Trial Discussion Thread #40

[Carmelita]

I am not misreading your posts.. you are misapprehending my responses, every time, and it seems to be a pattern.. However, it doesn't change the fact that Oscar has not sought treatment for any disorder, none at all . Who is denying him treatment or medicine? No one. Nor has that claim been made by Oscar, or anyone else. One cant have pharmaceutical treatment forced upon one. Unless you are aware of Oscar being denied treatment at any stage ,. the theory is meaningless.

Eh? I was addressing the moral, ethical and professional questions that would be raised by a mental health professional who had determined a patient needed medication but did not make that person, even if it was through proxy, aware that it was the health professionals (or several health professionals) opinion that the person being evaluated would benefit from medication.

 

[TorisMom003]

Hello everyone:greetings: ,
I’ve been lurking for over a month and finally decided to join, I’ve really enjoyed reading all your posts, the different viewpoints and fantastic sleuthing skills. I’ve been following the trial too, and I’m definitely a great admirer of Gerrie Nel, who is certainly doing his utmost to come to the truth and justice for Reeva Steenkamp and her loving family and friends.
I was once a fan of OP, watched several of his races, and applauded his athletic ability, witnessing on the tv screen that strong determination that led him to win his races and become an icon for SA and the disabled. But now…..:sigh:

After watching the trial so far and reading your insightful posts and thinking over OP’s account of what happened, I do not believe his story to be reasonably possibly true.
This latest attempt to explain his bizarre behaviour on that night by being diagnosed with GAD by Dr V certainly is grasping at straws, imo. If OP is so terrified and fearful of intruders and the unknown lurking in every corner, why in his ‘version’ would he rise from his bed without turning on the bedside lamp? IMO, he would do this instinctively, whether Reeva was awake or not (by his second account she was awake), so one point against him on that score.

Having GAD, wouldn't OP feel even more vulnerable hobbling around in the dark, moving fans, shutting balcony door, curtains and plunging his bedroom into pitch black darkness, and if that’s not enough, fumbled around with jeans to cover red light that mysteriously bothered him only on THIS particular night? Wouldn't the red light comfort him, like safety led lights used for kids and adults afraid of the dark? Another point against him in my book, GAD is a constant, it doesn't come and go.

I just can’t believe this whole darkness thing, it just doesn't ring true. Also, if he is constantly thinking about intruders, wouldn't he turn on the lights every opportune moment so passing outsiders or potential intruders are aware that he is home ( I mean, he is supposedly thinking of this threat constantly)? This of course is added to all his other failures to secure his property, like not locking away ladders or his car, not fixing window etc.

From there on in it just gets more unreal. IMO, there most definitely was an argument and OP lost control and Reeva retreated to the toilet cubicle. I don’t believe Reeva would stay completely silent in his supposed scenario either, I think he feared making anymore conversation without slipping up and yet, this made his story even more unlikely.

One more thing, whenever we are in complete darkness, we use our hands to feel our way, OP would have instinctively touched Reeva when he reached for his gun and spoke to her in his low tone, if he did, he would discover she wasn't there. :banghead:

Sorry for babbling especially my very first post :blushing:, just had to get these thoughts all out. I look forward to continue reading your posts and contribute what I can and ask questions, there are just so many questions.

My opinion only. :twocents:


Thank you fellow websleuthers! BTW, love the smilies! :loveyou:

Great first post, however the "red light" was actually blue. :welcome: and hope to read more of your posts in the future!

 

[Trooper]

Vosters role should have been to assess Oscar's mental health and any underlying conditions.

The state mandated Mental Health professional's role is to assess Oscar's mental health and any underlying conditions and the role if any his mental health played in the death of Reeva. It is an evaluation not an inquest. The terms of Oscar evaluation will not be known until Tuesday.

BBM

You are very mistaken in this perception. It is not the role of the panel to asses if his illness, defect or whatever played any part in the death of Reeva. This is misinformation that shouldn't continue.

The role of the panel is to assess if he has the illness, defect or whatever that his expert witness claims he has. No more, No less. That's it. Embellishment of that role is ultimately confusing and erroneous. No one has claimed it will be an inquest.

 

[Trooper]

Eh? I was addressing the moral, ethical and professional questions that would be raised by a mental health professional who had determined a patient needed medication but did not make that person, even if it was through proxy, aware that it was the health professionals (or several health professionals) opinion that the person being evaluated would benefit from medication.

Who claims the panel would not make Oscar aware of any treatment he should consider??

No one. no one at all.

But they are not formed as a panel to treat Oscar.. that's definite, and needs repeating. Obviously.

 

[Viper]

Vosters role should have been to assess Oscar's mental health and any underlying conditions.

The state mandated Mental Health professional's role is to assess Oscar's mental health and any underlying conditions and the role if any his mental health played in the death of Reeva. It is an evaluation not an inquest.

The terms of Oscar evaluation will not be known until Tuesday.

Inquest is actually a good word, but it is misplaced. OP will be treated politely and not abused in any way, but this will not be a charm fest for him. He is the accused, entering a program designed to address people accused or convicted of very serious crimes who are seeking a mental defect or illness exclusion or exception from punishment.

Here, allow me to help you. Go to about pages 14-20, but please read the entire document. It was posted early in the thread:

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

 

[Trooper]

Inquest is actually a good word, but it is misplaced. OP will be treated politely and not abused in any way, but this will not be a charm fest for him. He is the accused, entering a program designed to address people accused or convicted of very serious crimes who are seeking a mental defect or illness exclusion or exception from punishment.

Here, allow me to help you. Go to about pages 14-20, but please read the entire document. It was posted early in the thread:

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

In one sense , it is the correct word.. it is a quest, an enquiry , a search, into Oscar's mental health. It is not related in any way to the inquest as to Reevas death, in the coronial sense. .. but as a descriptor, in its basic meaning , it does fine!.

 

[nastasya]

Here are your exact words;







Psychiatrists are physicians they take the Hippocratic Oath. If you think that anyone in the mental health field will treat Oscar as Nel did you are simply mistaken. What you are suggesting would be the willful harming of a human being by mental health professionals.

Mental health professionals that are not doctors also have the moral and legal obligation to not harm patients/clients in their care.

It is a simple case of morality.

Please explain how asking questions can harm somebody. This should be fun. opcorn:

The only person in this entire situation who harmed anybody was Pisotorius, the killer, when he shot Reeva.

 

[Magdalyn]

Hello everyone:greetings: ,
I’ve been lurking for over a month and finally decided to join, I’ve really enjoyed reading all your posts, the different viewpoints and fantastic sleuthing skills. I’ve been following the trial too, and I’m definitely a great admirer of Gerrie Nel, who is certainly doing his utmost to come to the truth and justice for Reeva Steenkamp and her loving family and friends.
I was once a fan of OP, watched several of his races, and applauded his athletic ability, witnessing on the tv screen that strong determination that led him to win his races and become an icon for SA and the disabled. But now…..:sigh:

After watching the trial so far and reading your insightful posts and thinking over OP’s account of what happened, I do not believe his story to be reasonably possibly true.
This latest attempt to explain his bizarre behaviour on that night by being diagnosed with GAD by Dr V certainly is grasping at straws, imo. If OP is so terrified and fearful of intruders and the unknown lurking in every corner, why in his ‘version’ would he rise from his bed without turning on the bedside lamp? IMO, he would do this instinctively, whether Reeva was awake or not (by his second account she was awake), so one point against him on that score.

Having GAD, wouldn't OP feel even more vulnerable hobbling around in the dark, moving fans, shutting balcony door, curtains and plunging his bedroom into pitch black darkness, and if that’s not enough, fumbled around with jeans to cover red light that mysteriously bothered him only on THIS particular night? Wouldn't the red light comfort him, like safety led lights used for kids and adults afraid of the dark? Another point against him in my book, GAD is a constant, it doesn't come and go.

I just can’t believe this whole darkness thing, it just doesn't ring true. Also, if he is constantly thinking about intruders, wouldn't he turn on the lights every opportune moment so passing outsiders or potential intruders are aware that he is home ( I mean, he is supposedly thinking of this threat constantly)? This of course is added to all his other failures to secure his property, like not locking away ladders or his car, not fixing window etc.

From there on in it just gets more unreal. IMO, there most definitely was an argument and OP lost control and Reeva retreated to the toilet cubicle. I don’t believe Reeva would stay completely silent in his supposed scenario either, I think he feared making anymore conversation without slipping up and yet, this made his story even more unlikely.

One more thing, whenever we are in complete darkness, we use our hands to feel our way, OP would have instinctively touched Reeva when he reached for his gun and spoke to her in his low tone, if he did, he would discover she wasn't there. :banghead:

Sorry for babbling especially my very first post :blushing:, just had to get these thoughts all out. I look forward to continue reading your posts and contribute what I can and ask questions, there are just so many questions.

My opinion only. :twocents:


Thank you fellow websleuthers! BTW, love the smilies! :loveyou:

:wagon:

Great first post and I'm in total agreement! :seeya:

I'm also a smilieholic. :blushing:

 

[nastasya]

It has nothing to do with what I think of Nel's prosecuting style. It has to do with ethics and doing no harm, a physician can not harm a patient and calling Oscar a liar ect. and trying to goad him for 30 days would not be ethical for a mental health professional.

It doesn't matter if Oscar is there for an evaluation or treatment the doc's first rule is not to harm him. It would be highly unethical for them to treat him as Nel treated him on the stand.

Simple. They are not there to determine Oscar's guilt or innocence they are there to give an assessment of his mental health.

Another pathetic accusation against Nel. OP lies and Nel is accused of harming him by pointing out that he lied.

Harm is what OP did when he put the bullet through Reeva's forehead.

 

[Viper]

I can only hope that all the panel are men and not women. .. judging by the hysterical testimony of the social worker, who went way beyond and over the top in her grasp of what her role , as she was appointed to , actually was, .. that social worker was, I think actually under the impression that Oscar chose her and turned up to see her on a voluntary basis because she was so .. so.. soooo adoring.. Vorster was a sitting duck for Oscar's sad old story, too..

Some bright poster way back in the thread hoped the panel would all be men also, and added that they hoped every bloke on the panel would look like Oscar's Dad.. a scenario that highly appealed to me. I wish I could find that poster and thank them for it, it has resonated for days.

What is up with women falling all over themselves for this guy? He may be handsome, and opposite to that he is disfigured. Some women despise a man that has killed, while at the same time they love that he seems boyish and needs attention to soothe him? :weird:

 

[AlwaysShocked]

It is always interesting to see people who know nothing at all about the South African legal system posting as if they do; who are not a verified attorney posting about legal matters as if they know what they are talking about; who know nothing about medical ethics posting as if they actually have the knowledge of it.

There was a time on this board when the phrase "In my opinion" or "IMO" (in my opinion) or "MOO" (my own opinion) were regularly used to designate such.

I do not appreciate posts that give opinion as fact.

 

[Trooper]

What is up with women falling all over themselves for this guy? He may be handsome, and opposite to that he is disfigured. Some women despise a man that has killed, while at the same time they love that he seems boyish and needs attention to soothe him? :weird:

My amateur diagnosis of that particular syndrome rests heavily on Hybristophilia and the Dunning -Kruger effect.. and also, my dog agrees with those conclusions, which makes it almost unanimous in my household...

Hybristophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

and...

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Val1]

This answer is simple, SA puts the law above whim, Thank God for that.

Yet the man in question apparently doesn't have any faith in it. Reminds me of those who deny religion until they're on their deathbed...

 

[Suthrnqt]

What is up with women falling all over themselves for this guy? He may be handsome, and opposite to that he is disfigured. Some women despise a man that has killed, while at the same time they love that he seems boyish and needs attention to soothe him? :weird:

I know exactly what you mean. It reminds me of the women who marry guys who are in prison. These prisoners usually have a sentence of LWOP, and have committed heinous crimes. Yet these women 'fall in love' and marry these ba$tard$. I'll never understand. :ufo: smh JMO, as usual.

 

[TorisMom003]

Yet the man in question apparently doesn't have any faith in it. Reminds me of those who deny religion until they're on their deathbed...

Or looking to get paroled.

MOO

 

[Viper]

My amateur diagnosis of that particular syndrome rests heavily on Hybristophilia and the Dunning -Kruger effect.. and also, my dog agrees with those conclusions, which makes it almost unanimous in my household...

Hybristophilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

and...

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pfft. I have just made a mental note to never argue with you! LOL!!!

Thank you for that, something I was not aware of.

 

[jilly]

What is up with women falling all over themselves for this guy? He may be handsome, and opposite to that he is disfigured. Some women despise a man that has killed, while at the same time they love that he seems boyish and needs attention to soothe him? :weird:

Women that have insecurities of their own would be my guess. Any other woman would be able to see right through him.

 

[Trooper]

The thing is, if this panel, and God help Oscar if it does, finds that he has an extremely debilitating mental defect, and/or illness, he will be kept as a State patient in the locked ward for as long as it is deemed necessary until he is either sane enough to conduct his instructions to his attorney, or so unwell he cannot be released in the foreseeable future outside the confines of the treating hospital. And that could mean 10 years, 15, even 20 years of mandatory treatment, whatever form it takes, .. regular evaluations, mandatory therapy, mandatory observation.. oh dear.

it makes prison look like a teddy bears picnic in comparison.

 

[Magdalyn]

Psychiatrists are physicians they take the Hippocratic Oath. If you think that anyone in the mental health field will treat Oscar as Nel did you are simply mistaken. What you are suggesting would be the willful harming of a human being by mental health professionals.

Mental health professionals that are not doctors also have the moral and legal obligation to not harm patients/clients in their care.

It is a simple case of morality.

It has nothing to do with what I think of Nel's prosecuting style. It has to do with ethics and doing no harm, a physician can not harm a patient and calling Oscar a liar ect. and trying to goad him for 30 days would not be ethical for a mental health professional.

It doesn't matter if Oscar is there for an evaluation or treatment the doc's first rule is not to harm him. It would be highly unethical for them to treat him as Nel treated him on the stand.

For the sake of clarity, "Do no harm" is not the first rule.

Or the second.

Or third.

A Modern Version of the Hippocratic Oath

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=20909

But while not harming the patient is explicit, this section doesn't make doing no harm the first concern of the Hippocratic physician. The Hippocratic writing Epidemics is considered the more likely source:

5. With regard to the dangers of these cases, one must always attend to the seasonable concoction of all the evacuations, and to the favorable and critical abscesses. The concoctions indicate a speedy crisis and recovery of health; crude and undigested evacuations, and those which are converted into bad abscesses, indicate either want of crisis, or pains, or prolongation of the disease, or death, or relapses; which of these it is to be must be determined from other circumstances. The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future - must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm. The art consists in three things - the disease, the patient, and the physician. The physician is the servant of the art, and the patient must combat the disease along with the physician.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greekmedicine/f/HippocraticOath.htm

 

[Karmady]

One wonders if shock therapy is sanctioned if the accused claims memory loss during this court ordered procedure?

Or maybe Nel could rack him. But the docs definitely can't -- at least nowadays