Murderers I have met

I know this guy. NZPA reports:
Laxman Rajamani, a 36-year-old accountant, is on trial in Auckland for a second time accused of murdering Chitralekha Ramakrishnan at their home in suburban Auckland on January 13, 2005.

Rajamani was found guilty by a High Court jury in 2006 but the Supreme Court last year quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial.

His lawyer Paul Dacre said Rajamani admitted it was he who slit his wife's throat at their Mt Eden home, and he took responsibility for his actions.

But he said Rajamani was provoked into losing his self-control by the words or actions of Ms Ramakrishnan.
"Put simply, his defence is that he lost the plot," Mr Dacre told the jury of eight men and four women.

Far be it from me to tell tales out of schoolprison...

I met Rajamani in Whanganui Prison - he was on his way through to Auckland for this retrial - and he was only there for about a week. He wanted to talk to me about his case and other matters. I ended up borrowing one of his library books. He was heavily into Christianity at the time and had many religious texts and could quote extensively from the Bible.

His new found obsession with the Bible was just another angle to try to make sense - or to justify - what he had done to his wife. I'm quite sure about that. It does tend to be a last refuge for the desperate.

When I first visited his cell he put artificial sweetner into his tea. I hate the stuff, but being polite I took some in my tea when offered. Oh, it was disgusting - a foul and sickening chemical taste. So there I was, putting up with this acrid brew, surrounded by Christian books talking to this Indian guy about why he killed his wife. Well that's what I wanted to discuss. I had met another murderer of a female - really nice guy though, great Scrabbler - in another cavity within Her Majesty's rectum, and he had killed his girlfriend with tea towel... accidently of course. So what was Rajamani's story? It all had to do with religion he would have me believe.

I don't know how deeply Hindu he was seeing as how he had become a Bible-basher - magically - upon entering the prison system that coincidentally tends to reward outward adherence to Jesus with early release. He was Hindu, his wife was Hindu and they were in an arranged marriage that wasn't going anywhere. It sounds as though they had drifted apart quickly and it wasn't working out early on. He was sleeping with someone from his work, American Express. And it appears that she was cheating on him too.

He told me that he came into his house one day to find his wife and another man packing up to move her out. She told him he was from Pakistan and a Muslim. At this point he said he was so angry that he walked out to the driveway, got a rock (or brick) and bashed his wife on the head with it. Then I think he said he slashed her with a kitchen knife.

!? OK... As you do...

So I asked him: then what happened? The other guy ran off. And he called his parents, and I think his father told him to hand himself in to the police - and he did.

!? Right...

So if he hadn't been Pakistani he wouldn't have killed her? Yes - he said if he had been a Muslim from any other country he wouldn't have. It was an insult too far. But you know, he's a Christian now, so I guess it's all OK and won't happen again.

But he was challenging his conviction or building a defence on some basis of trying to pin the murder on the boyfriend, because there was evidence that he might have been there. But the way Rajamani was telling it to me it was a technical possibility he was arguing - I doubt the boyfriend was anywhere near there - he wanted me to believe that a court might accept that the possibility exists that the boyfriend did it. And when I wanted more details and a timeline to the killing, the well read, articulate and intelligent accountant who had been so open about the entire thing kept changing the subject and avoided answering the questions, trying to guide me back to the possibility they couldn't rule out the boyfriend.

His story didn't make any sense and lacked credibility on many levels. I was unconvinced, as I hope the jury will be, about his pathetic defence. "I just lost it." I hope he loses it alright, I hope he gets a lot more time to study the Bible in peace and quiet and alone.

I later heard from other people that he had told them slightly different stories - each just as incredible as the other. And to be sure his retrial was granted on soft grounds:
Conclusion on provocation
[19] Different minds may well have different views about whether taken singly the concerns we have identified represent material error and, if so, whether they justify a retrial.

Carroll du Chateau goes through the first trial in an excellent article:
The jury has already endured over three hours of his video evidence. Now, over six more hours he retells his version of events, but with several corrections - and a twist.

If he takes the stand again he has a 100% chance of being found a murderer as opposed to the 99% chance he has now of only just being a manslaughterer. Way to go, Raj.