zohrab wrote:

There are three reasons why Weatherston might not have had a fair
trial:

The publicity on David Farrar's site and elsewhere -- given that the
jury
were apparently not sequestered -- might have biased the jury;

We live in a lunatic Feminist country, where a man in conflict with a
woman
is almost automatically in the wrong;

Weatherston was an academic, and might actually be as intelligent as
he
appears to think he is. A typical Kiwi egalitarian jury would probably
be
much less intelligent than him, and jealous of intelligent people. For
that
reason, it would not really have been a "jury of his peers."

So the jury was biased, women are evil and envied of the suspect
intelligence. Yeah, the jury saw a man who could not be duped
by a women because he was oh so intelligent. Notice the
contradiction, "she made me do it" vs "I'm so intelligent".

You wouldn't have just gotten prison internet access Clayton?

What's the point of jail if you can communicate to the world?

Clayton you're guilty, you're a cold blooded murderer.

You are either an idiot who rose to a level above his
calling and was played by a women, or you are a cold
blooded murderer who still can't see that someone died
and there is NO justification for murder, and you will not
be able to play the victim by ignoring the real victim
(common practice nowadays politics point fingers at benefit
entitlement culture when they are so royal entitled themselves!
pure spoil-it-ical weatherspoonism).

Peter Zohrab

There are three reasons why Weatherston might not have had a fair
trial:



The publicity on David Farrar's site and elsewhere -- given that the
jury
were apparently not sequestered -- might have biased the jury;

We live in a lunatic Feminist country, where a man in conflict with a
woman
is almost automatically in the wrong;

Weatherston was an academic, and might actually be as intelligent as
he
appears to think he is. A typical Kiwi egalitarian jury would probably
be
much less intelligent than him, and jealous of intelligent people. For
that
reason, it would not really have been a "jury of his peers."

"zohrab" <peter at (no spam) zohrab.name> wrote in message
news:374c6ddd-0607-4a7e-9a44-557be8d8e778 at (no spam) b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...


Peter Zohrab

So it's 100% true then that you're that one eyed in your bitter hatred
of all woman that you'd choose support a cold blooded killer that you
don't even know but would probably state that you're bloody idiot if
Weatherston knew anything about your sick mind.
I'd bet that Weatherston wouldn't support any of your crap not even one
little bit.

E. Scrooge

E. Scrooge wrote:

"zohrab" <peter at (no spam) zohrab.name> wrote in message
news:374c6ddd-0607-4a7e-9a44-557be8d8e778 at (no spam) b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...


Peter Zohrab

So it's 100% true then that you're that one eyed in your bitter hatred of
all woman that you'd choose support a cold blooded killer that you don't
even know but would probably state that you're bloody idiot if
Weatherston knew anything about your sick mind.
I'd bet that Weatherston wouldn't support any of your crap not even one
little bit.

E. Scrooge



Personally I am not convinced that Weatherston was acting rationally when
he stabbed the girl several hundred times. If he was not acting
rationally perhaps we should consider why he was not. Either he was mad
or he was provoked. One or the other. He certainly did not behave as
someone totally in control of his actions.

R

zohrab wrote:


There are three reasons why Weatherston might not have had a fair
trial:



The publicity on David Farrar's site and elsewhere -- given that the
jury
were apparently not sequestered -- might have biased the jury;

We live in a lunatic Feminist country, where a man in conflict with a
woman
is almost automatically in the wrong;

Weatherston was an academic, and might actually be as intelligent as
he
appears to think he is. A typical Kiwi egalitarian jury would probably
be
much less intelligent than him, and jealous of intelligent people. For
that
reason, it would not really have been a "jury of his peers."

So the jury was biased, women are evil and envied of the suspect
intelligence. Yeah, the jury saw a man who could not be duped
by a women because he was oh so intelligent. Notice the
contradiction, "she made me do it" vs "I'm so intelligent".

You wouldn't have just gotten prison internet access Clayton?

zohrab wrote:


There are three reasons why Weatherston might not have had a fair
trial:



The publicity on David Farrar's site and elsewhere -- given that the
jury
were apparently not sequestered -- might have biased the jury;

We live in a lunatic Feminist country, where a man in conflict with a
woman
is almost automatically in the wrong;

Weatherston was an academic, and might actually be as intelligent as
he
appears to think he is. A typical Kiwi egalitarian jury would probably
be
much less intelligent than him, and jealous of intelligent people. For
that
reason, it would not really have been a "jury of his peers."

So the jury was biased, women are evil and envied of the suspect
intelligence. Yeah, the jury saw a man who could not be duped
by a women because he was oh so intelligent. Notice the
contradiction, "she made me do it" vs "I'm so intelligent".

zohrab wrote:


There are three reasons why Weatherston might not have had a fair
trial:



The publicity on David Farrar's site and elsewhere -- given that the
jury
were apparently not sequestered -- might have biased the jury;

We live in a lunatic Feminist country, where a man in conflict with a
woman
is almost automatically in the wrong;

Weatherston was an academic, and might actually be as intelligent as
he
appears to think he is. A typical Kiwi egalitarian jury would probably
be
much less intelligent than him, and jealous of intelligent people. For
that
reason, it would not really have been a "jury of his peers."

So the jury was biased, women are evil and envied of the suspect
intelligence. Yeah, the jury saw a man who could not be duped
by a women because he was oh so intelligent. Notice the
contradiction, "she made me do it" vs "I'm so intelligent".