Just picked up that Barry Roux will not be charging Pistorius for legal fees during the month that he is being evaluated.
Well that should reduce his stress levels
I should hope not. At this rate Pistorius should be asking for a refund. The prosecution's case is weak and IMO the defence has failed so far to capitalise on it.
Anyone wanting an Expert , Professional Opinion on the Psychiatric Evaluation of OP and the Judges decision on this trial (VT from yesterday) MUST watch this , Judge Greenwood's opinion, 30 years experience now retired !
He added the fact he & Reeva spoke before he got up to move the fans. (For one thing).
You're going to think I'm defending him, and I'm not. I just have to say that sometimes bits of memories can come back to you after a long period of time. Sometimes you can't be quite sure if the memories are accurate or not. Or maybe it's just me.
Thanks for that link - Judge Greenland would have moved this trial along a lot quicker
There's also an interview on the titled Blanket right to silence.
If you watch both ... Is it me or does he contradict himself.?
In the first one he's saying it isn't down to Nel to make an application it's up to the courts ..then in the 'blanket' video he starts talking about Nel making an application
He's also very critical of the DT and wondered why they didn't go for diminished responsibility in the first place as shooting someone is out of character for OP.
One could say that about anyone who kills for the first time though.
Three times he's (just in those two videos alone) he has said he'd have done things differently to Milady.
1. Asked pistorious his defense reason when he first took the stand.
2. Made his decision in 10 minutes
3. Let Roux and Nel know he wasn't happy with all the wasted time.
So why didn't he just say 'I deactivated the alarm after I left the bedroom' and leave it at that? Why did he then admit to the fact that he couldn't remember having deactivated it?
I think people perhaps expected Pistorius to act like a robot when on the stand and just regurgitate a perfect account of the events. That was never going to happen irrespective of whether he's guilty or not guilty.
People expected him to break down and confess. He didn't. People expected Nel to uncover the 'smoking gun' evidence. He didn't. People expected the prosecution to reveal incriminating evidence from the night in question to provide motive for the argument. It didn't. The prosecution wrapped up its case and most people's reaction seemed to be 'is that it?'. Well, what has really changed since then?[/QUOTE]
Hundreds of posts from people dipping in and out here against Thousands of Posts from 24/7 stalwarts like you? Other than that, where everyone started at, or for those open minded enough from the beginning, the knowledge that OP did Murder Reeva. A now identified and World known Murderer, whether he serves time, or skips off on an OJ technicality, or Mental Health Issue that only the rich can fund in SA.
Athletes are often extremely vulnerable especially if on the world stage. People on here may recall the lambasting that the British Swimming got in the Olympics despite being the best in our country and winning previous competitions, imagine how that personally feels to them if they don't succeed. Even succeeding has it's downfalls. This is an example of what I mean
My point is that being an athlete does not exempt somebody from suffering from a mental condition.
Did you read my link Mrs T? The most common mental problem among high performance athletes is in fact GAD. I was with you on the Olympic thread. It was brilliant.:)
Athletes are constantly in stress situations, about their times , their performances, their losses, their injuries, their fellow competitors. It is a highly stressfull pursuit.
But they also use stress to perform. It's a highly complex subject.
I don't know why you keep going on and on and on about the inequality of the justice system. No justice system anywhere is equal. It always comes done to how much money you've got.
I'm just catching up after being at work. I have been reading this thread for weeks and have probably only posted about 6 times in the past few days, yet I am getting told off for going on and on about inequality! I will always speak out against inequality and it's hardly any wonder that new members are put off posting when you get responses like the one above from Kapellmeister. I deal with rude people like you every day at work and life's too short to be bothered with them in my private life so I won't be posting again. There are so many good posters on this thread it's a shame a minority spoil it for everyone else. Thank you dome for your comments.
You're going to think I'm defending him, and I'm not. I just have to say that sometimes bits of memories can come back to you after a long period of time. Sometimes you can't be quite sure if the memories are accurate or not. Or maybe it's just me.
I think not remembering the last time you spoke to your girlfriend before you shot her, for over a year - until it became helpful for your version in court - is stretching it a bit.
Exactly. An individual's ability to hide, eg an anxiety disorder, shouldn't be underestimated either, imho. I'm often surprised to hear when well known comedians / actors confess to having depression (different scenario I know).
It's not unusual at all, it's a bit like living life on a wire as your very likely to fall off at some point. Success can be a strain as you have to keep achieving it, counter into that any past trauma then it's not unlikely at all and in the least probable. Most try to hide it, I know I did but I'm not an athlete, just for the record
Athletes are often extremely vulnerable especially if on the world stage. People on here may recall the lambasting that the British Swimming got in the Olympics despite being the best in our country and winning previous competitions, imagine how that personally feels to them if they don't succeed. Even succeeding has it's downfalls. This is an example of what I mean
My point is that being an athlete does not exempt somebody from suffering from a mental condition.
British Athletes don't become rich in this Country , so the monetary fruits of their labour don't compare to that of an American or in OP's case, an SA athlete - and they set high goals for themselves, that they arn't always going to achieve, --- but i'm sure there are SOME who suffer from depression, take any group of people in any profession , there will be someone who suffers mental illness of some kind. BUt you've got to remember, Roux and Nel didn't want it to go this far , for OP to be assessed, it's how it's worked out, because Roux didn't understand the implications of the Psychiatrists report,Roux just thought the Judge would take into consideration OP's anxiety issues
it's snowballed now, and Judge Greenwood has explained what's happened and why the Court had to act.
As the Judge says, the Court has now over run, it's Day 51 , the trial record is now over 4,000 pages long and noone can work out what the Defence actually is !!! Judge Greenwood says it's totally unacceptable and he would have asked that by now.
he either did or he didn't deactivate the alarm, he MUST remember what he USUALLY does on a nightly basis if he can't remember what he did that night, it's rubbish
Oh yes...........he said that about firing shots too, it was the gun, going off by accident, he even admitted to having his fingers on the trigger in the restaurant, but he didnt pull the trigger , but the gun went off !! alrighty then ! he really does need to be assessed doen't he !! or he's just a LIAR< i know what my money's on !!
He did not deactivate his alarm (it wasn't set imo) ... why would he? He needs aid as quickly as possible ... he's yelled 'help, help, help' from the balcony. Why would he turn the alarm off? Makes no sense.
Not setting the alarm is not good for his version, it proves he's lax about security. Twice now he's given examples of previous frights .. one involved his washing machine, one his dogs running around downstairs knocking furniture over ... now his dogs would have set the alarm off (and how did they get in?) and obviously with the washing machine .. the supposed intruders would have set the alarm off. Unless of course .... the alarm wasn't on which must have been the case. Interestingly neither his dogs nor his washing machine got shot. The amount of noise the dogs would have been making far exceeds anything he heard in the bathroom ... yet no shots fired ... because he IDENTIFIED the threat. There have been other incidents ... a relative wasn't it? got up to get water. Again ... no alarm set presumably and relative not shot. A friend also mentioned something similar ... same results.
So though he must have crept up on all these people/animals/appliances in the same way and without lights on ... even when he saw someone or heard sounds of definite commotion ... he didn't discharge his gun or scream 'get out of my house' ... why? and why did he react to this supposed intruder differently?
On the one hand your dad will no doubt have had much experience of people with PDs, so he may see things in OP that he's familiar with; on the other in the UK only psychiatrists are qualified to diagnose PDs - not a GP, nor a clinical psychologist, psychotherapist, psychoanalyst or a nurse.
So - I don't know. It will be interesting to see what the SA psychiatrists come up with.
Perhaps you're right on why he thinks OP has PD, as my dad deals with people with PDs a lot more than any other type of mental health problem at the hospital.
And only after the diagnosis is done by the psychiatrists. When a patient is diagnosed they are then sent to spend the day or a certain a mount of hours a day, per week, with my dad and/or the other psych nurses, if need be. We live in the UK
If you can answer these first few questions for me with convincing replies, then this may start me on the path towards considering the states version. I do have more reasons why I struggle to accept the state's version - these are just a few off the top of my head :-
Am I expected to believe it's more likely that OP and Reeva had an argument, despite the fact that there are no phone or WhatsApp messages to indicate a lingering disagreement during the few days proceeding the shooting?
Ever witnessed a pub fight? They start in the blink of an eye. Do they text each other first? It's not impossible for a fight to suddenly just start out of the blue. It happens all the time.
Am I expected to believe that Reeva stayed awake all night, and argued for about an hour in such a fashion that only she could be heard. This is despite confirmation from friends and family that Reeva is not the argumentative type, and suggestions from those that knew her that she would walk away from an argument?
Peaks and troughs. Things can die down and flare up again. Not impossible. I'd say it is very common.
Am I expected to believe that there's a possibility Reeva stopped during the argument for a bite to eat?
If there was a lull. Why not? The only way to argue is until the end? Angry people don't always do what you expect them to do. Some storm off only to return and it kicks off again.
Am I expected to believe that a guy with an alleged dominant personality and alleged narcissistic tenancies was comfortable rowing with Reeva all this time whilst on his stumps?
This is ridiculous. Are you saying Oscar has never, ever lost his temper whilst on is stumps? He MUST put his stumps on before he argues at any time? Tempers don't wait.
Am I expected to believe that during the row OP took his gun and, in an unstable waddling-like manner, chased Reeva down the corridor and into the bathroom?
Well, he ran up and down from the bedroom three times after he realised he must have shot her. He walked BACKWARDS away from the bathroom too. Jumped off the bed at one point as well. all on his stumps. So yes, he was capable of chasing her by his own admission. Whether really did or not we may never know. He said it so it's straight from the horses mouth, I trust you don't believe him.
Am I expected to believe that once Reeva was locked inside the toilet, despite being in ideal position to shoot Reeva, OP decided it would be a better idea to make his target more difficult, and shuffled back nearer to the rear wall for a bit of extra competition?
Maybe stomped around the bathroom first, bashed a panel, ended up there. Need to stady his wobble, used wall for balance..... Not impossible
Am I expected to believe that cricket bat sounds cannot be misinterpreted for gunshots, despite the state witness, Johan Stipp, testifying hearing two sets of three bangs which he said sounded identical.
Pass.
Gotta use the old disability card, I'm deaf
Am I expected to believe that a state witness, Michelle Burger heard Reeva's scream over and above the sound of gunshots, despite being a distance of 177 metres away, despite Reeva being in an enclosed toilet cubicle with the door locked, despite the gun being adjacent to an open window and despite the fact that Ms Burger's bed is 30ft inside the house from the balcony?
People hear what they hear. Many other neighbours slept through the whole thing... Why?
Am I expected to believe that Ms Burger would recognise gunshots from cricket bat sounds due to past shooting experiences, despite her referring to the place where you shoot guns as a 'driving range'?
Pass.
Again.
I may not entirely believe everything contained within OP's testimony, but I'm going to need some good answers before the state's version becomes more probable.
I quite enjoyed these questions. I'm not answering fromthe standpoint that this happened in this way but rather that you seem to think fights and what people hear and what they have said must conform to a standard that makes sense to us arguments are by their very nature unpredictable.
Bar fights happen in the blink of an eye, they can die down only to start again later outside, no?
I think not remembering the last time you spoke to your girlfriend before you shot her, for over a year - until it became helpful for your version in court - is stretching it a bit.
You say that, but I had a traumatic event in my life last year, when a family member nearly died, and I'm surprised at how the sequence of events has become muddled in my mind. That could be just me losing my marbles though.
There's also an interview on the titled Blanket right to silence.
If you watch both ... Is it me or does he contradict himself.?
In the first one he's saying it isn't down to Nel to make an application it's up to the courts ..then in the 'blanket' video he starts talking about Nel making an application
He's also very critical of the DT and wondered why they didn't go for diminished responsibility in the first place as shooting someone is out of character for OP.
One could say that about anyone who kills for the first time though.
Three times he's (just in those two videos alone) he has said he'd have done things differently to Milady.
1. Asked pistorious his defense reason when he first took the stand.
2. Made his decision in 10 minutes
3. Let Roux and Nel know he wasn't happy with all the wasted time.
I'm just catching up after being at work. I have been reading this thread for weeks and have probably only posted about 6 times in the past few days, yet I am getting told off for going on and on about inequality! I will always speak out against inequality and it's hardly any wonder that new members are put off posting when you get responses like the one above from Kapellmeister. I deal with rude people like you every day at work and life's too short to be bothered with them in my private life so I won't be posting again. There are so many good posters on this thread it's a shame a minority spoil it for everyone else. Thank you dome for your comments.
Oh right. So do you agree with the inequality that comes from Pistorius having his trial broadcast to the entire world? Most other accused get some degree of privacy when they're in the courtroom. Should Pistorius be denied that merely because he's famous and South Africa is desperate to prove a point about their criminal justice system?
It's not a question of acting though, it's a question of setting a story and sticking to it.
It wouldn't be substantially different from being in court. If he can stick to his story under relentless cross-examination, albeit with some inconsistencies, then he can do it with psychiatrists.
I'll give you an example. When I first did tests for PTSD, I played down my symptoms partly to myself and partly to the doctors. I was not intentionally deceiving anyone, but I can see in retrospect I wanted to minimise the impact of the experience that led to PTSD, its effects on my life, the effects on my family, to convince the doctors and myself I was 'ok'. After a while, I realised what I had done and had to do the tests all over again. The psychiatrist hadn't known I hadn't been 100% honest the first time.
Oh! I see what you're saying. Are you coping a lot better now? And thank you for sharing, your anecdote has helped me get where you're coming from.
So you reckon he can play up to GAD and if he sticks to it then the assessment can rule in his favour?
He did not deactivate his alarm (it wasn't set imo) ... why would he? He needs aid as quickly as possible ... he's yelled 'help, help, help' from the balcony. Why would he turn the alarm off? Makes no sense.
Not setting the alarm is not good for his version, it proves he's lax about security. Twice now he's given examples of previous frights .. one involved his washing machine, one his dogs running around downstairs knocking furniture over ... now his dogs would have set the alarm off (and how did they get in?) and obviously with the washing machine .. the supposed intruders would have set the alarm off. Unless of course .... the alarm wasn't on which must have been the case. Interestingly neither his dogs nor his washing machine got shot. The amount of noise the dogs would have been making far exceeds anything he heard in the bathroom ... yet no shots fired ... because he IDENTIFIED the threat. There have been other incidents ... a relative wasn't it? got up to get water. Again ... no alarm set presumably and relative not shot. A friend also mentioned something similar ... same results.
So though he must have crept up on all these people/animals/appliances in the same way and without lights on ... even when he saw someone or heard sounds of definite commotion ... he didn't discharge his gun or scream 'get out of my house' ... why? and why did he react to this supposed intruder differently?
Oh i agree he didn't even have that alarm on,
I was answering a poster who said what OP had said to Nel, eg. not answering another question
Comments
I should hope not. At this rate Pistorius should be asking for a refund. The prosecution's case is weak and IMO the defence has failed so far to capitalise on it.
Great reference !… Thanks Sandy and konya too
That's a fair whack...poor Roux ;-)
You're going to think I'm defending him, and I'm not. I just have to say that sometimes bits of memories can come back to you after a long period of time. Sometimes you can't be quite sure if the memories are accurate or not. Or maybe it's just me.
I'm sure he's got plenty of other stuff to be getting on with.
There's also an interview on the titled Blanket right to silence.
If you watch both ... Is it me or does he contradict himself.?
In the first one he's saying it isn't down to Nel to make an application it's up to the courts ..then in the 'blanket' video he starts talking about Nel making an application
He's also very critical of the DT and wondered why they didn't go for diminished responsibility in the first place as shooting someone is out of character for OP.
One could say that about anyone who kills for the first time though.
Three times he's (just in those two videos alone) he has said he'd have done things differently to Milady.
1. Asked pistorious his defense reason when he first took the stand.
2. Made his decision in 10 minutes
3. Let Roux and Nel know he wasn't happy with all the wasted time.
Did you read my link Mrs T? The most common mental problem among high performance athletes is in fact GAD. I was with you on the Olympic thread. It was brilliant.:)
Athletes are constantly in stress situations, about their times , their performances, their losses, their injuries, their fellow competitors. It is a highly stressfull pursuit.
But they also use stress to perform. It's a highly complex subject.
As lucrative though?
I'm just catching up after being at work. I have been reading this thread for weeks and have probably only posted about 6 times in the past few days, yet I am getting told off for going on and on about inequality! I will always speak out against inequality and it's hardly any wonder that new members are put off posting when you get responses like the one above from Kapellmeister. I deal with rude people like you every day at work and life's too short to be bothered with them in my private life so I won't be posting again. There are so many good posters on this thread it's a shame a minority spoil it for everyone else. Thank you dome for your comments.
Yes it has because there has never been any conclusive evidence that the shots came before the bat !
I think not remembering the last time you spoke to your girlfriend before you shot her, for over a year - until it became helpful for your version in court - is stretching it a bit.
It's not unusual at all, it's a bit like living life on a wire as your very likely to fall off at some point. Success can be a strain as you have to keep achieving it, counter into that any past trauma then it's not unlikely at all and in the least probable. Most try to hide it, I know I did but I'm not an athlete, just for the record
British Athletes don't become rich in this Country , so the monetary fruits of their labour don't compare to that of an American or in OP's case, an SA athlete - and they set high goals for themselves, that they arn't always going to achieve, --- but i'm sure there are SOME who suffer from depression, take any group of people in any profession , there will be someone who suffers mental illness of some kind. BUt you've got to remember, Roux and Nel didn't want it to go this far , for OP to be assessed, it's how it's worked out, because Roux didn't understand the implications of the Psychiatrists report,Roux just thought the Judge would take into consideration OP's anxiety issues
it's snowballed now, and Judge Greenwood has explained what's happened and why the Court had to act.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LSWSo3i4R8
As the Judge says, the Court has now over run, it's Day 51 , the trial record is now over 4,000 pages long and noone can work out what the Defence actually is !!! Judge Greenwood says it's totally unacceptable and he would have asked that by now.
Not setting the alarm is not good for his version, it proves he's lax about security. Twice now he's given examples of previous frights .. one involved his washing machine, one his dogs running around downstairs knocking furniture over ... now his dogs would have set the alarm off (and how did they get in?) and obviously with the washing machine .. the supposed intruders would have set the alarm off. Unless of course .... the alarm wasn't on which must have been the case. Interestingly neither his dogs nor his washing machine got shot. The amount of noise the dogs would have been making far exceeds anything he heard in the bathroom ... yet no shots fired ... because he IDENTIFIED the threat. There have been other incidents ... a relative wasn't it? got up to get water. Again ... no alarm set presumably and relative not shot. A friend also mentioned something similar ... same results.
So though he must have crept up on all these people/animals/appliances in the same way and without lights on ... even when he saw someone or heard sounds of definite commotion ... he didn't discharge his gun or scream 'get out of my house' ... why? and why did he react to this supposed intruder differently?
Perhaps you're right on why he thinks OP has PD, as my dad deals with people with PDs a lot more than any other type of mental health problem at the hospital.
And only after the diagnosis is done by the psychiatrists. When a patient is diagnosed they are then sent to spend the day or a certain a mount of hours a day, per week, with my dad and/or the other psych nurses, if need be. We live in the UK
I quite enjoyed these questions. I'm not answering fromthe standpoint that this happened in this way but rather that you seem to think fights and what people hear and what they have said must conform to a standard that makes sense to us arguments are by their very nature unpredictable.
Bar fights happen in the blink of an eye, they can die down only to start again later outside, no?
You say that, but I had a traumatic event in my life last year, when a family member nearly died, and I'm surprised at how the sequence of events has become muddled in my mind. That could be just me losing my marbles though.
what other link? blanket what ?
Oh right. So do you agree with the inequality that comes from Pistorius having his trial broadcast to the entire world? Most other accused get some degree of privacy when they're in the courtroom. Should Pistorius be denied that merely because he's famous and South Africa is desperate to prove a point about their criminal justice system?
On YouTube do you mean? If so yes I have.
Oh! I see what you're saying. Are you coping a lot better now? And thank you for sharing, your anecdote has helped me get where you're coming from.
So you reckon he can play up to GAD and if he sticks to it then the assessment can rule in his favour?
Oh i agree he didn't even have that alarm on,
I was answering a poster who said what OP had said to Nel, eg. not answering another question