Kiwiblog

 It has become fashionable in some parts of the right-wing blogosphere, particularly the prickly part in Hong Kong and the oily section in Auckland, to deride Mr Farrar’s conservative credentials and indeed to allegedly expel him from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (though I believe he still has his authentic membership certificate).
 
One topic however on which Mr Farrar was undoubtedly still strong, vitriolic and fiery was the trial of now-convicted murderer Clayton Weatherston.  So strong, vitriolic and fiery was he (and his legions of devoted commenters) that the Solicitor-General actually took a look at the issue before deciding against taking any action against this blog.  As a result though, Mr Farrar adopted a much stricter policy about what could and couldn’t appear on his blog during trials.
 
Today, Justice Minister Simon Power announced “the partial defence of provocation is to be abolished after the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment bill was passed last nigth [sic].”  Weatherston had controversially attempted to use this defence at his trial which seemed to most simply to be an excuse to besmirch the victim and showcase his ego.
 
In a number of his posts Mr Farrar stressed he did not know Clayton Weatherston or his victim Sophie Elliott. 
 
Well, I did know Clayton Weatherston.  I worked with him for almost a year.
 
I worked with him at Treasury.  I was an analyst, he was the team’s economist.  He gave me the distinct initial impression that he had been at Treasury for some time and was quite senior though I was told later he had only been there a few months before me and was a summer intern who had stayed on.
 
His role was to support the policy team with economic advice and expertise though I saw little evidence of this.  He always seemed to be working on ill-defined special projects which no one else knew about.  He was very quiet, kept to himself mostly but was not unpleasant.
 
In one of our rare conversations, he talked quite excitedly about being the Shaq the Cat mascot in Dunedin for several years.  He got letters from Shaquille O’Neal’s lawyers telling him to stop breaking copyright and was warned by the Police for inciting opposition fans with obscene gestures involving his tail.
 
This seemed highly out of character for the quiet, almost shy economist I saw at work.
 
In terms of style, even then he had a haircut that showcased the studied deliberate messiness which only half an hour with hair gel can achieve.  He either wore the most casual, hippest clothes or a hugely expensive suit.  There was no middle ground in his wardrobe.
 
He left Treasury to return to Otago University.  I think he was studying the economics of sports gambling and seemed to be looking forward to the change.  His going away event was low-key and sparsely attended.  He rather faded out and I did not think much more about him for many years.
 
When I saw the breaking news regarding the death of Sophie and the arrest of Weatherston, I was simply shocked and appalled.  I had no sense that Weatherston could be capable of such evil.  Certainly, he was aloof, faintly arrogant but not the most unpleasant person I had ever worked with.  Not even in the top ten. 

I cannot pretend to understand why he did what he did.  Frankly, I do not wish to. 
 
I can say that I think the fact that Sophie was leaving Dunedin to start work in Treasury was an issue for Weatherston.  By all accounts Sophie was extremely smart and personable.  It is likely that she would have superseded Weatherston’s limited legacy at Treasury very quickly.   My sense is that this realisation would not have sat well with him.  Beyond that, there is nothing I can add.

I’m almost speechless. With great restraint I said I hoped to never have to blog again on Clayton Weatherston until 2027, when he would become eligible for parole.

But the sick little fucker is appealing his sentence.

No competent lawyer could have advised him that he could possibly win such an appeal. He must just be doing it to further his narcissistic ego, so he stays in the headlines, or as another attempt to blacken Sophie’s name.

I’ll be appalled if he gets one cent of taxpayer money to fund his appeal.

UPDATE: I understand Judith Ablett-Kerr will not represent Weatherston at his appeal and he is seeking a North Island QC. I’m tempted to advocate that no QC touch him, but then he would seek to represent himself in court which would be even more of a spectacle. I just hope they can schedule the appeal quickly, so we can go back to forgetting about him

Clayton Weatherston has been given a life sentence, with a non-parole period of 18 years. The Crown asked for 19 and the defence 12, so that seems reasonable, even though I would of course want even longer.

The comments from the sentencing were heart-breaking:

Sophie Elliott’s father told the court today his life stopped on the day his daughter was brutally stabbed to death.

Gil Elliott said he was still struggling to come to terms with her murder.

“Everything I had existed for stopped that day,” he said of the day of her murder.

“Can you imagine what it feels like? She was so badly mutilated they were advising us not to see her,” he said of organising his daughter’s funeral.

He spoke directly to Weatherston several times, closing his statement by looking at Weatherston and saying: “Clayton you are the epitome of evil”.

He really is.

Lesley Elliott said her family’s life had fallen apart and would never be the same. She talked of the day of her daughter’s death and seeing her daughter being stabbed even after she was dead.

“My beautiful daughter had been butchered. I saw her bloodied body lying there that only minutes before had been warm and given me a hug.”

Mrs Elliott was then locked out by Weatherston, who continued stabbing her daughter’s lifeless body.

“I will never forget the terror. …

Mrs Elliott said she cried herself to sleep every night, took medication to keep her functioning on a daily basis, had taken all her leave and reduced her hours of work.

“Clayton Weatherston this is what you have done to us… I hope her screams of agony ring in your ears as they do in mine.

I suspect they don’t ring at all for him. I hope that one day they do.

This will hopefully be the last post I will make on Weathertson and Elliott for sometime – maybe for 19 years! With the sentencing it is all over for those of us who just followed the news in the media, and we can move on. Sadly those who were close to Sophie will have to carry this with them for the rest of their lives, as the sentencing makes clear.

I’ve felt unusually captivated by this case, since it was first reported, for several reasons.

The first is that Sophie had what appeared to be have a wonderful life ahead of her. I don’t mean to at all suggest that any murder victims are more or less valuable, but on a human level you identify with someone who was academically brilliant, and was set to have an outstanding career. I read somewhere her ambition was to be the first female Reserve Bank Governor, and thought that was a superb ambition for a 22 year old to have.  The remarks by her lecturers accompanying her paper for the Oxford Journal of Economics are a wonderful tribute to her ability.

The second reason was when it was revealed that her killer was Weatherston, an economic tutor. It is human nature that you are not very surprised when a gang member kills someone, or the killer is someone who has been in trouble all their life. An university staff member is not at all your typical killer, especially when they kill in such a way that they know they will be charged and punished for it. Weatherston also throw away what had been a pretty good life for him up until then.

Weatherston had also previously worked for Treasury, and so some of my friends knew him, and I heard about their reactions to the news (which included deleting him from their friends on Faacebook).

(more…)

Sunday News reports:

THE parents of murder-victim Sophie Elliott have paid an immeasurable human cost over their daughter’s brutal slaying by ex-boyfriend Clayton Weatherston.

Now they are counting the financial cost including, as taxpayers, having to partially pay for Weatherston’s defence.

“Not only has he killed our daughter, but he has cost us a hell of a lot of money so far and obviously a lot more if the house is devalued as well,” father Gil Elliott told Sunday News.

“It is a lovely house (but) there is no way we could up digs and move on, even if we wanted to, at the moment,” Gil said.

That is an aspect that had not occurred to me. It would be bloody difficult to remain living in the house, where your daughter had been slaughtered, but selling the house would be problematic as many potential buyers would be put off by its history.

It is a stark reminder of how little support there is for victims and their families.

Gil hopes his daughter’s killer gets sentenced to preventive detention on Tuesday.

“We have a feeling, and others (do) as well, that perhaps he might not come out of jail,” he said.

“We would like that. I certainly am not going to forgive him, that is for real.”

I’m not a sentencing expert but I think there is no precedent for preventative detention for a solitary offence – no matter how horrendous.

The sentence will be life imprisonment, but the key is how long the non-parole period will be. I certainly hope it will be at least 20 years because it means the family get at least a 20 year break before they have to start fronting up to parole hearings.

One can’t guarantee what a parole board may decide in 20+ years, but on the basis of what we saw in court, my view is that Weatherston should never be released. His total lack of remorse, or even empathy, for the victim and her family indicates a deeply abnormal person who could well kill again if he feels he was “provoked”.

Maybe he will change over time, but maybe he will just pretend to change. Anyway this is academic until we have the sentencing.

Gil said he didn’t blame Weatherston’s lead lawyer, Judith Ablett-Kerr QC, over the provocation plea.

Sunday News revealed last month the top barrister had received threats and her car had been attacked with acid following the trial.

But Gil said inquiries had shown she wasn’t the one to blame for Weatherston’s stance.”I wasn’t happy during the trial the way she went on.

“But since that time we have learnt from the police that he (Weatherston) was really running the trial,” Gil said.

I am sure this was the case. A number of defence lawyers commented at the time that they were certain Ablett-Kerr would have never advised Weatherston to testify.

As first reported on the blogs, it looks like TV3’s access to Clayton Weatherston in prison was not kosher. The Herald reports:

The Corrections Department will lay a formal complaint with TV3 after a journalist infiltrated a prison to speak to convicted murderer Clayton Weatherston. …

During the story, Ms Horwood spoke of visiting Weatherston in prison. The breach of security has broken strict Corrections Department rules, said Mike Martelli, general manager of the office of chief executive Barry Matthews.

He said all media interviews with prisoners require the approval of Mr Matthews. “No approval was given for a journalist from TV3’s 60 Minutes to interview prisoner Clayton Weatherston, nor was any approach made to the department requesting an interview.

And TV3 would surely know these rules.

I wasn’t planning to comment more on this case until sentencing but Roar Prawn blogs:

Yip it true. We have just been watching the Weatherston piece on TV3 60 Minutes. It was okay till they got to the bit where the reporter revealed she had been given permission to visit Weatherston in Jail. …

Weatherston should not have had that opportunity. Corrections has done the country a disservice for allowing the interview to go ahead.

If Roar Prawn is correct and Corrections allowed TV3 to have access to Weatherston (even if it was not filmed), then the Minister still has some culture change challenges ahead.

UPDATE: I have heard from a reliable source that it appears the TV3 reporter posed as a friend of Weatherston’s when she visited in March and April. This is a breach of Corrections Department rules if she did, as media are meant to identify themselves. I hope TV3 comment on whether or not they broke the rules to gain access?

I got sent this cartoon a couple of weeks ago, but decided to hold it off until the trial was over, to avoid any potential contempt issues.

It is somewhat timely to publish today, with the media reporting:

Newstalk ZB reported that prison inmates had taunted Weatherston from the moment he arrived at the prison, that a $55,000 bounty had been put on his head and that the price was expected to reach six figures. It is unclear who would offer the money.

I’m tempted to joke that the prisoners should hold off until the bidding reaches $100,000 but of course I do not condone violence, let alone murder. While few will have sympathy for whatever does happen to Weatherston, I do remember that he has parents and siblings who have also become victims.

I’m not sure how I would cope if someone close to me turned out so bad. And this does not appear to be a case of any sort of childhood trauma or abuse – just a very bad apple.

My wish is that one day Clayton experiences true remorse for what he did. It is that total lack of remorse that has so chilled the nation. And until the day a small army of psychiatrists can detect that remose, he should (in my humble opinion) never be released.

Follows of the Weatherston trial will recall the defence claimed Sophie attacked Weatherston first, and cited as evidence the mention in her diary how she had “attacked a previous boyfriend”. The ex-boyfriend was not called by the defence to testify, and put this into context. He has e-mailed me details, to remove what he sees as a stain on Sophie’s character. He believes Weatherston only invented the “Sophie attacked first with scissors” defence after his lawyers read about the previous “attack” in her diaries. He writes:

The facts are thus:

1. We had been having an argument, and as people sometimes do I was really winding her up.
2. She got frustrated and scratched me.
3. She then promptly burst into tears and apologised profusely for having hurt me.

There was no punching, kicking, or anything else of any kind.

Without knowing Sophie and I, it’s also quite hard to get a sense of just how ridiculous the situation was. I’m 6 feet tall, 220 pounds and combat trained. She was around 53kg, 5′5” or so, and couldn’t have fought her way out of a paper bag. I actually laughed when she ‘attacked’ me because it was so ridiculous.

I think it is great that he wants to set the record straight.

It illustrates once again how vile the defence strategy was. He comments:

So, anyways, now that the trial is over this may never come up, but if it does it would be good to set the record straight and remove any perception created by the defence that Sophie was somehow prone to attacking her boyfriends. I also feel somewhat guilty because without that incident the defence would never have thought to invent this complete fabrication about Soph attacking Clayton with scissors.

I’m a bit surprised the prosecution did not call the ex-boyfriend as a rebuttal witness. Perhaps they thought no-one in their right mind would believe Weatherston’s story.

I was on Breakfast TV this morning talking about the issues I (and others) might face around potential contempt of court and the Weatherston case. I’m glad I got invited on, because I thought it unfortunate the segment on One News last night didn’t mention that I had taken immediate action to remove any problematic content the moment concerns came to my attention. I don’t want to be seen as someone saying that laws don’t apply to the Internet. They obviously do. There are of course significant issues around the practicality of certain laws, but that is an issue for the future – and the Law Commission has a discussion paper out on related issues such as suppression orders and the Internet.

The Breakfast interview I thought covered the issues quite well. You can view it here. Also a story based on it here.

I was highly amused to get a call from friends a bit later in the programme, telling me that my name came up during discussions on what gift Paul Henry should take with him to New York to give to Helen Clark. They are running a poll on it.

You can view it yourself at around 1:15 through this video. A transcript:

PAUL (reading an e-mail): Paul Henry, can you take Phil Goff with you as a gift to Helen Clark and just sit Phil Goff on the edge of the table there.

PAUL: Actually David Farrar would be a nice table weight. He’s such a sweet man isn’t he. He’s the blogger we just had in.

ALI: He’s somebody you just want to have sitting on your desk constantly so you can just ask him for an opinion on stuff.

PAUL: I’ve got David Farrar in a little box out the back. Let’s open the lid and ask him a question.

PAUL: He just seems very cuddly doesn’t he. He’s just a nice … I don’t know if I should be saying that about another man. Possibly not actually.

ALI: It’s too late now

I was very amused. I would have preferred it was Ali calling me sweet and cuddly but hey you take compliments from anyone

Very pleased to see some stories on Sophie Elliott, so that Weatherston’s warped version of reality is not the final say on her. The Herald reports:

While her family remember a loving daughter with everything to live for, prominent academics overseas have described her as having a “beautiful mind” and an exciting career ahead of her.

Peter Lambert, economics professor at the University of Oregon, Jean-Yves Duclos, editor of the Journal of Economic Inequality and economics professor at Laval University in Canada and Sir Tony Atkinson, professor of economics at Oxford University, said Sophie had remarkable ability for a young person, exhibited considerable prescience in her thinking and could have been a leader in the field of welfare economics.

Professor Lambert said a paper she wrote titled, Why measure inequality? A discussion of the concept of equality, which was published in this month’s edition of the Oxford University economics journal Oxonomics, was “easily the best essay on inequality” he had ever read.

Professor Duclos called the paper a “remarkable piece of research for such a young person”.

In a few paragraphs, Sophie had been able to strike right at the core of welfare economics and grasp many of its complex philosophical and ethical issues, he said.

“Elliott certainly had a beautiful mind.”

I recall reading, shortly after her murder, that her ambition was to be the first female Governor of the Reserve Bank, and thought what a wonderful ambition to have. And from the sounds of it, she may have got there if not for Weatherston.

Incidentially, does anyone have access to, or have a copy, of the paper which just got published? I’m interested to read it.

The Herald has a less flattering profile of Weatherston. While my thoughts are mainly with the Elliott family, I do feel great compassion for the Weatherston family also as they cope with the horror of what Clayton did and what he is.

They also talked to Lesley Elliott. I twittered yesterday that Lesley was my hero of the month for hugging after the verdict both Clayton’s mother, but also his lawyer – Judith Abblett-Kerr. True class. Lesley wants to:

In an interview with the Herald prior to the verdict, Mrs Elliott said she now wants to focus her energies on keeping young women away from abusive and dangerous relationships. Her daughter had complained of being assaulted by Weatherston prior to the killing.

“My legacy to Soph is to somehow get to girls in their late teens and twenties, when they start to date guys, and [explore] what is acceptable behaviour and what isn’t,” she told the Herald.

The sad reality is that if Sophie had dumped Weatherston the moment he became abusive, she might be alive today. And after he assaulted her she should have never seen him again. Her desire to try and end the relationship as friends, ironically acted against her.

The issue of whether provocation should be a partial defence to murder is canvassed in this article. I am with Women’s Refuge:

Women’s Refuge chief executive Heather Henare said: “Because of the way the defence was run, this trial became a perverse opportunity for a killer to continue to persecute his victim and her family after her death.

I actually think that was part of his plan all along.

“This trial turned justice inside out. The killer became the victim and Sophie Elliott was portrayed to us all as he chose to describe her. Unfortunately for Clayton Weatherston, the jury didn’t buy it and nor did the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who watched him giggling on television.”

Never has a defence strategy so backfired, in my opinion.

Stuff reports that the provocation partial defence may go:

Killers will lose the right to claim provocation as a defence after murderer Clayton Weatherston’s attempt to smear his victim.

It is understood Justice Minister Simon Power wants the controversial defence scrapped as soon as possible and will announce his intentions today.

I think such a move would be exceptionally popular.

Stephen Franks argues for why the partial defence should be retained. He says Judges should set a higher threshold for its use, but it should be retained:

From this case the judges should take a lesson, and simplify the defence of provocation. It should only relate to what would provoke ordinary reasonable people, not drunks or P addicts or nut cases, or homophobes. The judges should now punish those who turn it into mockery.

From other cases they should accept that ordinary people want the law to distinguish between those who start fights or cause trouble, and those who respond even if their response is “disproportionate”.  The criminal should bear the risk of significant  disproportionality in the response to thuggery, rape or robbery , even if common sense says the defence can only go so far.

The Press reveals the Weatherston defence team tried to get photos of Sophie’s wounds supressed:

King told the court that the autopsy photographs were highly prejudicial because of their graphic and disturbing nature. “They illustrate the painful death of a beautiful young lady in her prime, and the injuries are simply horrific,” King submitted.

He said they provided little, if any, probative value and would “likely distract the jury from their proper task in assessing the partial defence of provocation”.

King entered a “back-up submission” that three photographs showing the injuries to Elliott’s face should be removed.

I thought that number and nature of the wounds was an essential part of the case. I’m glad the Court of Appeal dismissed the defence’s application.

The court ruled that the submissions were “hopeless” and the photographs were highly relevant to the issues at trial.

They had been carefully chosen to minimise their prejudicial effect as much as possible.

“Any remaining prejudicial effect is a natural consequence of the nature of the wounds inflicted by Mr Weatherston,” the court ruled.

Exactly.

The jury, thank God, has rejected Weatherston’s defence of provocation and found him guilty of murder.

This means he will be sentenced to life in prison. What is really important is what his non-parole period will be. It could be as small as ten years. I believe it must be much longer than that.

The actual murder by Weatherston is horrific enough. Rather than let Sophie go off to a new job and life in Wellington, he decided to firstly kill her, and then try to kill her reputation. He went around to her house with a knife, so he could murder her.

He did not just kill her but he slaughtered her. He did not strike her in anger. He slowly stabbed her to death torturing her. He cut off her nipples and nose and ears (and hair). He stabbed her in the genitals a massive amount of times. And he did it all while her mother was outside the door hearing her screams.

Then even worse he claimed she deserved it. He said he was “over it” – it being his killing of her. He got upset that people set up a trust for her. He got up in court and put her down at every occasion. He said he was not destroying her beauty because she wasn’t that attractive anyway. He joked that he was an arse man and her arse wasn’t that great.

I have never encountered such a wellspring of hatred towards one man. The e-mails, phone calls, conversations have been almost full of disbelief that such an evil unrepentant man could exist. His total lack of repentance was chilling.

And it is that total lack of repentance that means he must be locked away forever, if possible.  No-one could have any confidence that this man would not kill again, after his justifications for why he killed Sophie.

Weatherston’s own testimony condemned him. I can only assume it was against his lawyer’s advice. Every day as he testified, more and more people were outraged by him.

Personally I was disgusted by the defence put up. It was cruel and vindictive towards the Elliott family. It also backfired. Rather than succeed in painting Sophie as some sort of monster, she just came across as a pretty typical 22 year old girl – albeit a very bright one. And Weatherston came across as pretty much a sociopath.

The Elliotts have been through so much, I hope they can be spared having to turn up to parole board meetings in 10 or even 15 years time and arguing for why Weatherston should stay in jail.

National campaigned on a new sentence of “life without parole” for the worst murderers. Weatherston is the poster child for who should get such a sentence. It is a great pity the law has not yet been changed to allow such a sentence. But I do hope under current law he gets at least 20 – 25 years non-parole. Hell I hope he gets 150 years like Bernie Madoff, but the court has sentencing guidelines.

And while we are at it, we should get rid of the defence of provocation, so no other family of a murder victim has to put up with what the Elliots have had to endure. The Law Commission recommended in 2007 it should go. The Government should act on this and introduce a bill, or support the one by Charles Chauvel. That way there may be some small good, come out of this very tragic case.

The Press, had a big stuff up yesterday when they prematurely published on Stuff a story announcing a verdict in the Weatherston trial. It was only up for a few minutes, but was cached by Google and seen by many on Twitter.

I won’t say what verdict they announced, until after we get the actual verdict.

It is no surprise a newspaper works on stories in advance of a verdict. I am sure they had one for the other possible verdict also.

What was more surprising was they already had comments from friends of both the victim and the killer. To be fair, the comments were not a reaction to a verdict yet to be delivered, but if you were reading the story you could assume they were made after the verdict.

Google Cache is a wonderful tool, but very unforgiving. It can capture for days or even weeks a story that was only accessible for a few minutes.

UPDATE: Weatherston has been found guilty, which is what the Press story yesterday said. The story run yesterday is almost identical to this one now appearing.

The HOS reports:

The Solicitor General’s office is investigating whether internet bloggers and social networking sites have breached contempt of court laws in the Sophie Elliott trial. …

Solicitor General spokeswoman Jan Fulstow said on Thursday the office was considering what action to take over a Facebook group called “Clayton Weatherston is a Murderer. He committed murder, not manslaughter” as well as comments on David Farrar’s Kiwiblog.

I commented to the HOS:

Kiwiblog creator David Farrar said he was generally “careful to avoid commenting on trials while under way”.

He gave the Bain trial as an example of him saving commentary until after the jury retired.

“In the Weatherston trial, the basic facts are not in dispute,” he said.

“Hence, there is no dispute about innocence – only whether or not he is found guilty of murder or manslaughter – a decision for the jury guided by the Judge. I understand jurors are usually specifically warned to not read information on the internet about the case.

“As I have done in other cases, if I am asked to delete comments that may be prejudicial, I will generally do so.

I think it is fair to say though that my anger at the fact the victim seems to being blamed for the murder, may have led me to not being as cautious as I should have been.

I am unsure as to what are the limits of acceptable discussion on criminal issues. Should you just not comment during the trial, any time after depositions, or any time after arrest?

If someone is found guilty I presume you can then comment, but what if they then lodge an appeal?

Anyway as I don’t wish to end up in judicial trouble, my interim policy is now going to be to now have any discussions on criminal issues except in a general law reform sense. In a way it is a pity because we actually have several defence lawyers comment here and I find their contributions welcome.

As I said I am genuinely unsure where the line should be drawn, and would welcome any advice on this. In the Veitch case we saw details published in Sunday newspapers for weeks on end, and that did not appear to be an issue.

Maybe there is no hard and fast boundary as to when you can or can not comment online, or as to what you can say, but perhaps a useful initiative would be the creation of a plain English guide for bloggers etc on what they can and can not comment on in terms of criminal justice issues. This could go on either Crown Law or Ministry of Justice website. I know I would find such a document bloody useful, and I suspect so would many others.  Unlike commercial media we don’t have lawyers on call.

A particularly demented individual (a supporter of the accused who thinks Elliottt “deserved it”) has been trying to post details of the murder of Sophie Elliott to my blog for some months, which means sadly I was not at all surprised by the revelations in court that the poor girl was stabbed 216 times.

In fact the details are even worse than revealed in court, but thanks to the comments being caught in moderation no-one else has had to see them. They were enough to physically induce nausea in me and are the most unpleasant material ever posted here. They were all given over to the Police along with the IP details leading to a Dunedin location.

“He talked about Sophie calling him a retard. He got very distressed by it in part because he took it as an insult to his intelligence.”

Good God I called Miss Ten a retard or similar in front of two dozen staff yesterday. I hope she doesn’t kill me for it.

It distresses me to see people make excuses for what can only be described an evil sociopathic act. Yeah I know the trial is yet to happen, but the facts do not appear to be in dispute – the only issue will be if Clayton Weatherston claims insanity or provocation.  Is Weatherston bad or mad or both?

When confronted with such vile crimes, it is tempting to always try and conclude that the offender is mad, as in only a mad person could so such a thing. It is worth remembering though that legally the question isn’t whether someone is a sociopath, but whether they are capable of knowing right from wrong.

I feel very sorry for the Elliott family having to go through both the depositions and then inevitably a trial.
Stephen Franks blogs on how the court process is failing:

Four court attendances already when there is absolutely no doubt about the circumstances of her murder, yet the process had not even reached depositions. As a lawyer and a former law-maker I think they expected me to come up with some sophistry to justify what was happening to them.

I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that when the facts are not in dispute, just the state of mind of the killer, that one could have an expedited process.

Please, if you comment, be careful. Despite the fact I have talked specifically about the case, be cautious in doing so. I will delete any comments which seek to blame the victim.