Never Enough (24 page)

In conclusion, King said, “Is Nancy Kissel the sort of person who would commit the type of crime the prosecution alleges? Was she someone who was shown to be violent? Does she have it in her to shop for drugs, serve them in a milk shake to her husband, and then bludgeon him to death while he lies defenseless, with five lacerations to the head, each one of them fatal? The answer is no.”

In the United States, a judge instructs the jury on relevant points of law before sending them to deliberate. In Hong Kong, in addition, the judge summarizes the evidence, offering the jurors a presumably more objective and authoritative view than that presented by counsel from either side during closing argument. Obviously, the judge’s summation carries great weight.

Mr. Justice Lunn wasted no time starting his. Although Sandy King had taken up almost the full morning, the judge launched into his summary even before breaking for lunch.

He told the jury they had three options: guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter due to provocation, not guilty. He explained that they could find provocation if they believed that Rob’s conduct had provoked in Nancy a “sudden and temporary loss of self-control.”

He reminded the jury that Nancy had killed Rob by “smashing his skull with five separate blows to the upper right side of his head, each one of the blows fatal. Fractured skull bone was driven into his brain, causing massive spillage of brain substance. Did the defendant believe it was necessary to use force to defend herself? If yes, was the amount of force she used reasonable?”

He reminded jurors that each of the five blows “required a great amount of force” and that there were no defensive injuries on Rob’s upper limbs, indicating that Rob might have been “sufficiently impaired by a cocktail of drugs” so as to be capable of “little or no motion at the time the blows were dealt to his head.”

He also reminded jurors to bear in mind Nancy’s “amorous relationship with U.S. resident Michael Del Priore” as well as Rob’s estimated US$18 million estate.

But he told them to also bear in mind the defense contention that Nancy had “killed in lawful self-defense when her husband, following taunting and provocative statements, attempted to force anal sex upon her while threatening her with a baseball bat” and that “fearing for her life, she killed him with the metal ornament, originally used to fend off blows from the bat.”

“Another element to note in the defense case,” he said, “is the allegation that Robert Kissel had a controlling nature that developed into paranoia.” The jury could also consider whether “homosexual pornographic Web sites found on the family computer supported the defendant’s testimony that Robert Kissel routinely forced anal sex upon her.”

Mr. Justice Lunn said he would conclude his summation in the morning and that the jury would be able to start deliberating after lunch.

Before leaving for court the next morning, Nancy wrote:

The judge concluded his summary of the evidence by focusing on the claim that Nancy had experienced a “meltdown” in the aftermath of having killed her husband in self-defense.

“These claims must be considered in light of the manner in which she carried out what the prosecution has called her ‘cover-up’ activities.” He drew the jury’s attention to still pictures taken from closed-circuit television footage that showed Nancy dragging a large suitcase, carrying a rug, and carrying shopping bags on different occasions. He reminded the jury that the salesperson at Tequila Kola had described Nancy as “normal, but a little bit loud.”

He said, “The accused bought a chaise lounge, two cushions, and a small carpet before returning the next day to buy two more large carpets at a total price of twenty-seven thousand dollars. The defendant also on the morning of November third ordered twenty cartons from Links Relocations. The police later found bloody items, including the three-point-seven-kilogram lead ornament in the boxes.”

He reminded the jury of Bryna O’Shea’s testimony that on the day after the killing Nancy was not crying on the phone and was “forcing herself to sound upset.”

Concluding at midday, Mr. Justice Lunn said, “I would invite you to consider these facts, in respect of whether or not the defendant had gone into a meltdown.” He reminded the jury that a unanimous verdict was not required: five to two would suffice, either way.

The jury deliberated for eight hours, returning a verdict at 8:30 p.m. They did not look at Nancy as they entered the courtroom. Although it did not need to be, their verdict was unanimous: guilty of murder. Not manslaughter due to provocation: murder.

Nancy stood, silent, head bowed, not crying. Mr. Justice Lunn said, “As I am required to do by law, I impose a sentence of life imprisonment upon you.” Still dressed in black, she was led away by four officers of Hong Kong’s Correctional Services Department. She was not given a chance to embrace her mother.

Outside the courtroom, seventy-eight-year-old Bill Kissel said to the assembled reporters, “Justice has been served. My son is resting in peace now. All the allegations against him have been proven false. Rob was a wonderful father. He tried his best to be a wonderful husband. His children can go on with their lives now, knowing how much he loved them.”

Nancy’s mother, Jean McGlothlin, said, “Right now, I’m just going to try and get by.”

Simon Clarke and Alexander King said they would appeal.

SIMON CLARKE MADE THE FORTY-FIVE-MINUTE DRIVE FROM
Central to the Tai Lam Centre for Women in the western New Territories the next day. He’d already been assured that Nancy’s guardian angel from Goldman Sachs would pay the full cost of all appeals, and he’d decided to hire Hong Kong’s preeminent appellate barrister, Gerard McCoy. He knew Nancy would be heartened by knowing that she’d continue to be represented by the best.

But he also knew Nancy wouldn’t want to talk about appeals, or even about the verdict, which had come as a shock. Both Clarke and Alexander King had been prepared for manslaughter due to provocation. Nancy had resisted having that option presented to the jury because she’d felt it would give them an easy way out. She’d been able to prevent King from arguing it, but she’d had no such control over Mr. Justice Lunn. In any event, it had been an obvious option, and no one would have been surprised if the jury took it.

But a unanimous verdict of murder, after less than eight hours of deliberation, following a trial that had lasted almost three months and in which the evidence had been entirely circumstantial? A unanimous verdict of guilty against a multimillionaire expat investment banker’s wife?

It was sobering, to say the least. Although Nancy had consistently refused to take advice from him, and King had insisted that everything be done her way throughout the trial, Clarke would not have blamed her for ranting that it was all his fault that she might spend the rest of her life in a Chinese prison. But he didn’t expect that to happen. He knew that, odd as it seemed, she was going to rant at him not because of the verdict, but because in the sixteen hours since then, he’d not been able to reach Michael Del Priore with the news.

The mystery of Nancy’s enthrallment with Del Priore had only deepened for Clarke after he’d met him the previous winter. The man had not struck him as either a romantic charmer or evil schemer. It could well have been his very blandness that lay at the root of his appeal to Nancy. He’d been a blank canvas on which she’d been able to paint her own portrait, born from a lifetime of neediness, neurosis, and insecurity. His chief attribute may have been his willingness to let Nancy direct every aspect of their time together. With him, she’d never have to fight for control. He certainly had been her husband’s opposite in that respect.

“Had been” were the operative words, and not only because her husband was dead. “Had been” because of a short item and photo in the new edition of the
South China Morning Post.

During the trial, Hong Kong newspapers and magazines were prohibited from publishing anything about the case except courtroom testimony. Now the gag was off. The caption under a picture of Del Priore opening his car door read:

Nancy was not going to be pleased about Tracey. Clarke hoped to get in and out of Tai Lam before she had a chance to see the story. He’d be subjected to tirade enough for having failed to reach Del Priore. He didn’t want to be anywhere near her when she learned the reason for her ex-lover’s elusiveness. He mentioned the story but emphasized how handsome Michael had looked in the picture.

Nancy wrote to him that night, before she’d seen the newspaper:

The next day, the Chinese-language magazine
Eastweek
published its story:

EVIL FOREIGN WOMAN MURDERS HUSBAND—LOVER SCOTFREE IN AMERICA

Then the Chinese-language magazine
Next
published the story it had been sitting on:

The stories and pictures would have disabled many denial mechanisms, but Nancy’s was sturdier than most. She wrote to Del Priore:

Nancy still did not write to her children. Two weeks after her conviction, Jane filed suit in New York State Surrogate’s Court, seeking custody of them. New York courts had jurisdiction because Rob’s last legal address in the United States had been in New York. In an affidavit accompanying the suit, Jane said, “Hayley has represented to me that her and Andrew’s legal problems have left her in a desperate financial situation and that she intends to fight for custody of Robbie’s children—even though she admits that it is not in their best interests to remain with her—in order to benefit from their considerable assets. Hayley told me that Andrew had leveraged everything, including their house in Vermont, and that he had left her with nothing,”

A week after the suit was filed and three days before a hearing in Surrogate’s Court,
The New York Times
published a lengthy story about the suit and all that had precipitated it. Bill was quoted as saying, “Andrew is in deep trouble and it wouldn’t be appropriate to have the children in a house without a mother and a father, where the wife needs the children to support her lifestyle.”

The story also said, “Back in June, Ms. [Chandler], a co-executor of her brother’s estate, testified during the murder trial that the estate was worth $18 million. That estimate has now been lowered to $15.5 million. Some of that gap can be attributed to investments that Robert Kissel had made in apartment buildings in New Jersey, which Andrew Kissel is now accused of having secretly sold out from under his own partners.”

The day after the story ran, Andrew called Jane and left a blistering message on her voice mail: “Jane, it’s your ex-brother. You’re famous, you’re on the front page of
The New York Times
. You should get it. You’re quoted. You’ve managed to do what Dad has tried to do for seventy-five years: tear this family apart. You’ve done that. And we’re going to bury you, Jane.”

Hayley called the same day. Her tone was more restrained, but she left no doubt that in the matter of custody—if in nothing else—she and Andrew would present a united front: “The betrayal I have gotten from you is of a magnitude that I never thought possible. But obviously I underestimated you.”

Convinced that Bill lurked behind Jane’s bid for custody, Hayley left him a somewhat less restrained message: “You’re an evil man, and I would say that you’ll get what you deserve except that you already got what you deserve.”

The Kissels were at it again. New York Surrogate’s Court judge Eve Preminger expressed her disgust from the bench at an October 2 hearing: “This isn’t a game here. These children aren’t property,” she said. In a new filing, Jane’s lawyer said, “Hayley Kissel has demonstrated blatant financial self-interest in seeking to maintain custody of the Kissel children and a disregard for their best interest.” Judge Preminger seemed to agree. “If one has to speculate” about Hayley’s motive in seeking to retain custody, “the speculations aren’t pretty,” she said.

Hayley hired Nathan Dershowitz, the brother of Harvard law professor and author Alan Dershowitz, to represent her, which suggested she had not yet reached the point of applying for food stamps. The phase of dueling press conferences began. “It’s not right for the court to suddenly swoop in and take these children off,” Nathan Dershowitz said. “I just don’t understand the rush to get in there and pull them out. There is a very strong bond between Hayley and the children.”

Alison Leigh Cowan wrote in
The New York Times
that the children “have endured nearly as much tragedy in their short lives as the waifs of the Lemony Snicket stories.”

During the first week of October, even as his lawyer was trying to negotiate a plea bargain on the federal charges, Andrew was indicted in New York on charges of grand larceny, forgery, and falsifying business records in relation to the $4 million he’d stolen from his co-op. In order to turn himself in for arraignment on the New York charges, Andrew had to get permission from federal authorities to leave his house in Greenwich. Because he was already wearing an electronic surveillance device, he was released on minimal bail on October 6, but the grand larceny count alone carried a penalty of up to twenty-five years in prison.
The New York Times
said he looked “dazed” at his court appearance.

Jane’s lawyer, Randy Mastro, of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, said the new charges against Andrew made it “even more apparent that these three children who’ve been through so much need to be in a stable supportive environment, and that’s what Jane Kissel [Chandler] and her family offer.” Nathan Dershowitz replied that the new charges had been expected and should not affect Hayley’s attempt to maintain custody.

Nancy didn’t write
to
her children, but she wrote about them in a manner that suggested she actually still knew how they were. She did not, because she continued to refuse letters from them, photos of them, or news about them, explaining to her mother that the emotional toll of such communications would interfere with her ability to work on her appeal.