Let's get back to the basics--I have answers to all four of your points:
1. Big surprise: Kissel's case was tried entirely in English, because in Hong Kong most serious cases are tried in English, although there are an increasing number of Chinese trails. This is due to that there are still a significant number of lawyers and judges who don't speak Chinese. Therefore only citizens who are registered as "fluent in English" would be summoned for the jury duty in an English trail. And if you can't show the proficiency required, of course you would be rejected during the jury selection, wouldn't you?
On top of all these, since most testimony are probably given in Chinese, there is always an interpreter sitting there. Every sentence is translated. Kind of tiresome if you ask me.
1B. "gweilos"... oh not the G word again. Discussing the etymology behind the word can probably fills a whole book. The connotations behind gweilo is complex to say the least. It did represents a resentment of invaders, but this was a century ago. In general today the word is, I dare to say, used neutrally. Or may be with a hint of envy, depends on context. Just like objective terms like "black" "white" "Asian" are still loaded with connotations that can be good or bad. Nancy Kissel is not only "gwei" (by the way, she is a "gweipo"-- "lo" means dude), but also a true foreigner, unlike many "gwei" who had made Hong Kong their home. And you are right, she is a rich one. Do her race and nationality induce negative bias? Some chance, but not very likely. Especially since (THANKS GOD FOR THAT!!) there is no inter-racial tension involved in this case. Everybody is white here.
And in terms of her wealth--you think it wouldn't be an issue had the killing and trial took place back in New York?
2. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume Robert Kissel was some kind of ***hole of an husband. There is indeed something wrong in his eyes. Perhaps this is my own bias against rich (*cough* white *cough*) people: under that high stress in the financial field, who can blame them all gone nut? Oh and it was Lehman Brothers that he worked for out of everything. So may be he did provoked her, whatever that means. BUT what about the milkshake and all the preparation behind it? I mean, I am really trying to imagine myself in her shoes, and I imagine if my husband did actually forced me to do it all the time from behind after disappearing for a whole day at work, may be I can begin to understand why would she want to do this. But with all these planning ahead I afraid it is just not the spontaneous defense against "provocation" that the court is looking for.
3. Oh poor Nancy... no seriously, I start to feel her pains, and that TV guy sounds more and more like an @$$. But there have to be less cold-blooded ways to get out of her situation than what she probably have done?
4. I really doubt if she would want to be tried in a US court, with the possibility of death penalty. This is taking place in a Hong Kong court, not a "Chinese" Chinese court. It is still using the old ultra-precise and clear British system, so legal proceedings are even more wordy than in an US court. They even keep the wigs worn by lawyers--oh I mean by BARRISTERS. As I said, death penalty is abolished here, as any civilized society should do, unlike what happen in a certain 1st world country...
Here I found a nice blog entry where an American lawyer sat in a Hong Kong court to listen to some routine hearing, and how he was surprised by its, well, analness. http://knifetricks.blogspot.com/2007/03/worlds-strangest-appellate-hea ring-hong.html
Look, your points are kind of valid, but can you just stop thinking in the mindset of "Chinese" versus "American", "Gweilo" versus "Chinks"? This is a legal proceeding where evidences are meretriciously presented and studied. It is not a "let's crucify the white woman" lynching thing. And exactly as you have said -- "She didn’t commit a crime against the Chinese people"--so she actually has the benefit of being spared from racial bias. If you must know, people in Hong Kong are watching this with tabloid interest and probably big bowls of popcorn, but there is also a sense of indifference, since the case doesn't involve Chinese on either side, and they can't really identify with the victim as well as the accused. To put in simpler, people just don't care about this enough to be biased either way. In this sense she can actually get a ultra fair trial there.
You may be right that she may have better chance to be acquitted in the US (if she doesn't get executed). One thing Hong Kong (and British) courts don't do is to get all emotional and involve all this "she is a poor wife who suffered from an abusive husband" fanfare. Either she did it or she didn't, end of story. So YES, since her case seems so thin, than she may be better off in front of an all-female middle-class jury back in US. But do you really call that justice?
By the way, Hong Kong prison isn't all that bad. You are thinking about "real" Chinese prison again.
reply
share