Perhaps the greatest fear I have is that Weatherston will get to see your diary. The police tell me they will take a caveat out, prohibiting Ablett-Kerr from letting him read it.
I keep asking you for guidance, Soph. I can and will protect and fight for you to the very end. Give me strength to do this.
(As we got closer to the trial date I grew amazingly calm. An inner strength seemed to take over and my diary entries reflected a more determined outlook).
Dear Soph,
I had an appointment with Mike Bracegirdle who told me he is now my minder. I got pretty short with him. I don’t need minding but think the police are worried about how I’ll react on the stand. I have no idea how I will be; I might fall apart, who knows? But I am your mother and one thing is for sure; whatever I do, I do it for you. If that means giving JAK as good as she gives then so be it. I know she’s got a job to do for him but I’m not going to be bullied by her. You were brutally murdered and I will not let that go easily.
I had lunch with some of my friends from work and they presented me with a card and envelope full of money. Soph, you wouldn’t believe their generosity — $1070. It brought me to tears.
I plan to keep more or less to myself during the early part of the trial. That might sound a bit ungrateful as everyone is so supportive, but if I’m to keep myself together I have to be strong. Right now I feel so bold but need to keep on top of it. Maybe I could pop some more pills? The trial has gone from 25 May to 8 June and now 22 June. I’m psyched up and ready. I hope there is not another change. Give me strength, Soph. I’m tired of being strong and nice.
Two days to trial and I met with Marie Grills and Robin Bates today. They will represent the Crown. The defence team is Judith Ablett-Kerr and Greg King, with Justice Judith Potter sitting on the bench. We had very good discussions around the evidence and defence tactics. Weatherston’s going for provocation to reduce the charge to manslaughter. They even asked how we would feel about a plea bargain, i.e. no trial for a manslaughter guilty plea. No way would I ever agree. That’s just a cop-out. Of course I don’t want the stress of a trial and having everything laid bare for the world to see, but that is nowhere near worth letting him go for a lesser charge. I know you would agree, Soph. Despite the use of your diary, I feel this is your way of getting back at him from the grave. Good on you girl — never in a million years would you have thought your personal diary could be used against you.
While we were waiting for this day, Nick built a schist letterbox at home as a memorial to his lovely sister. We can never move from here now. After the trial I’ll plant something nice around it. Something you would really like.
Here we are in Christchurch. I brought you with us along with photos and candles to light. Guess what? On the way up a single red balloon was stuck in a fence just out of Christchurch. There you go again, Soph. Thanks for the sign. I’m getting jittery but pleased we are nearly there. God, how I wish it wasn’t necessary to have to do this.
22 June, first court day. I’m not allowed near the court until I’ve given evidence so it’s all a bit nerve-wracking. As it turned out today has been an anticlimax. Potential jurors have been sent home while legal submissions are discussed so they haven’t even empanelled a jury. What a let-down. Mrs Ablett-Kerr has applied to the Court of Appeal over the admissibility of some police photographs. This will be heard tomorrow.
Then there was the issue of your diary to be thrashed out. The Crown’s contention is that only entries from July and August 2007 should be allowed, but the defence want all the diary entries in. I’m mortified for you and I know how angry you would be if you were here. I hope Justice Potter has your privacy at heart and will rule that no part of the diary can be used.
Yahoo! Soph. We won the first round. All of the photos are in. The Court of Appeal said the defence attempt to get some photos withdrawn was ‘hopeless’. The afternoon was spent discussing your diary. If Justice Potter rules all entries can be used then the trial proper will start tomorrow. If not, then sure as eggs, the defence will appeal.
24 June, the first real court day. The diary is in, Soph, but not all of it. Sort of a hollow victory because I fervently believe it should not be used by either side. A jury was empanelled, opening submissions, and then the books of photos were produced. Then it was my turn. Just before I took the stand Nick handed me a note. It read:
Don’t stoop to JAK level. Rise above it. Stand tall — stand up for Soph. Take your time and keep your cool.
You have no idea how nervous I was walking into that court. The room seemed even larger with the witness stand up high. It was so hushed you could have heard a pin drop. I felt as though everyone’s eyes were on me as I made my way to the stand. Once I was there I had a surge of strength. What I was about to relate was watching you die. But I was doing this for you, Soph, and there was no way I was going to crumble. No way.
Marie Grills took me through my evidence slowly and very deliberately. She gave me time to think. I talked about you and the kind of daughter you were. I let them have it, Soph. I couldn’t see Weatherston, hidden behind his QC, but I knew he would be hearing everything I said. I hope he was squirming. His parents and siblings were there, but no one else that I noticed.
You had me, Dad and the boys, uncles, aunts, cousins and loads of your friends from Dunedin. And of course Grandma and Grandad. This was an amazing show of support from people who loved you. Along with that texts and emails came from all over.
You know, Soph, it wasn’t until today that anyone had heard you came at him first with scissors. What unbelievable rubbish. I was there. There was no argument, in fact no talking at all. When you went upstairs, the door closed and you screamed. He never mentioned you attacking him on being arrested or in the subsequent 18 months. Incredulous! It makes my blood boil to hear him trying to squirm out of what he did.
I felt like jelly when I came out. People thought it was nerves, but it wasn’t. It was sheer anger at his effrontery at trying to reduce his culpability. Tomorrow I’ll be back on the stand to face Mrs Ablett-Kerr. I’m ready for her.
That was my last diary entry. From then on I just didn’t have time to write. Much of Mrs Ablett-Kerr’s cross-examination is something of a blur but I recall some things quite clearly, such as the annoying way she kept saying, ‘I put it to you, Mrs Elliott.’
The worst of these was the line of questioning she took to support Weatherston’s contention that Sophie attacked him with a pair of scissors. I am clear in my mind that Sophie said either ‘Stop it, Clayton’ or ‘Don’t Clayton’ twice, then began to scream. Mrs Ablett-Kerr put it to me that what Sophie called out was actually ‘Fuck you, Clayton.’ This would have supported her argument that Sophie was enraged, shouting those words before attacking him. But Sophie’s words were spontaneous and terror-stricken. Immediately after she put this preposterous question to me, I replied by saying, ‘I doubt it.’ In hindsight I wished I had said ‘Absolutely, categorically not!’ But when you are under pressure and emotionally drained it is hard to be precise.
Despite this I still have admiration for Judith Ablett-Kerr’s professionalism. There is no doubt she is an accomplished orator and her preparation was immaculate. Not only was her closing address polished, she had a well-rehearsed team presenting her with references throughout so she never had to pause. I can’t imagine Clayton Weatherston could have had a better defence team represent him. That does not mean I like Mrs Ablett-Kerr. I was on the receiving end and I didn’t like it, but I do admire her for her professionalism and fortitude. I know she suffered abuse and vitriol from many quarters, but she did what was expected of her and she did it well.
The defence of provocation meant presenting Weatherston in the best possible light and Sophie the worst. He was portrayed as this poor man trapped in a relationship with an aggressive, manipulative woman who constantly put him down, made his life a misery and generally caused him so much emotional pain he had to kill her. I know from reading Sophie’s diary
entries that what Weatherston said on the stand is a vain attempt to exonerate himself. I cry when I read what Sophie wrote. She simply didn’t realise who she had got involved with. For the reasons I explained earlier, I am not going to open Sophie’s diary to public scrutiny. Her thoughts will remain private. I can, however, say that when I compare what Weatherston said on the stand with what Sophie wrote at the time, my contempt for this murderer grows.
I think there is one side to Clayton Weatherston that came out during the trial that needs further examination — his proclivity to abuse women. I have already mentioned the two violent outbursts against Sophie. Weatherston claimed to have numerous girlfriends and boasted about there being more than 20. One in particular went to the police and subsequently gave evidence. Because her name is suppressed, I will call her Charlotte. She had been in a relationship with Weatherston for about three years and it ended around the time Weatherston became attracted to Sophie. Curiously, although the relationship was over, some of her possessions remained in his apartment. He used to make excuses to Sophie that the woman still visited but no longer as a girlfriend, more as a casual flatmate. From what Sophie wrote, Charlotte used to ring him frequently while Sophie was staying over at his flat. Instead of Weatherston feeling embarrassed or wanting to end the conversation, he would talk to Charlotte for 20 minutes or half an hour, then turn his attention back to Sophie, something she found insensitive and annoying. For Charlotte to need this close contact with her ex-boyfriend is rather confusing, especially considering Weatherston’s behaviour towards her.
After Weatherston was arrested for Sophie’s murder, Charlotte received a letter from him in which he said:
I have been better and have been thinking about you. This is a rough ride and it’s not looking like getting any easier. I am in a cell (3.5m x 2.5m) most of the day getting some time for a shower and outside in a small yard. The food is pretty good. Knowing I have your support is crucial to me. I am so sorry for not seeing how great you truly are. I will talk/see you and mum and dad et al soon as possible.
I am also sorry that such a horrible person has been glorified in the media (from what I have heard). That is our society. It will blow over. Not going to dwell on the uncontrollable but rather on staying positive. There is unfortunately way too much time here to over analyse. I have started to appreciate the small things in life already.
I am nervous about court on Thursday and am annoyed my side will not be made public. I also expect a lot of ill will. I will focus on your continued positive energy to help me through it. Don’t know what I’ll be wearing.
You is [sic] my one, Clayt.
In view of his treatment of Charlotte, I find that letter astounding. In evidence at the trial, she said she was planning to visit him in prison. At the time she didn’t know the extent of Sophie’s injuries and thought it had all been a mistake of some kind. When the true facts began to emerge of the brutality of his crime, she changed her mind about visiting him. She eventually went to the police and subsequently became a witness for the Crown. Charlotte told the court living with Weatherston was a bit like walking on eggshells. She learnt early on that she had to be quite careful with him and that if she said something that set him off he would ‘really go off’. While the relationship was generally loving and kind, Charlotte found it stressful when Weatherston came under stress himself. He had two sides to his nature: a loving and generous side, and a nasty, mean side he seldom showed in public.
During her evidence Charlotte said that in 2006 Weatherston assaulted her violently by kicking her and jumping on her back. In response he claimed he had kicked Charlotte once in the right shoulder and intended jumping over her but had instead clipped the top of her head, causing her nose to hit her right knee. It was an ‘accident’. On another occasion Charlotte was trying to sleep as he played his guitar. She asked him several times to stop, eventually putting her hand on the guitar, suggesting he could go elsewhere in the flat to play. He got on the bed and jumped up and down on her. When she said it really hurt, he replied, ‘Oh well, I was just playing — at wrestling.’ Weatherston claimed that when he picked Sophie up and carried her to his bedroom, throwing her on the bed, he was merely trying to subdue her after she had attacked him. He was again deflecting blame for his own actions onto the victims.
In her evidence Charlotte said she would never compare Weatherston’s sexual organs to anyone else’s. However, she did so reluctantly when he asked her directly. He became upset and said, ‘I can’t believe you’d tell me that, it’s such an insensitive thing to say.’ He did exactly the same with Sophie and she didn’t want to play his stupid game either but he insisted. When Sophie did tell him, and because he obviously didn’t measure up, he became very angry. He goads people into saying things he wants to hear, but when it doesn’t come out the way he wants, he accuses the person as if they were the instigator of the comment.
To further illustrate what some saw as Weatherston’s predatory nature, I received some information that only came to light after the trial and sentencing of Weatherston. A student from a Scandinavian country emailed me on the condition her name wouldn’t be mentioned and I respect her request for anonymity. This is what she told me:
During 2003–2004 I was a postgraduate student in economics. I met Clayton Weatherston through the economics department. He was a PhD student and a lecturer at the time, and regularly joined in the social events organised by the students or the department. I never got to know Weatherston very well, but one evening he got attracted to me. We were at a pub and when it closed a few students, including Weatherston, came back to my house where we continued drinking. He stayed for the night with a few others; however, no sexual intercourse took place. In the morning, Weatherston wanted to spend time with me and I agreed to join him and other students to watch rugby in the pub. I wasn’t really attracted to him but instead found him very persuasive, one of those men who really crave for a relationship. He had no money so I had to pay for his drinks and food. At that time I did not think too much about it. I thought he would eventually realise that I was not particularly interested in him. I left the pub in the afternoon with an excuse of having to see a friend. Next day I told a few people in my economics class about his persuasiveness and somewhat weird behaviour. Weatherston found out what I had said and when I next saw him he was very angry. I had planned to stay in Dunedin for the summer to work on my thesis; however, I decided against it and flew to Australia immediately. The idea of having to spend all summer with Weatherston in the empty department did not appeal to me. When I returned to Dunedin in February 2004 I met Weatherston in the department and he apologised for his earlier behaviour — perhaps because he was a lecturer for a compulsory module that I was a student on. I had no problems with Weatherston during the semester. I found the module very difficult and I could have easily failed, but I passed it with the lowest mark possible. I always wondered if Weatherston let me pass because of what had happened as he wouldn’t have wanted me complaining about him. Who knows? After the semester I returned to Europe and the next time I heard anything about Weatherston was on the news about him having murdered Sophie.
I always thought that his behaviour was quite childish considering his role in the department. He lectured both undergraduate and postgraduate modules and I thought it was quite odd how often he socialised with students in pubs and nightclubs. Perhaps he was quite young and he tried to get the best out of both worlds. He did not come across as dangerous, but rather as a person with low self-esteem who was trying very hard to fit in.
What this young woman said spoke volumes. She didn’t succumb to the Weatherston infantile charm that Charlotte and Sophie were taken in by. When I consider some of what Sophie told me about Weatherston, there is no doubt he exhibited weird and uncomfortable traits. What grieves me is that Sophie’s life may have been spared had Weatherston’s assaults been reported and acted upon.
Isn’t it interesting how Sophie was portrayed in the trial as being
the instigator of the tumultuous side of the relationship with Weatherston? And isn’t it interesting how the assaults on Charlotte were explained as ‘accidents’? And then there was the student so concerned at Weatherston’s interest in her that she fled to Australia rather than feel vulnerable around him. Who is it at the centre of all these incidents — Clayton Weatherston. And in each case he has tried to shift blame from himself onto others. He had sufficient charm that Sophie and Charlotte wanted to take him back, yet I know from Sophie’s diary that she had serious doubts about doing that.
When it comes to my experience of the trial process I was luckier than a lot of relatives of murder victims. I had one constant throughout — my brother Dave and his partner Ann. As a lawyer with nearly 30 years’ experience, Dave was able to provide me with information on the processes that lay people have no hope of coming to grips with. He views the Weatherston trial as a standard or basic case. Weatherston did kill Sophie, of that there can be no doubt whatsoever. He ran a defence of provocation and of self-defence, neither of which was successful. The whole process was, in the eyes of lawyer Dave, properly conducted and the end result saw justice done. But on the other hand there were parts of the process that left Dave at times ashamed of his profession. Here he saw first-hand how the system takes over and leaves the victim’s family completely out of the loop.
Sophie’s Legacy Page 17