• Sat
  • Dec 20, 2014
  • Updated: 1:12pm
NewsHong Kong

Milkshake murderer Nancy Kissel loses latest appeal against conviction

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 03 December, 2013, 1:19pm
UPDATED : Wednesday, 04 December, 2013, 11:23am

The father of the banker killed by milkshake murderer Nancy Kissel hopes a court's dismissal yesterday of her appeal against her murder conviction will end the saga and allow him to enjoy life as a "very lucky" grandfather.

"I do hope this is the end of Nancy's litany of lies and character slander of [his son] Robert [Kissel] to justify her evil action," William Kissel told the South China Morning Post.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the guilty verdict passed unanimously by a nine-member jury was "neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory".

The jury was entitled to reject her plea of diminished responsibility after hearing the whole of the evidence, Mr Justice Wally Yeung Chun-kuen wrote in a 64-page judgment.

Solicitor Colin Cohen, representing Nancy Kissel, said her legal team felt an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was "very likely to be considered".

Kissel was jailed for life for the second time following a retrial held in 2011 after the jury found her guilty of feeding her Merrill Lynch banker husband a drug-laced milkshake before bludgeoning him to death with a lead ornament at their Parkview flat in Tai Tam.

During the appeal in October, her lawyers had contended that there should not have been a retrial as the public had been affected by unfair evidence in the original one - which led the Court of Final Appeal to order a retrial.

They also contended the conviction was flawed by prosecution mistakes and the jury was wrong to reject the defence of diminished responsibility when three psychiatrists and one psychologist supported such a defence and the prosecution cited no expert evidence to contradict it. In the judgment, Yeung wrote it was up to the jury to decide on the facts whether to accept Kissel's case of provocation or diminished responsibility.

"The jury had clearly rejected the defence case and accepted the prosecution case that it was a planned murder," Yeung said.

Talking about his grandchildren, William Kissel said: "Robert's children are happy, well- adjusted, thoughtful teenagers."

He said his daughter Jane Clayton, who has custody of the three children, and her husband, Richard, had done a "most remarkable job" in blending their children with Robert's, filling the family with "happiness, friends and activities".


Related topics

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

It isn't lacking in intellectualism nor honesty. The grounds on which an appeal court can interfere with this kind of finding are, rightly, strictly limited. The court doesn't have to concur with the jury's findings of fact, it just needs to ensure there was no flaw in the trial process which may have led to a flawed jury verdict. That's what was done here. Any further review would have effectively been a retrial without a jury, which I'm sure you would be opposed to.
she must be all shaken up at the result
I bet they do not let her work in the kitchens of her current residence
What on earth are you talking about? How and why should he sympathize with the woman who while having an affair with a handyman, cold heartedly calculated, planned and effected the murder of his son?
Was she assessed costs?
So, how long do we reckon before the next appeal on yet more spurious grounds?
John Adams
Who is paying for Kissel's legal team expenses?
I hope it's not we the taxpayers
(But I assume that we are still paying for the Crown costs)
The father might also consider the grounds why Nancy Kissel murdered her husband. He might then be a bit more sympathetic.
From her photo, to be honest, it just feels like she's completely lost it.
That “it was up to the jury to decide on the facts”
was beside the point
The point for the appellate court is
whether there were legal flaws
procedural and/or substantive
in the findings of fact by the jury
Failing to find any legal flaw
the appellate court has to concur with jury findings
concurrence doesn’t mean full and complete agreement
even where the test is beyond reasonable doubt
The honesty requirement isn’t that subtle
The appellate court shouldn’t pass the buck to the jury
it must honestly and honorably
declare its concurrence with jury finding
Thus caractacus’ intellectual criticism isn’t irrelevant
a “smarter” court should be able to offer a more worthy opinion
for this world class tragic drama
HK’s first convicted white woman mur_der_er
BTW, last Sunday I hiked the Violet Mountain trail by the Parkview
I was with you up until your last paragraph. What does honesty have to do with anything?



SCMP.com Account