Nancy Kissel verdict should not be disturbed, says prosecution as it rejects appeal
Lawyer says retrial jury had all the facts when it agreed verdict and it should ‘not be disturbed’
Milkshake murderer Nancy Kissel's attempt to regurgitate her claims, which a jury had rejected in finding her guilty of killing her high-flying banker husband, should not be entertained, prosecutors told the Court of Appeal yesterday.
The retrial jury made the decision in 2011 after hearing arguments from both sides and therefore Kissel's complaints of how the prosecution had presented its case could not stand, prosecution lawyer David Perry QC noted.
Perry was responding to criticism put by Kissel's lawyers in her renewed attempt to be cleared of murder after she was twice jailed for life.
He said the jury was in the best position to make a judgment by looking at the evidence as a whole and that the verdict should not be disturbed.
"That is within the purview of the jury exercising the solemnity as the master of the facts," he said.
The three-judge panel reserved its judgment.
Kissel, 49, who looked more at ease in the dock than on Monday, was remanded in custody. It is understood her appeal application is not funded by legal aid.
The American expatriate was jailed for life in 2005 for giving her husband, Merrill Lynch banker Robert Kissel, 40, a drug-laced milkshake and then bludgeoning him to death with a lead ornament at their Parkview flat in Tai Tam in 2003. In 2010, the top court ordered a retrial, ruling that the original trial had been conducted unfairly. Kissel was jailed for life a second time in 2011.
She claims she had suffered from depression, which had led to a suicide attempt. She also says the fatal attack had taken place on the floor, not on the bed.
Perry, fending off the suggestion that the conviction was flawed by prosecution errors, said: "For every point they made, there is a counterpoint."
He said Kissel's claim that she had tried to take her own life was unbelievable and the only reason she consulted doctors was to obtain powerful hypnotics that she later used to drug her husband, not to treat her depression.
Perry said the murder was premeditated.
"On the day after the killing, the applicant embarked on a determined and calculated conduct to conceal the killing," he said.
She also went on a "shopping expedition" to buy things to replace those stained by blood.
"We submit that an attempt to re-litigate the arguments should not properly be entertained," Perry said.