JMEHO

I tend to believe this statement.


Percy Mermigas, the club’s manager, backed up Mr Pistorius’s version, saying that “everything is being blown out of proportion’’.


Oscar by the State requested and Court demanded psych evaluation would not be likely to be the aggressor. Oscar would have more to lose and nothing to gain from such a confrontation Motimer would get his 15 minutes of fame and could genuinely believe that Oscar is going to get away with murder. Something I have learned from really getting into the information and evidence available in a case for the first time is how very ignorant most of the public is about criminal cases. (I have also learned unfortunately how uninformed many of the ignorant and biased who proclaim their opinion as fiat really are.)

Websites are proclaiming Oscar a monster, prosing longingly about Oscar being raped and constantly beating the mantra that Oscar without a shadow of the doubt hunted down Reeva and maliciously, violently killed her, while they ignore and dismiss viable posters and evidence against their claims. Some of Main Stream Media, while not nearly as vapid and vile as many of the online rantings or blogs, has nearly proclaimed Oscar guilty of murder. It would not be a wonder if random people confronted Oscar aggressively given the tone of the trial coverage and online discussions.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

All can be true: OP is arrogant/feels entitled/is quick to anger AND shot when others might have fled AND had no idea Reeva was in the bathroom.

IMO it isn't out of character for him to get belligerent in a bar and to proclaim his connections to power. That just makes him obnoxious, if true-- not guilty of murder.

There are a few reports over time of Oscar being a stupid drunk. I'm willing to believe he's a stupid drunk. Lots of people are stupid drunks, perhaps including the other guy. That said, I don't trust the media to report on this in a measured and balanced way. Oscar was probably dumb, but just a bit dumb.

_________________
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. ~Bruce Cockburn

https://johnib.wordpress.com/tag/oscar-pistorius/


Oscar Pistorius ‘flat drunk’ and aggressive before nightclub fight, partygoers allege


Was Oscar drunk? Could be.

We have already differing accounts about the incident; Mortimer said about Oscar “He was drunk, but not bad.” A witness said Oscar was (one witness, not multiple like the headline implies) “flat out drunk.” One account has a scantily clad woman on his knee, another has an undressed woman with him. I’m wondering what the weight of a woman on his stump rubbing against his prosthetic would feel like.

Then there is the fundamental disagreement about who was the aggressor.


Anyhow, it is my opinion, which could be flat out wrong that Oscar will end up much like George Zimmerman in that the fault will always be with Oscar and that fault will feed another fault in the eyes of many. (Not saying that about anyone here it is just an interesting phenomenon to me)



Also of interest and to bolster my Zimmerman Syndrome theory, the lead in line to the story reads, (among other things) that Oscar “socialized with a known violent offender” yet that same violent offender was Oscar and Mortimer’s mutual friend.


Should Oscar have been in a night club. Nope, it was a very poor decision. Was he drunk probably not flat out drunk, but who knows? Do I think he was the likely aggressor, I don’t know. What can’t be argued against is that Mortimer gains from the publicity and Oscar loses from it, so if Oscar was not “flat out drunk” I would be suspicious that he would not be minding his manners in a private VP section of a night club.

Could it be two young dumb drunks, yep. Is there any video footage from the club? Probably not in the private VIP section of an exclusive club. Mortimer challenging Oscar to take a lie detector test sounds like someone seeking their 15 minutes of fame to me. But I have become suspicious of the circus of fools that surround this case and paint Oscar as a monster.

Does being drunk in a night club, even if Oscar was the aggressor, mean that the accusations about him murdering Reeva in cold blood are then true? Of course not, I don;t think anyone would be so silly as to imply that.

My two cents .

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

I'm always on the prowl to mess with the State's case. And although I've seen this picture when it first was available and everybody had seen it, something strikes me as a little odd maybe.

I never believed for a second the cockamamie story that the State witness for the prosecution believes and described as proven by his laser tests that showed Reeva was sitting on the magazine rack when she was hit in the head and the hand. To me it is almost laughable to believe that her hands were crossed over her head as though she was doing a contortionist version of a new way to shampoo.

Imagine yourself about to be hit on the head with something that you suddenly expect to fall from above and you have to react quickly to attempt to cover your head. Or something coming at you from the front and you go into a quick instinctive motion to attempt to protect your head with your arms. Do the natural motion of what you would do and see where your hands are. Your hands will be way away from your head. It's almost unnatural to place your hands so your left hand would be resting against the left side of your head. If you do the motion and your hands end up that way, I will be dumbfounded. It feels almost "sissy like." Not only that, her arm is practically amputated at the elbow as well, almost certainly rendering that arm immovable. How does she raise her arm to cross her arms?

That's point one and two. But then they also missed the bullet fragment that ended up in the bottom of the magazine rack. If she was sitting there, that means the bullet would have had to hit the wall, change direction, make two prominent bruises on her back (vertical bruises) like a rock skips on a lake, go through the vest material and then somehow maneuver its way under her into the magazine rack she was sitting on. Not only that, but after the bullet had lost almost all its velocity because it had already impacted the tile wall TWICE and had taken two good chinks out of the tile--one when it ricocheted. Oh what a talented bullet.

So that already puts that theory in la la land territory. But now also look at the perpendicular short tile extension between the wall and the toilet. Isn't it strange being that the height of her hip would be at least even or above the top of the toilet seat if she is sitting on the magazine rack, that there doesn't seem to be any blood spatter or noticeable blood "dripping" pattern at all on the tile? We know you can see blood on the tile because it is very visible on the center of the back wall on that tile. It certainly shows there. Her hip was almost blown apart and the femoral artery is a major artery that runs right through the hip. It's one of the largest arteries in the body. It's bleeding that Oscar and Carice were trying to stop downstairs and it was arterial blood spurting that accounted for some of the blood on the stairwell and on the furniture on the ground floor below the landing. Yet no lateral spurting of blood at ALL on that tile from her hip which would be right even with her hip? Even her arm wound should have accounted for some blood spurting there. But it appears to be totally spotless with no blood.




Now, if she was sitting on the floor as Oscar said, you wouldn't expect there to be blood on that tile. And if there was, it would only be visible a few inches off the floor which is hidden in the picture, and would comport perfectly with the blood as it is on the floor.




VIP room spats are unclear yet as to who did what. But what is not unclear to me is that Reeva was not sitting on that magazine rack. And as Archie Bunker would say, ipso fatso Mangena, you're a meathead.

Aavi, what you say about the bullet makes good sense, also if Reeva was standing facing the door when she was struck in the hip why is there not a huge blood pool right inside the door on the floor or blood spatter on the interior of the door? The large splotch of blood outside the door had to have happened when Oscar was pulling Reeva out of the bathroom.

Again and again, Oscar's version fits the forensic evidence.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

It is pretty much agreed by everybody that she was standing at the door--and it's almost certain that she was--because of the splinters. So she would have definitely been near the door. I resolutely believe she was in the process of preparing to come out of the toilet with her hand on the door handle. Although she hadn't unlocked the door yet, it was dark in there and her fumbling around possibly trying to feel for the key to unlock the deadbolt caused the noise that Oscar heard which he knew was the person inside preparing to come out.

But when she was shot in the hip, it propelled her backward very quickly. And since she was wearing his shorts, that would have acted as a buffer for that second or two to prevent blood from gushing out or being evident on the floor near the door or on the toilet door. Her falling and crumpling to her right would have been a very fluid motion and quick as she crumpled. But seconds after she fell, there would be a great deal of blood, and I believe spewing in every direction. If she had landed on the magazine rack where it's pictured, I don't see any logical possibility that some blood wouldn't have been apparent on the vertical tile. Once an artery is punctured, blood shoots out every time the heart beats. And the femoral artery is a large artery. Plus the right elbow would have been only inches from the wall and that also initially would have been prone to casting off significant blood. Yet, even zooming the picture, no blood visible anywhere on that vertical tile. The tile looks pristine.

It's important in that it has to corroborate Oscar's version that she was found sitting on the floor so that the rest of his story is not subject to be discounted as being false in other parts of his testimony. Mangena's crapola has to be shown as being ridiculous and full of holes. And it is.

I have a question. Really, how is it that all of the blood is down low on the toilet and floor like that if she was standing when she was hit? I didn't follow this case from the beginning and, by the time I paid attention, the spewage at WS obfuscated all but the most objective points (what the law is and the like).

I cant say I followed ballistics and such closely. Personally I don't see fine details being very important, though I do agree with aavi that to discredit any points in Nil's speculation is worth while just to add to the list of many inaccuracies and absurdities in the vague State version, and confirm it to be (wild) speculation.

aavi seems to be far more clued up than me... he may well comment, but...

FWIW my take is......

The shots were all LOW.... OP on stumps basically fired at what would be Reeva's hip height and Reeva was falling the second the first shot hit her hip...so blood "source" would be from Reeva's slumped body... her bottom on floor and head and arm on toilet. There was some blood spatter (spray) from head (exit) wound on toilet lid and at that sort of height on back tiles. Most of the flow and arterial spurts occurred after Reeva was slumped on floor and toilet... as can be seen from large pools on toilet floor. After that, OP dragged body and blood flowed on bathroom floor and spurts continued as OP carried Reeva downstairs... all confirmed as consistent with OP's description of events by the STATE blood spatter expert (Ian van der Nest)

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

If you show me that picture and I don't know anything about the case except that there's a bullet to the arm and her brains are practically blown out, my assumption would be that she had her head in the toilet (yacking...which is inconsistent with stomach contents and what was in the bowl, I guess). But that's an awful lot of blood on the toilet and the floor from anyone being anywhere but right on/at the toilet at head level.

She WAS "at the toilet" within seconds of shot(s)... with head wound as well as massive wounds to arteries in hip and arm... blood pouring out and spurting out... and she sat/lay there for some time before OP flapped about back and forth, screamed, got his legs on, got cricket bat, bashed door in, got key, opened the door etc. A lot to do taking up SEVERAL MINUTES. Not possible at all with Nil's ridiculous contention about "shots after 3:17 lol Anyway the point is... she sat/lay there with massive wound to head and TWO huge wounds with severed arteries... I would expect nothing less than a pool of blood in bathroom as the photo shows.... I don't see any inconsistency with the photo.. and besides.. THAT is how it was, so no point inserting a "mystery" where none exists.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

WHAT is how it was? She was standing or not? I'm totally not inserting a mystery. That's just how it looks to me with zero agenda. Not suggesting you have one. Just confirming that I don't. Actually, I don't even think my question has any bearing on guilt or innocence. Just logistics :::shrug:::

I guess I dont know what your point is.

She was standing (near door) as first shot hit her in the hip ( I think both sides agree on that anyway).. as aavi said, the wood splinters confirm that.... and she fell backwards and to the floor within seconds of shot(s)... there she sat/lay and bled like a stuck pig.. for several minutes before OP got to her and dragged her out. The photo is consistent with that.

What is the issue with "logistics" ?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I actually do not quite understand why so much time has been spent on arguing the two (slightly) different interpretations of the shots and events. By BOTH legal teams.

Maybe I missed some important detail?

Both sides AGREE that Reeva was standing near to door. I guess the State are contending that she was facing the door directly and so talking to (arguing with) OP? That seems like an unknowable detail to me and far from PROVED (beyond doubt) by what can be little more than speculation on one side, countered by speculation on the other. Nothing a certainty beyond reasonable doubt. There is no doubt she was standing near the door and with shot to hip she collapsed and fell back very rapidly and was hit two more times as she went down (maybe 3 if you count bullet nicking her finger). It seems to me like argument for arguments sake to speculate about her bum on floor V her bum on magazine rack? Neither speak to, let alone proves, any intent on OP's part nor proves anything about whether OP KNEW Reeva was in the toilet. In fact, NONE of the ballistics address that issue so I see little point in it.
What IS important..... State ballistic expert is unequivocal in conclusion that OP was on his stumps when he fired. Something State claimed was not true right up until the beginning of the trial. That alone casts a huge shadow of doubt on a State version that was so speculative that their own evidence disproved it. Of course OP on his stumps at time of shooting makes argument and pursuit of Reeva less likely.. more shaky speculation.. especially in the light of clear evidence that OP is vulnerable and unstable on his stumps and so VERY unlikely to have been wobbling and hobbling around the house in pursuit of Reeva for an hour or more. And of course OP on his stumps at time of shots messes with Nil's timeline especially since he has stated in open court that the shots were just after 3:17. THAT make State version IMPOSSIBLE with OP on his stumps at that stage and needing to do all that must have been done in the 5 minutes after the shots.. by which time OP had done all that he must have done including putting on his legs, rushing about, screaming, bashing down door, dragging Reeva's body out, making phone calls, carrying Reeva downstairs, to be confronted by Standers just 5 mins after Bangs (which Nil claims were shots).

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

That was/is my question also Karmady. My best guess is that the blast was so violent that it threw her backwards toward the toilet and that is why there is not a pool of blood right there by the door.

I meant to add, if she was standing by the door why is there no blood splatter on the door?

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Snipped by me for brevity.

I agree with this, he State to put forth their raging argument theory has only two options. 1) Oscar was for over an hour hobbling about after Reeva in a fierce verbal fight (At which time he also kept her from making any electronic contact with anyone) or Oscar was on his prosthetics in a fierce argument with Reeva (at which time he again kept Reeva from making any electronic contact with anyone) and then he suddenly took off his legs and hobbled after Reeva shot her down, hobbled about a bit more, then put his prosthetics back on and bashed down the door.

Neither theory is believable or even lends itself credible to a rational mind.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Yup. It's like the Cajun farm owner who said to his farm hand, "go out there and round up all my dogs except Ole Blue... And round him up too.

The thing that imposes any relevance to the toilet forensics is that the damn defense's A-rated star witness (Wolmerans) contradicted Oscar in where he said the magazine rack was in the toilet when he reached her. It is inextricably linked and paramount to how she could have got the bruises on her back. If it was where Oscar said it was, then it leaves a quandary as to how the bruises were caused. But it's patently absurd to think she was sitting on it where my posted photograph shows the prosecution claims it was, because all kinds of physics would have to be defied. So it's important that Oscar be the one that's believed because--as a jury is instructed--any witness thought to untruthful in part, can be deemed to untruthful in total. A judge is certainly going to be very well versed in that instruction and highly experienced in applying it.

It is stupefying to me how the blazes a defense team can put on their ace witness that is supposed to BOLSTER and support everything claimed by the defendant and instead he absolutely throws a wrench right into the heart of the defendant's credibility that he is there to testify on behalf of. That's what Wolmerans did. Oscar said the rack was in the middle of the wall and Wolmerans effectively said it wasn't--that it was right where it is depicted on the photograph. This staggering sabotage of Oscar's testimony is almost nothing short of incredulous. Almost actually worse--attorney malpractice. How could any hi-powered defense counsel be so incompetent? It didn't occur to them to talk to their most anticipated witness who was expected to correlate the evidence with what Oscar said? You don't talk to or prepare a witness to find out if at least you're on the same damn page with the defendant beforehand? Ughh.

This is why it's so important to show that Oscar's description of how she was found and where she was found is borne out by deductive reasoning, cogent logic and more plausible than the patched and pasted together version of the prosecution.

Yogi Berra left us with pure simplicity: ....... "You can observe a lot by watching."

I tried to post and lost it. Suffice it to say, I would expect more blood on the back wall, among other places. But I have no education in forensics, so would like to hear how this particular pattern is likely to have happened in more detail. Just curiosity - no point

There wouldn't be a lot of blood on the back wall because the shots were fired at an angle toward the corner of the toilet from his position just inside the bathroom. He was steadying himself against the back bathroom wall when he fired.

Reeva was hit in the hip while standing facing the door and turned slightly to her left. When the bullet impacted, it immediately pivoted her to the right, as she lost all ability to hold herself up on that leg and she collapsed backward. The States says she landed on the rack which they would like the judge to believe is where the photo shows it (very close to the toilet bowl) and then sustained two more shots--one in the right arm shattering the elbow, and the head shot, lifting off the top right side of her head. They also say she had her arms crossed with her hands resting on each side of her head in a delusional gymnastics pose in their theory that she was trying to make the best effort to cover her head. And because of this, the bullet that hit her head as a result, went through her fingers and caused a wound in the web of her fingers. They say she then slumped forward with her head on the toilet rim, still seated on the magazine rack.

Oscar contends he found Reeva sitting on the floor between the magazine rack and the toilet bowl leaning forward with her head resting on her right shoulder and her right arm extended across the back of the toilet. All the blood conforms with this.

It's really impossible to know when exactly the 2nd--3rd and 4th shots impacted her because it could have been as she was falling backward before she landed. The shots were in very rapid succession. But in any case, blood would have only emitted forward or to the side as she was always facing forward and the majority would have flowed downward to the floor; except for the arterial spurting which I believe should have caused some blood to be evident on the side section of tile if she was sitting on the rack in such close proximity to it.

Of course blood is not visible there above the height of the toilet seat because she was not sitting on the magazine rack. She was on the floor.

Thanks Aavi that helps a lot.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji