Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

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

[SpeedwellBlue]

.

[Mortalengines]

Looking - Thanks for a welcome. If you're talking about the times I posted, that's just the time of the report on the link so that people could easily find it.

Actually I think his point is that if six hours before, the amount she would of had to have eaten for 10% to still be there is 4 litres worth. Obviously less would have been digested if only 2 hours past, so less food would have need to be eaten to leave the same about.

[Mortalengines]

*the welcome. Stupid iphone.

[JillJ72]

Looking look after yourself x

[StampyIsMyBoyfriend]

I've missed an entire thread! Marking place, hope for the Steenkamps this is brought to a close soon. Although, I heard an appeal could take up o a year...?

[PD6966]

Evening all. Just listened to today's live coverage; well, up until the YouTube footage running out at the end of Mr. W's endless CV... What happened then, there's no more on YouTube, anyone fill me in please?

To clarify the comments above re the amount of food; Nel reads from evidence in document: "10% of a low fat meal usually remains in the stomach after 4 hours." That's not even taking into account the postmortem enzyme activity before the autopsy.

So, with this evidence in mind, at 11pm, 200ml would become 2 litres. Working further back at 7pm (had this been the ONLY time she'd eaten) she would have to have eaten an improbable 4 litres!

[PD6966]

Welcome Mortal this has been another HUGE point for me that I needed clarification on...the disabling of the internal alarm, by whom (if at all), when and where.

18:06:45
Voice - I suppose if she ate the stir-fry twice, it might be impossible to tell which part was eaten when. Not sure, but OP might have said that she couldn't have eaten at the later time (also OP said she couldn't work the alarm, which means she couldn't have gone down without OP not knowing so if state is correct, OP was lying about the alarm OR he was lying about her not eating later). Both of which call OP's honesty into question.

[Nerf]

Talk me through the maths?
After 4 hours 10% remains.
So 200ml is 10% of 2000ml
Death at 3, eats at 11pm

How do you get 4 litres at 7?

[PD6966]

Nerf I could find it, but Nel doubles the four hours to eight and therefore, doubles the amount of food to four litres... I'll transcribe it...

[PD6966]

Watch from 12 minutes for a few mins to hear the two litres at 11am, then four litres at 7pm...

[Nerf]

Thanks. I will look at that, very kind of you.
I guess what I'm thinking is what percent remains after eight hours, because doubling it seems like a crude method.

200 ml is 5% of 4000 is that percentage what would be left after eight hours?

[YNK]

Another damp squib of a day in court today then.

I do hope the defense is going to come up with something before this is done.

[Mortalengines]

PD - Hm, seems the guardian description was incredibly misleading then, which is annoying because I couldn't see the live stream of it from my mobile and was using that as my source. I did my own transcript, tried to get as close to exactly what they were saying as I could. There was a few muffled bits with Lundgren but I decoded nearly all of it to a T - I hope.

Nel: You know what I did is - if it's true that after four hours one would expect 10% of the volume of the meal still to be present, if you work that back, if 200ml was found at post-mortem, 4 hours before that, if one viewed that as 10%, she must have taken in 2 litres of food.

Lundgren: My lady, I am not aware that it was 200ml food, that it was actually measured to be 200ml of food, I am not aware of that.

Nel: It's measured madam, it's in the post-mortem, I would not put things that were not so and if you want me to show you I will, but it's been measured.

Lundgren: Okay.

Nel: So if we just do the calculation that means that four hours before then, she must have taken in 2 litres worth of food, which is really big.

Lundgren: Is that a question?

Nel: Yeah that's a question, does it make sense to you?

Lundgren: Ah..that's a lot of food.

Nel: Yeah, and I'll take that as that in all probability, one would not have expected her to take in 2 litres of food 4 hours before death.

Lundgren: My lady, when one eats a meal, one drinks water, the liquid, whatever, and one eats. But the fluids leaves the stomach very early, I'm also not aware of the post-mortem and it's outside of my field, but I'll stand to be corrected. I'm not aware whether the duodenum, which is the next section of bowel after the stomach was opened and whether contents were found there. So I find it very, very speculative on estimating what the size of the meal was.

Nel: No, we're busy with speculation, because I would argue that you mentioned certain things that when you take it into account that, that is speculative, you've opened the avenue of speculation by saying what you're saying, so why would you have expected her to have taken 2 litres of food 4 hours before she was killed? On your own version.

Lundgren: I'm not aware she took food 4 hours before she died, my lady.

Nel: Now if she took food 8 hours, then we'd have to double that, you have to then double it there, then we go to 4 litres of food, in your version and that is even less probable because if she took food 8 hours before she died that's 4 and that's even less probable, am I right?

Lundgren: It is less probable, I'd need to do the sums to check.

Nel: Then, the probable value of professor Saayman's evidence, it's so much better saying on; what I see, she took food no longer than 2 hours before she died. That makes better sense, that's more probable.

Lundgren: My lady, if that's a question, I have to go on what I've read up in the forensic literature and it's not advisable to estimate the last meal from what is found in the stomach at the time of death. So, I, you know I'm not prepared to comment on what Professor Saayman's opinion is. It is as it stands. However, I've been given forensic pathology evidence to read and there it states quite categorically that it's not a good idea to judge the time of the last meal from the stomach content.

Nel: Not as an exact science madam, but certainly there's a big difference between 8 and 4, you'll agree, as far as gastric emptying is concerned.

Lundgren: There is, I've already conceded that much.

Nel: Yes.

[PD6966]

200 ml is 5% of 4000 is that percentage what would be left after eight hours?

I think what Nel is pressing for, is the defence witness to agree that even two litres of food at 11pm is a whopping amount of food to eat. And she does.

It's most probable therefore, that RS did eat in the early hours as suggested, as rejected in OP testimony.

Apologies, had to cook for family bad mother.

[Mortalengines]

It's definitely a reminder to go and listen to the testimonies yourself as the press seem to have a tendency to actually misrepresent what is being said (which isn't their fault, it's fast and hard to follow at times.

Thanks for the welcome by the way, PD. It seems even the judge and assessors are confused on the alarm as they've asked about it once or twice to work it out.

[PD6966]

Mortal Well done, lots of effort involved there. Crossed posts.

Just eating...will be back!

[Nerf]

Mortal thanks for that. Not sure Nel makes much sense tbh. What's his logic for saying two hours before would be more likely , because then you'd half it would you? So 1 litre of food? Still quite a lot for 1 am.

[Mortalengines]

Thanks guys, I wanted to help out a little. If sometimes it looks weirdly worded, it's because sometimes they don't quite get the stuff out right haha, sometimes I got rid of their repeats and mistakes (Nel kept saying 200 instead of 2 litres, but not every time).

Nerf - I think he's just saying it's alot more probable. I do think 1 litre of food is perhaps not that much if we assume some liquid with that too. Whether his science is right or not we don't know, but I don't think defence questioned it any further. It might have come from Prof Saayman since Nel took a break to speak to him.

[PD6966]

Not sure Nel makes much sense tbh. What's his logic for saying two hours before would be more likely , because then you'd half it would you? So 1 litre of food? Still quite a lot for 1 am.

Nerf, Nel illustrates that 200ml food at (body being refrigerated), 11.45am 14/2/13, discredits OP's version of them eating a chicken stir fry at 7pm 13/2/13.

[PD6966]

...unless she ate a gargantuan amount.

[Nerf]

Ok, sort of seeing it. Couldn't they both be right - they ate together at 7pm but she later ate alone ( I know all the discussion about the possibility of this practically!)

[Mortalengines]

Nerf - She totally could have, but I think the point of contention is that OP was very certain that she didn't eat later (if an LED light could keep him from sleeping, her shifting around downstairs certainly would.), so either way, if Nel is proving that she did eat later alone, it opens up to OP knowing where she was (i.e not in bed) and gives the time frame for an argument.

[PD6966]

Kelly1814 Thu 08-May-14 16:07:00

Stupid question alert: wa the bathroom door definitely locked? I thought I had read that it wasn't.

Kelly, the toilet door was locked, if you believe the testimony of OP that he had to break in.
It may have been locked in the prosecution's version, if RS locked herself in, trying to keep him out.

At this point, you have to regard the eye/ear witness testimony of Stipp, Burger, Johnson and Van De Merwe...

[YNK]

oscartrial.dstv.com/video/525804/category/0

[PD6966]

Apologies Nerf, I should've added that it's most probable to infer from the evidence, that RS did have to eat in the early hours as well as 7pm in order to have 200ml in her stomach...unless she ate a gargantuan amount.