Trial Discussion Thread #35 - 14.05.08 Day 28

[JudgeJudi]

N: Have you had opportunity to read Knight on gastric emptying ... no, she's a clinician not forensic pathologist.

N refers her to an article. She says 10% remains in stomach after 4 hours. Gastric emptying is a difficult science.

N wants to talk about Sayman's evidence. Sayman reported he suggests we're dealing with a period of 2 hours before death. Does she agree with it. She doesn't understand the question. She says Sayman is entitled to his own opinion.

 

[minor4th]

Why is it acceptable that Nel did not get this report until today and only had 30 minutes to go over it? How is this acceptable?

Was this particular expert on the expert list (if there is one) or is she is a recently attained expert? Like ,,,,,, last week?

I believe the defense does not have to turn over expert reports in advance. There's no reciprocal discovery requirement like there is in most US states. Someone from SA correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Nel: Is there anything you would say is wrong with Sayman's comment. She won't argue with forensic pathologist.

N: Nothing you see that you're not dealing with a normal individual ... she has no reason.

N: After 4 hours only 10% would remain ... her report says the deceased slept and other factors that may have delayed gastric emptying.

 

[zoran]

more oscar speak she is arguing big time!

 

[zwiebel]

N: Is there anything you've seen (in prof S's evidence of food two hours before death) that contradits that?

CL: I don't understand the question...then she goes on to read an article out, about how 'uncertain' the science is.

Nel asks her what SHE thinks.

CL: I'm not prepared to criticize a forensic pathologist.

 

[zwiebel]

CL: From the evidence that's been made available I've been led to believe the deceased slept.

 

[JudgeJudi]

N: You say we should take other factors into account in this case ... Yes.

N: And that she slept ... Yes.

N: 2 people who were very health conscious. We would not excessive fat in the meal. ... She doesn't think that's a question.

 

[BritsKate]

Gastric emptying is a controversial topic and should be avoided at all costs! If reeva was stressed, anxious when she was arguing with OP, this could very well have slowed down her digestive system. There is enough other evidence to convict OP, so Nel should let it go. But knowing Nel, he's going to argue this until she concedes. LOL!

As the judge, if Nel conceded to the defence experts, would you possibly think it was because they had merit? And then, if the State did concede, how heavily would you weigh their evidence to refute the defence? Or, by arguing, would you be more likely to look at both sides experts and their testimony a bit more deeply to reach a conclusion?

Further, there isn't any such thing as 'enough evidence' to secure a murder conviction. My mom was a juror in a 1st degree murder case where the defendant literally had dug a grave for the victim in advance...there was one holdout on the jury who didn't believe the crime was premeditated. You just never know how its going to go or how people will interpret and weigh the evidence presented - even in a bench trial. Most people, to include myself, thought there was enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson too.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[zwiebel]

N: You've said we should take other factors into account - but the only factors you've mentioned is that she slept, she was premenopausal and perhaps did some yoga.

 

[zwiebel]

N: Did you consult with the accused?

CL: No, I did not...I asked to see the transcript of the accused's evidence. That's where I got the information about the chicken stir fry.

 

[JudgeJudi]

She didn't consult with the accused. She asked to see transcript of OP's evidence. That where she found out about the stir-fry. She's became a specialist in 1986.

N: After 4 hours you would expect 10% to be present after meal. If 200ml was found at post mortem, 4 hours before that, she must have taken in 2 litres?

She's not aware there was 200mls. Nel says it's in the post mortem and been measured. Does this make sense to you. She says it's a lot of food.

 

[supernovaNic]

She didn't read the postmortum? To know it had been measured?

 

[JudgeJudi]

She says when one has a meal they also have liquids. She finds it very speculative as to the size of the meal.

 

[jimmy73]

Nel: It's been measured.

This is an excellent point from Nel, and one that difficult for her to respond on.

 

[zwiebel]

CL says she has been registered since 1979 and Nel deftly points out she has only mentioned one episode of unusually slow gastric emptying in all that time.

Witness explains she didn't think it necessary to mention other incidents.

Witness did not know 250ml of food was in Reeva's stomach! 'I did not know the contents had been measured....That's a lot of food.'

!!!!

 

[Warren Levine]

Not that the public has any more rights than the victim's family, but if the autopsy reports (NOT the pictures) were made available to the public, everyone watching and reporting on this would know WTF everyone's talking about and would lessen the chance that people are going to come to ridiculous conclusions.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Nel: You've opened the avenue for speculation. She's not aware she took food 4 hours before she died.

Nel: If it was 8 hours before death, that's even less probable? It's less probable. She'd have to do the sums.

 

[jay-jay]

Wow, that was quite a lot of stomach contents Reeva had left .. 200ml .. Nel is saying she would've had to eaten and drunk 2ltrs which is massive. If they had eaten at 8pm there's no way there would be that much left in her stomach, surely.

 

[zwiebel]

They are onto maths now, calculations of food eaten v food digested/remaining. Witness says she'll have to check the calculations.

CL: It's not a good idea to judge the time of the last meal from the stomach contents.

 

[BritsKate]

Honestly, I don't see how the small amount of stomach contents bears on the case. It doesn't affect how the bullets ripped through her body, and it doesn't change who pulled the trigger of the gun that shot her. I don't know where any reasonable doubt could possibly be cast.

Its just my opinion, but I really think the sole reason for this is to disprove premeditation. Mitigating damage, so to speak. As long as the State doesn't prove Oscar intended to kill Reeva, the defence has room to manoeuvre. If an escalating argument is believed (which Reeva obviously had to be awake for), premeditation is proven, and the State's assertion that Oscar deliberately targeted and intended to kill Reeva, and not an 'intruder', is proven BARD alongside it.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.