Was he released early?

May 6th, 2013 at 4:25 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Nikki Roper strangled his ex-girlfriend Alexis Tovizi to death with a sleeper hold just days after being released from prison where he was serving a sentence for choking her, a court heard today.

The trial is ongoing so whether or not Roper is guilty is for the jury. So please don’t comment on him or his possible guilt or innocence.

I’m interested in whether or not he was released after his full sentence, or on ? Anyone know?

Tags:

20 Responses to “Was he released early?”

  1. dishy (230 comments) says:

    Who ever serves a full sentence (unless as part of the three strikes arrangement)?

    Of course he was released early. Far too early.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Monique Angel (262 comments) says:

    Who gives a shit if he was released after his full sentence (ha) or in parole. That kind of hair splitting kills women and children.Question:
    what were the parole provisions that attempted to prevent him from contacting former victims. Because they were fucking ineffective.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dishy (230 comments) says:

    Monique, you seem to be presuming Roper’s guilt on the current charge.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Monique Angel (262 comments) says:

    Dishy. But you’re right. I should have said: What were the parole provisions that attempted to prevent him from contacting former victims.
    ENDS
    Cos there are so many candidates being investigated by the police for this murder

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. James Stephenson (2,083 comments) says:

    *If* he’s been released early then there ought to be a heap of shit about to hit a fan somewhere.

    I wonder if the Labour and Green parties might like to consider the situation if this scenario occurred where the 3-strikes legislation had been repealed, and the guilty party would otherwise have been inside?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    I’m interested in whether or not he was released after his full sentence, or on parole? Anyone know?

    I would guess neither.

    Parole is for long-term sentences. Choking is likely to be charged as male assaults female, or probably assault with intent to inure. Any likely sentence of imprisonment will be less than 2 years, so Parole won’t apply. You just get automatic release at half.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    Not apropos of the primary question, but I find this an interesting case. Police first said they did not suspect foul play… and even if that statement was a ruse to get Roper to lower his guard, the trial has evidently heard that the victim was strangled “or drowned on a bucket of water”. I’m no pathologist but the two methods leave very different forensic markers (bruising vs water in the lungs etc). Plus this has taken an unusually long time to come to trial – the result, I believe, of an appeal to the Court of Appeal. I don’t have time to look that up but perhaps someone else can. I’d speculate that an appeal before the trial (assuming the report I heard is correct) would most likely be about admissability of evidence.

    None of which – without the details – says anything about Roper’s guilt or innocence. But it does suggest that perhaps the evidence isn’t as cut-and-dried as current reporting suggests. Most cases aren’t like “CSI”, but it seems this one just might be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. iMP (2,331 comments) says:

    I just hope your headline above David, is actually the headline for tomorrow after A Gilmore’s press conference at 9.15am.

    http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/gilmore-to-make-statement/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. F E Smith (3,314 comments) says:

    I’m no pathologist but the two methods leave very different forensic markers

    Generally correct, Rex.  I have a pathologists report somewhere that describes the difference, but I don’t know if I have an electronic copy of it to refer to.  

    Upon looking, I don’t, but I do have an electronic version of the transcript!!!

    I have to go out very shortly but I if I get home early enough I will copy and paste a relevant section (details redacted, of course), unless DPF would prefer me not to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    Strangling someone to death using a sleeper hold !!!

    Another reason to reintroduce the death penalty.

    I think it is the lib in Neolib that makes you Tories soft on crime. Get back to your roots and make a stand.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Honeybadger (186 comments) says:

    Death penalty? I agree, there are way too many offenders who kill once, and then go ahead and kill another, bring it back, not only as a deterrant, but as a way of stopping a third death..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Nostalgia-NZ (5,025 comments) says:

    A ‘choker’ hold wouldn’t introduce water to the lungs. Whether the deceased had water in their lungs or not – the police can’t really hold two positions. I guess the argument will go that even if the confession wasn’t consistent with the type of death, that is drowning opposed to strangulation or vice versa – that it was a ‘confession’ anyway, supported it seems by very reliable testimony of a prison inmate who ‘curried’ some favour for his story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Honeybadger (186 comments) says:

    Just exactly, what is a full sentence? Seems to be the norm, most are given a reduced sentence for a guilty plea, and then only serve maybe a third of the sentence anyway, or relased early for ‘good behaviour’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    I agree, there are way too many offenders who kill once, and then go ahead and kill another, bring it back

    Obviously one is too many, but can you advise how many you think there are who fall into this category?

    How many people who have been convicted of murder in New Zealand have been released and murdered again?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    p.s. Honeybadger – feel free to separately specify those with manslaughter convictions after murder convictions etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Honeybadger (186 comments) says:

    Graeme, I suggest you use google, or go to the SST site, and check for yourself, yes, I could give you names and numbers, but I think it is best you see for yourself

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Graeme Edgeler (3,274 comments) says:

    Honeybadger, the answer to “How many people who have been convicted of murder in New Zealand have been released and murdered again?” appears to be two or three. There are a few others with drink drive causing death as one of them and varying types of manslaughter. It’s too many of course, but “way too many”?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Honeybadger (186 comments) says:

    One, in my view, is ‘way too many’, and manslaughter is just another word for murder, again in my opinion, whether is be by car, blunt weapon or ‘whatever’. Of course, there is always the plea of ‘self defence’….
    Murder is murder, whichever way you look at it

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    G E & Honeybadger#

    C’mon guys.

    Justice isn’t primarily about stopping killers from killing a second time as we don’t make the laws around murder for that reason. A second murder offence is irrelevent to the laws around murder!

    Justice, where murder is concerned, is about preventing most of the people, most of the time, from killing others – the very first time!

    You will probably find in the statistics that a large proportion of first time murderers have already been charged with assault.
    Those murderers simply didn’t value life because they then went on to kill, and the system was then just a reflection of that lack of value for life.

    Why? Because it didn’t deter them. The system didn’t place a high value on life the first time where life was of concern.Assualt can be deadly. It is not ‘just assualt’ but the potential for death to occure, a serious lack of wisdom in the transgressor.

    As a society, and in justice, NZ no longer places a high value on the Sanctity of Life, but if you think you do, then the SST wouldn’t exist.

    However they do exist, and it’s not because of general assault or general politics that they do, but rather, the general opinion that life should have a higher value.
    They are not vigilantes who simply want revenge, nor are they seeking custodial sentances for the most minor of assualts, but rather instead, justice and prevention for serious breeches of the law that have placed people within an inch of their natural lives.

    Or we could just instead keep reducing the length of custodial sentances with each new medical advancement that is introduced into the emergancy room at the hospitals. And the wards.

    Afterall, that is really what has kept the murder rate lower – the value placed on the Sanctity of Life in the Health system.Who then needs a justice system – right?

    The Justice system of all things shouldn’t be excused from valueing life from being anything less than it is: Life. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. F E Smith (3,314 comments) says:

    rex, I’ve gone through the transcript but I am going to hold off copying in some of the explanation just in case a juror in the present case decides to use Dr Google.

    The short answer is that there are generally differences in the presentation so your point would generally be correct, but the longer answer is that there can be crossover situations which can complicate the determination of the cause of death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.