A medical expert on Wednesday disputed testimony that former Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride was drunk when he crashed his state-owned car in 2006, insisting that he suffered from hypoglycaemia.
Professor Anthon Van Gerlde, a retired physician and cardiologist also told the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court that evidence that McBride reeked of alcohol and had slurred speech at the scene of the accident, could not be ascribed to alcohol intoxication, but rather to ketosis due to his diabetes.
“Dr [Inbanathan Sagathevan] appears to have fared no better than the witnesses in arguing that the accused was drunk during the accident,” said Van Gerlder.
“He did considerably better in caring for the head injury than he did in managing the diabetes.”
Sagathevan is one of the doctors who examined McBride after the crash and is related to Chief Superintendent Stanely Sagathevan, one of the three state witnesses who were McBride’s colleagues.
‘Smell of alcohol could be smell of ketones’
Most of the witnesses testified that they concluded McBride was intoxicated with alcohol because of the odour of alcohol on his breath, his bloodshot eyes, difficulty walking and slurred speech.
“Slurred speech is a known sequel of hypoglycaemia,” Van Gerlder told the court.
During cross examination, he said that as much as intoxication could result in slurred speech, other causes were minimal brain damage, ketosis and hypoglycaemia.
“The accused’s treatment [for diabetes] resulted in hypoglycaemia for a day or two before the day [of the accident]. It is possible that ketones would have been produced on the day of the motor vehicle accident.
“It is clear from the above that what the witnesses so confidently described as the smell of alcohol on the breath could well have been the smell of ketones,” he said.
It emerged in previous evidence that McBride was picked up by the arm and assisted from the vehicle after climbing out through a window.
He also used his phone to call someone to the scene.
Van Gerlder said the use of the cell phone was clear indication that McBride’s muscle was intact, unlike that of someone who was drunk.
Van Gerlder was also challenged by the prosecutor on his assumptions about how a drunk person drove.
He later acknowledged that his duties did not include studying people driving while under the influence, but said he has read literature that supported his report. — Sapa