Off Topic

Clayton Weatherston

103 replies · 6,735 views
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
If education was free in the first place then more people could go into it and (hopefully) get a job upon coming out the other side.  As opposed to people committing a crime, getting incarcerated and while incarcerated getting an education, if it was free people would not need to burgle(spelling?) or what have you so (you'd in theory at least) you would see slightly less people going into prison. 

Ofcourse, none of that applies to the type who would rather steal than get an education even if the education was free.

Having said all that the University needs a lot of money so in my opinion, if a prisoner is to get a university education in jail then they should pay via a student loan.  They obviously don't have an income so they can pay it back later.
loyalgunner2009-07-20 17:25:45
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
What was interesting during his testimony - was when he was recalling events of the killing - his lateral eye movents tended to be to the upper right  - which suggests visual constructed images, rather than the upper left - which suggest visual remembered images.

What this may (might, hint, allude) suggest is that he was constructing in his minds eye what wanted to have or thought happened as he was speaking - rather than actually remembering the images.

Therefore my non expert non scientific opinion would be that he is a lying murdering barsteward.

Interestingly he said that it was the knocking off of his glasses that sent in into the rage, as he couldn't see and that sent him into an agitated panicked state. Only thing is I doubt he would have been able to mutilate the body in the way he did without his glasses on (if his eyesight is as poor as he has stated), therefore his must have had the presence and coolness of mind to find his glasses, put them on and then move the body and mutilate the corpse.

Manslaughter - my arse.
ginger_eejit2009-07-20 18:18:27

When Hibs, went up, to win the Scottish Cup - I wisnae there - furfuxake!

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
loyalgunner wrote:
I do realise that, but to think that everybody else pays thousands for education and these people pay nothing must be extremely frustrating for those who are paying off debts for years and years after they've left university.
 
Bit of research always does the trick....
 
The vast major of education is literacy and life skills courses.  Some  get secondary school and NCEA.  i.e. All availble to normal people.
 
Few get tertiary education and most if that is on-the-job training through prision work programmes.  As for other tertiary education, "inmates enrolling in tertiary study by personal choice, rather than as part of a prisoner education or rehabilitation programme, are not covered by public funding through the Department of Corrections. Prison inmates on approved offender management programmes can borrow tuition fees and course-related costs."
 
 
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Sauce?  Not that I'm disputing it, just interested.  I was going by someone earlier in the thread saying free university.  Maybe they just said education, but I was pretty sure they said university.

Edit:  They did say uni.  Hmmm
loyalgunner2009-07-20 21:58:42
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

MoE website and Corrections website.

I think the free uni is one of these myths.  I personally blame talk back radio.  It pays to do a bit of background reading.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Why ever do any research? If it was on Newstalk ZB it must be true!

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
and don't forget radio live
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
ginger_eejit wrote:
What was interesting during his testimony - was when he was recalling events of the killing - his lateral eye movents tended to be to the upper right  - which suggests visual constructed images, rather than the upper left - which suggest visual remembered images.

What this may (might, hint, allude) suggest is that he was constructing in his minds eye what wanted to have or thought happened as he was speaking - rather than actually remembering the images.

Therefore my non expert non scientific opinion would be that he is a lying murdering barsteward.

Interestingly he said that it was the knocking off of his glasses that sent in into the rage, as he couldn't see and that sent him into an agitated panicked state. Only thing is I doubt he would have been able to mutilate the body in the way he did without his glasses on (if his eyesight is as poor as he has stated), therefore his must have had the presence and coolness of mind to find his glasses, put them on and then move the body and mutilate the corpse.

Manslaughter - my arse.
 
Some very interesting points there Ginger, about the eye movements and what they mean. I knew what it means if  he could not look a person in the eye but not what they interpret. And the point about his eye sight.
 
As others have said previously, perhaps one or two stabs , then his defence may work, 217 stabs and mutilations  displays a total loss of control. 
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
bopman wrote:
Why ever do any research? If it was on Newstalk ZB it must be true!


This man speaks sense.

Edit: Nearly combusted lolling when I saw this http://failblog.org/2009/01/29/public-decency-fail/
loyalgunner2009-07-20 23:05:03
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
@ LG

I believe that we should be putting victims ahead of offenders. I believe that offenders should be given a chance to rehabilitate. But once they use their chance up then they should not be entitled to things like leagl aide everytime there after that they reoffend. There are some offenders whom are more happy to live in a structured life style where they dont have to think too much nor accept responsibility.


Yeah f**k em.  Once they have offended once or twice they don't need a lawyer coz they are guilty.  Actually, why bother trying them, lets just have the police pick repeat offenders up once they are out of jail and then throw them back in there - hey they were guilty once so they probably did something!

Also, having worked in a university, I can confirm in most cases prisoners doing university level papers are doing so on a student loan, it ain't free.

As sympathetic as I am towards victims of crime, I don't think that how they feel about the length of sentence is necessarily indicative of a just sentence.  I know that should someone bash a friend, I would want him away for a long long time, but is it really realistic to base a sentence on this raw emotion rather than what is best in terms of stopping this person from reoffending and harming society.

On Weatherston - Murder, mutilation, I would hope life with 18+ years non parole.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
The question to ask is why offend in the first place? Or why become a repeat offender? That persons choice to live that lifestyle, no one forced them to be that way. Just as this guy was saying the victim pushed/forced him into doing it. In  this particular case  217 stabbings?
 
The question I ask then is what do we do with repeat violent offenders? After their first offence, obviouslyu rehabilitation and various programmes haven't done their job and there' F-all support systems in place once they get out, so again, what do you do with them?
 
Then again, would you do the same if you, personally, were the victim of a crime??
 
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Lonegunmen wrote:
The question to ask is why offend in the first place? Or why become a repeat offender?
�


Maybe to get free tertiary education in prisons?
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Jury is back with its verdict....about to be read.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
GUILTY OF MURDER
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Now that it is not before the jury i feel free to say:
 
 that guy is a psychopath who deserves everyhting he gets from here on in- the gall of that guy
 
Well done jury- to have reached a decision of manslaughter would have taken nzl back by about 60 years
 
RIP Sophie- lets move on from talking about that loser

 

Salmon swim upstream

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Would there have been the same demonisation of Weatherston if his girlfriend had been a munter rather than quite hot! 

When Hibs, went up, to win the Scottish Cup - I wisnae there - furfuxake!

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Yes.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

One of the worst aspects of this trial has been the media portrail of Sophie Elliot as some sort of promiscuous sex monster.

I wonder if her good looks contributed to this image along with Weatherston's highly dubious evidence and the high profile attention that this evidence received.
 
It's bad enough that the poor women lost her life and her body was savagely mutilated but now also be tainted with the "slut" tag
 
Weatherston acheived his aims which where the destruction of her life,body,family and with the help from a compliant media her reputation.
 
Some people are just plain evil, and no amount of rehabilitation can ever make them safer for the future. In this case it would be best for all concerned if Weatherston was taken out the back and dealt with in the same way you would a rabid dog.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
 
 
A good result although I reckon he'll appeal so he can have another 15 minutes in the lime light. Ok he might be a professor but the reality is, he's been found to be a Murdering Criminal and that is all he is. With any luck he might choke on his first meal inside. Bets on him going seg??
 
RIP Sophie. Justice has been done.
Lonegunmen2009-07-23 01:17:37
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
liverpoolfan1 wrote:
GUILTY OF MURDER


Good.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Have to say that I'm quite against the amount of media coverage that this trial (and Bain's) got. Does having all this detail in the media really help justice be done, or just help to feed public hunger for gossip? Truly tragic that the victim's family had to sit there whilst the murderer got to spout off what ever details he wanted to the whole of NZ.
Permalink Permalink
over 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Gone seg and apparently a price on his head. He forgot to consider that other Prisoners also have TV's and have been following the case.
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!

The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!

Permalink Permalink