₦airaland Forum

.

Kgdavid:
you don't think he committed a crime or you think he could get away with telling a lie to cover a crime? because the two are not the same thing sir.

You can't expose a lie without establishing the truth. In this case, what is the truth and what is a lie depends entirely on the testimony of the two principal witnesses - who happen to be the husband and wife involved. Thankfully, prima facie evidence lends credence to whatever they choose to claim, because the dead intruder (that's what he was) cannot prove otherwise. So what exactly are you going to say about this?

Frankly, there is no way to twist this. No court would give this man a hard time.

dljbd1:
Hmmm
Proverbs 6:34
For jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge.

Insightful. I had to read it up.

Proverbs 6:34
For jealousy [is] the rage of a man
Fills a man with rage against him of whom he is jealous; which keeps boiling within him, till he has an opportunity of venting it: and very severe it is; it is strong as death, and cruel as the grave; therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance; when he has an opportunity of avenging himself; whenever he finds the adulterer in his house, or catches him and his wife in bed together, he spares not to take away his life, and sometimes the life of both of them; instances of this nature history furnishes us with: or he will spare no cost and pains to prosecute him before a civil magistrate, and bring him to public justice; prayers and entreaties, bribes and gifts, wilt be of no avail, as follows.

Kgdavid:
nope. the best he can argue is extenuating circumstances but murder is murder.

the deceased was a guest in his home, invited by a co-owner of that home and had every legal right to be there, and every legal right to make love to the woman given that it was consensual. It's going to be very hard to get him a light sentence.

What evidence is there to validate the highlighted assertion? Oral testimony of the wife?

Her own self-confessions at this time would be subsequently disclaimed as induced by duress while in police custody. When the case comes up in court, she will claim that the man gained access into her house and forcefully raped her. In the ensuing chaos, her husband returned home and tried to fight off the rapist and in the process ended up killing him.

In the absence of contrary evidence, and in the spirit of fairness, I'm not sure any judge would prefer to doubt this version of events. This man did what most impassioned husbands would do in similar circumstances. The letter and spirit of the law would be in his favour.

I don't see why he should be paraded in such a humiliating manner as if he is a common criminal. The prima facie facts of the case indicate that he had valid grounds and also provide some extenuation for his action. A very good lawyer can get him off the hook with a very light sentence for manslaughter.

The provocation is evident and beyond doubt. No man would pretend to be a gentleman if he witnesses a strange person making love to his own wife and desecrating his matrimonial bed in his own home.

Rite of passage.

Every system has theirs.