For Craig @ 5:54

No, no problem at all. A conviction for manslaughter requires acceptance of responsibility for a death. BUT, if you came home and found an intruder had killed one of your children, dropped their weapon upon seeing you, and you still hit them over the head with the poker - I'd understand (you obviously wouldn't if the situations were reversed - but that's you) -I'd think that you are human, with human emotions, not a machine. I could imagine a reasonable upstanding person losing control in those circumstances.

As I said before -these ideas don't apply to Clayton - he's as guilty as sin.

PS - when you mix people's quotes in the same message it's polite to acknowledge it - you make it look like I said all those things.

I wonder if we might throw the baby out with the bath water regarding the provocation defense. Let's say after the police had Weatherston under control, Sophie's mother had rushed up and stabbed him in the back. Hell, I could understand a reasonable person losing control in those circumstances. As a juror, I'd prefer to be able to convict her for manslaughter than murder.

What's rankled me about recent cases is the argument - "It was reasonable for *me* to be provoked because I'm narcissistic or homophobic" (or whatever else "characteristic").

But then I'm no legal eagle.