Trial Discussion Thread #40

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I must ask...
If as an outpatient OP has to be at the 'evaluation centre' from 5am - 9pm does that mean he has to leave 'home' at about 4.30am only to return at about 9.30pm....that is a long, stressful day. :)
Who drives him ?
Would it be everyday (7/7) or just Monday to Friday ?

We'll find out next week... though according to this article outpatient may have just been wishful thinking on both the DT and Judge's part,
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-s-fate-in-hands-of-panel-1.1688482#.U3WW2Sg0ojg

“Accused are normally sent for 30 days’ observation. I have never seen someone being treated as an outpatient.

“They are committed to the facility during this time.”
 
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.


Since you just made a splash, let me take this opportunity to select a special little jumpy thing to welcome you.

:propeller:

(I like the jumpy things a lot. Maybe not the dancing bananas so much, but)

Here's another one. They're twins. :O)

:propeller:
 
It is possible, even probable that Oscar came to the attention of the Sports psychologists attached to the SA Olympic federation, in the light of his performance re the Brazilian and his roommate having to move out of the shared accommodation. Two incidences in one fortnight at top level competition. Makes sense..

Yes I wondered whether that "hurdle" was something to do with a possible refusal to let him on the team for the 2016 games until he'd gone for some counseling and he'd either told them to shove it or was swallowing deep resentment over it(after all, he was the "golden boy" and don't mess with the brand!). That would explain a lot of that conversation on the 13th, as well as a reason why RS may have been convinced to go back and spend the night trying to console/comfort him, even though it seemed pretty obvious that she had felt he should go to his family about it.
 
I haven't seen this interview before with OP's uncle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9L3f0TtMqQ

Posting in case others haven't seen it either!
I thought I'd seen them all...

Thank-you for posting this. I'd never seen it and found it fascinating on many levels.

Watching it, my gut reaction was, that at the time this interview was filmed, just 3 months after OP killed Reeva, Uncle Arthur sincerely believed Oscar's story.

Because I don't, I've wondered whether there's been anyone - friend or family member - who he's actually told the truth to. In OP's shoes, would I keep up the pretense of my story or spill the beans up front to my family? I think I'd do the former. It would save them a lot of anguish - and - they wouldn't have to act. They'd really believe me ...until they didn't.

And when would that have been, if ever?

When the DT guys took a look at everything, spoke to OP, and knew he lying? Would someone yank Uncle Arthur aside at that point and say, listen you've got a problem here?

Or if no one ever yanked him aside, might it be when he heard OPs trial testimony? I wonder how many people in his family truly believed his story until that time? Changes in of Aimee's facial expressions and body language (pre-testimony = alert and compassionate // During-to-end of testimony = withered and defeated) made me wonder.

How many still believe him?

And if I were a family member who originally believed him and then through trial testimony grew to not believe him, what would I do differently? What should I do differently? Would it look any different to us (the viewing public)? Should it? What if Oscar were your son, your nephew, your brother and you came to believe that he knowingly shot and killed her?

Thoughts?
 
Thank-you for posting this. I'd never seen it and found it fascinating on many levels.

Watching it, my gut reaction was, that at the time this interview was filmed, just 3 months after OP killed Reeva, Uncle Arthur sincerely believed Oscar's story.

Because I don't, I've wondered whether there's been anyone - friend or family member - who he's actually told the truth to. In OP's shoes, would I keep up the pretense of my story or spill the beans up front to my family? I think I'd do the former. It would save them a lot of anguish - and - they wouldn't have to act. They'd really believe me ...until they didn't.

And when would that have been, if ever?

When the DT guys took a look at everything, spoke to him, and then knew he lying? Would someone yank Uncle Arthur (aka "The Wallet") aside and say, listen you've got a problem here.

Or if no one ever yanked him aside, might it be when I heard OPs trial testimony? I wonder how many people in his family truly believed his story until that time. Changes in of Aimee's facial expressions and body language (alert and compassionate to withered and defeated) made me wonder.

I'm similarly fascinated with the dynamics between OP and his family.
Watching that interview, I got a very different feeling about his uncle than when I've watched him in the trial.
Before I thought he was just going along with whatever...supporting, financing, etc.
Now I see him as somewhat calculating and careful now. When he firmly denied, at the end, about the taxes thing it seemed like they are going to stick by him no matter what, even if it means they themselves have to lie. Just speculation. But really interesting.

I'm personally looking forward to Reeva's Dad being in court. In a documentary earlier on in the trial (or just before), he said he was determined to be there at some point.
 
This is from Cherwell yesterday. "At least she's been spared the knowledge that both of her sons have killed women." It has to be the most poignant comment over the last few days. I have 2 x sons and cannot imagine them each killing a woman. Seriously !

From American Mom: Motherhood, Politics, and Humble Pie, 1994, pp 14-20

By the time my sons entered the second half of high school, every one of the grim realities in USA Today had shown up in the lives of their classmates and friends. It was impossible to assure myself that I didn't have to worry about my sons getting involved with guns or drugs. They and I both knew kids in our neighborhood, kids who regularly sat around our own kitchen table, who were. The scary reports about racial tensions and domestic violence in America were not abstractions to us. We have always lived right down the block, right next door to them, in our "good neighborhoods" as well as the bad.

Raising sons forever changed the way I read the newspapers. Desperate for an answer to "How could this be?" I would read and reread stories about the six teenage "wilders" from the Bronx who brutally assaulted a jogger in Central Park and left her in a coma; the half-dozen members of the California Spur Posse who proudly tallied their sexual conquests-including that of a twelve-year-old girl; the four high school athletes in Glen Ridge, New Jersey, who gang-raped a mentally retarded young woman with baseball bats and broom handles while nine others looked on. These stories seared me.

Invariably, my imagination would heat up and I would see six poor mothers in the Bronx, nine middle-class mothers in California, thirteen well-to-do mothers in New Jersey: I felt certain I knew exactly how their hearts must be breaking. I could also imagine what might be going on inside the tortured mind of Joel Steinberg's mother, after the bloody images of Hedda Nussbaum and five-year-old Lisa Steinberg convinced a jury of her son's guilt.

To the bitter end of the trial, his mother refused to believe her son capable of such violent battery and murder. She built a case against Hedda, portraying her as a lousy mother, a drug abuser, so out of control she must have been "asking for it"- something, anything, to explain this alien son in the news, not the boy she once knew, not the son she so carefully raised. The choices I saw for her, listening to long months of shocking testimony, were these: Deny reality, or start weeping and never stop.
 
I don't even recall that happening because, iirc, Dr V made it clear that OP would've known exactly what he was doing .. I understood the reason why GAD had been brought into play was to explain his supposed 'hypervigilance', etc, and why he was more inclined to 'fight' than 'take flight'. I don't think that 'diminished capacity' has be brought into it at all, has it?

What I meant was: If the defence hadn't called Prof V to testify about OP's GAD, the topic of diminished capacity wouldn't have even come up. Roux over-reached when he called her to the stand imo. He did not foresee Prof V saying things like "danger to society" for example.

Nel simply did what a good cross examiner should do, test the evidence of Prof V. As soon as Prof V said that OP has probably suffered GAD since childhood, Nel had no choice but to ask for tests to rule out the possibility that the defence will go with diminished capacity.

Nel is made to look like the bad guy by some when he's really just doing his job imo. If the defence wants to introduce testimony that even smells like an attempt at diminished capacity, the prosecution is entitled to test it. jmo
 
But you do need to have 'reception' or else the phone will not connect to anyone. That's what i was trying to say.

You DON'T need reception/service. In the UK. A policeman, fireman and paramedic informed class after class of children of this fact, in person, giving talks in school.
 
You DON'T need reception/service. In the UK. A policeman, fireman and paramedic informed class after class of children of this fact, in person, giving talks in school.

Service and reception aren't the same thing. You don't need service to call an emergency number however, you need reception. Even if you have a provider and pay for service, if you don't have reception, the call can't go though.
ETA: Reception is the tower picking up a signal from your phone. If you're too far away from a tower and it can't pick up your signal, your phone can't 'connect' with the tower. Also, some stuctures are composed of materials that block signals and the signals can't be picked up by a tower and again, the call can't go through because it's not being picked up.
 
Thank-you for posting this. I'd never seen it and found it fascinating on many levels.

Watching it, my gut reaction was, that at the time this interview was filmed, just 3 months after OP killed Reeva, Uncle Arthur sincerely believed Oscar's story.

Because I don't, I've wondered whether there's been anyone - friend or family member - who he's actually told the truth to. In OP's shoes, would I keep up the pretense of my story or spill the beans up front to my family? I think I'd do the former. It would save them a lot of anguish - and - they wouldn't have to act. They'd really believe me ...until they didn't.

And when would that have been, if ever?

When the DT guys took a look at everything, spoke to him, and then knew he lying? Would someone yank Uncle Arthur (aka "The Wallet") aside and say, listen you've got a problem here.

Or if no one ever yanked him aside, might it be when I heard OPs trial testimony? I wonder how many people in his family truly believed his story until that time. Changes in of Aimee's facial expressions and body language (alert and compassionate to withered and defeated) made me wonder.

IMO, at first, the whole family believed his story. However, I do not think that is where they are at now. Carl and Aimee seem very down, Aimee in particular. She is constantly praying - one wonders what she is asking of her God. I think Uncle Pistorius is stoical and shows little emotion other than a little smirk when he thinks OP's DT have scored a point but I feel sure he knows exactly what the situation is. He is a typical "stiff upper lip" type.
 
But you do need to have 'reception' or else the phone will not connect to anyone. That's what i was trying to say.

This might help to clarify.

"What’s the difference between 999 and 112?
How can you call when your mobile phone is showing no signal?
Or if somebody in your party is unconscious and their’s is the only mobile, *how can you bypass the phone security to make that important call and potentially save their life?

All this and more is explained simply and clearly."

Dsrtashburton.org.UK source
 
A scenario (suspend your disbelief about specifics) and a question.

OP had a bad few days. Reeva comes over totally into VDay, OP not so much. Not a great night and at some point they fight. A lot. OP goes to sleep. Reeva can't. She goes downstairs and gets a snack, then comes back upstairs. OP wakes up and is angry all over again. They fight again, this time more intensely. Reeva considers leaving, but hasn't decided for sure. Both are tense. OP gets up to do whatever.. move fans, go on balcony, go downstairs... whatever. ( Yes, I know what he said he did, but since y'all think he lied about everything, why believe what he said he did here?)

Continuing. Reeve slips out of bed and goes to the loo. She may have decided to leave, or maybe she just had to pee. In either case she's quiet on purpose because she doesn't want the fight to escalate any further.

OP hears a noise in the bathroom. He is already enraged, has not let go of the fight. He doesn't check for Reeva. His first thought isn't protecting her, its that a SOB might be in his house.

He's angry - very - but he also is feeling vulnerable. Not afraid, but vulnerable because he is at a physical disadvantage. Just reality of the matter, and part of the reason he feels compelled to compensate for that disadvantage by always reaching for a gun.

The thought of pushing the panic button or running the other way never occurs to him. It doesn't because response to the panic button isn't instaneous, because if he turned his back to flee he might be overtaken, because he is OP, who isn't going to back down, and because his reasoning is already impaired by rage, increased exponentially by his perception that an intruder dared to threaten him.

He grabs his gun, runs down the hallway screaming get the f out. Reeva has no idea what's going on and stays silent. OP hears her move, perhaps she reaches for the door handle. He doesnt fire a warning shot because it never occurs to him to do so, not because he's afraid of a richocet.

He shoots once. The noise is deafening. Literally.

He doesn't hear her scream because of the deafening noise. He is also literally pumped on adrenaline, and furious. He pauses for a brief moment because the noise hurts his ears, and because the temporary loss of hearing increases his anger and his fear. He fires 3 more shots. He fires them knowing that he is firing them, and yes, hoping that the shots will eliminate the threat. He isn't trying to kill whoever is behind the door, but he knows enough even in that mental state that he is very likely to cause them serious injury.

Given that scenario ......(please don't argue about the details...its only a scenario) ....do you think he should be found guilty of murder?

Absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt definitely! You've stated it all there, that is definitely murder.
 
Whheewwwww.....it reopened. I thought we were goners. Thanks for your continued patience, Bessie and Company. :loveyou:

Service and reception aren't the same thing. You don't need service to call an emergency number however, you need reception. Even if you have a provider and pay for service, if you don't have reception, the call can't go though.
ETA: Reception is the tower picking up a signal from your phone. If you're too far away from a tower and it can't pick up your signal, your phone can't 'connect' with the tower. Also, some stuctures are composed of materials that block signals and the signals can't be picked up by a tower and again, the call can't go through because it's not being picked up.

Honestly in the UK we don't need a signal or reception to call 999. I'm with Orange and never have a signal BUT I can still ring 999. I don't know how it works, but I can definitely ring them on my mobile. It says emergency calls only.

Ahhh it connects to the nearest open signal even if that provider isn't yours. It's a GSM mobile system. So mine will connect to Vodafone as their signal is good round here.
 
For me personally, the defence ear witnesses are neither here nor there. Its quite evident they only heard a fraction of the events since only one testified to one bang. And, if I'm to believe the defence Oscar was screaming, like a woman, which they also clearly didn't hear.

There's really been no one to testify that actually backs up his version of events until after the shooting, and the State has stipulated to those events. Even his experts contradict his testimony so I just don't think the defence has done enough to get away from a murder conviction. Depending on the outcome of the psych eval, at this point, we're still left to mainly rely on Oscar's account solely for his 'version' with a lot of evidence put forth, by both sides, that contradicts it.

MOO

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.
 
I'm similarly fascinated with the dynamics between OP and his family.
Watching that interview, I got a very different feeling about his uncle than when I've watched him in the trial.
Before I thought he was just going along with whatever...supporting, financing, etc.
Now I see him as somewhat calculating and careful now. When he firmly denied, at the end, about the taxes thing it seemed like they are going to stick by him no matter what, even if it means they themselves have to lie. Just speculation. But really interesting.

I'm personally looking forward to Reeva's Dad being in court. In a documentary earlier on in the trial (or just before), he said he was determined to be there at some point.

I agree that they will stick by him. Man, what a horrible position to be put in. It would be bad enough if you felt 100% that it was an accident and was mostly worried he was going to be punished for something he didn't deserve to be punished for. I don't know if it would get any easier - or just be "different" - if you come to find out that he guilty of, let's say, premeditated murder?

It must be an amazing thing to have a family who loves you that much and stands by your side like that, no matter what you do. My family wouldn't have. Heck, they weren't even there when I was doing everything right. Ha! :O)
 
Service and reception aren't the same thing. You don't need service to call an emergency number however, you need reception. Even if you have a provider and pay for service, if you don't have reception, the call can't go though.
ETA: Reception is the tower picking up a signal from your phone. If you're too far away from a tower and it can't pick up your signal, your phone can't 'connect' with the tower. Also, some stuctures are composed of materials that block signals and the signals can't be picked up by a tower and again, the call can't go through because it's not being picked up.

OH MY GOSH. Thank You for explaining what I have been trying to say. If there is no 'reception' there will be no way to make the call. I experienced that in the woods, when there were no cell towers nearby. We finally found a tiny bit of reception on a hill. But without finding that elevated clearing, the call would have been impossible.

eta: definition:

. -Cell can only respond if it has a receptor to the signal molecule.    ... Reception (definition).

ETA: I guess in the UK you dont need reception to make an emergency call. Am still not sure how that works. I thought u needed a cell tower to allow the call to go through successfully. Guess not. :waitasec:
 
Question
When your mobile phone has no reception and you're unable to make any calls, how come you're still able to make Emergency Calls Only?
Dave, Staines

Answer
** Definitive **
Name: Max, Grays
Qualification: Used to work for a mobile phone company
Answer: Emergency calls can be made on any mobile phone network, not just your own. If you are somewhere where your network doesn't have reception but another does, you get Emergency Calls Only. If no networks have any signal, you'll be told there is no reception and you can't even make 999 calls.



Answer -- we were BOTH right
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
162
Guests online
4,496
Total visitors
4,658

Forum statistics

Threads
602,839
Messages
18,147,539
Members
231,548
Latest member
TheForgottenLives
Back
Top