Talk:Murder of Sophie Elliott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Some Confusion[edit]

Hi, I'm an avid Wikipedia reader and very rarely an editor but I found that, when reading this article, it was very clear as to why the defense claimed self-defense. I got here through the gay panic defense article yet found no mention of it within this article, perhaps this link can be closed up or the defense's case expanded upon. ~ Sardonac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardonac (talkcontribs) 18:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no confusion here. This case had nothing to do with "Gay panic defense". The page you mentioned referred to the "provocation defense" which was used in this trial. But the two topics are quite dis-separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As currently written, it doesn't even mention what the logic was behind the attempted provocation defense, and is very vague in general, so it is quite confusing. Potatman (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
There was no logic behind the attempted provocation defence. Weatherston spoke for two days, mainly about himself. Someone who knew him wrote that it "seemed to most simply to be an excuse to besmirch the victim and showcase his ego.""Peter Gibbons worked with Weastherston" --Hugh7 (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Weatherston's submissions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court were lodged on Friday 15th July 2011. (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC) R