I'm not sure the PT made that specific inference. I understood the point to simply be that it could be due to anxiety/arguments, something that OP denied happening.
You could then reason it's possible that OP and RS ate at a later time but earlier than the ~2 hours indicated by the pathologist and that the gastric emptying was then affected by anxiety or stress.
IMO the inference is a given from the data as I calculate it using DT's case, not that the PT gave that inference.
And yes, agreed, my comment should have better said,
"going on OP's version of timing of the last meal", as it certainly could be argued OP and RS ate later than he claims, but for gastric emptying to have time to be actually "delayed" and not take place "normally" it must have started, i.e. they ate, and going with Saayman's 2-3 hours, between 10:00-11:00, so that if my calcs are correct that is still over 3 hours arguing which imo is still a long time for a 3 month relationship.
But that is in a way my point. I think the PT's "anxiety" argument is counter productive because by arguing such a delay would be possible due to anxiety they are tantamount leaving OP's version of time of eating as possibly true, when imo, and I of course may be wrong, Nel could have better refuted the witness by simply say to the witness that the State contests OP's claim of eating at 8:00, i.e. that the PT has seen no proof of OP's claim she ate at 8:00 except OP's claim and that Saayman's testimony refutes it rather than argue around many hours of delayed gastric emptying and therefore many hours of arguing for there to be anxiety. JMHO even if not sure I have explained my reasoning well.
Or maybe I missed something ?
