Trial Discussion Thread #35 - 14.05.08 Day 28

[44ALLAN]

bbm. not even if the shot to the hip caused her to drop?

The blood pool is beside the toilet though and not the door although I can see your point.

 

[Interested Bystander]

No residue in stomach after 6 hours.......anaesthetist per Oscar radio

Many apologies, I didn't see this before I asked for a link, so please ignore that post. I am not listening at the moment because I have serious housewifely chores to do, like shopping and dinner to prepare.

I can see I shall have to find some way to listen on a portable device. Perhaps if I plug in some earphones into my ipad and place it into a bag and then tie that round my neck I may be able to keep up with events. It is a no-no in our house to listen aloud to the trial (I am outnumbered) :floorlaugh:. I can just see their faces when they find me in the kitchen with a bag round my neck and earphones on, attempting to whip up something scrumptious for dinner.

 

[G.bng]

Tomorrows testimony will be very interesting because I can't see how she could have been close to the door and hit in the arm . The highest bullet hole was around 104cm from the floor .
Does anyone that has heard today's testimony in full have any idea about this .
I have missed bits today.

All to do with her falling after the hip shot and as she goes down down comes her arm too in line for the second quick bullet. Add to that there are splinters in the hip wound, i.e. near door, and none in the head, away from door, so there is a certain logic.

And something niggling me but that I may have got wrong, is that if Reeva seated on the rack was hit in the right arm elbow height or thereabouts, how, if she were straight ahead of the door (or even worse slightly to the left) when looking into the loo as I seem to recall was Mangena's descriptive testimony, could the bullet exit with it causing bruising left to right across her breast/s which I thought was how Mangena visually described with his hands. Or have it all wrong ?

 

[Hope4More]

Pretty sure that comment was to the gallery though it was immediately after Nel apologised to the court for his laughter.



Video of the bolded portion available at link too.

http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/Athletics-Pistorius-20-upd-2/484157349d804529289d12b82aa0add8

You're right. Edited my post. Thanks!

 

[Interested Bystander]

OH MY LORD...this 'expert' contacted the DT on May 6th cuz she felt sorry for Oscar?

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:


Oh, by the way...she is a social worker,,,,

OH MY WORD Roux must be desperate

 

[Gbtaketwo]

All to do with her falling after the hip shot and as she goes down down comes her arm too in line for the second quick bullet. Add to that there are splinters in the hip wound, i.e. near door, and none in the head, away from door, so there is a certain logic.

And something niggling me but that I may have got wrong, is that if Reeva seated on the rack was hit in the right arm elbow height or thereabouts, how, if she were straight ahead of the door (or even worse slightly to the left) when looking into the loo as I seem to recall was Mangena's descriptive testimony, could the bullet exit with it causing bruising left to right across her breast/s which I thought was how Mangena visually described with his hands. Or have it all wrong ?

I am not sure about the bruising so will try and have another listen to Mangena's
Testimony . If her arms were up against her head then I am not sure how her chest could have been damaged in that way .

 

[BritsKate]

but she is there to speak about emotions

Indeed. This is what Nel's 'emotional argument' elicited too:

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 5h
#OscarTrial Van Schalkwyk: confirms Oscar said “I’m sorry for my loss, I’m heartbroken.”
Nel: exactly. BB

https://twitter.com/barrybateman

 

[DebinGA]

During his testimony, Roger Dixon mentioned Wolmarans being with him during a number of tests. That's why I think Dixon felt himself qualified to make such ballistics claims as Reeva was angled toward, not facing, the door... her arm was outstretched toward the handle ... and iirc that she didn't fall onto the magazine rack because there was no blood on it. Wolmarans almost certainly watched Dixon, noted the derision of him afterwards, and tailored his testimony today to be much less specific than he'd originally intended imo. I'm waiting in anticipation for the "sounds" tests Wollie and Roger [and iirc also ballistics expert Jannie Van der Westhuizen] conducted together... especially the one out in the field with their wives along for the fun.

 

[patCee]

So far it sounds, to me, as though the shots and RS injuries could have been one way, or the other. Both seem possible. What I liked about Mangena's view is that the tests were done in the toilet with no white board involved as I'm not convinced the wood splinters would fall on the board the same way as RS body or clothes. Plus Mangena was easy to understand.

I may be misunderstanding though as I'm taking longer than some to get my head around the pattern of shots. Not to mention missing some info and losing focus with Wolmarans' drawn out testimony.

 

[Hope4More]

Indeed. This is what Nel's 'emotional argument' elicited too:

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 5h
#OscarTrial Van Schalkwyk: confirms Oscar said “I’m sorry for my loss, I’m heartbroken.”
Nel: exactly. BB

https://twitter.com/barrybateman

I think there is near unanimous consensus here that OP is self absorbed to the point of being a flat out narcissist, that he is incapable of taking responsibility for anything, that he is quick to anger, that he loves guns way way too much, that he is a lousy boyfriend and that he isn't and never was the person so many apparently admired.

But......he's not on trial for being an unlikable person, for which he should be grateful because his unlikability sure seems to rile up the "Gallery. "

 

[BritsKate]

Many apologies, I didn't see this before I asked for a link, so please ignore that post. I am not listening at the moment because I have serious housewifely chores to do, like shopping and dinner to prepare.

I can see I shall have to find some way to listen on a portable device. Perhaps if I plug in some earphones into my ipad and place it into a bag and then tie that round my neck I may be able to keep up with events. It is a no-no in our house to listen aloud to the trial (I am outnumbered) :floorlaugh:. I can just see their faces when they find me in the kitchen with a bag round my neck and earphones on, attempting to whip up something scrumptious for dinner.

RBBM

No, no, no, IB! Not during a trial! Here's what you do:

1. Come up with a good hiding spot no one knows about.
2. Watch trial, listen to commentary, read posts at your leisure. To do this: send hubby and kids on errands that absolutely cannot wait if need be. Yes, you really do need to know how much postage to Tanzania will run you for a package in several sizes, both grams and ounces...now. Right now.
3. During teabreaks and lunch do anything you absolutely cannot avoid. Usually only the most urgent (think life or death) matters need apply.
4. An hour or so before hubby and kids are due to return order in Chinese.
5. Lightly mist an all-purpose cleaner into the air in each room.
6. Toss all clutter into a basket. Hell. even a few dirty dishes if need be. Stash basket in spot referenced in No. 1.
7. Get dressed if you're still in trial-watching PJs.
8. Scoop all the Chinese which should have arrived by now into a big casserole dish. Voila! You spent hours creating a chinese casserole recipe from scratch.
9. Now's a good time to make it appear you've been slaving away at laundry. Take clean clothes and pile them up high. Make sure they're ones from the backs of closets and drawers so no one's the wiser. Load the washer and run the dryer for a few minutes - make sure you add a dryer sheet or two to suggest the smell of fresh laundry.
10. Lightly wet the front of your hair. If you really want to go OTT grab a spray bottle of water and lightly mist your underarm area. How sweaty you want to appear is totally subjective, ya know.
11. Run vacuum for 5 minutes before hubby is due in - lines are extremely important! When hubby enters, switch off the vacuum, and collapse in the seat nearest the door with a big (and innocent) grin on your face.

Or...you could just play sick. Trialitis gets even the best of us.

 

[JuneBug67]

I think there is near unanimous consensus here that OP is self absorbed to the point of being a flat out narcissist, that he is incapable of taking responsibility for anything, that he is quick to anger, that he loves guns way way too much, that he is a lousy boyfriend and that he isn't and never was the person so many apparently admired.

But......he's not on trial for being an unlikable person, for which he should be grateful because his unlikability sure seems to rile up the "Gallery. "

I'm not sure I think of him as overly unlikeable or self-absorbed. I just see him as a mix bagged of strengths and flaws like most of the rest of the human race. He seemed to be a thoughtful neighbour and even by Reeva's estimation they were pretty good together '90% of the time'. He's certainly very selective about taking responsibility for things, which perhaps fits a general pattern of immaturity that seems to be there. I think he's impulsive and has poor emotional control. I 'believe' his emotion however and don't think it's manipulative any more than any defendant who wouldn't pull it back in hopes that it might help his case.

 

[Interested Bystander]

RBBM

No, no, no, IB! Not during a trial! Here's what you do:

1. Come up with a good hiding spot no one knows about.
2. Watch trial, listen to commentary, read posts at your leisure. To do this: send hubby and kids on errands that absolutely cannot wait if need be. Yes, you really do need to know how much postage to Tanzania will run you for a package in several sizes, both grams and ounces...now. Right now.
3. During teabreaks and lunch do anything you absolutely cannot avoid. Usually only the most urgent (think life or death) matters need apply.
4. An hour or so before hubby and kids are due to return order in Chinese.
5. Lightly mist an all-purpose cleaner into the air in each room.
6. Toss all clutter into a basket. Hell. even a few dirty dishes if need be. Stash basket in spot referenced in No. 1.
7. Get dressed if you're still in trial-watching PJs.
8. Scoop all the Chinese which should have arrived by now into a big casserole dish. Voila! You spent hours creating a chinese casserole recipe from scratch.
9. Now's a good time to make it appear you've been slaving away at laundry. Take clean clothes and pile them up high. Make sure they're ones from the backs of closets and drawers so no one's the wiser. Load the washer and run the dryer for a few minutes - make sure you add a dryer sheet or two to suggest the smell of fresh laundry.
10. Lightly wet the front of your hair. If you really want to go OTT grab a spray bottle of water and lightly mist your underarm area. How sweaty you want to appear is totally subjective, ya know.
11. Run vacuum for 5 minutes before hubby is due in - lines are extremely important! When hubby enters, switch off the vacuum, and collapse in the seat nearest the door with a big (and innocent) grin on your face.

Or...you could just play sick. Trialitis gets even the best of us.

:floorlaugh: Brilliant

 

[liesbeth]

Some notes on Christina Lundgren's cross examination.

Lundgren agrees that 6 hours are enough time for a normal person to digest a meal.

Lundgren confirms she has no reason to believe Reeva was not a normal patient.

Lundgren says she's not a forensic pathologist, but she was asked to comment on the stomach content.

Lundgren's report says: In an ideal world, after this meal (chicken stir fry), in 6 hours her stomach should have been empty.

Points of interest...

Not a verbatim a transcript.

*
Nel says that digestion alters the physical nature of food. He says on OP's version Reeva ate 8 hours before her death. Given normal digestive processes, how is it possible that Saayman could identify vegetable matter in her stomach the next day?

Lundgren says where does it say that?

Nel reads from Saayman's report where he says he identified vegetables in Reeva's stomach. He says Saayman did this a year ago without knowing what she had to eat. And OP has confirmed Saayman's finding in court.

Lundgren talks about how high fat meals can take a long time. So can insoluble fiber.

Nel asks would you not have expected digestion to make the contents unrecognisable after 8 hours?

She can't comment on that.

*

Lundgren says that after 4 hours 10% of a low fat meal could still be in the stomach.

Nel says that 200 ml was found in Reeva's stomach. Lundgren says she wasn't aware of that. Nel reads from Saayman's report. So Reeva must have eaten 2 litres of food 4 hours before her death?

Lundgren: "That's a lot of food."

Later Lundgren says that as far as she knew Reeva didn't eat 4 hours before her death.

Nel says yes. On OP's version Reeva ate 8 hours before death, so she would have eaten 4 liters of food. So given the 200 ml in her stomach Reeva must have eaten much later than 8 hours before death?

Lundgren can't comment on that either.

*
At some stage Lundgren says gastric emptying is not an exact science. You can not tell the time of death from hour to hour. But she concedes that there is a big difference between 8 and 4 hours as far as gastric emptying is concerned.

 

[Hope4More]

Junebug....I very much admire and respect your compassionate and balanced take on OP.

 

[DebinGA]

One of the most damning of Mangena's findings was the left to right progression of the shots, indicating to me that OP was tracking Reeva as he fired. If the judge believes Wolmaran that the order of shots can't be determined, then he's helped OP immensely imo, but Nel's challenge of WW about that will be a must-watch.

 

[luvmygarden]

Many apologies, I didn't see this before I asked for a link, so please ignore that post. I am not listening at the moment because I have serious housewifely chores to do, like shopping and dinner to prepare.

I can see I shall have to find some way to listen on a portable device. Perhaps if I plug in some earphones into my ipad and place it into a bag and then tie that round my neck I may be able to keep up with events. It is a no-no in our house to listen aloud to the trial (I am outnumbered) :floorlaugh:. I can just see their faces when they find me in the kitchen with a bag round my neck and earphones on, attempting to whip up something scrumptious for dinner.

Trust me it works great. I had to do that with the Arias trial because of time difference. It made the time go fast. I do like to see in the courtroom all the expressions on peoples faces from the courtroom proceedings. But it is better than nothing. Try it !!!

 

[crowmarsh]

Like another poster said, it is as if some people are watching a different trial!

And are still prepared to doggedly believe every word of OP's "version", despite the fact that he has been proven on numerous occasions to be a liar.

I'm quite fascinated by the mentality it takes to get to this point, and I know that OP's supporters will probably scream like a woman for my suggesting this, but I am wondering if there is not a tiny, subliminal element of misogyny involved in their thinking somewhere down the line...

I could not agree more. Misogyny indeed. And what is even more disturbing is that a certain type of woman can also display it too. Note the pistorians with their vile words about RS

 

[Viper]

Junebug....I very much admire and respect your compassionate and balanced take on OP.

Compassion? For a man that confessed to killing his girlfriend who was locked in a closet by firing 4 hollow points at her? I don't think so, perhaps after he has served say 20 or 25 years and has atoned.

Balanced? Well I have heard you and others refer to his trouble in taking responsibility for his crimes and his childish self absorbed behavior in court. But for me the sum of that is OP is a coward. To balance it I would say OP is a coward that ... Hmm, just what exactly are OPs redeeming qualities? They escape me at the moment.

 

[Nausicaa]

Some notes on Christina Lundgren's cross examination.

Lundgren agrees that 6 hours are enough time for a normal person to digest a meal.

Lundgren confirms she has no reason to believe Reeva was not a normal patient.

Lundgren says she's not a forensic pathologist, but she was asked to comment on the stomach content.

Lundgren's report says: In an ideal world, after this meal (chicken stir fry), in 6 hours her stomach should have been empty.

Points of interest...

Not a verbatim a transcript.

*
Nel says that digestion alters the physical nature of food. He says on OP's version Reeva ate 8 hours before her death. Given normal digestive processes, how is it possible that Saayman could identify vegetable matter in her stomach the next day?

Lundgren says where does it say that?

Nel reads from Saayman's report where he says he identified vegetables in Reeva's stomach. He says Saayman did this a year ago without knowing what she had to eat. And OP has confirmed Saayman's finding in court.

Lundgren talks about how high fat meals can take a long time. So can insoluble fiber.

Nel asks would you not have expected digestion to make the contents unrecognisable after 8 hours?

She can't comment on that.

*

Lundgren says that after 4 hours 10% of a low fat meal could still be in the stomach.

Nel says that 200 ml was found in Reeva's stomach. Lundgren says she wasn't aware of that. Nel reads from Saayman's report. So Reeva must have eaten 2 litres of food 4 hours before her death?

Lundgren: "That's a lot of food."

Later Lundgren says that as far as she knew Reeva didn't eat 4 hours before her death.

Nel says yes. On OP's version Reeva ate 8 hours before death, so she would have eaten 4 liters of food. So given the 200 ml in her stomach Reeva must have eaten much later than 8 hours before death?

Lundgren can't comment on that either.

*
At some stage Lundgren says gastric emptying is not an exact science. You can not tell the time of death from hour to hour. But she concedes that there is a big difference between 8 and 4 hours as far as gastric emptying is concerned.

Good summary. Many thanks Liesbeth.

Lundgren knows that Reeva didn't eat for eight hours before she died because that is what OP says. She knows that Reeva had slept in that period, because that is what OP says. She thinks that she can take as part of the data the very issues that are potentially in dispute.

While not as risibly incompetent as Dixon she discredits herself seriously by her failure to have retained from the pathological report the quantity of food in Reeva's stomach and she is visibly disconcerted when she learns how much it was.

Her expert knowledge of how much food can remain in the stomach is manifestly far inferior to Saayman's because she is precariously assuming patient compliance with pre-operation fasting rules and she has not been present at 20 000 autopsies or however many Saayman has to his credit.

And at the end of the day her evidence at best (for the defence) leaves us with the impression that it is very hard to credit OP's story of when Reeva last ate.