South Africa - Susan Rohde, 47, murdered, Stellenbosch, 24 July 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
LVN: I didn't make any definitive findings in the neck. Because of challenge of second autopsy, I needed more info. I got this info with more photos from Coetzee-Khan. I now put before the court that this [possible cause of death] must be considered.

LVN: Surely these other factors you were mulling over in your head, you would agree it's important for the investigation team to take further? Perumal agrees.

Perumal: Once I did the autopsy, I met with attorney Daniel Witz and explained to him what the findings were. LVN: Did you tell him about the other thoughts in your mind? VDS jumps up and says this is privileged information.

LVN says Perumal's opinion played a major role in bail hearing to argue that charges should be dropped and there was no case against the accused.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter
 
I wonder how Perumal's 'open mind' will stand up to CK's report on Susan's injuries. He has implied, surprisingly, that CK may well be right on the causes some injuries. On other occasions when voicing uncertainty erring on the side of the defence. His opinions sound less strong to me.
 
I'm still catching up now watching the first hour of testimony that I missed this morning, but I have watched the rest and I was really disappointed that he didn't ask Perumal if Susan's shoulder abrasions could have occurred at the same time that she sustained the cut above her eye. If she had say stumbled forwards onto a wall is it likely that the back of her shoulder became involved, two injuries one at front and one at back, and also perhaps even more pertinent, whether those shoulder abrasions could have occurred while she was wearing her robe.

It is promising though that the blood spatter above her eye was caused by a second impact to an already bleeding injury.
 

We are back. LVN hands up the printed, unedited, unsigned judgment from Henri van Breda murder trial. Says he will not question Perumal on it now because he wants to give him time to read relevant sections.

LVN tells Perumal "we are not here to assassinate each other's character. We are here to assist the court".

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter
 
LVN speaks about a Northern Cape case Perumal worked on. From the post-mortem by the State, a linear fraction present on skull. LVN: "You said no skull fracture. At the time did you have sight of first post-mortem?" Perumal said he did.

LVN wants Perumal to explain how he moved from finding in the other case at second autopsy that there was no skull fracture, to a later finding that there was.

Perumal said he has done an enormous number of second autopsies. He says they are "fraught with challenges and difficulties". He said he didn't observe skull fracture when he did autopsy and says it was an "observer error".

Perumal: "When I formulated the cause of death, I stated whether [the skull fracture was] present or not, the cause of death was unrelated. He observed skull fracture at exhumation autopsy.

LVN asks for an adjournment so he can question Perumal on Van Breda trial. Court will resume at 10am tomorrow.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter
 
LVN speaks about a Northern Cape case Perumal worked on. From the post-mortem by the State, a linear fraction present on skull. LVN: "You said no skull fracture. At the time did you have sight of first post-mortem?" Perumal said he did.

LVN wants Perumal to explain how he moved from finding in the other case at second autopsy that there was no skull fracture, to a later finding that there was.

Perumal said he has done an enormous number of second autopsies. He says they are "fraught with challenges and difficulties". He said he didn't observe skull fracture when he did autopsy and says it was an "observer error".

Perumal: "When I formulated the cause of death, I stated whether [the skull fracture was] present or not, the cause of death was unrelated. He observed skull fracture at exhumation autopsy.

LVN asks for an adjournment so he can question Perumal on Van Breda trial. Court will resume at 10am tomorrow.

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter

Sorry I'd drifted off again and missed hearing the autopsies referred to were on another case.
 
I don't remember Perumal being cross-examined on the blood in the stomach and intestine, and the rib and lung damage, yet he said he is nearing the end of his cross. I thought that was a massive area on which the State disagreed with the Defence. And what about the bruising on her neck below the area of the ligature? Perhaps I've missed a chunk somewhere.

It sounds as if he is going to cover the Pistorius/Wolmaran's evidence of extracting the bullet from the toilet.
 
So were there 3 autopsies? 2 by Perumal?

A different case is being discussed. There was the initial autopsy done by the State pathologist on 25/8/2014. A skull facture was observed.

Perumal performed a second autopsy on 4/9/2014 but didn't see the skull fracture.

Approx. one year later there was an exhumation autopsy performed at which he was present and did see the skull fracture.

The skull fracture was unrelated to the cause of death.

[The live stream was dragging dreadfully and replaying it is still very bad so hope the above is correct]
 
I think he strangled her into unconsciousness, dragged her into the bathroom, set up a large noose with the appliance cord, raised her upper body into a sitting position to put her head through and that finished her off. But then he had to move her slightly more into the bathroom so that he could open the door and get back out, and moving her there meant she stayed there when he closed the door, so the cord wasn't strong enough to drag her back when he closed the door and her body slumped into a semi-lying position. That's why they were able to open the door about 30cm before it was blocked. It also explains why the faeces and urine weren't next to the door.
 
I also think it's unlikely that Susan would bother to make a knotted noose if there is an easier way of doing it. I think she would be more likely to create a large loop to lean forwards into and secure it by wrapping it several times in figure 8 fashion around the door hook. Why bother making knots if you don't need to.

It's quite telltale that Jason said "I didn't touch that cord" as if that had been his plan and he was proud that they wouldn't find his prints on it, and as if that would be natural to even know if you had touched it and to not immediately want to touch it to try to create more slack and reduce the weight. They found an open bottle of Susan's make up remover in the bathroom and I wouldn't be surprised if he had wiped the cord down with it to remove grease and fingerprints. Susan hadn't removed her make up, or even washed any of her bleeding injuries.
 
Last thought for now...lol.

Most hangings I've heard of, people cut them down. They don't try to undo knots. Daniels even had his tool kit with him but Jason didn't ask him to cut her down he asked him to get the cord off, which could be an excuse to undo and mess with the evidence.
 
Interesting that van der Spuy has become rather more boorish towards the court. I think since Dr P was dismissed from the stand he thinks he's lost the case and could be trying to provoke the judge into making more rulings against him that he can complain about. When he was trying to bring up the matter of the witness (was it Steenkamp?) where she had stopped his line of questioning he was really being pedantic by not listening to her and derailing the cross-examination of Perumal.
 
I think he strangled her into unconsciousness, dragged her into the bathroom, set up a large noose with the appliance cord, raised her upper body into a sitting position to put her head through and that finished her off. But then he had to move her slightly more into the bathroom so that he could open the door and get back out, and moving her there meant she stayed there when he closed the door, so the cord wasn't strong enough to drag her back when he closed the door and her body slumped into a semi-lying position. That's why they were able to open the door about 30cm before it was blocked. It also explains why the faeces and urine weren't next to the door.
Yes, I know I'm replying to myself, but there is a clue there in that he was able to open the door far enough to get in, and that would have been the same distance he needed to get out too.
 
Is VDS going for a mistrial? He sure complains a lot! He accuses the state for „character assasination“ although he is the one that called the most biased witness so far, Dr Panieri-Peter?
I don't know but I doubt he is happy with the way things have been going since last week. I've noticed a change in his tactics and I thought it was quite revealing when the cameras continued recording yesterday and picked up his comment to (presumably) JR's attorney. I thought he was talking about the judge when he said "she" and his tone was quite disparaging IMO.
 
Judge asks if Jason would like to sit next to attorney, where he can see the slides up on the wall. He does so.

Photo shows Susan's face.
Interesting move by the judge I thought. Did she want to see his reactions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: L2L
We will hopefully wrap up cross-examination of defence forensic pathologist Dr Reggie Perumal today. Registrar comes in and asks if everyone is ready to begin. "I am ready!" prosecutor Louis van Niekerk says emphatically.

LVN starts by asking if Perumal has looked at Henri van Breda judgment. He says yes.

LVN says that Perumal had told court that even though he didn't testify in Van Breda trial, his evidence was admitted. Perumal says: "Now I see differently in the judgment- it says 'Perumal never testified and therefore his evidence wasn't considered'."

Team News24 (@TeamNews24) | Twitter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
64
Guests online
867
Total visitors
931

Forum statistics

Threads
589,923
Messages
17,927,715
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top