Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marfa Lights said:
Happy New Year to everyone... I am still quite the newbie here on WS but occasionally feel compelled to post when something is bugging the hell out of me. Just read this piece in The Guardian from a couple of days ago and it made me wonder why we never heard (and why Nel never asked) more about the meeting Oscar had earlier on February 13th-- this is the meeting in which he apparently received some bad news and I believe it was in a 'What's App' message that Reeva tried to console him and reassure him what a great guy he really was and asked him if he might prefer to spend time with his family instead of coming home to her that evening.

It would seem to be so critical to his state of mind and could have easily been a contributing factor to his level of stress and tension that evening. Does anyone know any actual details about that meeting? Was there some reason Nel was not allowed to question Oscar or another potential witness about it?

<respectfully snipped>

See what you make of this statement from The Guardian article about Jaco van Vuuren, the pole vaulter acquaintance of Oscar's who is also an amateur courtroom artist:

Van Vuuren believes the Olympic runner&#8217;s version of events, but adds a new, intriguing twist. &#8220;The one thing&#8217;s that not mentioned in court, and we still don&#8217;t know why it&#8217;s not been brought up: he was as nervous as hell a week before that happened. He was on the track and I heard this from another Olympian who trained with him. He was as nervous as hell as if something was bound to happen.&#8221;

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/pistorius-track-mate-drawing-court-van-vuuren

Can't help but think Oscar might have been nervous about receiving bad news at this meeting on the 13th-- why don't we know the specifics of that meeting?
Click to expand...

IMO Van Vuuren's comment may add another significant piece to the puzzle: OP's character already simmering with rage, much of it barely organized and discharged into his sport, discharged into his rifle range activities, etc. However, he may have been unable to contain his simmering rage, demonstrated by public exhibition(s) of acting-out in a threatening and dangerous manner with a gun, etc. It was escalating being recently magnified by the unresolved break-up with previous girlfriend; pressures to train, unsure if he would qualify to compete at Olympics again. Speaking hypothetically, he may have been unable to organize this escalating rage into his usual coping mechanisms. Van Vuuren's comments seem significant in this context. His comments echo previous comments made in earlier threads. It seems there was a 'trigger' factor and we know OP had received 'bad news' at an earlier meeting on the 13th - not an insignificant point. This 'bad news' may have generated enormous rage which he was unable to 'organize' into words or 'contain' with his usual coping mechanisms. It would have preoccupied him IMO. It needed to be 'discharged' for him to get relief from the ever present tension. Somehow, unknown to us, his rage was triggered with RS that night, he couldn't contain it, he was cognizant enough to walk to, then reach for his gun, then preempt ricochet bullets before 'discharging' the gun - four times into a small toilet cubicle with a human being inside. RS was not his problem, his rage was. The family, friends and/or team around OP were seemingly oblivious/unaware or unable to help him 'contain' his growing rage. He had a history of poorly controlled negative emotions such as anger/aggression. My opinion only.
 
Eewww, Carl says creepy things sometimes. Way too touchy feely with Aimee IMO.
 

Attachments

  • Eewww.PNG
    Eewww.PNG
    847.8 KB · Views: 163
Off-Topic Warning!

The Skeleton Crew: How Amateur Sleuths Are Solving America's Coldest Cases, by Deborah Halber

Heard the author on NPR yesterday-- she kept talking about "Websleuths" and I thought she might be referring to this forum. After reading the synopsis on Amazon just now, it looks like she uses the term, web sleuths, in a more generic sense-- so not sure if she acknowledges this forum at all. May download the free Kindle sample. Reviews appear to be mixed. Thought it might be of general interest to the real Websleuths here.
 
Fuskier said:
IMO Van Vuuren's comment may add another significant piece to the puzzle: OP's character already simmering with rage, much of it barely organized and discharged into his sport, discharged into his rifle range activities, etc. However, he may have been unable to contain his simmering rage, demonstrated by public exhibition(s) of acting-out in a threatening and dangerous manner with a gun, etc. It was escalating being recently magnified by the unresolved break-up with previous girlfriend; pressures to train, unsure if he would qualify to compete at Olympics again. Speaking hypothetically, he may have been unable to organize this escalating rage into his usual coping mechanisms. Van Vuuren's comments seem significant in this context. His comments echo previous comments made in earlier threads. It seems there was a 'trigger' factor and we know OP had received 'bad news' at an earlier meeting on the 13th - not an insignificant point. This 'bad news' may have generated enormous rage which he was unable to 'organize' into words or 'contain' with his usual coping mechanisms. It would have preoccupied him IMO. It needed to be 'discharged' for him to get relief from the ever present tension. Somehow, unknown to us, his rage was triggered with RS that night, he couldn't contain it, he was cognizant enough to walk to, then reach for his gun, then preempt ricochet bullets before 'discharging' the gun - four times into a small toilet cubicle with a human being inside. RS was not his problem, his rage was. The family, friends and/or team around OP were seemingly oblivious/unaware or unable to help him 'contain' his growing rage. He had a history of poorly controlled negative emotions such as anger/aggression. My opinion only.
Click to expand...

....and then add the ex-boyfriend rugby player !
 
....you've certainly got a point about the lack of blood on the floor, the time it would of taken to go the bedroom, put on his legs, smash the door down, sit over her for a while, the amount of blood you can see is not corresponding. IMHO
 
If you look at the photo of Reeva after she was shot, her face is not nearly bloodied as it should be. Add the fact there is not a great deal of blood in the toilet area and the water streaks in the toilet bowl, and there is every possibility that the toilet was flushed numerous times. If the bleeding arm & head were positioned into the toilet whilst they were still bleeding, it might explain where lots of the blood went.

Chilling.
 
The toilet couldn't have been flushed...............impossible.
Otherwise Nel would have brought it up and proved to the court that the only person who could have flushed it was OP.

It couldn't have been Reeva that's for sure.
 
44ALLAN said:
The toilet couldn't have been flushed...............impossible.
Otherwise Nel would have brought it up and proved to the court that the only person who could have flushed it was OP.

It couldn't have been Reeva that's for sure.
Click to expand...

How then can you account for the fact that there are no streaks on the front and left-hand side of the toilet bowl. If you flush your own toilet and watch carefully how the water enters the bowl, that's precisely the effect you would get if there was blood on the right-hand side and at the back.

There were a number of issues Nel didn't address (jeans outside, broken bath cover, etc etc) as proving them would have either been impossible or elicited one of the usual responses from OP ... I don't remember, I don't recall etc. or a straight out denial.
 
44ALLAN said:
The toilet couldn't have been flushed...............impossible.
Otherwise Nel would have brought it up and proved to the court that the only person who could have flushed it was OP.

It couldn't have been Reeva that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Nel could only present what was available from the investigation. If the expert assessment was that the blood evidence fit with OP's rendition, and the amount of blood at the scene was not noteworthy to investigators then that was what he was stuck with. I find it odd though, if it was not deemed noteworthy.

I agree with JudgeJudi and have always thought that the amount of blood at the scene was altered by placing her over the rim and then flushing the toilet.
 
What's important is to show that OP lied or that his declaration was incorrect. If he can lie once he can lie twice.........
 
FYI as per the toilet mechanics&#8230;

A toilet can flush by itself without anyone pressing on the flush lever : if enough liquid is added to the bowl, the siphon effect will trigger automatically by gravity and the toilet will flush.

This would explain it all IMO :

1. The very low level of liquid in the bowl&#8230; When a flush occurs without a flush-lever press :

a) Gravity activates the siphon
b) Bowl empties
c) Tank slowly and partially empties into the bowl
d) Bowl does NOT fill back up with fresh water to the normal level
e) Tank fills back up fully with fresh water

2. The streaks inside the bowl indicate some water from the tank drained into the bowl partially washing away the blood ONLY where the little water spouts are located around the rim of the bowl&#8230; since only streaks were washed, this clearly indicates a partial and slow draining from the tank (i.e. an automatic flush)&#8230; if the toilet had been flushed with a flush-lever press the whole bowl would have been washed when the tank rapidly and fully drained into the bowl.

3. Why it was not addressed by Nel :

a) The State could never prove OP flushed the toilet because they could never disprove an automatic flush caused by blood pouring into the bowl&#8230; in fact the evidence clearly favors an automatic flush

b) The State could never determine with certainty what type(s) of liquid triggered the automatic flush : was it post-shooting blood alone OR blood with pre-shooting urine !! With OP's version as it was AND Reeva's bladder almost empty, this line of questions would harm the State's case without any upside whatsoever.


&#8230;You can all test this by slowly pouring water into the bowl (as would the blood have slowly poured) and see what happens&#8230; and compare it to a normal flush-lever press
 
I'm amazed at how much evidence can be deduced or inferred from the toilet.

Had the toilet been normally flushed with a lever-press :

- The bowl would have first filled up from the tank emptying rapidly

- The water would have swirled and washed the bowl

- The bowl would have rapidly drained

- The water level in the bowl would have risen slowly to it's normal level

&#8230; the evidence as per the photograph of the toilet is inconsistent with this having happened :

- We can clearly see that the blood streaks end just BEFORE reaching the water level in the bowl&#8230;

- We can clearly see that the blood streaks are vertically aligned and follow the contours of the square bowl&#8230; i.e. no water swirling around

- We can see that most of the bleeding/staining of the bowl occurred BEFORE the bowl was emptied and that some light bleeding/staining occurred AFTER the bowl was emptied
 
If Oscar flushed the chain, what is the inference as to why?.
 
Judgejudi said:
How then can you account for the fact that there are no streaks on the front and left-hand side of the toilet bowl. If you flush your own toilet and watch carefully how the water enters the bowl, that's precisely the effect you would get if there was blood on the right-hand side and at the back.

There were a number of issues Nel didn't address (jeans outside, broken bath cover, etc etc) as proving them would have either been impossible or elicited one of the usual responses from OP ... I don't remember, I don't recall etc. or a straight out denial.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree with what your saying but this would have to be a different response from OP.

Mr.Pistorius................why were there a pair of jeans at the bottom of the bathroom window?.
OP...I don't know perhaps they fell off the washing line while drying !

Mr.Pistorius..............we've done tests and it shows that the toilet was flushed.....'AFTER' the blood from the deceased transferred to the bowl.
She was dead 'after' the head shot so it could not have been Reeva who flushed the toilet.
Why did you flush the toilet Mr.Pistorius?

He can say he didn't but it would have been so much more powerful evidence for the court than Nel just ignoring it IMO.
If, in fact, the toilet had been flushed !
 
elfie said:
Nel could only present what was available from the investigation. If the expert assessment was that the blood evidence fit with OP's rendition, and the amount of blood at the scene was not noteworthy to investigators then that was what he was stuck with. I find it odd though, if it was not deemed noteworthy.

I agree with JudgeJudi and have always thought that the amount of blood at the scene was altered by placing her over the rim and then flushing the toilet.
Click to expand...

Then his 'hand prints' and 'foot prints' in the toilet would have shown that surely................how can he place Reeva 'over the rim' as you put it, without leaving foot prints in her blood?
 
Here is a close-up of the toilet bowl. It is from the Eye Witness News article on "Behind the Door" under the Crime Scene tab. We finally got some high resolution photos, but they present only more questions for me. There are a couple of small wood fragments on the side of the bowl, just above the water line, on the left as you look at it standing in front. There appear to be some small particles in the bloody water, along with the larger wood fragment. It is hard to say what the particles are, maybe some wood, tile grout, residue from the bullet core, body tissue, or whatever.

This would seem to suggest that, if the toilet was flushed, it was done before the door was bashed in. I too have wondered about the streaks and the low water level, lack of blood and footprints etc. as others have mentioned.

http://ewn.co.za/Features/behindthedoor#panel3

toilet close-up.jpg
 
AJ_DS said:
FYI as per the toilet mechanics…

A toilet can flush by itself without anyone pressing on the flush lever : if enough liquid is added to the bowl, the siphon effect will trigger automatically by gravity and the toilet will flush.
This would explain it all IMO :

1. The very low level of liquid in the bowl… When a flush occurs without a flush-lever press :

a) Gravity activates the siphon
b) Bowl empties
c) Tank slowly and partially empties into the bowl
d) Bowl does NOT fill back up with fresh water to the normal level
e) Tank fills back up fully with fresh water

2. The streaks inside the bowl indicate some water from the tank drained into the bowl partially washing away the blood ONLY where the little water spouts are located around the rim of the bowl… since only streaks were washed, this clearly indicates a partial and slow draining from the tank (i.e. an automatic flush)… if the toilet had been flushed with a flush-lever press the whole bowl would have been washed when the tank rapidly and fully drained into the bowl.

3. Why it was not addressed by Nel :

a) The State could never prove OP flushed the toilet because they could never disprove an automatic flush caused by blood pouring into the bowl… in fact the evidence clearly favors an automatic flush

b) The State could never determine with certainty what type(s) of liquid triggered the automatic flush : was it post-shooting blood alone OR blood with pre-shooting urine !! With OP's version as it was AND Reeva's bladder almost empty, this line of questions would harm the State's case without any upside whatsoever.

…You can all test this by slowly pouring water into the bowl (as would the blood have slowly poured) and see what happens… and compare it to a normal flush-lever press
Click to expand...

I read this very late last night and discussed it with my husband this morning. He said "impossible" and went on to explain why. I don't know what country you're in but Australian toilets are different in at least one respect inasmuch as when you flush the toilet, the water doesn't swirl at all. The greatest volume of water entering the bowl is at the front with less at the back and sides. It's just a rush of water.

Back to the balance of your post. My husband explained the purpose of the S-bend at the back of the toilet is to regulate the depth of water in the bowl. I asked for a demonstration. He got a ruler from the garage and measured the depth of water and left the ruler in the bowl. It was 4 1/2" (11.43 cm). He got 2 x 2 litre milk bottles filled with water - I grabbed a chair because you said it should be done slowly. This took some time but the level of the water never changed. He explained that the water level in the bowl can never be higher than the lowest point of the S-bend. He said it is possible to make it go marginally higher but only if you poured a large volume into the bowl all at once. He got a household plastic bucket and filled it almost to the top and quickly poured it all in. The height rose by about 1/2" and then immediately dropped to its former level.

I then reminded him about the depth of water in the photo being slightly less than the streaks. He agreed and said this can occasionally happen and that he'd seen it but was unsure of why. However he said it was a rare occurrence.

Regarding the streaks of blood - he said when he first puts a bottle of the blue toilet liquid into the cistern, there are similar streaks, albeit fine ones, around the entire bowl for a couple of days. He said you could only get those streaks of blood if the toilet had been flushed. There is no automatic flush because of the S-bend, and he proved it by his experiments.

Finally, but most importantly, a 70 kg (154 lb, 11 stone) human body contains 4.5 litres (4.7 quarts, 7.9 pints) of blood. Firstly, Reeva wouldn't have weighed 70 kgs, and secondly there's no way she would have bled out to that extent. Even if she lost half the blood in her body, that would mean only 2.25 litres of blood went into the toilet.
 
Judgejudi said:
I read this very late last night and discussed it with my husband this morning. He said "impossible" and went on to explain why. I don't know what country you're in but Australian toilets are different in at least one respect inasmuch as when you flush the toilet, the water doesn't swirl at all. The greatest volume of water entering the bowl is at the front with less at the back and sides. It's just a rush of water.

Back to the balance of your post. My husband explained the purpose of the S-bend at the back of the toilet is to regulate the depth of water in the bowl. I asked for a demonstration. He got a ruler from the garage and measured the depth of water and left the ruler in the bowl. It was 4 1/2" (11.43 cm). He got 2 x 2 litre milk bottles filled with water - I grabbed a chair because you said it should be done slowly. This took some time but the level of the water never changed. He explained that the water level in the bowl can never be higher than the lowest point of the S-bend. He said it is possible to make it go marginally higher but only if you poured a large volume into the bowl all at once. He got a household plastic bucket and filled it almost to the top and quickly poured it all in. The height rose by about 1/2" and then immediately dropped to its former level.

I then reminded him about the depth of water in the photo being slightly less than the streaks. He agreed and said this can occasionally happen and that he'd seen it but was unsure of why. However he said it was a rare occurrence.

Regarding the streaks of blood - he said when he first puts a bottle of the blue toilet liquid into the cistern, there are similar streaks, albeit fine ones, around the entire bowl for a couple of days. He said you could only get those streaks of blood if the toilet had been flushed. There is no automatic flush because of the S-bend, and he proved it by his experiments.

Finally, but most importantly, a 70 kg (154 lb, 11 stone) human body contains 4.5 litres (4.7 quarts, 7.9 pints) of blood. Firstly, Reeva wouldn't have weighed 70 kgs, and secondly there's no way she would have bled out to that extent. Even if she lost half the blood in her body, that would mean only 2.25 litres of blood went into the toilet.
Click to expand...

Australian toilets (or perhaps just yours ;)) are indeed weird !!

VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grnk9p9P7Qk

Look at the level of the water before he pours in the water (normal level) compared to after he pours in the water and the toilet flushes automatically&#8230; its much lower, just as in OP's toilet photos

VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOh8aOZ5lxU

Same thing only better quality

VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pPfrV8E37o

Mechanics explained&#8230; the scenario I describe is without the tank emptying with a lever-press&#8230; the only thing is that when liquid is added the level in the bowl rises until it overflows in the back channel and engages the siphon which flushes the bowl content without refilling it after
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 126 more.
Total: 1,908 (members: 127, guests: 1,781)

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
1,781
Total visitors
1,908
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,907
Messages
18,115,426
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top