Oscar Pistorius throws up as court hears graphic details of Reeva Steenkamp's autopsy




Oscar Pistorius bent over in the dock and retched into a bucket as his murder trial heard graphic evidence from the pathologist who performed the post mortem on his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Judge Thokozile Masipa ruled that Professor Gert Saayman’s evidence should not be broadcast or tweeted, in accordance with the pathologist’s own wishes, as the athlete's murder trial entered its second week in Pretoria. Pistorius blocked both his ears with his thumbs and sobbed into a white handkerchief as Professor Saayman described in some detail the size and shape of the four gunshots that killed Ms Steenkamp. He had only been speaking for a matter of minutes when Pistorius's defence counsel Barry Roux requested court be adjourned because: "Mr Pistorius has been sick".
Both sets of lawyers had argued for the broadcast of proceedings to be suspended while the court heard what was expected to be "extremely graphic" testimony. State prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the court that Professor Saayman had "ethical concerns" over broadcasting details  of the autopsy. Mr Nel said reporting restrictions were needed to "respect the decency" of Ms Steenkamp, her family and friends. Professor Saayman told the court that "the graphic details  have the potential to damage the dignity of the deceased", and broadcasting his testimony would "harm the rights of the remaining friends and relatives of the deceased." "It goes against the good morals of society to make this information available , to unsuspecting members of the public, including children and other vulnerable people," he added.
Dr Saayman’s testimony will still be filmed, and the broadcasters are hopeful that its “benign parts” may be broadcast tonight or tomorrow morning. South African broadcasters fought a lengthy legal battle for the right to broadcast the murder trial.

Read more at the source

tl dr... Judge ruled that the post mortem of Reeva Steenkamp not be broadcast in order to "respect the decency"  and that it may potentially "damage the dignity of the deceased".