For me the problem with posts about DV is the assumption that it actually was DV. If anyone suggests that this might not have been DV, they are often informed that they don't know what they are talking about.
i don't think, and have never thought, that there was any dv (shooting, obviously, aside). i think they were both very passionate and fiery people, and op is a little immature (surrounded by yes men and world famous. he's bound to be at the age of 27). i think they argued a fair few times, but i don't think it went any further than that
If Reeva was keeping extremely quiet not even operating her phone, why did she slam the toilet shut?
Don't know, maybe she was in a hurry to hide? Maybe she opened the door to listen and then closed it again more noisily than she wanted? We will never know for sure.
I don't think his behaviour was good either but that isn't the point. It's the way you use these incidents to suggest that if Reeva had known, she would have been forewarned in some way.
I didn't actually. I said she likely didn't know about those two particular incidents. Even if she had they wouldn't have told her much in isolation.
But as part of a larger pattern of his behaviour with women including Reeva and Sam, they take on greater significance and add up to form a general picture.
Domestic violence is an incident of violence or abuse between two adults who are or have been intimate partners.
Even if you believe OP's wildly unconvincing story about an intruder, it resulted in dv all the same.
Surely it must be purposeful violence or abuse against the partner to qualify? Otherwise a husband spilling hot tea on his wife by mistake is also domestic violence.
My original point is that Grant misquoted Masipa. Masipa never said in her verdict that part of OP's defence was that he thought someone else was in the toilet.
Well actually during the trial he did describe the person or persons he thought was/were there because he was worried about their reaction.
So how can he not foresee that he will kill that person or persons with 4 shots, if we agree he thought someone was there.
In addition, how do you explain this:
'Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door ..'
Tell me how he did not subjectively foresee as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door?
Unless (I should add) that she granted him some level of cognitive or emotional impairment that made him not reasonable at that moment?
i don't think, and have never thought, that there was any dv (shooting, obviously, aside). i think they were both very passionate and fiery people, and op is a little immature (surrounded by yes men and world famous. he's bound to be at the age of 27). i think they argued a fair few times, but i don't think it went any further than that
I thought domestic violence was a history of abuse a little more than just a couple of dodgy messages. Sure he could have been horrendously abusive to Reeva and she kept it all hidden. The massages would fit in with that, but you can't turn it around and conclude there was abuse just because of the messages.
Same with all the other behaviour that has been red flagged by some. If it all adds up to DV then a good slice of the male population is going to be in court next week!
I thought domestic violence was a history of abuse a little more than just a couple of dodgy messages. Sure he could have been horrendously abusive to Reeva and she kept it all hidden. The massages would fit in with that, but you can't turn it around and conclude there was abuse just because of the messages.
Same with all the other behaviour that has been red flagged by some. If it all adds up to DV then a good slice of the male population is going to be in court next week!
i didn't turn it around and conclude there was dv. did you not read my post? i said i never thought there was dv, except for the shooting. i said i thought they argued a lot, but loads of people do. that doesn't prove anything
i don't think, and have never thought, that there was any dv (shooting, obviously, aside). i think they were both very passionate and fiery people, and op is a little immature (surrounded by yes men and world famous. he's bound to be at the age of 27). i think they argued a fair few times, but i don't think it went any further than that
The shooting itself is domestic violence unless you believe his intruder story.
If you don't believe the intruder story you can't really argue against dv, as, even if that's not how the relationship started (and generally abusers have the sense not to terrorise women from the start, but build up their trust) that's how it ended.
There's no evidence of any previous violence to her. But domestic abuse is not simply physical violence, it's a pattern of emotional abuse. OP's behaviour and thought patterns that emerged in their texts is common in abusive relationships.
We don't know how he behaved the rest of the time or what really went on in their relationship. But we know what the upshot was, and it couldn't have been worse.
I didn't actually. I said she likely didn't know about those two particular incidents. Even if she had they wouldn't have told her much in isolation.
But as part of a larger pattern of his behaviour with women including Reeva and Sam, they take on greater significance and add up to form a general picture.
Only after the event, and only if you assume he shot her deliberately...
Otherwise they are just incidents of bad behaviour which many men are guilty of.
This analysis still contains the same errors that were present before the revision.
e.g Grant says
"She [Judge Masipa] says: the accused could not have foreseen the possibility of killing the deceased, or anyone else for that matter, because he thought the deceased was in the bedroom. The fact that the accused thought that the deceased was in the bedroom says nothing about what he thought about the presence of someone else in the toilet. Indeed, it is his defence that he believed someone else was in the toilet."
This is incorrect. In her judgement Masipa actually said
"Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time"
Furthermore she also states:
"On the contrary the evidence shows that from the onset the accused believed that, at the time he fired shots into the toilet door, the deceased was in the bedroom while the intruders were in the toilet. "
I can see where Porky's coming from regarding the wording. It can be read in a different way if you reword it slightly take out the comma and put in a full stop. It would be more understandable if she'd said something like. "He did not subjectively foresee the possibility that he would kill the person behind the door. Furthermore, he did not subjectively foresee the possibility that he would kill the deceased as he believed her to be in the bedroom at the time." If that's the gist of what she was trying to say she should have split it up so it would cover both the intruder and Reeva.
But, I still think the verdict was woefully wrong as I believe OP did intend to kill the person behind the door and he did forsee that this was the likely outcome. I personally think he knew it was Reeva but either way I believe he is guilty of murder.
The shooting itself is domestic violence unless you believe his intruder story.
If you don't believe the intruder story you can't really argue against dv, as, even if that's not how the relationship started (and generally abusers have the sense not to terrorise women from the start, but build up their trust) that's how it ended.
There's no evidence of any previous violence to her. But domestic abuse is not simply physical violence, it's a pattern of emotional abuse. OP's behaviour and thought patterns that emerged in their texts is common in abusive relationships.
We don't know how he behaved the rest of the time or what really went on in their relationship. But we know what the upshot was.
fair enough. i've never had any personal experience in any way, shape or form with domestic violence. so those texts didn't ring any alarm bells with me. they just seemed to be a couple arguing. i don't know how the relationship would have panned out if he hadn't shot her
i realise the shooting was obviously domestic violence. i stated that in my post. but i think that was the only instance of it. the rest just seemed like arguments to me
Labuschagne isn't a "family friend". He is a police psychologist who had worked with OP's Aunt Micki in the past. If he had been a "family friend", why would he need to introduce himself?
Most likely he told OP that he knew his aunt, to win his confidence and in hopes of OP letting his guard down. This has all been discussed on other sites.
If you read the posts on this it was OP who SAID during his testimony that he was a family 'friend' ,^_^ Refer you to :
Wasn't it Kotz? the Defence Psychologist who was taken ill, had a heart attack so he couldn't be called into Court , and Masipa agreed with Nel that as they had the State's psychologist in Court there was no reason why they couldn't use her instead ? or something like that. I need reminder on all of that
BUT , this is apparently the 'friend/colleague of OP's Criminologist Aunt. http://www.ia-ip.org/index.php?page=91
And guess what? ....he was also at OP's house that night of incident - Gerard Labuschagne PhD, and guess what ? he heads the Police’s Investigative Psychology Section. He was apparently often seen sitting behind Nel during the Bail Hearing (according to info on WS).
- he was later an important observer for the prosecution- Someone put a link on another site to Telegraph article, but it didn't work - but this is giste: Pistorius, 27, will be watched closely throughout his testimony by Col Gerard Labuschagne, the head of the South African Police Service’s investigative psychology section, who will look for weaknesses and mannerisms that could be exploited to the prosecution’s advantage in cross-examination.
OP mentioned him in his testimony
OP: I followed them into the garage, there was an officer that stayed int he garage the whole time. I think he was the officer who was at the bottom of the staircase.
OP: I was in the garage for several hours
OP: I asked the photographer if he could please take all the photos, so that I could take my clothes off because they were all just so full of blood.
Roux: From the garage where did you go to?
OP: I was taken to the foyer of the reception area of my home. An officer, Mr. Labuschagne came up to me and that he was a friend of my family and that he would look after me.
OP: At that stage Col. Van Rensburg said because I was the only person in the house at the time, they were going to arrest me. I walked with Mr. Labuschagne to the vehicle.
OP: As we were leaving the estate, I was told that there was a lot of media outside the estate and that I must put my head down and he would tell me when I could raise my head.
OP: My head was down anyway. I didn't follow where we were going but I realised when we got there that we were at the Mamalodi Hospital.
OP: I don't remember the doctors name, we were there for some time. He did tests and took samples.
So this guy was observing OP for Prosecution but was also a friend of OP's Aunt , what? is this correct ? --conflict of interest going on ,
Only after the event, and only if you assume he shot her deliberately...
Otherwise they are just incidents of bad behaviour which many men are guilty of.
I don't assume he deliberately shot her. The forensic and witness evidence, the massive holes and contradictions in his story indicate that.
Even if you choose to believe he didn't shoot her deliberately: the pattern of behaviour that emerges from Sam Taylor and her mother's accounts, from the two women referenced previously, and from Reeva and OP's texts, is a man who has issues in his relationships with women. And from other accounts from men, he seems to have anger and entitlement issues generally.
It's of no relevance what other men do, particularly if they don't go on to kill their girlfriends. Although dv is fairly common, especially in SA.
Well actually during the trial he did describe the person or persons he thought was/were there because he was worried about their reaction.
So how can he not foresee that he will kill that person or persons with 4 shots, if we agree he thought someone was there.
In addition, how do you explain this:
'Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door .."
Tell me how he did not subjectively foresee as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door?
But that is different to the point I was making in my original post which was about Grant criticizing what Maspia had said. My original post was about the quality (or lack) of some of the "expert" opinion about the verdict.
i didn't turn it around and conclude there was dv. did you not read my post? i said i never thought there was dv, except for the shooting. i said i thought they argued a lot, but loads of people do. that doesn't prove anything
Yes I did read it. My post was more in support of and extending what you were saying. Sorry it was not very clear.
It's a pity Masipa didn't make her thinking clearer about DE all round! I'd assumed she accepted the PPD defense and this excluded intent. Confusion all round.
Yes but this is summary of what Roux said about OP's reaction:
'Lead defence counsel Barry Roux compared Pistorius’ years of disability to an abused woman who kills her husband after many assaults. The shooting was a reflexive action after a “slow burn” of vulnerabilities led to a point at which he had “had enough”. He was anxious and acting on “primal instinct”.'
That means to me that his mind and his hand were not connected, though.
Accepting PPD would mean accepting that he thought he was in imminent danger of being attacked, and probably did intend to kill the intruder person, or accepted the possibility of killing the intruder person, in order to ward off the imminent attack.
He never said he was mistaken about gun law itself, as he had been trained in it, had he not.
It seems to me that his defense hinged on not thinking like a reasonable person, at that moment, but using a reflexive action that is much like involuntarism.
Because a reasonable person would think, although I am an abused woman I cannot take the law into my own hands.
Here, to define reflexive action:
A reflex action, differently known as a reflex, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus.
I also don't find the intruder story believable, but I'm less convinced that RS died in terror. I don't believe she knew OP had the gun and was going to shoot - if she had known that, I can't see why she would be standing behind the door. She'd be curled up or flattened into the furthest corner.
So on balance | think RS was either arguing furiously with OP, or had gone for a wee thinking he might calm down a bit in the meantime, or his story about an intruder is somehow true.
If you consider the possibility that the door wasn't locked (because there was no key in it) then it's easy to picture Reeva standing behind the door gripping the handle to try and hold the door shut. I think she was terrified, yes - not necessarily because she thought he would use the gun, but because he was in a violent rage and she was afraid he might hit her. Especially if he was bashing that cricket bat about.
If you read the posts on this it was OP who SAID during his testimony that he was a family 'friend' ,^_^ Refer you to :
Yes, I read it where it was originally posted on Websleuths. It comes from a Sky report, so may not be verbatim, but according to the report Pistorius said: "Mr. Labuschagne came up to me and (said) that he was a friend of my family".
Clearly Pistorius did not know him, otherwise Mr Labuschagne would have had no need to introduce himself.
It seems likely that he actually told OP that he was a friend of his aunt.
If you consider the possibility that the door wasn't locked (because there was no key in it) then it's easy to picture Reeva standing behind the door gripping the handle to try and hold the door shut. I think she was terrified, yes - not necessarily because she thought he would use the gun, but because he was in a violent rage and she was afraid he might hit her. Especially if he was bashing that cricket bat about.
I don't think there's any evidence that the key was not in the lock (but of course could be wrong, I have missed a lot) so I believe she may have locked the door, perhaps because of a flaming row. I don't think she would have locked the door just having gone for a normal wee with no argument between them, so that's another reason to disbelieve the intruder story.
I don't think RS could have held the door handle against his strength, though, in any case.
I don't think his behaviour was good either but that isn't the point. It's the way you use these incidents to suggest that if Reeva had known, she would have been forewarned in some way.
Personally, if I was seeing a man and I found out that he had behaved so aggressively towards innocent women, bordering on violence, he wouldn't see me for dust.
I don't suppose Reeva ever saw the blog entry about OP's behaviour at the concert. It was published about a year before she met him.
I don't think there's any evidence that the key was not in the lock (but of course could be wrong, I have missed a lot) so I believe she may have locked the door, perhaps because of a flaming row. I don't think she would have locked the door just having gone for a normal wee with no argument between them, so that's another reason to disbelieve the intruder story.
I don't think RS could have held the door handle against his strength, though, in any case.
she possibly could have done if he was on his stumps. but i think the door was locked anyways, so that's just hypothetical really
I can see where Porky's coming from regarding the wording. It can be read in a different way if you reword it slightly take out the comma and put in a full stop. It would be more understandable if she'd said something like. "He did not subjectively foresee the possibility that he would kill the person behind the door. Furthermore, he did not subjectively foresee the possibility that he would kill the deceased as he believed her to be in the bedroom at the time." If that's the gist of what she was trying to say she should have split it up so it would cover both the intruder and Reeva.
But, I still think the verdict was woefully wrong as I believe OP did intend to kill the person behind the door and he did forsee that this was the likely outcome. I personally think he knew it was Reeva but either way I believe he is guilty of murder.
Masipa gave her explanation of why she didn't find OP guilty of Eventualis, then corrected herself the next day - she initially said OP did not foresee the possibility that he would kill the person the other side of the door - but she only applied this to the Intruder, when the facts are he still killed someone - this is the contentious issue and what has been termed as an Error in Law - and an error in her application and misunderstanding of the definition of Eventualis in SA Law
- it doesn't matter if you shoot A (intruder) and kill B (Reeva), it's still Murder so still Eventualis - OP still killed someone, even if Reeva was not his intended target.
She came back in to Court the next day, and corrected herself by then saying that OP didn't foresee the possibility of killing the deceased or anybody else for that matter - so that Panel was unorganised , unprofessional and confused with the application of the Law. The facts are too that 4 shots into that tiny cubicle , he had to have foreseen the possibility that he would kill the person behind the door anyway.
I don't think there's any evidence that the key was not in the lock (but of course could be wrong, I have missed a lot) so I believe she may have locked the door, perhaps because of a flaming row. I don't think she would have locked the door just having gone for a normal wee with no argument between them, so that's another reason to disbelieve the intruder story.
I don't think RS could have held the door handle against his strength, though, in any case.
I'll turn that round and say that there is no evidence that the door was locked, except for Pistorius' word.
The key seen in photos, with a green tag hanging, seems remarkably free of bloodstains. Doubts have been expressed that a key would fall out of the lock as easily as it did in his story. Isn't a simpler explanation that he didn't keep a key in the door? Why would he? It was his own ensuite toilet, no need to lock it. That's how he got her out so quickly.
Comments
i don't think, and have never thought, that there was any dv (shooting, obviously, aside). i think they were both very passionate and fiery people, and op is a little immature (surrounded by yes men and world famous. he's bound to be at the age of 27). i think they argued a fair few times, but i don't think it went any further than that
Don't know, maybe she was in a hurry to hide? Maybe she opened the door to listen and then closed it again more noisily than she wanted? We will never know for sure.
I didn't actually. I said she likely didn't know about those two particular incidents. Even if she had they wouldn't have told her much in isolation.
But as part of a larger pattern of his behaviour with women including Reeva and Sam, they take on greater significance and add up to form a general picture.
Surely it must be purposeful violence or abuse against the partner to qualify? Otherwise a husband spilling hot tea on his wife by mistake is also domestic violence.
Well actually during the trial he did describe the person or persons he thought was/were there because he was worried about their reaction.
So how can he not foresee that he will kill that person or persons with 4 shots, if we agree he thought someone was there.
In addition, how do you explain this:
'Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door ..'
Tell me how he did not subjectively foresee as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door?
Unless (I should add) that she granted him some level of cognitive or emotional impairment that made him not reasonable at that moment?
I thought domestic violence was a history of abuse a little more than just a couple of dodgy messages. Sure he could have been horrendously abusive to Reeva and she kept it all hidden. The massages would fit in with that, but you can't turn it around and conclude there was abuse just because of the messages.
Same with all the other behaviour that has been red flagged by some. If it all adds up to DV then a good slice of the male population is going to be in court next week!
i didn't turn it around and conclude there was dv. did you not read my post? i said i never thought there was dv, except for the shooting. i said i thought they argued a lot, but loads of people do. that doesn't prove anything
If you don't believe the intruder story you can't really argue against dv, as, even if that's not how the relationship started (and generally abusers have the sense not to terrorise women from the start, but build up their trust) that's how it ended.
There's no evidence of any previous violence to her. But domestic abuse is not simply physical violence, it's a pattern of emotional abuse. OP's behaviour and thought patterns that emerged in their texts is common in abusive relationships.
We don't know how he behaved the rest of the time or what really went on in their relationship. But we know what the upshot was, and it couldn't have been worse.
Only after the event, and only if you assume he shot her deliberately...
Otherwise they are just incidents of bad behaviour which many men are guilty of.
I can see where Porky's coming from regarding the wording. It can be read in a different way if you reword it slightly take out the comma and put in a full stop. It would be more understandable if she'd said something like. "He did not subjectively foresee the possibility that he would kill the person behind the door. Furthermore, he did not subjectively foresee the possibility that he would kill the deceased as he believed her to be in the bedroom at the time." If that's the gist of what she was trying to say she should have split it up so it would cover both the intruder and Reeva.
But, I still think the verdict was woefully wrong as I believe OP did intend to kill the person behind the door and he did forsee that this was the likely outcome. I personally think he knew it was Reeva but either way I believe he is guilty of murder.
fair enough. i've never had any personal experience in any way, shape or form with domestic violence. so those texts didn't ring any alarm bells with me. they just seemed to be a couple arguing. i don't know how the relationship would have panned out if he hadn't shot her
i realise the shooting was obviously domestic violence. i stated that in my post. but i think that was the only instance of it. the rest just seemed like arguments to me
I don't assume he deliberately shot her. The forensic and witness evidence, the massive holes and contradictions in his story indicate that.
Even if you choose to believe he didn't shoot her deliberately: the pattern of behaviour that emerges from Sam Taylor and her mother's accounts, from the two women referenced previously, and from Reeva and OP's texts, is a man who has issues in his relationships with women. And from other accounts from men, he seems to have anger and entitlement issues generally.
It's of no relevance what other men do, particularly if they don't go on to kill their girlfriends. Although dv is fairly common, especially in SA.
But that is different to the point I was making in my original post which was about Grant criticizing what Maspia had said. My original post was about the quality (or lack) of some of the "expert" opinion about the verdict.
Yes I did read it. My post was more in support of and extending what you were saying. Sorry it was not very clear.
no worries
Yes but this is summary of what Roux said about OP's reaction:
'Lead defence counsel Barry Roux compared Pistorius’ years of disability to an abused woman who kills her husband after many assaults. The shooting was a reflexive action after a “slow burn” of vulnerabilities led to a point at which he had “had enough”. He was anxious and acting on “primal instinct”.'
That means to me that his mind and his hand were not connected, though.
Accepting PPD would mean accepting that he thought he was in imminent danger of being attacked, and probably did intend to kill the intruder person, or accepted the possibility of killing the intruder person, in order to ward off the imminent attack.
He never said he was mistaken about gun law itself, as he had been trained in it, had he not.
It seems to me that his defense hinged on not thinking like a reasonable person, at that moment, but using a reflexive action that is much like involuntarism.
Because a reasonable person would think, although I am an abused woman I cannot take the law into my own hands.
Here, to define reflexive action:
A reflex action, differently known as a reflex, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus.
If you consider the possibility that the door wasn't locked (because there was no key in it) then it's easy to picture Reeva standing behind the door gripping the handle to try and hold the door shut. I think she was terrified, yes - not necessarily because she thought he would use the gun, but because he was in a violent rage and she was afraid he might hit her. Especially if he was bashing that cricket bat about.
Yes, I read it where it was originally posted on Websleuths. It comes from a Sky report, so may not be verbatim, but according to the report Pistorius said: "Mr. Labuschagne came up to me and (said) that he was a friend of my family".
Clearly Pistorius did not know him, otherwise Mr Labuschagne would have had no need to introduce himself.
It seems likely that he actually told OP that he was a friend of his aunt.
I don't think there's any evidence that the key was not in the lock (but of course could be wrong, I have missed a lot) so I believe she may have locked the door, perhaps because of a flaming row. I don't think she would have locked the door just having gone for a normal wee with no argument between them, so that's another reason to disbelieve the intruder story.
I don't think RS could have held the door handle against his strength, though, in any case.
Personally, if I was seeing a man and I found out that he had behaved so aggressively towards innocent women, bordering on violence, he wouldn't see me for dust.
I don't suppose Reeva ever saw the blog entry about OP's behaviour at the concert. It was published about a year before she met him.
she possibly could have done if he was on his stumps. but i think the door was locked anyways, so that's just hypothetical really
I see what you mean, but even on his stumps if he had both hands on the handle he'd be steady and his upper body strength is very powerful.
Masipa gave her explanation of why she didn't find OP guilty of Eventualis, then corrected herself the next day - she initially said OP did not foresee the possibility that he would kill the person the other side of the door - but she only applied this to the Intruder, when the facts are he still killed someone - this is the contentious issue and what has been termed as an Error in Law - and an error in her application and misunderstanding of the definition of Eventualis in SA Law
- it doesn't matter if you shoot A (intruder) and kill B (Reeva), it's still Murder so still Eventualis - OP still killed someone, even if Reeva was not his intended target.
She came back in to Court the next day, and corrected herself by then saying that OP didn't foresee the possibility of killing the deceased or anybody else for that matter - so that Panel was unorganised , unprofessional and confused with the application of the Law. The facts are too that 4 shots into that tiny cubicle , he had to have foreseen the possibility that he would kill the person behind the door anyway.
I'll turn that round and say that there is no evidence that the door was locked, except for Pistorius' word.
The key seen in photos, with a green tag hanging, seems remarkably free of bloodstains. Doubts have been expressed that a key would fall out of the lock as easily as it did in his story. Isn't a simpler explanation that he didn't keep a key in the door? Why would he? It was his own ensuite toilet, no need to lock it. That's how he got her out so quickly.