As a rule, I publish every comment, few as they are that I receive on this blog without regard to weather it is supportive or oppositional to my point of view. If warranted I will reply and enjoy people's comments. There are really only two exceptions to this rule. I don’t generally publish comments created by either Spambots or those which are commercial in nature. Comments should improve a post and those don’t. Second I don’t publish simple insults. You are free to call me “::::::::::::::::” I just don’t have to publish it.
The only other comments I have not posted, that I remember are some of the ones I received from my posts about Nancy Kissel. I’ve written about her quite a lot over the years and for some reason those post have been among the most widely read. If I use Google’s Analytics function it is clear, the post about Nancy Kissel get read far more often than anything else I write. My traffic on that day or the day after a Nancy post is much higher. I have even posted most of the comments I've received about those post. But, there have been comments and Emails from what I believe are family members of both Nancy Kissel and her late husband. I did not post those. They were simply too personal. However, I also steadfastly refuse to use Nancy Kissel’s name in a post to simply pull in traffic.
Well, Nancy was in the news again yesterday and today. In a surprise decision the Court of Final Appeal awarded her a new trial yesterday. I missed the news last night and didn’t see anything about this until quick recap at 10:00 PM right before CSI. Talk about a jaw dropper!
Let me start off be reiterating, Nancy Kissel murdered her husband. She is guilty as charged and in a society with a properly functioning justice system should be in jail for life and the reason this case just fascinates me is because I believe it showcases everything that is wrong with the justice system in Hong Kong. I believe that because of the incoherent or seemingly arbitrary way that judges set sentences Nancy Kissel should be simply freed. That doesn’t mean I think she is innocent.
Honestly, at this point I think her lawyers have a good argument that she cannot and possibly could never have received a fair trial in Hong Kong. There was just too much publicity surrounding the case. The court should have issued a gag order during the first trial. Once the details of this case started getting out, especially in the sensationalist Chinese language papers and the even more sensationalist SCMP any chance of an unbiased jury was gone.
THBT should cowboy up on this one and ask the shoe-shin brigade in Beijing to watch this trial closely. If Nancy is freed, even on a technicality, he should point one of his stubby fingers at them and say: “See, the government doesn’t have to always win. You need to take politics out of the legal system.” In China, Nancy Kissel would never have received a new trial. She’d have been dead 4.5 years ago. As flawed as the legal system is here, it is miles better than the one up North.
I have said, and I will continue to say that the greatest gift Hong Kong can give to China and the Chinese people is a first hand look at what a free society looks like. Freedom is more than not starving. Freedom is more than having money. The Chinese need to see what it means to have a government that abides by its own laws even when those laws cause embarrassment to the state. In recent years China has stressed the need for a harmonious society. That is bad idea. What China needs is a free society, a tolerant society, a society that allows dissent. The PRC does not need Hong Kong’s money, its expertise or experience. The PRC needs the freedom, no matter how imperfect Hong Kongers enjoy. In a harmonious society everybody agrees with each other. In a free society we respect each other and realize that other may differ with us. I'd rather live in a free society than a harmonious one.
Forget Tibet, free China!
If the new trial awarded to Nancy Kissel serves to help, even a little to get the gangsters who run the CCP to be answerable to their own laws it will be worth every cent spent. I’m sure Liu Xiabao would agree. China needs a justice system that isn’t controlled by the party and that is not answerable to the cadres. One like we have in Kong Kong, only better.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who wanted to grow up and become a lawyer when he was little and didn't know any better
Showing posts with label nancy Kissel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nancy Kissel. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2010
Friday, October 23, 2009
A Sincere Thank You
I was alerted today to the fact that the persons over at Hong Kong Blog reviews had listed this blog in their recommended category.
I had been aware of them for sometime and found it somewhat disconcerting that they were evidently unaware of me. Though to be fair, I have thought for some time that the only people who ever read this blog are people still hoping that Nancy Kissel gets out of jail as some of them see me as an advocate for her. (I'm not by the way)
I think I finally sent them a link a couple of months ago; but I can't remember, maybe they just finally found me. I had always assumed they'd put me down at the bottom of the barrel category. Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised.
Thanks guys for the kind words. I enjoy your site as well.
I guess I need to post more.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who thinks his style is more "Conspiratorial" than "Colloquial"
I had been aware of them for sometime and found it somewhat disconcerting that they were evidently unaware of me. Though to be fair, I have thought for some time that the only people who ever read this blog are people still hoping that Nancy Kissel gets out of jail as some of them see me as an advocate for her. (I'm not by the way)
I think I finally sent them a link a couple of months ago; but I can't remember, maybe they just finally found me. I had always assumed they'd put me down at the bottom of the barrel category. Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised.
Thanks guys for the kind words. I enjoy your site as well.
I guess I need to post more.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who thinks his style is more "Conspiratorial" than "Colloquial"
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Injustice against women? Its a judicial institution in Hong Kong
I do not normally curse. The subject of this post is a time however when there is no other set of words that adequately express my sentiment over the incredible miscarriage of justice that judges in Hong Kong regularly inflict upon the the victims of crime.
There is really no way to describe the anger that the justice system in Hong Kong causes me to feel. Four years! Four years! For a premeditated act of violence of the worst kind. This girl never approved this and was not even his "girlfriend" at the time. She didn't ask for it, want it or deserve it. To not only rape a girl but to do it with your friends watching and to then post a video of it on Youtube is so reprehensible that only the most calloused, heartless and vicious individual could even conceive of it.
I don't give a Hairy-Hot-Damn how much this piece of dog shit's relationship with its parents has improved. I couldn't care less if it has matured. I don't care how much remorse it faked in the courtroom. I don't care if any of the remorse was even real. I don't care if it plead guilty though since the it put the video of itself raping a girl up on Youtube I can't imagine how he could have done otherwise.
This God Damned, sub-human, evolutionary throwback simian (apologies to real Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans) should, at the very least be castrated, have the words "I'm ya'lls ho" tattooed on his forehead and then be forced to wear a short skirt with no underwear in a prison for the rest of his life; and I hope it lives to be a 100. Would that be harsh? Yes. But it would be closer to justice than the sentence handed down.
There are some crimes where you cannot simply "I'm sorry" and have the sentence reduced. This was one of them. Personal forgiveness from the victim is beside the point. This sub-human is the very definition of an anti-social monster. Yet in Hong Kong the judical system regularly gives these knuckle dragging apes lighter sentence for saying "I was a bad boy" in court. Make an example of it. Toss it into a deep dark hole and then throw away the key. In truth, given the attitude of criminals to offenders like this, the most humane punishment would be to execute these bastards but our justice system gave up humane punishment in favor of coddling years ago.
Once again, I come back to Nancy Kissel. She murdered her husband, who she may have had some cause to be afraid of and gets life. This POS performs a brutal rape and gets four years. The difference? There are two. One, Nancy Kissel pleaded innocent and judges don't like that here. Two, Nancy Kissel killed a well paid Caucasian banker and this girl was a 16 year old poorly educated Chinese.
The moral: If you want to do a crime but not do the time in Hong Kong - commit the crime against a Chinese woman who doesn't have much money.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who does not normally curse
There is really no way to describe the anger that the justice system in Hong Kong causes me to feel. Four years! Four years! For a premeditated act of violence of the worst kind. This girl never approved this and was not even his "girlfriend" at the time. She didn't ask for it, want it or deserve it. To not only rape a girl but to do it with your friends watching and to then post a video of it on Youtube is so reprehensible that only the most calloused, heartless and vicious individual could even conceive of it.
I don't give a Hairy-Hot-Damn how much this piece of dog shit's relationship with its parents has improved. I couldn't care less if it has matured. I don't care how much remorse it faked in the courtroom. I don't care if any of the remorse was even real. I don't care if it plead guilty though since the it put the video of itself raping a girl up on Youtube I can't imagine how he could have done otherwise.
This God Damned, sub-human, evolutionary throwback simian (apologies to real Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans) should, at the very least be castrated, have the words "I'm ya'lls ho" tattooed on his forehead and then be forced to wear a short skirt with no underwear in a prison for the rest of his life; and I hope it lives to be a 100. Would that be harsh? Yes. But it would be closer to justice than the sentence handed down.
There are some crimes where you cannot simply "I'm sorry" and have the sentence reduced. This was one of them. Personal forgiveness from the victim is beside the point. This sub-human is the very definition of an anti-social monster. Yet in Hong Kong the judical system regularly gives these knuckle dragging apes lighter sentence for saying "I was a bad boy" in court. Make an example of it. Toss it into a deep dark hole and then throw away the key. In truth, given the attitude of criminals to offenders like this, the most humane punishment would be to execute these bastards but our justice system gave up humane punishment in favor of coddling years ago.
Once again, I come back to Nancy Kissel. She murdered her husband, who she may have had some cause to be afraid of and gets life. This POS performs a brutal rape and gets four years. The difference? There are two. One, Nancy Kissel pleaded innocent and judges don't like that here. Two, Nancy Kissel killed a well paid Caucasian banker and this girl was a 16 year old poorly educated Chinese.
The moral: If you want to do a crime but not do the time in Hong Kong - commit the crime against a Chinese woman who doesn't have much money.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who does not normally curse
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Another Alcoholic Judge
This is not a joke.
Eric Au-Chun Kit side-swiped a car then careened down the road and rear-ended a motorcyclist who died at the scene. He refused to be tested for his blood-alcohol level until an hour after the accident and was, at that time found to be still three times over the legal limit .
This was not his first offense. He is a habitual drunk driver.
He was given what amounts to a slap on the wrist yesterday for this crime given his obvious disregard for the law and the safety of others. He had his driving license suspended for 5 years. He was also fined. He was then given a 4 year in prison term. Tell me, do you need a driving license in prison? So how is that different from a 1 year suspended license?
The man he killed had a wife and two small children. Do they get off in four years? Yet this brother of a "Rising Canto-pop Star" according to the SCMP offered a paltry $70,000 to compensate the victims; which is probably not even the cost of the motor cycle the man he killed was riding.
After the accident he claimed the sun was in his eyes and that the motorcycle just suddenly appeared in front of him. In other words because he was drunk his pupils were dilated and his reactions were slowed. What a moron! He is so stupid that he does not even know what the sysmtoms of being drunk are.
There is a movement in the US to charge people who kill someone while driving drunk with murder. Though in Hong Kong the prison sentence for murder would be about the same unless you are Nancy Kissel. Yet still such a measure here would at least say that slime bags like Eric Au-Chun Kit are not welcome in this society.
I can't help but wonder if the apparent pathological leniency of the judges in Hong Kong in cases like this isn't because they are all boozers themselves?
Eric Au-Chun Kit. You are slimy, no good, self-centered, ignorant bastard and you you should be put in prison for the rest of your natural life for your crimes. Your wealth should be confiscated and given to the children of your victims. If you received justice then maybe Nancy Kissel would feel better because then she would be able to see that the courts were not picking on her.
Eric, if I were you, I'd hang myself in shame of what I'd done. But you have have no shame. You're just a drunken brat. At least you'll be off the streets for 4 years.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who believes that justice is seldom served in Hong Kong.
Eric Au-Chun Kit side-swiped a car then careened down the road and rear-ended a motorcyclist who died at the scene. He refused to be tested for his blood-alcohol level until an hour after the accident and was, at that time found to be still three times over the legal limit .
This was not his first offense. He is a habitual drunk driver.
He was given what amounts to a slap on the wrist yesterday for this crime given his obvious disregard for the law and the safety of others. He had his driving license suspended for 5 years. He was also fined. He was then given a 4 year in prison term. Tell me, do you need a driving license in prison? So how is that different from a 1 year suspended license?
The man he killed had a wife and two small children. Do they get off in four years? Yet this brother of a "Rising Canto-pop Star" according to the SCMP offered a paltry $70,000 to compensate the victims; which is probably not even the cost of the motor cycle the man he killed was riding.
After the accident he claimed the sun was in his eyes and that the motorcycle just suddenly appeared in front of him. In other words because he was drunk his pupils were dilated and his reactions were slowed. What a moron! He is so stupid that he does not even know what the sysmtoms of being drunk are.
There is a movement in the US to charge people who kill someone while driving drunk with murder. Though in Hong Kong the prison sentence for murder would be about the same unless you are Nancy Kissel. Yet still such a measure here would at least say that slime bags like Eric Au-Chun Kit are not welcome in this society.
I can't help but wonder if the apparent pathological leniency of the judges in Hong Kong in cases like this isn't because they are all boozers themselves?
Eric Au-Chun Kit. You are slimy, no good, self-centered, ignorant bastard and you you should be put in prison for the rest of your natural life for your crimes. Your wealth should be confiscated and given to the children of your victims. If you received justice then maybe Nancy Kissel would feel better because then she would be able to see that the courts were not picking on her.
Eric, if I were you, I'd hang myself in shame of what I'd done. But you have have no shame. You're just a drunken brat. At least you'll be off the streets for 4 years.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who believes that justice is seldom served in Hong Kong.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Strange hit counts
I find it really odd that most of the hits I get on blog come from my post on Nancy Kissel.
The exception is a post I removed but said up front I would if I was wrong on US politics.
I have been thinking that there is a strange correlation between Nancy Kissel and Nina Wong. Of course the local constabulary could never prove the Hatchet-Face-in-Pig-Tails (HFPT) killed her ChinaChem sugar daddy though it is obvious that she had him killed even if she didn't do the deed herself.
Suppose, Nancy Kissel had pulled the same ploy? Suppose after doing the doping & clubbing two step she'd taken a copy of the South China Morning Post and then carefully using gloves and a new tube of glue, cut out words to make a fake ransom note that was then mailed to the police or the deceased husbands employer? Something like "pLAce 30 mIlLion uNmarked Hk dollars In A yellow bag and lEave in Aberdeen cOuntry park BBq areA at 11:30 Pm Thurdsday. If we even think SoMeOne is WatcHing yOur hUsband Dies"
Then even if the ransom was paid she could have claim that the kidnappers had simply murdered him. Mr. Kissel's body would still be in that storage room.
Once again, I think that Nancy Kissel is guilty. I think that in a nation with a judicial system that functioned properly her sentence was just. Indeed, given the evidence against her I'd not object to a death sentence. But, I do not believe that Hong Kong is in possession of such a system. If Nina Wong walked for murdering her husband in cold bold and with no motive except the theft of his millions then Nancy Kissel should go free as well.
The exception is a post I removed but said up front I would if I was wrong on US politics.
I have been thinking that there is a strange correlation between Nancy Kissel and Nina Wong. Of course the local constabulary could never prove the Hatchet-Face-in-Pig-Tails (HFPT) killed her ChinaChem sugar daddy though it is obvious that she had him killed even if she didn't do the deed herself.
Suppose, Nancy Kissel had pulled the same ploy? Suppose after doing the doping & clubbing two step she'd taken a copy of the South China Morning Post and then carefully using gloves and a new tube of glue, cut out words to make a fake ransom note that was then mailed to the police or the deceased husbands employer? Something like "pLAce 30 mIlLion uNmarked Hk dollars In A yellow bag and lEave in Aberdeen cOuntry park BBq areA at 11:30 Pm Thurdsday. If we even think SoMeOne is WatcHing yOur hUsband Dies"
Then even if the ransom was paid she could have claim that the kidnappers had simply murdered him. Mr. Kissel's body would still be in that storage room.
Once again, I think that Nancy Kissel is guilty. I think that in a nation with a judicial system that functioned properly her sentence was just. Indeed, given the evidence against her I'd not object to a death sentence. But, I do not believe that Hong Kong is in possession of such a system. If Nina Wong walked for murdering her husband in cold bold and with no motive except the theft of his millions then Nancy Kissel should go free as well.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Nancy Kessel could maybe get some sympathy if....
Notice what this guy didn't do.
While claiming he wasn't guilty of the particular crime he was executed for he didn't:
1. Blame anyone else for what happened to him.
2. Try to weasel out of his convictions for other crimes.
3. Pretend he was too sick to walk.
4. Act like a coward.
Make no mistake. This was a bad man. When convicted of the murder he was executed for he was already serving a life sentence with no opportunity for parole for other crimes. He may really have not been guilty of this particular crime or he could have been lying, I have no way of knowing. But, it is surprising that he was not on Death Row in Texas for the things he DID admit to.
Was his religious conversion real? Who knows? What is clear is that he faced death with a dignity and resolve that is admirable.
God bless you Alvin Kelly. Rest in Peace.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
While claiming he wasn't guilty of the particular crime he was executed for he didn't:
1. Blame anyone else for what happened to him.
2. Try to weasel out of his convictions for other crimes.
3. Pretend he was too sick to walk.
4. Act like a coward.
Make no mistake. This was a bad man. When convicted of the murder he was executed for he was already serving a life sentence with no opportunity for parole for other crimes. He may really have not been guilty of this particular crime or he could have been lying, I have no way of knowing. But, it is surprising that he was not on Death Row in Texas for the things he DID admit to.
Was his religious conversion real? Who knows? What is clear is that he faced death with a dignity and resolve that is admirable.
God bless you Alvin Kelly. Rest in Peace.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Bang that gavel down, case closed
Nancy Kissel officially lost her appeal yesterday.
According to ATV last night, the judge evidently spent only a few minutes to completely dismiss the case. I thought this would happen. I am surprised he/she/they/it took this long to deliver the opinion.
The Kissel legal team is going to appeal to a higher court (Equivalent of the Supreme Court in the US) but I don't think that will go anywhere either.
I know my position on this case is strange because I think Nancy Kissel is guilty as Hell but should still be released. I think if she'd had legal council that really understood the Hong Kong legal system and gotten her to plead guilty, show some remorse, set out the extenuating circumstances and thrown herself on the mercy of the court then she'd be a free woman today. When a third-strike child molester gets 8 years in prison and government social workers start lining up to vainly try and "rehabilitate" him from the day gets locked up then Nancy Kissel's sentence is unjust.
I will admit however, to losing a little sympathy for her after this last court appearance. I was sympathetic towards her situation because I feel that the legal system in Hong Kong is capricious and that very often the punishment does not fit the crime. That, to me should be the basis for her appeal. Instead her lawyers are trying to argue legal loopholes. This is not the US. Hong Kong does not have anything close to the US "Bill of Rights." As far as I can tell from reading the Basic Law, we do not have the presumption of innocence in court either. It just seems to me that Nancy's legal team are simply chasing butterflies.
To compound this problem, there was Nancy's mother on TV talking about how her daughter has developed "health problems" in prison and is now often too weak to walk. Maybe it really is true but I do not know many, non-paralyzed 50 year old women that require a wheelchair. Whatever else the prisons in Hong Kong may be, they are not like those in the non-SAR bits of China, Thailand, Cambodia or Mexico. This "developed health problems while in prison" bit looks like a cheap stunt to get her term reduced to time served. If I am wrong about this I sincerely apologize. I just can't see how she isn't faking. If that is the case, maybe she was lying about being afraid of her husband in her first trial.
I'd feel better about releasing her if she'd come to court fit, maybe tanned and looking like she spent time in the prison weight room trying to flirt with the guards and said. "I am innocent because that man threatened me and my children and getting him away from my kids was the best thing I ever did. I sent him to Hell and he deserved it!" Instead, she tries to make me feel sorry for her and that's not going to work.
I've been call cynical before.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who still thinks that the HK legal system is broken and blames the British
According to ATV last night, the judge evidently spent only a few minutes to completely dismiss the case. I thought this would happen. I am surprised he/she/they/it took this long to deliver the opinion.
The Kissel legal team is going to appeal to a higher court (Equivalent of the Supreme Court in the US) but I don't think that will go anywhere either.
I know my position on this case is strange because I think Nancy Kissel is guilty as Hell but should still be released. I think if she'd had legal council that really understood the Hong Kong legal system and gotten her to plead guilty, show some remorse, set out the extenuating circumstances and thrown herself on the mercy of the court then she'd be a free woman today. When a third-strike child molester gets 8 years in prison and government social workers start lining up to vainly try and "rehabilitate" him from the day gets locked up then Nancy Kissel's sentence is unjust.
I will admit however, to losing a little sympathy for her after this last court appearance. I was sympathetic towards her situation because I feel that the legal system in Hong Kong is capricious and that very often the punishment does not fit the crime. That, to me should be the basis for her appeal. Instead her lawyers are trying to argue legal loopholes. This is not the US. Hong Kong does not have anything close to the US "Bill of Rights." As far as I can tell from reading the Basic Law, we do not have the presumption of innocence in court either. It just seems to me that Nancy's legal team are simply chasing butterflies.
To compound this problem, there was Nancy's mother on TV talking about how her daughter has developed "health problems" in prison and is now often too weak to walk. Maybe it really is true but I do not know many, non-paralyzed 50 year old women that require a wheelchair. Whatever else the prisons in Hong Kong may be, they are not like those in the non-SAR bits of China, Thailand, Cambodia or Mexico. This "developed health problems while in prison" bit looks like a cheap stunt to get her term reduced to time served. If I am wrong about this I sincerely apologize. I just can't see how she isn't faking. If that is the case, maybe she was lying about being afraid of her husband in her first trial.
I'd feel better about releasing her if she'd come to court fit, maybe tanned and looking like she spent time in the prison weight room trying to flirt with the guards and said. "I am innocent because that man threatened me and my children and getting him away from my kids was the best thing I ever did. I sent him to Hell and he deserved it!" Instead, she tries to make me feel sorry for her and that's not going to work.
I've been call cynical before.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who still thinks that the HK legal system is broken and blames the British
Monday, August 25, 2008
Nancy! Nancy! Nancy! --- One more time
I have a rather morbid interest in high-profile murderer's and over the years and have had more than my fair of contact with them; even if I do say so myself.
I grew up a few strees over street over from the parents of Charles Manson's hatchet man Tex Watson who was the guy that killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate. They were nice people but with a son who sort of fell off the deep end.
When I was an undergraduate I worked the night desk in a budget motel and had the dubious honor of checking in Henry Lee Lucas and talked to him several times as he drank our free coffee in the lobby before he was arrested for murder and necrophilia; he was a scary guy even before I knew what he'd done.
I think that criminals fascinate us because we can in our more honest moments see ourselves in them. We wonder, could we be that evil? We receive a thrill, just a little shutter when we realize the answer is probably "Yes" and a grateful sense of moral relief when we can say; "But I'm not like him."
Anyway, with a history, and morbid personality like that it should not come as a surprise that I made a post in April about Nancy Kissel's attempted appeal and that I called her my favorite Hong Kong murderess. This turned out to be an interesting post in a number of ways because not only did I enjoy writing it but have continued to receive comments on it. It seems that somebody put a link to that post on one the several websites that deal with famous murderers. Since I was evidently the last person to write anything about this case the people who read that site see my post. Several have written to me to ask for more details and an update.
One of the more interesting emails came from the family of Nancy Kissel. This caused me a moment of guilt because I had been pretty flippant about her situation but they were polite and appreciative that someone was actually concerned about this case. They must have read my post completely because at the end I did call for her release though not because I think she is innocent. Another email came from the good old Mr. Anonymous who wanted to know how I could defend a known liar and murderer? He was a little less polite and I think may be a family member or friend of the murdered husband.
Well, the update is simple. Her appeal was rejected and Nancy Kissel will probably spend the rest of her sentence in Stanley prison which for those not living in Hong Kong is near the upscale area of Stanley Market. Her six-foot by eight-foot cell will probably be bigger than many two bedroom apartments here in the "Big Lychee" but still considerably less opulent than the digs of her former expat-housewife friends by a long shot. I don't know what the term "Life Sentence" means in Hong Kong. It could be "For the rest of your life" or it could be 12 years like in the UK or parole in about 15-17 years like the US. Whatever it means, she is going to serve it out.
However, my main point in my original post actually had nothing to do with Nancy Kissel at all. It had to do with the arbitrary nature of the justice system in Hong Kong. Nancy Kissel was simply my foil for a subject that has been a soap-box of in this blog for years. In a country with a justice system that functioned properly I'd have no problem with Nancy Kissel receiving a life sentence. Indeed; in a place where the justice system functioned properly I'd have had very little complaint about a death sentence. She is guilty of murdering her husband in cold blood with malice and afore thought (Premeditated for those of you in the US) after doping him with sedatives. Her self defense argument is simply ludicrous.
If her husband was as evil as she claims then Nancy should have packed her suitcase, loaded the kids in a taxi to the airport and left for home after leaving instructions for her lawyer to institute divorce proceedings.
If her husband was really as abusive as Nancy claimed she'd now have 1/2 his rather substantial fortune and could have lived happily ever after with her New Hampshire handyman boyfriend.
However, the justice system in Hong Kong has every appearance of being arbitrary. Sentences vary wildly between judges for similar cases and there appears to be no rhyme or reason in how a sentence is derived.
Child molesters get off with a few years in the slammer for molesting over a dozen little girls after feigning remorse in a courtroom.
A man who beats a stray cat to death is put in jail for years.
If you run over an elderly couple while driving dangerously then then you get a slap on the wrist
If you steal $14,000.00 HKD because if you don't the triads are going to break the legs of your children you get multiple years in jail.
Engage in insider trading and make millions of US dollars through unethical behavior as the CEO of the Bank of East Asia and, oh wait, insider trading is not illegal here so David Li still goes golfing with THBT.
Justice is, at the risk of sounding like a tautology, only justice if it just and then only if it so to everyone. Because the HK justice system is so demonstratively lenient in many other cases, it was manifestly unjust to not be so in Nancy Kissel's case. If a serial child rapist can go to jail for 9 years then what is wrong with letting a woman, whose husband could reasonably have been thought to be abusive, off with time served? It isn't Nancy Kissel I am advocating for but for justice to honored in the Hong Kong legal system.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who thinks he should have been a lawyer or judge
I grew up a few strees over street over from the parents of Charles Manson's hatchet man Tex Watson who was the guy that killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate. They were nice people but with a son who sort of fell off the deep end.
When I was an undergraduate I worked the night desk in a budget motel and had the dubious honor of checking in Henry Lee Lucas and talked to him several times as he drank our free coffee in the lobby before he was arrested for murder and necrophilia; he was a scary guy even before I knew what he'd done.
I think that criminals fascinate us because we can in our more honest moments see ourselves in them. We wonder, could we be that evil? We receive a thrill, just a little shutter when we realize the answer is probably "Yes" and a grateful sense of moral relief when we can say; "But I'm not like him."
Anyway, with a history, and morbid personality like that it should not come as a surprise that I made a post in April about Nancy Kissel's attempted appeal and that I called her my favorite Hong Kong murderess. This turned out to be an interesting post in a number of ways because not only did I enjoy writing it but have continued to receive comments on it. It seems that somebody put a link to that post on one the several websites that deal with famous murderers. Since I was evidently the last person to write anything about this case the people who read that site see my post. Several have written to me to ask for more details and an update.
One of the more interesting emails came from the family of Nancy Kissel. This caused me a moment of guilt because I had been pretty flippant about her situation but they were polite and appreciative that someone was actually concerned about this case. They must have read my post completely because at the end I did call for her release though not because I think she is innocent. Another email came from the good old Mr. Anonymous who wanted to know how I could defend a known liar and murderer? He was a little less polite and I think may be a family member or friend of the murdered husband.
Well, the update is simple. Her appeal was rejected and Nancy Kissel will probably spend the rest of her sentence in Stanley prison which for those not living in Hong Kong is near the upscale area of Stanley Market. Her six-foot by eight-foot cell will probably be bigger than many two bedroom apartments here in the "Big Lychee" but still considerably less opulent than the digs of her former expat-housewife friends by a long shot. I don't know what the term "Life Sentence" means in Hong Kong. It could be "For the rest of your life" or it could be 12 years like in the UK or parole in about 15-17 years like the US. Whatever it means, she is going to serve it out.
However, my main point in my original post actually had nothing to do with Nancy Kissel at all. It had to do with the arbitrary nature of the justice system in Hong Kong. Nancy Kissel was simply my foil for a subject that has been a soap-box of in this blog for years. In a country with a justice system that functioned properly I'd have no problem with Nancy Kissel receiving a life sentence. Indeed; in a place where the justice system functioned properly I'd have had very little complaint about a death sentence. She is guilty of murdering her husband in cold blood with malice and afore thought (Premeditated for those of you in the US) after doping him with sedatives. Her self defense argument is simply ludicrous.
If her husband was as evil as she claims then Nancy should have packed her suitcase, loaded the kids in a taxi to the airport and left for home after leaving instructions for her lawyer to institute divorce proceedings.
If her husband was really as abusive as Nancy claimed she'd now have 1/2 his rather substantial fortune and could have lived happily ever after with her New Hampshire handyman boyfriend.
However, the justice system in Hong Kong has every appearance of being arbitrary. Sentences vary wildly between judges for similar cases and there appears to be no rhyme or reason in how a sentence is derived.
Child molesters get off with a few years in the slammer for molesting over a dozen little girls after feigning remorse in a courtroom.
A man who beats a stray cat to death is put in jail for years.
If you run over an elderly couple while driving dangerously then then you get a slap on the wrist
If you steal $14,000.00 HKD because if you don't the triads are going to break the legs of your children you get multiple years in jail.
Engage in insider trading and make millions of US dollars through unethical behavior as the CEO of the Bank of East Asia and, oh wait, insider trading is not illegal here so David Li still goes golfing with THBT.
Justice is, at the risk of sounding like a tautology, only justice if it just and then only if it so to everyone. Because the HK justice system is so demonstratively lenient in many other cases, it was manifestly unjust to not be so in Nancy Kissel's case. If a serial child rapist can go to jail for 9 years then what is wrong with letting a woman, whose husband could reasonably have been thought to be abusive, off with time served? It isn't Nancy Kissel I am advocating for but for justice to honored in the Hong Kong legal system.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who thinks he should have been a lawyer or judge
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Nancy, Nancy, Nancy! You've got it all wrong
My favorite Hong Kong murderer, Nancy Kissel was in court again yesterday appealing her life sentence for whacking her low life but very highly paid drug addict husband over the head five times after doping him with sedatives. Lizzy Borden look out; you've been upstaged!
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.
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:
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
Fai Mao
The Blogger who thinks that justice is not a concept that judges in Hong Kong understand
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
Fai Mao
The Blogger who thinks that justice is not a concept that judges in Hong Kong understand
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)