Trial Discussion Thread #38 - 14.05.13 Day 31

[Carmelita]

"It is likely a 3 day mandatory evaluation with the time frame of 30 days being the first possible release date if within that first 3 days mental health experts find sufficient cause to keep a patient under mandatory psychiatric care. If no sufficient cause is found a patient will likely be released after 72 hours."

I've not seen or heard this explanation anywhere else but here. Could you please provide a link to your source for this information?

72 hours is a common time frame for a mandatory psychiatric evaluation in many states.

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/get-help/know-the-laws-in-your-state


Emergency hospitalization for evaluation (sometimes called "psychiatric hold" or "pick-up") in a treatment facility for psychiatric evaluation; typically short intervention of fixed duration (e.g., 72 hours).


I don't know what it is in SA but Nel's first reference to it was "3 days".

 

[atthelake]

Dr V. described him as hypervigilant about home security, slept with his bedroom door locked, was afraid of being home alone, was distrustful and guarded, and he felt his fame made him a target...

[ yet Roux said she did not label him as paranoid ? ]

Yet did anyone else catch that if he were to attack an imaginary intruder, that would be considered paranoid :scared:

ummmmm, isn't that interesting

 

[Gryffindor]

As fight/flight is an intrinsic, innate response, are they insinuating that Oscar's fight/flight response is influenced by any potential GAD??

 

[jassy writer]

Maybe it is only if they see signs of possible malingering that the compulsory 30 day period is enforced? After all, if a person goes in and says they are perfectly fine, they're not malingering. But if they go in and pretend to be showing symptoms of a mental disorder in order to escape a conviction, then this has to be checked out thoroughly?

Not sure either way. Experts seem to be of the consensus the judge will rule against it, but if she does, at least Nel has closed that door firmly to the defense.

 

[atthelake]

I had to go out and have missed the last couple of hours . Before I catch up is there anything big that has come out ?
TIA

In the end, it came out that she believes that Oscar has a condition of GAR and is a danger with a gun...he should not have a gun (paraphrasing).

So alrighty then, that leads to the DEFENSE witness saying this person could NOT act as a reasonable person (isn't that the standard to which he will be judged) with a gun due to his "condition". That right there appears to be a possible nail in the coffin as perhaps that statement could be used against him in the conviction phase (yet also be a consideration/excuse for him during the sentencing phase if that makes sense

 

[Carmelita]

You answered your own question. If they are showing no signs etc, then they don't need to keep them in.

My mistake I thought that the poster was referring to a mandatory 30 day psych stay not contingent on a 3 day evaluation period.

 

[atthelake]

I think Nel put forth a very good argument, but if the application is denied then I think Vorster's testimony should be stricken from the record. MOO

See my above comment, I'm not sure that I agree with you

 

[wb180]

All these defenses from OP reminds me of all the BS defenses that Jodi came up with in her trial. It is ridiculous and all BS.

 

[Duchy]

My favourite Nel-ism is when he is running circles around the witness first he puts his leg up on his chair, then he takes his glasses off and then ( the best bit ) he twirles his glasses around.

Nooooo the best bit is when he puts his leg up on his chair. Not that I get to see the glasses coming off or the twirling so focused am I on t'leg.

 

[ColonelMustard]

http://www.health24.com/columnists/oscar-trial-the-shrink-has-shrunk-20140513

Re Dr. Vorster: "The Shrink Has Shrunk"

Professor MA Simpson is Health24's CyberShrink. A South African psychiatrist, he qualified in medicine and in psychiatry in Britain. He has been a senior academic, researcher, and Professor in several countrie

Thanks for this, DiG. There are a lot of really well-written ( clear, frank, down-to-earth) columns at Health24 regarding OP and the trial. Many valuable - and funny - comments, too. Wish I had known about this site earlier.

 

[BritsKate]

Let's say the State reopens their case, psych is open for sure, but what other areas? I'm hopeful ballistics will be one, but I am not certain that it is needed. So if you consider not what the State can address, but what they can address and need to readdress, what would those things be?

That's a really tough and very good question, because for me personally, the State's proven its case (with a bit of help from the defence, to be honest). In a perfect trial, I'd like a better explanation as to the blood splatter but that's rather moot since the defence didn't contest it with their own expert. So that leaves character and psychology readdressed...

- I want the State to humanise Reeva and make every single person watching this know what the world lost. I want that sense of gravity.

- I want the State to show what I believe Oscar's true nature to be - that he was controlling, jealous, manipulative, and spiteful. I'd be over the moon if those concerned over Reeva and Oscar's relationship could testify. And of course I'm holding out for the State's psych expert.

- I want the State to shore up that Oscar was in full control of his faculties when he murdered Reeva and he has no greater anxiety or vulnerability than many others who never even swat a fly, much less murder a human being.

To some extent, the State has shown the above, but I'll admit I do want more in these areas - not to prove their case - but to bolster premeditation and sentencing.

JMO


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

 

[kaos]

I'm surprised Nel never asked Dr Vorster about how his 'need for speed' fits into his GAD. The incident with Reeva in the car and her having to phone her mum to get him to stop is disturbing. There's no 'fight or flight' scenario there but I'd be curious as to how she explains away why he constantly puts other people's lives at risk when he's near a powerful car or speedboat.

 

[ColonelMustard]

That is possible, but OP seemed to have an eye for blondes. AFAIK. His newest girlfriend is a light colored brunette though.

My mother is a criminolgist, she is very slender and has blonde hair. She was delighted that my first high school girlfriend was a leggy blonde; and she told me back then that men do typically seek out women that resemble their mothers. She never said it, but she must have been in complete shock when I married a lovely Brazilian woman with the darkest brown hair imaginable! LOL!!! So much for all of that criminology psychological profile stuff.

I've never thought the reference was to a mother's looks, rather that a wife, as a person and, more importantly, her connection with and way of interacting with her husband, closely mirrors that which a man has or has had with his mother.

 

[weeeva]

Ultimately does fight or flight, anxiety etc change the fact that he failed to identify his target and fired 4 times?.

Yes, ultimately, I think it does change the fact that he failed to identify his target. Only of course, if he really believed his target was an intruder and not Reeva.

 

[Cherwell]

I'm surprised Nel never asked Dr Vorster about how his 'need for speed' fits into his GAD. The incident with Reeva in the car and her having to phone her mum to get him to stop is disturbing. There's no 'fight or flight' scenario there but I'd be curious as to how she explains away why he constantly puts other people's lives at risk when he's near a powerful car or speedboat.

Has this been entered into evidence though? IIRC Darren Fresco was driving in the incident that has come up. I can't remember if Samantha T. mentioned speeding in her testimony. And of course Mrs Steenkamp hasn't testified so the episode involving Reeva can't be brought up.

 

[aoibhinn]

I'm surprised Nel never asked Dr Vorster about how his 'need for speed' fits into his GAD. The incident with Reeva in the car and her having to phone her mum to get him to stop is disturbing. There's no 'fight or flight' scenario there but I'd be curious as to how she explains away why he constantly puts other people's lives at risk when he's near a powerful car or speedboat.

I would have thought that there would be a negative correlation between his 'need for speed' and GAD diagnosis. It's hard to imagine someone suffering from chronic anxiety disorder, continuously engaging in risky behaviours such as is evident in OP's history. GAD is pervasive, unfocused worrying over nothing in particular, but the individual may misplace this worry onto daily events or circumstances. So the speeding, gun-waving, boat accidents, etc. all seem a bit misplaced. JMO....

 

[james83]

Yes, ultimately, I think it does change the fact that he failed to identify his target. Only of course, if he really believed his target was an intruder and not Reeva.

Sorry so if you have an anxiety disorder one of the golden rules of gun safety doesn't apply?.

 

[patCee]

I once heard a Judge, who was irritated, banging his gavel and saying to a lawyer "you are not merely your client's mouthpiece". This aspect does seem so unlikely with someone of Roux' experience and status, but he was running out of time.

It's a puzzle that he wasn't aware of the explosive potential of Dr V as a psychiatrist and witness. 'If you build it he will come' scenario (The Field of Dreams). In other words the plumber will always find a leak; the mechanic an engine failure; the Psychiatrist........ if you get the picture.

One thing that struck me was the kerfuffle at the start of court yesterday with Roux and the woman behind him in earnest conversation about Dr V, as he wanted a short recess before she took the stand. This was overridden by M'lady.

It seems the Dr was retained at such short notice that he hadn't found time to brief her properly, or to discuss her report before she took the stand. I think he, and/or the family were concerned about the evidence, and he was 'winging' it and got caught out.

 

[katydid23]

I don't think that the judge is going to accept Nel's request. :denied:

However, I think Nel expects that and is just as happy, as long as it forces Roux to backtrack, and downplay the mental disorder.

:judge: :denied: :denied: :denied:

 

[BritsKate]

I can clearly see why you/most of us would like the possible claim of diminished capacity not to figure in sentencing but "what if" he is assessed and judged to have a mental problem. Many of us here seem to think he has. He could spend a few years in a hospital (I have just read of a murderer whose Defence pleaded diminished capacity who was released after 3 years, though it was in the UK) and then be let out to enjoy the rest of his life as he wishes. That would be way short of what he deserves, ie a life sentence and no doubt in better conditions than an ordinary prison (maybe I am wrong there - lol). I would rather see him stuck in jail for many years for his hideous crime. Given that choice (though I appreciate it is an unknown), presently, I tend to hope that the assessment request fails but I may change my mind after reading a little more about it.



Perhaps I am missing something important here?? I highly value the legal competence of so many of you and consider myself "legally illiterate" in comparison.

I think it greatly depends on what he has and how it really affects him. When I think of diminished responsibility, I can't help but think of a woman who has been abused by her husband for years and kills him. And, just to be totally fair, I honestly believe diminished responsibility is so overused, its just ridiculous. We've heard every sob story imaginable - sometimes they are appropriate and applicable to determination but often they're not. Where do you draw the line? A hypothetical person commits murder and states he never would have done so were it not for the abuse he experienced as a child, his alcoholic parent, being a loner in school, being the middle child, not getting an allowance, etc?

As such, diminished responsibility has to be case by case. So what in this case rises to the level of diminished responsibility? He is a double amputee? Oscar has always fought to be treated no differently, until now. Quite obviously too, not every other double amputee commits murder. He's been diagnosed with GAD but he's neither paranoid or delusional so again, nothing that millions who never hurt anyone deal with. He lives in SA? He was afforded every opportunity for the best security imaginable and still was lax. He lost his mother young? Its horrible but we're not judging the actions of someone 15 years old.

So when does someone become responsible for their actions? He chose to own a firearm and sought to own many more. He was trained for said firearm. He damn well knew he was impulsive, had a temper, and provoked fear in others and he did absolutely nothing to seek any help and still refrains from accepting any culpability for doing so. Instead he's defiant, arrogant, insincere - lacks remorse, acts superior, is egocentric and displays a sense of entitlement.

So I just can't see diminished responsibility. He had so many opportunities afforded him over the course of his life others can only dream of. So much possibility to succeed - but like many who commit murder - was truly his own worst enemy.

All JMO

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