@KlaraFall Danke. Und noch Abschliessendes zu Reevas letzter Mahlzeit und warum Pistorius Aussage dazu nicht stimmen kann. Gute Nacht.;-))
"Nel points out that Professor Botha, the defense pathologist, conceded that most people would expect the stomach to be clear 6 hours after somebody has eaten. We are dealing with 8 hours in this case, according to Oscar’s testimony. Oscar still says they had dinner just after 7pm that evening.
Nel reminds the court that Mrs. van der Mewre heard a woman’s voice starting around 2am that morning. Oscar acknowledges that he heard her evidence. Nel says that it’s possible her evidence fits in with Reeva eating within the two hours prior to her death. Oscar says they did not eat at that time. Nel tells Oscar that is impossible.
Roux objects and says that the word impossible cannot be used here. He should instead say that it would be expected.
Nel rephrases saying that all references to medical works, and both experienced pathologists, said that one would expect the stomach to be empty after 6 hours. Nel asks Oscar how can it be that there is food in Reeva’s stomach. Oscar says he’s not sure. Nel tells him that’s not possible, he was awake. Oscar says him being awake has nothing to do with Reeva’s stomach contents. He goes on to say that Mrs. van der Mewre heard a woman’s voice, not a man’s so he doesn’t know. Nel stops him and points out that he’s arguing his case again, and it’s not good for his credibility. Oscar accepts that.
Nel wants to know if it’s a possibility that Reeva ate while he was sleeping. Oscar says it’s a possibility, he doesn’t know. Nel tells him that he’s tailoring again and Oscar says to the Judge that if he wanted to tailor his evidence he would say something different. He knows that eating just after 7pm doesn’t suit his case but that’s when they ate.
Nel says to Oscar that on his version it’s impossible that she went down to eat. (What Nel’s not saying here, and what he’s waiting for Oscar to pick up on, is that it’s impossible on Oscar’s version because he testified that the bedroom door was locked with the cricket bat in front of it and the alarm system was on too.)
Oscar says it’s improbable that she did. Nel says it’s not improbable, it’s impossible. Oscar says he doesn’t want to argue the point. Nel says he does. Nel finally points out that the alarm would have been triggered. That is why it’s impossible, not improbable."
Oscar says if Reeva had switched off the alarm and went downstairs to eat and then came back up, he doesn’t think he would have known since he was asleep. But he does not think she went down.
Nel tells him this is a devastating fact for his case. Oscar says he doesn’t have an explanation.
There are two important things here that Nel is getting at. The stomach content issue speaks for itself. We all understand that. But the other important thing that Nel is pointing out is that Oscar can’t keep up with his story. If Oscar’s story was true, and Nel posed that question about whether or not Reeva could have eaten that night, Oscar would have likely answered that no, she could not have gone to eat without him knowing because the alarm was on.
Interested schrieb:An die große Liebe glaube
KlaraFall schrieb:putative self defence within SA law -
:D
