Yes, but it also makes his version more plausible.
which is why Roux introduced Dr Vorster's report sooo late in the trial as last chance saloon for OP as their case was not going well............, as the woman 'gets murderers off' don't ya know
AND it could also work against OP in that he is clearly someone who is dangerous to public when he has a firearm, as Dr Vorster said too, and the insinuation is he could have killed already , lucky he hasn't if he lacks that much control - he may get sentence for the firearms charges too !
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.
I believe your mixing up a lot of stuff in your reply.
Yes…if OP is diagnosed to be insane and mentally incapable of determining Right from Wrong… OP can't be help responsible
GAD does not fit into that category at all… even DrV said so
GAD is only useful IF Masipa believes OP's story
If Masipa believes OP is lying about what happened and sides with the State's case of premed-murder than GAD is irrelevant.
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
You wouldn't, but it undoubtedly does make his version more plausible.
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.
BiB… ABSOLUTELY NOT
OP would have to be found completely insane and incapable of knowing right from wrong
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.
Hmmm. I guess he will say that's from from kicking the door?
You wouldn't, but it undoubtedly does make his version more plausible.
More plausible to you perhaps…. but that's not how the Law works… the mental state of the accused does NOT determine the manner in which the crime was committed….
Ohh the accused has GAD… then obviously let us throw away all the credible, reliable and corroborated evidence that supports premed-murder and favor the self-defense version.
Hmmm. I guess he will say that's from from kicking the door?
It looks too high up for that to be possible. He kicked with his foot so it could only have possibly happened if the kick resulted in his leg tearing through the door maybe.
It looks too high up for that to be possible. He kicked with his foot so it could only have possibly happened if the kick resulted in his leg tearing through the door maybe.
Or did he bang it on the edge of the bath when he was damaging the panel?
That woman on the video was only a reporter really though. I didn't watch all the video when I realised that. There are the 4 other psychiatric doctors Pistorius will be working with too who may have more sense!!!
Say you have an individual, Bob, who has profound psychiatric disorder : he becomes terrified when he is in total darkness… which renders him incapable of distinguishing right from wrong…. it's called Insanity Darkness Disorder or IDD
This mental illness is well-documented, Bob was diagnosed a long time ago, he has been receiving regular psychiatric treatments…. all is perfectly Kosher.
Aside from this illness whose symptoms only manifest themselves in total darkness, Bob is perfectly healthy, sane, normal, etc…
Bob now stands accused of the homicide of his best friend.
The State claims it was a premed-murder…. The Defence claims that Bob cannot be held responsible for his crime because he suffers from IDD
Bob is referred for 30-days… the report comes back : Bob suffers from IDD
The trial begins… the State makes their case… they produce evidence that the crime occurred in a well-lit room…. the Defence makes their case…. they produce evidence that the crime occurred in a pitch dark room.
The Judge has 2 versions…. he deliberates on the evidence...
If the Judge sides with the State's version and finds that the evidence demonstrates that the crime occurred in a well-lit room, Bob's IDD cannot have played a role and it is therefore irrelevant…
If the Judge sides with the Defence's version and finds that the evidence demonstrates that the crime occurred in a pitch dark room, Bob's IDD played a central role and it is therefore very relevant…
Furthermore, the fact that Bob suffers from IDD is NOT evidence that the crime has occurred in a pitch dark room…. it can ONLY explain WHY the crime occurred IF it occurred in a pitch dark room
I believe your mixing up a lot of stuff in your reply.
Yes…if OP is diagnosed to be insane and mentally incapable of determining Right from Wrong… OP can't be help responsible
GAD does not fit into that category at all… even DrV said so
GAD is only useful IF Masipa believes OP's story
If Masipa believes OP is lying about what happened and sides with the State's case of premed-murder than GAD is irrelevant.
No. I think you are overlooking the fact that regardless of each sides versions - If that panel come back with unanimous report that they all go along with OP having GAD, and being in an anxiety fuelled heightened state of alert at the time he fired the shots, theJudge has to go along with the law that OP was not responsible for his actions. --
--- forget the testimonies, and the Expert evidence, the Judge can't hold him criminally responsible - and the Dr said even if she'd had knowledge of the State's case, he can still have condition of GAD - and as that VT said the Defence can ARGUE that the Judge deem OP to have diminished responsibility for the act -
The Judge will still do a reasonable person assessment, but with GAD and diminished capacity she would have to rule on that basis , = OP did not behave as another person without GAD would , that is why he did not behave reasonably, his get out being GAD -
and that's what Nel was alluding to ......, that Roux was introducing this diagnosis to use as mitigation for sentencing only, but it backfired and now OP's getting a full assessment by the Hospital that won't just be assessing him on OP's version. - but it can go both ways, and still work in OP's favour.
Refer back to one of the Oscar Trial Panel discussions where they said if the disorder they find, and it may not just be GAD, you can forget what's happened in trial so far, the Judge CANNOT try OP for Murder, he'd be discharged after assessment if he has any condition that falls under Mental Illness.
The danger is, as I've said, that they come back with same diagnosis as the imminent Dr Vorster - which the woman on the VT thinks they will, due to her being held in such high regard. The woman on that VT made no mention however, that Dr Vorster had compiled her report and made diagnosis JUST ON OP'S VERSION ALONE< which I found odd, and no idea why she didn't mention this in the VT !
Say you have an individual, Bob, who has profound psychiatric disorder : he becomes terrified when he is in total darkness… which renders him incapable of distinguishing right from wrong…. it's called Insanity Darkness Disorder or IDD
This mental illness is well-documented, Bob was diagnosed a long time ago, he has been receiving regular psychiatric treatments…. all is perfectly Kosher.
Aside from this illness whose symptoms only manifest themselves in total darkness, Bob is perfectly healthy, sane, normal, etc…
Bob now stands accused of the homicide of his best friend.
The State claims it was a premed-murder…. The Defence claims that Bob cannot be held responsible for his crime because he suffers from IDD
Bob is referred for 30-days… the report comes back that in fact Bob suffers from IDD
The trial begins… the State makes their case… they produce evidence that the crime occurred in a well-lit room…. the Defence makes their case…. they produce evidence that the crime occurred in a pitch dark room.
The Judge has 2 versions…. he deliberates on the evidence...
If the Judge sides with the State's version and finds that the evidence demonstrates that the crime occurred in a well-lit room, Bob's IDD cannot have played a role and it is therefore irrelevant…
If the Judge sides with the Defence's version and finds that the evidence demonstrates that the crime occurred in a pitch dark room, Bob's IDD played a central role and it is therefore very relevant…
Furthermore, the fact that Bob suffers from IDD is NOT evidence that the crime having occurred in a pitch dark room…. it can ONLY explain WHY the crime occurred IF it occurred in a pitch dark room
Clever post, AJ. Makes it very clear. But, of course, Bob's IDD was diagnosed BEFORE the crime and there was evidence of that. OP's GAD was never mentioned until AFTER the crime.
More plausible to you perhaps…. but that's not how the Law works… the mental state of the accused does NOT determine the manner in which the crime was committed….
Ohh the accused has GAD… then obviously let us throw away all the credible, reliable and corroborated evidence that supports premed-murder and favor the self-defense version.
I can see what Kap is getting at. For example if he has GAD then OP's obsessive reaction to the noise of the window becomes more plausible. Before you write a detailed rebuttal, however, I must state that I still think his version has more holes in it than a string vest.
The Sky reporter said that the damaged legs were shown and that the artificial skin on them was peeling off in some of the photographs. I cannot see it well.
I think they were tentatively linking the damage on the legs to the damage on the bottom of the bedroom door, but like so much it was merely shown. I think Nell will comment on it in his closing argument.
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.
Yes. OP had nothing but contempt for Stipps in his testimony, belittling his attempts to give medical assistance - although it was already futile.
Clever post, AJ. Makes it very clear. But, of course, Bob's IDD was diagnosed BEFORE the crime and there was evidence of that. OP's GAD was never mentioned until AFTER the crime.
Oh I agree ---- OP made NO MENTION of any disorder up until Roux introduced the Dr's testimony and findings based only on two sessions with OP telling HIS version only to her - AND of course Nel made it very clear, why now ? why introduced this anxiety disorder diagnosis now ? It is true though that the Defence can introduce anything at anytime, however, the Judge will of course see it strange and timely that they are doing this so late in the trial and take that into consideration come deliberation (if it gets that far now) -
Nel stated too that none of OP's friends gave testimony relating to OP having any kind of anxiety, other than he was quick to grab his gun when he heard noises in his house,which is what he says he did when he shot the intruder, -- his version, of course.
I think Nel will be very very persuasive in his summation of what happened that night, and I hope that the Panel do return a report that states that OP was very aware of what he was doing that night and he may have a LOW LEVEL anxiety disorder,but not one that comes under Mental illness and that warrants the Court taking into consideration diminished responsibility for his actions.
The Sky reporter said that the damaged legs were shown and that the artificial skin on them was peeling off in some of the photographs. I cannot see it well.
I think they were tentatively linking the damage on the legs to the damage on the bottom of the bedroom door, but like so much it was merely shown. I think Nell will comment on it in his closing argument.
There is a picture of the underneath of the foot which has a fair amount of damage and what looks like peeling too. Quite different damage from that of the actuall leg piece.
You wouldn't, but it undoubtedly does make his version more plausible.
Which version? The one where he was protecting Reeva from a perceived threat and was therefore justifying his intent to use the weapon as self defence, or the one where he can't quite remember what was going on when he pulled the trigger and never meant to hurt anyone.
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 !!
if the hospital agree with her diagnosis, it's no worse than just having her diagnosis on the record. if the judge believes the state's version, it may only be a mitigating factor at sentencing. it only comes into play if she believes oscar's version. and if she believes his version, it doesn't matter anyways as he'll be found not guilty. there's nothing to worry about unless they diagnose him with something that can result in diminished responsibility. and gad doesn't, unless i've misunderstood
Comments
AND it could also work against OP in that he is clearly someone who is dangerous to public when he has a firearm, as Dr Vorster said too, and the insinuation is he could have killed already , lucky he hasn't if he lacks that much control - he may get sentence for the firearms charges too !
I believe your mixing up a lot of stuff in your reply.
Yes…if OP is diagnosed to be insane and mentally incapable of determining Right from Wrong… OP can't be help responsible
GAD does not fit into that category at all… even DrV said so
GAD is only useful IF Masipa believes OP's story
If Masipa believes OP is lying about what happened and sides with the State's case of premed-murder than GAD is irrelevant.
You wouldn't, but it undoubtedly does make his version more plausible.
BiB… ABSOLUTELY NOT
OP would have to be found completely insane and incapable of knowing right from wrong
Hmmm. I guess he will say that's from from kicking the door?
More plausible to you perhaps…. but that's not how the Law works… the mental state of the accused does NOT determine the manner in which the crime was committed….
Ohh the accused has GAD… then obviously let us throw away all the credible, reliable and corroborated evidence that supports premed-murder and favor the self-defense version.
It looks too high up for that to be possible. He kicked with his foot so it could only have possibly happened if the kick resulted in his leg tearing through the door maybe.
Or did he bang it on the edge of the bath when he was damaging the panel?
http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=60
It looks more chipped than having hit something, have a look at picture in the link I posted
I think there is a good one on the juror 13 site. Among the photographers evidence.
Yes, I've seen the photo now. It's a pretty big gouge, isn't it?
This mental illness is well-documented, Bob was diagnosed a long time ago, he has been receiving regular psychiatric treatments…. all is perfectly Kosher.
Aside from this illness whose symptoms only manifest themselves in total darkness, Bob is perfectly healthy, sane, normal, etc…
Bob now stands accused of the homicide of his best friend.
The State claims it was a premed-murder…. The Defence claims that Bob cannot be held responsible for his crime because he suffers from IDD
Bob is referred for 30-days… the report comes back : Bob suffers from IDD
The trial begins… the State makes their case… they produce evidence that the crime occurred in a well-lit room…. the Defence makes their case…. they produce evidence that the crime occurred in a pitch dark room.
The Judge has 2 versions…. he deliberates on the evidence...
If the Judge sides with the State's version and finds that the evidence demonstrates that the crime occurred in a well-lit room, Bob's IDD cannot have played a role and it is therefore irrelevant…
If the Judge sides with the Defence's version and finds that the evidence demonstrates that the crime occurred in a pitch dark room, Bob's IDD played a central role and it is therefore very relevant…
Furthermore, the fact that Bob suffers from IDD is NOT evidence that the crime has occurred in a pitch dark room…. it can ONLY explain WHY the crime occurred IF it occurred in a pitch dark room
Good photo of the damaged legs.
--- forget the testimonies, and the Expert evidence, the Judge can't hold him criminally responsible - and the Dr said even if she'd had knowledge of the State's case, he can still have condition of GAD - and as that VT said the Defence can ARGUE that the Judge deem OP to have diminished responsibility for the act -
The Judge will still do a reasonable person assessment, but with GAD and diminished capacity she would have to rule on that basis , = OP did not behave as another person without GAD would , that is why he did not behave reasonably, his get out being GAD -
and that's what Nel was alluding to ......, that Roux was introducing this diagnosis to use as mitigation for sentencing only, but it backfired and now OP's getting a full assessment by the Hospital that won't just be assessing him on OP's version. - but it can go both ways, and still work in OP's favour.
Refer back to one of the Oscar Trial Panel discussions where they said if the disorder they find, and it may not just be GAD, you can forget what's happened in trial so far, the Judge CANNOT try OP for Murder, he'd be discharged after assessment if he has any condition that falls under Mental Illness.
The danger is, as I've said, that they come back with same diagnosis as the imminent Dr Vorster - which the woman on the VT thinks they will, due to her being held in such high regard. The woman on that VT made no mention however, that Dr Vorster had compiled her report and made diagnosis JUST ON OP'S VERSION ALONE< which I found odd, and no idea why she didn't mention this in the VT !
Clever post, AJ. Makes it very clear. But, of course, Bob's IDD was diagnosed BEFORE the crime and there was evidence of that. OP's GAD was never mentioned until AFTER the crime.
That's them!
Thanks
I can see what Kap is getting at. For example if he has GAD then OP's obsessive reaction to the noise of the window becomes more plausible. Before you write a detailed rebuttal, however, I must state that I still think his version has more holes in it than a string vest.
The Sky reporter said that the damaged legs were shown and that the artificial skin on them was peeling off in some of the photographs. I cannot see it well.
I think they were tentatively linking the damage on the legs to the damage on the bottom of the bedroom door, but like so much it was merely shown. I think Nell will comment on it in his closing argument.
Yes. OP had nothing but contempt for Stipps in his testimony, belittling his attempts to give medical assistance - although it was already futile.
Nel stated too that none of OP's friends gave testimony relating to OP having any kind of anxiety, other than he was quick to grab his gun when he heard noises in his house,which is what he says he did when he shot the intruder, -- his version, of course.
I think Nel will be very very persuasive in his summation of what happened that night, and I hope that the Panel do return a report that states that OP was very aware of what he was doing that night and he may have a LOW LEVEL anxiety disorder,but not one that comes under Mental illness and that warrants the Court taking into consideration diminished responsibility for his actions.
There is a picture of the underneath of the foot which has a fair amount of damage and what looks like peeling too. Quite different damage from that of the actuall leg piece.
Any idea what these legs are made of?
Which version? The one where he was protecting Reeva from a perceived threat and was therefore justifying his intent to use the weapon as self defence, or the one where he can't quite remember what was going on when he pulled the trigger and never meant to hurt anyone.
if the hospital agree with her diagnosis, it's no worse than just having her diagnosis on the record. if the judge believes the state's version, it may only be a mitigating factor at sentencing. it only comes into play if she believes oscar's version. and if she believes his version, it doesn't matter anyways as he'll be found not guilty. there's nothing to worry about unless they diagnose him with something that can result in diminished responsibility. and gad doesn't, unless i've misunderstood