Contrast this verdict with the manslaughter verdict in the killing of Ronald Brown, by Ferdinand Ambach (2).
In both cases, the victim was killed in a frenzied, sustained attack, with a degree of savagery that is hard to comprehend. In both cases, the defendant used the defence of manslaughter, arguing that there was provokation resulting a a loss of control. In neither case is there any evidence of his, other than the word of the defendant.
I can't see any significant reason why Ambach was less culpable than Weatherston, except that in one case, the victim was a homosexual man, and in the other case it was a heterosexual woman. And that there is a lurking conviction in the minds of a lot of people that - somehow - it is acceptable to slaughter a human being for being homosexual.
I am VERY angry at this stinking hypocrisy. Both verdicts should have been the same, and should have been murder.
1 - "Clayton Weatherston guilty of Sophie Elliott's murder," by John Harteveldt, in The Press, 22nd of July, 2009, reproduced on stuff. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2662904/Clayton-Weatherston-guilty-of-Sophie-Elliotts-murder)
2 - "Manslaughter verdict in banjo death case," unattributed NZPA story, 9th of July, 2009. Rerpoduced onby TV3 News. (http://www.3news.co.nz/News/Manslaughter-verdict-in-banjo-death-case/tabid/209/articleID/111922/cat/41/Default.aspx)