Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

here is Part 6. Nearly time for a new one.

Caught up finally.

Going back to the ambulance situation, I read on twitter (days ago now) that people outside SA couldn't believe that an ambulance wouldn't just come out and it could in fact take three calls! I meant to post it when I read it, but I was so far behind I never got chance.

I'm still on the fence, but leaning towards he will get off because of reasonable doubt.

Nerf - I get your point and concede to an extent. But I feel if the possible alternative is even more improbable than the initial reason put forward, it's not really a viable alternative.

Did OP say she couldn't work the alarm? I thought it was she was unlikely to have worked it that night and I thought this week we'd heard the Reeva had stayed in the house whilst he was away?

Cat - Might be my mistake there, I think he said he wasn't sure. Stander however said she knew how to activate it when asked by the assessor. I apologise.

Yes I think her being able to fix herself some food later (ie. being able to leave the bedroom AND use the alarm) is important here. Did he really say she definitely didn't use the alarm that night?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10809721/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-trial-May-5-as-it-happened.html

10.02 - When the assessor asked.

15th April -
9.00am: Prosecutor Gerrie Nel begins today’s cross-examination by telling the court that Pistorius's version of events are “improbable” and “untrue”. He says that pathologist Gert Saayman’s evidence that Steenkamp had eaten about two hours before her death was "devastating" to Pistorius's case.

The Paralympian says it is a "possibility" but "highly improbable" that Steenkamp ate while he was asleep. Nel points out that the alarm would have been triggered if she had gone downstairs. Pistorius suggests she may have turned off the alarm, but Nel tells him the “objective set of facts cannot fit into your version”.

10.50am: Roux asks Pistorius to read the Valentine’s Day card he received from Reeva on the night she was killed. The envelope says “Ozzy” with hearts on it. The outside of the card says “Roses are red, violets are blue.” Inside it says: “I think today's a good day to tell you that I love you.” Roux finishes his re-examination.

The judge and her assessors ask a few more questions. Pistorius confirms that his toilet light was not working and that Steenkamp had access to his alarm controls. He then steps down as a witness

www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/oscar-pistorius/53387/oscar-pistorius-denies-sinister-remark-reeva-s-friend/page/0/1#ixzz3196AjgHq

Make of it what you will.

I saw that bit on Monday Mortal. I just can't remember what OP says in his testimony about whether or not she may have deactivated it that night. I remember Nel cross-examining him about it, in particular with reference to whether HE remembered deactivating it when he went downstairs eventually. He said he couldn't remember, I think.

If she had fixed a meal late at night, there should be evidence in the kitchen, no? Even if dishwashes was put on (which could be worrying with OP trying to take a washing machine out before) food in the bin etc... if OP was sleeping then she wouldnt take food upstairs to eat in the dark, there would have been evidence. yy you wouldnt be able to tell the time from a sink of plates, but you would be able to tell if she had eaten after OP went to bed.

Sorry, x-post. Have to say from that transcription, Nel let that one tail off inconclusively. I suppose there are two points - firstly was the alarm even on in the first place (he has to say so to back up his intruder theory). Secondly OP is correct in saying that she could have, if it was set, deactivated it and this has been corroborated by Stander and the fact that she had stayed in his house alone before. Nothing there that really catches OP out.

Voice - According to the link I put above, on the cross-exam on the 15th April, OP suggested she could have deactivated the alarm, but still said she couldn't have eaten later. I think it's a major issue because it would suggest OP was lying about what was happening just before the whole 'thinking an intruder' was there scenario.

Sorry for the double posting going on.

Step - I think the issue with that is the detectives/state wouldn't have thought to take evidence from the kitchen considering they had no idea about this being a point of contention until after the autopsy and bail hearing. So by the time it became relevant I imagine any useful evidence would have been long gone.

see so much evidence just disregarded, we must remember how good our own forensics are in this country, just unheard of here. So how come SA has forensic experts when they do no bloody forensics at a crime scene.

Mort - I don't understand your post of 18.26?
I think it's odd that OP sticks to his version, he hasn't tried to change it to fit facts - surely he would have 'remembered' her having a snack if he received the digestion evidence and wanted to lie.

Step - I'm equally frustrated with SA practices. While I'm sympathetic that the country has been through alot and isn't nearly as stable as we're lucky to be, but it's quite a shock to see how much is not tested. I mean alot of the blood wasn't even tested (such as on the head board). I know it's all assumed to be Reeva's, but it still should have been regardless - as well as family being allowed to take what could be evidence away (i.e the handbag).

Nerf - If she had eaten around 2am as the prosecution re-asserted today, it means that merely an hour before she was killed, she was walking around and doing stuff. This kinda clashes with the case put by OP that they were asleep and that he had every reason to think she was in bed. If that makes sense. In a way OP has to stick to his version, firstly because he made it in bail and secondly because if not, it calls into question if he's being honest about the whole fan malarkey. If he changed it, it'd just make him look less reliable regardless of whether it's the truth or not.

By the way, I'm very much fallible and am more than happy to see where I've gone wrong. So I apologise if I give out incorrect facts, I just need some correction to see the light, haha.

Thanks for explaining, makes sense now

Although Mortal there are more than two options available - ie. eating at 7pm and being awake and eating at 2am. She could, for example, have eaten at 10.30pm and gone to sleep for a few hours before being woken.

Voice - There was actually some talk today about the amount of food Reeva would have had to have eaten to end up with the percentage of food in her stomach that was present in the autopsy.

10.06am BST There was 200ml of food in Steenkamp's stomach after death, says Nel (Lundgren was not aware of this measurement). That means, if that represents 10% of what she'd eaten some hours earlier, as Lundgren posited, she must have eaten a meal of 2 litres of food, he suggests.

That's a lot of food, Lundgren concedes.

If Steenkamp had eaten eight hours before she died – as the defence says – she would have had to have eaten 4 litres of food, Nel says. It's not probable, he argues.

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/oscar-pistorius-reeva-steenkamp-murder-trial-8-may

So that doesn't make sense either way. If she are earlier as OP says, she ate 4 litres of food. If she are later, as state say, she ate 2 litres of food. Which the state says is a lot.

Nerf - I think the state is trying to say 2 litres is alot, but not impossible, where as 4 litres is far too much.

Thank you

Thanks Mortal, I watched that today - I linked to that very quote from the Guardian earlier

I think those times might be wrong (I'm thinking through a head-full of snot), but I think the point was, if she ate two hours before, a fair amount would remain in her stomach. If she ate six hours before (so at 9PM), you would expect 10% left, which would mean she had to eat 2lrs worth. If she ate earlier, at 6 or 7, it would go up to about 4lrs.

Of the thing that can slow gastric emptying, Nel discounted smoking and alcohol. There was some issue about a fatty meal, which takes longer. Nel relied on the style of these two - an athlete and a model, to suggest that they didn't eat a fatty meal. I don't know why he didn't list what she ate - he must know. Diet pills and drugs weren't mentioned today. That I can recall.

I hope that my maths is right there - if not, please blame the snot.

And welcome, Mortal.

You will all be relieved to know I'm not going to transcribe tonight. I'm opting for music and reading, and a very early night.