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

[PPKik]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I distinctly recall Masipa saying that he could be given another 30 day evaluation, if the panel thinks they need more time to draw a conclusion.

Others have received back to back evaluation periods upon application at the end of the period, so there's a precedent.

Personally, having worked as a psych evaluation test administrator and report-preparer, I think they are going to need more than thirty days if he is an out-patient. They won't have the luxury of noting patient-to-patient interactions which take place at random times during the day. They may have to use structured situations.

Doctors can be very creative on how they structure situations to provide observation opportunities. We had one doctor who used a dog, another a parrot. He would ask questions (of children) like, "What do you think he is thinking?"

LOL. I don't think you are wrong. I don't know what Judge Masipa can do if she thinks OP needs 30 more days. I didn't hear that, but if you did, I'm sure you are correct.

I simply thought it was interesting, with all the insanity in this case, that Annamarie, origins a bit suspect, sanity a bit suspect, could seem to predict, from a dream, the evaluation that was eventually ordered.

And all from a dream about Oscar Pistorius's mother asking for this before the bond hearing! No one could make this up!!

 

[Greater Than]

There are several interpretations of the screams and they have been witnessed to, the judge may feel like me that testimony that came a week later on the heels of a media blitz is not credible enough to add to the column of viable evidence. Again eyewitness testimony (tossing in ear witness here also) is notoriously faulty.

When you refer to ear witness testimony as being notoriously faulty, that in many instances is true when said witness is testifying regarding specific statements/conversations they have overheard or when they are identifying a voice as a specific speaker, though they did not see the person. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about gunshots and screams. Much more reliable than what you're suggesting.

After hearing all the ear witnesses' evidence, you conclude they are not credible because there are "several interpretations" of the screams. If every witness testified to the exact same interpretation, that is what would actually hinder their credibility. The fact that they heard slightly different variations makes them that much more believable. And keep in mind, Roux didn't suggest during cross examination that they didn't hear anything, what he attempted to do was convince them the woman they all heard screaming was actually OP, and the shots they heard were actually the cricket bat. They did not give in. They heard what they heard - a woman and gunshots.

As far as your willingness to dismiss Johnson and Burger's testimony simply because they waited a week to provide a statement to police, as has been said, Johnson testified that they are private people and did not want to get involved in this highly publicized case, but in the end felt a moral obligation to inform authorities of what they had heard. And the fact that Burger testified to a pause after the first shot (bang.......bang, bang, bang) BEFORE the ballistics expert proves she was testifying based on her own recollection.

I am not under the impression that Oscar’s testimony was as bad as many people believe it was, I think his testimony was what could have been expected if his version of that AM is true. He was not stoic, he was not dismissive, he was confused and emotional (one can attribute this to his remorse at killing Reeva and his fear of imprisonment or one can attribute it to him lying, having no remorse for having willfully killed Reeva and feeling sorry for himself).

The evaluation will be underway soon, that is a good thing.

Perhaps this may be why you discount Burger and Johnson's testimony, but them hearing a woman screaming before and during the shots destroys OP's testimony and defense. No mental evaluation can make those screams go away.

 

[Trooper]

The source, and the only source for the current canard of the Burgers being 'influenced' by press reports, is from a short suggestion by Roux on x-examination of Mrs Burger.. it died a quick death, because Roux couldn't , and hasn't produced any semblance or remotely applicable 'media blitz' about screams of a woman heard that night in the days following the event. It simply isn't there. Not in any SA newspaper, not on any commercial TV station, and not on any radio or TV station run by the SABC.. lots about the actual death of Reeva, and the mystery intruder, but nothing, nothing nothing about a woman screaming pre and during the firing of the gunshots.

Roux made this suggestion to Mrs Burger.. she refuted it, and Roux had to let it sink into that large pile of suggestions, as he couldn't produce the media 'blitz' or 'report' or 'broadcast' or any other media event that hinted at a Woman Screaming.

Since then, this silliness has grown legs, as if it had fact behind it. It doesn't. Never did have , and hasn't now.

Were the Burgers late in reporting what they heard?? They rang security that night, the called their lawyer immediately upon the 'media blitz' in regard to Oscars bail hearing, since it didn't jibe with what they heard at all, and waited for contact from the police..

Compare this with the defence witness, Mr N.. he lives next door to Oscar. Oddly , he didn't even hear the gunshots, much less screaming.. but he, highly attuned to his dignity and status as he sees it, refused to talk to the police until a suitably attired and impressive Colonel assuaged his hurt self regard.. Approaches by various other police investigators didn't come up to Mr N's perceived standards , so he kept his story , along with being 'media blitzed' for as long as possible.

 

[Trooper]

Actually Judge Masipa will apply the law to the facts at least as well as she and her assessors can discern the facts. And “facts” when in question must be viewed by the judiciary in a light most favorable to a defendant. I do agree that portions of the ear-testimony will be questionable before the judge and her assessors.

BBM


<modsnip> The judiciary are obliged to view facts in the light of the verification of fact, on the balance of probability of fact, and the common sense of fact. .

in a light most favourable to a defendant?? where , in any jurisdiction does this <modsnip> take place?? since when has any defendant been given 'favour' over fact??

 

[Trooper]

I'm sorry but I am a get involved type of person if they chose not to get involved knowing that they heard screams on the night of a killing then their character is questionable to me. The greater good and all that.

there is no proof or empirical evidence that any poster is an 'involved type of person' merely that posters claim. Nothing else. .

On the other hand... compare this with a witness who , in a public court, on international broadcast , takes an oath , affirms their evidence ,and gives their testimony..and undergoes x-examination of that testimony... . hardly comparable, I am sure you will agree.

as to questioning character, the comparison could again be made.. should a posters unsubstantiated claim of being ' an involved type of person' stack up against the character of a witness, who, I restate, takes an oath, affirms the evidence about to be given , and undergoes x-examination?? .. again, hardly comparable, I am sure you will agree.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

The source, and the only source for the current canard of the Burgers being 'influenced' by press reports, is from a short suggestion by Roux on x-examination of Mrs Burger.. it died a quick death, because Roux couldn't , and hasn't produced any semblance or remotely applicable 'media blitz' about screams of a woman heard that night in the days following the event. It simply isn't there. Not in any SA newspaper, not on any commercial TV station, and not on any radio or TV station run by the SABC.. lots about the actual death of Reeva, and the mystery intruder, but nothing, nothing nothing about a woman screaming pre and during the firing of the gunshots.

Roux made this suggestion to Mrs Burger.. she refuted it, and Roux had to let it sink into that large pile of suggestions, as he couldn't produce the media 'blitz' or 'report' or 'broadcast' or any other media event that hinted at a Woman Screaming.

Since then, this silliness has grown legs, as if it had fact behind it. It doesn't. Never did have , and hasn't now.

Were the Burgers late in reporting what they heard?? They rang security that night, the called their lawyer immediately upon the 'media blitz' in regard to Oscars bail hearing, since it didn't jibe with what they heard at all, and waited for contact from the police..

Compare this with the defence witness, Mr N.. he lives next door to Oscar. Oddly , he didn't even hear the gunshots, much less screaming.. but he, highly attuned to his dignity and status as he sees it, refused to talk to the police until a suitably attired and impressive Colonel assuaged his hurt self regard.. Approaches by various other police investigators didn't come up to Mr N's perceived standards , so he kept his story , along with being 'media blitzed' for as long as possible.

Excellent post Trooper!!

 

[Trooper]

Thankyou, Ms Tennison.

 

[Trooper]

anyone who expects the judge to reject testimony, or even portions of testimony of ear witnesses, is ipso facto, relying upon the Judge to indulge herself in whimsy. .. to do it on a whim, a caprice, a sudden and inexplicable deviation from the norm , done on impulse.. a strange expectation.

There is a sound and solid reason for believing that anyone who expects this whimsical moment from Judge Masipa does so due to insufficient enquiry and/or a frail grasp of the role of the Assessors currently in this trial... and that is probably due to inexperience with the format of Judge and Assessors per se.

Even after commenting and opining on this trial for months, now, its not unsurprising that some posters simply do not intuit what the Assessors roles are, who they are, why they sit on the bench with the Judge, what their brief is, what they assess and what they do with that assessment.

They are not a complicated embellishment of the court, their job is obvious, necessary , central and crucial to the system. Which is why the Republic of South Africa bungs them up there at trial. Their position isn't decorative.

They collate and collect and analyse the facts of the case.. they present these, along with Judge Masipa's gleanings, and she then applies the Law to those Facts presented by the Assessors..

The earwitnesses testimony is Fact accrued and collated and analysed by the Assessors.. . the Judge cant throw any of it out, or reject it , or dismiss it, without the express agreement of the Assessors. They can even over ride Judge Masipa on this, should they see the necessity..

For Judge Masipa to reject testimony of a lay ear witnesses . or to actually expect that she would , based on nothing more than hope ..she would have to do it on whim, on caprice, on a sudden impulse, a deviation from the norm, as a quirk, a foible.. in other words.. a whim.

Expecting the judge to act on a whim to fit a theory is surely a straw grasping process.

( to grasp at a straw...= trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work)

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

That's a great way to provide clarity, UndiscoveredTruth Thank you x

You're very welcome, Gryfindor

 

[G.bng]

Hi Minor :-D

Is it Oscar and his immediate family who they're taking to? Thank you x

They basically talk with anyone they consider will add to their understanding of what was going on in OP's mind at time of offence or add to his past history and any existing problems that may have caused him to act the way he did, including police, social workers, etc. and even witnesses albeit doubt these can be forced to collaborate so mostly they will rely on the court docs, witness statements etc., and now of course video/audio testimony.
JMHOSNNFS,I,OR

 

[james83]

I feel like I've missed something. Actually, the whole day in real life has been a bit surreal - maybe it's just me.

On another note, does anyone else wonder if the DT's efforts were not their original plan? Everything seemed very last minute - hardly the work of a year's planning.

http://ewn.co.za/2014/05/12/OPINION-Pistoriuss-experts-what-have-they-been-doing

 

[Trooper]

I feel like I've missed something. Actually, the whole day in real life has been a bit surreal - maybe it's just me.

On another note, does anyone else wonder if the DT's efforts were not their original plan? Everything seemed very last minute - hardly the work of a year's planning.

I think it has been so badly produced I worry that Oscar will be able to sue for sloppy representation..


that said.. . I never thought a year was long enough for the defence, and possibly, but not as much as the defence, for the prosecution to prepare for this trial. As it's turned out, nothing seems to have got done that should have been, and what has been done seemed to have suddenly begun when the trial itself started..

 

[Budgie]

So what did you think about Fridays events? IYO.

 

[lithgow1]

I think it has been so badly produced I worry that Oscar will be able to sue for sloppy representation..


that said.. . I never thought a year was long enough for the defence, and possibly, but not as much as the defence, for the prosecution to prepare for this trial. As it's turned out, nothing seems to have got done that should have been, and what has been done seemed to have suddenly begun when the trial itself started..

I wondered whether this was all a cunning ploy when Dixon was fumbling on the stand but a few of those SA legal people were saying that an appeal based on inadequate representation would be difficult to advance given he bought the best defence that rands could buy. IMO it has much more to do with the quality of the confirmed killer's version than the defence. One by one it would seem that avenues for appeal are being crossed off the list. Soon he will be reduced to 'well some consider me handsome and I can run really really fast. Are those grounds?'.

Who is emrg BTW?

 

[Cherwell]

Compare this with the defence witness, Mr N.. he lives next door to Oscar. Oddly , he didn't even hear the gunshots, much less screaming.. but he, highly attuned to his dignity and status as he sees it, refused to talk to the police until a suitably attired and impressive Colonel assuaged his hurt self regard.. Approaches by various other police investigators didn't come up to Mr N's perceived standards , so he kept his story , along with being 'media blitzed' for as long as possible.

I was a bit taken aback by his anecdote about meeting Reeva.
I'm going to be honest here, I think flinging your arms round a male stranger and hugging him when you're introduced to them is a bit OTT. I get it if it's your boyfriend's close relative perhaps, but a neighbour? that he doesn't even know very well? A bit much IMO.

This chap seemed so very much on his dignity with the police. I would have expected someone with his attitude to find Reeva's behaviour a bit forward.
But I suppose if it's a pretty young woman he sets his standards aside.

 

[james83]

a question i would like to ask Mr Roux is this

So in court you asked Mrs Motshuane to do an impression of the man she heard crying
You asked Mrs Nhlengethwa to do an impression of the man she heard crying
So why is it that you didn't ask MR Nhlengethwa to do an impression of the man he heard crying?.

Hmmmmm Funny that isnt it?.

 

[bessie]

The thread is open for posting again. How long it remains open depends on all of you.

TO's will be issued at the first hint of a problem.

Zero excuses

Zero tolerance

 

[Gryffindor]

<modsnip>

Be interesting to see the results of the evaluation and the resulting outcome on trial proceedings or not :-\

 

[Carmelita]

BBM


I have no idea where on earth this peculiar idea comes from. The judiciary are obliged to view facts in the light of the verification of fact, on the balance of probability of fact, and the common sense of fact. .

in a light most favourable to a defendant?? where , in any jurisdiction does this mad idea take place?? since when has any defendant been given 'favour' over fact??

BBM


It is what it is. When the facts leave reasonable doubt the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. The way I said it is just a bit more eloquent than the whole reasonable doubt statement.

In the bolded part if you are trying to say that the judge must view verifiable facts as they are presented on that we agree. It is the subjective testimony and evidence in which the judiciary must view the information in a light most favorable to the defense.

 

[Trooper]

BBM


It is what it is. When the facts leave reasonable doubt the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant. The way I said it is just a bit more eloquent than the whole reasonable doubt statement.

In the bolded part if you are trying to say that the judge must view verifiable facts as they are presented on that we agree. It is the subjective testimony and evidence in which the judiciary must view the information in a light most favorable to the defense.

where in South African Law statutes is this claim to be found?

If you are not quoting this from the South African Law Statutes, how does it apply to this trial under discussion?

don't go to any trouble supplying the subsections, etc, just the main Statute number dealing with this will be enough.