Muslim Honor Killing in Kingston

[Guest Manny]

Guy comes home, shoots everybody in his house then offs himself. How many times have we heard of it? Guy burns his house down, everybody inside of it. How many times?

So he has a point. But that does not mean we shouldn't still criticize it. And it IS a muslim problem, in my opinion. Not exclusively, but for muslims, on a fairly broad scale. It's not in the Koran, but it's ingrained in their cultural beliefs. Just like christmas trees are not mentioned in the bible, but it's something that a lot of christians do.

[Michael Hardner]

And it IS a muslim problem, in my opinion. Not exclusively, but for muslims, on a fairly broad scale. It's not in the Koran, but it's ingrained in their cultural beliefs.

It seems like it's a problem everywhere. Maybe the only difference is the reasons they give after the fact.

[Tilter]

The word is "honour", people! With a "u". Honour.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.

Don't be an idiot---- there is NO reason to use the U--- we are not in Blighty

[fellowtraveller]

I too don't see a difference insofar as prosecuting is concerned. Life/lives lost at the hands of one or more perps. Murder plain and simple, and most foul.

In the Shafia case, the point was made that the Crown didn't have to prove motive to determine guilt. Yet, raising the element of "honour killing" went to unearthing, in the Crown's view, why the convicted trio resorted to murder. It's an element piled on to the evidence. So as you raise, in the case of murder because of infidelity, the same would apply. Once it is proved through evidence that the perp(s) committed the murder, motive is rather secondary in a finding of guilt, but if motive can be ascribed it serves to solidify a prosecutor's case.

As someone said in an interview, the element of "honour killing" tied the whole case together.

I do see a difference with the prosecution of this family. Proving motive was central to this case and central to the conviction. The physcial evidence was a bit light and especially so for the two older accused.

There was no doubt an element of xenophobia in the prosecution case, pointing a finger at the culture that is so foreign to the 12 people on the jury, hammering away at the mother and son on the stand about their cultural beliefs.

That part of this trial made me really uncomfortable.

Under Canadian law, proving the why and how of murder is irrelevant once self-defence and simialr issues are dismissed. Why does not matter. 'How' does not matter either, and in this case they still do not know how the women were killed other than cause of death by drowning. If, in this case, the prosecution used the culture card to 'bolster' their case- and their is absolutely no doubt they did- it actually weakens their case in my miond. A finding of guilty must be based on the evidence.

[Wild Bill]

Don't be an idiot---- there is NO reason to use the U--- we are not in Blighty

No, but like it or not we CAME from there!

Just because we let in a bunch of new people who want to return the favour by changing the country to THEIR liking is no reason to give up our heritage!

Certainly, if all the newcomers FORCE us to do such there's no reason we have to smile and thank them for it!

Sometimes I'm truly sorry we opened the doors...

[capricorn]

You can be given consecutive sentences for first and second degree murder in Canada now, but I don't think that was available here, as that wasn't the law when this trial began:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=598999

I believe that for the same reason, the faint hope clause still applies in this case.

On another blog site, I read that the faint hope clause would not be available to the Shafias because they were convicted of multiple murders, due to s. 745.6 of the CC.

When Parliament abolished capital punishment and introduced mandatory life sentences for murder, it was felt that if rehabilitation was to be successful, persons sentenced to life imprisonment needed some hope of being released during their lifetime. As a result, section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, the so-called faint-hope clause, was introduced. It makes it possible for convicted murderers to apply for a reduction in the number of years they must serve in prison before being able to apply for parole. This application can be made after they have served 15 years of their sentence. All applications are screened so that only those having a reasonable prospect of success will actually receive a hearing. Further, persons who have committed more than one murder after January 1997 are ineligible for a section 745.6 hearing — they do not have any right to apply for a hearing to reduce the time they must serve before applying for parole.

(my bolding)

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pcvi-cpcv/guide/secm.html

So in this case, 25 years without the possibility of parole applies. That will relieve many Canadians. Of course, there's no guarantee that parole would be granted after 25 years given the convictions for quadruple murder. In addition, at a later date a case could be mounted to deport the trio but that's far into the future.

[capricorn]

A finding of guilty must be based on the evidence.

That's probably why the Judge instructed the jury that the Crown need not prove motive to determine guilt. As I said in another post, if motive is determined and proved it solidifies the Crown's case. We may agree or disagree on the merits of the evidence but it boils down to how the jury read the picture.

[g_bambino]

Don't be an idiot---- there is NO reason to use the U--- we are not in Blighty

We are not in the United States, either. We're in Canada, where even an idiot like me knows honour is spelled with a "u".

[g_bambino]

Everything I have read and heard indicates that the only grounds for appeal in this case would consist of a reviewable error committed by the Trial Judge. For example, admissibility of evidence or improper advice to jurors. It would a sad state of affairs if an Appeal Judge had the power and authority to overrule the verdict of a jury just because he/she interpreted the evidence differently than the jury.

I see. Convictions and sentencing aren't areas I know terribly much about.

[capricorn]

I see. Convictions and sentencing aren't areas I know terribly much about.

I really don't either. The knowledge I have acquired is very, very, basic.

I have a lot of trust in our jury system. That's not to say juries never get it wrong. We have a mechanism in place to correct the most blatant of errors. What we must guard against is diluting the jury system to the point its usefulness is undermined.

[g_bambino]

That's probably why the Judge instructed the jury that the Crown need not prove motive to determine guilt. t boils down to how the jury read the picture.

Fellowtraveller's right, though, that the evidence, especially against the two parents, was light. To me, it seemed there was enough to establish that the parents were cerainly at least aware of, if not complicit in, the quadruple murder. Is being an accomplice to first degree murder enough to be found guilty of the murder itself?

[eyeball]

How so, against "Western imperialism" or the "Zionist entity"?

Against women, for the crimes they are perceived as having committed, like this poor woman who was punished for having borne a 2nd baby girl.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/afghan-woman-strangled-to-death-apparently-for-bearing-girl/article2319381/

[Evening Star]

No, but like it or not we CAME from there!

Just because we let in a bunch of new people who want to return the favour by changing the country to THEIR liking is no reason to give up our heritage!

Certainly, if all the newcomers FORCE us to do such there's no reason we have to smile and thank them for it!

Sometimes I'm truly sorry we opened the doors...

Hm? I don't see how immigration is the cause of people using American spellings. Unless you're referring to free trade and lax border security...

[Evening Star]

I do see a difference with the prosecution of this family. Proving motive was central to this case and central to the conviction. The physcial evidence was a bit light and especially so for the two older accused.

There was no doubt an element of xenophobia in the prosecution case, pointing a finger at the culture that is so foreign to the 12 people on the jury, hammering away at the mother and son on the stand about their cultural beliefs.

That part of this trial made me really uncomfortable.

Under Canadian law, proving the why and how of murder is irrelevant once self-defence and simialr issues are dismissed. Why does not matter. 'How' does not matter either, and in this case they still do not know how the women were killed other than cause of death by drowning. If, in this case, the prosecution used the culture card to 'bolster' their case- and their is absolutely no doubt they did- it actually weakens their case in my miond. A finding of guilty must be based on the evidence.

Yeah, I felt the same discomfort. I'm actually surprised at how excited people seem to be about this conviction, given the evidence that was presented.

[capricorn]

Fellowtraveller's right, though, that the evidence, especially against the two parents, was light.

I wasn't in the courtroom every day of this 3 month trial so I cannot conclude, as fellowtraveller has, that there wasn't enough evidence, direct or circumstantial, to convict. Through the media, I've picked up what amounts to excerpts of the trial proceedings and I found those elements quite compelling as to the Shafias' guilt. Yet, however I may feel about what I know of the evidence (or lack thereof) I accept the jury's verdict.

Appeals are underway and the question of evidence will be one central issue.

Echoing reports made in his closing arguments in the trial, the Ottawa-based lawyer said statements from the victims made to their boyfriends and teachers, who testified in court, represented hearsay evidence and should not have been heard by the jury.

“They’re reporting what someone else has said,” McCann said. “That evidence is fundamentally inadmissible and normally inadmissible. It’s only in somewhat exceptional circumstances that it gets admitted.… It requires some great care in assessing that kind of evidence before it should go in.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/01/31/shafia-appeal-murder.html

Even though the evidence that led to their conviction is largely circumstantial, local experts say it should not impact their chances at successful appeals.

"Not every case has direct evidence and that was certainly the situation here," said Douglas Baum, president of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa.

"What you're left with is whether or not there are any evidentiary issues in the course of the trial that could found an appeal."

According to Baum, this could include whether the judge made any errors in his instruction to the jury, or if errors were made in the ruling of any evidence.

Carissima Mathen, associate professor with the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa, agrees.

"The fact that they were convicted on circumstantial evidence does not make their appeal more likely to succeed," she said. "Appeals are common and what they will try to do is find some errors in the course of the judge's rulings."

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/30/youngest-shafia-files-notice-to-appeal

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah, I felt the same discomfort. I'm actually surprised at how excited people seem to be about this conviction, given the evidence that was presented.

Do you not find it odd that the car was in the canal with the lights and ignition turned off? How could they have driven off the road when the car wasn't even on? And since is was night time when they supposedly went for their joy ride, the lights would be on. Odd, too, that it appeared as if no one tried to escape through the open window - and the seats were pushed so far back that it would have been almost impossible to drive the car - and the opening that the car went through to go into the canal was such a tight squeeze that it was initially thought that the car was put there as a prank - until the bodies were found. And there were pieces of the smashed headlight on the SUV the Shafias drove at the sight where the car went into the canal. I don't see how anyone could think it was actually an accident. Odd, too, that while they were supposed to be in Niagara Falls there were calls from Kingston on their cell phone records. Also, even though they swore that all 10 family members were alive when they stopped for the night at the hotel, they only checked in for six people. And the searches for "murder" that showed up on their computer - I don't think the evidence was "light" at all; it was the result of 2 1/2 years of detailed investigation.

[capricorn]

And there were pieces of the smashed headlight on the SUV the Shafias drove at the sight where the car went into the canal.

And Hamed drove to Montreal alone in the SUV, had an accident and reported it, and wanted the repairs done ASAP. There's also Hamed saying he saw the Nissan roll into the water and he dangled a rope in the water to see if anyone in the Nissan would grab onto it. No one did so he left the scene and didn't make a 911 call to get help. That's more than odd behavior and very incriminating.

I don't think the evidence was "light" at all; it was the result of 2 1/2 years of detailed investigation.

Now imagine if you had been in the courtroom for the duration of the 3 month trial, and heard all the other evidence presented that wasn't reported in the media.

[Guest American Woman]

Now imagine if you had been in the courtroom for the duration of the 3 month trial, and heard all the other evidence presented that wasn't reported in the media.

I agree. The degree of evidence that people hear in a court room is far different from clips of evidence/testimony here and there - if it weren't, we could all just read the news and call in our verdict - we wouldn't need juries or trials, for that matter. I, too, questioned the "circumstantial" aspect of it at first - until I read more about it. Now, also recognizing the fact that the jury was privy to 3 months worth of evidence - I share your confidence in the jury and the verdict. I suppose that's not to say that it couldn't be overturned if there is an appeal, but I would be surprised.

[Evening Star]

Do you not find it odd that the car was in the canal with the lights and ignition turned off? How could they have driven off the road when the car wasn't even on? And since is was night time when they supposedly went for their joy ride, the lights would be on. Odd, too, that it appeared as if no one tried to escape through the open window - and the seats were pushed so far back that it would have been almost impossible to drive the car - and the opening that the car went through to go into the canal was such a tight squeeze that it was initially thought that the car was put there as a prank - until the bodies were found. And there were pieces of the smashed headlight on the SUV the Shafias drove at the sight where the car went into the canal. I don't see how anyone could think it was actually an accident. Odd, too, that while they were supposed to be in Niagara Falls there were calls from Kingston on their cell phone records. Also, even though they swore that all 10 family members were alive when they stopped for the night at the hotel, they only checked in for six people. And the searches for "murder" that showed up on their computer - I don't think the evidence was "light" at all; it was the result of 2 1/2 years of detailed investigation.

It's possible to believe that it wasn't an accident but to also think that the evidence of first-degree murder against the two parents might not be 100% airtight and to think that there are unanswered questions, based entirely on what was presented in the media, of course. Anyway, capricorn's quite right: I didn't review all the evidence that was presented in the courtroom (although people who are rejoicing or calling for a harsher sentence didn't either) and wasn't even really rigorous about reading the media reports. Based on the media reports, it didn't sound as obviously open-and-shut as e.g. the Rodney King case, say.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Evening Star

[capricorn]

I suppose that's not to say that it couldn't be overturned if there is an appeal, but I would be surprised.

As we are aware, murder convictions are routinely appealed. As it should be, it's incumbent on the Shafias' lawyers to plead their appeals. They themselves could be thinking they're grasping at straws. Nevertheless it's their job to push ahead and I don't doubt they take this task seriously.

[fellowtraveller]

That's probably why the Judge instructed the jury that the Crown need not prove motive to determine guilt. As I said in another post, if motive is determined and proved it solidifies the Crown's case. We may agree or disagree on the merits of the evidence but it boils down to how the jury read the picture.

And that is precisely why I am a bit uneasy about this trial: the Crown spending day after day after day speaking to motive, somehting they did not have to prove at all, and that motive was something which would resonate with a jury of whitebread Canadians. The motive was not proven and cannot be proven in this or many cases. Only evidence is proof. But by doing this, the Crown put a layer of stain on the family that simply cannot be cleaned.

It was idiotic of the defence to put the mother and son on the stand. They were terrible liars and terrible witnesses for the defence. The lawyer for Shafia knew that his client- foreign, brown, accented and filled with strange notions of honour- was the worst person to be allowed prolonged cross examination. So Shafia sat silently while his family dug themselves deeper just by speaking at all. Somehow this escaped the lawyers for the mother and son, that nothing was gained and much lost simply by having them speak.

[g_bambino]

It was idiotic of the defence to put the mother and son on the stand. They were terrible liars and terrible witnesses for the defence. The lawyer for Shafia knew that his client- foreign, brown, accented and filled with strange notions of honour- was the worst person to be allowed prolonged cross examination. So Shafia sat silently while his family dug themselves deeper just by speaking at all. Somehow this escaped the lawyers for the mother and son, that nothing was gained and much lost simply by having them speak.

The father - Mohammad - testified. It was the son, Hamed, who did not.

[fellowtraveller]

I wasn't in the courtroom every day of this 3 month trial so I cannot conclude, as fellowtraveller has, that there wasn't enough evidence, direct or circumstantial, to convict. Through the media, I've picked up what amounts to excerpts of the trial proceedings and I found those elements quite compelling as to the Shafias' guilt. Yet, however I may feel about what I know of the evidence (or lack thereof) I accept the jury's verdict.

Appeals are underway and the question of evidence will be one central issue.

I have not concluded that there was not enough evidence, only that it is thin. The worst of it is the scraps of healight at the crime scene(if that is whwere they were actually killed, nobody escept the killers knows). The sons explanation is laughable, and his later explanation of an accident and attempted escue is worse. But that does not in any way tie his parents to the scene or to the murders. I don't state they didn't all do it, but this case is missing some things.

[g_bambino]

Now imagine if you had been in the courtroom for the duration of the 3 month trial, and heard all the other evidence presented that wasn't reported in the media.

It's certainly possible (perhaps likely) that not all the evidence was included in the extensive media coverage of this trial. However, it seems likely that what the media would report on is the most incriminating evidence, since it would obviously be the most salacious. There was some pretty damning stuff against the son; but not much at all against the parents.

[Michael Hardner]

It's certainly possible (perhaps likely) that not all the evidence was included in the extensive media coverage of this trial. However, it seems likely that what the media would report on is the most incriminating evidence, since it would obviously be the most salacious. There was some pretty damning stuff against the son; but not much at all against the parents.

This is an interesting thing. I have wondered why I didn't hear about evidence during the trial.

This Winnipeg Free Press article summarizes the contents of a wire tap on the family, and a laptop search:

The family was speaking their native language of Dari, but Kingston police had brought two Farsi-speaking Toronto police officers into the investigation to assist with interpreting the wiretaps. Dari and Farsi are two very closely related dialects, akin to American and British English, court heard.

Over the next few days came angry rants from Shafia, cursing his dead daughters as whores for having boyfriends, and saying, "May the devil (defecate) on their graves." He brought up his concept of honour about half a dozen times.

"Even if they hoist me up onto the gallows...nothing is more dear to me than my honour," Shafia says in one conversation.

"This is my word to you: Be I dead or alive, nothing in the world is above than your honour," he says in another.

The pre-arrest phase culminated in a search warrant executed on July 21, 2009, when the Shafias first learned from the language on the order that they were being investigated for four counts each of first-degree murder. During the search, police found a diary written by Rona in which she alleged beatings and mistreatment from Shafia and Yahya, as well as other items that would prove to be crucial at trial.

One of those items was a laptop used mostly by Hamed. It was seized and, when a thorough analysis was completed many months later, investigators couldn't quite believe some of the searches that had been made.

"Where to commit a murder" was probably the most shocking, Koopman says.