Judge's Order re: OP's Mental Health Eval

[Carmelita]

Hi Carmelita. Lovely to see you. You've been missed. As have your eloquent posts :-D x

:seeya:


(((Gryf))))

 

[lithgow1]

yes weekends to chill...maybe at the luxury property Mozambique or one of Uncle Arnie's other places. Pretty much the same lifestyle he will have after his slap on the wrist when this is over. I appreciate all the careful analysis done by so many on the events of that evening...all the experts etc. but in the end...he goes on his merry privileged way just like his brother. To me in the courtroom they all have that very satisfied look like this is under control..."we've got this"

Most of the older ones always look a bit smug IMO. The uncle always seems to have that smirk whether things are going good or bad for OP at any particular time. Maybe he's just fantasising about the next elephant or leopard he is going to shoot.

 

[lithgow1]

Can't argue about the power of money....in general, anyway. Personally I have all the confidence in the world that this judge will get it right. Are you aware of her history? She's walked the walk for seeking justice. She has demonstrated over a lifetime that she is a person of utmost integrity and tremendous inner strength and courage, and that she is quite able and willing to stand up to money and power.

Her story of overcoming the disability she was born into...being an intelligent strong black women forced to live in an apartheid nightmare....is the real thing.

If she finds OP guilty of murder I will accept her verdict as just and fair.

I agree H4M - some other judge (white, male, Afrikaans background) might be worrying at this stage but I also have confidence in Judge Masipa. If the psych evaluation shows he has no psych defence to fall back on I think she will come down hard on him. A month is not so long in the broad scheme of things and on a purely personal level I might get some work done while they psychs are doing theirs'.

 

[aoibhinn]

Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for the updates and some really great links. This one is quite good. I can't remember who posted it, but thank you

http://onthecouchwithcarly.com/2014/05/19/so-who-is-really-there-oscar/

1. to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct.
2. to act in accordance with that appreciation.

What does that mean exactly in this case?

Hi Deb :seeya: this means, in the context of OP's mental state at the time of the shooting Reeva, that the following will be evaluated :

1a. OP did not understand the difference between right and wrong, his actions and their implications,
OR
1b. If he was rendered incapable (again, in the context of his mental state) of restraining himself from firing the shots, while knowing it was wrong to do so.
(criminally non-responsible = acquittal)
OR
2. Understood the above but acted with diminished responsibility or capacity, due to his mental state.
(criminally responsible but with mitigating factors, possibly leading to a lighter sentence)

This is how I understand it. Someone posted this link (thanks again, I wish I could credit you) which goes into good detail :

http://whosyourdadic.com

 

[Carmelita]

Didn't "milady" say he has to be there till 4pm or until he is excused... so am i right thinking that somewere along the line they can keep him in overnight for 1-? days just a thought ...

I think that the only way they could force Oscar to stay overnight is if the panel deemed him a danger to himself or society, it appears the judge put a limit to the maximum hours that Oscars could be assessed but not to the minimum hours he could be assessed but that is just from my parsing her words and not necessarily true.

 

[lithgow1]

Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for the updates and some really great links. This one is quite good. I can't remember who posted it, but thank you

http://onthecouchwithcarly.com/2014/05/19/so-who-is-really-there-oscar/



Hi Deb :seeya: this means, in the context of OP's mental state at the time of the shooting Reeva, that the following will be evaluated :

1a. OP did not understand the difference between right and wrong, his actions and their implications,
OR
1b. If he was rendered incapable (again, in the context of his mental state) of restraining himself from firing the shots, while knowing it was wrong to do so.
(criminally non-responsible = acquittal)
OR
2. Understood the above but acted with diminished responsibility or capacity, due to his mental state.
(criminally responsible but with mitigating factors, possibly leading to a lighter sentence)

This is how I understand it. Someone posted this link (thanks again, I wish I could credit you) which goes into good detail :

http://whosyourdadic.com

Isn't there an option 3 - knew exactly what he was about to do and was so angry he went ahead and did it anyway?

 

[jay-jay]

By the way I have been doing a bit of reading and the Pistorius wealth and power goes back 3 generations, wealth always buys advantage. I do believe that there is a good chance that the panel is going to be defense friendly and I have already stated that I believe the assessors are defense friendly.


JMO

..and, in your opinion, you think that's a good thing?

 

[aoibhinn]

I think he will be able to control his rage, he is facing the known with the evaluation; ethically speaking they cannot try to enrage him. I think he will present as unstable emotionally, I don’t know what else will be determined during the evaluation but I do believe it is more likely than not that he will be diagnosed with something. I believe Oscar is emotionally unstable and that he manages his emotions by a rigorous set of controls he has honed over the years through will, practice and his mental training that allows him to have a hyper sense of control when it comes to his sprinting.

Carmelita, rs&bbm for relevance and convenience. I'm working on a ploddingly slow mobile connection.

It seems from the history that has been presented, that OP has serious impulse control issues. I also see rage and disrespect for authority. I could see him having difficulty supressing those qualities under intense scrutiny and evaluation.

 

[jay-jay]

I wonder if he will leave SA and live in the UK or Europe if acquitted. If convicted, does he remain free on bail while appealing his conviction?

I very much doubt he will be welcomed here in the UK! It makes me feel sick to the stomach that a killer, such as he, 'graced' our olympic games,

 

[vansleuths]

http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news...storius-denies-sinister-remark-reeva-s-friend
Oscar Pistorius: will athlete receive 'special treatment'?
Under South African law, Pistorius must go into hospital or prison tomorrow, says criminal lawyer
Mon 19 May 2014
South African courts look set to face allegations of "special treatment" if Oscar Pistorius is not placed in custody tomorrow.
"...Mannie Witz, a criminal lawyer with the Bridge Group at the Johannesburg Bar, has said that under South Africa's Criminal Procedure Act Pistorius must be treated as an inpatient because he did not volunteer for the evaluation.
"He didn't ask to be referred, he opposed it," said Witz, who has been an advocate for more than 35 years and according to CNN once taught Judge Masipa. This means Pistorius would have to go immediately into custody, either in hospital or prison, once he is formally referred tomorrow.

... unless OP is awarded 'special treatment'.

BIB special treatment it is then

 

[MissJ]

JMO, but from my experience working in the criminal psychiatric community in the US, it would be easy to fake an eval that isn't done 24/7. It is when people experience the stress of being confined that you see the real person underneath. very few judges that I have known would accept an outpatient eval. We had a relative of a well known person on the unit. He had money and he could convince anyone of anything for awhile. he was very intelligent. He fell apart at night and in the long run he couldn't hold it together for very long. JMO.

 

[aoibhinn]

Isn't there an option 3 - knew exactly what he was about to do and was so angry he went ahead and did it anyway?

Of course. In the absence of any evidence of the first two (which is what they are testing for, as I understood the question), they will be left with that.

 

[BritsKate]

JMO, but from my experience working in the criminal psychiatric community in the US, it would be easy to fake an eval that isn't done 24/7. It is when people experience the stress of being confined that you see the real person underneath. very few judges that I have known would accept an outpatient eval. We had a relative of a well known person on the unit. He had money and he could convince anyone of anything for awhile. he was very intelligent. He fell apart at night and in the long run he couldn't hold it together for very long. JMO.

My husband's a mental health nurse in the UK and said the very same. He said even if the main issue is anxiety it's triggered, often, at different times of day for different people and the only way to really assess the situation fully is constant observation.



JMO too.

 

[aoibhinn]

About the screaming. It would make more sense anatomically and physiologically speaking, that Reeva was screaming while under threat. This gives credence to the bat being first, as I believe Reeva was in fear for her life. The gunshots, even with a pause, (and correct me if I am wrong) appear to come in rapid succession. Her autonomic nervous system (primal reflex) would have taken over which is responsible for the fight, flight or freeze response.

As Reeva's brain registered that she was being shot at, screaming first, then brain registering shock at the bullet strike to her hip, may have stopped screaming for an instant. This may account for why there was a pause as OP found his target and he might have thought he had eliminated the "threat".

I believe she started screaming again when the bullet missed, then another hitting her arm. I think she stopped screaming as soon as the bullet hit her brain, because there were no further shots. Without conscious brain function, you cannot perceive a threat, take a deeper breath and scream.

IIRC, Dr. Stipps testified that OP had his fingers in Reeva's mouth, presumably trying to maintain an airway. He said that Reeva was biting down on his fingers?which to me means she was decerebrate?. I have to go back and listen to be sure. Reeva may have been agonally breathing at that point.

I am haunted by the testimony of those that heard her screaming. I do not for one minute believe it was OP screaming. JMV

BBM

And to think, the focus has been on OP's flight or fight response and whether it could be a mitigating factor / render him inculpable.
Poor Reeva. That part of your post really struck a chord.

 

[DebinGA]

Hi Deb :seeya: this means, in the context of OP's mental state at the time of the shooting Reeva, that the following will be evaluated :

1a. OP did not understand the difference between right and wrong, his actions and their implications

Thank you, aoibhinn. I'm one the "___ for Dummies" books are written for, because I don't know what "the difference between right and wrong" means in this case, as I'm guessing OP's actions weren't "wrong" if an armed intruder had been found dead behind the door.

 

[BritsKate]

“Assessors have to be absolutely impartial, else it could be regarded as an irregularity in a case.”

http://m.iol.co.za/article/view/e/1.1646332



Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[aoibhinn]

Thank you, aoibhinn. I'm one the "___ for Dummies" books are written for, because I don't know what "the difference between right and wrong" means in this case, as I'm guessing OP's actions weren't "wrong" if an armed intruder had been found dead behind the door.

Sorry Deb, I misunderstood your question, I think. This embarrassed facepalm is for me --> :facepalm:

Yup, intruder or no. He should have realised it was wrong to shoot even one round into that door, nevermind four. End of story. It's that simple.

I can't see any excuse for his actions. He had the advantage of gun training, evidence of having time to think, plus so many other factors besides. He *knew* it was wrong at the time.

 

[pandax81]

BBM

And to think, the focus has been on OP's flight or fight response and whether it could be a mitigating factor / render him inculpable.
Poor Reeva. That part of your post really struck a chord.

Nelism: "It goes further"

OP's version relies on Reeva, anxious and with no option to flee, "freezing".

This highlights how inadequate and against common sense Dr Vorster's psychological evidence was - she presented a literal interpretation of the phrase "fight or flight" and then made it seem like a matter of logic that OP would fight. To make such a finding, which is very atypical in GAD, you need much more than this - you need clear evidence that this behaviour was innate or learned, and in actual practice across a range of scenarios and times where anxiety manifested. Checking a noise in the night a few times and going to square up to someone once does not cut it.

All this ignores the fact there were flee and freeze options available when OP was thinking and in control anyway, and that he got around the bedroom backwards in pitch darkness and carrying fans and got up, across and down from the bed after shooting just fine.

I thought an amazing moment in the trial was the sight of my lady slowly hobbling in front of counsel, helped by an orderly holding her hand, as she approached the toilet cubicle - re-enacting the incident in a way, one of the gunshots lit up with laser precision. The thought of OP tearing down gun in hand didn't look quite so vulnerable or exceptional any more...

edit: if you missed this moment above, 1h24m30s into this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=lZi6DQaT8gk

 

[Hope4More]

About outpatient vs inpatient psych eval and what testing can achieve. My experience isn't comparable but to give you an idea....

About 11 years ago I underwent 2 days of neuropsych testing(2 back to back days, 5-6 hours per day), as an outpatient.

I had the testing done as a result of a brain scan that showed I had white matter brain disease, a result of disabling neurological Lyme disease. Lyme is a very controversial disease in the US, so the neuropsych testing was recommended to further demonstrate that my brain damage was due to Lyme disease, and was not a result of any psychological or mental defects, if you will.

The tests were exhausting..utterly draining. They were designed to detect malingering, ability to focus, memory, intelligence....you name it. I am a very well educated person, am very aware of others and in touch with myself, and have a minor in psychology.

None of that helped me anticipate which test was addressing what. I couldn't have gamed any of those tests even if I wanted to.

It was also instructive how I was evaluated without even being aware of it. Two neuro scientists/ psychiatrists took turns administering the tests. In between sections of the testing one or the other would come into the tiny room I was in, "just to say hi". He or she would sit down for 5 minutes or so, act completely informal and just chat with me. After testing ended I was told by the lead neuro that all of those chats had been monitored and used as part of the eval. I had NO idea at the time.

Epilogue....those tests and eval were considered reliable enough to serve later as definitive proof as to my psychological good health and less happily, to the reality of neurological damage caused by Lyme related brain inflammation.

 

[soozieqtips]

IMO Oscar’s previous overreactions to noises in his house are going to go a long way in the evaluation of his state of mind during the events of the AM when Reeva was killed.

~snipped~

Previous overreactions to noises didn't include OP killing anyone, or anyone reporting a woman screaming (just before a woman was shot to death). Personally, I think his previous reactions to noises will go against him, not for him. He told Sam Taylor when he heard a noise, and he didn't go charging off with a gun and shoot into a closed door, or wherever he perceived the noise to be coming from. It was just on this single occasion that he didn't react as he normally did. The question is why.