Monday, July 26, 2010

Alleging the murderer is the "victim"

Kuwaiti lawyer BADER AL-NASSAR has proposed a defense that his Egyptian client, murderer Atallah Mohammed is innocent  -- he was incited to kill his wife, Norhaisa Andaw.

I do not agree with honor killings - ever.  However, in this part of the world, men sometimes get away with it.  It usually involves walking in on a wife in a compromising position with another man.  It does NOT usually involve the public exchange of conversation between two members of the opposite sex, and then later stabbing the victim.

Atallah is being charged with repeatedly stabbing his Filipina wife in front of a number of co-workers.  Atallah had a long history of abuse to his wife (according to papers).  Atallah, upon seeing his wife in a discussion with a male person (regardless of who he was; they were having a conversation, not having sex), went into a rage, followed his wife into the salon where she worked, and stabbed her.  He then fled the scene (so fast, he lost one of his shoes).

Lawyer BADER AL-NASSAR told the Arab Times it is his client who is the victim. (Full story)  If his client was the "victim" why did he run?  Why didn't he take a legal course of action - or wait for the police to arrive and then turn himself in?   Had Atallah wanted to divorce his wife for adultery, he could have gone to court, put the evidence before a judge, and divorced her.  LEGALLY.  He chose to murder her in front of colleagues/friends.

This defense, Mr. BADER AL-NASSAR, sets a dangerous precedence, does it not?   Have a fight with your wife and kill her.  Is that what you are trying to say?  I find it disgusting that any lawyer would stoop to such low levels that he would even propose a defense like that.  I would wonder how many female clients such a lawyer would have after this case.


Anonymous said...

OK The story in the Arabic newspapers is that she sent their 3 kids to the Philipines without him knowing and that was the reason he was mad. Gail

kim said...

Gail- It seems there was a history of violence that she often had bruises and black eyes. If she left her kids in the Phillipnes it was probably to protect them from a terrible home environment. Besides NOTHING is an excuse for butchering your wife!

Desert Girl said...

Kim, I think Gail was just adding to the story, not saying that it was justified.

Anonymous said...

Oh! I didn't mean to justify anything. I WAS just adding to the story because at that point I hadn't read anything in the papers. I just knew she had taken the kids. I am totally against any defense for him at all and think he should pay HUGELY for this. But unfortunately Wastah will speak volumes. Sorry for mix-up. Gail