ok, this just makes me physically ill:
Lesley Elliott is this afternoon being cross-examined by defence counsel Judith Ablett-Kerr.
She has been questioned about aspects of her daughter's past relationships, including a four-year relationship which ended acrimoniously.
Ablett-Kerr suggested Elliott had struck her former boyfriend and scratched him in the face, but Lesley Elliott said she was not aware of that happening.
The defence argues that Weatherston was provoked to kill Elliott. They say Elliott attacked Weatherston with a pair of scissors and that he was provoked by a "torrid and tumultuous" relationship with her.
provoked? provoked into kneeling over her and continuing to repeatedly stab her, even after she was dead? the defence is basically putting forward the notion that sophie elliot was asking to be stabbed to death, and it's absolutely sickening. how can this even be an allowable defence to a murder of this nature? and if he was being provoked, what exactly stopped him from leaving the room, leaving the house, just walking away and ending the relationship, instead of ending her life.
there is something seriously wrong here.