Oscar Pistorius Defense

[Cherwell]

And let's not forget either that SA is a profoundly Christian country (over 80% take up with just over 5% Catholic) and as often happens with ex-colonies the peoples tend to practice and wear religion much more publicly than the colonisers that took it there in the first place, and OP doesn't exactly flaunt the rosary which is mostly hidden in his hands below the bench.
Furthermore, OP's use of a rosary in court during his trial for prayer and comfort would hardly impress Masipa of all people since as a Catholic herself she is a likely user of rosaries in times of stress too. Indeed, even if Masipa is now non practising or recanted, she would still understand it as the normal practice she grew up with when finding oneself in difficult times, as whether guilty or not of the premeditated murder of Reeva, and even though of his own making, it surely isn't in dispute that these are stressful and emotional times for OP, something Masipa has consistently shown awareness and understanding for just as any impartial and conscientious Judge would and indeed, is by her office obliged to do.

Is OP a Catholic? I didn't know that.

As for the rosary beads, you speak of them (my bold) as though they are used like worry beads. Surely the purpose of rosary beads is for keeping count while engaged in formal prayer (1 Our Father, 10 Hail Marys, 1 Gloria and so on). Are you suggesting that OP is actually praying the Rosary while in court? I certainly don't have that impression, but then I haven't watched every moment.

 

[AJ_DS]

With respect, IMBW but I think you are on the wrong track. OP doesn't need to produce evidence to support "✄... his life was threatened... ✄", which he can't, not least because it wasn't, i.e. there was no intruder so there was no threat, and the reason he is claiming putative self defence for which he only has to show that at the time of shooting he honestly and genuinely believed it was, in respect of which he has given some 6 days and two statements of just that, i.e. "evidence"... in the legal sense not the "proof" sense.

So whether or not you believe OP's "evidence" is credible, possible, reasonable, etc, is a completely different matter to saying "There is absolutely no evidence that supports that OP's life was threatened" not least because when claiming PSD it is unlikely there is any tangible "evidence", so it will be up to the Judge and her assistants to decide whether his testimony to show his state of mind at the time of the shooting and what he thought is believable, (or whether a reasonable doubt exists so that it could be believable, and the more likely the reasons for why he thought his life was in danger up his chances of being believed), by contrasting OP's "evidence" (i.e. statements and testimony) with all the other evidence presented both by the defence and prosecution. JMHOSNNFS, I, OR ☮

"The test for private defence is objective - would a reasonable man in the position of the accused have acted in the same way (S v Ntuli 1975 (1) SA 429 (A) at 436E). In putative private defence it is not lawfulness that is in issue but culpability (“skuld&#8221. If an accused honestly believes his life or property to be in danger, but objectively viewed they are not, the defensive steps he takes cannot constitute private defence. If in those circumstances he kills someone his conduct is unlawful. His erroneous belief that his life or property was in danger may well (depending upon the precise circumstances) exclude dolus in which case liability for the person’s death based on intention will also be excluded; at worst for him he can then be convicted of culpable homicide."

Reference

Private Defence = objective analysis

Putative Private Defence = subjective analysis

In OP's version, he acted solely on the basis of 3 noises :

1) bathroom window opening
2) toilet door closing
3) wood moving inside the toilet cubicle

Even subjectively this is far from enough to constitute a valid PPD Defence.

That's why Roux needs the GAD diagnosis… this would bridge some of the subjective gap and get him closer to PPD (if Masipa believes OP's version).

There is a second requirement for PPD : the accused must not have had any other reasonable means of subtracting himself from the perceived threat.

In this case, OP had means of avoiding this perceived threat.

That's why Roux needs the Fight v. Flight expert testimony… this would bridge the other reasonable gap… i.e. what may seem reasonable to able-bodied individuals in those circumstances, such as exiting the bedroom, was not reasonable for OP… because of his limited mobility, OP had the involuntary and long-ingrained propensity to confront threats rather than attempt to clumsily avoid them on his stumps.

 

[AJ_DS]

Before I go back and check all the times etc one thing stood out re toilet key
Can I just ask you:
Are you speculating then that R was holding onto the door handle from inside (instead of her locking self in or indeed him locking her in from outside? Thus he did not have strength to pull it back open with her holding on or simply the door is unlocked and he is just whacking it to scare her as aggressive actions and thus part of the other damage bath panel etc. ( As opposed to whacking it in order to get to her to inflict physical harm/as an expression of his anger at her having locked herself in etc.)

If toilet door was locked from the inside by Reeva, she would not have been standing in front of it whilst OP was bashing at it and shooting at it… she would have taken refuge as far away from the door as possible, i.e.next to the toilet bowl under the toilet window… plus RS surely would have opened the toilet window and screamed for help.

So I infer the toilet door was never locked, therefore the key was not there, because if it had been there, RS would have locked it.

OP was not bashing at the door to gain access :

1- If he wanted to gain access he could have broke the door down completely as he eventually did.

2- If he wanted to gain access, why bash the stainless steel bathtub panel ? …and the wall tiles ?

OP was frustrated and angry… he was bashing about to vent his rage.

Faced with such violent and aggressive behavior, RS could not know what OP would do to her IF he got to her… so she held on for dear life to that door handle to keep it closed… that door was the only thing separating her from an armed madman.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Let us take as fact every word from Oscar Pistorius and analyze them disregarding for the moment all witness testimonies and forensics evidence.

We have 3 important times :

3:00AM = Oscar fires 4 shots at the door
3:15AM = Oscar hits the door with cricket bat 3 times
3:19:03AM = Oscar calls Johan Stander

What did Oscar do in the 15 minutes between 3:00AM and 3:15AM ?

– 3:00AM Oscar fires 4 shots at the door
– Oscar retreated backwards to the bedroom and reached the bed (11 meters)
– Oscar lifted himself onto the bed and felt Reeva was not in bed
– Oscar jumped of the other side of the bed but Reeva was not on the floor
– Oscar ran his hand in the curtains to make sure Reeva was not there
– Oscar made his way back to the bathroom (14 meters) and tried to open the toilet door
– Oscar ran to the bedroom (14 meters) where he opened the balcony doors and shouted, “Help! Help! Help!”
– Oscar put on his prosthetic legs
– Oscar ran as fast as he could to the bathroom (14 meters) to shoulder charge and kick the toilet door
– Oscar ran to the bedroom to retrieve the cricket bat at the bedroom door (12 meters)
– Oscar ran back to the bathroom (12 meters)
– 3:15AM Oscar hits the door with cricket bat 3 times

That is very little actions for 15 minutes !!

Oscar walked 25 meters on his stumps, ran 14 meters on his stumps, ran as fast as he could 38 meters on his prosthetics… about 1 minute 15 seconds.

Oscar checked for Reeva : the bed (5 sec.), the floor (5 sec.), the curtains (5 sec.)… about 15 seconds.

Oscar at the toilet door : try to open it once (5 sec.), shoulder charge it once (5 sec.), kick it once (5 sec.)… about 15 seconds.

Oscar at the balcony : open it and shout for help… about 15 seconds.

Oscar put on his prosthetics (30 sec. per limb)… about 1 minute.

TOTAL about 3 minutes… What happened during the remaining 12 minutes ???

That's 4 times the duration of what Oscar says he did that is TOTALLY unaccounted for !!!

What did Oscar do in the 4 minutes between 3:15AM and 3:19:03AM ?

– 3:15AM Oscar hits the door with cricket bat 3 times
– Oscar grabbed a big plank of the door panel with his hands and threw it out into the bathroom
– Oscar leaned over the middle partition of the door to climb into the toilet cubicle
– Oscar saw the key on the floor, he retrieved it, unlocked the door and threw it open
– Oscar sat over Reeva and cried for a while
– Oscar pulled Reeva’s body out of the toilet cubicle and into the bathroom
– Oscar stayed there with Reeva for a while
– Oscar saw Reeva’s iPhone in the toilet cubicle, he tried to use it but couldn’t because it was passcode protected
– Oscar went to bedroom and grabbed both of his phones from the bedside table (12 meters)
– Oscar went back to the bathroom (12 meters)
– 3:19:03 Oscar calls Johan Stander

If this took Oscar 4 minutes, than that begs the question even more : what was he doing during the 15 minutes prior to that ???

Oscar had to achieve 2 crucial elements to make his mistaken identity intruder story even remotely possible :

1- Switch the cricket bat strikes with the gunshots in the timeline of events so as to avoid having to explain the tell-tale evidence of an unmistakable domestic violence crime scene… how could Oscar ever possibly begin to explain why he bashed the toilet door with the cricket bat BEFORE he shot at it.

2- Say that the toilet door was locked from the inside, again this was the ONLY possible avenue available to him to mask the tell-tale evidence of an unmistakable domestic violence crime scene… otherwise, how could Oscar possibly explain the damage to the toilet door… he couldn't… so he broke it down completely, then fetched the toilet key and placed it in the keyhole.

Oscar's story had to be fabricated around these 2 main elements... the resulting scenario is naturally unbelievable and explains why about 12 minutes are obviously impossible to account for.

Underlined Red Time 3am. NB During his return to the bedroom, not once does Oscar ask "Where are you Reeva?". A little strange don't you think? Instead, knowingly having shot somebody, he chooses to fumble around in the dark completely mute.

Why? Because, IMO, he knew he had shot Reeva and he had no reason to say a word as he knew there would be no response.

Of course, I don't believe any of this part of his alibi happened at all. It just does not make sense.

I am greatly enjoying your time lines. The gaps in the timing are very interesting. Thanks for your splendid efforts.

 

[G.bng]

A parent would want the truth no matter how upsetting, Mrs Steenkamp's daughter is dead! How more horrifying can it be? Her death was preventable, it should NEVER have happened. jmho

Absolutely. Of course a parent would want the truth, and when did I say otherwise?

But if it were possible to chose, which I know it isn't, but if it were possible to chose between the truth being an accident, i.e. that OP genuinely believed he was shooting at an intruder, and therefore that it was in fact OP screaming after realising his mistake and not my darling beautiful daughter fleeing and screaming in horror and pain as OP hunted her down and aimed a gun and shot to kill her with her fully aware of what he was doing, I know what I would chose each and every time, i.e. please God let it have been accident, a mistake, a stupid reckless mistake, but please let it have been an accident.

And even if an accident I doubt I would forgive OP as June Steenkamp says she will do whether OP did it in rage or by mistake, to my dismay I am a much too embittered and grudge bearing person than she, which is precisely the reason I would prefer that "truth" to be that it was a genuine mistake because that could, NOT would, but it could, i.e. it has a minimum possibility, however tiny, of diminishing my desire for revenge and feelings of hate that would consume me until the day I died, something I know my daughter would not want for me were she able to have her say.

 

[G.bng]

Is OP a Catholic? I didn't know that.

As for the rosary beads, you speak of them (my bold) as though they are used like worry beads. Surely the purpose of rosary beads is for keeping count while engaged in formal prayer (1 Our Father, 10 Hail Marys, 1 Gloria and so on). Are you suggesting that OP is actually praying the Rosary while in court? I certainly don't have that impression, but then I haven't watched every moment.

Yes, OP is a Catholic as was Reeva, and unless now recanted, Masipa is a Catholic too being educated in a missionary faith school which in her time, i.e. the 60's, determined a persons religion as parents only sent their kids to schools of the faith they wanted them bought up in and faith schools only accepted pupils of that religion.

In respect of "worry beads", they are merely a recent non religious take on "prayer beads" ("bead" originates from "bede" which is the Old English word for prayer) and which are believed to have been first used in Hinduism 2 or so centuries before Christ and later adopted by religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and a few others.

Not being religious I have always seen the rosary as a kind of worry bead anyway. And yes, IMO, OP, uses a rosary in court for comfort and prayer as I said in my post, and maybe even for penance, another use for devout Catholics. For over 40 years I lived in Spain, until recently an extremely devout country where they joked at being "más católico que el Papa" (i.e. "more Catholic than the Pope"), and the rosary is certainly not limited to formal prayer at set times but for prayer and comfort after a loss, before a life changing event, say an operation, as well as for penance which can be self determined or ordered by a priest. Many very elderly carry rosaries, perhaps being near death they don't want to be caught out, and Rosaries are widely carried during religious festivals such as Holy Week when every village or area of a town or city with it's own local church carry the mainly baroque and realistic crucifixes and Virgin Mary´s from their church around the streets for all to reverence and do penance, and there are still a few flagellants in some of these processions even today.

 

[bessie]

Yes, OP is a Catholic as was Reeva, and unless now recanted, Masipa is a Catholic too being educated in a missionary faith school which in her time, i.e. the 60's, determined a persons religion as parents only sent their kids to schools of the faith they wanted them bought up in and faith schools only accepted pupils of that religion.

In respect of "worry beads", they are merely a recent non religious take on "prayer beads" ("bead" originates from "bede" which is the Old English word for prayer) and which are believed to have been first used in Hinduism 2 or so centuries before Christ and later adopted by religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and a few others.

Not being religious I have always seen the rosary as a kind of worry bead anyway. And yes, IMO, OP, uses a rosary in court for comfort and prayer as I said in my post, and maybe even for penance, another use for devout Catholics. For over 40 years I lived in Spain, until recently an extremely devout country where they joked at being "más católico que el Papa" (i.e. "more Catholic than the Pope"), and the rosary is certainly not limited to formal prayer at set times but for prayer and comfort after a loss, before a life changing event, say an operation, as well as for penance which can be self determined or ordered by a priest. Many very elderly carry rosaries, perhaps being near death they don't want to be caught out, and Rosaries are widely carried during religious festivals such as Holy Week when every village or area of a town or city with it's own local church carry the mainly baroque and realistic crucifixes and Virgin Mary´s from their church around the streets for all to reverence and do penance, and there are still a few flagellants in some of these processions even today.

After my grandmother died many years ago, I hung her rosary on my bed post. If I awoke from a bad dream, or was particularly restless, I would reach out and hold onto it. So I agree with you. The rosary is not necessarily used only to "keep count" of prayers. Although that is the intended purpose, and OP could be using his prayer beads in that manner, if he's able to stay focused on prayer during trial. I'd say that's unlikely, though, and the rosary is to comfort and ground him during a time of high anxiety.

As for the Living (or Walking) Stations of the Cross, to a devout Christian, it's a wondrous event.

 

[AJ_DS]

Underlined Red Time 3am. NB During his return to the bedroom, not once does Oscar ask "Where are you Reeva?". A little strange don't you think? Instead, knowingly having shot somebody, he chooses to fumble around in the dark completely mute.

Why? Because, IMO, he knew he had shot Reeva and he had no reason to say a word as he knew there would be no response.

Of course, I don't believe any of this part of his alibi happened at all. It just does not make sense.

I am greatly enjoying your time lines. The gaps in the timing are very interesting. Thanks for your splendid efforts.

BiB… LOL... give OP some credit… he had to find some way of filling up 15 minutes… if he had turned on the lights and said "where are you Reeva ?"… the gap would be 14 minutes of unaccounted time instead of only 12 minutes !!!

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Yes, OP is a Catholic as was Reeva, and unless now recanted, Masipa is a Catholic too being educated in a missionary faith school which in her time, i.e. the 60's, determined a persons religion as parents only sent their kids to schools of the faith they wanted them bought up in and faith schools only accepted pupils of that religion.

In respect of "worry beads", they are merely a recent non religious take on "prayer beads" ("bead" originates from "bede" which is the Old English word for prayer) and which are believed to have been first used in Hinduism 2 or so centuries before Christ and later adopted by religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and a few others.

Not being religious I have always seen the rosary as a kind of worry bead anyway. And yes, IMO, OP, uses a rosary in court for comfort and prayer as I said in my post, and maybe even for penance, another use for devout Catholics. For over 40 years I lived in Spain, until recently an extremely devout country where they joked at being "más católico que el Papa" (i.e. "more Catholic than the Pope"), and the rosary is certainly not limited to formal prayer at set times but for prayer and comfort after a loss, before a life changing event, say an operation, as well as for penance which can be self determined or ordered by a priest. Many very elderly carry rosaries, perhaps being near death they don't want to be caught out, and Rosaries are widely carried during religious festivals such as Holy Week when every village or area of a town or city with it's own local church carry the mainly baroque and realistic crucifixes and Virgin Mary´s from their church around the streets for all to reverence and do penance, and there are still a few flagellants in some of these processions even today.

I'm a non-practicing Catholic and have a lovely string of rosary beads with cross that are very dear to me. My mother died when I was a small child and it was she who gave them to me, so they are indeed precious but not in a religious way anymore.

In 2005, I was a witness for the prosecution and kept those prayer beads in my right hand pocket, I would reach in and hold them tight when I felt overwhelmed with the proceedings. My thoughts of my mother is what help me survive the trial.

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes, OP is a Catholic as was Reeva, and unless now recanted, Masipa is a Catholic too being educated in a missionary faith school .

I don't want to nit pick here but OP and his clan are Calvinists. RS was brought up as a Catholic.

Sorry if someone else already posted this- I've not read the later posts yet - working down.

 

[Cherwell]

I don't want to nit pick here but OP and his clan are Calvinists. RS was brought up as a Catholic.

Sorry if someone else already posted this- I've not read the later posts yet - working down.

Thank you. I couldn't find any reference to OP being a Catholic.

 

[G.bng]

"The test for private defence is objective - would a reasonable man in the position of the accused have acted in the same way (S v Ntuli 1975 (1) SA 429 (A) at 436E). In putative private defence it is not lawfulness that is in issue but culpability (“skuld”). If an accused honestly believes his life or property to be in danger, but objectively viewed they are not, the defensive steps he takes cannot constitute private defence. If in those circumstances he kills someone his conduct is unlawful. His erroneous belief that his life or property was in danger may well (depending upon the precise circumstances) exclude dolus in which case liability for the person’s death based on intention will also be excluded; at worst for him he can then be convicted of culpable homicide."

Reference

Private Defence = objective analysis

Putative Private Defence = subjective analysis

In OP's version, he acted solely on the basis of 3 noises :

1) bathroom window opening
2) toilet door closing
3) wood moving inside the toilet cubicle

Even subjectively this is far from enough to constitute a valid PPD Defence.

That's why Roux needs the GAD diagnosis… this would bridge some of the subjective gap and get him closer to PPD (if Masipa believes OP's version).

There is a second requirement for PPD : the accused must not have had any other reasonable means of subtracting himself from the perceived threat.

In this case, OP had means of avoiding this perceived threat.

That's why Roux needs the Fight v. Flight expert testimony… this would bridge the other reasonable gap… i.e. what may seem reasonable to able-bodied individuals in those circumstances, such as exiting the bedroom, was not reasonable for OP… because of his limited mobility, OP had the involuntary and long-ingrained propensity to confront threats rather than attempt to clumsily avoid them on his stumps.

I apologise if I am misunderstanding your reply to my post, but what did I write in my post that contradicts anything of what you say here all of which I was already aware of? I was merely clarifying that OP cannot present evidence of his life being threatened because it very clearly wasn't which is why OP could only rely on Putative SD and not Private SD for which he would be obliged to present evidence of a threat.

And yes, I was also already aware of what a "valid" Putative SD defence consists of but, and IMBW, I have never seen this case as clear cut as some, so I prefer to wait Masipa's judgement since no case is 100% the same as another and it is the judge's task to consider and interpret each particular set of facts and circumstances in accordance with the laws and which can, if a case contains a set of circumstances not presented together or separately before, and I am not saying this case is one of those, result in a judgement that evolves into its own case law.

And of course all of this is only relative to OP's original defence, the putative one, because with involuntary action and mental state having been also mooted IMO it is anyone's guess how this will finally end up!

 

[AJ_DS]

I apologise if I am misunderstanding your reply to my post, but what did I write in my post that contradicts anything of what you say here all of which I was already aware of? I was merely clarifying that OP cannot present evidence of his life being threatened because it very clearly wasn't which is why OP could only rely on Putative SD and not Private SD for which he would be obliged to present evidence of a threat.

And yes, I was also already aware of what a "valid" Putative SD defence consists of but, and IMBW, I have never seen this case as clear cut as some, so I prefer to wait Masipa's judgement since no case is 100% the same as another and it is the judge's task to consider and interpret each particular set of facts and circumstances in accordance with the laws and which can, if a case contains a set of circumstances not presented together or separately before, and I am not saying this case is one of those, result in a judgement that evolves into its own case law.

And of course all of this is only relative to OP's original defence, the putative one, because with involuntary action and mental state having been also mooted IMO it is anyone's guess how this will finally end up!

Apologies…my bad… I probably misunderstood your original post

 

[G.bng]

I don't want to nit pick here but OP and his clan are Calvinists. RS was brought up as a Catholic.

Sorry if someone else already posted this- I've not read the later posts yet - working down.

Oooooops! What a clanger on my part! And please, you are most certainly not nit picking; facts are facts, so definitely my bad and thanks for the correction. With all the talk about OP using a rosary in court and a poster noting Aimee handed him a Crucifix, an eminently Catholic artefact, over the bench, added to Reeva beng Catholic and his mother of Italian descent (85.0% of Italians are Catholic even today) I must have got carried away and concluded OP was Catholic too, so very sorry as it was not my intention to mislead anyone. That said, from a report of his testimony in chief it appears OP said he was raised in the the Anglican faith by his mother, which I am not sure is the same as Calvinism, or is it?

OTOH, makes you wonder if OP and Reeva had a future. Interfaith marriages can be problematical. In Spain for a non Catholic, even if Christian, to marry a Catholic is fraught with problems. For starters the wedding mass and communion are barred and it is the non Catholic party must commit to raising children in the Catholic faith. Indeed, I was unable to be Godmother to one of my best friend's sons because the church insisted I would have to be baptised first (I was never baptised) which out of respect I could not do (I would have had to solemnly swear I believed in God knowing it false), nor could I honestly commit to assisting in the child's Catholic education either.

 

[cottonweaver]

Oooooops! What a clanger on my part! And please, you are most certainly not nit picking; facts are facts, so definitely my bad and thanks for the correction. With all the talk about OP using a rosary in court and a poster noting Aimee handed him a Crucifix, an eminently Catholic artefact, over the bench, added to Reeva beng Catholic and his mother of Italian descent (85.0% of Italians are Catholic even today) I must have got carried away and concluded OP was Catholic too, so very sorry as it was not my intention to mislead anyone. That said, from a report of his testimony in chief it appears OP said he was raised in the the Anglican faith by his mother, which I am not sure is the same as Calvinism, or is it?

OTOH, makes you wonder if OP and Reeva had a future. Interfaith marriages can be problematical. In Spain for a non Catholic, even if Christian, to marry a Catholic is fraught with problems. For starters the wedding mass and communion are barred and it is the non Catholic party must commit to raising children in the Catholic faith. Indeed, I was unable to be Godmother to one of my best friend's sons because the church insisted I would have to be baptised first (I was never baptised) which out of respect I could not do (I would have had to solemnly swear I believed in God knowing it false), nor could I honestly commit to assisting in the child's Catholic education either.

No need to apologise but very gracious - none of us are infallible by any means. "Nit pick" was simply cause I didn't want the thread going down the "bombastic disagreement " line it was in late April- May.
I know virtually zero about Calvinism but apparently rosary beads and other Papery can be controversial in Calvinism so you're right there. Agree with all of you re use of rosary- it's not for doing a full rosary of prayers on stand but as a support in crisis.
However I still part company with some of you re. him making a big show of what a good Christian he is and in the circumstances, it's just not working.
But I agree with you that very likely RS-OP was a not a good match faith wise (nor in temperament/morality/intelligence you name it. etc)

That link* I posted previously - apols to all Calvinists - says a lot about the control of men in the Calvinist culture and could go some way to explain his praying to God so as to dedicate her life to God if she survived.
Of course Catholicism has a long history of deep misogyny but there's that paradox that, from June Steenkamp's Catholic culture in North of England, of the Church being held together by strong Catholic women.
The minister who seriously overstepped the mark about linking Calvinist men to murdering women was, I vaguely recall, deservedly sacked.

Beyond the above- I am now just trying to weigh up AJDS's theory/timeline against the others while we await trail recommencing before I post on it.

 

[AJ_DS]

No need to apologise but very gracious - none of us are infallible by any means. "Nit pick" was simply cause I didn't want the thread going down the "bombastic disagreement " line it was in late April- May.
I know virtually zero about Calvinism but apparently rosary beads and other Papery can be controversial in Calvinism so you're right there. Agree with all of you re use of rosary- it's not for doing a full rosary of prayers on stand but as a support in crisis.
However I still part company with some of you re. him making a big show of what a good Christian he is and in the circumstances, it's just not working.
But I agree with you that very likely RS-OP was a not a good match faith wise (nor in temperament/morality/intelligence you name it. etc)

That link* I posted previously - apols to all Calvinists - says a lot about the control of men in the Calvinist culture and could go some way to explain his praying to God so as to dedicate her life to God if she survived.
Of course Catholicism has a long history of deep misogyny but there's that paradox that, from June Steenkamp's Catholic culture in North of England, of the Church being held together by strong Catholic women.
The minister who seriously overstepped the mark about linking Calvinist men to murdering women was, I vaguely recall, deservedly sacked.

Beyond the above- I am now just trying to weigh up AJ's theory/timeline against the others while we await trail recommencing before I post on it.

BiB… I await your comments with anticipation

 

[cottonweaver]

BiB… I await your comments with anticipation

It will take me a while to come up with something useful to add to your posts! But I will give it a go as soon as i can dedicate a chunk of time, which your comprehensive posts deserve.

That's not a Rouxism- along lines of "I'll come back to that..."

 

[Hatfield]

After my grandmother died many years ago, I hung her rosary on my bed post. If I awoke from a bad dream, or was particularly restless, I would reach out and hold onto it. So I agree with you. The rosary is not necessarily used only to "keep count" of prayers. Although that is the intended purpose, and OP could be using his prayer beads in that manner, if he's able to stay focused on prayer during trial. I'd say that's unlikely, though, and the rosary is to comfort and ground him during a time of high anxiety.

As for the Living (or Walking) Stations of the Cross, to a devout Christian, it's a wondrous event.

OT
ETA - I deleted my post as I think it was much too religous in nature and I dont want to offend anyone or go against TOS.

It was just a question about Rosary Beads and I think I already know the answer.

Thanks everyone for the discussion about Rosary Beads. It was helpful and interesting to me.

 

[MsMarple]

OT
ETA - I deleted my post as I think it was much too religous in nature and I dont want to offend anyone or go against TOS.

It was just a question about Rosary Beads and I think I already know the answer.

Aww, I just wrote an answer.... well, I'll post it anyway....

It's a rosary and from your description it sounds lovely, especially since you also have the containers! Maybe the beads are cinnabar?

In any case, don't worry about using it - even the catholic church thinks it's okay.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-rosary

 

[Hatfield]

Aww, I just wrote an answer.... well, I'll post it anyway....

It's a rosary and from your description it sounds lovely, especially since you also have the containers! Maybe the beads are cinnabar?

In any case, don't worry about using it - even the catholic church thinks it's okay.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-rosary

Thank you. I was 99.9% sure the necklace had to be a set of Rosary beads. It is very very old and the beads look natural and i believe the smell is natural as well. I just googled Cinnabar and you could be right that is what they are.