Doctor tells court stabbing attack victim could have died

March 12th, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

A doctor who operated on stabbing victim Lisa Ann Petrelis testified in a Perth court yesterday afternoon that she suffered two near-fatal injuries in a total of 24 wounds.

Mrs Petrelis was rushed to Royal Perth Hospital just before midnight on December 5, 2010, after her estranged husband stabbed her with a kitchen carving knife in a “savage and frenzied attack”, a Supreme Court jury was yesterday told.

By going to trial, Alexander Nicholas Petrelis, 38, has denied a charge of attempted murder in the first degree or intentional grievous bodily harm in the second degree.

He has admitted to stabbing Mrs Petrelis multiple times which caused her life-threatening injuries but through his defence lawyer claimed it was out of an amphetamine-fueled rage and not with any desire to kill her.

Yesterday, photographs of Mrs Petrelis’s upper torso were shown to the jury, displaying numerous small knife wounds dotted around her stomach and breasts that had been stapled or stitched, with a more severe slicing to her arms and deep wound to the abdomen.

Dr Nikhil Agrawal testified that although many of the wounds did not breach the muscle, the wound to her abdomen went through all the layers of her intestine and it was showing signs of sepsis, where the blood starts becoming overwhelmed by bacteria. Sepsis can have fatal consequences if not treated.

He said her lung was also punctured by one of the stab wounds and had it completely collapsed it could also have led to her death.

Dr Agrawal estimated to the court that the abdomen wound could have ranged between four centimetres and 10 centimetres in depth.

He said in total she suffered a laceration to the back of the head that needed 10 staples, three stab wounds to the left side of her neck, four stab wounds to the chest, two stab wounds to her left forearm, two stab wounds to her left elbow that required stitches, five stab wounds to her abdomen, a stab wound to her right breast, four stab wounds to her right chest – one of which punctured her lung- and a stab wound to her armpit, as well as chin.

The photos displayed in court, although taken numerous days after the attack, still showed bruising on her breasts but her neck wound was little more than a scar.

When cross-examined by Mr Petrelis’s lawyer Tom Percy, Dr Agrawal said that he did not note down any bruising to Mrs Petrelis’s neck when he attended to her at 8.20am on December 6.

He said most of the superficial injuries had been treated but he and another doctor did exploratory surgery to make sure no organs were pierced, including putting a tube into her lung to make sure that it did not collapse.

He said she also required plastic surgery, which included having a brace put on her arm to help the tendons mend.

When asked about the fact that if someone was strangled it would be expected that there would be bruising or an appreciable mark around the neck, Dr Agrawal agreed but said he could not remember seeing any such mark.

“Bruising is a blood trauma from a blunt force, as well as a sharp weapon,” he testified.

He agreed that any bruising may have only been caused by a sharp weapon.

Earlier, the state prosecutor Bernard Standish told the court that Mr Petrelis tried choking his wife, causing her to feel like she was losing consciousness, when she tried to ring for help after he had already stabbed her repeatedly.

He told the court that Mr Petrelis went to his estranged wife’s house around 11pm on December 5, 2010, while their two young children were asleep, and told her that he was suffering from cancer.

Mr Standish said Mr Petrelis had excused himself to the bathroom but unbeknown to Mrs Petrelis had taken a carving knife from her kitchen and “stabbed (her) repeatedly in the area of her torso, in her chin and several times on her arms” as she tried to shield herself.

Mr Percy told the court that it was not a “whodunnit” case since his client admitted that he was there and caused his wife grievous bodily harm but he denied acting intentionally.

He argued that even the most vicious attacks did not have the specific intention of killing and the “obviously savage and frenzied attack was accentuated by being on amphetamines”.

Mrs Petrelis will be expected to give evidence today.

Follow WAtoday on Twitter @WAtoday