When Did Abby Die?

[twinsrwe]

I find that hard to believe.

[Franz]

Is it possible that the girl ate secretly something later?

[Miranda]

Is it possible that the girl ate secretly something later?

He didn't even know she wasn't in the bed beside him (supposedly) so if she got up and ate something he wouldn't have known.

I still don't really have a solid belief on this case. One day I feel so sorry for him, the next I want to go upside his head with a 2x4.

[PossumPie]

Sleep slowing digestion is the biggest crock of manure I've ever heard. It is a myth that our digestion slows during sleep. Digestion is controlled by the Parasympathetic nervous system, which SLOWS digestion when we are stressed, but speeds it up when we are relaxed or sleep. If that is what she said, it is so incorrect as to border on perjury.

[twinsrwe]

Thank you, Possum, I was hoping we would hear from you on this! I love learning the in's and out's of medical issues from people who know what they are talking about.

[Curryong]

Yes, thanks Possum, (and all of you. Nice to read your views too, Miranda.) I don't understand why the defence would call a specialist anaesthetist to the stand to talk about that sort of thing and not a pathologist. It seems to me that Oscar's defence team often appears to be scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as its expert witnesses are concerned.

[Curryong]

Another strange day at the Pistorius trial. Completely off-topic, sorry!

However, Ms Lundgren, (the anaesthesiologist brought by the defence to counter the prosecution's belief that Reeva Steenkamp ate at roughly one AM about two hours before her death,) stated that estimating the time that a person has eaten is purely speculative and inexact. (By the way, Oscar asserted that neither of them had eaten for about eight hours.)

Ms Lundgren said that the stage of Reeva's menstrual cycle and the fact she took diet pills could affect the speed of digestion. She further stated that the chicken stir fry meal eaten by Steenkamp contained 'insoluble fibre' (vegetables) that may not have been digestible.

Reeva's stomach contents were, I suppose, at the same stage of the journey through the body as poor old Abby's in 1892. At least Dr Dolan was familiar with autopsies. I want to know why this woman is giving evidence about something very different to her area of medical expertise and knowledge.

[PossumPie]

Another strange day at the Pistorius trial. Completely off-topic, sorry!

However, Ms Lundgren, (the anaesthesiologist brought by the defence to counter the prosecution's belief that Reeva Steenkamp ate at roughly one AM about two hours before her death,) stated that estimating the time that a person has eaten is purely speculative and inexact. (By the way, Oscar asserted that neither of them had eaten for about eight hours.)

Ms Lundgren said that the stage of Reeva's menstrual cycle and the fact she took diet pills could affect the speed of digestion. She further stated that the chicken stir fry meal eaten by Steenkamp contained 'insoluble fibre' (vegetables) that may not have been digestible.

Reeva's stomach contents were, I suppose, at the same stage of the journey through the body as poor old Abby's in 1892. At least Dr Dolan was familiar with autopsies. I want to know why this woman is giving evidence about something very different to her area of medical expertise and knowledge.

I've said it before...Court is NOT about truth. It is about who is the most believable. With modern tests and knowledge, both side can get "expert witnesses" to say anything that they want. It is just stressing one part of the evidence and down-playing another. That is why we can debate the Borden case for 100 years b/c the "truth" is unknown, just our interpretation of the case.

[debbiediablo]

I think Oscar truly regrets killing her but that he's lying about his intent at the time: he was enraged when he the trigger four times. It's very possible to feel remorse for the most heinous of acts. I see Lizzie being buried at her father's feet as an act of remorse/contrition.

Totally agree with Possum re: courts not being about the truth...couldn't have said it better.

[Curryong]

I agree with you. I don't think the couple had been asleep, at least not for some hours. I believe they were having a massive quarrel which got out of hand and Oscar reached for his gun, causing Reeva to flee to the bathroom for sanctuary. I think Oscar was in a rage and killed her.

Yes, he does feel remorse I'm sure, for what he's done. That doesn't wipe out the crime of course, and now he's facing the music I'm not completely convinced that all the sobbing, head in hands, etc is the result of pure sadness and self-reproach. There could be a great deal of fear about his own future mixed in with all the emotion.

I'm not quite so cynical as you and Possum about the legal system. I do feel that the truth does have a way of working itself to the surface in most trials, perhaps in spite of highly paid lawyers and 'experts'. And as I've said before, I have great faith in the jury system. The Pistorius case is interesting to me partly because of the differences. I have to say though, I've never seen so many adjournments in my life!

[PossumPie]

I agree with you. I don't think the couple had been asleep, at least not for some hours. I believe they were having a massive quarrel which got out of hand and Oscar reached for his gun, causing Reeva to flee to the bathroom for sanctuary. I think Oscar was in a rage and killed her.

Yes, he does feel remorse I'm sure, for what he's done. That doesn't wipe out the crime of course, and now he's facing the music I'm not completely convinced that all the sobbing, head in hands, etc is the result of pure sadness and self-reproach. There could be a great deal of fear about his own future mixed in with all the emotion.

I'm not quite so cynical as you and Possum about the legal system. I do feel that the truth does have a way of working itself to the surface in most trials, perhaps in spite of highly paid lawyers and 'experts'. And as I've said before, I have great faith in the jury system. The Pistorius case is interesting to me partly because of the differences. I have to say though, I've never seen so many adjournments in my life!

I've been in the court rooms in the USA, as a Registered Nurse witness, and currently teach a Medical Law class. The lawyer friends I have have all admitted that they have defended clients who have told them they were guilty, and gotten them off b/c of a technicality or b/c the jury believed them more than the prosecutor. I've seen huge corporations get away with 'murder' b/c they had a team of 6 or 7 high priced attorney, and the other side had one lone lawyer. No, I don't put much stock in the legal system. O.J. Simpson Killed his ex wife and her friend, the evidence was overwhelming, but he had a slick lawyer who saved his butt. He was tried in civil court, found guilty, and made to pay $$$ but he will never serve a sentence b/c of homicide. He has since admitted it to Oprah Winfrey and others That he killed Nicole Brown, yet his lawyer got him off. The only justice is that he was later convicted of Kidnapping, assault, and other charges, and is in jail

I stand by my premis that trials are all about the perception of guilt, not whether on not someone really is guilty.

[Curryong]

But what solution do you propose to these inequalities, Possum? I suppose under any legal system the wealthy, the elite, the well-connected, will always inevitably be able to gain lawyers/ barristers who are at the top of their profession. It happened under Communism (except in the purges and show-trials, where the verdicts were pre-determined anyway) just as it happened under the Tsars.

The elite in all nations will always have the advantage of 'slick' lawyers. However, at least with a jury system (of a defendant's peers) they are 12 ordinary people who can't be bribed (hopefully) can see the demeanour of witnesses, and weigh up all the evidence they hear. And, in spite of Lizzie and of O.J. and various other miscarriages of justice I still believe that in most cases they get it right.

Are you an advocate of the Continental system of justice, in which, in many countries, there are examining magistrates, rather than the Anglo adversarial system? Or where defendants are presumed guilty and have to prove their innocence?
Or a panel of judges, perhaps, such as are seen in Indonesia, and where no jury hears the case?

No country's legal system is ever going to be perfect, but I'd rather live under a system where there is habeus corpus and a presumption of innocence, and juries, rather than than the alternative.

[debbiediablo]

"Better than ten guilty persons escape than one innocent man suffer." – Sir William Blackstone, English jurist 1765

[PossumPie]

But what solution do you propose to these inequalities, Possum? I suppose under any legal system the wealthy, the elite, the well-connected, will always inevitably be able to gain lawyers/ barristers who are at the top of their profession. It happened under Communism (except in the purges and show-trials, where the verdicts were pre-determined anyway) just as it happened under the Tsars.

The elite in all nations will always have the advantage of 'slick' lawyers. However, at least with a jury system (of a defendant's peers) they are 12 ordinary people who can't be bribed (hopefully) can see the demeanour of witnesses, and weigh up all the evidence they hear. And, in spite of Lizzie and of O.J. and various other miscarriages of justice I still believe that in most cases they get it right.

Are you an advocate of the Continental system of justice, in which, in many countries, there are examining magistrates, rather than the Anglo adversarial system? Or where defendants are presumed guilty and have to prove their innocence?
Or a panel of judges, perhaps, such as are seen in Indonesia, and where no jury hears the case?

No country's legal system is ever going to be perfect, but I'd rather live under a system where there is habeus corpus and a presumption of innocence, and juries, rather than than the alternative.

I don't advocate a radical change in the system, except that I get sick to the stomach with the current system in the USA. I watch men get slapped on the wrist 4 or 5 times for drunk driving, until they kill an innocent family. Then everyone says the system is 'broken' "We need to do something."

It's the difference between laws with REAL consequences --or loopholes giving them a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th chance and letting them continue to break laws. It used to be Killing someone landed you in jail for the rest of your life...now 6 years with chances of parole isn't unusual...while your victim is dead forever.

At some point, our naive idea that we will "rehabilitate" criminals by being nice to them will have to change...USA has a per-capita murder rate about 5 per 100k (higher than Pakistan and Yemen) while Britain, Australia, Italy, France, and Ireland all have about 1 per 100k.

[Curryong]

You know what I'm going to say, don't you Possum? I'll say it anyway! Rather than any 'niceness' to criminals, the main reason for the very high murder rate in the U.S., compared with the rest of the world is America's lax gun laws.
Look over the border to Canada and see the difference!

[PossumPie]

You know what I'm going to say, don't you Possum? I'll say it anyway! Rather than any 'niceness' to criminals, the main reason for the very high murder rate in the U.S., compared with the rest of the world is America's lax gun laws.
Look over the border to Canada and see the difference!

I'm not interested in a gun control debate...
If my wife is home alone in our bedroom and a home invader breaks in to harm her/ her daughters, I'd rather she have a pistol in her hands than the police on the phone (it takes our police 20 min. to arrive.)

BTW A quick check shows Australia has had a huge increase in home invasions since 2012. People tied up at knife point, assaulted, robbed, raped.

And looking to another country as comparison is illogical unless you look at the reasons. Yemen has a lower murder rate than the USA...but it's because they cut off your hand if you commit a violent crime. Australia has a higher murder rate than Canada...but without the reasons it is a meaningless statistic.