Trial Discussion Thread #35 - 14.05.08 Day 28

[JudgeJudi]

I had 3 feeds going. Nothing now. It's driving me insane.

 

[jimmy73]

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 ?

I think you make a good point regarding it being a counter productive angle for the PT.

I can't remember the exact sequence during the cross so I could be wrong on this but I wondered whether it was also put with regard to when the post mortem took place and the expected stomach contents by that that time (i.e. with continued gastric emptying post-mortem / to prevent the DT saying you can't have your cake and eat it).

Anyhow, enough of my postulation, must do some work.

 

[DebinGA]

Anyone have a link to a court journos twitter stream we could follow?

 

[Cherwell]

He looks about 58 with a full head of white hair, not the visual feast as reported but a nice big man IMO.

He's got to be older than 58 with that CV. I'd add 10 years.

 

[JudgeJudi]

This one's working ... except ... they're on a break ... ? lunch

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26951422

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

How long do they have for lunch? Thanks in advance!

 

[G.bng]

Nel is not prepared and asks if he can recall witness if he needs to.

Judge: Well. I thought that was how it works.

IIRC, Masipa's, "I thought that was how it works" was her agreeing with Nel that at the time he needed to recall a witness was when he should be asking permission and not beforehand for obvious reasons, because no self respecting judge would be able to give a blanket "yes" to his question. That was a bit of a silly question on his behalf, at least imho, and why Masipa said it with a wry smile.

 

[DebinGA]

He's got to be older than 58 with that CV. I'd add 10 years.

Wollie's going to look 78 the 100th time he hears Nel say, "Mr. Dixon told us you ..."

 

[JudgeJudi]

How long do they have for lunch? Thanks in advance!

About half an hour.

 

[Budgie]

Yes Yes.

My feeds keep crashing too . I have to admit, from my chair My Lady didn't seem all that impressed with his CV of the '70's,and '80's. Considering what she and her colleagues endured during that time.

 

[Interested Bystander]

http://whoopwhoop.tv/pistoriusradio.htm

Last night's round table now on. Topic yesterday's witnesses and what their evidence means. It includes their actual testimony.

 

[Really?]

To all the posters who can feel how heartbroken OP is, please can you contact Roux. You get to be on the stand like this woman!!

omg....:silly:

 

[Interested Bystander]

He's got to be older than 58 with that CV. I'd add 10 years.

The reason I ask is he talked of work he did in 1968. If he was working at that time or in the armed forces he would have to be at least 16-18 (depending on which). On my calculations that would make him well into his 60’s.

 

[liesbeth]

Ugh Nel is really bugging me. This is just a total emotional argument from Nel that "it's all about Oscar" and when a witness makes a comment, he says "No, no, no - you would have told us that" suggesting that the witness has completely changed her testimony in the last 5 minutes

I just listened to this. (And I really did think she was ballistics at first. I have a very literal mind.)

Nel asks her what Oscar said to her on 15 February 2013. She says Oscar said he missed Reeva and how sorry he was for the loss.

Nel asks her at some time how important remorse is when she compiles a report. She says she wasn't there to compile a report on OP, but in other cases remorse is very important.

Nel also asks her if she didn't find it strange that Oscar never said he was sorry for what he did.

She says that OP did say it. Roux jumps in. Then Nel says: 'No, no, no.' OP never said he was sorry for what he did. You would have told us that. He'd said he was sorry for the loss. Roux sits down. And the witness agrees that OP never said he was sorry for what he did. (paraphrased)

The interesting thing about this is that minutes before this happens, Nel had objected and said that Van Schalkwyk was not allowed to give evidence on what OP said to her after the shooting (i.e. previous consistent/inconsistent statement).

The judge says he is right, but she will allow it because the witness can not testify about Oscar's emotions after the shooting without talking about what he said after the shooting.

Then Nel uses what OP said to her, the very thing he'd previously objected to, to get some devastating evidence against OP from the defense's witness.

 

[Gryffindor]

How long do they have for lunch? Thanks in advance!

It's one hour for lunch. Resume at 2pm S.A.time - 1pm
U.K.time. Court adjourns at 3pm SA time, for the day. Latterly, it's been earlier than 3pm.

 

[Warren Levine]

He's got to be older than 58 with that CV. I'd add 10 years.

I'm 58, survived two heart attacks, and had two joints replaced and a foot rebuilt, and the guy looks at LEAST 10 years older than me. Jeez, look at my Facebook or Google+ page.

 

[Carmelita]

Just popping in as I haven’t had much time at all to devote to the Pistorius case but the little I have read, the witnesses for the defense certainly seems to have put the rest of the already precarious “scream “witness testimony in doubt.

I have to say I find it extremely “convenient” that Gina’s sister is claiming that Oscar whispered (or did he say it in a low tone) incendiary words to her just when it is looking good for his defense. I know at first she was the only one to have claimed to have heard and now I believe suddenly a reporter “may have heard it also”. I think that that some people close to this case are blinded by their love for Reeva and not capable viewing it dispassionately.

Busy week for me.

 

[whiterum]

He's got to be older than 58 with that CV. I'd add 10 years.

He doesn't look his age if he is 68, maybe he looks younger on screen than he really is. I haven't seen a close up though LOL.

 

[Giles]

It's one hour for lunch. Resume at 2pm S.A.time - 1pm
U.K.time. Court adjourns at 3pm SA time, for the day. Latterly, it's been earlier than 3pm.

Yes, at least they made it to lunch today.

 

[Warren Levine]

It's one hour for lunch. Resume at 2pm S.A.time - 1pm
U.K.time. Court adjourns at 3pm SA time, for the day. Latterly, it's been earlier than 3pm.

They only go for AN HOUR after lunch??? Are they crazy? Before the two-week hiatus, both sides and the court agreed to run late - 4:15 or 4:30. Are they backing off on that?