow for Pistorius because it will extend his trial.

Next time CTC is on here I'd be interested in their thoughts as to why Phelps, a senior law lecturer, seems so reluctant to acknowledge or discuss any flaws in the defence strategies or testimonies. Bear in mind this is a woman who thought Roger Dixon was a good witness for the defence. My theory is two-fold: a) there's a bit of the 'Pistorian' in her and b) it's CNN's editorial policy. With the latter I think the logic is a heartbroken broken-down hero who mistakenly shoots his beautiful model girlfriend because he thought she was an intruder is a much more palatable story to try and sell when compared to an angry over-entitled jerk who shoots his beautiful model girlfriend dead in a fit of rage. Who's going to care much at all about such a person and what happens to them.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/14/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-what-next/?hpt=wo_c2

I think Kelly Phelps has a case of
'Oscaradorus'. jmo, of course.
 
Um... yeah.... hearing noises and reaching for guns to go on attack mode is why he was arrested in charged with murder.

Just because you're on stumps doesn't mean you can go commando and shoot at unarmed imaginary intruders you've told to leave your house.

Let's come back to the other side of the looking glass, and realize OP's own version of the killing is still murder - it's criminal homicide to pursue another person and intentionally shoot them dead while they are retreating after warning them to leave.

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.
 
Our athletes in the UK are certainly NOT like that! Professional hard working people. If they were they would be in our papers every 5 minutes, we are terrible for gossip and phone hacking.
I can't think of one that has entitlement, anger, sexist, that get drunk etc issues. Men who kill their partners are often described like that though! Abusers.

Maybe we can do an athlete exchange then. :D.
 
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

i recognise a few of op's traits there...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
4,508
Total visitors
4,584

Forum statistics

Threads
602,857
Messages
18,147,795
Members
231,555
Latest member
softhunterstech
Back
Top