Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[Zinn]

Interested discussion on WhoopWhoop with respect to gastric emptying. The physician wonders why a gastroenterologist was not used rather than an anaesthetist. He says he expects a stomach to be empty after 6 hours and it has been validated throughout the world. He says at gastroscopy, after a 6 hour fast, the stomach is normally pristine.

This particular anesthesiologist (Lungren) did her PhD on deaths due to an anesthesia. I assume she is very knowledgeable about the minority of cases in which gastric emptying falls outside the normal ranges, leading to complications that are sometimes fatal when a patient is under anesthesia. That may have played a part in why she was selected.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

 

[Viper]

I know, right? How does an expert not have photos & reports (nicely typed, I might add) to back up the opinions being presented to the court? :dunno:

This to me is an obvious thing. If W had copies of all of the various reports that he had compiled with numerous changes (tailoring) in each consecutive one, he would be challenged by Nel to turn them over to the PT and they would be used to discredit his testimony the very next day. W is giving Nel and his team access to his notes and photo this afternoon, so he likely did just keep editing that original report and that is the only one he has saved on his computer.

In the US I am not aware that the same thing could be done to a defense witness, although maybe it can. However, I do know that in both countries the prosecution is obligated to give a copy of every single scrap of paper that has even a single word on it about the PTs investigation. That is why prosecutors meeting with a witness only allow one person in the meeting to take down notes, so that there are not other notes that can be used to discredit what information was discussed and gathered.

 

[liesbeth]

This particular anesthesiologist (Lungren) did her PhD on deaths due to an anesthesia. I assume she is very knowledgeable about the minority of cases in which gastric emptying falls outside the normal ranges, leading to complications that are sometimes fatal when a patient is under anesthesia. That may have played a part in why she was selected.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

And Ms Lundgren specifically said to Nel that she did not find anything to show that Reeva was outside the normal range.

 

[BritsKate]

Prosecutors come in all shapes, sizes, and abilities. There's the calm, quiet nature of Becky Holt and the fiery chutzpah of Kelly Siegler. Most prosecutors are criticised, by someone, for their questioning style. Sometimes it's by people who support the State but feel the prosecutor handled questioning poorly - other times it's people more supportive of the defendant who feel the prosecutor is mean, sarcastic, belittling, flippant, etc.

And the absolute same is true of defence attorneys too.

(Kelly Siegler has since retired but hosts the show 'Cold Justice'. She was the Texan prosecutor in the Susan Wright case, who was convicted of stabbing her husband 193 times to death. Siegler literally jumped up on a bed set up for demonstration purposes in the courtroom and mimicked the stabbing motions of Wright - much to the shock of spectators. Extremely effective though. :biggrin

 

[JudgeJudi]

It's just so embarrassing when you realise you've typed something stupid. Just saw an earlier post where I typed "finished" instead of "furnished". Hahahaha. Does anyone else have this problem or is just me?

 

[DebinGA]

This particular anesthesiologist (Lungren) did her PhD on deaths due to an anesthesia. I assume she is very knowledgeable about the minority of cases in which gastric emptying falls outside the normal ranges, leading to complications that are sometimes fatal when a patient is under anesthesia. That may have played a part in why she was selected.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

And Lungren's disinterest in learning before testifying how much food residue Dr. Saayman found in Reeva's stomach must have been a real plus too.

 

[liesbeth]

Prosecutors come in all shapes, sizes, and abilities. There's the calm, quiet nature of Becky Holt and the fiery chutzpah of Kelly Siegler. Most prosecutors are criticised, by someone, for their questioning style. Sometimes it's by people who support the State but feel the prosecutor handled questioning poorly - other times it's people more supportive of the defendant who feel the prosecutor is mean, sarcastic, belittling, flippant, etc.

And the absolute same is true of defence attorneys too.

(Kelly Siegler has since retired but hosts the show 'Cold Justice'. She was the Texan prosecutor in the Susan Wright case, who was convicted of stabbing her husband 193 times to death. Siegler literally jumped up on a bed set up for demonstration purposes in the courtroom and mimicked the stabbing motions of Wright - much to the shock of spectators. Extremely effective though. :biggrin

This afternoon one of the American journalists mentioned that a jury would not like Nel's abrasive manner. They would prefer Roux. I want to know what you think? (I don't want to pressure you, but you've been very kind and I hoped that you wouldn't mind me asking?)

 

[DebinGA]

It's just so embarrassing when you realise you've typed something stupid. Just saw an earlier post where I typed "finished" instead of "furnished". Hahahaha. Does anyone else have this problem or is just me?

The "edit" button is a dear friend I visit multiple times a day. Ditto her sister "delete".

ETA: I just noticed a post of mine above thanking you for the "guy on stumps" video and seeing I wrote "has" when I meant to write "was". lol When I catch mistakes like that too late, I just trust the nice folks here will overlook it.

 

[liesbeth]

It's just so embarrassing when you realise you've typed something stupid. Just saw an earlier post where I typed "finished" instead of "furnished". Hahahaha. Does anyone else have this problem or is just me?

Me. All the time.

 

[BritsKate]

Usually they do give each other the information out of courtesy.

They way I understand it, and I may be wrong, is that one of the reasons Nel charged Oscar with premeditated murder, or rather murder under sections 6 and 51, is that under section 6 you do not get bail unless there are exceptional circumstances (medical reasons) or if you give a statement explaining what happened.

Oscar refused to talk to the police before the bail hearing. But in order to be considered for bail under a section 6 murder charge, he decided to give a statement. And now he's bound to that statement and he can't change his story too much. Clever of Nel.

RBBM

That makes much more sense, thank you. I know the State can move to reopen if 'new' evidence is presented by the defence but was struggling to determine how something could not be considered new if it's only just now being presented to the State.

I think Nel's very clever too - he strikes me as his mind is always moving 100mph. I was thinking earlier he could make me look cagey just for saying hello. Whether one disagrees with the nature of the justice system or not - that, to me, is the mark of a brilliant prosecutor. And to his credit, I think Roux can be very astute as well. I disagree with what happened to Burger but in large part, he's kept the gallery's attention, has been humorous when called for, leaves me little doubt he too has earned his reputation and is passionate about his case. Further, I think Roux very likely has an 'impossible client'. For me, it's rather a treat to watch two attorneys from opposing sides who both have decades of experience under their belt. Very often, it will be a seasoned prosecutor against a greenhorn public defender (or a smarmy attorney, never heard of, whose attached themselves to a case simply for its notoriety). I really feel Nel and Roux are on very even ground, considering. And while I deeply respect Masipa's 'it's not entertainment' - I do enjoy watching the attorneys in this case spar.

All JMO

 

[Cherwell]

bbm- why not use a transcript of a portion of questioning you find offensive versus making something up?

Like this?

(link)

 

[JudgeJudi]

The accused participated in the shot tests???????

Tell me it isn't so.

I believe they're talking about where OP would have been on the night of the shooting.

 

[DebinGA]

I know I shouldn't enjoy OP's misery, but I do:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...bel-tests-ballistics-expert-article-1.1785794

Whether he goes to jail or not, OP will be tormented by his changed status every remaining day of his life.

 

[BritsKate]

This afternoon one of the American journalists mentioned that a jury would not like Nel's abrasive manner. They would prefer Roux. I want to know what you think? (I don't want to pressure you, but you've been very kind and I hoped that you wouldn't mind me asking?)

Being asked to share my opinion? Oh yes, I mind! :floorlaugh: I think, in America, it would be a mixed bag. There's an Arizona prosecutor in a recent case, very abrasive, whom many of us adore and others hold in contempt. Juan Martinez. He's somewhat like Nel in certain ways...I have to qualify that though - I don't personally find Nel particularly abrasive. Sarcastic, at times, but I have a huge soft spot for sarcasm.

So I think (granted I no longer live stateside) that a great many would admire him for his 'bulldoggish' pursuit but some others would consider him argumentative and petty. A jury, and what they'll either be entranced or repulsed by, is absolutely always a wild card. I don't think anyone can really make many assumptions or predictions about what 12 very different people will think or what they will (or won't) be influenced by. Doing so in the past has, at times, left me very disappointed in the jury system.

I think Roux could be seen as smarmy and at times unctuous. It could not only rub some the wrong way but also be seen as a potential insult to the jurors intelligence, especially considering some of the defence team's suggestions. Still others though, would consider him ingratiating and respectful. He does get a teddy bear persona about him when he's talking to the judge I personally, even being pro-State, really do find quite endearing.

JMO and HTH

 

[KarenUK]

It's just so embarrassing when you realise you've typed something stupid. Just saw an earlier post where I typed "finished" instead of "furnished". Hahahaha. Does anyone else have this problem or is just me?

Pretty much everyone of my posts - my fingers don't seem to want to type the same words I'm thinking of hdear:

 

[lithgow1]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ting-details-to-suit-paralympian-9344075.html

 

[Gryffindor]

IIRC Mangena said the head shot was last, and Reeva was facing down when hit. I don't see how Wollie's reenactment of her final movements correlates with that, especially re the magazine rack. He echoed Dixon's view that the rack wasn't knocked out of place, but then he seemed to say toward the end of the day that Reeva fell to the floor and died. ???

Mangena couldn't identify which shots were 3rd and 4th. Head then arm or arm then head. He couldn't establish and left that open . .

 

[steveml]

Glad the splinters came up, I never felt confident re use of board.

To be honest I believe this is all over.

So unpleasant to see the expert demolished after a distinguished career, but he set himself up for this. It's hard to take in some of the blatant incompetence. Should have known better.

There's sharp brains re Nel and team.

Hmm. Blatant incompetence is not noticing there was a bullet staring up at you from the toilet.

It's a good job Woolie had his wits about him otherwise they'd all be trying to resolve a fatal shooting consisting of four shots fired with only 3 bullets.

 

[liesbeth]

RBBM

That makes much more sense, thank you. I know the State can move to reopen if 'new' evidence is presented by the defence but was struggling to determine how something could not be considered new if it's only just now being presented to the State.

I think Nel's very clever too - he strikes me as his mind is always moving 100mph. I was thinking earlier he could make me look cagey just for saying hello. Whether one disagrees with the nature of the justice system or not - that, to me, is the mark of a brilliant prosecutor. And to his credit, I think Roux can be very astute as well. I disagree with what happened to Burger but in large part, he's kept the gallery's attention, has been humorous when called for, leaves me little doubt he too has earned his reputation and is passionate about his case. Further, I think Roux very likely has an 'impossible client'. For me, it's rather a treat to watch two attorneys from opposing sides who both have decades of experience under their belt. Very often, it will be a seasoned prosecutor against a greenhorn public defender (or a smarmy one, never heard of, whose attached themselves to a case simply for its notoriety). I really feel Nel and Roux are on very even ground, considering. And while I deeply respect Masipa's 'it's not entertainment' - I do enjoy watching the attorneys in this case spar.

All JMO

Thank you very much. Agree with this 100%.

 

[patCee]

I believe they're talking about where OP would have been on the night of the shooting.

Thanks, it wouldn't surprise me as I zoned out at times and probably missed the context. I thought I heard that both OP and uncle Arnold were present during a test. I haven't got the will to listen and check though. Hey! Ho!