Publications
Partners
The fact forensics determined OP was on his stumps rather than his prosthetics when he fired the gun is the most significant finding. Yet a subject that was never elaborated on during the trial. There are limited reasons for OP to be without his prosthetics. Removing them prior to getting into bed for the night would be one of them. We know OP's version is the couple had gone to bed around 10pm, he had woken up, gotten out of bed to move the fans in order to close the balcony doors and curtains.
Mr Nel argued this never happened. Mr Nel wants the courts to reject OP”s version on the basis that “his version is so improbable that nobody would ever think 'it's reasonably, possibly true.” And would instead have the Judges believe that based on the testimony of Mrs VDM claiming to hear the voice of an angry woman on and off for an hour starting at 156a. In addition to the testimony of Professor Saayman regarding Reeva's stomach content claiming that Reeva had eaten a meal plus or minus 2 hours prior to her death. The couple were awake arguing and eating a meal in the kitchen between 2-3am.
On the surface, the testimony of Mrs VDM and Professor Saayman seems devastating to OP's case. However, as a result of their testimony Mr Nel was forced to place the couple downstairs in the kitchen at least an hour prior to the incident. Therefore, eliminating the possibility that the couple had been in bed just prior to the incident and a logical explanation for why OP was on his stumps when he fired the shots.
According to the State's theory. The couple had been in the kitchen eating and arguing round 2am which happened to coincide with the angry woman's voice Mrs MVD testified to hearing. From there the couple moving back upstairs. At some point becoming involved in an altercation in the bedroom, resulting in the duvet being ripped off the bed and thrown on the floor. Reeva removing her jeans in an attempt to leave, dropping them on the duvet. OP pursuing Reeva into the toilet. OP beating on the toilet door with the cricket bat in an attempt to scare Reeva. OP and Reeva talking/arguing through the toilet door. OP in a fit of rage retrieving his gun and firing shots through the door purposely murdering Reeva.
A colossal element missing from Mr Nel's theory is the fact that forensics confirmed Oscar Pistorius was on his stumps when he fired the shots. This can only mean OP navigated up and down tiled stairs, walked around the kitchen for an hour eating/ arguing with Reeva, ripped the duvet off the bed, pursued a young, fit, able bodied Reeva into the toilet, banged on the toilet door to scare her, retrieved his gun and entered a tiled floor bathroom with the intention of shooting to kill while on his stumps. Or a man enraged enough to kill stopped in the middle of his murderous act to remove his prosthetics.We know Mr Nel argued at the Bail Hearing that OP took the time to put his prosthetics on which showed premeditation. This turned out not to be the case. Making it impossible to argue that a man out of his mind with anger, enraged enough to kill would take the time to remove his prosthetics before carrying out his murderous mission. Leaving the unanswered question. Why would a man without feet, in a fit of rage, intent on murder not employee the help of his prosthetics, an extension of his body to ensure he succeeded in committing this heinous act?
Mr Nel argued through the entire trial Oscar Pistorius was a narcissistic, hot tempered, controlling, abusive person who showed no remorse for his actions. If this were indeed true, after completing his murderous mission and realizing the severity of what he had done. A man such as Mr Nel described would have immediately started creating a cover up story staging the scene along the way to match up with his version to explain the resultant death of Reeva. He would have been far more concerned about covering his own hide rather than the condition of Reeva. Making it difficult to understand how the bedroom was found to be in direct conflict with the version OP put forth. And Dr Stipp found OP to genuinely want Reeva to live and was genuinely devastated about what had happened that morning.
The evidence of Professor Saayman regarding Reeva eating a meal plus or minus two hours prior to her death based on her gastric content is very perplexing. During his cross examination of Professor Lundgren Mr Nel read from Professor Saayman's post- mortem report that stated “post-mortem, after death, the gastric emptying stops but the physical break down of the food, digestion, because of the enzymes and hydrochloric acid, continues breaking down the food.
Mr Nel went a step further and pointed out that even though Reeva died sometime around 3am, she remained on the scene for hours until her remains were removed and refrigerated. And this too should also be taken in to account. Judge Masipa asked Mr Nel how many hours the body remained on the scene. Mr Nel told the court her body was turned over to the mortuary at 11:45am. So essentially Mr Nel is stating that even if Reeva had undigested food in her stomach at the time of death from the meal she had eaten at 7pm. Due to the fact her body remained at the scene close to 9 hours after her death with digestion continuing there is no explanation for why recognizable food would have been found in Reeva's stomach by the time Professor Saayman conducted the autopsy. He claims this fact proves Reeva had eaten much later and according to Professor Saayman most likely plus or minus 2 hours prior to her death.
But if Reeva had eaten a meal within an hour or two of her death how does one explain why post-mortem gases and enzynes had not broken down that meal while her body remained on the scene for almost 9 hours with post-mortem digestion continuing? Professor Saayman was still able to recognize vegetables and a white cheese like substance that was measured at 200mls. It was stated during the trial according to medical journals most meals will be digested in four hours. (1-3 hours for small/average meal, 3-5 for medium meal, 5-8 for large meal). So if the meal Reeva ate at 7pm should have been digested by the time Reeva's body was handed over to the mortuary and refrigerated. Why was the meal she ate just prior to her death still in a recognizable form in her stomach as many hours later?
If she had eaten a meal an hour or two prior to death that would have given the food time to begin digestion while Reeva was still alive and then another 8 plus hours for post-mortem digestion to continue to break down the meal before her body was handed over to the mortuary. Making it very puzzling why Professor Saayman would have found recognizable food in Reeva's stomach so long after her death even it she had eaten a meal plus or minus 2 hours prior to her death.
If Professor Saayman's testimony is taken into consideration it seems the meal should have been unrecognizable by the time her body was handed over to the mortuary. Mr Nel's theory does not seem to factor in any time for pre or post-mortem digestion to have broken down the meal Reeva supposedly consumed plus or minus 2 hours prior to death. His theory seems to suggests it is impossible for a meal eaten at 7:00pm to still be recognizable due to the amount of time Reeva's body remained on the scene with post-mortem digestion continuing. But perfectly normal for a meal Reeva had eaten plus or minus two hours prior to death to be in a recognizable form taking into consideration the same factors regarding the amount of time Reeva's body remained on the scene with post-mortem digestion continuing. Making it difficult to understand how on the basis of the gastric content alone Professor Saayman could conclude from such an anomaly that Reeva had eaten a meal plus or minus 2 hours prior to her death.
