Abere Karibi-Ikiriko is innocent

The medical student that went to prison for her ex-boyfriends's shooting was released from prison because she is innocent. They have details at this website: http://www.the-abere-case.com.

Hmmm, I've never heard of this case before. So, who shot okechukwu? may God see her through.

It was an accident that occured while they were struggling for the gun when he attacked her.

This is a very sad case..he apparently was obsessed with her. Geez..it is not that crucial. She is beautiful though I must confess.

You know Abere?
Sad story what a waste of two lives.

Something is very rotten in the state of Denmark.



Welcome Twadsis.

wow..how did you come up with that deduction?

Me sef I fear o, Abere na US she dey and Oke na Igbo man... I no know where Denmark enter this gist unless it is coded for something.

So, he attacked her viciously and she shot him? Did she have any mark on her body showing that she was attacked so badly that she needed to pull the trigger? How did the gun come into play since she just went downstairs to get her laundry or is she walking around her own house with a loaded pistol because she was scared of a SQUATTER that is stalking her. Wouldnt it be easier to kick him out long time ago?


First, the gun was hers(but she claimed he asked her to buy and keep it for God knows what purpose), it was in her possession, she took it to the crime scene and the boy was shot in the basement and not in the main house. It may be an accident, but she took the gun there with a premeditated intention(either to shoot him or threaten him over an incident that occured previously). Remember, the victim did not live to tell his side of the story and what led to the shooting.

How are you sure that she is not the person asking him for a turning point in the relationship? This boy is somebody's son, brother or father and it will be disheartnening to let somebody shoot him out of passion or frustration and slip away with it because he did not live to tell his story besides what some defence attorney cooked up to help win his/her case.Thank God this incident didnt happen in Texas for she would've been in death row by now. I just hope she wont act same way again out of frustration because once a shooter, always a shooter.

Hmmm, was this a post humous confession? How did she or they know he was continuing to contact prstitutes when both of them were almost not communicating? Setting someone free for lack of evidence does not necessarily mean innocence.

Good observation, Obiora. Even if he had time and ability to talk en route to hospital, why would prostitutes come up? Looks like she had a trial was convicted, sentenced overturned because of police interview tactics.

. She got a new trial. Other tidbits from the Post.

and on the subject of Puerto Rico

All around, very sad. Something is still not quite right tho.

Abere is unable to separate real life from TV drama. Sometimes we do get carried away. Hmmm truly tragic, I sorry both of them cos I am sure Abere's intention was not to kill Oke or she no think the thing through.

Ok, I will address your points one by one.

Since I can read and actually read the evidence, I will post them here since you obviosly neglected to do so.

NO it was overturned because critical evidence was supressed.

It wasn't interview tactics that made them overturn it, it was because the evidence that showed HIS INTENTIONS were supressed. See post article:
"A three-judge panel of the Court of Special Appeals ruled 2 to 1 Monday that Circuit Court Judge Richard H. Sothoron Jr. should have allowed the defense to introduce into evidence seven handwritten letters and an e-mail from the former boyfriend to the defendant, Abere Karibi-Ikiriko, who is 28 now."

Also, prostitutes came up because her defense investigators found out that he was trying to contact prostitutes and told her AFTER the incident. SHE brought it up at trial, it was supposed to work in her favor to show his state of mind when it happened but the prosecutors turned it around against her. Cheap shot if you ask me, who kills over a call when you even had better reasons to in the past and didn't.

As for the Puerto Rico incident. That was not what was said at trial. The article is misleading because it doesn't give the whole story. She was upset that he had sex with a prostitute in PR two years ago not at the time of the incident. She broke up with him and then forgave him and took him back. She never said they were planning a threesome. That was a cheap shot by the prosecutors to make her look bad and take some of the shame away from him. She said HE had sex with a prostitute. She had nothing to do with that except for the fact that she was denying him sex at the time. Also, she didn't kill him then so why would she decide to kill him for that 2 years later? That just doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that he was mad because he couldn't get a prostitute on the night of the incident and couldn't get her back either so he snapped! There is already evidence that he was obssessed with her. And if you are desperate enough to be looking frantically for prostitutes, then it tells a lot about the kind of risky behaviour you are willing to engage in.

Once again, you were not there. It's her word against the evidence which would have been tampered with before the imcompetent homicide unit arrived.

Of course they were fighting but it shouldn't translate to murder. What if she attacked him first? If that is the case, half the popn of people fighting in apartments and road rages would have been dead.

Why being malicious on somebody I dont even know?

Once again, in her words and tastefully flavored by her defence attorney. Do you have any other proof that ohiri brought the gun?
For a woman like that dealing with a stalker(she already installed a bolt to prevent him from entering her section of the house) How come she left her gun(loaded) in whatever place her stalker/enemy can easily get at it?
Did you ever consider the fact that Ohiri may have annoyed her so much, got under her skin, harrased her new boyfriend blah blah blah and she decided to play the hard chic by warning him with her gun before things went beserk? Open your mind.

Ok, making it more difficult for her to get rid of him and hence the undue frustration.

Well, I saw it there and quoted it for you "He was taken to Prince Georges County Hospital where he died about an hour after the shooting. Karibi-Ikiriko told officers that he had attacked her with her gun which he asked her to buy. She said the shooting was an accident". . I had to quote it again since you didnt see it. Isn't that laughable? Why add that line? "The gun is mine but the evil minded ohiri asked me to buy it". What's the difference between that statement and what Adam told God on who to blame for the apple he ate in Eden garden?

Bro/sis, we are not fighting...you are neither ohiri nor ibirokio..I thought you are a bystander...why get offensive on a little critical analysis?

Obsession with her does not translate to murder...when will you get it? You said that I dont know that for a fact, tell me how you knew yours for a fact because you seem to pull a nerve as if somebody is trying to speak over you on something you know for sure?

Tons of people get obsessed with each other yearly in America and beyond but few cases translates to murder with a murder weapon onwed by the murderer..

Really? was it in the letter too? that he'll be leaning over her when he'll die? This is a case in which the so called veteran homicide detective forgot to read her Miranda rights before interviewing her coupled with other evidence hidden from the defence team. How can you claim the judgement is based on the preponderance of an evidence collected by an incompetent team? What makes you think the judges will not put those flaws into consideration? why is their adjudication 2:1?...does that mean beyond reasonable doubt to you? Did you hear the case of HPD DNA lab that was filled with contaminated DNA samples of crime suspects? Most of the suspects and convicts whose DNA evidence was involved during that period was set free because they had incompetent DNA staff and contaminated evidence from a leaking roof. Does that mean they were innocent?

I never told you she purposely came down to shoot him. i know the shooting ensued in between a heated argument which could be physical but you refuse to acknowledge the possibilty of the suspect loosing it and going too far, rather, you continue to maintain she's completely innocent because you have doggone emails proving she was being stalked by the victim, but insist on refuting my claim because I wasn't there...for the umpteenth time, were you there? what struck me about the evidence is the way it was presented and concluded with a bogous claim of post traumatic stress disorder and maniac depression(which is normal for a murder suspect anyway).

Speculation..speculation! The anticipation of death is worse than death itself...i guess!

Eeeewww...what a romantic prodigal "prodigy"!

I would've been happier if both of them are living and better still, pointing fingers at each others face in a small claims court.

oooh..was the PTSD a sort of penance? If murderers are expected to be set free because they had PTSD, then the death row will be empty by now.(Btw, did you read the evidence report on the doctor that used her Benz on her husband in Houston years ago? the defence attorney did a beautiful judge, presented a convincing argument save that the camera told us opposite ).

I agree.

Intentionally or unintentionally...the least unintentional/accidental shooting can get her is a manslaughter charge or 3rd degree murder.

You are taking this to another level..I dont have anything against her. What do you mean? you just post this story here and expect us to believe whatever is written on her website whether the story is peeing on our feet and telling us it's raining or not?

For now, the only thing I know about her is that she's hot and preety but since I discovered she owns a gun(prolly a dane gun, that turns around to shoot the shooter)...I ran!!!!

Our personality is totally different from what may happen if we are enraged..there is a thin line between sanity and insanity.

And you dont know whether she intentionally shot him or not because you were not there...unless you are the spirit of Ohiri writing from one cemetery in Abule Egba.

I read somewhere about them having minage~a~trio/threesome(with a whore)...whats up with that since sleeping with a whore is a probable reason to be a murderer?.
Believe me, my intuition is telling me that she acted on the spur of the moment and that may translate to her being a good person...just a stupid mistake. I don't fight at all(but I keep telling people that love to fight to desist from using a weapon( whether it's a gun, ikea knife, spoon, bottle or stone) because they are potential murder weapons.

Now you are talking...the evidence was suppressed..why? he was lying on top of her huh?

Check out his fictional scenario and fault it with your evidence: Assuming she made up with him after he promised her bliss and eternal glory and while they were "necking", he said something stupid which led to scratching and the lethal shooting?
"Absence of probable evidence is not the evidence of innocence".

The evidence supports HER testimony!

You were not there either so why do you say she shot him intentionally? So who tampered with the evidence? Are you saying she did? Ok if she was trying to cover up a murder, why would she call the police and say she shot him? Why will she not just leave him for dead and travel out of the country the next day, she already had her ticket. Instead she called them to come and arrest her eh? That just doesn't sound like a murderer to me. She obviously wasn't trying to cover up anything. And yes, the homocide unit were incompetent. They did not do any investigations and that was why she was charged in the first place. They just sat on their butts because they felt they didn't have to do anything because she said she shot him. Would they have taken her word for it to if she said she didn't. Do you know how many people admit crimes that they did not commit. Only for it to be revealed that they were innocent after proper investigation.

Oh, so you agree now that she has scratches and blood on her body eh? Aren't you the one who just wrote:"Did she have any mark on her body showing that she was attacked so badly that she needed to pull the trigger?" Seems to me that you are desperately trying to find every angle to paint her as a murderer. You are right though, fighting shouldn't translate to murder, and we DO NOT KNOW that it was murder. She is saying it was not which makes sense because like you said "they were fighting but it shouldn't translate to murder".

Well you don't know her so why are you making statements like "she is a murderer?" Again, YOU WERE NOT THERE!

Once again, she said that BEFORE she got an attorney. She even told the detective right after the incident while still at the house that HE brought the gun down. And if we were to use logical reasoning, who would bring the gun into play? The one who is depressed and suicidal because he is failing and the love of his life who he is obsessed with will not take him back, or the one who has moved on with her life, is doing great in school, and about to take a long anticipated trip AWAY from the person who is obsessed with her? Please use common sense. If that evidence of his state of mind was not suppressed and the jury was able to see it, she would never have been convicted and THAT was why the conviction was overturned! Of course I agree with you that it is not proof, but it is logical reasoning which is what the jury is supposed to use in deciding the case. So YOU also do not have ANY proof that SHE brought the gun down! She had access to it all this while and never used it! Once he had access to it, he used it. That is what makes sense to me and any other logical minded person.

First of all, the gun was meant for HER protection from intruders not her TENANT! She never believed he would actually want to kill her. Remember she testified that she loved this man. She never knew he was going to come down with the gun. He made it seem like he was going to get a gift for her to beg her, just like he had done several times before. She did not know how desperate and depressed and pretty much CRAZY he was at the time. And you say “For a woman like that” meaning that you feel she is smart right? So why would she do such a stupid thing as shooting him accidentally or intentionally if not for her own protection?
You also do not know who loaded the gun. What makes you think it wasn't him? Remember, the palm print on the magazine (which is the part that is loaded, not the part exposed during the struggle) did not match hers and was never compared to his. Who else handled that gun that night? It had to have been his and all of a sudden the police say that they did not get his palm print. Was he cremated? No he wasn't! They could have done it but they claim that they didn't. How convenient. It would make their jobs a lot easier to put someone away without actually doing some thorough investigations. Do you know how many people have gone to prison because police suppressed evidence or even planted it? Only for the evidence to resurface later and then they release the person which is what HAPPENED IN HER CASE!

I have considered it and that doesn't make any sense for someone as smart as her. She was leaving the next day and getting away from him. Why would she want to kill him and ruin her life that was going very well? Instead she would ask her new boyfriend which I am sure would be obliged bitch slap him to teach him a lesson! If she had another boyfriend, that would have driven him insane. It's in his letters...the INTENSE JEALOUSY he had even when she just talk to other guys. Remember it he who was frustrated and wanted to die and take her along...one of those “if I can't have you nobody will”. That has happened so many times. How many times have you heard of a smart person, who has a ticket to go outside of the country, killing someone that THEY have already broken up with because they called prostitutes and then calling the police to come and carry them and ruin their lives? Remember, the case they presented was not that he was harassing her like you say, they made it look like she was jealous because they had conveniently suppressed the evidence that showed that he was the one that was jealous. Obviously they felt that killing someone for harassment instead of calling the police was a much sillier motive for a smart girl. Obviously you like the silly one. Remember, she had a lot going for her. My point is, THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and you know it. You have got to come up with something better than that.

Making it more difficult to get rid of him? Undue frustration? She was leaving the next day...out of the country!!! If things got so bad that she had to get him out, she would have called the police. She still cared about him and didn't think it was fair to kick him out and make him homeless just because she had broken up with him. This is someone who just rededicated her life to God, he had a heart. And she feels terrible about what happened to him even after what he was going to do to her. Many would not be so kind. God bless her.

Why add that line? Well, because she was ASKED why she bought the gun. They don't tell you that in the article, because they didn't think they had to. People can figure that out themselves. That is how a trial testimonies go, questions and then answers. You don't answer questions they don't ask you or there will be objections! Also, do you know why he did not buy a gun himself? Well there are several reasons including not being the owner of the house but the main reason was that he was SEEING A PSYCHIATRIST that told him that he was SUICIDAL. You automatically cannot get a gun for that reason alone. Maybe if he kept his appointments this would not have happened.

Oh it is not a critical analysis. You plainly said she shot him and she is a murderer when you don't know that for a fact. You did not say maybe or what if.

Well, when will YOU get it. Look at the statistics, 80% of obsessive relationships end up in violence and a lot of times murder. Look at the man who burned his girlfriend alive because she refused to take him back. It was even caught on camera! There are so many such cases, too numerous to list but if you want I can post them for you. But you cannot tell me you are so naive to not know about them. Even more compelling is that he talks about doing it in his letters and emails. Too bad she never took him seriously, most women don't and end up dead. Sometimes love blinds you and you tell yourself: "he wouldn't really do that, he is just trying to scare me into taking him back" and the more you ignore it, the more he feels like he has to prove that HE AINT PLAYING! Some women even report it to the police who do not take it seriously and don't give restraining orders until it is too late!

I don't know mine for a fact either but at least I'm basing my opinions on evidence rather than speculation that doesn't even make logical sense.

Here again you said owned by the murderer. Are you saying that she is a muderer? How do you know? Were you there? Would it have been better if she didn't own it? Remember that she is saying and very well could be the VICTIM in this case. Remember also, that is a registered gun, registered to her. She obviously wasn't planning on committing a crime with it and getting away with it, but got it, and was APPROVED for it because she needed it for protection. She had that gun throughout their relationship and never used it, even after he did terrible things to her. She just kept breaking up with him. You are thoroughly investigated on your background and need for a gun before you are allowed to buy one! About the statistics, you are wrong, a whole lot more than a few end up in murder, actually murder-suicide which is what the evidence points to in this case. And it is not the person who is obsessed over that commits the crime, it is the OBSESSOR! Furthermore, couple obsession with depression and a possible end to your future career (failing out in medical school) and you have a disaster just waiting to happen. Feelings of abandonment, hopelessness about the future, writing notes about wanting to die...God, it is all so clear to me. No wonder they were hiding that evidence. But as long as there is God, nothing is ever hidden under the sun.

No, it was in the Forensic Evidence which is even more reliable.
"Results show that Okechukwu William Ohiri was leaning over Abere Karibi-Ikiriko on a couch when the shooting occurred."

First of all the miranda thing had no impact on her case. The only thing it did was prevent the prosecutors from using her statement saying "How could you live if you knew you killed somebody you loved?" As far as I am concerned that doesn't even hurt her, I would have let it in because it shows that she feels terrible about his death and even blames herself...again, not trying to hide anything like you insinuate. As for the evidence hidden from the defense team, if the police really felt she was guilty, why did they have to hide the evidence? Oh, I know, because it shows his SICK state of mind and shows that she was not the one who was obsessed and that HE "WOULD DO ANYTHING TO GET HER BACK"

Well, it was the MARYLAND STATE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS that overturned the case based on suppression of critical evidence. Makes sense to me, she and everyone else deserves a FAIR TRIAL! Oh so now they are incompetent? But you feel they were competent enough to charge her with a crime. You are not being consistent. I agree that their incompetencies prevented them from thoroughly investigating the case, and therefore charging her with a crime.

The state did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty. There was nothing that proved that she shot him intentionally which is what she was charged with. If the state does not prove that she is guilty BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT, she HAS TO BE AQUITTED. THAT IS THE LAW! The burden of proof is on the prosecution. She doesn't even have to testify, doesn't even have to present a defense, doesn't even have to prove that she is innocent. It is the prosecution that has to prove that she is guilty. They HAVE TO PROVE it or a lot of innocent people will be going to prison.

It does not mean that they were innocent, I agree with you. But it does not prove that they were guilty so by law they have to be set free. Once again, "it is better for thousands of guilty people to be set free than for an innocent person to suffer for a crime they did not commit."

Yes you did, you said "she took the gun there with a premeditated intention(either to shoot him ...)"

Oh really, YOU KNOW? So once again, you were there?

Fist of all why is it bogous? And it is not a claim, she was DIAGNOSED with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by STATE PSYCHIATRISTS! Secondly, PTSD is NOT NORMAL for a murder suspect. PTSD is diagnosed when "The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others and the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. It is a severe and ongoing emotional reaction to an extreme psychological trauma. During this type of event, you think that your life or others' lives are in danger. You may feel afraid or feel that you have no control over what is happening. Individuals with this disorder may describe painful guilt feelings about surviving when others did not survive or about the things they had to do to survive. As for the manic depression, she never had and doesn’t have it. Again, it is not murderers that are affected with PTSD, it is VICTIMS and a lot of war veterans who killed to defend our country!

That is why I used the word "could" and at least it is evidence based and so NOT unreasonable. Where is your evidence?

Oh, but because she is alive you want her to suffer. He is dead, there is nothing we can do about that. It is sad but from his letters he was really sick and needed help. I wish he had gotten that help. It is his family I feel for. However, she is alive and still has a shot at life. She has already served 2 years in prison after an unfair trial. If there is no evidence that she is guilty she should be given a chance at life since SHE is still living. She has already done so much for society and has a lot of potential.

Don’t be ridiculous! No one said she should be set free because she has PTSD. It was only mentioned because it affected her behavior and statements after the incident. She should be set free because there is no evidence to show that she is guilty. In this country and many others, YOU ARE INNOCENT until proven guilty! That law was set for a purpose…to protect citizens from unjust punishment. If not for that law, people will be thrown into prison for mere police suspicion. And in that case, death row would be FULL by now! How would you like that? Tons of innocent people being killed for crimes they did not commit. Even with the law in place we still have innocent people that were killed on death row only for evidence to surface later to show that they were innocent, not to talk of if there was no law. Statistics show that most innocent people are convicted due to police foul play (which happened here) and juries that don’t consider the lack of evidence as an absence of guilt (which also happened here!).

There is a difference. Those charges are due to negligence on the part of the defendant. In her case she was being attacked, that is not negligence! She had a right to defend herself even if it was an intentional shooting. So if it happened by accident while she was trying to defend herself, then she is not guilty of any of those charges or any crime for that matter! Moreover do you know that she was told that she would be set free she said she shot him intentionally in self defense. She refused and said she will not lie!

Oh, so now it is HER website? If it said she was guilty would you say that too? Just because it doesn’t support what you speculate, it is now her website. The website does not even say she is innocent. It just presents the evidence. I drew my own conclusions that she is innocent because in this country once again YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! I don’t expect you to believe anything but if you don’t believe the evidence in the website or The Maryland State Court of Special Appeals opinion, then you can go to the court house and look at the evidence yourself. The website clearly states that it is open to the public! We are free to believe whatever we want. Some of us like me like to believe physical evidence!

She would probably run from you too considering your way of reasoning and total disregard for evidence. She also does not own a gun anymore, does not even want to see one because of her PTSD. She went into shock when it was presented in court. Also, the “dane gun” and ANY gun for that matter, has the capability of shooting you if you are stupid enough to struggle with someone who is holding it! And yes I am SURE that there was a struggle because the FORENSIC physical evidence supports it!!!! Somebody’s hand pulled that trigger. I don’t know who. It could have been either of them during the struggle. All I know is that if she did during the struggle, or intentionally for that matter, and he was indeed attacking her (which I am inclined to believe because he was the proven obsessed, depressed, and suicidal one), then SHE IS INNOCENT .

Right, but he is the only one that showed previous INSANE behavior.

Right, which is why they should go and dig him up and collect that evidence that they claim they did not collect. You should read the book “When dead people talk”. Evidence speaks even from the grave!

Like I said before “As for the Puerto Rico incident. That was not what was said at trial. The article is misleading because it doesn't give the whole story. She was upset that he had sex with a prostitute in PR two years ago not at the time of the incident. She broke up with him and then forgave him and took him back. She never said they were planning a threesome. That was a cheap shot by the prosecutors to make her look bad and take some of the shame away from him. She said HE had sex with a prostitute. She had nothing to do with that except for the fact that she was denying him sex at the time. Also, she didn't kill him then so why would she decide to kill him for that 2 years later? That just doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that he was mad because he couldn't get a prostitute on the night of the incident and couldn't get her back either so he snapped! There is already evidence that he was obssessed with her. And if you are desperate enough to be looking frantically for prostitutes, then it tells a lot about the kind of risky behavior you are willing to engage in.”

The Forensic evidence shows that HE WAS LEANING OVER HER when the shot was fired. If you don’t believe it, go to the court house and look at the evidence yourself.

Hahahaha, you must be kidding! So they were necking, he said something stupid, she went and got the gun, came back, continued necking, so he was leaning over her again, and then decided to shoot him? And all that time she is with the gun he is just there still necking eh? You’ve lost me. Fault your own scenario. E no gel my dear. Her story is way more believable, and I am sorry if you don’t like it but I believe her. But if she shot him intentionaly, may God judge her, becuase I personly am not in favor of the intentional killing of another human being, self defense or not. Only God who created us all has the right to give and take life. But again, I leave her to God to judge, I cannot judge her, I have no right to anyway.

Once again, there is no telling on whether she accidentally shot him or intentionally did so. we are able to ascertain he was shot because of the bullet wounds that led to his death(which may come from him shooting himself).

Think for once? what will she do with his body? The easiest way out for her is to notify the cops after putting everything in place....besides, if she shot him in frenzy, other options may be out of reach.

Because we do stupid things and leaving the country does not mean out of reach. There will still be an APB for her and they can trace her to Austria through her ticket...this is a murder case my friend.You may wanna ask why didnt she avoid leasing part of her home to him.

What do you mean? people murder their spouses daily here and call the cops to report it either as accident or suicide. Have you seen cold case files or CSI before?

Wouldnt their incompetence be a good omen for her now? Why are you complaining?
Truth is that the law here has lots of technicalities that can make innocent people go to jail and guilty ones free.

Do you also know how many that deny crimes they commited only to be proven otherwise later?

Wasn't that supposed to be a question? you've answered it befoore abi?

I am not, I am only saying that it's unfair to paint the dead guy black because he was a stalker and is no more alive to speak for himself. No matter what we are and who we are, aint nobody has any right to take away our lives. I've seen people unjustly murdered and the cops turn a deaf ear about their case because they were either felons or too poor to be looked out for. Thats unfair.

You still don't get it. Her statements before an attorney does not necessarily mean they are either true or false. You still dont have any other proof on who brought the gun down apart from her statement. What if ohiri was alive and gave another statement on how she brought the gun down? Now, he's not alive to speak for himself.

Your logical reasoning is not an evidence of the truth. Logical reasoning is what most defense attorneys use to help their clients beat a rap. Why was OJ set free even though logical reasoning points to the fact that he may have done it? Why was Mike Jackson set free even though logical reasoning point to the fact that since he invites kids to his bed(which sounds wierd), he can as well be banging them?

Assuming she murdered him, we still agree that she did it at the spur of the moment or even for self defence and not because she was a trigger happy serial killer. Why would she be using a loaded gun if there is no need for it?

Our emotions make us do stupid things..remember the case of the Houston Physician that killed her husband with a benz in front of a hotel with one thousand witnesses including the cameras...instantaneous madness can make you a murderer even though you didnt fathom how.

I hope you know that guns are not like your TV remotesd you handle everyday, it's a property that you keep in safe places in your home(preferably bedroom) and only look for it if there is an immidiate need for it. I alsoo want you to remember that according to her, they were in good terms when she bought the gun(because he asked her to buy it). Depending on the time frame here, the strange finger print on the magazine would've been from the person that loaded the gun the day it was bought. Dont be surprised the finger print wasnt his' either. As for exhuming the body and so on, there are rules that guide cases here especially when it involves people of colour that are internationals. These things cost money and sometimes, its more convinient to let it go than to gamble with your fortunes on a case like that.

Since you've mentinoed this issue of being so smart so much, do you really think it's smart for her to let a man that was stalking her into her home in the first place? Wouldn't that be a challenge to her judgement? Smart men and women do stupid things atimes and one of the stupid things we do as smart people may be in play here. Again, she left him because of religious injuction, not because she doesn't love him anymore(You and I know how we daily fail on our promises to God). She was even crying and asking him to survive the shooting and see her open the legs again. Doesn't that indicate to you that she may still be in love with him? Love makes us do stupid things...

Haba! leaving the country has no impact on her behaviour...its not as if she's leaving the world to Mars.

First of all, i didnt read his visits to psychiatrists. It may be neough indication that he's suicidal but can also be a convinient way for someone that wants him out of the way feign him for suicide. Pcychiatrist are not always right..are they?

I agree with you but because they couldnt prove it does not mean she's innocent as long as you dont have a compelling evidence.

Bottom line: she may be set free by law, but it doesnt prove she's free abi na this be the first case wey you hear them setting a murderer free? Can you remember the case of the man that muredered his pregnant girlfriend and got out of it only to confess many yrs later after watching Mel Gibsons "passion of Christ"?

Ooh please! you and I know that half of the disorders psychiatrists diagnose here are faulty especially that one they call ADHD. They always point at the patient showing the xteristics..how many kids in America has ADD/ADHD? How do you claim that a 5 yr old kid does not keep attention as if I was attentive at age 5? Duhh...there age is enough to make them do that. About the doggone PTSD., anybody that is going through so much stress is capable of developing that disorder including you. I said PSTD is normal for murder suspects because of the gravity of their case(especially those that are not career murderers, she aint one...is she?)

Hmm..what do you take me for? whomever created that web page is pr ikiriko and in most cases, they do it to help create awareness to overturn a conviction or raise money for the defendants defence fees.

I wanna run to her....:hbeatuuuhhuuhhh
I wanna run :hbeat to her....as long as she wont pull the trigger anymore.

Are you sure? how do you even know all these? are you her friend/lover/sibling/parent?

I agree!

The theory sticks only if she brought the gun(now' we dont know who brought the gun for sure)

What if the small gun was invisible, havent you seen maniacs that attack their victims after making passionate love to them? What if she brought it along just to be on the safe side? what if she decided to use it after discovering his attempt on getting prostitutes prior to his promises and the fact that his heart is impregnable?

:thumbs

Btw,
happy thanksgiving, ikioriko defense lawyer.

@michael and chiomze,
The above quote is from Hamlet, Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare and means that there's something fishy going on, Sw8thStreet did not mean that the events being discussed in this thread occurred in Denmark.

I believe she is innocent.

But why would she say "I shot him" and take all blame? She didn't even say it was an accident at that time because all she was thinking about was getting him help. She never even thought about herself and what that would mean for her. That is definitely not something someone who just "intentionally" shot someone and is trying to cover it up would say. Why would she say that and then start "fixing" evidence? If she was trying to look innocent, she would have called and said she shot him by accident, self defense, or he shot himself! It is pretty clear that she wasn't trying to cover up anything which is one of the main reasons I believe her.

Because she was a kind hearted person that could "not stand to see someone in pain or need". He had just been evicted and was homeless. There is evidence showing how he had pleaded with her to lease it to him and she refused because they were broken up at the time. She had also been looking for a tenant for several months and she finally gave in. Additionally, they got back together and this incident did not happen until after she broke up with him several months later.

Like I said earlier, that is why I believe she is innocent! She didn’t call the cops and say it was an accident or suicide. She just said she shot him and that is why the basis of them prosecuting her. She was in shock and blamed herself. She cannot not be taking blame and at the same time covering blame. Also do you know that after the evidence surfaced, they wanted to drop the case but his family put pressure on the prosecutors to go forward with the case? They even offered her a plea of manslaughter which was turned down so they decided to get back at her by suppressing critical evidence to her defence.

It is not unfair to state the facts. Nobody is "painting" him black. It would be unfair if we are saying he did something he didn’t do. We WAS obsessed, he did stalk, threaten, and harass her. He also DID use prostitutes. If who he was is not presented, how would anyone know what he was capable of doing? That is also why prosecutors try to dig up whatever dirt they have on a defendant to show the jury that they are capable of doing wrong. He is dead does not mean we should hide who he was. If it was Abere that was obsessed with him and he left her, don’t you think the prosecutors would have put that on the big screen to show that she murdered him? So why shouldn’t the defense use it to show that HE tried to murder her? The part that really touched me was how she avoided saying anything negative about him in her testimony even when prompted. She obviously loves the guy and doesn’t want to bad mouth him. She was saying things like, he was a nice guy, always there for her, etc. She never bad mouthed him, not even once.

I only said that because YOU said that it was “in her words and tastefully flavored by her defence attorney”.

Logic preserves the truth and refutes a lie (see logic 101). If I’ve lost you let me break it down. If you are in Lagos at 1pm you cannot be AND WERE NOT in Port Harcourt at 1pm). Of course that is a simplistic explanation but I just wanted to point out the importance of logic!

The gun had been bought years before the incident so it could not have been the person who loaded the gun when she bought it. What am I saying? Guns are not sold loaded. You buy your own ammunition and load it yourself! Nobody wants their fingerprint on YOUR gun. Besides, it must have been cleaned after she bought it because HER fingerprint was not on it. So whose fingerprint would it be other than hers? It had to have been his.

Explanation already given about how the lease came about. She decided it is better to be kind than to be "smart". She has a huge reputation for community service and helping people, there is even a national article that was published where she said "helping people is may passion". So what she did is not surprising to me.

Yes, she said she would take him back BECAUSE she didn’t want him to die. She felt that since that is what he wanted that caused this whole mess, she was willing to give him what he wants if it would make him live. This is definitely not someone who wanted to kill him. It does not mean she wants to have sex with him and she never said so. As for love, she did in fact say she loved him and never wanted to hurt him.

Yes, because it was part of the evidence cleverly suppressed by the prosecutors.

She never said he committed suicide, although his written evidence shows that a murder-suicide was his intention.

Legally, it does mean she is innocent because you are innocent until proven guilty.

Absolutely not. PTSD cannot be diagnosed from stress alone! You have to have witnessed a traumatic event, to you or others that resulted in death or serious injury or the treat of it to you or others. It is especially worse if the other person affected is a loved one, which is so in this case. And also worse if it was sudden and unexpected. Apparently the psychiatrist felt she met all of the criteria-her life was threatened, a loved one died, it was sudden and unexpected, and she had the symptoms. As for the psychiatrist being right, well they are the ones trained to diagnose. They are in a better position to do it than you and I. Their testimony is also valid in court which is why they have psychiatrists evaluate a defendant if needed. And by the way, they are not always in favor of the defendant especially if they are hired by the State. In her case it was the State that even diagnosed her. By the way her PTSD didn’t even come up in court so I don’t even know the relevance of you bringing it up. No one said it was her PTSD that set her free. PTSD cannot set you free, it can only explain symptoms.

First of all, I don’t see anything on that website that is “pr ikiriko”. I only see evidence that is also available at the court house for public viewing. Secondly, her conviction was overturned by the MD court of special appeals. You must not know much about the process because there are specific things needed to overturn a conviction and no website can influence that. There are specially trained JUDGES that review the case. As for defense fees, she had public defenders, they only charge $50 and if you don’t have it, they still defend you!

It happened in court. Since you asked, I am a law student who got interested in the case when I heard that it happened to two fellow Nigerians. I have a friend who is also a Nigerian law student but is in DC and was able to attend the trial. I have actually been asking her about some of the things that you have said since she was at the trial and heard everything.

I hope you had a happy thanksgiving too. I wish I already had my law degree because I would have defended her. Her lawyers did a terrible job. They didn’t even try or she wouldn’t have ended up with an unfair trial and conviction that had to be overturned. I’m guessing because she is Nigerian and there is such a huge bias in PG county (where the case took place) against successful Nigerians. Anyway, this is good practice for me, Ohiri prosecutor!

thanks ojare atayo...the babe did not know some of us went to night school. By the way, Obiora u sabi the victim, cos the way u dey take am personally the wonder me

Oh k, I bin don wonder o, where Denmark enter this equation.
Hmm Hamlet, chei if for say she use that Igbo proverb wey say bird wey dey dance for path the thing wey dey play music for am dey inside bush I for understand am well well.