Judge's Order re: OP's Mental Health Eval Thread #42

[CriLondon]

I really have no idea what you mean or what you are getting at. Someone else will have to answer these questions.

I sincerely can't make it much clearer than i have in the last two pages, i've just answered GreaterThan as well. There are two pictures taken from inside the toilet and the rods inside bullet hole D projected trajectory in each picture differ from one another.
I was initially , 3 pages ago ,asking your opinion (since you uploaded one of the inside the toilet door photos) to compare the other picture i had uploaded.
I'll try again , if you don't have an opinion it's obviously ok ! I was just asking since you were the poster that uploaded that pic for your opinion and i'll try again:

You uploaded this one:

I asked you to compare and what you thought of this and if it was legit/fake and you said it's in the trial docs:

 

[BatGunKick]

I really have no idea what you mean or what you are getting at. Someone else will have to answer these questions.

Hi Viper

I think CriLondon is saying that if we consider that perhaps the order of bullets is wrong, that in fact D was first and lined to E (meaning OP missed on first shot), then the pause, then C, B, A. In other words, state said they could not match D to E ... BUT perhaps looking at these photos, D in fact was first ..... because to get D to E, no one has considered that OP didn't move, but the door did - perhaps it was slightly open on firing D, and then as door closed the other 3 went through, creating vast trajectory difference and angle.

CriLondon has an interesting take on this - as if you look at various trajectory images, something is clearly amiss, some show D and C crossing and other photo's do not. D is definitely different to the other 3 holes....

we'd both like input on this and to discuss further will everyone on here

 

[BritsKate]

Respectfully snipped and BBM

As a borderline, I resemble that remark. :blushing: I have come a long way with Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT). In fact, I actually lead a DBT group.

Thank you. I'm much less familiar with borderline and greatly appreciate your insight. Kudos to you - I do understand how much strength and determination that takes for someone who doesn't have a cluster B, much less someone who does.

It's people like yourself that lead me to say something like...I still disagree that Jodi Arias is anywhere near borderline. I hate that dx because I think it leads so many to very incorrect assumptions about borderline itself - which is arguably much, much different than narcissistic or antisocial. She may be borderline...but I highly doubt she is only borderline. With Oscar, I see very few traits I could associate with borderline that aren't also displayed with some other cluster B's. (To remain O/T. )

JMO

 

[CriLondon]

There are so many pictures of the door from so many different angles, but if you want to see the trajectory of the bullet that reaches E (which is B, not D) I'd suggest watching Wolmarans' testimony that Mangena rebutted with the lasers and aerosol spray. It clearly shows bullet hole B lining up with E.

That's absolutely fine , the original question was , why those such different pictures exist and are in the trial docs file then?
Because if one is to believe that the second picture i posted is a true projection then how can you say D couldn't have gone to E.
And thank you i watched it and i agree , providing that the projected trajectory is the one in the first picture....in all fairness i'd like to think i wouldn't raise the issue if the other photo didn't exist . So why does it exist then? And it's at the trial? Was it a picture for the DT?

 

[Greater Than]

I sincerely can't make it much clearer than i have in the last two pages, i've just answered GreaterThan as well. There are two pictures taken from inside the toilet and the rods inside bullet hole D projected trajectory in each picture differ from one another.
I was initially , 3 pages ago ,asking your opinion (since you uploaded one of the inside the toilet door photos) to compare the other picture i had uploaded.
I'll try again , if you don't have an opinion it's obviously ok ! I was just asking since you were the poster that uploaded that pic for your opinion and i'll try again:

You uploaded this one:
View attachment 43821
I asked you to compare and what you thought of this and if it was legit/fake and you said it's in the trial docs:
View attachment 43820

There's an entire thread dedicated to the door.

'The doors' - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[CriLondon]

Hi Viper

I think CriLondon is saying that if we consider that perhaps the order of bullets is wrong, that in fact D was first and lined to E (meaning OP missed on first shot), then the pause, then C, B, A. In other words, state said they could not match D to E ... BUT perhaps looking at these photos, D in fact was first ..... because to get D to E, no one has considered that OP didn't move, but the door did - perhaps it was slightly open on firing D, and then as door closed the other 3 went through, creating vast trajectory difference and angle.

CriLondon has an interesting take on this - as if you look at various trajectory images, something is clearly amiss, some show D and C crossing and other photo's do not. D is definitely different to the other 3 holes....

we'd both like input on this and to discuss further will everyone on here

Thank you and again , it all depends on which of those two inside the toilet picture is a true reconstruction of bullet D trajectory. It's crucial.
And if one is fake/incorrect (and it must be!) then i'd like to think about why.

 

[Greater Than]

That's absolutely fine , the original question was , why those such different pictures exist and are in the trial docs file then?
Because if one is to believe that the second picture i posted is a true projection then how can you say D couldn't have gone to E.
And thank you i watched it and i agree , providing that the projected trajectory is the one in the first picture....in all fairness i'd like to think i wouldn't raise the issue if the other photo didn't exist . So why does it exist then? And it's at the trial? Was it a picture for the DT?

How do you know that first photo is trial evidence? It looks like it could be a screen shot of the recreation of the door in the courtroom.

I guess I just don't see the point in arguing something none if the experts (on either side) are arguing. I really think it's just the angle of the photo.

 

[Val1]

A pic of OP quite steady, kneeling. :waitasec: Did he have on his prosthetic legs and knelt down to shoot? jmo

I'm doubting even the suggestion of him wearing his prosthetics during the whole smashing the door, shooting RS and dragging her out of the toilet room simply because there is no evidence in the blood from them, the only evidence his prosthetics were anywhere near the toilet room that we've heard, is a scuff on one of the panels that was consistent with the veneer on one of his prosthetic feet(which could have happened anytime, just like the bat whack marks and the broken bedroom door). I'm guessing he is more than used to running around on his stumps at home and the only reason to put on his "legs" would have been to make carrying RS down the stairs more stable and perhaps also to allow for just jumping in the car and driving away with her body. Btw, anyone know if Frank was asked about the reported running car in the driveway, supposedly with the door left open... not sure if I can wait 20 years for what he knows.:/

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I sincerely can't make it much clearer than i have in the last two pages, i've just answered GreaterThan as well. There are two pictures taken from inside the toilet and the rods inside bullet hole D projected trajectory in each picture differ from one another.
I was initially , 3 pages ago ,asking your opinion (since you uploaded one of the inside the toilet door photos) to compare the other picture i had uploaded.
I'll try again , if you don't have an opinion it's obviously ok ! I was just asking since you were the poster that uploaded that pic for your opinion and i'll try again:

You uploaded this one:
View attachment 43821
I asked you to compare and what you thought of this and if it was legit/fake and you said it's in the trial docs:
View attachment 43820

I think i can see the discrepancy that you are referring to . The only explanation I can think of is that one of the pictures was taken before the door was put back together properly so bullet hole D ( the one that had a crack right through it ) would have been loose and therefore the rod may not have been sat aligned properly at this time.When the door was glued back together it would have tightened the hole and shown the true trajectory when the rod was put through again.

 

[CriLondon]

How do you know that first photo is trial evidence? It looks like it could be a screen shot of the recreation of the door in the courtroom.

I guess I just don't see the point in arguing something none if the experts (on either side) are arguing. I really think it's just the angle of the photo.

I think i'm discussing something weird i've seen and not arguing, anyway, if you think it is pointless to discuss , i'll accept that.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

About the watches.. I think Batgunkick had mentioned that they had a kind of significance. My guess is also that one of them was somehow damaged and AP took it along with another one in case she was asked what she had gotten she would show the undamaged one. Then the damaged one turned out to be stolen.. and not to mention the mysterious blood on the watch box .. JMO

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I'm doubting even the suggestion of him wearing his prosthetics during the whole smashing the door, shooting RS and dragging her out of the toilet room simply because there is no evidence in the blood from them, the only evidence his prosthetics were anywhere near the toilet room that we've heard, is a scuff on one of the panels that was consistent with the veneer on one of his prosthetic feet(which could have happened anytime, just like the bat whack marks and the broken bedroom door). I'm guessing he is more than used to running around on his stumps at home and the only reason to put on his "legs" would have been to make carrying RS down the stairs more stable and perhaps also to allow for just jumping in the car and driving away with her body. Btw, anyone know if Frank was asked about the reported running car in the driveway, supposedly with the door left open... not sure if I can wait 20 years for what he knows.:/

I read about the car having the door open and engine on in a press report somewhere but have not seen any evidence of that discussed during the trial so I was thinking it must not be true

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I'm doubting even the suggestion of him wearing his prosthetics during the whole smashing the door, shooting RS and dragging her out of the toilet room simply because there is no evidence in the blood from them, the only evidence his prosthetics were anywhere near the toilet room that we've heard, is a scuff on one of the panels that was consistent with the veneer on one of his prosthetic feet(which could have happened anytime, just like the bat whack marks and the broken bedroom door). I'm guessing he is more than used to running around on his stumps at home and the only reason to put on his "legs" would have been to make carrying RS down the stairs more stable and perhaps also to allow for just jumping in the car and driving away with her body. Btw, anyone know if Frank was asked about the reported running car in the driveway, supposedly with the door left open... not sure if I can wait 20 years for what he knows.:/

Maybe before 20 years Frank will improve his literature skills and decide to make some money and write a crime fiction..

 

[Val1]

I read about the car having the door open and engine on in a press report somewhere but have not seen any evidence of that discussed during the trial so I was thinking it must not be true

Since it certainly wouldn't benefit the DT they won't be mentioning it and the PT has indicated they don't think anything that happened after the shooting really makes any difference to their case, so I guess that's one of the questions we'll never have an answer to. :/

 

[kittychi]

He'd be better off going to one of the countries that SA doesn't have an extradition treaty with... I'm sure one of his dear uncles or perhaps even his estranged father could arrange some kind of connecting flight from Mozambique? It's not like they can't afford it.

http://www.justice.gov.za/ilr/mla.html

I am confused about the trial resuming June 30...that does not leave much time for the psyche evaluators to compile their results.

Does anyone know if they will share the info with him before going to court with it?

If there is a day or two of rest for him before June 30, that is his chance to escape. Hard to imagine any country would want him, though.

 

[Fuskier]

I found the way that woman interacted with OP really quite disturbing and incredibly unprofessional. He really is surrounded by wall to wall enablers isn't he?

The body language is interesting - she is hugging him very tightly - he appears to be 'allowing' her to do so but not really reciprocating in any way.

Good observation Lyra500. I observed similar of OP and RS in convenience store video: RS initiated the affectionate approach i.e. the kiss on the lips. OP just stood there, a passive recipient. MOO

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Since it certainly wouldn't benefit the DT they won't be mentioning it and the PT has indicated they don't think anything that happened after the shooting really makes any difference to their case, so I guess that's one of the questions we'll never have an answer to. :/

Yes I agree.
It is quite a long list of things we will never really have the answers to sadly .

 

[fox1lady]

http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/murde...rius-shrein-dewani-and-other-accused-killers/

"Motive and intent are NOT the same thing" David Dadic, Johannesburg attorney.

"For Pistorius to be convicted of murder, the state needs to prove he intended to kill Steenkamp. Dadic explains that intent is essentially a “wrongful state of mind” that can be attached to the crime. This is not the same as motive, which, he says “relates to reasons or factors” that induce a person to commit a wrongful act"...

Is this the same as saying that to be convicted of murder, the state needs to prove he intended to kill "whoever was behind that door"?

 

[fox1lady]

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/e60d46...waits-Pistoriuss-arrival-in-hospital-20140526
Media awaits Pistorius's arrival in hospital
Monday 26 May 2014 08:30 by Liela Magnus

"Several media houses have started gathering at the Weskoppes Psychiatric hospital in Pretoria west, ahead of the arrival of Oscar Pistorius"..."Journalists, photographers, camera crews and the international media are braving the winter cold, waiting for Pistorius to arrive. A steady flow of busses and cars are entering the premises"...

That is pretty disgusting really. I feel sorry for the other inpatients that aren't there because they've killed or harmed other people.

I would imagine that he's going to feel really humiliated to be seen going into an mental institution

 

[beach]

Thank you , that was my reasoning too , just wanted to confirm , legally , whether Nel was just trying to clear OP's testimony from the day before "I never intended to shoot at Reeva , or anyone for that matter Mylady , it was an accident" or if in fact Nel also achieved a declaration of intent with that exchange .
The way i read it , to me , it looked both , like you said.
I was just wondering if , on a legal basis , Masipa will have to accept that as intent to shoot or if she can reject it.
I personally don't see how but again , like someone was rightly giggling about the other day : IANAL

Well, you may not be a lawyer but I've been reading your posts and have been very impressed by your ability to hone in on what is very relevant, legally speaking. I'm not a lawyer either but for fwiw I am a paralegal with 20+ years of work experience, a 4 year degree and have been certified as the same by the American Bar Association.

I say that to put this in perspective while discussing this case - we have several verified attorneys and paralegals here at WS and they are very knowledgeable. However, like myself, we're all verified per United States law. I know several of us have researched SA law, SA case law, rules, procedures, etc., but it's not the same. Speaking for myself, when discussing SA law, I pretty much understand what is needed to meet the threshold to convict on each of the charges, but that is about it. An astute layperson who has good instincts (like yourself) and is willing to research a bit knows about as much as any of us here.

What has helped me understand SA law more than anything is watching The Legal Roundtable videos on The Oscar Pistorius channel. They have an excellent moderator and the panel includes SA lawyers and judges. They discuss each day's trial testimony and offer their legal opinions on the importance of how it may affect the outcome. It has been very enlightening and I have learned a LOT. Check it out if you get a chance. I'm betting you would enjoy it.