


7:16 am

Oscar Pistorius's murder trial is set to resume again in just over an our after it was adjourned for a day because of elections in South Africa.

On Monday the Blade Runner denied accusations that he had made a "sinister" comment to a friend of Reeva who was present in court.

The athlete allegedly asked Kim Myers "How can you sleep at night?"  as his murder trial adjourned for the day.

A lawyer for the Myers family, who were close to Pistorius' girlfriend, said he made the comment "in a very sinister way".

A reporter also claims to have overheard the 27-year-old make the remark.

Lawyer Ian Levitt said he had contacted court officials. He said Ms Myers told him she did not know what the comment referred to and she was "shocked". 

Pistorius denied the claims by Ms Myers, who has been present for much of the trial.

7:44 am

Monday's first witness was neighbour Michael Nhlengethwa.

He said that Pistorius was the first person to welcome him to the estate when he moved there.

They did not know one another to socialise but he said he saw Pistorius around the estate and they shared a passion for cars.

He says he only met Reeva once, the week before her death.

He said: "I won't forget that moment. When she came towards me I raised my hand to greet her. She just opened her arms, she just came and hugged me. I could see the person she was."

8:31 am

The trial should be starting at any moment now.

We'll continue to bring you live updates form the court.

8:35 am

Professor Christina Lundgren is the first to be called to the stand.

She has asked not to be filmed while giving evidence.

8:36 am

She is an anaesthetist and will deal with gastric emptying.

Remember that earlier the court heard from defence witnesses that Reeva had eaten two hours before she died.

8:38 am

Going through her qualifications, Prof Lundgren sais she did her PhD on deaths due to anaesthesia.

She got her degree in Cape Town.

8:40 am

We apologise for the technical problems with the live stream.

It appears as though it's down for everyone, not just us. But we'll keep you up to date.

Lungdren explains why her qualifications enable her to give expert opinion on gastric emptying.

8:41 am

Lundgren says that anaesthesia is a broad speciality.

Patient safety includes whether there is food in the stomach.

She says while under anaesthesia there is a risk of regurgitation of food which could end up in the lungs. "It's an absolute disaster when it happens", she says.

8:43 am

Lundgren says that there are guidelines for elective surgery.

She says that there are many and that South Africa abides by international guidelines on last oral intake.

It takes many factors into account.

She says a patient who has just eaten a meal and has a head injury can have food in their stomach for up to 24 hours.

8:45 am

She talks about the different food that can be consumed before an operation.

For example, clear fluids can be consumed up to two hours such as clear apple juice, tea and water.

However, it's different for solid foods and it is more difficult to establish how long it takes for the stomach to empty.

She says that it is generally accepted that up to 10 per cent of a low-fat (solid) meal will remain in the stomach for up to four hours.

8:47 am

She says it is possible for a patient to have buttered toast and tea four to six hours before surgery but usually anaesthesiologists will require a six-hour minimum.

Lundgren says that gastric emptying can be affected by food such as vegetables grains, fat, or broccoli.

She cites a case where a patient regurgitated after anaesthetic despite not eating for eight hours.

8:50 am

Lundgren says pain and anxiety can prevent food from being digested as quickly, as can emotions and hormones.

Pre-menopausal women may have delayed gastric emptying.

Sleeping, smoking and alcohol all delay gastric emptying.

She is pointing out that gastric emptying is not an exact science and listing a wide range of reasons why the process can be slowed down.

8:54 am

Speaking about Reeva's last meal, she says she had chicken stir fry dinner at around 7pm.

But gastric empyting could have occurred because of insoluble fibre, pre-menopausal woman, it is not known if she was taking medication, she had exercised and that slows the process, and it is unclear if she was bulimic or anorexic, she went to sleep.

After six hours of fasting her stomach should probably have been empty, Professor Lundgren says, but there are so many unknowns one cannot state it as fact, it is merely speculation.

8:56 am

Nel starts his prosecution by saying he believes her evidence is balanced but he wants to test some of the evidence.

Lundgren confirms she has read prosecution expert Professor Saayman's report.

8:58 am

Nel questions her comment on the facts of the matter but it's based on nothing on record. She agrees and says that she read in evidence that Reeva had eaten a stir fry.

9:00 am

Professor Saayman said that gastric emptying isn't an exact science and there are variations between individuals but there are timelines.

Lundgren says four hours may be insufficient, at least six hours would be needed.

9:02 am

Lungdren says that because they are so safety-conscious they will tell patients not to eat after 5am.

If they are in at 8am they will "starve" the patient over night.

The patient can have clear fluid so they do not become dehydrated.

9:05 am

Nel asks if there is an eight hour time frame since the last meal, as with Reeva, you would expect the stomach to be empty.

Lungdren says stir fries have undigestable fibres in them. It varies from person to person and relies on different factors.

She says: "I don't think one can be that categorical, my lady."

Lungdren has seen one picture of green matter.

9:07 am

Nel asks why stir fry meals should be taken into account.

Lungdren repeats that vegetables may have delayed gastric emptying.

She repeats that it's not an exact science.

Nel raises a laugh when he asks if she warns her patients not to have a stir fry.

Lundgren says she warns her patients to have a light meal.

9:09 am

Nel asks if after eight hours the food would still be identifiable.

Lundgren asks to see the picture again.

Saayman said that vegetables were identifiable the day after Reeva's death without knowing what she had to eat.

9:11 am

Nel refers to Saayman's evidence in which he said there was 200ml partially digested food with a slightly green/grey colour in which whitish cheese-like particles were identified.

Lungdren said cheese can be high fat and slow to be digested.

Nel asks if she can comment on whether food would be identifiable after eight hours.

She says: "I cant' comment on that, my lady".

Nel said: "But he [Saayman] can".

9:14 am

After death gastric emptying, but digestion because of the stomach's acids continues breaking down the food, Nel says.

Lungdren says she deals with live patients and respects Saayman's work. She tried to find information on if enzymes would continue to work after death.

She says she could not find such information either way.

Nel says Reeva died at around 3pm and she remained on the scene for nearly nine hours before she was refrigerated and that needs to be taken into account.

9:17 am

Lungdren says that Mr Saayman's evidence is an opinion when asked about him finding partially digested food in Reeva's stomach.

Reeva's body was handed over to the mortuary at 11.45pm.

Court adjourns for half an hour while Nel consults with Professor Saayman.

9:54 am

Professor Lungdren is now back in the witness box.

She confirms that she has received several items during the adjournment.

Nel is referring to an article that deals with digestion continuing after death because of enzyme activity.

9:54 am

Asked if she has read a specific article by an academic, she says "I'm a clinician, not a pathologist".

Nel asks her if there is anything in one of the reports that she wants the court to look at.

Professor Lungdren looks at the article which refers to fasting in adults and children.

10:00 am

Prof Lungdren refers to a point about 10 per cent of a meal remaining in the stomach for more than four hours.

Nel deals with Saayman's evidence in which he says we are dealing with a period of two hours after Reeva last ate.

He asks if there's anything that Lundgren would disagree with.

She repeats her respect for Saayman saying he was entitled to his opinion.

She points out that there has been much discussion between professionals saying that the method is unreliable.

10:03 am

Lundgren says she has no reason to say Reeva was not a normal individual.

Nel asks why after four hours 10 per cent of stomach contents would remain.

Lundgren says there is nothing to say she was different but there are factors that should be considered.

This includes the fact that she slept, she was pre-menopausal, that she did yoga.

Lundgren says that we don't know exactly what was in the meal.

Nel says that they were both very health-conscious people - a model and an athlete - and wouldn't be eating high-fat food.

Lundgren says that it is not a question so doesn't comment.

10:03 am

10:05 am

Nel says that there was 200ml of food left in the stomach.

So if that is 10 per cent of what was left so Reeva must have taken in two litres of food - quite a lot.

Lundgren says that is a lot of food. She says one drinks liquid when one eats.

She says it is very speculative on estimated on what the size of the meal was.

10:07 am

Nel says he wants Lundgren to speculate.

He says that if Reeva ate eight hours before she died, it would be four litres of food. Even less probable.

Lundgren says it is a lot, but she would have to do the calculations to check.

She adds that it is not advisable to estimate the amount of food that Reeva had eaten or the time that she ate before she died.

10:10 am

Nel asks if a long argument before death, leading to anxiety, could have affected the speed of gastric emptying.

Lundgren says that anxiety is a factor.

She says that it also depends on what the meal was. Liquid would have emptied first.

10:12 am

Nel says Reeva didn't smoke, drink or take medication so that would not have delayed gastric emptying.

Lundgren says she is unaware of anything that affected Reeva.

10:15 am

Lundgren says that most patients are older - post menopause.

Nel says that in an ideal world her stomach probably should have been emptied, citing Lundgren's own evidence.

Yet there was 200ml of food still in the stomach despite eight hours of being alive and at least five hours of being dead, unrefrigerated. "That must mean something. That must mean that Professor Saayman's evidence is more credible".

Lundgren says that's speculative and she's not going to comment.

She adds that she is not a forensic pathologist and can only go on the literature that says "it is speculative to say when the last meal was, based on the contents of the stomach".

10:16 am

Nel asks if she is willing to say professor Saayman was wrong.

She says he is entitled to his opinion, and so is she.

Nel concludes examination of Lundgren and Roux begins re-examination.

10:19 am

Lundgren says it is not possible to estimate gastric emptying on an hourly basis.

It is not an exact science, it is very difficult to estimate the speed of gastric emptying.

Roux says that if Saayman's evidence that food was still being digested 10 hours later, it is theoretically possible that she ate several litres of food.

10:21 am

Lundgren is excused from the witness box and the court is adjourned for tea before the next witness is called.

10:41 am

The next witness is Yvette van Schalkwyk.

She has objected to being shown in court.

She is a social worker at the department of social development.

10:42 am

Mrs van Schalkwyk was a social worker and development officer at the time.

She qualified in 1989 and started working for the department then.

She assessed Pistorius the morning he appeared in court on bail and helped him through his application.

10:44 am

van Schalkwyk was asked to testify but saying she didn't know about the merits of the defence she could not contribute.

But after reading what she said she thought she would come forward to testify and give her version events.

She says she was upset that he had been accused of acting.

She only came forward on Tuesday this week. Two days ago.

10:46 am

van Schalkwyk: "What I saw from the first time I saw him was a man that was heartbroken about the loss.

"He cried, he was in mourning, he was suffering emotionally, he was very sorry for the loss especially for her parents."

She said that he loved her. Nel says her evidence is inadmissable because she is testifying to a previous consistent statement.

Roux says it has to do with the testimony of the accused.

10:49 am

Judge Masipa says that she believes van Schalkwyk's evidence is relevant.

She points out that Nel told Pistorius he can't use emotion to hide what he did.

Nel is overruled.

10:50 am

van Schalkwyk says he talked about what they had planned for the future, that he wasn't going to see her again, her family and what they are going through. "I saw a heartbroken man that's suffering emotionally".

One of his conditions while on bail was that he was seen frequently by van Schalkwyk.

10:53 am

van Schalkwyk takes the court through her reports with details of Pistorius's mental condition and the work she had to carry out with him following his bail hearing.

He was taken to see a psychologist for intense therapist to deal with what he was going through.

She says that he was heartbroken and emotionally stressed.

10:55 am

A second report, dated March 8 2013, he is described as being fully compliant. Tests for illegal substances came back negative.

He was still suffering emotional and physical reactions as a result of killing Reeva.

10:56 am

Another report from March 2013 says that Pistorius was "not suicidal as newspaper, but is heartbroken."

She said that his grieving was normal following a traumatic event, recovery takes time and everyone heals in their own time.

He was fully compliant to all the conditions.

10:59 am

Another report from March 2013 said that he was slowly improving and was co-operating with therapy. Again he was compliant with the conditions.

van Schalkwyk sat with Pistorius in the cells when he was on bail and he vomited twice.

"I sat with him in the cells," she said. "He vomited twice, one time when he came out of course. One time when he came out of court he started crying and crying, we tried to get him up and calm him down."

Meetings were arranged at his home because of the media interest.

11:00 am

Nel takes to the stand and says he felt sorry for himself.

van Schalkwyk says she did not see that.

Nel asks if he said "I killed her".

She said that he did not, she did not want to know about the case.

11:03 am

van Schalkwyk said that she doesn't normally see people just after arrest. She has never handled an accused in a family murder case just after arrest.

She usually becomes involved with the accused in the assessment of children and adults a day or two after arrest, not for emotional support.

He said he misses Reeva.

"I saw him on the Friday, I presume it was the 15th. He missed Reeva so much. That was his first words that he said to me."

She says he told her he had accidentally shot her later on - not on that day.

11:06 am



He said he misses Reeva.



11:07 am

Nel asks why she was in court.

"It upset me that they said he was not sincere, that I read that in the newspaper. I wanted to give my observation that I perceived during that time.

She adds: "I saw a traumatised person. Heartbroken."

Nel asks how she would expect people to react.

She says people react differently.

Nel says you would expect such a person to be traumatised. van Schalkwyk agrees.

11:09 am

van Schalkwyk says that he was sorry and heartbroken.

Nel says he hasn't heard of Pistorius saying "I'm so sorry".

van Schalkwyk said he was sorry about what happened.

Nel says van Schalkwyk is adapting her evidence.

11:11 am

Nel points out that van Schalkwyk said he was sorry for what he did.

van Schalkwyk says they didn't talk about the merits of the case.

Nel says Pistorius never said he was sorry that he killed her. van Schalkwyk agrees.

Nel says "It's all about him, isn't it."

van Schalkwyk: "I can't say it's all about him because it's emotions. It's what he went through at that stage... It was never 'what's going to happen to me? Am I going to get bail'."

11:13 am

Nel says the first thing a probation officer should look for is someone saying "I'm sorry for what I have done".

van Schalkwyk says that it is in her reports that it's important so say if a person has sincere remorse.

She says what she saw was a heartbroken man. She wasn't looking if his report was genuine.

Pistorius never said: "I'm so sorry I did it".

11:14 am

Nel asks if he said he was sorry on February 15 when she met him.

van Schalkwyk said that she was not looking for him to say that, it's not her position or function.

Nel says that with all her experience, that's what she should expect.

van Schalkwyk says Pistorius was emotional and heartbroken. She says she didn't want to know about the case - she was there for emotional support and to monitor his behaviour.

11:16 am

van Schalkwyk says that he can't think about what her parents are going through.

Nel says she didn't hear him say "I'm so sorry, I should not have done it".

van Schalkwyk agrees.

She was there to monitor his mental state and making sure he complied with conditions.

11:17 am

The court is adjourned for 10 minutes so that Nel can consult with his evidence.

11:24 am

Court resumes and van Schalkwyk confirms that she saw him for the first time on February 15.

Nel asks him if she felt sorry for him.

van Schalkwyk says that she felt empathy. With her experience, you don't feel empathy for people.

11:26 am

Nel asks if with her 24 years of experience it bothered her that he didn't say sorry for killing Reeva.

van Schalkwyk says he was traumatic, emotional but says that he didn't say sorry for what he did.

11:27 am

Nel says he has no further questions but he wants to consult with his psychologist and may have future questions.

That's it from Nel.

Roux now cross-examines.

11:28 am

van Schalkwyk says that he thought there was an intruder, got his firearm and went to the bathroom where he heard a noise.

That concludes Roux's cross examination.

van Schalkwyk is excused but told she could be recalled.

11:29 am

The next expert for the defence is ballistics expert Tom Wolmarans.

There will be a 10 minute break while his evidence is laid out before the court.

11:39 am

Tom Wolmarans takes to the stand to give his evidence. He spells out his name pointing out that it has no "e".

He is offered a seat but prefers to stand. He does not want to be televised.

Roux starts questioning.

11:41 am

Wolmarans, a ballistics expert, is hard of hearing.

He is handed a report. He says he is Afrikaans and says he may need assistance at some points during his evidence.

Roux says Wolmarans was asked to carry out tests by the defence team. There were two differing accounts - whether he was on his prosthesis and the distance he was from the door.

11:43 am

Roux says that the state does not dispute that he was not on his legs when he shot the gun and that he was 1.5 metres from the door.

Wolmarans and Mangena (the state's witness) came to the same findings on the two disputes.

11:46 am

Wolmarans did national service which is when he was introduced to firearms and gained experience.

After he completed nine months of national service he joined the South African police and was trained to use guns in the police college.

He was also an instructor and worked with confiscated firearms. He says every type of weapon that is forfeited went to that section of the police and he worked with a wide range of weapons in his job.

11:49 am

In 1976 he went to the South African criminal bureau and trained in classification of finger prints.

He says he was not trained on crime scenes, just 10 finger prints.

He was then transferred to the ballistics section. He was seconded to Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) where he learned about hand and shoulder weapons that were used in the bush war.

11:52 am

Wolmarans is listing the various international bodies he has visited around the world.

He says he has conducted thousands of investigations and testified in more than 500 cases.

11:53 am

He has also visited numerous ammunition manufacturers to increase his expertise.

11:54 am

Volmarans retired from the South African police in 1992 and became a private consultant.

11:56 am

Turning to the morning that Reeva was shot dead, Wolmarans went to visit Pistorius's house at around 3pm.

He says he was wearing protective clothing and walked through the house.

Members of the South African CSI arrived later.

11:57 am

Apologies if our live video feed has just gone down for you. We will have it up and running again as soon as possible.

11:58 am

Wolmarans says he recovered the fragment of bullet by putting on a glove and searching the bowl.

He says he also found a piece of tile in there.

12:02 pm

Wolmarans says that a piece of wood was handed to him in an evidence bag and the door was later returned.

He conducted an examination of the door when police returned it to the house.

The court adjourns for lunch.

Hopefully we will get the live feed back in time for the afternoon session.

1:00 pm

Court has resumed after lunch.

Wormarans takes to the stand again.

1:01 pm

Nel tells the court that there are no guns in court.

Judge Masipa says: "I am glad to hear it", raising a laugh in court.

1:02 pm

Wolmorans asked if someone in court could provide a firearm to demonstrate his point.

He's having to use a picture.

Masipa said: "I'd prefer that".

1:04 pm

Wolmarans is explaining how a semi-automatic firearm works.

The gun Pistorius used was self-loading and could take 17 rounds.

1:07 pm

Roux asks if the gun can be fired quickly.

Wolmarans said that it is possible for someone that is younger than him.

He also told the court that each time the gun is fired the finger has to release the trigger each time. Pistorius did this four times.

Automatic in this canes means self-loading, not automatic in that it fires repeatedly while the trigger is compressed.

1:10 pm

Pistorius used Winchester Ranger ammunition.

He said that this type of bullet is used for law enforcement and self defence.

He says the bullet forms a mushroom when it hits the soft flesh so it makes a bigger wound.

His phone goes off while he is in the stand and he rushes to switch it off.

1:11 pm

1:13 pm

Speaking about "Black Talon" he says it's a ranger bullet that has the same effect.

He says there was never a black talon made for this particular type of bullet, but he says there is no difference.

They would both mushroom upon hitting soft flesh.

1:20 pm

Wolmarans confirms that Mangena's measurements matched his that the grouping was very small. Not very wide.

He says that the reconstruction of the door was unlikely to have been precise and that slight deviations would occur.

He says this can have an effect on the measured trajectories of the bullet, even at a close difference.

1:22 pm

Wolmarans says that a one degree deflection from the door could have changed the trajectory of the bullet a couple of centimetres to the left or right.

1:24 pm

Wolmorans says the direction of the bullet cannot be predicted without knowing the exact point it was fired from.

He says that the repeated insertion of probes would also affect the accuracy of the trajectory.

Pointing at one of the bullet holes he said that he noticed a curve in the wood, suggesting deflection.

1:26 pm

He said that any of the bullet holes in the door could have caused the ricochet mark.

He said that the bullet that hit the web of Reeva's fingers would have been deflected further.

2:24 pm

Apologies for the lack of updates for the last hour. We've had some technical difficulties, but we will have a summary of the day's events soon.

The case has now adjourned while ballistics expert Tom Wolmarans was giving evidnce.

He will return tomorrow and we will bring you live updates from around 7.30am.


Mirror Casino  

Mirror Casino

100% Welcome Bonus

When you play roulette, blackjack and slots at Mirror Casino

Mirror Matches  

Meet your perfect match today!

Get one week free in your first month with code: MATCHWEEK