Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31

[Really?]

See, I disagree as I explained in the post you quoted.

What post ?

 

[Val1]

April Holmes is a US Paralympian. I cannot see OP's sister in this photo.

No, I was speaking of the blonde in the pic that came up when I searched OP, Dr. Holmes and olympic to see if that could have been where that report had come from, before I saw someone post the date of it .. to me she looks like the blonde that was sitting beside OP's sister in court yesterday, as I referenced to the video just above that post. Just trying to fit some pieces together. More friends/relatives in the mix, possible bias?

 

[minor4th]

...in a vain attempt to get the court to excuse it or to reduce sentence because if it.

Roux clearly said it was not to excuse him of responsibility or claim diminished capacity

 

[Carmelita]

bbm - The whole issue here is that "know the rightness or wrongness of his or her actions" is not what Nel wants the evaluation for, it's the "or" following that in the code.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/oscar-pistorius-trial-reeva-steenkamp-murder-12-may

Could be, Nel’s application would have to be applied as if Oscar’s story were not true. As I understand it Roux's position is that Oscar believed that there was an aggressive intruder entering deeper into his home coupled with Oscar’s wrongfully being certain that Reeva was back in the bedroom, (throw in Oscar being on his stumps and GAD) Oscar in theory would have been acting with rightness of defense so there would be no question as whether or not he was acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his act, because his intention was not to kill Reeva or even an intruder, (if events occurred as he states they occurred) so again this seems like an extraordinary move by Nel.

A case of incapacity by mental defect is not Oscars defense as there is no question as to Oscar’s knowing right from wrong in a legal sense.

 

[Carmelita]

BBM

I'm fairly confident he couldn't simply ask nicely, hence the necessity of pursuing the application. Normally, such a request is made by the defence because it usually goes towards mitigation and most often before trial. This application is so unusual for so many reasons. However, important to remember the State (opposing attorney) is making the application, we're midtrial, and the accused has a bevy of constitutional rights the court will bend itself over backwards not to violate. Further, a whole host of appellate grounds they'll strive to limit.

So, I'm thinking this was the most ethically sound way legally to pursue something like this. Happy to be proven wrong if you can find a link - I looked myself but there were about 10 million pages just of Oscar and Nel.

Oh...and back to paragraph one - a few legal experts were pointing out how bizarre it was for the defence to fight this because normally, usually, it could often only work in their client's favor. That's very telling to me.

All JMO

When I say ask I don't mean casually ask like a favor form the Defense, I mean make a formal request of the judge to have a state psychiatrist evaluate Oscar as opposed to having him referred through section 78.

 

[Really?]

So tomorrow is the big day, eh ? I wonder what time I will wake up . I've slept in the past 2 days............wooooohooooo 5ish instead of 3 a.m.

Sooooo........I have only followed the trial on here.

Let us hope that tomorrow my Good and Lovely and Eloquent M'Lady sends OP's lyin arse of to some crazy killer people place.

Let us hope he makes a lot of 'friends'lease:

 

[Really?]

When I say ask I don't mean casually ask like a favor form the Defense, I mean make a formal request of the judge to have a state psychiatrist evaluate Oscar as opposed to having him referred through section 78.

Why? What difference would it make .

 

[aoibhinn]

Can "flight" include deciding not to "fight", such as stifling the urge to yell at someone who irritates you? Would OP saying to Reeva of "the noise", "Did you hear that?" represent flight? Ditto taking 30 sec. to don his legs?

AFAIK, the fight or flight response involves no weighed decisions, per se. It's reflexive in nature, there's no time to make a choice. It originates in our primal brain (hippocampus) when our ancestors had to make fast decisions about dealing with predators.

Suffering from GAD, he is perpetually in that mode whereas, typically, others only have that response in direct response to a fear trigger. So, in a fearful situation, his response level would be very heightened. Not being at the scene, we only have his past actions for comparison.
His response in those circumstances would be to adopt his 'combat mode' in which he is, by his own admission, drilled and somewhat prepared for (see washing machine incident and gun training). This should offer a small degree of calm and clarity, not lose the head.

In 'combat mode', you should ensure that your buddy is safe. That statement is taken from military drilling. I'm not sure if he practised those types of scenarios at the gun range where he trained.

 

[Carmelita]

What is it telling you?
I think you are right that it is a hint of something and I am not quite sure of what it means though.

IMO it is not bizarre for the Defense to fight the institutionalization of Oscar based on a flawed premise set forth by the prosecutor. It would foolish of the Defense to falsely concede that Oscar acted in a way that was not in accordance of what he knew was right action, that has never been the Defenses case and it is not now its case.

 

[Val1]

Roux clearly said it was not to excuse him of responsibility or claim diminished capacity

bbm - However, that's not the evidence his witness put forth. She clearly stated that OP's GAD could have impacted on his ability to act in accordance with the appreciation of the wrongfulness of his actions, enough so that she was willing to testify to bring it to the attention of the judge to possibly be used for both conviction and sentencing.

bbm - The whole issue here is that "know the rightness or wrongness of his or her actions" is not what Nel wants the evaluation for, it's the "or" following that in the code.

Quote:
or
(b) of acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his or her act or omission,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-murder-12-may

 

[Carmelita]

Jodi Arias tried to sack her lead attorney at least twice that I know of, and the judge denied her that option. :denied: :denied: :judge: :denied:

As far as I know Oscar has not made a peep about dismissing Roux so I am wondering why so many posters here are discussing it as if Oscar has made such a move.

 

[Forensics]

Can "flight" include deciding not to "fight", such as stifling the urge to yell at someone who irritates you? Would OP saying to Reeva of "the noise", "Did you hear that?" represent flight? Ditto taking 30 sec. to don his legs?

From what I understand it is an either/or situation. We all have this response when we are faced with a situation in which we need to defend ourselves. Some of us would cut and run.....while others would stay and fight. In my opinion suffering from an anxiety disorder would mean that everyday situations may trigger a flight or fight response in addition to threats or attacks. The decision to flee or stay and fight would depend on our psychological and physical makeup. In other words an anxiety disorder increases the chances of having a flight or fight response but does not influence how we respond to the stressors.

 

[Val1]

IMO it is not bizarre for the Defense to fight the institutionalization of Oscar based on a flawed premise set forth by the prosecutor. It would foolish of the Defense to falsely concede that Oscar acted in a way that was not in accordance of what he knew was right action, that has never been the Defenses case and it is not now its case.

Do you know for sure just what the defence case is now? I'm sure the court would like this information.

 

[minor4th]

Could be, Nel’s application would have to be applied as if Oscar’s story were not true. As I understand it Roux's position is that Oscar believed that there was an aggressive intruder entering deeper into his home coupled with Oscar’s wrongfully being certain that Reeva was back in the bedroom, (throw in Oscar being on his stumps and GAD) Oscar in theory would have been acting with rightness of defense so there would be no question as whether or not he was acting in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of his act, because his intention was not to kill Reeva or even an intruder, (if events occurred as he states they occurred) so again this seems like an extraordinary move by Nel.



A case of incapacity by mental defect is not Oscars defense as there is no question as to Oscar’s knowing right from wrong in a legal sense.

Exactly. He didn't think he was acting wrongfully - he thought he was defending himself. That's the defense.

 

[minor4th]

Do you know for sure just what the defence case is now? I'm sure the court would like this information.

Sorry to butt in but I think the court knows what the defense case is. It's putative self defense and always has been. It's only Nel who is pushing the argument that the defense has changed three times - it's simply not true.

 

[minor4th]

bbm - However, that's not the evidence his witness put forth. She clearly stated that OP's GAD could have impacted on his ability to act in accordance with the appreciation of the wrongfulness of his actions, enough so that she was willing to testify to bring it to the attention of the judge to possibly be used for both conviction and sentencing.

I disagree. Please listen to her redirect when she clarifies her position.

 

[Viper]

And there wasn't a Valentine's gift or card from OP to Reeva there.

On Valentines Day, of all the days in their new relationship, OP was still pi**ed off because Reeva had coffee with her ex. That is why he did not get her a card or a gift or a scribbled heart on a bar napkin. He was angry inside. OP was possesive of Reeva, he was jealous, and he was worried that she was going to exit the relationship. Can we just get those things established as the consensus? (Joking, sort of) :smile:

 

[BabaJ]

I am puzzled what is going to be looked for in this assessment. If OP's disorder manifests itself only under particular circumstances, they will not see this manifestation during a stay in hospital, as he will feel safe there. Also he is on medication which he was not taking on the night in question.

I somewhat agree with your argument but taking this into consideration I do not understand how DT could bring an expert to evaluate OP's state of mind prior to shooting, an expert who saw OP only twice during the last couple of weeks and who obtained just limited information with respect to the case. :banghead:Overall, the entire assessment she did seems to be extremely rushed and incomplete IMO Compared to this, 30-days under observation and thorough assessment should yield more information than that obtained to date.:fence:

 

[Really?]

Exactly. He didn't think he was acting wrongfully - he thought he was defending himself. That's the defense.

How's that ? Last I heard it was the 2nd gd time he had a gun that by golly shot by itself. He was all like wtf?

 

[katydid23]

The next witness called by Roux will comment on the effects of the 'fright, flight or fight' (as it's more correctly termed) response as it relates to GAD or any chronic anxiety disorder, in relation to Oscar's actions on the night.

A person suffering from a chronic anxiety disorder is perpetually in this fight or flight mode. It is not a response to a specific fear trigger. It's a state of general worry (abnormal).
The rest of us have a normal response to fear. The fight or flight response is one of our most basic survival instincts (normal).

Two examples to illustrate the possible defence stance on this:
Normal response
You are in a loving relationship with a partner. One evening, out of the blue, your partner throws a completely irrational wobbler, blaming you for something. You are frightened. You run or remove yourself from the situation (flight). You throw pots or attack their wardrobe with a sharp pair of scissors (fight).

Abnormal response
Your partner has been very aggressive toward you for some time. As a result, you have developed a chronic anxiety disorder. You are always on edge. Your partner yells at you all the time, perhaps uses violence. You accept it wordlessly and retreat asap (flight). One evening, you've had enough. Your partner attacks you, verbally or physically. You react with unusual violence (fight). Your response in this instance is not rational. Effectively, you've been broken.

Now, relate it back to Oscar. Oscar suffers from GAD. He is in a constant state of flight or fight. As his defence will have it, when faced by a threat, he is more prone that the normal individual to overreact. He shoots Reeva.

But let's have a look at his history, as we've been presented with it in court.

• Oscar has had weapon training. I assume part of this covers home invasion. Home invasion, rule #1 - do not run at your attacker, waving a gun. Escape, if possible. He even passed the test. He already had the knowledge and tools for this situation. It should lessen his potential to react irrationally.

• 
  [*]Oscar has already entered his home in combat mode, once that we know of. He didn't shoot the washing machine for making a noise.

• Oscar partakes in risk-taking behaviours. His fight or flight response should tell him to avoid risky situations. His GAD could make him more cautious in all aspects of life as it's a generalized anxiety disorder. His huse shuld have been intruder-safe. Alarms, no broken windows, no ladders laying about, properly trained guard dogs.

• Oscar feels more powerful on his legs and he competes on them (fights). His legs were next to the window. His automatic, primal 'fight response' should dictate he put them on.

• Oscar is in 'fight' mode. He races down the hall and shoots at the bathroom door, primal response. Except he doesn't. He thinks about plenty things before he shoots.

I'm sure there's more to add to the list. I just put in the first things that came to mind.

BBM

Twice that we know of. According to a friend of OP's, who was spending the night, his grown son knocked over something in the middle of the night, and OP came out with a gun, IIRC. But he did not shoot. I wonder if he had his legs on?