Basic Dimension
GOOGLE TRANSLATES INTO YOUR
OWN LANGUAGE, E.G. ARABIC:https://sexualreligion.blogspot.com
[All information in this article is to be found on the Internet.]
Conclusion:
Nobody defended Mirjam Abarkan. The lawyer defended the mother. The prosecutor defended the law. Both prosecutor and court are policor (political correctness) and shameless defended Islam and multiculturalism. It is a disgrace for the Netherlands.
Mirjam has been sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism. Policor high priests danced around her mutilated dead body. In the end Mirjam has been killed by our totally irresponsible and insane government, throwing all guilt on the desperate mother driven to madness. But their game of lying, framing and spinning will not go unnoticed into history books. Only the pathologist was honest, stood firm and proved Mirjam did not throw herself voluntary onto the knife. So Mirjam has been spared the biggest lie and greatest shame tried by the lawyer. Shame on you.
Our multicultural government is really guilty in her crazy attempt to merge two completely incompatible cultures. The mother could no way understand and resist the sick vortex of Islam in which she has fallen. She has been crushed between opposing cultures. Also she did not understand breaking Sexual Scales of Religion into sexuality and murder. She never understood Islam as the unconscious process for the bigger part it is.
She had already drifted far away from reality, allowed herself to propel through inner rage, and until now does still not understand what came into her that moment *. But it must be clear, conscious control diminished to zero and unconscious primal forces interacted to protect the tribe against outcasts as Miriam was in the family.
* It is an open question whether the mother or the brother killed Mirjam. I have the feeling this has not been properly investigated. There is no verifiable criminal investigation report and the scenario provided is illogical.
Other types, such as honor killings [murder resulting from the belief that a female family member's behavior has brought shame or dishonor upon the family] were carried out mostly by men but also sometimes by women.
Comment BD: It has been believed that the urge for honor killings has always been passed on culturally. That includes mothers, sisters and aunts. But the Sexual Model of Religion argues that honor killings are caused by an unconscious male sexual instinct based on reincarnation from inbreeding. While women are naturally inclined towards outcrossing. Then only a very small group of women could have been culturally indoctrinated to murder their daughter, sister or niece, without unconscious sexual drive.
In the case shown, the mother was divorced and the father lived elsewhere. The mother was mentally unstable but independent in her performance. No signs of a family tribunal (premeditation) have been found, but Miriam was known as the black sheep, the outcast of the family.
But what is my point? If a Dutch mother from our own exogamous culture becomes furious and loses self-control she will grab a broom or is throwing cups. But people from endogamous cultures should know better what is in their unconscious. They must learn who they really are.
We can not straighten this multicultural mess caused by the deliberate mixing of incompatible cultures. But if we understand what really happened with Mirjam, Sadia and Gülsüm, we might be able to control honor killings in future situations.
We can not straighten this multicultural mess caused by the deliberate mixing of incompatible cultures. But if we understand what really happened with Mirjam, Sadia and Gülsüm, we might be able to control honor killings in future situations.
But then first we must adopt better theories about honor killing. Throw away the empty shell theory of 'honor of the family' which gives no content at all but just identifies some symptoms of the honor syndrome.
Let us look behind the curtains of Islam and realize this faith is just an unconscious mess in the human mind.
Major faults in this juridical case
1: 'Prosecutor Lambers said no premeditation was found for honor killing and therefore concluded it was no first degree murder, but manslaughter.'
This kind of logic shapes the art for future honor killings in accordance with the jurisprudence (no visible conspiracies against the victim).
Furthermore:
Prosecutor Lambers said no premeditation was found for honor killing and therefore concluded it was no first degree murder, but manslaughter. So, if I kill my daughter with a knife intentionally as is proved by the pathologist it will be murder, because I am no Muslim. But if a Muslim kills his daughter and Lambers finds no indication for honor killing, it is manslaughter. This is a very weird way of logical thinking.
2: The court: 'In punishment-reducing purposes, the court rightly largely also factor in that the family members of the accused, also relatives of the victim, as demonstrated by the hearing of the court traveled victim statement against accused are forgiving, despite the loss of their daughter and sister.
Also at the hearing on appeal the bereaved have shown of forgiveness towards the accused and stated that the case has yielded only victims. In doing so, they stressed that, unlike the document of appeal of the prosecutor might suggest, they do not feel more sympathy for the suspect than for the victim, with her questionable puberal behavior.'
1: Damned, this puberal behavior is not questionable at all, but quite common for VHMO-girls at that age. It is a disgrace the court paraphrases Islamic culture and is unable or not willing to set Dutch pedagogical standards. Shame on you.
2: Here the court is paving undesirable jurisprudence in which united families are seen as positive elements in these crimes. But connected families or closed tribes are just the basic threat for victims of honor killings - which are to be expelled - and are never to be seen as reason for reduced sentence for perpetrators:
Assumption 284: Honor killings and acid attacks are caused by Muslims trying to obey the wishes of the ancestor fertility gods. These do not want to reincarnate into hybrids and bastards of Eve with that alien Serpent. And if they refuse to reincarnate the family dies out and family members cannot reincarnate. That's why families always form a closed front to kill the fallen daughter.
The only reason for reduced sentence for the mother is Dutch government accepts the fully burden of guilt. That would be the only correct way and honest decision.
But this time, under these unique circumstances, I rest my case and will agree with the result, since I do not want to blame the other kids. But that does not alter the laws governing honor killings. And remember, in the case of Sadia Sheikh the close and premeditating family was also completely in shock, completely devastated about what had happened. Sadia's honor killing was just partly conscious premeditated. But the bigger part of the motivation lies deep in the unconscious of the Muslim mind.
It was only for court that members of Sadia's family awoke from a bad dream and psychologically collapsed. So remember, honor killing is the end stage of a mainly unconscious process in the Muslim mind. Muslims don't really know what connects them. They are not able to understand the underlying process. This can only be unraveled by logical thinking in little steps from animal sexuality.
Her father once had a deep bond with Sadia. He also once loved his little girl. They all were rudely awakened from an unconscious dream that regressed them to Paradise culture. I dare to say they were not completely responsible for the crime they have done, as follows from the Sexual Theory of Religion. So don't judge these atrocities through a Western scope but go deeper, much deeper into the Muslim mind:
 |
| Sadia Sheikh |
Sadia Sheikh R.I.P.
Shot in the abdomen several times by her brother, while her sister allegedly held her from behind, died within three days.
|
WIKI:
The honour killing of Sadia Sheikh occurred on October 22, 2007, when a 20-year-old Belgian woman of Pakistani heritage was fatally shot by her brother. Sheikh had left her family home after her parents pressured her to marry a cousin she had never met, later moving in with a Belgian man, but had visited [her family] to try to make peace. Her brother confessed to the murder in a 2011 trial, claiming he had acted alone, but a jury pronounced all four members of the family guilty of the murder and sentenced each to prison. The case has been called Belgium's first honour killing trial.
It's clear the mother of Mirjam must be seen as a pawn on the chessboard of policor. She had almost no free space left to handle.
So, was the mother guilty? Well, she might have become rather transient psychotic
and depressed by the puberty of Mirjam. Was she guilty? Slightly, slightly guilty, but diminished responsible at the moment of crime. Does she deserve punishment, yes she does, but not too much. Three years sentence is okay.
Then she must start her life again, she will never forget but in the end she will understand to have been a victim herself too, to have been a pawn on the chess board between cultures and religions:
If you see the diagram below it is obvious there is virtually no free space left for the mother to be herself. She was crushed in the interactions between antagonistic religions and antagonistic cultures:
It appears Mirjam loved her mother dearly and that's a tragedy. She somehow seems to have foreseen her fate and might have been wiser than we think. Also one gets slightly the impression Mirjam has forgiven in advance what was going to happen in a daze. She wrote some very important letters which shine new light on the case, as if she sensed and anticipated the rules of Islamic game. It even might be she had a somewhat telepathic relationship with her mother, anyway they were very close:
"Mirjam also struggled with the situation at home. The prosecutor cites two letters to her mother she wrote in the months before her death. "I know a lot of things I did wrong. I did hurt you. I want to laugh with you. I do not need guys, I need you. "
In the letter Mirjam did a proposal for a solution, she suggested rules. "I hope you will give it a chance, because we are both crazy here. I'm not saying you were wrong, that I was too. Please write back. I love you."
This is not written by a child but by an adult in the making taking responsibility for her desperate mother. She saw her mother could not handle the situation. She definitely must have sensed and anticipated it was going wrong, badly wrong. She felt it. She knew it. Therefore she has taken care of her mother before and unconsciously might have forgiven in advance in a moment of contemplation. So, it might be read also as an unconscious consolation.
 |
| She might have forgiven in advance |
The case of Mirjam Abarkan is definitely different from Sadia Sheikh and Gülsüm Selim. Mirjam comes from religious endogamy and the other two from pure tribal endogamy. But beware, since both stem from the same domain called the honor syndrome:
Assumption 271: The honor syndrome is a complex of phenomena representing the now unconscious 'reincarnation into the earthly universe', what is forbidden in Islam as a mortal sin. It contains a range of phenomena from honor killings to lighter forms of honor revenge as honor rape and honor harassment by other family members.
Assumption 272: An honor killing is the extreme of the honor syndrome scale. This syndrome is determined by the theoretical domain of 'reincarnation into the earthly universe'. All atrocities forthcoming from the parental wish to reincarnate into the earthly universe by the inbred of their offspring, which results in child murder (Filicide) are to be seen as honor killings with or without evidence of forced marriages, which latter is no indicator but just another symptom of the honor syndrome.
This means the cause of honor killings is not only the refusal of an arranged marriage, but can also be dating with non-Muslims, loss of virginity, abortions and for example having a Western lifestyle. In conclusion, all events threatening the inbreeding and incest cult of the parents concerning reincarnation into the earthly universe can in principle lead to honor killings.
Assumption 273: Honor killings and forced marriages in inbreeding cultures are not unambiguously causally chained as both are just symptoms of the unconscious domain of 'reincarnation into the earthly universe'. This has great consequences for the trial of honor killings, as these can also be caused by dating non-Muslims, loss of virginity, abortions or having a Western lifestyle and the like.
Assumption 274: In a number of cases family counsels may give rise to honor killings but are never the cause. Both, counsels and killings are symptoms of the honor syndrome without unambiguous causal relation.
(130) The tragedy of Mirjam Abarkan
http://www.moordzaken.com/Mirjam_Abarkan
On January 2, 2013, the police gets the message that a severely injured young woman lies in a house on the Saffierpad. Despite the use of an air ambulance the girl dies. It appears the 16-year-old Miriam Abarkan.
Annex 3:
Quarrel
The girl was killed during a violent argument with her mother in the family home in IJsselstein. The quarrel arose after Ben M. had snatched Miriam's phone and was shocked by the content of the messages. [Inter alia not an Islamic boyfriend, BD].
IJSSELSTEIN - Girlfriends of the stabbed Miriam Abarkan from IJsselstein suspect that a ping message from her friend led to her death. The 16-year-old girl received the phone message just before she was stabbed.
Bijlage 3:
RUZIE
Het meisje kwam om het leven tijdens een heftige ruzie met haar moeder in de ouderlijke woning in IJsselstein. De ruzie ontstond nadat Ben M. Mirjam's telefoon had afgepakt en was geschrokken van de inhoud van de berichten. [o.a. niet islamitisch vriendje, BD].
IJSSELSTEIN - Vriendinnen van de doodgestoken Mirjam Abarkan uit IJsselstein vermoeden dat een ping-bericht van haar vriend tot haar dood geleid heeft. Het 16-jarige meisje kreeg het telefoonberichtje vlak voor ze werd neergestoken.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/21194324/__Eerwraak_lijkt_motief__.html
Eerwraak lijkt motief moord IJsselstein
03 JAN 2013
Honor killing seems motive murder IJselstein
IJSSELSTEIN - Honour killing appears the motive for the murder of 16-year-old Moroccan vmbo schoolgirl Mirjam Abarkan from IJsselstein. Yesterday she was killed, stabbed by a 42-year-old woman.
Presumably it refers to her mother who could not bear the fact that her daughter was with a Dutch boy, so notify relatives of the victim.
"Miriam had been secretly dating a Dutchman of 17 years. This her parents did not know earlier. " It has been said recently there was a huge feud in the family.
Just before the fatal moment two (unknown) men would have been at the entrance of the house at the Saffierpad. After arguing the door was slammed hard notify residents who packed together behind red and white police tape.
The victim was in the final year of pre-vocational secondary education Care and Welfare. In doings she was very westernized. For example, she wore no headscarf, did not talk about faith with classmates and drank alcohol. On her Facebook page, she is kissing a Dutch boy, according to Miriam's classmates.
[We need a criminal investigation report on the remark of the two (unknown) men]
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/04/15/wat-dreef-de-moeder-om-haar-kind-te-doden-1235741-a158724
Veel ophef na de dood van Mirjam Abarkan
Much ado after the death of Mirjam Abarkan
Besides her mother were a mentally handicapped brother and much younger sister in the house.
The death of the girl caused a lot of noise, especially when it is suggested that it is about a honor killing in a Muslim family. PVV MPs ask parliamentary questions on there.
Experts and the mother's lawyer claim that there is no evidence of honor killing.
[If it is honor killing depends on the definition. IMO it is pure honor killing and intentional murder, what does not mean the mother is the only responsible party. I think Dutch society is responsible. In fact I wonder if and how much the mother can be held responsible for this horrible situation.]
It seems the girlfriend of Mirjam tweeted the following:
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2013/01/rip_mirjam_16_steekpartij_in_s.html
She was stabbed by her mother and killed by her brother. (Tweets from her girlfriend)
She was stabbed by her mother and killed by her brother. (Tweets from her girlfriend)
No by her brother, he then ran away. her mother stood there. they blame her. (Tweets from her girlfriend)
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/04/15/wat-dreef-de-moeder-om-haar-kind-te-doden-1235741-a158724
Wat dreef de moeder om haar kind te doden
Een meisje (16) wordt door haar moeder gedood in hun huis. Waarom? Het meisje was niet zwanger, en het was geen eerwraak, zegt de advocaat.
The ambulance (trauma chopper) came too late for Mirjam Abarkan (16). She was stabbed twice with a knife by her mother. During an argument. She lately more often had a fight with her mother. Tomorrow is the pre-trial in Utrecht.
The mother (42) will not be there, says her lawyer Willem Jan Ausma. She remains in the house of custody until the actual hearing. Ausma will be there to briefly explain what happened according to him. Especially about what has not happened.
Because the drama in IJsselstein was no honor killing, he says decidedly. 'Honor killing' reported several media after the stabbing. For honor killing their should have been first a family council in advance. And then the decision must have been taken that the girl had to die. "That has not happened," Ausma said.
[And if a killer has no family, will there be no honor killing possible?]
Apparently Mr. Ausma is a follower of the hollow shell theory of 'honor of the family'. However, his reasoning about honor killing is defective and cannot change this obvious plain murder into manslaughter or even wrongful death. There simply are more reasons for honor killings.
'And who inspects the footage which made a neighbour of the trauma chopper from his attic of a house further in the street, will believe the father of Mirjam in any case knew nothing. You see him come home and go inside. He must have seen his daughter lying in the corridor because he comes rush out right back. Complete panic. It is hard to imagine that it has been played. And another thing: the family is of Moroccan origin. Especially in Moroccan circle honor killings are uncommon.'
[ Where is the criminal investigation report with the scenario to this crime, since us is told Mirjam has been stabbed upstairs in her room. I doubt if they took the dying bleeding girl downstairs without brancard. They would stabilize her upstairs first if it were professionals. When arrived the chopper and when the father? We need the timeline in minutes, it must be somewhere.]
'A report by the Dutch Forensic Institute concludes the girl was not pregnant. It has been investigated. Her grieving and cold shivering girlfriends in front of her parents' home, immediately said she was not pregnant. They had known when it had happened.'
[Pregnancy and abortion are corollaries of the honor syndrome. They really are well known causes of honor killings. But it is not 'when but if' the girl had been pregnant, lost her virginity or had an abortion. The instantaneous impulse to the murder likely was the ping message from her non-Muslim friend or the quarrel at the door. This have might triggered all the other causes, as the abortion two months ago.]
'Why exactly the mother kindled in anger is not entirely clear. An out of control family drama, says Ausma. In the eyes of her family Mirjam had a much to free lifestyle, that much is clear. And about this matter there had been several times quarrels within the family. She drank sometimes a drink and smoked a cigarette. She even stood with a cigarette in her hand on a photo on Facebook, anyone who wanted to could see it.
Shortly before her mother had discovered she had a boyfriend - a Dutch boy of Colombian origin. In the IJsselstein Moroccan community this was discussed. "I think it's also about trust," said Ausma. "Mom thought she no longer could trust her daughter."
Mirjam was perhaps held tighter than classmates. But the family was not extremely shut from the world. Friends of Miriam told that they were always welcome and often came to visit.
The mother had sought help for the problems she had with her daughter. She held meetings with different social work services. There her daughter was also invited but pulled out after a number of conversations. The school was aware of the problems, says Ausma. Miriam (actually her name was Maryam, she called herself Mirjam) was in the final year of vmbo care and welfare in the Cals College in IJsselstein.
Apperently all these counselors failed to recognize the seriousness of the problems. The director of the Cals College rejected so far to invite the press to talk about the case. Fight with a teenage daughter is not very exceptional. Quite make serious quarrel is also more common. Stabbing death your teenage daughter is exceptional. Ausma expects a lot of the psychological examination of the mother. She is studied at the prison by a psychiatrist and a psychologist. This report is not ready yet.
[Western society attaches to 'the hollow shell' theory of honor killings. Also Ausma thinks there will be no honor killing if there is no family council in advance. Now he can do two things: stubbornly insist this was no honor killing or change his theory so this can be an honor killing too. But of course lawyers are a special interest group defending perpetrators]
----------------------------
Mirjam was a "a beautiful girl" but "she also gave a lot of problems." On the fateful morning there was a quarrel. Chahira, mother of five children, wanted Mirjam to learn for her school exams. Mirjam however, wanted despite the ban of her mother - lying that she had to work in the supermarket - go to her friends. There followed an altercation on which Mirjam shouted from her bedroom to Chahira "Piss off, I'll kill you."
Then Chahira grabbed a knife from the bathroom that usually was used to get rid of newly purchased clothing labels. She handed over Mirjam the knife. Chahira "I thought, so then kill me. If I'm gone, you'll be sorry. If I'm gone, you realize your mother be sacrificed for you." What followed was a drama in which Mirjam was stabbed in the chest and abdomen with the knife.
What exactly happened Chahira can not remember. She only recalls fits of this nightmare. "Everything was gray-black. I do not know how I have put my daughter. I saw Mirjam held her hands over her belly. She fell into my arms. (..) I do not remember how I held the knife when I pulled her to me. I saw Mirjam had her arms across her stomach. I saw she was in pain. (..) My world collapsed. I saw blood, it came from above her chest, and abdomen. (..) I was tired, all the way up."
One of the daughters of Chahira read a statement during the trial.
She said her mother has been punished enough by the kill of Mirjam. "You were always there for us, after all the events now we do it for you too," said a heavy emotional daughter in court. They also begged the judges to impose the lowest possible sentence. The prosecution demanded 7 years at mother Chahira for killing Mirjam Abarkan. The prosecutor finds evidence that Chahira deliberately stabbed her daughter. However, he asked acquittal of murder because of a plan (eg due honor killing) did not exist.
Mirjam was een ‘een prachtmeid’ maar ‘ze gaf ook heel veel problemen’. Op de fatale ochtend was er ruzie. Chahira, moeder van 5 kinderen, vond dat Mirjam moest gaan leren voor haar schoolexamens. Mirjam had daar echter weinig trek in en wilde ondanks het verbod van haar moeder – liegend dat ze moest werken in de supermarkt – naar haar vriendinnen. Er volgende een woordenwisseling, waarop Mirjam vanuit haar slaapkamer Chahira toeschreeuwde: “Opkankeren, ik maak je af.” Hierop pakte Chahira een mes vanuit de badkamer die men doorgaans gebruikte om nieuw aangeschafte kleding van de labels te ontdoen. Ze reikte Mirjam het mes toe. Chahira: “Ik dacht, dan maak je me maar af. Als ik er niet meer ben, dan krijg je spijt. Als ik er niet meer ben, dan beseft je dat jouw moeder zich voor jou heeft opgeofferd.” Wat volgde was een drama waarbij Mirjam in borst en buik met het mes werd gestoken.
Wat er precies allemaal gebeurd is kan Chahira zich allemaal niet meer goed herinneren. Slechts vlagen van deze nachtmerrie weet ze nog. “Alles werd grijs-zwart. Ik weet niet hoe ik mijn dochter heb gestoken. Ik zag hoe Mirjam haar handen voor haar buik hield. Ze viel in mijn armen. (..) Ik weet niet meer hoe ik het mes vasthield toen ik haar naar mij toetrok. Ik zag dat Mirjam haar armen voor haar buik had. Ik zag dat ze pijn had. (..) Mijn wereld stortte in. Ik zag bloed, het kwam van boven uit haar borst, en buik. (..) Ik was moe, helemaal op.” Een van de dochters van Chahira las tijdens de rechtszaak een verklaring voor. Volgens haar is haar moeder al genoeg gestraft met de dood Mirjam. “Je stond altijd voor ons klaar, na alle gebeurtenissen staan wij dat voor jou”, aldus een hevig geëmotioneerde dochter voor de rechtbank. Ze smeekte de rechters dan ook een zo laag mogelijke straf op te leggen. Het OM eist 7 jaar tegen moeder Chahira voor het doden van Mirjam Abarkan. De aanklager vindt bewezen dat Chahira haar dochter opzettelijk heeft doodgestoken. Wel vroeg hij vrijspraak van moord, omdat van een plan (bijvoorbeeld vanwege eerwraak) geen sprake was.
----------------------------
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/07/10/mirjam-dreef-haar-moeder-tot-wanhoop-12681382-a498558
Mirjam dreef haar moeder tot wanhoop
Een heftig puberende dochter en een moeder die de greep op haar kwijt is. Hun ruzie kostte de dochter het leven.
"On behalf of all members of the family, we beg you to the lowest possible punishment. Unfortunately we do not get back our Mirjam. But take our mother and wife not long away from us. "
At the end of the morning Layla Abarkan, older sister Mirjam, uses her right to speak. Mirjam was stabbed to death on January 2nd. Her mother, from Morocco, confessed to the deed.
Layla sits in front in the Utrecht court, in front of the three judges. Mother Chahira ben M. (43) sits next to her. She wears no headscarf. Her shoulders are shaking. Talk without crying, her barely succeeds.
The session expires emotional. For the first time the mother speaks in public about that winter morning, when an argument with her 16 year old daughter ended fatally. It is a story about a daughter in a heavy puberal phase, and a mother who slowly loses grip, feel distraught and struggles with depression.
Mirjam provoked her parents with her lifestyle. She drank alcohol, smoked and openly had a boyfriend. Her grades in school went down, her mother thought she smoked weed and she had heard her daughter underwent an abortion a few months earlier. Difficult for parents to deal with, especially when there is still gossip about. Chahira mother tried to conceal the problems as much as possible for her husband.
Not only at home Miriam explored the limits. During a trip to Paris with school, she was sent home prematurely. She caused too many problems.
The night before the fatal stabbing tension between Miriam and her mother already was running high. The police explained that Chahira issued her daughter on January 1 an ultimatum: "Your friends or your family."
Miriam informed her mother by text message that she would not come home, she wanted to sleep somewhere else. Her mother thought she wanted to run away, but Miriam slept that night at home anyway.
Next morning Chahira ben. M. brought her youngest daughter by car to the swimming pool. When she came home, it was quiet. She just wanted to lie in bed. "I was so tired."
Mirjam was in the bathroom, and went to her bedroom. Chahira grabbed her daughter's Blackberry and saw several messages that were shocking and emotioned her. She went to the room of Miriam, to talk with her daughter about what she did to the family with her behavior. Miriam cried, "Piss off, I'll kill you!"
Her mother went to the bathroom. There was a knife that was used to collect tickets and labels from new garments. With the knife she returned to Miriam, shouting: "Get me off! Finish me! "
According to the prosecutor, the mother then likely stabbed: once in the chest and once in the abdomen. Miriam died of those injuries.
After the first stitch in her stomach, Mirjam held her arms over her stomach. She screamed that she "fucks" with the boy from whom she would be pregnant. Later section would prove she was not pregnant.
Mirjam's mother can not remember everything any more. "Everything went black before my eyes, I really do not know." She could still turn on the emergency services.Psychological research has shown Chahira ben M. is mentally healthy.
She can think well about their own actions. But in early January she felt depressed, hopeless and powerless.
Psychological research has shown Chahira ben M. is mentally healthy. She can think well about their own actions. But early January she was depressed, felt hopeless, powerless. Thus, she had less control over herself. The experts consider the risk of recurrence is nil.
Mirjam also struggled with the situation at home. The prosecutor cites two letters to her mother she wrote in the months before her death. "I know a lot of things I did wrong. I did hurt you. I want to laugh with you. I do not need guys, I need you. "
In the letter Mirjam did a proposal for a solution, she suggested rules. "I hope you will give it a chance, because we are both crazy here. I'm not saying you were wrong, that I was too. Please write back. I love you."
The prosecutor demanded seven years in prison. That is one year less than the maximum for manslaughter. According to the officer there was no premeditation or honor-related violence, but he weighs the responsibility of the mother heavily "A mother stands for security, safety and comfort."Which all she has not given at the end of Mirjam's life.
Ruling on 23 July.
9 juli 2013
UTRECHT - The substantive hearing of the murder of the 16 / year old Mirjam Abarkan makes it clear that the family of mother Chahira ben M. from IJselstein had a lot of problems. Problems we see more often in court. Miriam was a girl who wanted to go to parties at moments she had to learn for school and a girl who dealt with wrong friends (Non-Muslims, BD)
Arranged marriage (?)
A mother who, perhaps because Mirjam was forced to a marriage with a Muslim, did not have the right response on the behavior of Mirjam. And a mother with mental health problems who goes way too far during an argument. Where daughter Miriam cries out that she is pregnant, there is a knife. According to the mother she wanted to let herself be killed by her daughter.
Pathologist
The defense seems to suggest that daughter Miriam might have thrown herself into the knife. But the only cool woman in the audience today, the pathologist of the NFI gives the defense little hope. It is an experienced pathologist who can explain how such wounds must look like.
Manslaughter
Legally this sensational is simple. There is a confession. Prosecutor Lambers can tell that no indication has been found of honor killing. Therefore, it is not murder. The officer called Chahira slightly diminished responsible. The officer weighs the personal circumstances heavily, just as he would for any other Dutchman. He demanded seven years in prison.
Lawyer Willem Jan Ausma requires a much shorter sentence. This family needs the mother quickly, says Ausma. Pronunciation 23rd July.
At the end of the morning Layla Abarkan, older sister Mirjam, uses her right to speak. Mirjam was stabbed to death on January 2nd. Her mother, from Morocco, confessed to the deed.
Layla sits in front in the Utrecht court, in front of the three judges. Mother Chahira ben M. (43) sits next to her. She wears no headscarf. Her shoulders are shaking. Talk without crying, her barely succeeds.
The session expires emotional. For the first time the mother speaks in public about that winter morning, when an argument with her 16 year old daughter ended fatally. It is a story about a daughter in a heavy puberal phase, and a mother who slowly loses grip, feel distraught and struggles with depression.
Mirjam provoked her parents with her lifestyle. She drank alcohol, smoked and openly had a boyfriend. Her grades in school went down, her mother thought she smoked weed and she had heard her daughter underwent an abortion a few months earlier. Difficult for parents to deal with, especially when there is still gossip about. Chahira mother tried to conceal the problems as much as possible for her husband.
Not only at home Miriam explored the limits. During a trip to Paris with school, she was sent home prematurely. She caused too many problems.
The night before the fatal stabbing tension between Miriam and her mother already was running high. The police explained that Chahira issued her daughter on January 1 an ultimatum: "Your friends or your family."
Miriam informed her mother by text message that she would not come home, she wanted to sleep somewhere else. Her mother thought she wanted to run away, but Miriam slept that night at home anyway.
Next morning Chahira ben. M. brought her youngest daughter by car to the swimming pool. When she came home, it was quiet. She just wanted to lie in bed. "I was so tired."
Mirjam was in the bathroom, and went to her bedroom. Chahira grabbed her daughter's Blackberry and saw several messages that were shocking and emotioned her. She went to the room of Miriam, to talk with her daughter about what she did to the family with her behavior. Miriam cried, "Piss off, I'll kill you!"
Her mother went to the bathroom. There was a knife that was used to collect tickets and labels from new garments. With the knife she returned to Miriam, shouting: "Get me off! Finish me! "
According to the prosecutor, the mother then likely stabbed: once in the chest and once in the abdomen. Miriam died of those injuries.
After the first stitch in her stomach, Mirjam held her arms over her stomach. She screamed that she "fucks" with the boy from whom she would be pregnant. Later section would prove she was not pregnant.
Mirjam's mother can not remember everything any more. "Everything went black before my eyes, I really do not know." She could still turn on the emergency services.Psychological research has shown Chahira ben M. is mentally healthy.
She can think well about their own actions. But in early January she felt depressed, hopeless and powerless.
Psychological research has shown Chahira ben M. is mentally healthy. She can think well about their own actions. But early January she was depressed, felt hopeless, powerless. Thus, she had less control over herself. The experts consider the risk of recurrence is nil.
Mirjam also struggled with the situation at home. The prosecutor cites two letters to her mother she wrote in the months before her death. "I know a lot of things I did wrong. I did hurt you. I want to laugh with you. I do not need guys, I need you. "
In the letter Mirjam did a proposal for a solution, she suggested rules. "I hope you will give it a chance, because we are both crazy here. I'm not saying you were wrong, that I was too. Please write back. I love you."
The prosecutor demanded seven years in prison. That is one year less than the maximum for manslaughter. According to the officer there was no premeditation or honor-related violence, but he weighs the responsibility of the mother heavily "A mother stands for security, safety and comfort."Which all she has not given at the end of Mirjam's life.
Ruling on 23 July.
9 juli 2013
nieuws, rechtbank doodlsag, IJsselstein, Mirjam Abarkan, Rechtbank Midden Nederland Plaats een reactie
Mirjam Abarkan was an extremely awkward puberUTRECHT - The substantive hearing of the murder of the 16 / year old Mirjam Abarkan makes it clear that the family of mother Chahira ben M. from IJselstein had a lot of problems. Problems we see more often in court. Miriam was a girl who wanted to go to parties at moments she had to learn for school and a girl who dealt with wrong friends (Non-Muslims, BD)
Arranged marriage (?)
A mother who, perhaps because Mirjam was forced to a marriage with a Muslim, did not have the right response on the behavior of Mirjam. And a mother with mental health problems who goes way too far during an argument. Where daughter Miriam cries out that she is pregnant, there is a knife. According to the mother she wanted to let herself be killed by her daughter.
Pathologist
The defense seems to suggest that daughter Miriam might have thrown herself into the knife. But the only cool woman in the audience today, the pathologist of the NFI gives the defense little hope. It is an experienced pathologist who can explain how such wounds must look like.
Manslaughter
Legally this sensational is simple. There is a confession. Prosecutor Lambers can tell that no indication has been found of honor killing. Therefore, it is not murder. The officer called Chahira slightly diminished responsible. The officer weighs the personal circumstances heavily, just as he would for any other Dutchman. He demanded seven years in prison.
Lawyer Willem Jan Ausma requires a much shorter sentence. This family needs the mother quickly, says Ausma. Pronunciation 23rd July.
Mirjam Abarkan was an extremely awkward adolescent
9 juli 2013
nieuws, rechtbank doodlsag, IJsselstein, Mirjam Abarkan, Rechtbank Midden Nederland Plaats een reactie
Manslaughter
Legally this sensational case is simple. There is a confession. Prosecutor Lambers can tell that no indication has been found of honor killing. Therefore, it is not murder. The officer called Chahira slightly diminished responsible. The officer weighs the personal circumstances heavily, just as he would for any other Dutchman. He demanded seven years in prison.
[1: 'Prosecutor Lambers said no premeditation was found for honor killing and therefore concluded it was no first degree murder, but manslaughter.'
This kind of logic shapes the art of future honor killings in accordance with the law (no visible conspiracies against the victim).]
Basic Dimension:
Normally in murder cases there is a scenario made up by the criminal investigation department. This will be found broadly in the media. But in this case we have to guess how the murder is performed. Maybe once the scenario will be made public. But meanwhile we will construct our own scenario on the basis of what is said in the media.
- The first doubt is 'the confession' of the mother. I expect there were more persons in the house, so I don't buy that confession. I could imagine the mother has taken responsibility for another person. Where can I find the scenario of the criminal investigation?
- The second doubt is the statement 'prosecutor Lambers can tell that no indication has been found of honor killing. Therefore, it is not murder.' This must be a joke, for if a Dutch father kills his daughter with a big knife intentionally into the heart it definitely will be plain murder.
But if a Muslim mother does the same it is manslaughter because it was no honor killing. This is an absurd conclusion. This must be policor framing.
We cannot trust Dutch justice and Dutch police. Both are instruments of policor (political correctness) and even with the reports in their hands we cannot trust them. We are completely dependent on our own logical thinking. That's what I will do in this article.
I assume there has been found no indication of pressure to a forced marriage with a Muslim. It is known this pressure to a forced marriage - or a family counsel - would identify the crime as an honor killing in the hollow shell theory of 'honor of the family'. However, the mere absence of a forced marriage is not enough to change this obvious plain murder into manslaughter or even wrongful death. There simply are more reasons for honor killings:
In our domain of reincarnation the murder of Mirjam Abarkan must definitely be seen as an honor killing for the following circumstantial reasons indicating inbreeding:
1: Mirjam dated a Dutch boy who was not a Muslim.
2: Mirjam has been pregnant two months ago.Two months before her death Miriam underwent abortion.
3: Mirjam lost her virginity.
These are most compelling red flag reasons to kill daughters in inbreeding cultures like Islam, besides refusing a forced marriage.
We conclude the slaughter of Mirjam Abarkan was plain murder and no manslaughter, it was intended since we suspect the mother took the knife with her from the kitchen below to the room of Mirjam upstairs, and had time enough to think it over. Think about it, nobody with children leaves a knife in the bathroom next to the room of Mirjam to cut labels from clothes. That's ridiculous. I don't buy this joke from the prosecutor. They might have invented the knife in the bathroom to erase intended murder, it had to be an instantaneous act in a fit of insanity.
On the other hand it can not be excluded Mirjam has been killed downstairs. No recherche report has been made public about the scenario of this murder. I do not know if the mother was the murderer, I just have to doubt since in the Netherlands we cannot trust the police and the court. They spin and frame and sometimes lie to change the scenario to the public.
Court report:Legally this sensational case is simple. There is a confession. Prosecutor Lambers can tell that no indication has been found of honor killing. Therefore, it is not murder. The officer called Chahira slightly diminished responsible. The officer weighs the personal circumstances heavily, just as he would for any other Dutchman. He demanded seven years in prison.
[1: 'Prosecutor Lambers said no premeditation was found for honor killing and therefore concluded it was no first degree murder, but manslaughter.'
This kind of logic shapes the art of future honor killings in accordance with the law (no visible conspiracies against the victim).]
Basic Dimension:
Normally in murder cases there is a scenario made up by the criminal investigation department. This will be found broadly in the media. But in this case we have to guess how the murder is performed. Maybe once the scenario will be made public. But meanwhile we will construct our own scenario on the basis of what is said in the media.
- The first doubt is 'the confession' of the mother. I expect there were more persons in the house, so I don't buy that confession. I could imagine the mother has taken responsibility for another person. Where can I find the scenario of the criminal investigation?
- The second doubt is the statement 'prosecutor Lambers can tell that no indication has been found of honor killing. Therefore, it is not murder.' This must be a joke, for if a Dutch father kills his daughter with a big knife intentionally into the heart it definitely will be plain murder.
But if a Muslim mother does the same it is manslaughter because it was no honor killing. This is an absurd conclusion. This must be policor framing.
We cannot trust Dutch justice and Dutch police. Both are instruments of policor (political correctness) and even with the reports in their hands we cannot trust them. We are completely dependent on our own logical thinking. That's what I will do in this article.
I assume there has been found no indication of pressure to a forced marriage with a Muslim. It is known this pressure to a forced marriage - or a family counsel - would identify the crime as an honor killing in the hollow shell theory of 'honor of the family'. However, the mere absence of a forced marriage is not enough to change this obvious plain murder into manslaughter or even wrongful death. There simply are more reasons for honor killings:
Assumption 271: The honor syndrome is a complex of phenomena representing the now unconscious 'reincarnation into the earthly universe', what is forbidden in Islam as a mortal sin. It contains a range of phenomena from honor killings to lighter forms of honor revenge as honor rape and honor harassment by other family members.
Assumption 272: An honor killing is the extreme of the honor syndrome scale. This syndrome is determined by the theoretical domain of 'reincarnation into the earthly universe'. All atrocities forthcoming from the parental wish to reincarnate into the earthly universe by the inbred of their offspring, which results in child murder (Filicide) are to be seen as honor killings with or without evidence of forced marriages, which latter is no indicator but just another symptom of the honor syndrome.
This means the cause of honor killings is not only the refusal of an arranged marriage, but can also be dating with non-Muslims, loss of virginity, abortions and for example having a Western lifestyle. In conclusion, all events threatening the inbreeding and incest cult of the parents concerning reincarnation into the earthly universe can in principle lead to honor killings.
Assumption 273: Honor killings and forced marriages in inbreeding cultures are not unambiguously causally chained as both are just symptoms of the unconscious domain of 'reincarnation into the earthly universe'. This has great consequences for the trial of honor killings, as these can also be caused by dating non-Muslims, loss of virginity, abortions or having a Western lifestyle and the like.
Assumption 274: In a number of cases family counsels may give rise to honor killings but are never the cause. Both, counsels and killings are symptoms of the honor syndrome without unambiguous causal relation.
In our domain of reincarnation the murder of Mirjam Abarkan must definitely be seen as an honor killing for the following circumstantial reasons indicating inbreeding:
1: Mirjam dated a Dutch boy who was not a Muslim.
2: Mirjam has been pregnant two months ago.Two months before her death Miriam underwent abortion.
3: Mirjam lost her virginity.
These are most compelling red flag reasons to kill daughters in inbreeding cultures like Islam, besides refusing a forced marriage.
We conclude the slaughter of Mirjam Abarkan was plain murder and no manslaughter, it was intended since we suspect the mother took the knife with her from the kitchen below to the room of Mirjam upstairs, and had time enough to think it over. Think about it, nobody with children leaves a knife in the bathroom next to the room of Mirjam to cut labels from clothes. That's ridiculous. I don't buy this joke from the prosecutor. They might have invented the knife in the bathroom to erase intended murder, it had to be an instantaneous act in a fit of insanity.
On the other hand it can not be excluded Mirjam has been killed downstairs. No recherche report has been made public about the scenario of this murder. I do not know if the mother was the murderer, I just have to doubt since in the Netherlands we cannot trust the police and the court. They spin and frame and sometimes lie to change the scenario to the public.
At the hearing it became clear that Mirjam completely against the wishes of her parents had intimate contact with boys, used drugs and drank alcohol. The mother Chahira lives in the Netherlands since she was 8 years old and is more desperate than strictly to her daughter's behavior. She has tried to hide these behaviors as much as possible for the father, her husband. Total panic swept her off when Mirjam appeared pregnant in late 2012. Two months before her death Mirjam underwent abortion. Help of social workers and the school where the academic performance of Mirjam were very lousy, was invoked. From all this Mirjam became more and more recalcitrant. A school trip to Paris had to be aborted by a foot-stomping Mirjam.
Ter zitting werd duidelijk dat Mirjam geheel tegen de wens van haar ouders intiem omging met jongens, drugs gebruikte en alcohol dronk. Moeder Chahira woont al sinds haar 8e levensjaar in Nederland en is eerder wanhopig dan streng om het gedrag van haar dochter. Ze heeft geprobeerd deze gedragingen zoveel mogelijk verborgen te houden voor de vader, haar echtgenoot. Totale paniek brak bij haar uit toen Mirjam in het najaar van 2012 zwanger bleek. Twee maanden voor haar dood heeft Mirjam abortus ondergaan. Hulp van maatschappelijk werk en de school, waar de leerprestaties van Mirjam zeer belabberd waren, werd ingeroepen. Al dit werkte meer recalcitrantie bij Mirjam in de hand. Een schoolreisje naar Parijs moest door een ‘stampvoetende Mirjam’ worden afgebroken.
Prosecution
http://www.moordzaken.com/Mirjam_Abarkan
On July 8, 2013 the prosecution demands seven years against Chahira ben Mimoun for manslaughter. Although the girl two months earlier underwent an abortion and had contact with "bad" guys according to the family, the prosecution excludes premeditation to murder and honor killing. Mirjam is deceased to a stab wound in her abdomen and and one in her heart.
Indications of the honor syndrome[1: 'Prosecutor Lambers said no premeditation was found for honor killing and therefore concluded it was no first degree murder, but manslaughter.'
Prosecutor Lambers said no premeditation was found for honor killing and therefore concluded it was no first degree murder, but manslaughter. So, if I kill my daughter with a knife intentionally as is proved by the pathologist it will be murder, because I am no Muslim. But if a Muslim kills his daughter and Lambers finds no indication for honor killing, it is manslaughter. This is a very weird way of logical reasoning.
The problem is he can hardly judge the indications of the honor syndrome. He gambles on whether it is honor killing without proper substantive argumentation. IMO the slaughter of Mirjam Abarkan was plain murder and no manslaughter, it likely was intended since the mother took the knife with her from the kitchen below to the room of Mirjam upstairs, and so had time enough to think it over. Think about it, nobody with children leaves a big killing knife in the bathroom next to the rooms of Mirjam and the other children to collect tickets and labels from new garments. That's ridiculous. I don't buy this joke from the prosecutor.They might have invented the knife in the bathroom to erase intended murder, as it had to look like an instantaneous act in a fit of insanity. On the other hand we are not sure Mirjam has been killed downstairs by the mother or anybody else.
No criminal investigation report has been made public about the scenario of this murder, which is very abnormal. I do not know if the mother was the murderer, but I have to doubt since in the Netherlands we cannot trust the police and the court. They spin and frame and sometimes lie to change the scenario to the public.
This kind of logic shapes the art of future honor killings in accordance with the law (no visible conspiracies against the victim).]
Uitspraak
Rechtbank Midden-Nederland, 23 juli 2014Pronunciation
Court Middle Netherlands, July 23, 2014
In the months before the incident suspect was in a depressive episode which was moderate (to) serious at the time of the accused fact. She experienced feelings of emptiness, despair and hopelessness. Also an overwhelming sense of mental and physical fatigue was strongly present. In addition, she experienced irritability towards its children and sometimes a restless feeling because of the many worries.
At the time of the alleged crime there was a conflict with her daughter [victim]. Earlier there were months of existing arguments and ever-increasing problems. Immediately prior to the alleged crime there was a violent, escalating altercation, which was qualified by the suspect as intense anger from the victim, who used abusive, confrontational words in the direction of the suspect. At that time suspect experienced feelings of anger and sadness, but also describes impotence, fatigue and the desire to "just lie" to get rest. The experts conclude that defendant has been in a recurrent depressive disorder, moderate in nature and furthermore a parent-child problem. Experts advise to consider suspect as somewhat diminished responsible in respect of the offense charged. The court adopts the reasons and considerations on which the conclusions of the experts rely on and make it to hers. However, on this basis the court comes to a different conclusion. The court believes that the strong fatigue of the suspect and her from depression existing feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness have contributed to that the defendant has not fully overseen the situation that has arisen and was limited in her ability to terminate the conflict in an adequate way and to prevent further escalation. The slight agitation from depression has additionally limited the person in her impulse control. Thus, the relationship is present to the depressive disorder. Unlike the experts, the court will consider the suspect as diminished responsible. The court charges the defendant that she has taken a sharp knife in a fight with her daughter and thus has created a - for both of them - life-threatening situation, which by her fault for [victim] is fatal past. Suspect has with her actions damaged the integrity of life of a young girl, her own daughter, in the worst shape.
The court sentences defendant to a term of 3 (three) years.
Uitspraak van de rechter
ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2013:2900
Instantie
Rechtbank Midden-Nederland
Datum uitspraak
23-07-2013
Datum publicatie
23-07-2013
Zaaknummer
16/700030-13
Rechtsgebieden
Strafrecht
Bijzondere kenmerken
Eerste aanleg - meervoudig
Inhoudsindicatie
Een 43-jarige vrouw is dinsdag door de rechtbank in Utrecht tot drie jaar gevangenisstraf veroordeeld voor het doodsteken van haar dochter [slachtoffer] op 2 januari 2013 in IJsselstein. De rechtbank achtte doodslag bewezen.
Vindplaatsen
Rechtspraak.nl
Uitspraak
RECHTBANK MIDDEN-NEDERLAND
Afdeling Strafrecht
Zittingslocatie Utrecht
Parketnummer: 16/700030-13 (P)
vonnis van de meervoudige strafkamer van 23 juli 2013
in de strafzaak tegen
[verdachte],
geboren op [1970] te [geboorteplaats](Marokko),
gedetineerd in PI Overijssel, PIV te Zwolle.
1 Het onderzoek ter terechtzitting
Het onderzoek ter terechtzitting heeft plaatsgevonden op 16 april 2013 en 9 juli 2013. De verdachte is op de terechtzitting van 9 juli 2013 in persoon verschenen en heeft zich laten bijstaan door mr. W.J. Ausma, advocaat te Utrecht.
De rechtbank heeft kennisgenomen van de vordering van de officier van justitie en van wat verdachte en de raadsman naar voren hebben gebracht.
2 Tenlastelegging
De tenlastelegging is als bijlage aan dit vonnis gehecht.
De verdenking komt er, kort en feitelijk weergegeven, op neer dat verdachte:
op 2 januari 2013 te IJsselstein [slachtoffer ]heeft doodgestoken.
3 Voorvragen
De dagvaarding is geldig, deze rechtbank is bevoegd tot kennisneming van het ten laste gelegde feit en de officier van justitie is ontvankelijk. Er zijn geen redenen voor schorsing van de vervolging.
4 Waardering van het bewijs
4.1
Feiten en omstandigheden
De rechtbank gaat op grond van de wettige bewijsmiddelen van de volgende feiten en omstandigheden uit. 1
Op 2 januari 2013 heeft in de woning van verdachte te IJsselstein een incident tussen verdachte en haar dochter [slachtoffer ] plaatsgevonden. Tijdens een woordenwisseling met haar dochter heeft verdachte een mes uit de badkamer gepakt. 2 [slachtoffer ] heeft twee messteken opgelopen, één in haar buik en één in haar borstkas. [slachtoffer ] is ten gevolge van deze messteken overleden. 3
4.1
Het standpunt van het Openbaar Ministerie
De officier van justitie heeft vrijspraak gevorderd voor het impliciet primair ten laste gelegde (moord), omdat het wettig en overtuigend bewijs daartoe ontbreekt. De officier van justitie acht wel wettig en overtuigend bewezen dat verdachte het impliciet subsidiair ten laste gelegde (doodslag) heeft begaan en baseert zich daarbij op de zich in het dossier bevindende bewijsmiddelen.
4.2
Het standpunt van de verdediging
De verdediging is van mening dat zowel het impliciet primair ten laste gelegde (moord) als het impliciet subsidiair ten laste gelegde (doodslag) niet bewezen kan worden verklaard, zodat verdachte moet worden vrijgesproken.
De verdediging heeft aangevoerd dat opzet op de dood van [slachtoffer ] niet bewezen kan worden, nu de eerste steekwond door toedoen van [slachtoffer ] zelf is ontstaan en niet duidelijk is wat er daarna precies is gebeurd. Verdachte heeft het mes niet gepakt om te steken maar om een statement te maken. Mogelijk is [slachtoffer ] gevallen of is zij tijdens de worsteling of schermutseling per ongeluk in de borststreek geraakt.
Er is sprake van een ongeluk met fatale afloop, aldus de verdediging
Er is sprake van een ongeluk met fatale afloop, aldus de verdediging
4.4 Het oordeel van de rechtbank
Vrijspraak
De rechtbank is met de officier van justitie en de verdediging van oordeel dat het dossier geen bewijsmiddelen bevat die erop duiden dat er sprake was van voorbedachte raad bij verdachte om [slachtoffer ]van het leven te beroven. De rechtbank zal verdachte dan ook vrijspreken van het impliciet primair ten laste gelegde.
Bewijs
Verdachte heeft bij de politie over het incident met [slachtoffer ] op 2 januari 2013 verklaard dat, nadat [slachtoffer ] tijdens de ruzie tegen verdachte zei “opkankeren” en “ik maak je af”, zij, verdachte, naar de badkamer is gegaan om een mes te pakken en met dit mes naar [slachtoffer ] kamer is gelopen. 4
Over hetgeen vervolgens is gebeurd heeft zij verklaard (letterlijk weergegeven):
‘En voordat ik het wist had ik die mes in mijn handen en zij zat op het bed. Ik schreeuw tegen haar: “Hier als je mij wilt afmaken doe het dan, misschien krijg je dan spijt en dan komt het wel goed met je.” Opeens stond zij op van het bed en trok mij naar zich toe, maar ik had die mes. (…) Ze trok me naar zich toe. (…)’ 5 En vervolgens:
‘Ze zat daar, ze stond … toen zij mij naar zich toe trok… in haar buik. (…) en zei ze van: “nu heb je me, nu heb je me (…) gestoken… nu ga ik weg, naar [naam] d’r vader… en toen heb ik volgens mij, ik weet het niet. Het werd opeens zo grijs, zo zwart.’ 6
Op de vraag: ‘Raak je haar op het moment dat [slachtoffer ] je naar haar toe trok?’, antwoordt verdachte bij de politie: ‘Volgens mij wel, want daarna hield ze zich zo vast (verdachte doet beide armen om haar buik).’ 7
Verder heeft verdachte bij de politie 8 en ook ter terechtzitting op 9 juli 2013 verklaard dat toen [slachtoffer ] naar verdachte toe kwam, zij, verdachte, zag dat een heleboel bloed uit [slachtoffer ] borst en uit haar buik kwam. Vervolgens viel [slachtoffer ] in verdachtes armen en viel zij met [slachtoffer ] neer.
Bij gerechtelijke sectie werden bij [slachtoffer ] letsels A en B vastgesteld, welke bij leven waren ontstaan door inwerking van uitwendig mechanisch scherprandig perforerend/ klievend geweld, zoals opgeleverd kan worden door een mes. 9
In relatie met Letsel A ( borstkas links voor) was er een steekkanaal ter lengte van minimaal 2,5 cm. Om het steekkanaal was perforatie van: het onderhuidse weefstel, spierweefsel, borstklierweefsel, tussenribspieren links, het hartzakje, met perforatie van de rechterboezem van het hart net onder de klep van de longslagader. 10 Letsel A ging gepaard met onder andere perforatie van de rechter boezem waardoor bloedophoping in het hartzakje (harttamponade) en fors bloedverlies was ontstaan, waarmee het intreden van de dood zonder meer wordt verklaard door orgaanfunctiestoornissen en algehele weefselschade door doorgemaakt fors bloedverlies. 11
In relatie met Letsel B (aan de buik rechts) was er een steekkanaal ter lengte van minimaal 3,5 cm. Het steekkanaal verliep door de buikwand en eindigde in de buikholte. 12 In relatie met letsel B waren geen belangrijke structuren geraakt. Echter door middel van opgetreden bloedverlies, hoewel minimaal, heeft dit letsel wel bijgedragen aan het intreden van de dood. 13
Uit de aanvullende bevindingen van de patholoog-anatoom blijkt het volgende:
Letsel A duidt erop dat er kracht voor nodig is geweest om het steekkanaal te veroorzaken: er moet een perforatie tot stand komen van verschillende lagen, namelijk de huid, voorste rompwandspieren, borstvliezen en zelfs het hart. De krachtsinwerking duidt erop dat er ook fixatie van de structuur moet zijn geweest, die de kracht mede bepaalt.
Hetzelfde geldt voor letsel B, waarbij er tot in de buikholte een steekkanaal was van minimaal 3,5 cm, welke door verschillende structuren heen liep, zoals de huid, vetweefsel aan de buik en de spieren en het buikvlies. 14
De patholoog-anatoom Soerdjbalie-Maikoe heeft ter terechtzitting van 9 juli 2013 verder het volgende verklaard.
De steekwond in het hart is de dodelijke steekwond geweest. Omdat de borstkas een holte is, was het steekkanaal niet helemaal tot aan het hart te volgen, maar het feit dat de boezem geperforeerd is geeft aan dat het kanaal ver de borstkas in was. Het steekkanaal in het hart was waarschijnlijk vele malen dieper dan de minimaal vastgestelde 2,5 cm. Het steekkanaal in de buik zal in verhouding minder lang zijn geweest omdat daar geen vitale delen zijn geraakt.
Uit ervaring is bekend dat om een lichaamsholte (zoals letsel A) te bereiken een substantiële krachtsinwerking vereist is. Dit betekent enerzijds een krachtsinwerking en anderzijds een weerstand, een fixatie van het mes. Gezien de lengte van het steekkanaal en het feit dat vitale delen geraakt zijn, zal voor het ontstaan van letsel A meer krachtsinwerking nodig geweest zijn dan voor het ontstaan van letsel B.
Nadere overwegingen
Oorzaak van de steekverwondingen
Uit de bewijsmiddelen volgt dat [slachtoffer ] twee steekwonden heeft opgelopen, te weten in haar buik (letsel B) en in haar hart (letsel A), waarvan letsel A de dodelijke steekwond is geweest. De verdediging heeft betoogd dat niet vastgesteld kan worden waardoor de steekwond in het hart is ontstaan en oppert andere mogelijke oorzaken dan een steekbeweging, zoals een val van [slachtoffer ] of een worsteling of schermutseling waarbij [slachtoffer ] geraakt zou zijn.
De rechtbank overweegt op grond van de verklaring van verdachte tijdens de verschillende verhoren, dat [slachtoffer ] in eerste instantie verdachte met het mes naar zich toe heeft getrokken, waarna [slachtoffer ] zei dat verdachte haar had gestoken, zich voorover boog en haar armen voor haar buik hield. Hieruit leidt de rechtbank af dat [slachtoffer ] op dat moment in haar buik was geraakt. Wat er daarna is gebeurd en hoe vervolgens de steekwond in het hart van [slachtoffer ] is toegebracht, kan uit de verklaring van verdachte niet duidelijk worden afgeleid. In haar eerste verhoor heeft verdachte verklaard dat zij denkt dat zij [slachtoffer ] toen zelf met het mes heeft gestoken, maar die verklaring van verdachte biedt naar het oordeel van de rechtbank onvoldoende zekerheid om voor het bewijs te dienen, in het bijzonder niet nu verdachte ter terechtzitting heeft verklaard dat zij zich niet kan herinneren hoe de tweede steekwond is ontstaan.
De rechtbank is echter van oordeel dat het niet anders kan dan dat verdachte de steekwond in het hart van [slachtoffer ] heeft toegebracht. Daartoe wordt het volgende overwogen.
Uit de verklaring van de patholoog volgt dat voor het ontstaan van de dodelijke steekwond in het hart enerzijds een substantiële krachtsinwerking en anderzijds een fixatie van het mes vereist was. Dit duidt erop dat enerzijds een beweging moet hebben plaatsgevonden en anderzijds het mes met de punt in de richting van het slachtoffer stevig en met kracht moet zijn vastgehouden of op andere wijze gefixeerd, zodat het mes voldoende weerstand bood.
Gelet op de verklaring van verdachte heeft verdachte als enige het mes gehanteerd.
Verder bevat het dossier geen aanwijzingen dat de steekwond in het hart door een eventuele val, of anders dan als gevolg van een steekbeweging zelf, veroorzaakt kan zijn. Ook zijn er geen sporen aangetroffen van een worsteling of van een aanval van [slachtoffer ] om het mes van verdachte af te pakken. Integendeel, nadat [slachtoffer ] voor het eerst was geraakt riep zij: “Nu kan ik weg”.
Bovendien volgt uit de verklaring van verdachte dat [slachtoffer ] (pas) in haar armen viel, nadat verdachte bloed ter hoogte van [slachtoffer ] borst en buik zag en dus nadat [slachtoffer ] met het mes in haar hart was geraakt.
Opzet en geestelijke stoornis
De eerste vraag die beantwoord dient te worden is of verdachte door het hiervoor omschreven handelen (voorwaardelijk) opzet heeft gehad op de dood van het slachtoffer. Een eventuele geestelijke stoornis bij verdachte staat aan het aannemen van (voorwaardelijk) opzet niet in de weg. Een bewezenverklaring van opzet kan namelijk alleen dan niet worden aangenomen als bij de verdachte ten tijde van haar handelen ieder inzicht in de draagwijdte van haar gedragingen en de gevolgen daarvan zou hebben ontbroken. Daarvan zal slechts bij hoge uitzondering sprake zijn. Ten aanzien van verdachte is geenszins gebleken dat bij haar ten tijde van de ten laste gelegde gedragingen ieder inzicht in de draagwijdte daarvan ontbrak.
Opzet en gevolg
Nu een eventuele geestelijke stoornis van verdachte de bewezenverklaring van opzet niet in de weg staat, ligt de vraag voor waarop het (voorwaardelijk) opzet van verdachte gericht is geweest.
Het is een feit van algemene bekendheid dat in de borstkas ter hoogte van de hartstreek vitale onderdelen van het menselijk lichaam aanwezig zijn en dit dus een zeer kwetsbare plek van het lichaam is. Gelet op de aard van de gedraging (het met kracht steken met een mes in de richting van de borstkas ter hoogte van de hartstreek) is de rechtbank van oordeel dat er sprake is van een naar algemene ervaringsregels aanmerkelijk te achten kans dat [slachtoffer ] daardoor zou komen te overlijden.
Door aldus te handelen heeft verdachte willens en wetens de aanmerkelijke kans aanvaard dat [slachtoffer ] zou komen te overlijden en was aldus haar opzet voorwaardelijk op dat gevolg gericht. Dit gevolg heeft zich ook verwezenlijkt.
Door aldus te handelen heeft verdachte willens en wetens de aanmerkelijke kans aanvaard dat [slachtoffer ] zou komen te overlijden en was aldus haar opzet voorwaardelijk op dat gevolg gericht. Dit gevolg heeft zich ook verwezenlijkt.
De rechtbank acht – gelet op het voorgaande – het impliciet subsidiair ten laste gelegde, te weten doodslag, wettig en overtuigend bewezen.
5 Bewezenverklaring
De rechtbank acht op grond van de in rubriek 4. genoemde bewijsmiddelen bewezen dat verdachte
op 2 januari 2013 te IJsselstein, opzettelijk [slachtoffer ]van het leven heeft beroofd, immers heeft verdachte met dat opzet, die [slachtoffer ] met een mes, in de borstkas gestoken, tengevolge waarvan voornoemde [slachtoffer ] is overleden.
Voor zover in de tenlastelegging taal- en/of schrijffouten staan, zijn deze verbeterd. Verdachte is hierdoor niet in de verdediging geschaad.
6 De strafbaarheid van het feit
Het bewezen geachte feit is volgens de wet strafbaar als
doodslag
7 De strafbaarheid van verdachte
Betrokkene heeft de neiging problemen naar de buitenwereld glad te strijken en zoveel
mogelijk zelf op te lossen. Bij voortduring van problemen kunnen bij betrokkene gevoelens
van machteloosheid, uitzichtloosheid en onzekerheid ontstaan, en is zij gevoelig voor het
ontwikkelen van depressieve episodes, hetgeen meermalen is gebeurd. Omdat zij bij
oplopende spanning en problemen neigt tot passiviteit en beperkt in staat is adequaat steun
te vragen en te ontvangen, wordt op zo’n moment haar psychische draagkracht chronisch
overvraagd en raakt zij psychisch uitgeput, wat leidt tot decompensatie en depressieve
episodes. Deze gaan gepaard met sombere stemming, gevoelens van onzekerheid, leegte en
uitzichtloosheid. Deze recidiverende depressieve episodes, steeds in reactie op grote
problemen binnen haar gezin, kunnen worden gezien als verdachtes psychische
kwetsbaarheid.
Verdachte verkeerde in de maanden voor het incident in een depressieve episode die ten tijde van het ten laste gelegde matig ernstig was. Zij ervoer gevoelens van leegte, wanhoop en uitzichtloosheid. Ook stond een overweldigend gevoel van psychische en lichamelijke vermoeidheid sterk op de voorgrond. Voorts ervoer zij prikkelbaarheid ten opzichte van haar kinderen en soms een rusteloos gevoel vanwege het vele gepieker. Ten tijde van het ten laste gelegde was sprake van een conflict met haar dochter [slachtoffer ]. Er waren al maanden bestaande ruzies en steeds verder oplopende problemen.
Direct voorafgaand aan het ten laste gelegde was er een hevige, escalerende woordenwisseling, waarbij vanuit [slachtoffer ] sprake was van intense boosheid en kwetsende, confronterende woorden in de richting van verdachte.
Verdachte ervoer op dat moment gevoelens van boosheid en verdriet, maar beschrijft vooral ook machteloosheid, vermoeidheid en het verlangen om “even te gaan liggen” en rust te krijgen.
Direct voorafgaand aan het ten laste gelegde was er een hevige, escalerende woordenwisseling, waarbij vanuit [slachtoffer ] sprake was van intense boosheid en kwetsende, confronterende woorden in de richting van verdachte.
Verdachte ervoer op dat moment gevoelens van boosheid en verdriet, maar beschrijft vooral ook machteloosheid, vermoeidheid en het verlangen om “even te gaan liggen” en rust te krijgen.
De deskundigen concluderen dat bij verdachte sprake is van een recidiverende depressieve stoornis, matig ernstig van aard en voorts van een ouder-kindrelatieprobleem. De deskundigen adviseren verdachte als enigszins verminderd toerekeningsvatbaar ten aanzien van het ten laste gelegde feit te beschouwen.
De rechtbank neemt de gronden en overwegingen waarop de conclusies van de deskundigen berusten over en maakt deze tot de hare. Zij komt op basis daarvan echter tot een andere conclusie. De rechtbank is van oordeel dat de sterke vermoeidheid van verdachte en haar vanuit de depressie bestaande gevoelens van machteloosheid en uitzichtloosheid er toe hebben bijgedragen dat verdachte de ontstane situatie niet volledig heeft kunnen overzien en beperkt was in haar vermogen om het conflict op een adequate manier te beëindigen en verdere escalatie te voorkomen. De lichte agitatie vanuit de depressieve stoornis heeft betrokkene bovendien beperkt in haar impulscontrole. Het verband met de depressieve stoornis is hiermee derhalve aanwezig. Anders dan de deskundigen zal de rechtbank verdachte als verminderd toerekeningsvatbaar beschouwen.
Er is geen omstandigheid aannemelijk geworden die de strafbaarheid van verdachte geheel uitsluit. Verdachte is dan ook strafbaar.
8 Motivering van de straffen en maatregelen
8.1
De eis van de officier van justitie
De officier van justitie heeft gevorderd dat verdachte voor het door hem bewezen geachte feit zal worden veroordeeld tot een gevangenisstraf van 7 jaar, met aftrek van voorarrest.
8.2
Het standpunt van de verdediging
De verdediging heeft primair vrijspraak bepleit. Subsidiair heeft de verdediging een strafmaatverweer gevoerd.
8.3
Het oordeel van de rechtbank
De hierna te noemen strafoplegging is in overeenstemming met de ernst van het bewezen geachte, de omstandigheden waaronder dit is begaan en de persoon van verdachte, zoals daarvan ter terechtzitting is gebleken.
De rechtbank heeft bij de keuze tot het opleggen van een vrijheidsbenemende straf en bij de vaststelling van de duur daarvan in het bijzonder het volgende laten meewegen.
Verdachte heeft tijdens een dramatisch incident haar dochter [slachtoffer ] van het leven beroofd.
Nadat zij nachtenlang niet had geslapen en de dag ervoor de emoties tussen haar en haar sterk puberende dochter al hoog waren opgelopen, heeft zij tijdens een ruzie met [slachtoffer ] in opperste radeloosheid een mes gepakt, met de bedoeling dat [slachtoffer ] verdachte neer zou steken. [slachtoffer ] trok verdachte echter naar zich toe, waardoor het mes in [slachtoffer ] buik terecht kwam. [slachtoffer ] schreeuwde daarop dat zijn nu weg kon, en andere kwetsende en confronterende woorden naar verdachte. Vervolgens werd het verdachte zwart voor ogen en stak zij [slachtoffer ] in een gemoedsopwelling met het mes in haar borst. Als gevolg hiervan is [slachtoffer ] overleden.
De rechtbank rekent het verdachte aan dat zij in een ruzie met haar dochter een scherp mes heeft gepakt en daarmee een - voor hen beiden - levensgevaarlijke situatie heeft gecreëerd, die vervolgens door haar toedoen voor [slachtoffer ] fataal is afgelopen. Verdachte heeft met haar handelen de integriteit van leven van een jong meisje, van haar eigen dochter, in de ergste vorm geschaad.
Wat betreft de persoon van de verdachte heeft de rechtbank in het bijzonder gelet op:
- - de inhoud van een de verdachte betreffend uittreksel uit de justitiële documentatie van 14 maart 2013, waaruit blijkt dat de verdachte niet eerder strafrechtelijk is veroordeeld;
- - de door voornoemde deskundigen en de forensisch milieurapporteur W. van Kreel over verdachte opgemaakte triplerapportage, op grond waarvan de rechtbank verdachte verminderd toerekeningsvatbaar acht, en waaruit volgt dat de kans op recidive zeer klein is en dat er geen noodzaak bestaat om een behandeling in een juridisch kader te adviseren,
ook omdat verdachte de weg naar de hulpverlening weet te vinden en vrijwillig tot hulpverlening gemotiveerd is. - - het verdachte betreffend reclasseringsadvies d.d. 17 mei 2013, opgemaakt door M. Pieffers, reclasseringswerker, waaruit volgt dat een onderzoek naar op te leggen bijzondere voorwaarden gezien de uitkomst van de triplerapportage niet zinvol wordt geacht.
De rechtbank slaat voorts acht op het feit dat de familieleden van verdachte ook de benadeelden in deze zaak zijn, hetgeen het verdriet in deze zaak extra groot maakt.
De oudste dochter van verdachte, tevens zus van [slachtoffer ], heeft ter terechtzitting beschreven hoeveel pijn en verdriet het incident op 2 januari 2013 het gezin van verdachte heeft bezorgd. Het gezin is sindsdien niet alleen hun dochter en zusje kwijt, maar ook missen zij - vooral de twee jongste kinderen - hun liefdevolle en betrokken moeder. De oudste dochter spreekt over een uit de hand gelopen ruzie met vreselijke gevolgen, die ook hun moeder nooit gewild heeft, een familiedrama met alleen maar slachtoffers. Het gezin koestert dan ook geen wrok of boosheid jegens verdachte. Integendeel, zij zien bij haar de grootste pijn en het grootste gemis. Volgens de oudste dochter is het leven dat zij nu leiden, zonder zus en zonder moeder, nauwelijks nog een leven te noemen. Zij heeft verder verklaard dat onjuiste berichtgeving in de media het gezin bij dit alles onnodig extra leed heeft bezorgd.
De rechtbank neemt ten gunste van verdachte in aanmerking het schuldbesef bij verdachte en haar enorme spijtgevoelens, waarvan ter terechtzitting is gebleken. Verdachte moet voortleven met het gegeven dat als gevolg van haar handelen haar dochter niet meer in leven is en dat zij daarmee haar gezin en zichzelf groot leed heeft aangedaan. Het verlies en de schuldgevoelens die zij ondervindt, zullen naar verwachting de rest van haar leven een zware belasting voor verdachte zijn.
Gelet op het voorgaande komt in deze zaak naar het oordeel van de rechtbank aan strafdoelen zoals speciale preventie, vergelding of leedtoevoeging minder gewicht toe dan gebruikelijk is bij veroordeling voor ernstige strafbare feiten zoals doodslag. De rechtbank is dan ook van oordeel dat de straf zoals door de officier van justitie gevorderd geen recht doet aan de omstandigheden waaronder het feit is begaan, de persoon van de verdachte en de gevolgen die het feit heeft voor verdachte en haar gezin. De rechtbank vindt in de bijzondere omstandigheden van deze zaak aanleiding om de door de officier van justitie gevorderde straf sterk te matigen. De rechtbank acht een gevangenisstraf voor de duur van 3 jaar passend en geboden.
9 Het beslag
9.1
Teruggave aan verdachte
Onder verdachte is een telefoon (merk Nokia) in beslag genomen. De rechtbank zal de teruggave van dit voorwerp aan verdachte gelasten, aangezien dit voorwerp niet vatbaar is voor verbeurdverklaring of onttrekking aan het verkeer en onder verdachte in beslag is genomen.
9.2
Teruggave aan [B]
Daarnaast is tijdens het onderzoek een telefoon (merk Samsung) van [B] in beslag genomen. De rechtbank zal de teruggave van dit voorwerp aan haar gelasten, aangezien dit voorwerp niet vatbaar is voor verbeurdverklaring of onttrekking aan het verkeer en zij als rechthebbende kan worden aangemerkt.
9.3
Teruggave aan de rechthebbende
Daarnaast zijn tijdens het onderzoek een cd-rom met familiefoto’s, een schrift en een telefoon (merk Blackberry) van [slachtoffer ] in beslag genomen.
De rechtbank zal de teruggave van deze voorwerpen aan de nabestaanden gelasten, aangezien deze voorwerpen niet vatbaar zijn voor verbeurdverklaring of onttrekking aan het verkeer en de nabestaanden als rechthebbenden kunnen worden aangemerkt.
10 Toepasselijke wettelijke voorschriften
De beslissing berust op artikel 287 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht, zoals dit artikel luidde ten tijde van het bewezen verklaarde.
De rechtbank komt op grond van het voorgaande tot de volgende beslissing
.
11 Beslissing
De rechtbank:
Verklaart het impliciet primair ten laste gelegde niet bewezen en spreekt verdachte daarvan vrij.
Verklaart bewezen dat verdachte het impliciet subsidiair ten laste gelegde heeft begaan zoals hiervoor in rubriek 5 is vermeld.
Verklaart niet bewezen wat aan verdachte meer of anders is ten laste gelegd dan hiervoor is bewezen verklaard en spreekt verdachte daarvan vrij.
Het bewezen verklaarde levert op:
doodslag
Verklaart het bewezene strafbaar.
Verklaart verdachte, daarvoor strafbaar.
Veroordeelt verdachte tot een gevangenisstraf van 3 (drie) jaren .
Beveelt dat de tijd die door veroordeelde voor de tenuitvoerlegging van deze uitspraak in verzekering en in voorlopige hechtenis is doorgebracht, bij de tenuitvoerlegging van die straf in mindering gebracht zal worden.
Beslag
Gelast de teruggave aan verdachte van:
- telefoon Nokia
Gelast de teruggave aan [B] van:
- telefoon Samsung
Gelast de teruggave aan de nabestaanden van:
- - cd-rom met familiefoto’s van [slachtoffer ]
- - schrift van [slachtoffer ]
- - telefoon Blackberry van [slachtoffer ]
Dit vonnis is gewezen door M.C. Oostendorp, voorzitter, mr. J.P.H. van Driel van Wageningen en mr. P.L.C.M. Ficq, rechters, in tegenwoordigheid van mr. A.M. Westerhout, griffier, en is uitgesproken ter openbare terechtzitting op 23 juli 2013.
Mr. Ficq is buiten staat dit vonnis mee te ondertekenen BIJLAGE : De tenlastelegging
Aan verdachte wordt tenlastegelegd dat
zij op of omstreeks 02 januari 2013 te IJsselstein, althans in Nederland,
opzettelijk en al dan niet met voorbedachten rade [slachtoffer ]van het leven
heeft beroofd, immers heeft verdachte met dat opzet en na kalm beraad en
rustig overleg, die [slachtoffer ] (tweemaal) met een mes, althans een scherp
voorwerp, in de borstkas en/of de buikstreek, althans in het lichaam,
gestoken, tengevolge waarvan voornoemde [slachtoffer ] is overleden;
art 287 Wetboek van Strafrecht
art 289 Wetboek van Strafrecht
1 Voor zover niet anders vermeld, wordt in de hierna volgende voetnoten telkens verwezen naar bewijsmiddelen die zich in het aan deze zaak ten grondslag liggende dossier van de politie regio Utrecht bevinden, dossier nummer 2013 001721 C, doorgenummerde pagina’s 1-906. Tenzij anders vermeld, gaat het daarbij om processen-verbaal, in de wettelijke vorm opgemaakt door daartoe bevoegde opsporingsambtenaren.
2 Verklaring van verdachte ter terechtzitting op 9 juli 2013.
3 Proces-verbaal gerechtelijke sectie, bijlage: Pathologie onderzoek naar aanleiding van een mogelijke niet natuurlijke dood pagina 850.
4 Proces-verbaal van (tweede) verhoor van verdachte, pagina 49.
5 Proces-verbaal van (eerste) verhoor van verdachte, pagina 39.
6 Proces-verbaal van (eerste) verhoor van verdachte, pagina 40
7 Proces-verbaal van (tweede) verhoor van verdachte, pagina 50
8 Proces-verbaal van (tweede) verhoor van verdachte, pagina 50
9 Proces-verbaal gerechtelijke sectie, bijlage: Pathologie onderzoek naar aanleiding van een mogelijke niet natuurlijke dood, pagina 850
10 Proces-verbaal gerechtelijke sectie, bijlage: Pathologie onderzoek naar aanleiding van een mogelijke niet natuurlijke dood pagina 849
11 Proces-verbaal gerechtelijke sectie, bijlage: Pathologie onderzoek naar aanleiding van een mogelijke niet natuurlijke dood, pagina 850
12 Proces-verbaal gerechtelijke sectie, bijlage: Pathologie onderzoek naar aanleiding van een mogelijke niet natuurlijke dood, pagina 849
13 Proces-verbaal gerechtelijke sectie, bijlage: Pathologie onderzoek naar aanleiding van een mogelijke niet natuurlijke dood, pagina 850
14 Proces-verbaal gerechtelijke sectie, bijlage: Aanvullende bevindingen patholoog-anatoom, pagina 880 en 881
Gepubliceerd:
Laatste update:
20 december 2013 15:07
20 december 2013 16:23
Three years in prison for killing Miriam Abarkan (ANP July 23, 2013)
IJSSELSTEIN - The court in Utrecht, sentenced the IJsselstein Chahira ben M.
Tuesday to three years in prison for the stabbing death of her 16-year-old daughter Mirjam Abarkan. Two weeks ago justice demanded a prison sentence of seven years.
The lawyer of ben M. met her in prison in Zwolle and reports the woman is relieved. She is not going to appeal. The prosecution is considering appeal.
Drie jaar cel voor doden Mirjam Abarkan
Door de nieuwsredactie · geplaatst: dinsdag 23 juli 2013, 13:19 uur (update: 18:01 uur)
Foto: Bas Czerwinski, ANP
IJSSELSTEIN - De rechtbank in Utrecht heeft de IJsselsteinse Chahira ben M. dinsdag veroordeeld tot drie jaar celstraf voor het doodsteken van haar 16-jarige dochter Mirjam Abarkan. Justitie eiste twee weken geleden nog een gevangenisstraf van zeven jaar.
De advocaat van Ben M. heeft haar opgezocht in de gevangenis in Zwolle en zegt dat de vrouw is opgelucht. Ze gaat dan ook niet in hoger beroep. Het openbaar ministerie overweegt wel een gang naar het gerechtshof.
RUZIE
Het meisje kwam om het leven tijdens een heftige ruzie met haar moeder in de ouderlijke woning in IJsselstein. De ruzie ontstond nadat Ben M. Mirjam's telefoon had afgepakt en was geschrokken van de inhoud van de berichten.
De rechtbank kwam onder meer tot een aanmerkelijk lagere straf doordat de moeder verminderd toerekeningsvatbaar is. Tijdens de zitting twee weken geleden werd duidelijk dat ze bovendien vreselijk veel spijt heeft.
ZUS
Mogelijk heeft de rechtbank ook rekening gehouden met de instelling van de familie van Ben M. De zus van Mirjam gaf tijdens de rechtszaak aan "dat het nooit de bedoeling van haar moeder is geweest om Mirjam te vermoorden". Ze zei dat ze haar zus al kwijt is en nu vreest ook haar moeder te verliezen. "Mijn moeder hoort niet in de gevangenis thuis."
Tijdens de zitting bleek dat er al twee jaar problemen in het gezin waren vanwege de westerse levensstijl van het meisje, met als dieptepunt het drama waarbij M. haar dochter neerstak. Mirjam zou haar verteld hebben dat ze zwanger was. Dat bleek niet het geval te zijn, maar ze pleegde eerder wel een abortus, bleek tijdens de rechtszaak.
OM en politie benadrukken dat de vrouw haar dochter niet heeft omgebracht uit eerwraak. "Eerder gaat het om een moeder die zich zorgen maakt om haar kind en een kind dat zich niet begrepen voelt", aldus het OM.
SCHOK
De gewelddadige dood van het meisje schokte het hele land. Kamerleden stelden vragen omdat er mogelijk sprake was van eerwraak. Volgens de advocaat van de 43-jarige vrouw gaat het echter om een familietragedie. Een heftige ruzie tussen moeder en dochter liep volgens hem uit op de fatale steekpartij in de ouderlijke woning.
Hoger beroep
Application to higher court by the prosecutor for the decision to be reversed to 7 years.
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHARL:2013:9762
ECLI:NL:GHARL:2013:9762
The appeal
The prosecutor appealed against the judgment referred to above.
Investigation of the case
This judgment was delivered in response to the investigation at the hearing of the Court of December 16, 2013 and, pursuant to Article 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the investigation at the hearing at first instance.
The court took note of the progress of the Advocate General. The court also took note of what the defendant and its counsel, Mr. W. J. Ausma has put forward.
The court took note of the progress of the Advocate General. The court also took note of what the defendant and its counsel, Mr. W. J. Ausma has put forward.
The appealed judgment
The court considers that the first court has judged rightly and properly decided. Therefore, concerning the appealed judgement the sentence should be confirmed on those grounds. Exception is made to what has been considered in the sentencing of the accused on sentence and the conclusion drawn by the court concerning the degree of accountability.
Considerations
The court concluded that the accused should be considered diminished responsible.
The court sees no reason to depart from the advice given by the experts and can therefore not agree with the view of the [lower] court of diminished responsibility. The Court will therefore regard the accused as somewhat diminished responsible
regarding the consideration indictment.
The court sees no reason to depart from the advice given by the experts and can therefore not agree with the view of the [lower] court of diminished responsibility. The Court will therefore regard the accused as somewhat diminished responsible
regarding the consideration indictment.
Justification of punishment and / or measure
The prosecutor has demanded imprisonment for a term of seven years in the first instance. The court has sentenced the suspect to prison for a period of three years. The prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court. At the hearing of the court, the Advocate General also sought to be imposed on the accused a prison sentence for a period of seven years.
During a quarrel with her teenage daughter in a heavy middle adolescent phase, the defendant took a knife and with that knife she stuck in her chest as a result of which she is deceased.
Suspect thus took the life of her daughter who was in the prime of her life, while she just - in view of her young age - might expect her mother to provide security and protection, which fits in her role as closest family and educator.
Given the seriousness of the offense, the court finds that a term of imprisonment of seven years, as required by the Advocate General, in a situation like this has to count as reasonable starting point. In addition, the court also took into account what tends to be imposed in criminal proceedings in such homicides.
However, the court has given rise to deviate greatly from the demand of the prosecution. While considering the person of the accused the court regarded in particular the following as punishment reducing factors:
- the excerpt judicial records of the accused which showed she has not previously been in trouble with the law;
- the view that there is a diminished responsibility of the accused;
- the pro Justitia report of April 29, 2013 from which it follows that the probability of recidivism is small and that there is no need to recommend a treatment in a legal framework;
- the intense feelings of deep remorse and guilt the suspicious which has been revealed at the hearing. Person concerned must live with the loss of her daughter and the knowledge that she has taken her life. She will lifelong remember she has done irreparable sorrow to her family and everyone who was dear to the victim.
The court involves three of these conditions made in determining the sentence, but gives them not enough weight to get to decide to a so radical reduction in the number of years of imprisonment as the lower court has done.
By contrast, the Court considers the suspect, as stated above, "only" somewhat diminished responsibility in respect of the charges, which should in principle lead to a more severe punishment than the punishment chosen by the court.
In order to achieve a lower sentence than indicated, the court will therefore have to choose in part other reasons than chosen by the lower court.
In punishment-reducing purposes, the court rightly largely also factor in that the family members of the accused, also relatives of the victim, as demonstrated by the hearing of the court traveled victim statement against accused are forgiving, despite the loss of their daughter and sister.
They have expressed that the absence of the subject gives feelings of a double loss in the family and they expressed a fervent wish that the accused could take her place in the family again. In this connection they have emphatically asked not to impose a term of imprisonment of long duration. This will not only struck the suspect but the family once again.
Also at the hearing on appeal the bereaved have shown of forgiveness towards the accused and stated that the case has yielded only victims. In doing so, they stressed that, unlike the document of appeal of the prosecutor might suggest, they do not feel more sympathy for the suspect than for the victim, with her questionable puberal behavior.
The relatives have, as has been heard by the court, felt heard and understood by the verdict of the court and have derived from the judgment the expectation that they would be reunited in the foreseeable future with the suspect again and that the collective mourning of the family in the presence of the accused may begin.
Considering what in the hearing of the court has been addressed and especially the exceptional forgiving arrangement of the relatives against the accused and the commitment of the family to suspect as the linchpin of the family - what role defendant after serving her sentence is expected to take up again - behold the court following the sentence as imposed by the lower court, to take over and therefore deviate very significantly from the above stated principle and the in principle fair sentencing of the Advocate General.
Also the prosecution has taken into account the various conditions in formulating its claim, but is considering these apparently different from the court. In particular, yet the court has also given importance to the fact that the criminal suspect as previously imposed by the court, has accepted not to set any appeal against that judgment. In doing so, she contributed to the by the family envisaged and wanted necessary acceptance of punishment in order to continue with the current so disrupted family life.
During a quarrel with her teenage daughter in a heavy middle adolescent phase, the defendant took a knife and with that knife she stuck in her chest as a result of which she is deceased.
Suspect thus took the life of her daughter who was in the prime of her life, while she just - in view of her young age - might expect her mother to provide security and protection, which fits in her role as closest family and educator.
Given the seriousness of the offense, the court finds that a term of imprisonment of seven years, as required by the Advocate General, in a situation like this has to count as reasonable starting point. In addition, the court also took into account what tends to be imposed in criminal proceedings in such homicides.
However, the court has given rise to deviate greatly from the demand of the prosecution. While considering the person of the accused the court regarded in particular the following as punishment reducing factors:
- the excerpt judicial records of the accused which showed she has not previously been in trouble with the law;
- the view that there is a diminished responsibility of the accused;
- the pro Justitia report of April 29, 2013 from which it follows that the probability of recidivism is small and that there is no need to recommend a treatment in a legal framework;
- the intense feelings of deep remorse and guilt the suspicious which has been revealed at the hearing. Person concerned must live with the loss of her daughter and the knowledge that she has taken her life. She will lifelong remember she has done irreparable sorrow to her family and everyone who was dear to the victim.
The court involves three of these conditions made in determining the sentence, but gives them not enough weight to get to decide to a so radical reduction in the number of years of imprisonment as the lower court has done.
By contrast, the Court considers the suspect, as stated above, "only" somewhat diminished responsibility in respect of the charges, which should in principle lead to a more severe punishment than the punishment chosen by the court.
In order to achieve a lower sentence than indicated, the court will therefore have to choose in part other reasons than chosen by the lower court.
In punishment-reducing purposes, the court rightly largely also factor in that the family members of the accused, also relatives of the victim, as demonstrated by the hearing of the court traveled victim statement against accused are forgiving, despite the loss of their daughter and sister.
They have expressed that the absence of the subject gives feelings of a double loss in the family and they expressed a fervent wish that the accused could take her place in the family again. In this connection they have emphatically asked not to impose a term of imprisonment of long duration. This will not only struck the suspect but the family once again.
Also at the hearing on appeal the bereaved have shown of forgiveness towards the accused and stated that the case has yielded only victims. In doing so, they stressed that, unlike the document of appeal of the prosecutor might suggest, they do not feel more sympathy for the suspect than for the victim, with her questionable puberal behavior.
[Here the court is paving undesirable jurisprudence in which united families are seen as positive elements in these crimes. Connected families or closed tribes are just the basic threat for victims of honor killings - which are to be expelled - and are never to be seen as reason for reduced sentence for perpetrators]From the proposed victim statement also follows that the family only wishes that, in addition to the victim, not even suspect will be missed for prolonged time, which particularly for the two youngest children of the family who very much benefit from the care of their mother, is of great importance.
The relatives have, as has been heard by the court, felt heard and understood by the verdict of the court and have derived from the judgment the expectation that they would be reunited in the foreseeable future with the suspect again and that the collective mourning of the family in the presence of the accused may begin.
Considering what in the hearing of the court has been addressed and especially the exceptional forgiving arrangement of the relatives against the accused and the commitment of the family to suspect as the linchpin of the family - what role defendant after serving her sentence is expected to take up again - behold the court following the sentence as imposed by the lower court, to take over and therefore deviate very significantly from the above stated principle and the in principle fair sentencing of the Advocate General.
Also the prosecution has taken into account the various conditions in formulating its claim, but is considering these apparently different from the court. In particular, yet the court has also given importance to the fact that the criminal suspect as previously imposed by the court, has accepted not to set any appeal against that judgment. In doing so, she contributed to the by the family envisaged and wanted necessary acceptance of punishment in order to continue with the current so disrupted family life.
Decision
The Council:
Confirms the judgment of the court taking into account the above considerations.
Mirjam Abarkan:
http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2013:2900 http://www.elsevier.nl/Nederland/nieuws/2013/1/Marokkaanse-moeder-heeft-spijt-van-moord-op-dochter- 1157891W/Door Servaas van der Laan:
http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2013/07/de-islam-vermoordde-mirjam#comment-334907
ADDENDUM:
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attibution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.
ADDENDUM:
Knapp einen Monat ist es her, da wurde Gülsüm S. tot in einem Waldstück nahe Kleve aufgefunden. Nun ist die Tat aufgeklärt. Die 20-jährige Deutsch-Kurdin musste sterben, weil sie einer Zwangsvermählung nicht zustimmen wollte. Gegen den Vater und den Bruder erging Haftbefehl. Gülsüm S. sollte gegen ihren Willen verheiratet werden. Doch dann erfuhr die Familie, dass sie keine Jungfrau mehr war und schon mal abgetrieben hatte. Als der Vater von dem heimlichen Schwangerschaftsabbruch erfuhr, habe sich der Konflikt in der Familie zugespitzt, berichtete die Polizei weiter. Unter einem Vorwand sei die 20-Jährige dann aus ihrem Elternhaus auf einen einsamen Feldweg gelockt und umgebracht worden. Ihr Bruder habe Gülsüm S. am 2. März mit einer Wäscheleine bis zur Bewusstlosigkeit gewürgt. Anschließend sei sie regelrecht totgeknüppelt worden, berichteten die Ermittler. Der Bruder habe dann ihre Geldbörse an sich genommen, um einen Raubmord vorzutäuschen.
It was almost a month since Gülsüm S. was found dead in a forest near Kleve. Now the fact is cleared up. The 20-year-old German Kurd had to die because she did not want to agree to a forced marriage. Against the father and the brother came arrest warrant. Gülsüm S. was to be married against her will. But then the family learned that she was no longer a virgin and had already aborted. When the father learned of the secret pregnancy, the conflict in the family had tipped, the police reported. Under a pretext, the 20-year-old was then lured from her parents home on a lonely dirt road and was killed. Her brother had choked Gülsüm S. on March 2 with a clothesline to unconsciousness. Afterwards, she was deadly struck, the investigators reported. The brother then took her wallet to pretend a robbery.
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attibution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.
No comments:
Post a Comment