Wife disembowels her ex after sex...

py2006

...is cleared of attempted murder!!

• Dalya Saeed, 35, allegedly stabbed her ex-husband after a they had sex
• Pair had been arguing about custody of their daughter and ended up in bed
• Mrs Saeed said she then stabbed her ex-husband twice when he tried to rape her
• She said: 'I saw a piece of intestine in my hand. I threw it on the floor and at that point I saw Bilal's intestines fall out'

She said she fled to a storage area and that Mr Miah had attacked her with a wooden stick.
'I put my hand up in order to stop him and touched his body,' she added.
'Then I saw a piece of intestine in my hand. I threw it on the floor and at that point I saw Bilal's intestines fall out.'
He managed to get out of the flat but she continued the attack in the street, the court heard.

Ms Saeed said she had pursued him outside to make sure he did not come back.
He was only discovered in a nearby doorway at 3am when neighbours heard his screams and called police.
Prosecutor Adam Western told the jury: 'The cuts were so severe part of his small bowel ended up on the carpet.
'She caused his injuries. Her intention was nothing less than to kill him.'


Sourcee


The aul self defence argument...

lawred2

Have you an opinion yourself no?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

That's taking angry sex to a whole new level

Carlos Orange

So she invited him there , stabbed him , pulled his intestines out , followed him outside , stabbed him again and didn't call an ambulance or the police.
Self defence seems like a stretch.

gramar

It seems he was quite cut up over the custody of his daughter.

Gatling

That's one scary lady ,

How did she walked away from this ,crazy stuff

Did the last couple of posters not see this bit:

Mrs Saeed said she then stabbed her ex-husband twice when he tried to rape her

Either way, there is definitely more to this story.

jimgoose

If only Akira Kurosawa directed soft porn, wha'?? :pac:

whoopsadoodles

After sex or during rape?

Carlos Orange

Deleted User wrote: »

Did the last couple of posters not see this bit:

I think that is known in the business as a claim. Something that may be true or untrue. Even if it is true it doesn't make following someone to finish them off justified or self defence.

jonon9

Moral of the story is don't stick dick in crazy.

Ri_Nollaig

psinno wrote: »

I think that is known in the business as a claim. Something that may be true or untrue. Even if it is true it doesn't make following someone to finish them off justified or self defence.

Whole story does seem a bit off, but I can only assume (hope?) the jury heard more evident to prove this than the article reported.

Your Face

Daily Mail story, blow it out your arse OP.

Graces7

He survived?

red ears

Your Face wrote: »

Daily Mail story, blow it out your arse OP.

Yeah daily mail story.. didn't happen at all, no stabbing, no trial, those people don't even exist..

ohnonotgmail

psinno wrote: »

I think that is known in the business as a claim. Something that may be true or untrue. Even if it is true it doesn't make following someone to finish them off justified or self defence.

Him saying that they had consensual sex is also a claim. Similarly "following someone to finish them off" is only a claim. the jury weighs one sides claims against the others. In this instance the jury made a decision in only 2 hours. they clearly found him less than believable.

Your Face

red ears wrote: »

Yeah daily mail story.. didn't happen at all, no stabbing, no trial, those people don't even exist..

I wouldnt go that far.
I wouldn't go too far defending that paper either.

Carlos Orange

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Similarly "following someone to finish them off" is only a claim.

Following him outside isn't disputed. To finish him off is an interpretation of her statement.

ohnonotgmail

psinno wrote: »

Following him outside isn't disputed. To finish him off is an interpretation of her statement.

no it isn't . She said

Ms Saeed said she had pursued him outside to make sure he did not come back.

the line before it in the article says

He managed to get out of the flat but she continued the attack in the street, the court heard.

they dont attribute it to anybody but it couldnt have been the wife because it contradicts something she is quoted as saying.

Birneybau

lawred2 wrote: »

Have you an opinion yourself no?

I really think the implication was there from the o.p's reaction, that it was mad that she got away with self defense. What's your opinion?

ceadaoin.

This article has more details about their relationship and what allegedly happened that night

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/live-updates-woman-who-disemboweled-12596275

Why does the OP say "after sex" and not "after rape"? The jury have seen all the evidence and decided to believe her. Seeing as their daughter was removed from their care almost immediately after birth, I'm assuming that the domestic abuse was known and well documented.

lawred2

Birneybau wrote: »

I really think the implication was there from the o.p's reaction, that it was mad that she got away with self defense. What's your opinion?

that edit was added after my post

peckerhead

Hannabel Lector?

ohnonotgmail

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This article has more details about their relationship and what allegedly happened that night

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/live-updates-woman-who-disemboweled-12596275

Why does the OP say "after sex" and not "after rape"? The jury have seen all the evidence and decided to believe her. Seeing as their daughter was removed from their care almost immediately after birth, I'm assuming that the domestic abuse was known and well documented.

in fairness to the OP the headline of the daily mail article does say "after sex". But it is the daily mail so ...

ohnonotgmail

peckerhead wrote: »

Hannabel Lector?

Annabel Lector surely?

py2006

lawred2 wrote: »

that edit was added after my post

No edit done

Sonics2k

Wait wait wait.

Was it rape or consensual sex because the article flickers between both.

If he was attempting to rape her, then yeah it was self defence. If it was consensual sex, then it was attempted murder.

Carlos Orange

Sonics2k wrote: »

Wait wait wait.

Was it rape or consensual sex because the article flickers between both.

If he was attempting to rape her, then yeah it was self defence. If it was consensual sex, then it was attempted murder.

The article isn't very clear when it switches between he said/she said.

Newspaper articles tend to not be all that clear like the one below. Is he saying the attack outside was witnessed by people or are witnesses collaborating his claim that he was attacked outside with a knife , meat cleaver and baseball bat.

"But Mr Western said Saeed went after him, armed with a kitchen knife, meat cleaver and baseball bat and carried on attacking him in the street, witnessed by several residents who were woken up by the screaming"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-wife-ripped-out-former-9770115

Fr_Dougal

Toxic relationship

During cross-examination by her barrister Patrick Upward QC Mr Miah accepted he had been physically and verbally abusive towards her during their two-year Islamic marriage

andekwarhola

py2006 wrote: »

'I put my hand up in order to stop him and touched his body,' she added. 'Then I saw a piece of intestine in my hand. I threw it on the floor and at that point I saw Bilal's intestines fall out.'

She could have at least had the decency to colon ambulance for him.

JupiterKid

Sounds to me like t was a relationship poisoned by long-term domestic abuse. If the woman was acting in self-defence, I don't see what the problem is.

There are many cases of women killing their husbands partners after years of enduring horrific abuse. The courts (well, in the enlightened West at least) tend to take a relatively lenient approach to their sentencing.

Carlos Orange

JupiterKid wrote: »

Sounds to me like t was a relationship poisoned by long-term domestic abuse. If the woman was acting in self-defence, I don't see what the problem is.

I find it difficult to take claims of self defence seriously when his body is reported to have had 30 wounds.

ohnonotgmail

psinno wrote: »

I find it difficult to take claims of self defence seriously when his body is reported to have had 30 wounds.

reported where? the daily mail article in the OP says he was stabbed twice and the birmingham mail article also says he was stabbed twice.

During cross-examination by her barrister Patrick Upward QC Mr Miah accepted he had been physically and verbally abusive towards her during their two-year Islamic marriage

So the guy has a history of being abusive and tries to rape her, she stabs him in self defence, the jury - who get to hear all the evidence unlike us - accept that it's not murder and clear her.

I don't see the problem here.

Carlos Orange

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

reported where? the daily mail article in the OP says he was stabbed twice and the birmingham mail article also says he was stabbed twice.

It is too bad you can't read the court transcripts. Generally you need to stitch together what actually happened from multiple articles due to the poor reporting.

"Police found part of Miah's small bowel lying on her bedroom floor, while he was cowering in the porch of a neighbouring flat with his intestines hanging out and 30 different wounds."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-wife-ripped-out-former-9770115

ohnonotgmail

psinno wrote: »

It is too bad you can't read the court transcripts. Generally you need to stitch together what actually happened from multiple articles due to the poor reporting.

"Police found part of Miah's small bowel lying on her bedroom floor, while he was cowering in the porch of a neighbouring flat with his intestines hanging out and 30 different wounds."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-wife-ripped-out-former-9770115

it is useful to link to a source when you are making a claim rather than have to be prompted.

dinorebel

jonon9 wrote: »

Moral of the story is don't stick dick in crazy.

Everyone knows crazy = great sex

dinorebel

Your Face wrote: »

Daily Mail story, blow it out your arse OP.

Is that not what happened to the victim?

Carlos Orange

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is useful to link to a source when you are making a claim rather than have to be prompted.

It is useful to seek out multiple sources for news stories unprompted when forming opinions and to read links already referenced in the comments.

ohnonotgmail

psinno wrote: »

It is useful to seek out multiple sources for news stories unprompted when forming opinions and to read links already referenced in the comments.

i did as you suggested. in his own evidence Mr Miah said that his ex stabbed him twice. Obviously those two stabbings affected multiple organs inside but she still only stabbed him twice. stabbing somebody twice in a self defence situation is entirely reasonable. All of which makes this nonsense:

I find it difficult to take claims of self defence seriously when his body is reported to have had 30 wounds.

FishOnABike

JupiterKid wrote: »

Sounds to me like t was a relationship poisoned by long-term domestic abuse. If the woman was acting in self-defence, I don't see what the problem is.

There are many cases of women killing their husbands partners after years of enduring horrific abuse. The courts (well, in the enlightened West at least) tend to take a relatively lenient approach to their sentencing.

Self defense has to be reasonable. If, as in another post, the victim had thirty stab wounds, I'd find it difficult to reconcile that with reasonable self defense.

I'd similarly question how enlightened it is to take a relatively lenient approach to their sentencing if someone kills their partner after years of abuse. There is always the option to walk away. I've endured domestic abuse but I wouldn't expect to be treated with kid gloves if I took the law into my own hands.

Carlos Orange

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i did as you suggested. in his own evidence Mr Miah said that his ex stabbed him twice. Obviously those two stabbings affected multiple organs inside but she still only stabbed him twice. stabbing somebody twice in a self defence situation is entirely reasonable. All of which makes this nonsense:

A variety of weapons are mentioned in the various newspaper articles.
The one below mentions a witness seeing him be hit 3 times with a frying pan in the street after he managed to leave the house and also attempts to stab him with a kitchen knife.

Chasing after someone and attacking them is not self defence. Neither is going back into the house to get a knife and then returning to continue the attack.


http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/woman-accused-of-stabbing-her-husband-after-sex-chased-him-into-the-street-before-battering-him-with-a-frying-pan-34823849.html

irishgrover

jonon9 wrote: »

Moral of the story is don't stick dick in crazy.

I don't know, I think a better moral of the story is "Don't be a fu(king rapist!"

ohnonotgmail

FishOnABike wrote: »

Self defense has to be reasonable. If, as in another post, the victim had thirty stab wounds, I'd find it difficult to reconcile that with reasonable self defense.

I'd similarly question how enlightened it is to take a relatively lenient approach to their sentencing if someone kills their partner after years of abuse. There is always the option to walk away. I've endured domestic abuse but I wouldn't expect to be treated with kid gloves if I took the law into my own hands.

He were stabbed twice which resulted in 30 wounds. not the same as being stabbed 30 times. and she had walked away. they were not living together. he was there to discuss their daughter who was being put up for adoption.

ohnonotgmail

psinno wrote: »

A variety of weapons are mentioned in the various newspaper articles.
The one below mentions a witness seeing him be hit 3 times with a frying pan in the street after he managed to leave the house and also attempts to stab him with a kitchen knife.

Chasing after someone and attacking them is not self defence. Neither is going back into the house to get a knife and then returning to continue the attack.


http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/woman-accused-of-stabbing-her-husband-after-sex-chased-him-into-the-street-before-battering-him-with-a-frying-pan-34823849.html

a jury who the full facts before them disagree with you.

Carlos Orange

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a jury who the full facts before them disagree with you.

A jury makes a legal judgement. I'm only qualified to make a moral judgement as legal standards vary by jurisdiction. What is described by witnesses is not self defence in my opinion.

ohnonotgmail

psinno wrote: »

A jury makes a legal judgement. I'm only qualified to make a moral judgement as legal standards vary by jurisdiction. What is described by witnesses is not self defence in my opinion.

what makes you qualified to make moral judgements on others when you do not know the full circumstances of what happened?

Butters1979

I'm all against the women can do no wrong brigade, but from what I can see the guy admitted to being both physically and verbally abusive to her throughout the relationship. Have I got that wrong?

If it is the case, then no matter if this particular incident was actually self defence or not, he still deserved it.

Butters1979

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what makes you qualified to make moral judgements on others when you do not know the full circumstances of what happened?

It's a moral judgement. Everybody has the 'right' to make one. Are you sure this just isn't a 'what gives you the right to not agree with me' thing? Because you seem to have made a moral judgement in that the woman was justified?

FishOnABike

Butters1979 wrote: »

I'm all against the women can do no wrong brigade, but from what I can see the guy admitted to being both physically and verbally abusive to her throughout the relationship. Have I got that wrong?

If it is the case, then no matter if this particular incident was actually self defence or not, he still deserved it.

I never realised I should have a license to kill. :rolleyes:

Butters1979

FishOnABike wrote: »

I never realised I should have a license to kill. :rolleyes:

I didn't say it was legal. I said he deserved it. F*** him.