Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

A star pathologist hired by Oscar Pistorius won't testify in trial @SJFindlay learns. His findings are said to support prosecution.

Doesn't this just mean that he doesn't disagree with anything the prosecution has said so there's no need to go over it again? I didn't think there was much to dispute over the path. findings except the stomach contents which have already been admitted to be imprecise... what else could he say?

Then it brings me back to why would she eat a 1a.

Both my husband and I have been known to eat in the middle of the night if it's stopping us from sleeping.

I'm on some heavy medication where I have to pay attention to my blood sugar constantly. Sometimes I'm too tired or lazy to do this in an evening, and then I'll wake up in the early hours with the room swimming and feeling like death, and I'll have to wake the husband to get me a banana to sort it out.

He's not on medication, but is greedy sometimes wakes early feeling peckish and can't sleep.

Wasn't Reeva on diet pills? I'm wondering if she was also dieting, not eating fully at meals, and then needing to get up and top up in the night. It was hot. She couldn't sleep, being more aware of her physical state in the night she needed to try to pee, she realised she was too hungry to sleep... It might just have been one of those restless nights where she just couldn't get comfy so tried everything.

I'm not saying any of this is definitely what happened. It's just there are three possible reasons why a person might get up and eat in the night.

I have heard that it might be because he refused to amend his version," said Steve Naidoo

Just to point out (as has been pointed out above) this is still, at the moment, hearsay.

A pathologist who has spoken to other pathologists (but not the one in question) has expressed an opinion to the press. That's all.

It's not yet on the BBC or in the Guardian (and I haven't checked anywhere else.)

Absolutely right Looking and there's a lot of hearsay out there.

Looking that then brings us back to the house alarm, if Reeva got up she would have to turn the alarm off, although as I have stated before, I don't think OP ever set the alarm that night, I think he has to say he did though because of the fear he has been telling everyone he has about intruders etc, not setting a house alarm when you have that much fear and paranoia....well it wouldn't look good would it.

This may also be the reason he says Reeva didn't eat again, when in fact if he was asleep he wouldn't know, or if the alarm was never set then I'm sure she could nip down stairs for something to eat.

I guess I get all the theory that he doesn't believe OP's story now but why did he believe it before? Please correct me if I am wrong but they would have no idea of knowing the order of the bullets wounds without at least seeing the door would they? They can tell there were gun shot wounds but how would they be able to tell the order of shots with just RS body as a reference?
AmIthatSpringy the major differences in the autopsy is that it indicated RS ate around 1a due to the content of her stomach which would disprove OP's account that she ate at 7p. If she ate at 7p she would not have any food in her stomach.

That is a good point FreeLikeABird. I would like to know if she was known for getting up at night to eat. I guess if I got up in the middle of the night for a snack I darn sure would eat something like ad ice cream sandwich or something tasty as opposed to vegetables. But since she was a model maybe she stuck with leftover stir fry like they had for dinner.

Basically, I think the pathologist will have done an initial report that is not totally helpful. The defence will have fine back to him with queries and clarifications and it will have become clear that his evidence dues not support OP's version, therefore no point calling him

Presumably this chap takes his duties and obligations to the court much more seriously than Roger Dixon plus doesn't want to appear as a complete wally on front of the world. Plus, there is is the little issue that lying (and I don't mean a difference if opinion but actually making things up - Dixon:I'm looking at you) is actually perjury and a criminal offence.

That being the case, there will have been a parting if the ways and OP will have had to pay him to date fir the work done

I have followed this trial obsessively and came to my own conclusion that OP was guilty but remorseful. However after a few days thinking it through I am inclined to believe his version of events, purely because he is the sort of man who if he was having an argument, following her to the toilet etc, surely he would have put his legs on?

I can see why the Dr doesn't want to tesitify, I wouldn't either after Nel's work on Dixon,

I guess I get all the theory that he doesn't believe OP's story now but why did he believe it before?
Maybe it's only as the trial has gone on that the defence has realised the points they needed to dispute. They might have been happy with the pathologist's original findings but after OP's performance on the stand, and Nel's aggressive questioning, they've realised they had to raise questions about the order of the injuries, the timing of the shots and the movement or non-movement of the magazine rack and how that impacted on Reeva.

At that point, I'm guessing they could go back to their expert witness and ask if there is any room for ambiguity (not in a leading way just to clarify whether there was room for interpretation). Their pathologist could have said he was quite sure of his findings and hence they decided not to put him on the stand because it wouldn't add anything.

Disclaimer - this is, of course all conjecture and who knows maybe the pathologist just had other commitments!

He's not testifying but does his report still form part of the documentation submitted to the judge?

upnorth I really find it odd OP being so adamant that they ate at 7.00pm. Was the time in his original statement submitted to the court and read out by Roux on day 1? If it was then he couldn't change it really but if not, then he could have changed the time a bit i.e. said they ate at 8.30 or 9.00pm and then went to bed at 10.ish. Still too early but better.

I'm going to have spend the next 2 weeks trying to re-watch as much testimony as I can fit in while at work in my spare time. It actually disturbs me that I am so obsessed although I've always been fascinated by mysteries, criminal or otherwise.

Okay you have all given me food for thought. Thanks so much for all the responses and no backlash to be found.

Why has everyone just accepted OP's statement that they ate at about 7 pm and went to bed at 10 pm? This just seems way too much like an old married couple to me. They had only been together a few weeks - surely making love would have been part of a night together? As an old married woman, I only have vague memories of hours-long sessions in bed, but why could they not have gone straight to bed, only emerging hours later starving hungry? I do remember getting distracted from mealtimes in the past! We only have OP's word for if that they ate and went to bed in the way he has described.

I think the State have a pretty strong team of experts (ballistics, pathologist etc) and that is what has made me feel like their version of events may well be closer to the truth than OP (today!) If OP was telling the truth, it surely wouldn't be so hard to find someone respectable to concur. Whilst some of these things aren't an exact science (the digesting of the food in Reeva's stomach), the experts are well versed and researched and the balance of probability is in their favour.

Compare all those years of work and research to a man who takes the stand having attended only 3 autopsies... Well, it just doesn't look good. It looks like OPs defence are clutching at straws.

When common sense doesn't support your case (and I have had to get quite creative to imagine OP's scenario) and neither does science, surely it can only mean one thing?

upnorth cheers. But if the eating was the only difference, I'm not sure that would be a huge bone of contention. Dr Saaymaan even said it was an inexact science.

And Reeva could have gone and snacked while OP was sleeping. If the alarm control was on the fob, it wouldn't have been too hard to disarm. Much like unlocking my car, presumably?

I think he isn't testifying because Saaymaan and Botha have said all that needs to be said from the autopsy

NB I am not as clever as some of you here, so don't always get the obvious

Hillwalker He spent a fair amount of time on the phone to his cousin after 8 ish didn't he, which would be odd if they were.

I also think that if he gets up at 5.30 to train, and had been in meetings all day, he was possibly knackered.

From seeing extracts from some of the messages, they certainly had an "active" relationship, but maybe he was just tired

Again, are we all just taking IO's word for it that he ever took his legs off? I'm not sure they ever went to sleep, he ever took his legs off or ever set the alarm!

OP's

I've been thinking a lot about this. If she was a bit restless it would suit OP better to say, yes I vaguely remember her getting crisps / whatever earlier, them she woke and asked me if I couldn't sleep - fits better that if you woke to try to use the loo you might also wake for other reasons - hot, restless night. I'm not sure if bother with a lie that wasn't useful.
If not, maybe, if I'd been having sex all night I might eat later?

Plus Reeva arrived that night before OP so either knew how to turn the alarm off or it wasn't on.

I agree that not having sex that night proves anything. Maybe they had not had sex yet. Maybe he is kinda shy about his stumps and wanted to take things slowly. I am sure that would be a very sensitive thing to him.

Nerf I'm not sure if bother with a lie that wasn't useful. (re. eating)

IIRC actually what he said was that he went to bed earlier than she did, so he had no idea whether she ate later, but as far as he knew they had eaten together at c. 7pm and what she may or may not have done subsequent to him falling asleep he wouldn't have known about.

Ok I'm just trying to catch up with this thread and haven't read all the new posts.

Something struck me last night.

In my experience (and I could tell you a few stories about men putting their own needs/laziness before their children's welfare for example) there are some men who are so selfish that they put themselves and their own comfort before anyone and anything else. If OP truly does have a narcissistic personality or is a big egotist or whatever, is it just possible that when he heard what he thought was an intruder, his only thought in those initial moments was for himself. Surely that's not impossible and if it were true maybe part of his remorse/inconsistences in his story is that he actually didn't think about Reeva's welfare at all. He was in the moment only thinking about himself and of course he could never admit to this.

Or is this totally implausible

So meant to say that is why he didn't check for Reeva before storming after to the bathroom