Nai Yin Xue, the suspect in the “pumpkin” case, has just been found guilty of murdering his wife and dumping her body in the back of a car. He was taken out of court protesting his innocence, but I have little doubt that the verdict was correct. His lawyer, Chris Comeskey, ably attempted to build an alternative scenario for her murder which obviously succeeded in causing some transient doubt, but the weight of evidence seems to have been against him. As usual, Mr. Comeskey was critical of the verdict:
“Mr Comeskey said outside court that the images of his client abandoning the child at the train station had not helped.
“That was the mountain of prejudice that we had to overcome, it was huge,” he said.”
I’m guessing that that will be Mr. Comeskey’s tack if he decides to appeal. He will say his client’s trial was prejudiced by the fact that an all women jury would have put undue emphasis on the abandonment of Qian Xun Xue in a busy railway station, rather than on the evidence of the actual murder.
Actually, I find the abandonment of a three year old in the middle of a railway station very germane to the trial. I can’t think of a single normal father who would do such a thing. Even if you were running for your life, you would ensure your child was with friends or people who could care for her. The only conceivable reason for abandoning her like that would be because you care nothing for her. That attitude alone tells me more than enough about Nai Yin Xue’s feelings for his wife. It tells me he is incapable of deep emotional attachment and, as such, means he is more than capable of killing his wife.
That’s not called prejudice, that’s called evidence.