'He killed girlfriend due to emotional pain', court told

**scumdog** · 21st July 2009, 23:08

Originally Posted by 98tls

Bit like the 12th time drunk 16th time disqualified driver on tv tonight,he gets 9 months.....wow what a hardship.

Wow, that realy sends out a strong message

Good old NZ 'justice'.

Most judges find doling out meaningful punishments abhorent for some obscure reason.

**98tls** · 21st July 2009, 23:12

Originally Posted by scumdog

Wow, that realy sends out a strong message

Good old NZ 'justice'.

Most judges find doling out meaningful punishments abhorent for some obscure reason.

But hey no doubt he will get a long stretch when he/lets face it he probably will kills someone,talk about ambo at the bottom of the cliff.

**Laava** · 21st July 2009, 23:17

Originally Posted by Pussy

I reckon he has tried to play the "Antonie Dixon" card.
Guilty as sin of murder IMHO

Let's hope he plays the rest of the hand!

**buffstar** · 22nd July 2009, 07:33

Go directly to jail - do not pass go - do not collect $200

Give the man a bright red VICTIM tee shirt......"Mwaaaaah she was mean to me, she hurt me on the inside where i am pink and soft and vulnerable, Boo Hoo. Woe is me" - I also am hopefull that he gets arse reamed in jail and finds out what real pain to his pink bits are.

He was a fair few years older (obviously not wiser) than his gf/murder victim, infact he was a lecturer at the same place she was a student - hmmmm is it only me that sees that? Hey, Im not saying that she wasnt a bitch to him....but the ends really dont justify the means here, absolutely disgusting abhorrant behaviour, not to mention bad form to stab another human being and mutilate them. Obviously premeditated and totally brutal.

to quote a fav song "we dont need no water let the motherfucker burn....burn motherfucker burn"

ya'll have a nice day now

**Winston001** · 22nd July 2009, 09:39

Originally Posted by ynot slow

Yep he wanted to plead guilty to Manslaghter, prosecution should have said ok......

Really? Imagine this was your sister/daughter and the prosecutor said - "look, we'll just go with manslaughter, its easier......"

**hospitalfood** · 22nd July 2009, 09:51

I think he should be done for murder.

I think he thought she did need a good stabbing, and 217 is a good stabbing.

I would rather see him man up in court.

**Badjelly** · 22nd July 2009, 09:52

Originally Posted by buffstar

...but the ends really dont justify the means here, absolutely disgusting abhorrant behaviour, ...

Of course it's digusting. (BTW, is there some competition for saying how disgusting this, that or the other crime is? There seem to be a lot of entrants.) But provocation isn't about ends justifying means, about rational calculation, it's about the opposite: the words in the law are "loss of self control".

Therein lies a problem: there are many, many drama queens and kings who use their propensity to "lose it" as a threat and a weapon. Why on Earth should the law consider this a defence? "I couldn't help it because I'm a narcissist who doesn't give a damn about anyone but me and she upset me." Please!

Anyway, let's not complain about the verdict until it's in. I'll be very surprised if it's manslaughter. And, oldrider, please don't criticise the jury for not being back in 5 minutes. They have a duty to make a judgement about a very difficult area of law. They have a duty to do this very carefully. They can take as long or as short a time as they like, as far as I'm concerned.

**Goblin** · 22nd July 2009, 09:58

Originally Posted by scumdog

Wow, that realy sends out a strong message

Good old NZ 'justice'.

Most judges find doling out meaningful punishments abhorent for some obscure reason.

Maybe that's because they're all ex-lawyers who have lived in the lap of luxury for so many years they have lost sight of reality. There is no justice in NZ. Just a court system to keep the lawyers and judges on their money-go-round. Ever noticed how many lawyers are overweight?

**Lissa** · 22nd July 2009, 10:21

Originally Posted by buffstar

Give the man a bright red VICTIM tee shirt......"Mwaaaaah she was mean to me, she hurt me on the inside where i am pink and soft and vulnerable, Boo Hoo. Woe is me" - I also am hopefull that he gets arse reamed in jail and finds out what real pain to his pink bits are.

I totally agree! Which makes me think he has some sort of mental problem, he obviously believes that he is the victim and that it is Sophies fault he is in the unfortunate predicament he is in at the moment. He wants us all to believe that Sophie was capable of murder herself. UNBELIVEABLE. He not only stabbed her over 200 times, he cut the tip of her nose and ears off with scissors, that's not self defense or provocation as far as I see it, that's madness.

**Winston001** · 22nd July 2009, 10:51

Originally Posted by Lissa

He not only stabbed her over 200 times, he cut the tip of her nose and ears off with scissors, that's not self defense or provocation as far as I see it, that's madness.

Aye and there's the rub. Essentially he's trying a temporary insanity defence but there is no psychiatric evidence of a psychotic episode. So he's trying to persuade the jury that because of his peculiar mental world, stabbing in an out-of-control frenzy was the way he'd react to being provoked.

Not the actions of a normal person, but the actions of a person with his personality disorders.

**MsKABC** · 22nd July 2009, 11:03

Originally Posted by Lissa

he obviously believes that he is the victim and that it is Sophies fault he is in the unfortunate predicament he is in at the moment. He wants us all to believe that Sophie was capable of murder herself.

That is a typical narcissist for you. Projecting all their bad behaviour onto others and not taking responsibility. They are emotional vampires and impossible to live with. They all end up miserable and alone in the end though, or in his case, prison. Hope he rots.

**imdying** · 22nd July 2009, 11:20

Originally Posted by Lissa

he cut the tip of her nose and ears off with scissors, that's not self defense or provocation as far as I see it, that's madness.

No, that's the cold calculated actions of man who had already planned this defense well in advance. He's a murderer, of the worse kind.

Whilst I have no particular love for the justice system as it stands, I think they're doing what they can to deal with this guy within the boundaries as they are. I do wonder if perhaps an overhaul is needed though; I mean, this guy is clearly a piece of shit and there are no reasons why he should live, but we have no provision for exterminating people like this yet.

Thousands of poor people will die today, and we're spending a few hundred thousand dollars deciding what to do with this piece of filth who has already admittedly savagely killing a fellow New Zealander? That's logical how again?

**bungbung** · 22nd July 2009, 11:24

Guilty!

As you'd hope

**Badjelly** · 22nd July 2009, 11:28

Originally Posted by Winston001

Aye and there's the rub. Essentially he's trying a temporary insanity defence but there is no psychiatric evidence of a psychotic episode. So he's trying to persuade the jury that because of his peculiar mental world, stabbing in an out-of-control frenzy was the way he'd react to being provoked...

Exactly.

As I recall it, the defence of provocation requires that there was a loss of self-control (stabbing someone 200-odd times might be considered evidence of that) and that it was brought on by acts or words of the victim that were sufficient to cause a loss of self-control in a person with ordinary powers of self-control but otherwise with the characteristics of the victim. It's a tricky defence for the jury to consider and also quite a tricky one for the defence to put forward, because they have to get across the idea that the accused lost control, that the provocation was substantial (at least in terms of the accused person's outlook on life and particular sensitivities) but not that the accused lost control too easily.

(As I've said before, I think they should get rid of the defence of provocation.)