Trial Discussion Thread #35 - 14.05.08 Day 28

[Warren Levine]

I think Nel just snagged Roux's witness out from under his nose. Objection, hearsay; sustained; bye-bye witness. Interesting series of events.

 

[liesbeth]

I also brought that up on a YouTube chat, after which people began to pick up on it in retrospect. I hope that witness is recalled so she can be questioned further on that point, but I'm likely to believe she's getting out of the jurisdiction before someone catches on to her inadvertent slip.

Nel got the witness (edit: not the prof, but Mrs M from the day before yesterday) to discredit herself right at the start of her testimony.

She confirmed that she'd followed the trial and knew all about the shots and the bat sounds and screams and crying.

So, having got her to testify that her testimony is, in essence, contaminated, Nel could not then go and ask about shots.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Has read Prof. Simons evidence. Nel says she has a list that the court should take into account. She doesn't know if medication was taken into account. Nel asks if she's read Both'a evidence ...

 

[zwiebel]

N: You've listed certain issues that may have delayed gastric emptying...you don't know if any of those conditions?

CL: I was told she ate a chicken stir fry..

 

[Forensics]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman
#OscarTrial Nel: you’ve listed factors which may delay gastric emptying, but based on nothing in the record, it’s speculative.
She agrees.

https://twitter.com/barrybateman

 

[zwiebel]

N: Prof S said 'gastric emptying is not an exact science.' You agree with that?

CL: I agree with that.

Nel adds S said there are good guidelines established, 4 hrs and 6hrs, and witness agrees with that too.

 

[minor4th]

Now she's saying minimum of 6 hours for gastric emptying

 

[JudgeJudi]

Nel talking about gastric emptying not an exact science. She agrees. Nel talking about Prof Sayman's evidence and is giving examples. She's agreeing with all the examples so far.

 

[zwiebel]

Witness seems to be agreeing with everything prof S said, as Nel reads it out. Oh, now she says many people believe '4 hours is insufficient.'

 

[Suthrnqt]

Nel's arguing pure hearsay

Was the hearsay the witness saying Reeva went to sleep? TIA

 

[zwiebel]

Talking about 'insoluble fibre'. (that's veg). And how fat takes longest to digest.

 

[zwiebel]

CL: Even though we say six hrs is the absolute cut off, we may make it a longer period. We are so obsessed with safety.

 

[Warren Levine]

Was the hearsay the witness saying Reeva went to sleep? TIA

Transient Ischemic Attack???

 

[JudgeJudi]

Nel discusses kind of food that has been eaten. She mentions the fat and fibre content stay in the stomach longer. Nel says that anaesthetist would agree that food is emptied from the stomach after 6 hours ... yes.

Sorry, PC just froze

 

[zwiebel]

N: But everyday hundreds of people have operations with less time than that...

CL: I'm not sure where Mr Nel gets his facts from Milady...

 

[Suthrnqt]

Transient Ischemic Attack???

:floorlaugh:
No, thanks in advance.

 

[kittychi]

:

Transient Ischemic Attack???

Thanks in advance :smile:

 

[JudgeJudi]

Nel says she died, let's make it 3.00. You would expect her stomach to be emptied. He says her stomach would be emptied after 8 hours, don't make exceptions.

She says she had stir-fry and is giving excuses why her stomach may not have been emptied, and that Reeva had been asleep.

Nel is asking why stir fry is exceptional ... if it contained vegetables with insoluble fibre and had been asleep.

Nel is asking if that would cause the delay in the gastric emptying ... it may be

 

[zwiebel]

N: Closer to 7pm she had a meal. Let's say she died at 3....you've seen the stomach contents?

CL: I've seen a photo, green gelatinous substance...\

N: Her stomach should be empty?

CL: Chicken stiry fry has vegetable matter, she was premenopausal and I was told she'd been asleep. I don't think you can say for certain.

 

[Warren Levine]

The reason the joke that "20 minutes after eating Chinese food you're hungry again" is based on the fact that small pieces of food are quicker to digest and faster out of the stomach. So, what's the point of argument?