Trial Discussion Thread #37 - 14.05.12 Day 30

[ColonelMustard]

Retching with pale face = Not Guilty
Retching with red face = Guilty

Let's look at the photos......

No this is a state facility with a unit for the criminally insane. They are not shackled as it is a hospital and it is against the law in a hospital especially a psych hospital. There are armed guards and high fences but they walk around as they please on the unit, can watch TV, read, talk to others, have snacks and three catered meals a day. They even have a night where they can order out if they have their own money. The place is clean and they share with one or two room mates (and their own bathroom in their room) but the beds are comfortable and they have clean linens every day if they want. They must bathe every other day or when told by staff. It is gorgeous in comparison to the jails (or prisons) I have seen. Most of the people who are sent for a 30 day eval are in jail because they cannot afford bail. But it is to their benefit to go along with it even if they were on bail. The judge who does most of the murder trials almost always believes the Psychiatric evaluation is legit. If the defense lawyer wants to ask for a ruling by the judge or judges (no jury) they almost always get NGRI if the Psychiatric team believes they are in fact not guilty by reason of insanity. They can only be held til the psychiatric team says they are no longer a threat to society (so to speak) and a group home etc. has been found for them as a trial to live elsewhere. It is so nice most of them don't want to leave. They have visitors just like any hospital. They have holiday meals and parties. No I don't suppose OP would like it there because he wouldn't be able to fool anyone. :moo:

Am I the only one here who's actually seen the inside of a locked ward? Granted, I was in the US, but 6 weeks in 1991 and 2 weeks in 2007 for anxiety, depression, bipolar.

Short of feeling like i wanted jump off the Golden Gate bridge, it wasn't bad. We had art therapy and group therapy and sessions daily with the psch docs -- MDs and PhDs, and social workers, you name it.

We had nice walks on the grounds and movie nights and talent shows. We did have to wear hospital gowns the whole time and they took away my shoelaces and shaver for awhile but I look good in billowy bum-covering dud.

It was really heartbreaking, at times - it sucks being sick - but also hilariously funny. Truly crazy people are some of the nicest people I know.

 

[Carmelita]

Here you go Section 78

http://bama.ua.edu/~jhooper/southaf.html

78 directs that the assessment consider whether the mental illness or disability interferes with the defendant's appreciation of wrongfulness, or his ability to act in accordance with such an appreciation. It is an interesting anomaly in that the question of criminal responsibility is assumed to be juridical (in that only the court can decide this) but the Act requires psychiatrists to comment on this.

This is not what Voster claimed. She specifically said again and again that neither Oscar’s deformity or his psychiatric condition made the discernment of right and wrong impossible for Oscar. There was one point where Nel had confused her to the point that she gave a confused answer. Both Roux and Voster insisted that the claim was not that Oscar could not discern right from wrong.

Thus the judges not understanding Nel's request.

 

[soozieqtips]

i found the comment about OP viewing his amputation as a 'traumatic assault' a bit weird, because he was only 11 months old and wouldn't have even been conscious. Thousands of children have major operations all over the world every single day. Do they all grow up with an anxiety disorder because they weren't able to verbalise their feelings about it? I'm confused about the point she was trying to get across.

 

[aoibhinn]

Originally Posted by Tink View Post
Your definition of a delusion is incorrect. It is quite possible to have delusions that are "within the laws of physics" - they are delusional simply because they are not true. For example, I could have a delusion that Johnny Depp comes to visit me every afternoon and we drink tea in my backyard. That is presumably within the laws of physics, but it is not at all true (sadly) and so it is a delusion.

If Oscar believes that the police are out to get him, it is possible that he has some evidence that suggests this. In that case, he could be mistaken - he could have drawn incorrect conclusions from the evidence. On the other hand, if he has no evidence or reasoning behind his conclusion, it is possible that this could be a delusion. You would need to know more about his thinking on this.

Tink, your analysis and analogy are correct. A delusion is normally associated with a delusional or schizoaffective disorder. They are false beliefs in the context of misinterpretations of experiences and/or perceptions.

Someone else suggested that I am wrong and I could be I am going to look further into it. Delusional has a very specific meaning in psychiatry. I'll have to look further into it, thank you.

 

[aoibhinn]

I can't recall whether the Dr. said it was pathological or not because I was merely responding to a poster who said that SA law did not recognise "temporary insanity" which if this analysis is correct is not the case.

So yes she may well have said it was pathological, but I am sure she said something about OP knowing wrong from right but in the stress of that night situation in his fear and panic or whatever he may not have been able to apply that knowledge due to his GAD etc. What it will mean for OP, well yes he would be institutionalised indefinitely but it means zilch because it's the Ian Brady types of this world that stay forever, not the OP types, so he would be treated and released when a team of psychiatrists deemed he was no longer a danger. Reagan's shooter is out.

I missed today For some reason, I thought it was a holiday in SA. I'm just listening to Nel's cross of Dr. V and transcribing. I've just reached the part where Nel advises the court to submit OP for assessment (based on Dr. V's report being sprung on him. What is the story with all these 'surprise' reports? I don't get that, at all).

Anyway, here is the relevant transcription (FP = Forensic Psychiatrist):

Nel : I am now dealing with the fact that I asked you what the purpose of the report is and you indicated that it's to indicate to the court certain psychiatric factors that may be relevant and you said for conviction and sentence. Now, relevance for conviction means that it affected his capacity to act in accordance with his understanding. Otherwise, that would not have been mentioned by you.

FP : That's right.

Nel : Well, if that's the answer, then it's the end of the argument. If you're willing to say to this court that your diagnosis may have affected his ability to act, then I go back to what Mr. Roux said before Mr. Roux objected. I understand 78, the court shall refer.

FP : Again. The problem is that it depends on what the offence is. So, perhaps to summarise, if I may, to put that if he was afraid there was an intruder, then, certainly, having GAD would have affected the way he reacted to that fear.

Nel : And that is so relevant to his (Roux's) version. And I'm not saying he's wrong. His version's correct. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the defence in having called you as a witness have now caused the court to refer the accused. Because on his version, there's no other option.

FP : On his version, it is relevant.

Nel : Good, now that will be my application, Milady based on what the witness said. I will go through a report because we'll have to excuse her. But I'm bringing that application based on this witnesses evidence. This court will not have an option but to refer OP to psych observation for three days.

Milady : In terms of?

Nel : Section 78, subsections 1 & 2. 78/1b to be more direct and the procedure is in 78/2.

~~~Basically, he refers to another case. OP cannot remember what happened and it gives reasonable doubt as to his mental state.~~~

 

[nastasya]

While the DSM IV defines delusion in part as A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.

The definition of Delusion from the DSM V has a variation

Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g. persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).[…] Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. […] The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity.

http://imperfectcognitions.blogspot.com/2013/06/delusions-in-dsm-5.html

I believe my original definition of delusion is correct as they are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

Sounds like you're precisely describing OP's defense(s).

-nobody heard real woman who was killed screaming
-everybody heard OP screaming in a way that sounded like a woman.
-Nobody heard gunshots that are 1000x louder than cricket bat.
-Everybody heard cricket bat.
-police moved evidence and photographed it in precisely manner to debunk OP's alibi.
-OP knows Reeva didn't get up to eat even though he was asleep.
-OP knows Reeva didn't scream even though first shot deafened him.
-Reeva was breathing 18 minutes after being shot through the brain.
-Gun in restaurant went off without OP's finger touching the trigger.
-OP bashed down bedroom door from outside on trip back up stairs.

Yes, delusional is the exact definition of OP's defense(s), and the thought that he shot four times at a perceived "intruder."

 

[Magdalyn]

I think it can be safely argued that it is a physical impossibility for everyone to be an FBI member which if someone held that belief wold fall under the category of Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

I think you've missed the point. <modsnip> (Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence--no one has argued this!) and away from your original misunderstanding of the definition of delusion, which was:It is within the laws of physics that the police are out to get Oscar so it is not considered a delusion.

The point I was making was 'physical impossibility' is not a phrase that is interchangeable with 'laws of physics'.

The laws of physics, by definition, are comprised of the sciences of energy, matter, motion, and force, not 'physical impossibilities' and/or statistics and logic, and despite the word physical having the root word, physic embedded within.

The laws of physics have little to nothing to do with the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders, least of all bizarre or non-bizarre delusions.

I'm not sure what DSM definition you've found that encompasses the phrase 'laws of physics'. I'm guessing it's not the definition for non-bizarre delusions, as you have repeatedly either denied the existence of non-bizarre delusions as being psychiatrically recognized (wrong!), or denied that you ever had the definition incorrect.

Originally Posted by Carmelita

I believe my original definition of delusion is correct as they are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

:fence:

 

[aoibhinn]

Here you go Section 78

http://bama.ua.edu/~jhooper/southaf.html

78 directs that the assessment consider whether the mental illness or disability interferes with the defendant's appreciation of wrongfulness, or his ability to act in accordance with such an appreciation. It is an interesting anomaly in that the question of criminal responsibility is assumed to be juridical (in that only the court can decide this) but the Act requires psychiatrists to comment on this.

This is not what Voster claimed. She specifically said again and again that neither Oscar’s deformity or his psychiatric condition made the discernment of right and wrong impossible for Oscar. There was one point where Nel had confused her to the point that she gave a confused answer. Both Roux and Voster insisted that the claim was not that Oscar could not discern right from wrong.

Thus the judges not understanding Nel's request.

BBM:

No, she was very specific in how she worded this.

Dr. V : FP : Again. The problem is that it depends on what the offence is. So, perhaps to summarise, if I may, to put that if he was afraid there was an intruder, then, certainly, having GAD would have affected the way he reacted to that fear.

 

[Magdalyn]

I don't think Roux will clarify this. It will open up another can of worms and take any arguments off point....the point for the next proceedings being; will or wont Oscar be committed to a psyhic hospital for clinical evaluation.

Haha, I was joking in my original post, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was just pointing out the two favorite OP/defense/OP supporter tactics/explanations.

1) Everyone is out to get OP

2) What the witness said sounded terrible for OP, but once 'explained' by Roux, or a defense supporter, is not so bad after all. Except it is. :seeya:

 

[aoibhinn]

Here you go Section 78

http://bama.ua.edu/~jhooper/southaf.html

78 directs that the assessment consider whether the mental illness or disability interferes with the defendant's appreciation of wrongfulness, or his ability to act in accordance with such an appreciation. It is an interesting anomaly in that the question of criminal responsibility is assumed to be juridical (in that only the court can decide this) but the Act requires psychiatrists to comment on this.

Respectfully snipped. Thank you for finding this.

That is why OP must now submit for assessment, as I understand it. The defence sprung this third defence today. In Nel's words:

And that is so relevant to his (Roux's) version. And I'm not saying he's wrong. His version's correct. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the defence in having called you as a witness have now caused the court to refer the accused. Because on his version, there's no other option.

 

[soozieqtips]

Haha, I was joking in my original post, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was just pointing out the two favorite OP/defense/OP supporter tactics/explanations.

1) Everyone is out to get OP

2) What the witness said sounded terrible for OP, but once 'explained' by Roux, or a defense supporter, is not so bad after all. Except it is. :seeya:

BBM - He was asking her how she slept at night because he wanted advice on a pillow he was thinking of purchasing... am I right?? :floorlaugh:

 

[supernovaNic]

andrew harding &#8207;@BBCAndrewH 12h
#OscarPistorius told me state's demand to refer him for psychiatric evaluation was "a joke" and that today's evidence went "well" for him.


Has anyone seen any video clips of this or references to it? Thanks !!

 

[Murphys_Law]

Here you go Section 78

http://bama.ua.edu/~jhooper/southaf.html

78 directs that the assessment consider whether the mental illness or disability interferes with the defendant's appreciation of wrongfulness, or his ability to act in accordance with such an appreciation. It is an interesting anomaly in that the question of criminal responsibility is assumed to be juridical (in that only the court can decide this) but the Act requires psychiatrists to comment on this.

This is not what Voster claimed. She specifically said again and again that neither Oscar’s deformity or his psychiatric condition made the discernment of right and wrong impossible for Oscar. There was one point where Nel had confused her to the point that she gave a confused answer. Both Roux and Voster insisted that the claim was not that Oscar could not discern right from wrong.

Thus the judges not understanding Nel's request.

bib by me ... I'm stunned, speechless - Roux, and his followers seem to have remarkably poor reading comprehension skills. The operative word is OR.

 

[Greater Than]

If OP suffered a "traumatic assault" because he had his legs amputated as a baby, his parents never allowed him to consider himself disabled, his parents divorce led to feelings of anxiety and insecurity, his mother abused alcohol, he had a difficult time when his mother passed away, he became estranged from his father, is hyper vigilant, and suffers from generalized anxiety disorder... I would like to know why this psychiatrist, who met him just 10 days ago, is the only one offering testimony on his behalf. If all this is true, surely he would've seen another mental health professional throughout his lifetime that can vouch for all this?

 

[aoibhinn]

I'm late to today's events and confused by the implications. I've only watched 30 minutes of Nel's cross and, also, read on here some of Roux's examination of Dr. V's findings (Grrrr.)

Has OP already submitted to a psych eval by the State or will this upcoming assessment be the State's opportunity to evaluate OP, in the light of Dr. V's report?

 

[Magdalyn]

No I believe my definition of Delusion is correct because it is how the DSM defines Delusion and the DSM is The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is the bible of psychiatry.

Your definition:

No Voster is speaking clinically about delusions which cannot be physically true. Someone can have the misconception that their husband is cheating on them every night with a different woman and they may be wrong or right as it is a possibility. So it is not in the world of psychiatry considered delusional.

Now on the other hand if someone thinks their husband is having relations with a gerbil on the moon every night and sending her video tape of the event, that is delusional.

It is within the laws of physics that the police are out to get Oscar so it is not considered a delusion.

DSM IV definition:

Delusional disorder is an illness characterized by the presence of nonbizarre delusions in the absence of other mood or psychotic symptoms, according to the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR).[1] It defines delusions as false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/292991-overview

DSM V definition:

Mirroring the change in the schizophrenia diagnostic criteria, delusions in delusion disorder are no longer required to be of the “non-bizarre” type. A person can now be diagnosed with delusional disorder with bizarre delusions, via a new specifier in the DSM-5.

http://pro.psychcentral.com/2013/dsm-5-changes-schizophrenia-psychotic-disorders/004336.html

Help me out. Can you point to me where in these three sentences, your 'definition' is correct?

Someone can have the misconception that their husband is cheating on them every night with a different woman and they may be wrong or right as it is a possibility. So it is not in the world of psychiatry considered delusional.

and

It is within the laws of physics that the police are out to get Oscar so it is not considered a delusion

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

Am I the only one here who's actually seen the inside of a locked ward? Granted, I was in the US, but 6 weeks in 1991 and 2 weeks in 2007 for anxiety, depression, bipolar.

Short of feeling like i wanted jump off the Golden Gate bridge, it wasn't bad. We had art therapy and group therapy and sessions daily with the psch docs -- MDs and PhDs, and social workers, you name it.

We had nice walks on the grounds and movie nights and talent shows. We did have to wear hospital gowns the whole time and they took away my shoelaces and shaver for awhile but I look good in billowy bum-covering dud.

It was really heartbreaking, at times - it sucks being sick - but also hilariously funny. Truly crazy people are some of the nicest people I know.

I've been inside many locked (or secure) psychiatric wards in a professional capacity in Australia. Here we have general locked psychiatric wards which are usually part of an acute psychiatry unit. There are also specialist forensic psychiatric units which can be stand-alone or part of a longer-term psychiatric facility. All the modern secure wards/units provide reasonable to good accommodation. But, the same could also be said about our gaols.

Although, I don't know about that state of secure psychiatric services in SA, IMO would not be happy in any type of secure facility, irrespective of how nice the accommodation was. He thinks that he is a lot better than this.

I've generally found general locked psychiatric wards to be relatively pleasant places with family members usually welcome. The more seriously acutely- disturbed inmates are usually sedated, and there a plenty of staff around if someone does act out. I've never felt threatened or concerned about my safety in such a unit.

The forensic psychiatry units generally have much much higher levels of security - staff carrying personal duress alarms, using keys and airlocks to move from place to place, most rooms with large glass viewing windows etc.

Many of the forensic clients have committed serious crimes e.g. murder, rape, kidnapping torture etc. They are not usually happy campers. Despite all the security measures, I still find these places creepy and am always very pleased to leave.

Does anyone know the sort of facility that OP would likely be admitted to for psychiatric assessment?

 

[soozieqtips]

If OP suffered a "traumatic assault" because he had his legs amputated as a baby, his parents never allowed him to consider himself disabled, his parents divorce led to feelings of anxiety and insecurity, his mother abused alcohol, he had a difficult time when his mother passed away, he became estranged from his father, is hyper vigilant, and suffers from generalized anxiety disorder... I would like to know why this psychiatrist, who met him just 10 days ago, is the only one offering testimony on his behalf. If all this is true, surely he would've seen another mental health professional throughout his lifetime that can vouch for all this?

BBM - That's a VERY good point.

 

[kittychi]

andrew harding &#8207;@BBCAndrewH 12h
#OscarPistorius told me state's demand to refer him for psychiatric evaluation was "a joke" and that today's evidence went "well" for him.


Has anyone seen any video clips of this or references to it? Thanks !!

I wonder if Oscar will utter "How do you sleep at night?" the next time he passes by Gerrie Nel.

 

[Murphys_Law]

I'm late to today's events and confused by the implications. I've only watched 30 minutes of Nel's cross and, also, read on here some of Roux's examination of Dr. V's findings (Grrrr.)

Has OP already submitted to a psych eval by the State or will this upcoming assessment be the State's opportunity to evaluate OP, in the light of Dr. V's report?

Nel has to file a formal request to the court first, which I expect he will do first thing tomorrow. There will be D/P arguments, and then the court/judge will decide based on the arguments. I can't see the judge denying the request. imo.