In today’s issue of the New Zealand Herald I read another example of a male perpetrator of domestic violence and psychological abuse who intended to harm his partner – but used alcohol as an excuse to minimise his responsibility. Snippets from the article say:
“Ross Simon Fraser has admitted beating his partner Joanne Thompson to death in their home ….
Miss Thompson took out a protection order against him in 2007 but the couple reconciled. On February 9 Fraser moved out of their home again, and returned there on February 15 to get his belongings….
That evening he was out drinking with a group of young people and they were punching a punching bag …
After the boxing he was sitting, drinking at a table, when he said, “The devil’s unleashing.”
He then added: “Don’t tell anyone I said that because people will think it is strange.”…”
For him to say these things whilst drunk shows a level of control. This male perpetrator then went home, used a knife or sharp weapon on his partner inflicting wounds, then:
“The attack continued in the bathroom where she appeared to have been thrown around the room and struck numerous times. She was forcibly struck against the cast iron bath, handbasin, and the shower step …
Fraser left the house after the attack and spent nine days in hiding.
When he was caught and interviewed he said both he and Miss Thompson had been in a rage and drinking, and the incident was a blur because he had blacked out.
He said he was ashamed and felt he had let a lot of people down but said it was his home as well and he was too old to be shoved around …”
If he was so out of control with alcohol, why did he not beat up the mates he was drinking with? Or random people he may have come in contact with on his way home?
If he was so out of control with alcohol, why did he leave the house after killing his partner?
If he was so out of control with alcohol, what does he mean by saying “it was his home as well and he was too old to be shoved around?” In my experience this statement depicts his intent. It is a declaration of ownership and domination. It is a statement claiming his perceived right to authority as “king of his castle”. It implies “do not mess with me”.
You can read the complete newspaper article here.
