Trial Discussion Thread #40

[Viper]

Any thoughts on the medical outcome..
My thoughts are that he will be given a clean bill of health regarding his state of mind at the time of the offense he will come across as a spoiled rich kid who has an unhealthy interest in guns and ammunition
I think his temper will also slip during the tests
So he will be seen to have all the necessary facilities to determine right from wrong and will be sentenced according

BIB. I have several. But the one I keep bouncing around on is that at some point early on in the process OP just stops and refuses to continue to freely participate. He and Roux don't want any true diminished capacity as a true defense, at least right now. They will when he is appealing his guilty verdict though. No all they want to do is play the sympathy card with Judge Masipa by him removing his prosthetics in the courtroom to display his stumps and having Dr. V say that he has anxiety. That's it. They don't want any formal finding from the observation, they don't want the freaking observation, period. I suspect that if OP cooperated and answered all of the hundreds or thousands of questions that will be asked of him, the psych eval could be devastating, potentially bolstering a verdict of guilty. And in the short term OP might even find himself being taken in to protective medical custody and his bail revoked. Masipa can order OP to go through the observation, but she cannot order OP to open his mouth and answer all of the questions. Well she can, but he can refuse, in violation of her Order, and then suffer whatever modest sanctions that she imposes. That is just one of several possibilities.

 

[CriLondon]

It's the basilisk glare that he sometimes turns on people. I find it chilling.

:snake:

Sure that is true. I believe i've seen that already ( after losing the 200m race in London , interview track-side).

But , respectfully , that's not a micro/mini/partial expression. It's a full-on glare , hardly concealing an emotion if you'll allow me .

 

[seattlechiquita]

It's the basilisk glare that he sometimes turns on people. I find it chilling.

:snake:

I would LOVE to have a stare down with him any time. He would cry.

 

[DILLIGAF]

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.

I have to admit I found it odd that OP chose not to be filmed during his testimony, especially considering every man and his dog knows who he is and what he looks like. I wondered what he had to hide.

Your reasoning makes total sense CriLondon. Thanks

 

[aa9511]

Hi all,

I am still a bit perplexed about this whole psych testing thing.

Reason being, I am convinced that Oscar intended to shoot Reeva. That his whole story is a lie. And that he is lying about the "intruder." I am firmly convinced of this based on so many inconsistencies throughout his story.

Therefore, what use is it to try to figure out his general state of mind? He killed Reeva with intent. Does it matter why? Does it matter if he is aggressive? Does it matter if he is easily angered? Is that going to make his responsibility for the crime any less? And if so, why should it? Does any of this matter?

Fact is he killed Reeva with intent, and I don't really care what was in his mind which made him do it.

JMO.

 

[Val1]

Thanks for you long, informative post, CTC .. have snipped and just quoted a bit I want to ask about/make a point on.

Do we actually know whether there will be more than 3 on the panel?

RSBM



This gives a reasonable account of how the evaluation is prepared.
It's written as part of a master's dessertation so lots of useful diagrams and demography (pdf).

http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/10574/Desertation Corrected.pdf?sequence=1

Scroll down to 30 day observation period. Also includes a bibliography for those interested in more research.

ETA. note Dr V appears in the aboves bibliography at No. 103.

Just wanted to comment...imo if you read it from the top, OP is just a statistic and a person could be forgiven if they thought it had been written with him as one of the patients in the study.

The typical demographic and clinical profile of Observation Patients admitted for a thirty day forensic psychiatric observation at Sterkfontein between 2002 and 2004, was that of a young, single male, unemployed, in his twenties, with a history of mental illness and of non-compliance on
psychiatric medication, a previous forensic history, as well as significant use of substances, especially alcohol.

 

[Cherwell]

I have to admit I found it odd that OP chose not to be filmed during his testimony, especially considering every man and his dog knows who he is and what he looks like. I wondered what he had to hide.

Your reasoning makes total sense CriLondon. Thanks

But I find it strange that he was given the option. Witnesses who simply give their testimony and then leave are entitled to privacy if they wish. But Pistorious is on public view in the dock most of the time, so he isn't in the same position.

 

[toevlugsoord]

Hi all,

I am still a bit perplexed about this whole psych testing thing.

Reason being, I am convinced that Oscar intended to shoot Reeva. That his whole story is a lie. And that he is lying about the "intruder." I am firmly convinced of this based on so many inconsistencies throughout his story.

Therefore, what use is it to try to figure out his general state of mind? He killed Reeva with intent. Does it matter why? Does it matter if he is aggressive? Does it matter if he is easily angered? Is that going to make his responsibility for the crime any less? And if so, why should it? Does any of this matter?

Fact is he killed Reeva with intent, and I don't really care what was in his mind which made him do it.

JMO.

I could be wrong but this is how I see it:

Regardless of whether his version is true or not, and whether the judge believes him or not, any diagnosed disorder would show some sort of diminished responsibility (or whatever the phrase is) and would possibly get him out of jail sooner or not even at all (hopefully he will serve jail time!!!!).

 

[DILLIGAF]

Read up on sociopaths. He isn't one.

I'm not convinced he is a sociopath but he certainly fits some of the criteria.

1. Superficial charm
2. Untruthfulness and insincerity.
3. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions.
4. A lack of remorse and shame.
5. Inadequately motivated antisocial behaviour.
6. Pathologic egocentricity/grandiose self-worth.
7. Manipulative behaviour.
8. Callousness and lack of empathy.
9. Poor behavioural control -Expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.

 

[Viper]

That is not how psychological evaluations are conducted. It would be unethical. SA passed a far reaching Mental Health Care Act in 2002 or (3) maybe CTC will be back on and can give us some more information on the MHCA.

I was just going by the law, sections 78 and 79. This is criminal law. A link was posted by Panda. Since you obviously know something different about how criminal psychiatric observations are conducted, why don't you go ahead and tell me how they are conducted, and how my post is wrong. And please provide a link to support whatever it is that you say. Until you do that, I will stand by my reading of the law. TIA

:snake:

 

[jilly]

Hi all,

I am still a bit perplexed about this whole psych testing thing.

Reason being, I am convinced that Oscar intended to shoot Reeva. That his whole story is a lie. And that he is lying about the "intruder." I am firmly convinced of this based on so many inconsistencies throughout his story.

Therefore, what use is it to try to figure out his general state of mind? He killed Reeva with intent. Does it matter why? Does it matter if he is aggressive? Does it matter if he is easily angered? Is that going to make his responsibility for the crime any less? And if so, why should it? Does any of this matter?

Fact is he killed Reeva with intent, and I don't really care what was in Oscar's mind which made him do it.

JMO.

I find Her Ladyship hard to read by her questions and statements. Something tells me she was looking for some help in this area and Nels gave it to her when he mentioned the word 'appeal'.

I don't care what was in his mind either. It's unlikely he has some psychotic disorder like schizophrenia. He knows right from wrong. Whatever he has, I believe that he will be found criminally responsible.

I was initially a little upset about this out patient bit but as CCCrim pointed out, we won't be sitting around for months waiting for a bed for Oscar. I was VERY happy to read that the hours of attendance will be 5am-9pm. I hope Oscar doesn't get special treatment from that!

 

[Val1]

"Oscar's Dark Side": http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-s-dark-side-1.1471252#.U3TO_ChWkdU

Article right after Reeva's murder re some of OP's prior bad acts that his pr machine had managed to bury. I hope we'll hear from Cassidy Taylor-Memmory about OP's brief arrest for causing her leg injury in an angry, door-slamming incident in 2009 and his finally paying her court costs right before trial. And also the witnesses to his 2009 boat accident who contacted the press after he lied about the incident in court.

bbm - This quote certainly stands out for me in that article,

Taylor-Memmory told the police he had aggressively slammed a wooden door, causing it to break, and a piece of wood hit her leg.

not to mention his attempts to intimidate both police and media among other incidents... just how in the world did he ever get all those bail conditions removed??

 

[DILLIGAF]

The phone was recovered in the toilet, but who knows who put it there. was it Reeva or OP himself. He might have thrown it in there himself in a staging move.

Also, I have a possible scenario. I have wondered if Reeva went in there and locked herself in, after arguing with OP. She might have had it in there and threatened to call police. But she probably wouldn't have wanted to actually call them at that time. She surely had no idea he was going to get his loaded weapon. She probably thought he would cool down and they could talk things through. Too late for that, once she made the threat though. :moo:

I too believe that is a possible scenario. A bitter argument (possible assault) that culminates in Reeva locking herself in the toilet. She screams at him through the door that she is calling the police and he snaps, pumping four bullets through the door.

 

[nastasya]

Oscars version is different, he did not believe he had the ability to flee do to his panicked state and the fact that he is missing the bottom half of his legs. He also did not think he was shooting at a retreating intruder he thought he was shooting at an aggressive intruder that was moving toward Oscar and Reeva.

Your description itself displays the convoluted and non-sensical explanation given by the killer.

If he had the ability to aggressively pursue the "intruder" he also had the ability to flee as well.

The killer moved towards the victim. The victim moved from the bathroom, away from the shooter, into the toilet.

You can't move towards somebody and then just say you moved away from them and have it be true. He picked up the gun in the bedroom, pursued the victim, then shot the gun four times after the pursuit. By his own account victim fled from the bathroom into the toilet stall and closed the door. That's retreating, not moving towards.

Not only did OP mis-perceive that his girlfriend was an intruder, he mis-perceived she was moving towards him when she was moving away from him.

Nice job of exemplifying the total and complete ridiculousness of the killer's claimed defense.

Oh, and then of course the neighbors mis-perceived cricket bat hits against the door for gunshots, even though he just fired a gun, and mis-perceived his screams as a woman screaming and a couple arguing.

Bottom line, chasing somebody with a gun and shooting them is murder. That's why he's arrested and facing charges for murder. He has the burden of proof to show why it was ok that he killed his girlfriend.

Being a paranoid, immature, irresponsible, selfish, and violent man isn't a legal defense.

 

[Val1]

Somebody yesterday in thread 39 hinted at OP's facial expressions the moment Judge Masipa was explaining what the State had put forward as the reason for the DT to call Dr.V as witness , explaining the State believed it was a move to cover for OP bad testimony during cross-exam. The poster (sorry I can't find it in that thread at the moment) thought that the look on OP's face was anger (or alluded as such i can't recall the exact wording used by the poster) towards the Judge.
What I do see there ( it is my opinion not fact as i have studied micro-expressions as a personal interest the last 4 years) is a look of questioning with a raised left eyebrow and not much else.
It is important to say that the only video i found is on YT and it's the live feed , the image quality isn't great , OP is a bit too far to analyze accurately and mostly only one side of his face is in view (the latter is the most important as the only activity noted is on the left side of his face and that's hidden from the camera angle)

I'll go a bit further (and this is purely my interpretation and there are other angles , i just think this fits best with a lot of other things noted about his personality) and say that the questioning look on his face indicatd by the left eyebrow movement could be seen as OP possible narcissistic traits reacting to somebody's doubts about the integrity of his testimony. In essence how could someone think of me as bad?

Please go easy on me , i just offered what i thought and i welcome others' ideas about it !

bbm - Welcome and just wondering, you don't also know how to lip read do you?

 

[CriLondon]

But I find it strange that he was given the option. Witnesses who simply give their testimony and then leave are entitled to privacy if they wish. But Pistorious is on public view in the dock most of the time, so he isn't in the same position.

I believe that it was one of the conditions for the trial to be televised. Every person taking the witness stand was given the option.
In all fairness , the moment the court allows the trial to be broadcast live,it should do so in its entirety. Just my opinion ...i guess what we have is better than nothing!

 

[nastasya]

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.

You're right. He's not a murderer until convicted.

For now he's just a killer.

 

[Val1]

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.

Interesting, so in fact the white cell phone wasn't RS's? steveml... you read that...?

 

[CriLondon]

bbm - Welcome and just wondering, you don't also know how to lip read do you?

Thank you !

No unfortunately I don't . But dear OP cups his hands very often when he speaks to his DT...so hard work there , assuming that's the aim!

 

[aa9511]

I really do understand what you are saying. There little doubt that if OP was standing calmly in that bathroom with that gun and that ammo with no sense of being threatened, then took the time to aim 4 shots, calculating where best to shoot, then yes, a reasonable conclusion is that he shot to kill.

That scenario hasn't been proven; it comes down to his state of mind. Yes I think its possible that he shot 4 times in blind rage/fear without considering or planning the consequences.

If that is the case, then what "state of mind" excuse does he use for LYING? Because even in your scenario, he still lied. He stated in testimony that he did NOT aim at anyone, that he did NOT aim at a particular place. So that goes against even your very generous benefit of doubt you give him.

What you seem to be suggesting is that it doesn't really matter what Explanation for the killing that Oscar gives. We have to go into his mind and make up excuses for him. We have to go and try to read his mind.

In that case, what was the use of his testifying? If we are to just ignore what he says?