But the very fact that it is now on the court record for the judge to re-read at her leisure is all the "outing" that Nel had to do.
Yes, this isn't a jury trial where the barrister has to sway the jurors' emotions. Nel knows that the judge - also an experienced lawyer - is picking up exactly what's been pointed out. Nel's mission is to get the fact written into the record, ie officially documented so that the judge can use it in her deliberations.
I'd like to put OP's defenders to the test, to find out what they have to say to these 4 questions -
1. Why did OP lie about his bathroom light being off at 3am, the time he said he was too terrified to switch on a light, when it was clearly on? We've seen from Dixon's light tests that when the bathroom light is off, on a moonless night, OP's bathroom window cannot be seen. The Stipps saw it and they directed security to OP's house.
2. Why did OP lie about placing the fan where the duvet was?
3. Why did OP lie about walking along the side of the bed on his stumps, in the dark, searching for Reeva, when he couldn't have walked there because of the ipad, ipad cover, hair clippers, prosthetic legs, fan, cables and multi point socket all on the floor?
4. Why did OP lie about shooting Reeva at 3.am, when she could not have been breathing still and heart beating when he got her out of the toilet at 3.17am?
If you can't answer these questions, then I don't believe the court will believe OP either.
1. It bothers me that we have conflicting testimony from two people who were supposed to have witnessed the same thing at the same time. Anette Stipp said both the bathroom and toilet light were on. Johan Stipp told the court the light in the bathroom was on but not the room with the toilet. Anette Stipp didn't hear a man crying, but Johan Stipp thought he did. Anette Stipp thought she saw a man moving in the bathroom, then she thought she didn't. Johan Stipp thought he did. Both Anette Stipp and Johan Stipp allegedly heard two sets of three gunshots. We know that there were four gunshots.
We understand they're not lying, but I want to be confident that witnesses are reliable in their recollection. I would have liked to have heard that the bathroom light was on from both witnesses, nothing more, nothing less. If the light on OP's bathroom window was that obvious how can 1 out of 2 people get that fact wrong? There were only two people, both seeing the same thing at the same time. I don't doubt their integrity, but I do doubt their reliability. Sure, I could make the testimony fit by taking the parts from each witness statement that correlates with the states version, and ignoring the parts that they've recollected incorrectly, but I'm not prepared to rely solely on this. I'll feel much more comfortable balancing their testimony against the other witness testimony and any associated evidence. .
2. I'm not convinced that OP lied about where the fan was. He's being asked to recollect something from a long time ago, and place that item in a particular spot. Is he knowingly lying or is he guessing where he thinks things were? That's on the back-burner with me for the moment.
3. The answer to this also partly applies to the positioning of items in question 2. There has been talk about tampering of the evidence. I don't think things have been moved intentionally to create a worse scenario for OP, but I do however think that things have been moved by people unnecessarily because the crime scene was incorrectly managed. We had SAP personnel examining things in other rooms when their colleagues thought they were doing the work alone. This has led to contradictory testimony and a denial of responsibility and culpability. There are a batch of photos that were submitted in evidence at the very beginning of the trial, and they were only accepted as evidence on the basis that they were under dispute. It will be interesting to see which photos those are, and if more comes to light regarding this. I'll reserve judgement until defence has concluded.
4. I don't think OP is aware what time he shot Reeva. I'm quite certain that he wouldn't have known or looked at the time, so with that in mind he hasn't lied. It's been suggested that it was around 3.00 by EVDM. We know this is a guess as she didn't see the time. The other witness, Mrs Stipp, indicated a time of 3.02 by a clock that doesn't tell the correct time. It's rather unfortunate that we're having to gauge the exact time of a murder by this clock. I personally believe it was later than 3.02, but there's not much to work with here.
The above issues give me considerable concern.
All said and done, I'm not totally disregarding any witness testimony. I'll consider it all carefully and give it the weight I feel it deserves once I've heard from defence and closing arguments. I treat OP's testimony exactly the same. There are parts where I feel he has damaged his credibility, however that doesn't mean I'll just disbelieve his complete version on that basis.
1. The Stipps are credible witnesses - they have not tried to match their witness testimonies with each others or to the known facts regarding the number of bullets fired.
They both testified that the bathroom light was on when they heard the 3:00am shots/noises and then screams. Mrs Stipp remembers the toilet light being on also, and Dr Stipp thought if it was on it was not as bright as the bathroom light.
We know 4 shots were fired and by deduction they must not have heard one of the shots. They were busy making calls and speaking to each other so that is not about their ability to remember what they saw and heard, it is what they saw and heard.
You are wrong to say that 'there were only two people, both seeing the same thing at the same time.' They were not sharing one pair of eyes, and as regards hearing, that would depend whether they were standing together when various sounds occurred. We don't know at which exact minute each of them were looking or talking. We know Dr Stipp went inside to get dressed and make phone calls. At any of these points the light situation could have altered, even momentarily if the toilet door was being opened. Dr Stipp saw a person moving in the window, Mrs Stipp might just have blinked or turned away during those split seconds. I can't accept your assessment of their witness statements not matching as evidence of them being unreliable in their recollection.
0 points I am afraid.
The correct answer, (worth 25 points) to why OP lied and said his bathroom light was off at 3:00am is that his story falls apart in the light of that bathroom bulb.
2. 0 points. The correct answer (worth 25 points) is OP lied about where he said he put the fan because he thought he would get away with saying the police had put the duvet there when they were tampering. But he didn't get away with that, that's how Nel was very clever in getting him to say where he had put the fan before he moved on to the duvet evidence.
OP didn't say it's a long time ago, I can't remember where I put the fan, or I'm guessing I put it here or there, he said he put it in the spot where the duvet peaked. In fact he went to great lengths to explain how he handled the fan and managed to put it down whilst walking backwards, with his back to the passage, so that he couldn't have seen Reeva. Sounds to me like you're putting thoughts into OP's head as to what you think he would have got away with when replying to the questions.
3. OP was given the photograph at the start and asked to say if anything looked out of place. He could only refer to later photos showing tissues. He did not say those items were not as he left them by the side of his bed.
The correct answer (worth 25 points) is OP never walked there, in the dark, wobbling on his stumps with gun in hand, searching for Reeva. He lied because he wanted to make out he was concerned for Reeva's safety after, (on his version) he had already shot her dead.
4. We know the time (give or take 1 minute) that OP said he shot Reeva. Mrs Stipp's clock was about 2 minutes fast. That is backed up by her looking at the clock which said 3:17 when her husband phoned security which was verified as being at 3:15. So, when Mrs Stipps clock said 3:02, it was in fact 2.59/3:00am.
OP didn't need to know what time he (claims to have) shot Reeva. What is important is that we know the time, and on that basis he has lied in saying that he shot Reeva at the time of the first noises, and batted down the door at the time of the second noises.
The correct answer (worth 25 points) is that OP definitely lied about shooting Reeva at the time of the first noises (3:00am) and we know this because she would not have been breathing 17 or 18 minutes later as he claims she was, and her heart would not have been beating either, causing the arterial spurting. He lied because his story only works by him shooting first, and then batting the door when the actual shots were fired. So sorry I can't give you any points for that answer either.
Now I've revealed the answers, I can't accept any more takers. Sorry:)
Yes, this isn't a jury trial where the barrister has to sway the jurors' emotions. Nel knows that the judge - also an experienced lawyer - is picking up exactly what's been pointed out. Nel's mission is to get the fact written into the record, ie officially documented so that the judge can use it in her deliberations.
And he's got some big wins under his belt. I still am amazed that he got Vorster to confirm that the 'automatic involuntary discharge defence' did not at all apply to OP and this case; and shortly after to get her to confirm that his actions constituted "Dolus Eventualis" EVEN WITH her GAD diagnosis. Both on record. Both HUGE.
Agree 100%. The Stipps are critical to the case. Their testimony is rock solid, and his actions on the night were commendable to the max. So many people just ignore these things, but he went out to try and help - regardless of the potential danger of a gunman on the loose.
From OP's point of view, his arrival on scene was disastrous. He was entirely independent, medically trained and was one of the first there. No wonder OP was and remains angry at him. Without Stipp, his story would have been (slightly) more believable. With the Stipps, he's toast.
The important thing that Dr. Stipp was able to do was to professionally ascertain that Reeva was dead. OP's evidence was always that Reeva was still breathing as he carried her downstairs and 'rendered her assistance'. This pulls her death forward in time and makes the shots-then-bat timeline more believable. Delay in the arrival of paramedics would make it harder for them to work out how recently she'd died, and they're not forensic pathologists.
1. The correct answer, (worth 25 points) to why OP lied and said his bathroom light was off at 3:00am is that his story falls apart in the light of that bathroom bulb.
2. The correct answer (worth 25 points) is OP lied about where he said he put the fan because he thought he would get away with saying the police had put the duvet there when they were tampering. But he didn't get away with that, that's how Nel was very clever in getting him to say where he had put the fan before he moved on to the duvet evidence.
...
4. The correct answer (worth 25 points) is that OP definitely lied about shooting Reeva at the time of the first noises (3:00am) and we know this because she would not have been breathing 17 or 18 minutes later as he claims she was, and her heart would not have been beating either, causing the arterial spurting. He lied because his story only works by him shooting first, and then batting the door when the actual shots were fired.
Excellent post. And all are devastating to OP's version. The big 3 above join the screams (not in the test) to form the core of the prosecution case. And the defence cannot now remove them. Cross-exam of Stipp is done; no man screams like a girl in terror; the blood trail on the duvet was amazing; and the time of death is just an out-and-out fact.
Excellent post. And all are devastating to OP's version. The big 3 above join the screams (not in the test) to form the core of the prosecution case. And the defence cannot now remove them. Cross-exam of Stipp is done; no man screams like a girl in terror; the blood trail on the duvet was amazing; and the time of death is just an out-and-out fact.
Agree Clairech's post was good. I haven't donated enough time to the blood on the duvet, where did OP say this came from in his version, was it when he supposedly ran to the balcony door to shout for help? I don't remember if he was directly questioned about how it came to be there?
Also did OP have any injuries or marks at all following the events on that night, other than the shoulder injury he already mentioned previously?
Good VT discussion of OP going into the Psychiatric Hospital - and doesn't say he's getting preferential treatment, BUT unusual for those on Bail to be going there at all !
The woman on the VT said that Dr Vorster's findings are going to be difficult to discredit, because she is so very highly respected in her field - that is rather a worry isn't it, and scarey, as she seems to have a history of finding 'mental illnesses' that render these murderers from being able to be 'charged' for committing murders - and they do walk on the basis of 'her' reports ! Terrifying !!
Agree 100%. The Stipps are critical to the case. Their testimony is rock solid, and his actions on the night were commendable to the max. So many people just ignore these things, but he went out to try and help - regardless of the potential danger of a gunman on the loose.
From OP's point of view, his arrival on scene was disastrous. He was entirely independent, medically trained and was one of the first there. No wonder OP was and remains angry at him. Without Stipp, his story would have been (slightly) more believable. With the Stipps, he's toast.
Hence the reason Roux tried to breakdown the ear witness neighbours testimonies - because without them................ OP's 'Version' that he was daft enough to have mistaken his girlfriend for an Intruder using his toilet at 3am before he blasted those bullets at her.......his version, unfortunately, could have a small chance of having some plausibility ! (as a story to the Court........ which we know is a lie)
Good VT discussion of OP going into the Psychiatric Hospital - and doesn't say he's getting preferential treatment, BUT unusual for those on Bail to be going there at all !
The woman on the VT said that Dr Vorster's findings are going to be difficult to discredit, because she is so very highly respected in her field - that is rather a worry isn't it, and scarey, as she seems to have a history of finding 'mental illnesses' that render these murderers from being able to be 'charged' for committing murders - and they do walk on the basis of 'her' reports ! Terrifying !!
I wonder how she feels about helping murderers to walk and how the victims' families feel. And why would a highly respected professional be prepared to diagnose someone on the basis of two short meetings and some chats with people bound to be on that person's side. Shocking.
Good VT discussion of OP going into the Psychiatric Hospital - and doesn't say he's getting preferential treatment, BUT unusual for those on Bail to be going there at all !
Can't really get passed the professional praise that DrV receives when we know she interviewed Oscar ONLY twice, a couple of days before appearing in Court, taking only Oscar's statements to her as being truthful and factual, not reading any previous versions, or State's version, or Trial transcripts.
If the legal standard for mental evaluation is 30 days under constant supervision and observation…. what kind of insight can a few hours a couple of days apart provide ?
Guess DrV took a generous sum and wrote a report full of holes and gaps so as to not paint herself into a corner and loose her reputation….. she can always say : I was given a certain type of mandate… I executed it professionally and ethically…If Oscar lied to me during our interview, I cannot be held accountable for that !
I wonder how she feels about helping murderers to walk and how the victims' families feel. And why would a highly respected professional be prepared to diagnose someone on the basis of two short meetings and some chats with people bound to be on that person's side. Shocking.
In that VT the woman said that she expects OP to be found to have GAD in line with Dr Vorsters findings, (I have a feeling it will be 'very' disruptive to the 'system' if they did discredit the known 'expert' in that field, Dr Vorster!) - and if so, then what we do know is that Dr Vorster also said that OP WAS able to distinguish between right and wrong when he fired the shots and she said he was cognitively aware -
Therefore , the Court could continue to try OP for Murder with Intent, but as that woman on the VT said , the Defence could use that diagnosis of GAD to say to the Court that OP therefore had 'diminished' responsibility at the time he fired the shots, which is possible - which still means he could either walk, or get a greatly reduced sentence ! Oh dear.
BUT - as Nel pointed out to Dr Vorster during cross-exam.......Dr Vorster was only interviewing OP on the basis of having heard ONLY his version , but when questioned on that and Nel asked her if she had knowledge of the State's version that OP shot Reeva after an argument and he knew it was Reeva behind that door, would her diagnosis of GAD change ? Dr Vorster said : no not necessarily , and she explained why. What a dangerous Dr. she is.
I do hope there's someone on that panel who sees right through OP , as they will have the States version and all the evidence that OP WITHHELD from Dr Vorster when she compiled her report !
In that VT the woman said that she expects OP to be found to have GAD in line with Dr Vorsters findings, (I have a feeling it will be 'very' disruptive to the 'system' if they did discredit the known 'expert' in that field, Dr Vorster!) - and if so, then what we do know is that Dr Vorster also said that OP WAS able to distinguish between right and wrong when he fired the shots and she said he was cognitively aware -
Therefore , the Court could continue to try OP for Murder with Intent, but as that woman on the VT said , the Defence could use that diagnosis of GAD to say to the Court that OP therefore had 'diminished' responsibility at the time he fired the shots, which is possible - which still means he could either walk, or get a greatly reduced sentence ! Oh dear.
The GAD (if it exists) can ONLY be useful in the Defence version of events…. If Masipa does not believe the mistaken identity intruder story, the GAD will be useless because it would not play a role in a premed-murder of Reeva… DrV said as much
Good VT discussion of OP going into the Psychiatric Hospital - and doesn't say he's getting preferential treatment, BUT unusual for those on Bail to be going there at all !
The woman on the VT said that Dr Vorster's findings are going to be difficult to discredit, because she is so very highly respected in her field - that is rather a worry isn't it, and scarey, as she seems to have a history of finding 'mental illnesses' that render these murderers from being able to be 'charged' for committing murders - and they do walk on the basis of 'her' reports ! Terrifying !!
The GAD (if it exists) can ONLY be useful in the Defence version of events…. If Masipa does not believe the mistaken identity intruder story, the GAD will be useless because it would not play a role in a premed-murder of Reeva… DrV said as much
If the Hospital panel agree that OP has GAD, it overrides what the Judge thinks about OP's story - the Judge has to comply with the law , and if OP is found to have a disorder that means by law he cannot be held criminally responsible for his actions at the time he fired the shots, she will have to rule on that basis, regardless if she believes his version or not I think you'll find !!
That's my understanding of all this, so it could work in OP's favour, IF he's diagnosed with a mental illness ! I'm not sure if GAD , which is anxiety and heightened state of alert comes under that bracket that he can't be held responsible for his actions though
- and the Judge will apply the 'reasonable' man test OP - and I think Nel has done a great job of showing the Court OP did not act reasonably in the circumstances when he fired the shots.
The GAD (if it exists) can ONLY be useful in the Defence version of events…. If Masipa does not believe the mistaken identity intruder story, the GAD will be useless because it would not play a role in a premed-murder of Reeva… DrV said as much
Yes, but it also makes his version more plausible.
Is OP pressing charges do we know? Can we find out?
An unprecedented investigation has been launched… a team of forensics investigators have been dispatched and tasked with determining the perpetrator of this unspeakable crime against humanity.
… we will obtain hourly updates as the case progresses and new information comes to light.
Citizens have been duly advised to remain vigilant and monitor their electrical outlets for any unauthorized or suspicious devices that would drain their precious electricity.
I know , it does sound like they are STARTING with Dr Vorsters findings and just seeing if they agree, -- I thought they were starting from scratch, their own assessments and just returning their report to Court and then Judge looking at that and then seeing if it is similar to Dr Vorsters, as two separate reports. Sounds to me like they are starting with Vorsters and just doing more tests , ..............If Dr Vorster has the reputation that she seems to , are that panel going to disagree with her ? on their heads be it perhaps, even despite her report being compiled on OP's version alone,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,>:(:o
Yes, but it also makes his version more plausible.
I don't believe so…. it would only serve to help explain HOW such an unreasonable act could occur in the circumstances described by OP…. it is NOT evidence of it actually happening.
Agree Clairech's post was good. I haven't donated enough time to the blood on the duvet, where did OP say this came from in his version, was it when he supposedly ran to the balcony door to shout for help? I don't remember if he was directly questioned about how it came to be there?
Also did OP have any injuries or marks at all following the events on that night, other than the shoulder injury he already mentioned previously?
There was a sizeable gouge on one of his prosthetic legs just below the knee. There is a close up picture of it somewhere but I cannot find it right now. It looks quite fresh as you see the white underneath.
Comments
Yes, this isn't a jury trial where the barrister has to sway the jurors' emotions. Nel knows that the judge - also an experienced lawyer - is picking up exactly what's been pointed out. Nel's mission is to get the fact written into the record, ie officially documented so that the judge can use it in her deliberations.
1. The Stipps are credible witnesses - they have not tried to match their witness testimonies with each others or to the known facts regarding the number of bullets fired.
They both testified that the bathroom light was on when they heard the 3:00am shots/noises and then screams. Mrs Stipp remembers the toilet light being on also, and Dr Stipp thought if it was on it was not as bright as the bathroom light.
We know 4 shots were fired and by deduction they must not have heard one of the shots. They were busy making calls and speaking to each other so that is not about their ability to remember what they saw and heard, it is what they saw and heard.
You are wrong to say that 'there were only two people, both seeing the same thing at the same time.' They were not sharing one pair of eyes, and as regards hearing, that would depend whether they were standing together when various sounds occurred. We don't know at which exact minute each of them were looking or talking. We know Dr Stipp went inside to get dressed and make phone calls. At any of these points the light situation could have altered, even momentarily if the toilet door was being opened. Dr Stipp saw a person moving in the window, Mrs Stipp might just have blinked or turned away during those split seconds. I can't accept your assessment of their witness statements not matching as evidence of them being unreliable in their recollection.
0 points I am afraid.
The correct answer, (worth 25 points) to why OP lied and said his bathroom light was off at 3:00am is that his story falls apart in the light of that bathroom bulb.
2. 0 points. The correct answer (worth 25 points) is OP lied about where he said he put the fan because he thought he would get away with saying the police had put the duvet there when they were tampering. But he didn't get away with that, that's how Nel was very clever in getting him to say where he had put the fan before he moved on to the duvet evidence.
OP didn't say it's a long time ago, I can't remember where I put the fan, or I'm guessing I put it here or there, he said he put it in the spot where the duvet peaked. In fact he went to great lengths to explain how he handled the fan and managed to put it down whilst walking backwards, with his back to the passage, so that he couldn't have seen Reeva. Sounds to me like you're putting thoughts into OP's head as to what you think he would have got away with when replying to the questions.
3. OP was given the photograph at the start and asked to say if anything looked out of place. He could only refer to later photos showing tissues. He did not say those items were not as he left them by the side of his bed.
The correct answer (worth 25 points) is OP never walked there, in the dark, wobbling on his stumps with gun in hand, searching for Reeva. He lied because he wanted to make out he was concerned for Reeva's safety after, (on his version) he had already shot her dead.
4. We know the time (give or take 1 minute) that OP said he shot Reeva. Mrs Stipp's clock was about 2 minutes fast. That is backed up by her looking at the clock which said 3:17 when her husband phoned security which was verified as being at 3:15. So, when Mrs Stipps clock said 3:02, it was in fact 2.59/3:00am.
OP didn't need to know what time he (claims to have) shot Reeva. What is important is that we know the time, and on that basis he has lied in saying that he shot Reeva at the time of the first noises, and batted down the door at the time of the second noises.
The correct answer (worth 25 points) is that OP definitely lied about shooting Reeva at the time of the first noises (3:00am) and we know this because she would not have been breathing 17 or 18 minutes later as he claims she was, and her heart would not have been beating either, causing the arterial spurting. He lied because his story only works by him shooting first, and then batting the door when the actual shots were fired. So sorry I can't give you any points for that answer either.
Now I've revealed the answers, I can't accept any more takers. Sorry:)
And he's got some big wins under his belt. I still am amazed that he got Vorster to confirm that the 'automatic involuntary discharge defence' did not at all apply to OP and this case; and shortly after to get her to confirm that his actions constituted "Dolus Eventualis" EVEN WITH her GAD diagnosis. Both on record. Both HUGE.
The important thing that Dr. Stipp was able to do was to professionally ascertain that Reeva was dead. OP's evidence was always that Reeva was still breathing as he carried her downstairs and 'rendered her assistance'. This pulls her death forward in time and makes the shots-then-bat timeline more believable. Delay in the arrival of paramedics would make it harder for them to work out how recently she'd died, and they're not forensic pathologists.
Excellent post. And all are devastating to OP's version. The big 3 above join the screams (not in the test) to form the core of the prosecution case. And the defence cannot now remove them. Cross-exam of Stipp is done; no man screams like a girl in terror; the blood trail on the duvet was amazing; and the time of death is just an out-and-out fact.
Not only did a police officer steal one of Oscar's watches…. a police officer stole electricity by charging his cellphone in Oscar's house.
Agree Clairech's post was good. I haven't donated enough time to the blood on the duvet, where did OP say this came from in his version, was it when he supposedly ran to the balcony door to shout for help? I don't remember if he was directly questioned about how it came to be there?
Also did OP have any injuries or marks at all following the events on that night, other than the shoulder injury he already mentioned previously?
Ha! And all that oxygen they consumed without his approval, any missing biscuits will be overlooked though as they must surely be down to Oldwage ;-)
Good VT discussion of OP going into the Psychiatric Hospital - and doesn't say he's getting preferential treatment, BUT unusual for those on Bail to be going there at all !
The woman on the VT said that Dr Vorster's findings are going to be difficult to discredit, because she is so very highly respected in her field - that is rather a worry isn't it, and scarey, as she seems to have a history of finding 'mental illnesses' that render these murderers from being able to be 'charged' for committing murders - and they do walk on the basis of 'her' reports ! Terrifying !!
MORE about the Hospital
http://www.enca.com/look-inside-weskoppies-or-all-eyes-weskoppies
http://www.enca.com/south-africa/pistorius-report-weskoppies-psychiatric-observation
jeeeez some people ay !! ^_^
I wonder how she feels about helping murderers to walk and how the victims' families feel. And why would a highly respected professional be prepared to diagnose someone on the basis of two short meetings and some chats with people bound to be on that person's side. Shocking.
Thanks…. it was good VT
Can't really get passed the professional praise that DrV receives when we know she interviewed Oscar ONLY twice, a couple of days before appearing in Court, taking only Oscar's statements to her as being truthful and factual, not reading any previous versions, or State's version, or Trial transcripts.
If the legal standard for mental evaluation is 30 days under constant supervision and observation…. what kind of insight can a few hours a couple of days apart provide ?
Guess DrV took a generous sum and wrote a report full of holes and gaps so as to not paint herself into a corner and loose her reputation….. she can always say : I was given a certain type of mandate… I executed it professionally and ethically…If Oscar lied to me during our interview, I cannot be held accountable for that !
Thieving bastards the lot of them !
Therefore , the Court could continue to try OP for Murder with Intent, but as that woman on the VT said , the Defence could use that diagnosis of GAD to say to the Court that OP therefore had 'diminished' responsibility at the time he fired the shots, which is possible - which still means he could either walk, or get a greatly reduced sentence ! Oh dear.
BUT - as Nel pointed out to Dr Vorster during cross-exam.......Dr Vorster was only interviewing OP on the basis of having heard ONLY his version , but when questioned on that and Nel asked her if she had knowledge of the State's version that OP shot Reeva after an argument and he knew it was Reeva behind that door, would her diagnosis of GAD change ? Dr Vorster said : no not necessarily , and she explained why. What a dangerous Dr. she is.
I do hope there's someone on that panel who sees right through OP , as they will have the States version and all the evidence that OP WITHHELD from Dr Vorster when she compiled her report !
The GAD (if it exists) can ONLY be useful in the Defence version of events…. If Masipa does not believe the mistaken identity intruder story, the GAD will be useless because it would not play a role in a premed-murder of Reeva… DrV said as much
Holy crap on a cracker.
Is OP pressing charges do we know? Can we find out?
BIB I do not like the sound of this >:(
That's my understanding of all this, so it could work in OP's favour, IF he's diagnosed with a mental illness ! I'm not sure if GAD , which is anxiety and heightened state of alert comes under that bracket that he can't be held responsible for his actions though
- and the Judge will apply the 'reasonable' man test OP - and I think Nel has done a great job of showing the Court OP did not act reasonably in the circumstances when he fired the shots.
Yes, but it also makes his version more plausible.
An unprecedented investigation has been launched… a team of forensics investigators have been dispatched and tasked with determining the perpetrator of this unspeakable crime against humanity.
… we will obtain hourly updates as the case progresses and new information comes to light.
Citizens have been duly advised to remain vigilant and monitor their electrical outlets for any unauthorized or suspicious devices that would drain their precious electricity.
Back to you Konya….
I know , it does sound like they are STARTING with Dr Vorsters findings and just seeing if they agree, -- I thought they were starting from scratch, their own assessments and just returning their report to Court and then Judge looking at that and then seeing if it is similar to Dr Vorsters, as two separate reports. Sounds to me like they are starting with Vorsters and just doing more tests , ..............If Dr Vorster has the reputation that she seems to , are that panel going to disagree with her ? on their heads be it perhaps, even despite her report being compiled on OP's version alone,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,>:(:o
I don't believe so…. it would only serve to help explain HOW such an unreasonable act could occur in the circumstances described by OP…. it is NOT evidence of it actually happening.
BIG difference Kap
There was a sizeable gouge on one of his prosthetic legs just below the knee. There is a close up picture of it somewhere but I cannot find it right now. It looks quite fresh as you see the white underneath.