May 14, 2013

Opposing views of woman's death put to jury

By David Clarkson. Nikki Roper murder trial, Day 7. The Crown says Nikki Roper killed out of jealousy and revenge, but his defence says there was no attack and his alleged victim could have died of an alcohol-related seizure.

The jury was told these competing views of her death as closing addresses were delivered on the seventh day of 24-year-old Roper?s trial on a charge of murdering Alexsis Maria Tovizi in December 2010.

The trial is taking place before Justice Forrest Miller and a jury in the High Court at Christchurch.

Defence counsel Simon Shamy said the jury should conclude it was a death arising from a seisure brought on by chronic alcohol misuse. On Roper?s account, she had evidently died in the bed where she was found a few days later at her flat in Linwood.

Mr Shamy said the Crown case was that she had been killed using a lethal neck hold by an amateur who managed to leave no injuries to the neck, no cuts to the face or lips, no broken blood vessels in the eyes, and no defensive injuries. The case was that he then carried her upstairs and put her in bed, again without leaving any marks.

The Crown case was that this ?careful assassin? then did and said anything he could to tie himself to the death, including telling a series of unsophisticated lies.

The Crown said the evidence of Roper?s involvement in Miss Tovizi?s death was ?overwhelming?.

Prosecutor Pip Currie said Roper was obsessed with his ex-girlfriend and had her name tattooed on his face shortly before her death. He believed he was still her boyfriend.

He had left prison on December 1, 2010, saying to another prisoner that he was going to kill her because she was cheating with another man ? the man she planned to become engaged to.

Five days later she was dead.

Roper was jealous and obsessive, and had constantly lied to the police about where she was and what had happened to her.

He had made admissions to others in prison about killing her, predominantly talking about the choker hold and also about drowning. The post mortem findings were consistent with both of these.

Mrs Currie referred to a chain-like mark on Miss Tovizi?s neck where it would be expected if a choker hold had been applied. She said Roper had a familiarity and awareness of the hold and its consequences.

She said Roper had a propensity to act in this way, using neck compression or strangulation, and importantly had a record of assaulting and choking Miss Tovizi three times. He had been jailed for the third attack at Cowles Stadium in October 2010, when he had punched her and strangled her with his hands, putting marks on her neck. Another woman told the court that Roper had choked her during sex, bringing an instant end to their four-day relationship.

The post mortem examination could show no evidence of internal or external injuries to the neck in cases where a carotid hold had been used.

She said the evidence did not support the defence suggestion that she could have died from a seizure arising from her history of alcohol consumption.

Justice Miller was to sum up for the jury when the closing addresses were completed.