South Africa - Susan Rohde, 47, murdered, Stellenbosch, 24 July 2016

[Tortoise]

Nick van der Leek (@HiRezLife) | Twitter

Tomorrow it's Perumal vs Khan>Khan ripped into Perumal’s report ...some sections were "deliberately misleading",vague or left open to interpretation...Conflicting autopsy reports show different causes for Susan #Rohde’s death

 

[JudgeJudi]

Some extracts from Nick van der Leek’s blog:

The blood and belt together raise high hurdles for the defence, but the faeces evidence is even more problematic. Why were there faecal stains in front of the bathroom door?

One might associate blood with murder more than faeces, but the question in this case is whether or not Susan committed suicide behind the bathroom door. The faeces introduces another question: where did she die? Faeces are a direct link to the post mortem process where the body discharges after death. Fluids like urine and mucous drain out of the body, out of several orifices, and if there are injuries, blood also drains. By far the biggest problem in Rohde’s story are faeces on the wrong side of the bathroom.

My question to Dr. Perumal would be to explain the process of faecal discharge after death, and then comment on the evidence that faecal stains were found outside the bathroom. Doesn’t this mean the body was moved? Doesn’t this suggest faeces were moved?

Making it worse – why weren’t faeces discharged onto or immediately below the door on the bathroom side if that’s where Susan breathed her last? Rhode demonstrated how Susan was half-standing against the door…

Dr. Perumal, I have a question for you about faeces!

Nick van der Leek (@HiRezLife) | Twitter

XX should be interesting to say the least.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Defence's Graham van der Spuy says he has prepared Jason's submissions with regards to the "special entry" application for ruling that ended Panieri-Peter's testimony prematurely.

VDS: It is for the court now to indicate whether it grants or refuses the application (The defence wants the court to note its objections that the ruling was irregular and not according to law).

State's Louis van Niekerk (LVN): I reserve the right to reply in writing. I just received it now. Other than that, I have nothing to say.

Judge: It is not for me to entertain or further explain my ruling. The State has indicated it will reply to the application.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

LVN starts his cross-exam of Dr Reggie Perumal. Goes to his CV. Are you aware of any time the court has not accepted your opinion on a matter? RP: I am not aware.

 

[JudgeJudi]

LVN: You stated Susan's blood alcohol level was 0.05g/100ml. "You are not a toxicologist?" RP: Correct, I am not.

Perumal: If a blood sample is taken from a deceased person within 4 days of death, and this was within 2 days, we take it to be a good reflection of the alcohol at the time of death, especially if taken from femoral vessels.

LVN: And if I put it to you that it's not necessarily a true reflection of alcohol levels at time of death? RP: It could be off either way, either reflecting a little more or less. But this is all we have to work with.

LVN: Factors that could influence blood alcohol concentration levels could include autolysis (self-digestion of cells)? RP: No not that. If Susan consumed alcohol within hour of her death, that alcohol would be in her gut.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

Perumal: If blood sample taken in gut area, would not reflect accurately. That's why we recommend taking blood sample from femoral vessel, deep in the thigh, and not easily influenced.

LVN: You can't determine post-mortem distribution. RP: In terms of alcohol, historically, an amount of research has gone into it and can put reliable emphasis on that level, provided it is taken within 4 days from femoral vessel and properly analysed.

LVN says that ethanol can even be produced in the post-mortem period. Perumal nods and says only if decomposition. "If body is refrigerated between death and autopsy, then production of ethanol is not an issue".

LVN asks if he took Susan's weight into account when calculating blood alcohol levels. Perumal says no because it's not relevant... "95% of alcohol is eliminated through liver. Majority of people eliminate at between 0.01-0.02g/100ml per hour."

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

LVN: Did you calculate the type of drink Susan had that night? Perumal: There was no need. That is a separate entity altogether and doesn't factor into this calculation. Would only do that if asked how much wine she drank to get to 0.05g/100ml.

Perumal says he did also not calculate how much food Susan ate. "I was working on the basis that from 2am onwards, she hadn't eaten."

LVN refers Perumal to this academic article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16782292 (Interpreting results of ethanol analysis in postmortem specimens: a review of the literature)

Perumal says he has no issues with the author. LVN asks him to read this out: A person's blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) and state of inebriation at the time of death is not always easy to establish owing to various postmortem artifacts.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[tmar]

LVN: You stated Susan's blood alcohol level was 0.05g/100ml. "You are not a toxicologist?" RP: Correct, I am not.

Perumal: If a blood sample is taken from a deceased person within 4 days of death, and this was within 2 days, we take it to be a good reflection of the alcohol at the time of death, especially if taken from femoral vessels.

LVN: And if I put it to you that it's not necessarily a true reflection of alcohol levels at time of death? RP: It could be off either way, either reflecting a little more or less. But this is all we have to work with.

LVN: Factors that could influence blood alcohol concentration levels could include autolysis (self-digestion of cells)? RP: No not that. If Susan consumed alcohol within hour of her death, that alcohol would be in her gut.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

Perumal: Verbal diarrhoea, to get off topic.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Article states "concentration of ethanol measured in postmortem blood needs to be interpreted in relation to whether the person had consumed alcohol and might have been drunk at the time of death or if the concentration exceeded some threshold limit".

Article on blood alcohol analysis: "Such conclusions are often contentious and caution is needed owing to various postmortem artifacts". Perumal: Susan's body was well-preserved, test took place within 4 days.

Perumal: I would exclude decomposition because Dr Khan-Coetzee said there were no signs and we can assume body was taken straight from crime scene and refrigerated.

Perumal: My understanding was that the last consumption of alcohol was at 2am. If that was wrong, I can work through those calculations accordingly.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

LVN asks if he has heard of John Dauth. Perumal says he is also a respected author. LVN says no, you were acting for Dauth, the appellant, in the KZN Regional Court and judgment handed down on 13 October 2017.

John Dauth was convicted in 2016 of being over the limit while driving. His blood alcohol was 0.11g/100ml and then he appealed. He questioned whether long-storage period and non-refrigeration could increase blood alcohol level in sample.

Perumal: His blood sample was not refrigerated and analysed months after sample was taken. I adhere to fact that if not refrigerated and period over which is stored is several months, then chances are high that you can get neo-production of alcohol.

LVN says the appeal was based on fact that blood was not stored in a way that would prevent alcohol fermentation in sample. Perumal says it would not be applicable in this case because he dealt with body that was refrigerated.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

LVN says in that appeal case, the appellant did not testify but instead called Dr Perumal to testify based on a bundle of documents, even though not a medical microbiologist.

Under cross-exam then and now, Perumal concedes he is not an expert in medical microbiology. At time, he said he based testimony on working with drunk drivers while a district surgeon. Judge found then that Perumal's evidence was based largely on speculation.

Perumal says now he did not speculate in that appeal case. A minute later, he says he will accept it because he did not have proof of expiry date in that case. "It's true I didn't know expiry date of blood alcohol kit".

Court at the time said that Perumal seemed to rely on instructions of appellant, even though he is not a legal representative. Perumal says he was only working with blood alcohol evidence, when and how it was stored.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[tmar]

LVN starts his cross-exam of Dr Reggie Perumal. Goes to his CV. Are you aware of any time the court has not accepted your opinion on a matter? RP: I am not aware.

Love discussion about not being a Microbiologist.
I am retired but I was a Microbiologist, that is why I am so interested.
Hope they also bring up Perumal, not being a Histopathologist.

 

[JudgeJudi]

LVN: Court in that case found that there is no evidence that Perumal has been involved in any research or conducted any tests for him to express the views. Danger that court may be blinded by theory untested by practical knowledge and experience.

Perumal says it is correct that he did not comment at all on way blood alcohol was tested in that case. "I didn't go at all on technical sides of analysis. I agree I didn't and shouldn't give an opinion on that."

LVN reads out that judgment: "Care should be taken that an expert in one specific field should give evidence on expertise outside his field or on hypothetical facts". Perumal agrees. "But I didn't use hypothetical facts. I used evidence before the court."

LVN: The court in that case found that your opinion was of no value to the judicial officer who had to make a finding. Do you accept that? Perumal accepts it and says that is what court found.

LVN: The court dismissed that appeal and found that Dr Perumal's evidence was correctly discredited.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

LVN now turns to photos that were taken by Dr Perumal during the second autopsy. Photo on the wall shows back of Susan's neck.

LVN: The State will argue that based on this photo [of back of Susan's neck], the direction of this mark is downward. Perumal agrees.

LVN points out Susan's hairline. "This photo was taken perpendicular to that". The neck is straight relative to the head. Perumal: "It is not straight. It is tilted to the left."

Short adjournment to change position of photo.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[tmar]

Did anyone hear, when Court were having a break, Defence stated, 'SHE REALIZES', not knowing mic was on.
Also a second before then, I heard him say Perumal.
Wonder what this is about!!!

 

[JudgeJudi]

We are back. LVN says State will argue that when we have a look at front facial photos and ligature mark as you look at her face on the right side, it is not compatible with the mark on back or any point of suspension near right ear.

Perumal: "I will accept this photo shows that it [mark on back of neck] is going left to right, downwards. But there are other photos which show it is almost horizontal and on right side, there is slight upward trajectory".

State argues that the mark at back of Susan's neck going downward is not compatible with the alignment of the mark on the front side or with any point of suspension near the right ear [as Perumal testified].

The photo of Susan's neck, with a small pool of blood underneath, is being projected above where Jason is sitting. He can't see what is on the wall.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

Perumal uses laser to point at photo of Susan's neck. Says there was an incision made at first autopsy and skin was reconstructed. "I couldn't observe a continuous ligature mark on left side". LVN says he is a bit perplexed with his evidence.

Perumal: It's incorrect because ligature imprint is 95mm below the ear and what is being pointed to me is very high up on the ear where ligature imprint is. It is not fair to say there is no continuity between between ligature on left side of neck and back.

Perumal: It is not surprising to find there is a gap. The ligature mark on left side of neck is not running higher. Quite a distance between lower lobe and ligature mark.

LVN takes out head of female mannequin with markings and hands it to Perumal. "This is not necessarily to the millimeter, which is what I did when I said not to scale." LVN: I can't understand the gap and don't understand your explanation.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

 

[JudgeJudi]

Did anyone hear, when Court were having a break, Defence stated, 'SHE REALIZES', not knowing mic was on.
Also a second before then, I heard him say Perumal.
Wonder what this is about!!!

I heard:

VDS say: I’ll tell you something odd. She’s had a chat to (ui) since last Tuesday. (ui) and she realises (ui).

I don’t think the “Dr Perumal” bit formed part of what he was saying. He was speaking much louder when he said this.

 

[tmar]

I heard:

VDS say: I’ll tell you something odd. She’s had a chat to (ui) since last Tuesday.

Yes.
On relistening, I agree.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Perumal: To measure ligature, we use external auditory meatus (ear canal). I couldn't join mark between back and side because of incision from first autopsy. They cut through left side of the neck.

LVN: That still does not explain gap. There is no continuation of ligature mark, even before first autopsy. Perumal: I cannot comment on any gap. It was not observed at all at first autopsy.

Two photos alongside now. One shows ligature mark on back of Susan's neck coming down on the right. The other shows Perumal's khoki drawing on mannequin which shows line going slightly up on right.

LVN: How do you reconcile the two? Perumal: I gave the court an idea of what ligature would look like. It is not too scale, it is not to measurement. Judge: It is fundamentally different?!

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter