Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

[K.T]

Nel should pursue the line suggested by the professor that all of the problems facing disabled people he noted on stumps places higher risk on emotional stability in relationships:
-lack of mobility
- social fears
- increased problems with relationships
-smells causing problem with intimate partners
-constant pain
This points he noted posits a higher possible of dysfunctional relationships especially with someone wanting to constantly overcome or embarrassed by his obvious signs of disability.

This witness testimony also implies Pistorius may have constant, greater emotional stressors resulting in a higher level of anger over the pressures of intimacy relationships, or a possibility of greater anger/agitation or resentment from a lack of ability to control one’s environment and body. Witness could imply a sense of regressed anger in able–bodied partners…from his testimony.

I can’t keep up with the trial right now, between popping into rooms to hide I'm checking on WS...darn it

 

[zwiebel]

N: 'I think I'm going to approach it now and fight it'. That's not an immediate response?

Witnes refuses to accept that as a question.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Freeze, fright, flight - says Derman, listing the 3 responses to a "startle." Nel wants to know if that would be immediate. Yes.

WD: Stimulus comes into brain, response is immediate, eyes blinking, startle is immediate. Time for fight/flight varies

 

[Viper]

Nel has him now. Just watch. D is going to [blank] himself or not answer the questions, one or the other.

 

[canny]

The state's case is that he was on his stumps at the time he fired, (as is the defense's) unless they've changed it...again.

It was always the State's case that OP was on his stumps, and the forensic evidence supports it, please reading the charge sheet submitted to Judge Masipa's court on the first day of the trial.

 

[zwiebel]

Now Prof explaining med details of what happens during response. 'I can't quantify'.

N: I made a note you said 'thinking brain would stop. Now you clarify, it would slow?

D: That's correct.

 

[G.bng]

I think the point being made was that none of the people who had conflicts with him were interviewed. None of the people who might indicate he had an explosive temper, for example.

If they solely interview close friends and family, who are tryin g to protect him, then they might not have gotten the full story.

Have they given the list of names of all the people they interviewed and if so do you have a link? Panels like this don't "solely" interview close f&fs although obviously being the persons that know a subject better they are a major source and as professionals they surely have ways of separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Just saying, but bar obtaining a court order, which I am not sure Masipa could or would give, if a person didn't want to participate, interviewing them under order means you have an uncooperative "helper", extremely dangerous to an evaluation. I mean, even with a court order, how would the panel force someone to co-operate, i.e. the horse to water effect, how do you force them to "co-operate"? So maybe neither Meyers nor Taylor wanted to participate, or maybe the panel had others they considered would be more useful than an ex teenage girlfriend who despite a couple of years and her "love" killing a girlfriend in-between is still crying, or the Meyer girl who must dislike OP after his alleged threat, and didn't know him that much, she said that in a TV interview way back iirc, so doesn't seem like would be much help. Just wondering...

 

[katydid23]

Nel is holding him to the fire about EXACTLY how the fight response occurs...

 

[MeeBee]

It was always the State's case that OP was on his stumps, and the forensic evidence supports it, please reading the charge sheet submitted to Judge Masipa's court on the first day of the trial.

No it was not. Shortly before the trial began the state changed its case from being on his legs to being on his stumps, due to new ballistics evidence.

 

[zwiebel]

N: If accused version he thought there was an intruder in the house is rejected by the court, your theory would fall away?

D: Yes.

Then seems to catch himself and clarifies and backtracks on that answers. 'All the studies would clearly still be true. The application of them would not though'.

Nel missed that. Prof has maintained he is not applying these studies to the OP case at all, that's 'for the court to do'.

 

[katydid23]

No it was not. Shortly before the trial began the state changed its case from being on his legs to being on his stumps, due to new ballistics evidence.

We have been discussing the ballistics report here quite a bit, and many agree that the door is still open that he could have been on his legs , even with the new evidence

 

[MeeBee]

We have been discussing the ballistics report here quite a bit, and many agree that the door is still open that he could have been on his legs , even with the new evidence

Sure it's possible, but not the most probable.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Nel: If accused version that intruder in toilet rejected by court your evidence stand? Derman: Physiology will hold.

Nel: OP has never given evidence that he is the victim of a crime because he was disabled WD: I don't recall.

 

[kaos]

Oh ok..

But here's the thing...the way this story had been spun in the past it was to make it sound like OP was yelling at people all night, in his rage-ful ways, another slant to make him sound as bad as possible. But now we hear it's that he was just having an argument with his girlfriend, who cheated on him, and Arnu just wanted some peace before his race. Either way you slice it, it's not as bad as it was initially made out to be. So many of these stories have unravelled upon closer inspection yet people still want to cling to them as evidence of something more sinister.

Mr O'Sullivan himself didn't expect that it was going to be much of a story as all he originally intended to report about was how OP was as a roommate in the lead up to his big race.

 

[buntspecht]

N: if the version of OP is rejected...

My question: is it allowed to in SA to say: "No comment", I dont want to answer this question?

I dont understand, that no one of the psychologists/doctors, got the truth out of OP. And then, if/as a friend, not talk to court.

 

[zwiebel]

D now repeating about people with disabilities feeling more threatened.

D: Certainly, O hasn't said to me he thought a burglar was there because he was disabled...

Nel asks another question and opens up a way for witness to reveal to court OP has told him of other incidents of being threatened, including his bed being set on fire.

 

[katydid23]

Sure it's possible, but not the most probable.

Right, but much of the latest defense testimony makes it seem MORE probable, imo.

 

[zwiebel]

Who set fire to OP's bed anyone?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

There's a lot of evidence for a disabled person to feel more threatened (in situations), says WD.

The facts remain, attacks against people with disabilities are much higher, says WD.

 

[MeeBee]

Right, but much of the latest defense testimony makes it seem MORE probable, imo.

What is the latest defense testimony?