Trial Discussion Thread #39 - 14.05.14 Day 32

[BritsKate]

If it is confirmed that OP does have GAD, there is evidence that it DOES impact his life severely. He killed someone because of it. You can't get more severe than that.
If he does have some sort of mental disorder, then it has ruined a lot of lives including his own.
Mental health problems can and do ruin lives.

That just isn't true. GAD has a very broad spectrum associated with it - and millions of people diagnosed with it live relatively normal lives with the ability to maintain employment, relationships, health, etc.

However, I'm speaking strictly from a legal aspect. As I've posted repeatedly the legal burden for an involuntary defence is notoriously high. Quite often, a defendant that successfully uses that affirmative defence has a documented, overt history of psychiatric issues going back months and years before the crime is committed. Their conditions are usually so severe they cannot conceal them from others and struggle to function with everyday life - and if we are to believe his defence psychiatrist that his diagnosis of GAD is accurate then we also have to believe her when she stated his condition does not rise to that level.

And please trust me when I say I know from first hand experience just how devastating and destructive a psychiatric disorder can be to everyone involved. Especially ones that are totally resistant to treatment.

 

[Magdalyn]

In the end, wasn't he very much on board with the evaluation?

By 'in the end' do you mean after the judge had already made her decision and he had no choice but to accept it? Sure. He's making his dirt sandwich look mighty tasty. :seeya:

 

[jay-jay]

I don't see how he can't be questioned about that night if the whole point is to assess his mental state after a witness said his GAD may be relevant to both verdict and sentencing. They would have to ask about it to get any insight into what he was (or wasn't) thinking. Pretty sure it will figure largely but that's just going by what I've heard/read. I'm sure over the next few days and post-Tuesday we'll find out more about what it will entail. Bear in mind how Nel kept stressing that Meryl's questioning and diagnosis was based only on OP's version and the state's version is significantly different so I think and hope there will also be questioning on it. Otherwise it seems a bit pointless don't you think?

But that isn't my understanding of how psychologists go about establishing what type of mental condition a person is suffering from. Usually they will set them various tests, etc, to determine a persons mental condition/disorder.

 

[weeeva]

Bad grammar?

I knew it was bad lithgow1, but not that bad surely!!!!!!!!

 

[soozieqtips]

Forensic psychologist on Sky News talking about the assessment process.

Typed as said.

"Each panel member has their own personal interview. And also if a clinical psychologist sits in, they have their own individual interview and assessments that they will redo. So you have individual interviews, you have interviews together with your panel members. The basic question, and there's a basic formula going to this, is that they get the history, as far as they can from his developmental history, as he's grown up, when his amputations happened, etc etc - so, background history.

And then they go into specific detail as to the night of the alleged offence... when Miss Steenkamp was killed.
And that basic questioning will be repeated in the days that he goes for observation. They will every time ask him what happened on the day, please tell us what happened on the day, so they can check if there's consistencies in the version, so they can check for psychiatric or psychological symptoms, so it's a repetitive process that happens from then on."

 

[atthelake]

Lolz! I want some of what you're having, Budgie! :toast: artyguy2:

lmao, funny to read such when doing an international trial hehehe. Some folks it's late night for them when early for others.

Nite nite budgie!

 

[MsMarple]

I'm not a big fan of quickie psychiatric diagnoses done in one or two interviews for use in the courtroom by either side but in a mostly circumstantial case like this it really can't be avoided. Better OP is examined properly by a team of experts than to rely on one potentially biased psychiatrist.

So far the forensic testimony hasn't exactly been stellar IMO. I'm not familiar enough with forensic science to challenge any expert's opinion directly but it seems that at least some of the differing views among them could be resolved by consulting experts with specialized knowledge - goodness knows there are enough out there to choose from. I was thinking about the Jonathan Richardson case (he murdered Teghan Skiba) and how overwhelming and clear the evidence was. Not so in this case, which makes me seriously question why the defense didn't seek out the best of the best for their team.

One area I am familiar enough with to challenge is acoustics, though from a musician's stand point. Evidence presented (or not!) so far doesn't even approximate proper investigation. Sound waves are very predictible: with the proper data you can do the math, apply the physics and you'll get accurate results. There's also an element of how the brain proccesses sounds but even that is well understood. IOW, Wolmaran's tinnitus has exactly zero relevance to any scientific testing.

I understand that we're not privvy to all of the forensic information so it's hard to accurately make judgements based on sound bites and media reports but some of it reeks worse than a dead fish on a sidewalk in July. Hopefully OP's psychiatric evaluation will be conducted in a professional manner.

MOO

 

[Hope4More]

That just isn't true. GAD has a very broad spectrum associated with it - and millions of people diagnosed with it live relatively normal lives with the ability to maintain employment, relationships, health, etc.

However, I'm speaking strictly from a legal aspect. As I've posted repeatedly the legal burden for an involuntary defence is notoriously high. Quite often, a defendant that successfully uses that affirmative defence has a documented, overt history of psychiatric issues going back months and years before the crime is committed. Their conditions are usually so severe they cannot conceal them from others and struggle to function with everyday life - and if we are to believe his defence psychiatrist that his diagnosis of GAD is accurate then we also have to believe her when she stated his condition does not rise to that level.

And please trust me when I say I know from first hand experience just how devastating and destructive a psychiatric disorder can be to everyone involved. Especially ones that are totally resistant to treatment.

I think maybe 2 different things are being discussed. OP surely seems to have significant psychological problems. He and that child in the restaurant are very lucky that gunshot didnt harm or kill, just for starters. And whatever happened the night Reeva was killed IMO would not have happened had those around OP not enabled him and allowed him to dodge accountability again and again .

Whether or not he has a specific disorder and whether or not that disorder has any bearing on his legal culpability seem like a separate question.

 

[TorisMom003]

Forensic psychologist on Sky News talking about the assessment process.

Typed as said.

And then they go into specific detail as to the night of the alleged offence... when Miss Steenkamp was killed.
And that basic questioning will be repeated in the days that he goes for observation. They will every time ask him what happened on the day, please tell us what happened on the day, so they can check if there's consistencies in the version, so they can check for psychiatric or psychological symptoms, so it's a repetitive process that happens from then on."

Snipped by me.

If they ask him several times what happened that early morning, expecting him to give a completely honest answer or even the same answer each time, then they will be disappointed. He can't keep his version straight from one sentence to the next.

MOO

 

[atthelake]

She did say that. Here is a quote for you to read.

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-05-14-pistorius-trial-week-8-day-3/#.U3OmZfmSySp

“The aim of referral is not to punish the accused twice,” Masipa said – prompting inevitable speculation about whether she definitely intended to punish him once. “So if there is a possibility of the accused being an out-patient, that would be preferable.”

To me, that statement was intuitively obvious as to the meaning (although others aren't in agreement) in that she was referring to not having to do this once after this witness, and perhaps a second time after the next witness as Roux suggested. Saying that ONE time would be sufficient before the next witness, and not two times as Roux had just proposed.

Just shows how we all see and process differently.

 

[MeeBee]

By 'in the end' do you mean after the judge had already made her decision and he had no choice but to accept it? Sure. He's making his dirt sandwich look mighty tasty. :seeya:

Idk, I didn't follow. From what I read he had done a 180 and wanted it but I could be wrong. I haven't been following the trial much lately.

 

[TorisMom003]

I think maybe 2 different things are being discussed. OP surely seems to have significant psychological problems. He and that child in the restaurant are very lucky that gunshot didnt harm or kill, just for starters. And whatever happened the night Reeva was killed IMO would not have happened had those around OP not enabled him and allowed him to dodge accountability again and again .

Whether or not he has a specific disorder and whether or not that disorder has any bearing on his legal culpability seem like a separate question.

As a professional athlete, one that represented SA in the ParaOlympics, wouldn't OP have had (along with the other athletes) some sort of counseling with a professional? And if he did, then why was any of his problems not discovered then?

 

[Viper]

But that isn't my understanding of how psychologists go about establishing what type of mental condition a person is suffering from. Usually they will set them various tests, etc, to determine a persons mental condition/disorder.

I know, I agree with your thought process. But this is a 30 day observation set out by the SA criminal law, not a visit to your family psychiatrist for some help understand your fear of flying.

Please allow me to elaborate just a little:

Usually accused criminals that want to use a mental issue in their defense say that up front and they go through this observation before they go to trial. The others that have it done are already convicted and challenging their verdict or sentence. But OP isn't in either of those two groups.

Roux was so shocked and flustered, and Nel was so pleased, two days ago when Nel stopped his cross of Dr. V and began talking to the court about making an application for section 78. It was a pivotal point in the trial. OP has to go in for a 30 evaluation at the very end of his own trial when all of the evidence is already on the record. Three psychiatrists get to test OP on his version of the events that night, and they get to test him for mental illness and tendencies. And after that the doctors have to tell the court what they find, before Judge Masipa forms her opinions for her verdicts.

Some have tried to paint this in a positive light for Roux and the defense's case. But there is no way, no way, that this is anything but devastating for OP.

Roux has failed miserably, and his blunder will be discussed in law schools all over South Africa until the end of time. OP just got Rouxed! Or if you prefer, OP just got Neled! Either way. LOL!!!

 

[Ncl1968]

I don't think the assessment will involve OP having to answer questions about the night he killed Reeva though, that's not my understanding about the way a person is psychologically assessed. I thought it would be more like a combination of psychometric testing, putting forward various scenarios to see how he would react in certain situations, then maybe going into various things throughout his life prior to the event, that sort of thing. As Nel would say, "Am I right?" :crazy:

legal guy on sky news said he will be asked by all the Dr's his version of events that morning 14th febuary.. They will seek discrepancies and look for signs of mental health issues
They will then be asked to write a report upon which they all agree on
And advise treatment as needed
This is a criminal senerio so it will not be a soft test for op although maybe easier than facing Nel.

 

[soozieqtips]

Snipped by me.

If they ask him several times what happened that early morning, expecting him to give a completely honest answer or even the same answer each time, then they will be disappointed. He can't keep his version straight from one sentence to the next.

MOO

BBM - If they ask the questions in a chronological order (which Nel avoided doing) then he'll probably 'remember' one of his versions quite accurately. It's when Nel jumped around from one moment to another that OP couldn't remember the sequence he was supposed to be recounting!

 

[Val1]

Originally Posted by Cherwell View Post
Just a thought.

Could it have been Frank who was screaming for help?

Now you say it there is a possibility it could have been him but it hasn't been put forward and even though one witness said it came from a different place, as if outside the house, that also would appear to fit with OP's version of going out to scream on the bedroom balcony.

Wasn't OP's version of going out to scream on the bedroom balcony disproven by the blood evidence, duvet, jeans and fans?

 

[Carmelita]

No, certain mental illness diagnoses make certain defenses more viable. Roux didn't need Nel to make that happen. In order to have a successful mental health defense, one must get a number of experts to agree on a diagnosis. Nel can't make the diagnosis happen or not happen. Conversely, Roux can't control these state employed psychiatrists.

If a section 78 is what made this all 'more viable', I ask you again, why didn't Roux ask for one?

Are you also suggesting that Roux was just pretending to argue against a section 78 yesterday?

I’m sorry but I honestly don’t know how to say it any clearer so I will repeat myself one more time and then I will be done explaining my position on this matter. Again, I think Roux was surprised that Nel asked for a section, I think he assumed Nel would ask for the chance for a State psychiatrist to evaluate Oscar. So Roux was earnestly arguing against the referral, specifically and especially the institutionalization of Oscar.

If Nel had simply asked for an evaluation, Oscars GAD (or lack thereof) would have been a footnote in the good judges ledger. Now Nel by demanding a section has made Oscar’s mental health central to the case. If those appointed to evaluate Oscar come back with a mental health defect that they say could very well have compromised Oscars ability to act in a reasonable fashion on that AM coupled with his physical deformity you bring the defense much closer to an “extreme situation” that the judge can use to determine culpability.

The good docs may come back and say that they find no defect in Oscar and that in their opinion he is looking for secondary gain by his antics.

IMO Oscar has a maladaptive personality what mental health issue, if any, is behind that faulty personhood I wouldn’t wager to guess.

 

[katydid23]

After.

It does not matter so much if he has a case of PTSD AFTER the shooting. I want to know his mental state DURING the time of the tragic event. And I don't have a lot of confidence that they will be able to correctly assess that. The whole thing is too subjective, imo.

 

[Val1]

I know, I agree with your thought process. But this is a 30 day observation set out by the SA criminal law, not a visit to your family psychiatrist for some help understand your fear of flying.

Please allow me to elaborate just a little:

Usually accused criminals that want to use a mental issue in their defense say that up front and they go through this observation before they go to trial. The others that have it done are already convicted and challenging their verdict or sentence. But OP isn't in either of those two groups.

Roux was so shocked and flustered, and Nel was so pleased, two days ago when Nel stopped his cross of Dr. V and began talking to the court about making an application for section 78. It was a pivotal point in the trial. OP has to go in for a 30 evaluation at the very end of his own trial when all of the evidence is already on the record. Three psychiatrists get to test OP on his version of the events that night, and they get to test him for mental illness and tendencies. And after that the doctors have to tell the court what they find, before Judge Masipa forms her opinions for her verdicts.

Some have tried to paint this in a positive light for Roux and the defense's case. But there is no way, no way, that this is anything but devastating for OP.

Roux has failed miserably, and his blunder will be discussed in law schools all over South Africa until the end of time. OP just got Rouxed! Or if you prefer, OP just got Neled! Either way. LOL!!!

I'm sure OP would say that the appropriate phrase should be "Roux got OP'd".

 

[MeeBee]

It does not matter so much if he has a case of PTSD AFTER the shooting. I want to know his mental state DURING the time of the tragic event. And I don't have a lot of confidence that they will be able to correctly assess that. The whole thing is too subjective, imo.

Well, all I said is he appears to have it. I never said it'd have anything to do with his guilt or innocence...