The appeal is based upon, according to the papers and TVB the fact that the judge's summation took over 2 hours and was in English and that the jury were Chinese speaking locals who had jobs to get back to and were therefore more inclined to make a quick vote and get back to work plating dumplings at the dipaidong. To quote Bugs Bunny; "What a Maroon." Doesn't she know that judges in Hong Kong are infallible? They could never give improper instructions to a jury in a language they didn't understand.
During the first trial I came away with the feeling that neither Nancy or her legal representation were the brightest bulb in the lamp and this appeal sort of confirmed those suspicions.
A few relevant points.
- She could have made a credible claim that her husband was physically abusive - before she killed him.
- She could have made a credible claim that her husband was emotionally abusive - before she killed him.
- She could have made a credible claim that her husband was addicted to Cocaine - before she killed him.
- She could have made a credible claim that her husband was a serial philanderer - before she killed him.
- She could have made a credible claim that her husband was a danger to their children - before she killed him.
Raising these claims in a divorce court would have netted Nancy 1/2 her husbands 18 million dollar fortune and he would have been liable for the court cost. Not to mention probably costing her loutish husband his high profile job. As the saying goes, don't get even get a lawyer. She could have then moved to Montana, married her Internet boyfriend and lived the high life for ever after.
Instead, Nancy doped her husband with a triple dose of sedatives, bashed his brains out with a rolling pin, wrapped his body in a rug and hid his mortal remains in a storage room. When caught she claimed that she killed him in self defense.
It must have been tough to defend herself against an unconscious man! The self defense argument only works when you're in imminent danger which at the time she wasn't. After she drugged him her husband was not a danger to anyone. Therein lies the first point in my argument that either Nancy or her lawyer is an idiot. Given the known leniency of the Hong Kong judiciary if Nancy had pleaded guilty, shown remorse, been just a little contrite and agreed to attend anger management classes she would be a free woman today.
Please do not misunderstand; I think in many ways her sentence is just; or would be in a place with a sane judiciary. But it should be obvious that in a Hong Kong court pleading guilty, showing even contrived remorse and playing a bit of kiss-ass with the judge will get a serious crime reduced to the level of a traffic infraction. In Hong Kong pleading innocent gets you a longer sentence! Why didn't she pleade guilty and take the slap on the wrist? The only answer is that either she or her lawyer are idiots or that she really believes that she was threatened by her husband.
If she'd been a little smarter she could have walked away from this altogether. How? Easy. Dope the slob enough to ensure that he was off his guard, invite him out on the balcony for a BBQ and then whack him over the head once with the rolling pin to disorient him and then push his sorry Armani covered ass over the balcony rail. After he'd fallen 40 stories she could have called the police and reported an accident all the while playing the part of the hysterical tai-tai. In a city with less than 12 murders a year the police would probably not have assumed fowl play. The fact she planed the murder but not the disposal of the body tell us that she was scared of him and not really concerned with what happened afterwards. If she'd been a little more cold blooded about this she'd only be troubled by her conscience.
Who is a greater danger to society; The Hong Kong child molester who lured at least 12 preteen girls into a warehouse with McDonald's toys and raped them or Nancy Kissel who murdered an abusive husband? Who got life in prison and who got 8 years? Who showed "remorse" in court and who claimed they hadn't committed a crime? Who pleaded guilty and who didn't?
Nancy should have been smart enough and certainly her lawyer should have been wise enough to point out these things to her and convince her to plead guilty but with extenuating circumstances. You don't beat an unconscious man to death and claim self defense. So, again I say that either Nancy Kissel or her legal representatives are idiots. Or she really was scared of the guy and thought it was a form a self defense.
Now having set the stage so to speak, I think Nancy deserves an appeal and she deserves to have a her sentence reduced. In fact, because this is Hong Kong I think she should be let out of jail after having the rest of her sentence waived; but not for the reasons her lawyers are using. Instead, her legal team should be doing just what I have done above. When you compare her case with other recent high profile cases in Hong Kong her sentence is unjust by comparison.
Let's review some of the cases I written about in this blog and compare them with Mrs Kissel:
- If you let a 13 year-old illegally drive your van and kill a 7 year-old boy you get 10 months in jail and a suspended driver's license.
- If you kill a cyclist while driving on a road that was closed to traffic while speeding and talking on a cell phone you receive a slap on the wrist jail term and fine that is less than the cost of the bicycle the man you killed was riding.
- If you run over an old couple while illegally reversing your car at high speeds the wrong way up an entrance ramp you lose your drivers license and get a suspended sentence.
- If you beat a cat to death in an elementary school lunch room you go to jail for two years. (This was actually a just sentence because everyone knows that you should strangle a cat; you beat jackasses.)
- If you are a child molester and open an after school tutorial center so that you have a ready supply of little kids to molest you get a few months in jail
- If you lure a dozen or so little girls into a warehouse and rape them then you receive an 8 year prison sentence
- If you use your position as the CEO of one of the largest banks in Hong Kong to engage in insider trading and illegal stock market manipulation you get invited to THBT's office for lunch
- If you murder your abusive husband you get life.
I ask you; how is Nancy Kissel's sentence fair? She has already served more time in prison than almost any of those listed above. She isn't a habitual criminal. She is not a high risk case. Indeed, if they let her go she'll probably move to the US; so who cares? She is out of Hong Kong's hair.
How can we free Tibet when we cannot even free Nancy Kissel?
Until Next Time
The Blogger who thinks that justice is not a concept that judges in Hong Kong understand