Pistorius Trial...Discussion of last meal...Is Oscar lying?

 Reeva Steenkamp's mother, June Steenkamp (right), was present at the trial on Thursday

 

The 28th day of Oscar Pistorius's trial has heard evidence about when Reeva Steenkamp may have eaten her last meal. Witness Prof Christina Lundgren, an anaesthetist, described when a stomach is likely to be emptied after eating. She said the prosecution's argument that Ms Steenkamp's stomach would have been empty if she ate when Mr Pistorius said she did was "pure speculation".

Mr Pistorius denies intentionally killing Ms Steenkamp on 14 February last year. The South African Olympic athlete says he accidentally shot her through a toilet door in a state of panic, mistaking her for an intruder.
Social worker Yvette van Schalkwyk, who also gave evidence on Thursday, said Mr Pistorius was "heartbroken" after the killing. Ms Van Schalkwyk said she was asked to accompany Mr Pistorius immediately after the shooting for"emotional support".
"I saw a heartbroken man. He cried 80% of the time," she said.
Ms Van Schalkwyk was a surprise witness who had asked to testify. She said she offered to speak after being upset by media claims that Mr Pistorius was "putting on a show" when he cried in court.
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel objected, saying her evidence about Mr Pistorius' emotions were not relevant to the case.  However, Judge Thokozile Masipa said Mr Nel had questioned Mr Pistorius' emotions, and allowed the witness to continue testifying.
In his cross-examination, Mr Nel pushed Ms Van Schalkwyk to acknowledge that Mr Pistorius never said he was sorry that he had killed Ms Steenkamp.
"It's all about him," the prosecutor said. "It's not 'sorry for what I've done'."

Earlier, the court heard evidence on when Ms Steenkamp may have had her last meal. Mr Pistorius had said the couple had dinner at about 19:00 on the evening Ms Steenkamp was killed. He said they went to sleep between 21:00 and 22:00.
The prosecution has argued that this cannot be true, as Ms Steenkamp had food in her stomach at the time of her death, in the early hours of 14 February last year. This indicates that Ms Steenkamp ate later than Mr Pistorius said, and that this meant the couple could have been awake, and arguing, before the shooting, the prosecution says.
Prof Lundgren, who was shown copies of the post mortem report, said there were many factors that could have delayed gastric emptying in Ms Steenkamp's stomach, including sleep, exercise, medication and her age.
"One cannot state it as being fact" that Ms Steenkamp's stomach would have been empty six hours after eating, Prof Lundgren said. "I would say it is purely speculative."
In his cross-examination, Mr Nel argued that Prof Lundgren's list of factors might not apply to Ms Steenkamp, and that in normal circumstances one would expect the stomach to be empty eight hours after eating food.

If found guilty, Mr Pistorius - a national sports hero and double amputee dubbed the "blade runner" because of the prosthetic limbs he wears to race - could face life imprisonment. If he is acquitted of murder, the court must consider an alternative charge of culpable homicide, for which he could receive about 15 years in prison. There are no juries at trials in South Africa, and his fate will ultimately be decided by a judge.

Pistorius has been caught in several lies or changes in testimony and one has to wonder if this is another fabrication. The lies certainly add to the mounting evidence against him. Although there is no doubt he killed Reeva Steenkamp, the trial seems to revolve around his state of mind at the time.
They had just had a very vocal argument, heard by several witnesses and Reeva, by her own admission, was frightened of Pistorius at times.

Here is the scenario: [From Oscar Pistorius’ affidavit]
He hears a noise in the middle of the night and gets his 9 mm that he keeps under the bed. He doesn’t, however, check to see if his girlfriend Reeva is in bed with him, nor does he inform her that he’s going to investigate the noise.
If you were worried that there was an intruder in the house, would you check on your loved one(s) first? Not in Pistorius’ case apparently.
Then he says that he went to the bathroom and sees that the bathroom window is open and sees that the toilet room door is closed.
He yells out to the unknown person he hears making noise in the toilet but allegedly gets no response. He yells to Steenkamp to call the police and then fires four times through the bathroom door at the person in the toilet room because he is terrified of an intruder who is hiding in the toilet room behind a (locked) door.

Now that we all have the picture..... a multiple choice question:

Who, taking their cellphone with them, goes into a toilet cubicle and locks the door?
A. An intruder who wants his or her privacy in the toilet
B. A girlfriend who wants to temporarily get away from an out of control boyfriend and call for help
C. A girlfriend who doesn’t realize ( but, maybe, suspects)  that her boyfriend is so crazed and/or murderous that he will shoot her through the bathroom door four times


 I am getting the feeling that I am biased.