Dr Abrahams going through literature submitted by defence on how to tell whether hanging was done before a person died or after a person died. She says the article is poorly edited, some of it is old, doesn't prove histology can help with ante- or post-mortem hanging
Abrahams adds that she is not comfortable criticising the academics
Trial adjourns for tea. Sate pathologist repeats that they have no doubt that the cause of death for Susan was manual strangulation
Trial resumes after tea. Defence's adv Graham van der Spuy launches with literature on skin changes and internal neck structures and changes that can be seen on microscopy and histology re hanging cases
The defence and the State pathologist sparring about concluding cause of Susan's death macroscopically - what you see with the naked eye - vs microscopically, as defence insists State should have done histology for cellular changes
Dr Abrahams complains that she does not understand what the relevance of Van der Spuy's questioning is. State found "without a doubt" Susan died of manual strangulation. Says she and defence disagree on interpretation of autopsy process literature
Moving on. Court hears that 66% of hangings in the Indian hanging autopsy study the Rohde trial is referring to are done using sari material. 6% electrical cord, 7% cloth.
Abrahams says the autopsy literature does show the importance of a diligent internal and external exam, plus photography and full report, which the State did for Susan. Repeats that it is not mandatory for them to take histopathology (samples on a slide)
Pathologist Abrahams reads section of the Inquest Act to defence which says it is in the doctor's discretion to take histology. Says State did nothing wrong
Trial adjourns so that defence can rearrange its papers. Judge also wants to see lawyers in chambers. Back after lunch
https://twitter.com/itchybyte