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.
49 comments:
And sentencing inversely proportional to the name calling. A sliding scale from poopoohead all the way through to c*nt.
The former gets maximum term.
For the latter you get 2 weeks in Hawaii & $1mil compensation.
Damn straight PC!
The best thing that could come out of this case would be the abolition of provocation as a defence entirely.
Obviously a loser with no social skills whatsoever - typical lifetime academic, really. I'd bet good money he voted Green or Labour.
I can't believe anyone anywhere could seriously entertain such a defence. Hopefully the judge and jury ignore every word.
I only wish the addled coffin chasers in the media would.
I think that all criminal defense lawyers are the muthafuckers of the society. They really know that there is no case to be defended here, but they still choose to do so. David Bain's lawyers did definitely know that David is guilty, but they still entertain the idea that he was innocent.
What a pathetic career to be a criminal defense lawyer. The sooner this legal aid is taken off, the sooner these muthafucker lawyers will find new careers as flipping burgers at McDonald.
Banal, nasty, little fools the both of them. Academia is full of such creatures. She sounds like she was high maintenance and troublesome. He's definitely an emotive and infantile tantrum thrower. Now she's dead because he murdered her. It matters not what her faults and issues were. He killed her. Reckon the jury is going to see right through him and send him down for murder one. Reckon the judge will give him a solid 18-20 without parole.
LGM
Bozo
You are so full of it.
LGM
You're aptly named, Bozo. If the law permits a partial defence of provocation and the defendant is determined to run with that despite having no evidence of provocation to offer, his lawyer has no option but to try and make a case for it - even if said lawyer knows full well the defendant is utterly delusional in imagining the jury might buy it. Blame the law, not the lawyers.
Provocation, when he went to the victim's house armed with the knife he used to kill her?
No, I don't think so either!
The best thing that could come out of this case would be the abolition of provocation as a defence entirely.
That may possibly be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as has been done with self defence.
There may be some legitimate cases where provocation could be considered as a mitigating factor (obviously not this case though).
The mitigation could affect the punishment, but probably shouldn't be a factor in the verdict.
the trial was actually moved to Christchurch .... so that prick could gat a fair hearing... so much for a jury of your peers (se Bain also)... and obviously to add extra trauma and inconvenience for Sophies poor family... he was a coward when he committed teh crime and remains one with his defense As for the possum (Ablet Kerr) ... as a Dunedite I would not hesitate t spit on her next time she walks down George Street !!
His lawyer knows he is a psychopathic piece of shit and she is doing a dirty job but someone has to do it. It is a shame that the victim's family must endure this trial. As a mother of a young woman myself, I feel for them. Soon the trial will be over and this prick will have to spend the "best" part of his life amongst the low order scum that he so despises. I hope he has it really hard.
I wonder what Joe Karam thinks about this - maybe he will leap to his defence.
Juries can't be trusted these days, they could well fall for it, what a worry, but that is the PC, let's try and understand them society we have...bleeding hearts and all.
So to summarise... someone should not be allowed to mount a defence when accused of a crime, if a blog site declares it so.
The media should not report the defence, if a blog site declares such reporting is ``breathless''.
The only reason you can get so outraged about such things is because someone reports them.
Possibly I am wrong and you have sat through the trial and been involved in the proscecution and have not relied on media reporting to form such an opinion
No, that would not be a summary, that would be spin from an anonymous commenter.
Because in truth, the entity has already admitted the killing. Which means now that he is not "mounting a defence' as putting Sophie Elliot on trial to make his killing look better.
PC
He's presenting an excuse. "I stabbed her a couple of hundred times and cut her genitals up and cut off her nipples and cut off her nose and stabbed her eyes out, because she pushed me and I snapped and she pushed me into it."
Something like that anyway.
Doesn't work for me. Guess you wouldn't accept it either. Still, the trial is being conducted to determine the facts of the matter and to determine whether the accused is guilty of murder or of manslaughter.
Three points.
1/. He's entitled to present a provocation defense to try to explain why he acted as he did.
Was he provoked? Did he snap? Was he of diminished responsibility due to reduced mental capacity, severe stress, mental event, breakdown etc? Is any of that relevant? Whether the jury accepts any of it or dismisses it is another matter entirely. Same goes for the judge when sentancing occurs.
2/. Elliot is dead, so she can't feel any shame, embarassement, pain, anger, fear, debasement, sadness, regret etc. While it is convention not to speak ill of the dead to avoid upsetting the feelings of surviving family and friends, there is the matter of determination of fact.
One has to wonder how it was that a grown, educated woman could get herself so closely involved with such a creature, mate with it, actively prosecute a close relationship well after the time it was clear how warped and volatile said creature was, continue to prosecute said relationship until it was completely toxic and finally, fail to employ all possible assistance to keep the creature away.
Has this a bearing on whether creature is guilty of murder or of manslaughter? Yes, it does. Creature is offering a particular defense which may or may not be factual. Character and behaviour of victim is relevant.
Was she indeed responsible for pushing him over the brink? Does that reduce his responsibility? Objective of Court is to evaluate the evidence and find out.
3/. The media is presenting this case in its usual manner. That is, a sensationalised, trivialised summary of the day's occurances in Court. That means we have not seen the complete evidence (interestingly neither has the jury as yet). What we have seen is the media's sensationalised, trivialised summary of each day's events.
Trial by media doesn't work. One shouldn't trust the media. It's safer to trust the jury and the judge on this one.
Let's see what the Court procedings bring.
LGM
LGM: I don't agree. Don't agree at all.
". . . the trial is being conducted to determine the facts of the matter"
The facts of the matter aren't in question, merely the creature's excuse for slaughter.
I see no justification at all for law that allows a defence of either provocation or "diminished responsibility." It's either murder, self-defence or accidental death. There are no other legitimate categories. And there are no excuses for murder: allowing them in law simply invites the farce that is this trial.
"One has to wonder how it was . . ."
No. One doesn't. Whatever those reasons, it's not germane to the relevant facts. Whatever the reasons, they don't justify murder.
"One shouldn't trust the media. It's safer to trust the jury and the judge on this one. "
One shouldn't trust the media, no, But in this case what the judge and jury are being asked to judge should not be a matter for them to decide. The fault here is with the law, particularly of the farce of "diminished responsibility" and "provocation," and with the lawyers who have made it what it is.
So PC, would you do away with the offence of Manslaughter altogether?
Not all homicides fit within your three categories of: murder (which by definition is an intentional killing of another human); accidental death (which is a death for which no one bears responsibility); or self-defence (which is an intentional killing totally excused in the circumstances).
Manslaughter exists to cover scenarios where the killing of another person was not intentional, but where the killer is somewhat blameworthy (ie they were reckless or negligent, meaning they either chose not to take any care in what they were doing or they failed to take the care a reasonable person would have, and as a result someone dies).
The partial defence of provocation has long existed to deal with situations where the offender 'just loses it' and kills in circumstances of 'hot blood'. It is the criminal law's nod to human frailty. It is, for example, the way the law deals with the battered wife, who after long term abuse, snaps and kills the violent husband (in circumstances where the traditional defence of self-defence cannot apply). The law essentailly says: yes you have killed someone (intentionally), but in the circumstances there are reasons to treat this differently.
Traditioanlly, provocation has been a very difficult defence to make out - few people succeed on it and it is particularly hard to achieve in an undeserving case. And remember, it might change the name of the crime for which the killer is convicted, but it may or may not change the sentence. Sentences for manslaughter need not necessarily be any lighter than for murder - the Court has considerable discretion in sentencing for manslaughter.
The view that seems to be taken by many here, that the provocation defence is a nasty trick by criminal defence lawyers (full disclosure: I am one) and it ought be struck from the statute books, is myopic and narrow minded. There are many situations where it is clearly appropriate and serves to achieve results that in the circumstances are just and right by anyone's assessment.
Having said that, I haven't followed this specific case and cannot comment on whether it seems to be an appropriate scenario for the provocation defence.
Well, yes, all homicides do. Accidental death is NOT by definition death without responsibility -- it's a death that is accidental, with culpability based on blame for the accident. That's a different thing. And that, to my mind, is the only basis for a manslaughter.
You say that "the partial defence of provocation has long existed," and I say again that I don't care. It is a stain on criminal law (and so, to be fair, are many criminal lawyers).
A killing is a killing. A victim's life has been taken. so unless it's been taken in self-defence, in which case no defence is needed, or it's accidental, in which case the defence is based around the facts showing the lack of intention, the law should prepare defendants to face the music.
LGM you're consistently provoke me as a reader of this blog every time you make a post here, because you mock other commentators, being rude, put down others' opinions, self-elevating yourself as somehow you're God and so forth.
How about if we arrange to meet up somewhere , where I can deliver you a cyclone of punches to your face and see if I can make a claim in court for my defense that you have been provoking me here on this blog consistently?
Are you up for it? Please let me know.
PC
1/. Facts of the matter INCLUDE the reasons for creature to act as he did.
2/. You've missed the category of a person of unsound mind committing the act.
3/. "One has to wonder.."
Yes, it is relevant. Was this a manslaughter or a murder? The character and behavior of the victim are relevant.
4/. If not the judge and jury, who should decide?
LGM
LGM:
1. I don't care about his reasons, and see no reason for their relevance.
2. I didn't miss the category at all - I discounted it entirely. I'm with Thomas Szasz on saying the so-called "insanity defence" should go. Evil or ill? Doesn't matter -- all that matters is proving a defendant did it.
3. "One has to wonder. . ." I say again, no one doesn't. His motive for slaughter is, or should be irrelevant. All we should need to know are the external facts, not his state of mind.
"Was this a manslaughter or a murder?" Well, since it was hardly accidental, no it's not a manslaughter - not by the definition I'm arguing for. And I don't see any argument from you that the present definition should hold, merely that it does hold. And this case, to my mind, shows how farcical the present definition is.
4. It's not a matter of who should decide, it's a matter of 'on what' they should be deciding. I'm arguing that they should simply be deciding based on the facts -- i.e., did he kill her -- NOT on what they might imagine his internal state of mind might be based on what names Sophie Elliot might (or might not) have called him.
So PC, do you draw any distinction between the following:
1. The Jeffrey Dahlmer-type serial killer;
2. The drunk driver who knows the risks of driving while impaired but ignores them;
3. The anesthatist who doesn't check the label on a drug carefully, adminsters it to a patient and the patient dies; and
4. the trapeze-artist who misses a catch and has a partner fall to her death.
As the law stands (including the common law that you are so fond of), although all of them "killed" the deceased (in terms of being the person who caused their death, not all are equally culpable. The first is a murderer - he intends to kill his victims. The second is guilty of manslaughter - he knows the risk and choses to ignore it. The third is guilty of manslaughter - he did not take the degree of care that was required of him (ie he was grossly negligent). The fourth is not guilty of anything - he took all necessary care, but it still happened (which is, by the way, the true definition of accident).
Everyone gets all upity about these sensationalised cases and says there is a massive problem with the law. Actually, there is not. The law works very well at sorting out the relevant culpability of those who commit these sorts of crimes. It does so by not just taking into account simple questions of causation (ie "all that matters is that he killed her"), but actually considering the question of "why". It is the "why" question that gives the criminal law the ability to deal with the difficult cases, when the common herd a braying for blood.
PC
1/. Nevertheless they are part of the body of fact pertaining to this case.
2/. The existence of the category does not rely on whether you discount it or not. There are people of unsound mind who undertake these actions. They do exist.
A person of reduced capability to reason is of diminished responsibility for their actions precisely because of that reduced capacity.
The creature is offering reduced capacity as his defense. Is that valid? Is it factual? That is what the Court has set to finding out.
The expectation is that he'll fail, but neither of us has seen all the evidence. The jury and the judge will though.
3/. That he killed her is not in contention. His state of mind is. He is offering her behaviour as a partial defense for his action. She is alleged to have caused his state of mind to deteriorate to the extent that he acted as he did.
Now just because he offers a defense, doesn't mean it will hold up in the Court. Just because he offers a defense does not mean it is accurate and correct. Nor does it mean his defense is valid. The point is that he has offered it and it needs to be examined to determine whether or not it is valid.
4/. What they are deciding is whether he was of diminished responsibility or not. Once that is determined the judge will decide what to do with the horrible creature. Creature is most certainly headed for incarceration. It is a matter of what the terms will be, where he will be incarcerated and what recommendations the judge will make.
---
My opinion (in the absence of knowing all the evidence) is that he'll likely go down for murder 1 and get something like 18-20 years. I understand him to be attempting to reduce his incarceration term by fibbing about the situation, but unfortunately I'm not in possession of all the evidence (& neither are you). Still, I don't believe he was of reduced mental capacity at all and so don't expect his defense to hold. Similarly, I don't think that the issues pertaining to the victim are fundamental, although they are going to need to be reviewed by the Court during its evaluation of his defense.
BTW you've still got to wonder why an educated young woman would prosecute a relationship that was clearly toxic for as long as she did.
In the end, all the evidence should be examined and tested prior to a verdict being determined and a sentence being selected. That is what I trust the Court will do.
LGM
Kurt
You are clearly a person of reduced mental capacity yourself- a fool.
Now wipe the spit of your chin, get your hands out of your pockets and try very hard to read what is written. Get your baby-sitter to explain the words and the concepts to you. Keep your hands out of your pockets while she's speaking to you. Concentrate. Yes, you can do it if you try.
--
The killer is offering provocation as a partial defense. He is also trying to show that he was of reduced mental capacity and hence diminished responsibility. That's HIS defense.
Does that mean I support him or agree with him?
No. Only an illiterate such as yourself might come to that conclusion.
Do I accept his defense justifies what he has done?
No. Only an illiterate such as yourself might come to that conclusion.
You should learn to read what is written and not make up shit to emote over.
My position is:
1/. I reckon he is a murderer; guilty of Murder 1. To make it easy for you, that means I do not think that his defense is valid. I don't think it is likely to hold.
2/. I do not have access to all the evidence. You do not have access to all the evidence. The Court, on the other hand, does, or rather, will do.
3/. It is the Court's task to objectively examine the evidence and determine what is fact, what is not fact and finally what to do with the accused.
BTW interesting you're so easily provoked. You need to calm down some.
LGM
The Law Commission called for provocation as a defense to be abolished in a 2007 report. This was also recommended in 1976 by the Criminal Law Reform Committee, but no action was taken. A useful summary of the report is found on page 378 of the NZ Law Journal, November 2007.
They also did a study of 81 murder cases in Auckland/Wellington, and provocation was raised as a defence in 15 cases. It succeeded in 4 of them.
The LC provided a useful summary of the facts of each case. One involved a undiagnosed bipolar doctor who strangled his terminally ill mother to death after he tried and failed to euthanise her with drugs (R v Simpson).
One involved a battered wife who battered her husband's head in with an axe, but it was not to protect herself from violence, it was when he tried to leave her and form a new relationship (R v Suluape).
The other two involved homosexual advances, and the facts make pretty harrowing reading (R v Ali and R v Edwards).
The defence of provocation might have been appropriate back in the 18th or 19th century, but social attitudes have moved on since then. I doubt there are very many circumstances where it is truly justified. It is difficult to argue that killing someone is an appropriate response in any situation, no matter what the provocation is.
One reason for having provocation was removed when murder was no longer a compulsory life sentence. Judges have the ability to impose a lesser sentence when the circumstances of the case call for it.
Philip
That's interesting. How much latitude does a New Zealand judge have in sentancing for a murder conviction?
LGM
Justin
I understand that intent is an important part of what needs to be demonstrated in securing a murder conviction. For a manslaughter conviction intent is not necessary. Is that correct?
LGM
I think that based on the admittedly sparse but sensationalised facts being tossed around the msm that Weatherston is a murderer.
A person guilty of manslaughter is a person guilty of committing an unlawful act which act was intended. It seems he intended to kill not to simply perform an unlawful act. He is a murderer. The provocation defence as it presently stands simply operates as a mechanism to negate the intention to kill, thereby effectively reducing intentional murder to manslaughter. For provocation to succeed as a defence the cause of the provocation must essentially be immediate and proximate to the act which leads to the killing. Weatherston it seems arrived at the victim's home armed and intending to stab her repeatedly. This is the behaviour of a murderer fully equiped with his faculties.
In this context it is wrong to harangue the defence counsel. Nobody ever fully appreciates the strength and power of the state until one stands alone in a defendant's box. The only permitted lifeline for those in the defendant's box is the defence counsel. Never assume that the defence has the resources and power that the state enjoys...it is always an uneven contest.
The course of Weatherston's hideous defence may be distasteful and vile, but it is all he has. In a civilised society we are all permitted to place before the court whatever facts we believe may assist us in resisting the strength of the state. The powers of the state are sometimes exercised with a cynicism that can drive the desire to obtain a conviction to ridiculous lengths. In 1979 I defended a young man on a serious burglary charge. His defence was that he was not in NZ at the time it was committed. His passport supported this, as did a ticketing officer at Pan-Am and two family members. Despite bringing this to the attention of the army of the state's officers before the court hearing, it still proceeded through the court. The Judge dismissed the charge once he'd viewed the passport and heard the evidence of the airline employee. As we left the court a police officer approached my client and let rip with a string of invective aimed at me rather than the erstwhile accused. The police behaviour revealed to me how detached from reality the stater's minions become as they perpetrate their personal crusades!
Defence counsel are not leeches but protective shields.
The Otago University's web-site still presents Weatherston as a reputable staff-member. Incredible!
LGM,
You are basically correct. In NZ (which only has one category of murder - so no 'murder 1' or 'murder in the first degree' etc) there are several ways an act can constitute murder, but basically intention to kill is the critical element that separates it from manslaughter. You can have a murder without an intention to kill, but the circumstances are probably too complicated to cover here.
For manslaughter you generally need either recklessness (knowing there is a risk of death occuring and choosing to run that risk) or gross negligence (failing to meet the standard of care required to avoid a risk that a reasonable person would have seen).
That's an oversimplification of course, but there's a reason law school takes four years :-)
Faversham is right: everyone thinks lawyers are scum - unlti they need one.
Justin,
It can be death resulting from an unlawful act. Nothing approaching recklessness is required. Have a look at the old case of R v Lipman where a woman died from having a writing instrument being inserted in her vagina during consensual sex. Lipman went down.
I do not generally post to blogs but I was rather dismayed at PC descending in to "tabloidism" with this post and the aptly labelled Bozo referring to defence lawyers in the manner he did. I wonder whether they think the fire brigade is lazy until it is their homes that are ablaze?
Faversham
Lipman got convicted for Manslaughter? Was the act unlawful itself (even if she hadn't been injured or died) or was it the result of the act that secured the conviction?
LGM
Justin & Faversham
I am reminded of a work colleague. He had the attitude that lawyers were all bad news and that the accused had to have done something wrong or else some government agency or other wouldn't have charged him or her. In his view such people needed to be dealt with in the severest manner. There were no excuses, no mitigation, no need to a thorough examination of all the facts pertaining to a particular situation. Lawyers were the bad guys since they got involved in all the detail and minute, cross examination, argument, precedence, raising of doubt and so forth.
My, oh my, how things changed when his brother and then his son got charged in separate instances. I held my peace when he started blowing off about how they had been unfairly dealt with, that the law was unjust, that they had been set up, that the system was corrupt. A number of people around the factory started commenting about how much he'd changed his tune by then, especially when he hired a well known solicitor and then a barrister to represent and defend both family members. Oh the hypocracy!
Of course he wouldn't admit he was wrong but by then people were starting to point out that he was. He was a prejudicial man who had opinions on everything- they were especially strongly held on matters he knew less about. That happens. At least he got corrected on that occasion.
LGM
Justin
The unlawful act was an assault! Shoving a pen or a pencil into a vagina would always be an assault wouldn't it? I seem to recall that she was shown to have died from the injury resulting from the insertion of the writing instrument. This case would be about 40 years old. You should find it in the All ER reports or Weekly reports after about 1968?
LGM
Correct. Years ago a very senior barrister said to me, "No one wants a clap doctor until it is a pain to piss in the mornings!"
To be clear: I don't have a problem with the defence counsel trying to advance provocation as a defence in this specific case (unless of course she knew it was a lie).
I do have a problem with the existence of provocation as a defence as a whole, and this case is a good example of how silly the defence is!
If you intentionally kill someone, it shouldn't matter how angry they made you.
Faversham
You wrote, " Shoving a pen or a pencil into a vagina would always be an assault wouldn't it?"
Would it? What if the person gave permission or asked for that to be done (not expecting injury to occur)?
On a related note, isn't surgery an assault? One asks the surgeon to cut. Why isn't that an illegal act in and of itself?
LGM
Philip
Fair enough. I think that's PC's position as well.
What about the situation where a person takes leave of their faculty of reason or is rendered of reduced capacity to reason? What then?
LGM
Now that the defence case is being trundled forth the provocation argument appears more tenable. It may have been preferable to plead "Guilty but Insane" though.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=98162592975&ref=nf
This is the address of the Weatherspoon is a murderer facebook site--please forward it on before a terrible misjustice is done again on Sophie Elliott
Gman
You've got a fact wrong. The trial is being held in Christchurch NOT Dunedin.
As for the rest, couldn't agree more.
It needs to be locked away forever and even then the punishment is too genereous, the death penalty would be too.
There was no justification for his actions towards Sophie and the family are so hurt by this. It's so screwed up.
Sean, who cares who it voted for. it committed murder. It needs to be tortured for the rest of its life.
It isn't human.
And LGM, you're a fuckwit with that last comment. Sophie did nothing to deserve this and does NOT deserve judgement for who she chose to get involved with. Right or wrong, the damage is done and it was a ticking time bomb. It was going to murder and for you to even entertain that Sophie played a part is disgusting and sick and you're a fuckwit.
Liz Shaw: I think your comments are pointlessly caustic towards LGM. I have read this entire post a number of times, Not one contributor has suggested that the victim is being blamed as you suggest. If you exercised some clarity of thought you would discern that the defence of provocation does not turn on the faults of the victim but rather on the reactions of the culprit. The difference is salutary. Less hysteria please!
Liz
Which comment of mine are you so upset about? Why does it bother you so?
LGM
Lets all just agree that LGM is a fuckwit. No wait, in Weatherston-trial fashion, why don't we take this matter to court to fuck around, waste some more tax payers money and look at Ablett-Kerr's expanding face when we already know the damn truth? Shut the fuck up LGM.
He had "support" to study at Princeton or Harvard universities in the United States from someone who "was a big fan of mine".Just who is trying to mutate this cruelly barbaric and protracted butchering into something along the lines of a dangerous driving charge,causing accidental death?
Is that why this reptilian has received an Orwellian wet dream of media slant in his favour?
Lawyers,and media personalities selling their souls to peddle the idea to the New Zealand public that this guy is not a candidate for the reinstatement of the death penalty,but is actually a victim.Sick and twisted attempts at preparing the public to accept a travesty of justice in the making.
Great an intelligent psychopath, devoid of any humility,wisdom,commonsense,compassion,
empathy,self-control,honour,conscience,morals,remorse or human dignity.But let him off with manslaughter and a lighter sentence because Harvard University wants him.
Surely the public's safety is worthy of consideration...and justice for the young woman he so brutally dissected infront of her mother :(
Clayton Weatherston really should hang for his crime.....alternatively indefinite detention for the public safety is the only righteous sentence.
If provocation wins out his Defense team successfully argues that any person bearing the same insecurities and lack of self control as Weatherston is justified in arming themselves and then stabbing and mutilating the person who 'wronged' them 216 times.
But acting out violent retribution is inexscusable and the fact that provocation in this situation is even considered shows you how little regard the justice system, the law makers, the Defence lawyers really think of the victims of uncontrolled rage.
'Provocation' is an out for murderers particularly in situations like this because we can all identify with rage even murderous rage but as law abiding citizens we do not act on it despite the strongest of desires to do so in some instances. If Weatherston succeeds he gets away with murder and a message goes out to everyone - if your feelings are hurt and you're not sleeping or coping - go kill the person whose the cause of it because then you'll get a good nights sleep.
Who cares what Sophie called Weatherstone - He armed himself, he entered her home by duping her mother with the weapon concealed on his person,she was packing her stuff ready to start a new life in a new place without him, he closed the door and with the full knowledge of her Mother being in the house he stabbed and mutilated her. Mum while listening to her daughter's screaming tried to force her way into the room and then her daughter is silent and when she finally gets into the room he is astride her daughter stabbing, carving, slicing and blood is everywhere and then he pushes Mum out the door and closes it on her probably continues slicing into the victim. Self gratification complete by the time the cop arrives he is contained and self satisfied as he describes what he has done.
He is now able to carry on with his life without his pesky name calling ex-girlfriend, she is no longer at risk of finding a person better than him and he probably has a good defense team on speed dial - he is a clever murderous little sod after all.
And we watched him on tv the other night preening himself proudly as he exhibited his intellectual superiority and disdain for the lesser people who did not work as hard as he did. As his defense lawyer said "You don't have to like him" ... basically just see what kind of an arrogant cock he is and how in his mind Sophie deserved what she got because that's the way his mind works - you'll appreciate the tortured intellectual that he is and that really Sophie was at fault for 'baiting' him and calling him names. What an insult to such a brilliant mind - how dare she. And if the next girlfriend he has pisses him off - has a precedent been set because his state of mind has been established in a High Court setting - how does that work or do we go through the whole rigamarole again.
It will happen again because Sophie was not the trigger, the way he is and how he responds to a particular emotional situation is the trigger. If he succeeds in his provocation bid - then the law says that's okay.
Post a Comment