It was not surprising to learn from a One News poll that Clayton Weatherston has, in record time, become the most reviled man in New Zealand.
It was a little more surprising (albeit for only a moment) to hear he has asked Guinness World Records to note the accomplishment.
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 12 Newer→ Last
Verdict: Guilty
DPF,
Thank God. Beyond reviled. I have never come across a case where the defendant made himself such a hated figure.
hehe nice. Something you had prepared but didn't accidentally leak out 24 hours earlier...
It was a little more surprising (albeit for only a moment) to hear he has asked Guinness World Records to note his accomplishment.
LOL!
What were the defence thinking letting the guy run loose on the stand. Maybe they felt like they had a choice between Bob Hope and no hope anyway.
I couldn't give a toss about the Bain verdict but this is such a relief. Caught myself checking twitter...
Second most reviled figure - Judith Ablett-Kerr. For going beyond her brief of providing a defence in this farcical case and, despite her mealy-mouthed protestations otherwise, putting the victim on trial.
Vile, vile, vile.
What were the defence thinking letting the guy run loose on the stand.
After the massive lawyer-bollocking I got a couple of months back, I'm assuming he asked to take the stand, and his defence team couldn't talk him out of it.
DPF,
The key thing is to change the law and remove provocation as a partial defence, so no other lawyer or defendant can put a victim's family through what the Elliotts have endured.
Any provocation can be a matter for the Judge at sentencing, but should not be a way to escape a murder conviction.
Thank God. Beyond reviled. I have never come across a case where the defendant made himself such a hated figure.
There isn't too much I agree with DPF about, but I heartily agree with this.
I have never seen a defendant come across as so smug, conceited and arrogant as Weatherston. I'm amazed that his defence team didn't at least seem to tell him not to ego-wank so much.
The more he talked, the more he dug himself deeper into it. I think this is a good verdict.
I'm going down to Otago Uni campus later today - it'll be interesting to see if there's any people or notes about this verdict left at her memorial plaque there; I expect there will be.
Maybe it will now be possible to watch the evening news again (only just, though) without having to walk away for 10 minutes while the latest updates from this sad trial are shown.
I appreciate that Clayton has a right to speak in his own defence, but I don't accept that all tv-news needed to broadcast all his ramblings. It was obscene.
"I hope to take a paper to Cabinet in the near future, after Labour failed to implement any changes," Power said.
Didn't take Power long to extract political capital from this story huh.
So... how many hours did that jury deliberate?
I couldn't give a toss about the Bain verdict but this is such a relief. Caught myself checking twitter...
I felt exactly the same way - overwhelming sense of relief to the extent that I can't imagine (for a hundred reasons) how her family must feel.
And Emma, I'm also assuming that he was advised of the risks both of taking, and not taking, the stand. Whew, off Twitter and back to work now...
I'm assuming he asked to take the stand, and his defence team couldn't talk him out of it.
Yeah, having got a bit of a feel for that fucks syntax, it seemed as if almost the entire defence closing statement was penned by him. Napoleon complex for sure. Funny post David.
Second most reviled figure - Judith Ablett-Kerr. For going beyond her brief of providing a defence in this farcical case and, despite her mealy-mouthed protestations otherwise, putting the victim on trial.
Vile, vile, vile.
She and Greg King need to take a long, hard look at themselves. They both really scrapped the bottom of the barrel. I see her now and again my local supermarket and I expect she'll be avoiding eye contact with a lot of people in it for a long time.
The key thing is to change the law and remove provocation as a partial defence, so no other lawyer or defendant can put a victim's family through what the Elliotts have endured.
Any provocation can be a matter for the Judge at sentencing, but should not be a way to escape a murder conviction.
Agreed, but unsure of the mechanism - do we have degrees of murder? Or just sentencing mitigation? The latter lumps all murder together really, am unsure of where I sit on that.
What a complete and total arse. Words may have failed me, but at least the jury did its job.
It was a little more surprising (albeit for only a moment) to hear he has asked Guinness World Records to note the accomplishment.
Gross out momemt on first scanning that - what is he record for number of stab wounds incurred by a murder victim?
Second most reviled figure - Judith Ablett-Kerr. For going beyond her brief of providing a defence in this farcical case and, despite her mealy-mouthed protestations otherwise, putting the victim on trial.
Vile, vile, vile.
I was astonished to hear her assert (via a radio report) that "the impact of terrible events of that day will inevitably have coloured [Sophie Elliott's mother's] testimony", or words to that effect.
Witnessing a particularly awful crime makes you a less valid witness now? No wonder the family walked out at that point.
After the massive lawyer-bollocking I got a couple of months back, I'm assuming he asked to take the stand, and his defence team couldn't talk him out of it.
That was my guess too...
I expect Abblet-Kerr's also bound by client lawyer privilege and will never be able to reveal if it was a defense of her own choosing or if it was all his idea? Of course, he's such an egotistical wanker he might just reveal it himself?
Ah yes, here it was from the Dominion Post:
To gasps from the public gallery, Ablett-Kerr told the jury Lesley Elliott's recollection of the day her daughter was killed was less than reliable.
"With great respect and due deference to her ... what she saw on that day and the trauma she went through must, unfortunately make her a less than reliable witness as far as detail is concerned," Ablett-Kerr said.
"I don't want to have to say it, but I have to. It was dreadful what she saw, absolutely dreadful."
Gil Elliott, Sophie Elliott's father, stood up and walked out of the court room in apparent disgust at the comment.
Second most reviled figure - Judith Ablett-Kerr. For going beyond her brief of providing a defence in this farcical case and, despite her mealy-mouthed protestations otherwise, putting the victim on trial.
Vile, vile, vile.
Of course, Angus, you've no contempt for the politicians who've let provocation stay on the books?
Meanwhile, what have we learned from this: If you want to mount a successful provocation defence, it's now essential your victim has a penis. Also helpful if he's an elderly campy gay tagger -- and black. Stay away from the popular, pretty young white middle-class girls.
3410,
Second most reviled figure - Judith Ablett-Kerr.
I'll give a brickbat to Justice Potter, for a) allowing that ridiculous defence* and b) grinning and chuckling throughout the case. In a sane world, she owes Leslie Elliott a big apology.
*I'm quite prepared to be corrected by any resident... law-talking guys, but I'd imagine that the widely-held beleif that the defendant is entitled to any defence they choose is not quite correct.
he's such an egotistical wanker he might just reveal it himself?
What's the bet the little shit writes a book?
3410,
And could the media stop publishing the pictures of murderers and thier victims together? That's just super-insensitive.