That is, “might get me off with manslaughter.” I refer, if you hadn’t guessed, to the chamber of horrors appearing on our TV screen every night direct from the Christchurch court house. I don’t know about you, but I feel disgusted every time that killer and his lawyers appear on my TV screen.
I’m as disgusted with the “defence” put up by his legal team as I am with their trawling through Sophie Elliot’s sexual history to find “provocation” – as I am disgusted with the law that allows such a defence to be run, and with the type of lawyers that would choose to run it.
He killed her. He slaughtered her. The defence for this piece of human filth is essentially that he killed her because she called him names – because she "made him do it" - so that she is somehow responsible for her own cold-blooded slaughter! This is a defence that wouldn’t even stand up in a school playground! Whatever names she called him – whatever “provocation” she might have offered – nothing, nothing at all, justifies taking a knife to her bedroom and stabbing her 216 times.
And there’s very little either to justify the media’s breathless sensationalising of the trial. If this is the best they can do in terms of news reporting, then all concerned should take a good hard look at themselves and their industry.