A love letter from Clayton Weatherston to Sophie Elliott was read to the High Court at Christchurch yesterday on the eighth day of Weatherston's trial for killing Miss Elliott.
The letter was read by Detective Constable Joanne McLaughlan, the officer in charge of the scene at the Elliott family home in Ravensbourne.
The original, written in turquoise ink, was recovered from a purple box in Sophie's dressing table.
It was undated.
But a copy of the same letter, found in a box in Sophie's wardrobe, had the date August 2007 written on the bottom.
Weatherston wrote: "Dear Soph, I hope you don't mind this rather archaic form of communication."
He said the letter had been prompted by the fact the very real prospect of losing her had "brought clarity".
He told her he lamented "the silly little things" and the "false illusion" of how she might perceive him.
"I love your energy, cuteness, intelligence, resilience and beauty," he told her.
And he said "your incisive mind is attractively intimidating". She was the person who stimulated him mentally "and physically".
"The only person who I feel will ask questions I can't answer in class is you."
He said she was "a gorgeous creature", well balanced, intelligent and creative. Weatherston told her he was kind-hearted, generous, respectful and genuinely cared about people.
But there was little consolation in other people telling him that when Sophie was the one he cared about.
"I hope to have a chance to be more demonstrative in my appreciation of and respect for you. There are so many things that I want to experience with you Soph. Lazy Sundays, doing whatever, being intimate, you watching me drown in Moana Pool.
"I love being close to you. You make me feel sexy, attractive and good about myself. I want to do the same for you.
"We are both dynamic positive people who should live in the present - let's have fun."
The letter was signed "Yours Clayton XXX".
Written on it was the date August 2007.
Questioned by defence counsel Judith Ablett-Kerr QC, Det Const McLaughlan agreed the letter had been a late exhibit in the trial.
She agreed the date August 2007 was not on the original letter.
But she could not say the date was in different handwriting from the body of the letter.
