Trial Discussion Thread #40

Status
Not open for further replies.
Others have commented here, and I totally agree, the Pistorius' 'strategy' for want of a better word was indeed to get off everything, walk out of court a free man, resume his career and wait for the sponsors to start coming back. That would help explain pleading not guilty to the minor firearms charges.

It's also been commented that had he 'owned up' and said he did it in a fit of rage - and given his disability he could have concocted all sorts of 'mean' things RS said to him - he could be close to out by now. Given that alternative I'm glad he went for the 'I dun nuthin' wrong' approach as it may well have backfired big time. Again, it would be very interesting to know what Roux and co advised him re this.


Contrary to what many people think. The senior counsel don't meet with their clients as often as what some would think. Brian Webber has been the 'instructing attorney' and as such, most of the actual chat would take place with him and the 2 candidate attorneys. He instructs Roux according to his client's wishes. Oldwage would also be a go-between of sorts.

Roux heads the DT, yes - but is very uninvolved in the daily schlep of preparing a defense. He relies on the others. For this reason the 2 candidate attorneys attended the testing at OP's house etc.

And for this reason Roux was not aware that OP had told him a huge fib with regard to the thousands of photos van Staden took of him. (Thanks Trooper).

Roux acted there on what he has been informed by Webber and co. Senior counsel will consult etc - but most of their time is spent in court, and as such don't spend their valuable time investigating etc. They are often informed by the instructing attorneys as to what is going on behind the scenes.

Barry would have been integral in preparing Oscar for the stand though. And I am certain that on first meeting he might have suggested a plea.

However, the instruction would have been clear. "The client wants to walk on all charges - the end".
 
Copied over from the previous thread ..

Originally Posted by BritsKate
I don't know if all of you knew about this...maybe it's because I have to (because this is a case I've attached to) - but I just don't believe Reeva will simply be a footnote.


One of Reeva Steenkamp's dreams will become a reality next year, as a care centre for women and children affected by domestic violence will be opened in her name. The centre, which will be opened by her mother June Steenkamp, will be located in her home town of Port Elizabeth. The model and paralegal, who was shot dead by her boyfriend Paralympian Oscar Pistorius in February 2013, had a passion for working with women and children who were victims of abuse.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news...-30256239.html

.. thanks for this, BK .. I had heard that June was considering this and only a few days back I was googling trying to find whether there had been any updates on it as yet .. hopefully this will become Reeva's legacy, that not only will it directly assist those affected by domestic violence but that it will just raise awareness in general.
 
To our Trooper, thank you for contribution to the thread, reporting on the Trial as it happens and providing informative, witty commentary as well.
Much appreciated by all IMO. Look forward to you and your dog stories, many of which have made me laugh aloud. Keep up the great work. :cheers:
Heartily agree and I'd like to add a big danke to zwiebel who in between mouthfuls of delicious cakes and pastries also keeps the fingers flying to keep us informed. Judgejudi too from memory and apologies to anyone I may have left off.
 
That doesn't worry me so much. Methinks someone who is so mentally incapacitated by GAD that they could accidentally-on-purpose murder some unknown through a closed door because they heard wood moving, or so mentally incapacitated by GAD that his knee-jerk reaction to a break-up is to murder the girl who is leaving him...

I have to assume the judge wouldn't want to endanger society, and that OP would be spending many, many court mandated years in a psychiatric institution, for his safety, and the safety of others.

But my point is that that would still be the case whether he is diagnosed with GAD or not, the very fact that he shot through that door in the way he did tells everyone that he is an extremely dangerous person .. the actual shooting was proof of that, the diagnosis isn't proof of anything (i.e many people can be diagnosed with GAD and aren't in the slightest bit of a danger to society ).
 
'and you musn't argue with him. .. you know what I mean.. .what he says is what goes.. just go with it. . arguing with him is counterproductive, but don't say that... just don't do it..


oh.. and by the way, prepared to be maligned in court by Oscar at some stage.. . you'll be told you appeared overwhelmed, you don't know what you're doing, etc. .. just harden up for that.. and ..

oh.. another thing.. ( and so on and on) ....

I do remember reading in the press that his friends had suggested he saw a psychologist for anger management but he refused. I think it was after his outburst at the London Olympics. I agree friends and family moderate their reactions in order not to aggravate his nasty temper.
 
~respectfully snipped~

I don't know if it's just that I live in the UK, but I just find all this really weird that what seems to be happening is that a large part of OP's trial is now going to be carried out via a panel of psychologists .. they are consulting with member's of OP's family, his friends, possible even his ex friends now .. and then even questionning OP about the night in question in order to diagnose what type of mental illness he has.

I'm almost certain that this would not be allowed in the UK and that a defendant and their friends and family(/witnesses, character witness or whatever) would only be allowed to 1) provide statements to the police and 2) give evidence in court.

I just find all this 'behind the scenes' stuff with psychologists really disconcerting and I'm sure that this is not the way we would go about it here in the UK and that the only time a defendant would be obliged to give their version of what happened during a crime they committed would be to the police, and then directly to a court in front of a judge and a jury because anything else done behind the scenes could be open to misinterpretation. Obviously psychologists may be involved at some stage, but I don't believe that a defendant would ever have to explain their version of involvement in a crime to them, not in this country they wouldn't .. I think that they would have the right to remain silent in any such situation (I think they even have that right when being questionned by police, in case anything they say is misconstrued? I can't remember if this is still the case or not .. I know it used to be)

My trial watching until this was limited to the US so...I am sure if I am wrong I will be corrected :floorlaugh:
If the defendant is evaluated by one of their experts the state is then allowed to examine the defendant to make their own assessment. A hearing would be held pretrial to determine what would be admissible.

The issue with OP is the defense did not include the diminished capacity into their case until OP bombed on the stand. I believe their hope was he would come across as sympathetic and there would be no need to call the dr. Iirc she was brought in May 2nd to do the assessment. So they opened up this can of worms when they tried to show OP's actions were caused by the GAD because he was a terrible witness.
 
I'm suffering "informative posts overload syndrome" this a.m., leaving too many thoughts/questions roiling around in my head.
Here's one:

* Re the Pistorius family and Aimee in particular, they've benefitted enormously imo from their close association with Oscar since he burst on the international scene in 2004 when he won the 200m race at the Athens Paralympics at age 17. Ironically, it was OP's loss of the same 200m Paralympics race on Sept 2, 2012 + the huge backlash from his public comment that the winner wore illegally long blades that began a series of OP public relations disasters ending 5 mos. later with his killing Reeva.
 
Do we actually know whether there will be more than 3 on the panel? Because it just seems to me that two of them can be discounted immediately (the DT one and then the PT one) because I cannot see them be unbiased .. which then only leaves one other person .. and they themselves may not be totally unbiased .. like we were saying about the judge, they're only human and will have made up their minds already to a certain extent and might well be inclined to try and fit their findings to what they think rather than the other way around.

I believe the correct term is 'snipped'….. I am learning all the time on here!

Jay Jay - I was talking about this with a friend yesterday - what if the 'Independent' was not so 'Independent.' My response to them as it is to your point, is that whilst a lay person might think this a possibility, in reality, it cannot be so. As professionals, they should have a general census.

Remember the Autopsy? For the Prosecution, Pathologist Gert Saayman concluded that Reeva ate a couple of hours before her death. The defence team disagreed but their Pathologist, Reggie Perumal would not take take the stand. This was because before he left the Autopsy room, he & Saayman would have had a broad sense of agreement and unless he tailored his evidence, it would have been bad for the DT. (This explains why they got an Anaesthetist to testify instead.)

In short, the assessment results will have to be broadly similar otherwise the Assessors professional competency will be compromised.
 
Hello everybody and sorry for the OT.

It's my first post and i would like to say hello to everyone and mostly thank you all for your intelligent , measured , insightful and enlightening posts. I have been following this trial from the beginning and have recently been reading from all of you in here.
I am not a law expert , my work is in air-transportation , but have always been fascinated by these sort of cases and have followed quite a few. Being born in Italy , I have closely followed a few horrendous cases , and the procedural speed outside my own country(US,UK and now SA) is certainly welcome on my behalf.

Like my avatar will surely show i am a newbie here and will try to follow your line of reasoning and will try to be very discreet in my posts and always respectful of other members' opinions . I really enjoy that in real life , i am glad to see it among you all here. Especially between those of you who disagree. That is classy in my opinion.

Thank you Admin for accepting my joining application and see you all soon , hopefully.

Kind regards to you all

CriLondon
 
I just came across this rather alarming photo :eek:


Pistorius+consults+with+Roxanne+Adams+and+Brian+Webber


http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/20...hotos-from-the-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial#8
 
Contrary to what many people think. The senior counsel don't meet with their clients as often as what some would think. Brian Webber has been the 'instructing attorney' and as such, most of the actual chat would take place with him and the 2 candidate attorneys. He instructs Roux according to his client's wishes. Oldwage would also be a go-between of sorts.

Roux heads the DT, yes - but is very uninvolved in the daily schlep of preparing a defense. He relies on the others. For this reason the 2 candidate attorneys attended the testing at OP's house etc.

And for this reason Roux was not aware that OP had told him a huge fib with regard to the thousands of photos van Staden took of him. (Thanks Trooper).

Roux acted there on what he has been informed by Webber and co. Senior counsel will consult etc - but most of their time is spent in court, and as such don't spend their valuable time investigating etc. They are often informed by the instructing attorneys as to what is going on behind the scenes.

Barry would have been integral in preparing Oscar for the stand though. And I am certain that on first meeting he might have suggested a plea.

However, the instruction would have been clear. "The client wants to walk on all charges - the end".

Same process in the UK and I expect many other countries.
 
Contrary to what many people think. The senior counsel don't meet with their clients as often as what some would think. Brian Webber has been the 'instructing attorney' and as such, most of the actual chat would take place with him and the 2 candidate attorneys. He instructs Roux according to his client's wishes. Oldwage would also be a go-between of sorts.

Roux heads the DT, yes - but is very uninvolved in the daily schlep of preparing a defense. He relies on the others. For this reason the 2 candidate attorneys attended the testing at OP's house etc.

And for this reason Roux was not aware that OP had told him a huge fib with regard to the thousands of photos van Staden took of him. (Thanks Trooper).

Roux acted there on what he has been informed by Webber and co. Senior counsel will consult etc - but most of their time is spent in court, and as such don't spend their valuable time investigating etc. They are often informed by the instructing attorneys as to what is going on behind the scenes.

Barry would have been integral in preparing Oscar for the stand though. And I am certain that on first meeting he might have suggested a plea.

However, the instruction would have been clear. "The client wants to walk on all charges - the end".

Love your posts CTC. Thankyou.

Re the bold bit.
Oscar's unwillingness to admit to any of the charges in and of itself tells us that there is seriously something wrong with the man.

How he can plead not guilty to the charge related to firing the Glock is simply stunning to me. The evidence is irrefutable. He admits to having the gun in his hand but expects the judge to believe it miraculously went off by itself!! :facepalm:
Does he think the judge is a moron? Only the most rabid Pistorian would believe his testimony on that charge surely.
 
Roux heads the DT, yes - but is very uninvolved in the daily schlep of preparing a defense. He relies on the others. For this reason the 2 candidate attorneys attended the testing at OP's house etc.

And for this reason Roux was not aware that OP had told him a huge fib with regard to the thousands of photos van Staden took of him. (Thanks Trooper)..

~rsbm~

I'm unsure about OP having PTSD, but I'm pretty sure Roux has DSTP -Damn Sorry (he ever met) Tosser Pistorius.
 
Hello all! First time poster here (been lurking to an unhealthy degree during this trial however)! I thought posting this might be useful:

79 Panel for purposes of enquiry and report under sections 77 and 78

(1) Where a court issues a direction under section 77 (1) or 78 (2), the relevant enquiry shall be conducted and be reported on-
(b) where the accused is charged with murder
(i) by the medical superintendent of a psychiatric hospital designated by the court, or by a psychiatrist appointed by the medical superintendent at the request of the court;
(ii) by a psychiatrist appointed by the court and who is not in the full-time service of the State unless the court directs otherwise, upon application of the prosecutor, in accordance with directives issued under subsection (13) by the National Director of Public Prosecutions;
(iii) by a psychiatrist appointed for the accused by the court; and
(iv) by a clinical psychologist where the court so directs.

(1A) The prosecutor undertaking the prosecution of the accused or any other prosecutor attached to the same court shall provide the persons who, in terms of subsection (1), have to conduct the enquiry and report on the accused's mental capacity with a report in which the following are stated, namely-
(a) whether the referral is taking place in terms of section 77 or 78;
(b) at whose request or on whose initiative the referral is taking place;
(c) the nature of the charge against the accused;
(d) the stage of the proceedings at which the referral took place;
(e) the purport of any statement made by the accused before or during the court proceedings that is relevant with regard to his or her mental condition or mental capacity;
(f) the purport of evidence that has been given that is relevant to the accused's mental condition or mental capacity;
(g) in so far as it is within the knowledge of the prosecutor, the accused's social background and family composition and the names and addresses of his or her near relatives; and
(h) any other fact that may in the opinion of the prosecutor be relevant in the evaluation of the accused's mental condition or mental capacity.

(2) (a) The court may for the purposes of the relevant enquiry commit the accused to a psychiatric hospital or to any other place designated by the court, for such periods, not exceeding thirty days at a time, as the court may from time to time determine, and where an accused is in custody when he is so committed, he shall, while he is so committed, be deemed to be in the lawful custody of the person or the authority in whose custody he was at the time of such committal.
(b) When the period of committal is for the first time extended under paragraph (a), such extension may be granted in the absence of the accused unless the accused or his legal representative requests otherwise.

(3) The relevant report shall be in writing and shall be submitted in triplicate to the registrar or, as the case may be, the clerk of the court in question, who shall make a copy thereof available to the prosecutor and the accused.

(4) The report shall-
(a) include a description of the nature of the enquiry; and
(b) include a diagnosis of the mental condition of the accused; and (c) if the enquiry is under section 77 (1), include a finding as to whether the accused is capable of understanding the proceedings in question so as to make a proper defence; or
(d) if the enquiry is in terms of section 78 (2), include a finding as to the extent to which the capacity of the accused to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act in question or to act in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of that act was, at the time of the commission thereof, affected by mental illness or mental defect or by any other cause.

(5) If the persons conducting the relevant enquiry are not unanimous in their finding under paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (4), such fact shall be mentioned in the report and each of such persons shall give his finding on the matter in question.

(6) Subject to the provisions of subsection (7), the contents of the report shall be admissible in evidence at criminal proceedings.

(7) A statement made by an accused at the relevant enquiry shall not be admissible in evidence against the accused at criminal proceedings, except to the extent to which it may be relevant to the determination of the mental condition of the accused, in which event such statement shall be admissible notwithstanding that it may otherwise be inadmissible.

Thank you for this Panda. Thank you very much!!!

Here are two snips that I found the most interesting:

(e) the purport of any statement made by the accused before or during the court proceedings that is relevant with regard to his or her mental condition or mental capacity;

<Snipped>

...and where an accused is in custody when he is so committed, he shall, while he is so committed, be deemed to be in the lawful custody of the person or the authority in whose custody he was at the time of such committal.


So they apparently will have access to OPs trial testimony! :yes: And he is in their custody as a patient, they may treat him as needed or have him committed to a padded cell.
 
Hello everybody and sorry for the OT.

It's my first post and i would like to say hello to everyone and mostly thank you all for your intelligent , measured , insightful and enlightening posts. I have been following this trial from the beginning and have recently been reading from all of you in here.
I am not a law expert , my work is in air-transportation , but have always been fascinated by these sort of cases and have followed quite a few. Being born in Italy , I have closely followed a few horrendous cases , and the procedural speed outside my own country(US,UK and now SA) is certainly welcome on my behalf.

Like my avatar will surely show i am a newbie here and will try to follow your line of reasoning and will try to be very discreet in my posts and always respectful of other members' opinions . I really enjoy that in real life , i am glad to see it among you all here. Especially between those of you who disagree. That is classy in my opinion.

Thank you Admin for accepting my joining application and see you all soon , hopefully.

Kind regards to you all

CriLondon

From one newbie to another -:welcome5:
 
I'm suffering "informative posts overload syndrome" this a.m., leaving too many thoughts/questions roiling around in my head.
Here's one:

* Re the Pistorius family and Aimee in particular, they've benefitted enormously imo from their close association with Oscar since he burst on the international scene in 2004 when he won the 200m race at the Athens Paralympics at age 17. Ironically, it was OP's loss of the same 200m Paralympics race on Sept 2, 2012 + the huge backlash from his public comment that the winner wore illegally long blades that began a series of OP public relations disasters ending 5 mos. later with his killing Reeva.

So the family had eight years of associated fame and now they could spend up to 25 years of associated infamy! :jail:

Oscar was a typical narcissistic loser in 2012!
 
A big thank you of appreciation to our Zwiebel. You are always ready to jump on the thread as soon as it opens, then transcribe for us as it happens from Trial. You always bring delicious German treats to consume - which makes our mouths water. During those times of a fast moving thread, I scroll down to your posts for the latest update. It is a lot of work and effort which is appreciated by all. C u Tuesday!
:takeabow:
 
<Snipped>

...and where an accused is in custody when he is so committed, he shall, while he is so committed, be deemed to be in the lawful custody of the person or the authority in whose custody he was at the time of such committal.

So ........ he is in their custody as a patient, they may treat him as needed or have him committed to a padded cell.

(my bold)

But he isn't in custody, he's on bail - so that won't apply.
 
~rsbm~

I'm unsure about OP having PTSD, but I'm pretty sure Roux has DSTP -Damn Sorry (he ever met) Tosser Pistorius.

I bet he'd like to DSTP as well.

Do Something To Pistorius :tantrum:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
4,062
Total visitors
4,139

Forum statistics

Threads
592,398
Messages
17,968,344
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top