Hideously Absurd
How is it possible for this completely insane charade to be presented and conducted in a court of law in Ottawa, in Ontario, in Canada. That there could be people so utterly degraded, so without conscience and empathy, so prepared to receive and to express a belief in the absurd declarations of an unrepentant murderer?
A murderer, furthermore, who considers himself to be cunning and believable, invested with such a low degree of consideration of the intelligence of others that he expects his ranting idiocies to be considered believable?
This scum of the earth who has exploited and manipulated a gullible family whose personal fundamentalist Christian belief has been appropriated by him to gain their trust, and who took it upon himself to violate the most basic tenet of any religion: to do no harm to others.
The degree to which this man's fundamental illiteracy of truth is being displayed at his trial is quite simply mind-boggling. Why the pretense of going through the procedure?
Is he a lunatic, or is our system of justice so patently, insipidly disingenuous that his insane choreography of victimhood and innocence is seen as a necessary protocol regardless of its clumsy pathology? He was warned by 'someone' to remain at a distance from the woman he murdered, but he's unable to explain exactly who that person might be, for "I'm forbidden to tell you his name".
Someone whom he claims threatened him, attacked him, withdrew semen from him, but he's honour-bound to refrain from revealing his identity? One can only suppose that the sitting justice, Colin McKinnon developed a splitting headache as a result of his incredulity at the revelations that he dismissed the jurors for the day.
Allen Tehrankari is to be excused his appearing to be somewhat peculiar, for he suffered greatly, living in Iran: "Because of a disagreement with my government, I was imprisoned and tortured." He became an orphan, at the age of nine, before joining the army. His experiences in Iran resulted in his distrust of police authority. Which explains his unwillingness to inform them of what had occurred.
Oh, not the brutal rape and strangulation and immolation of his sister-in-law; no, the frightening attack on his vulnerable person by some unnamed duo of strange men determined to extract semen from him and implant it into the body of his sister-in-law. Whom he loved dearly, and she him, but without the excitation of passion. They were platonically involved, like innocent children.
Her interest in him might well have been platonic; his most certainly was not. He isn't devious, not at all, simply incredibly, mind-bogglingly barking-mad. His story relates to an adolescent, execrably-written account of juvenile fantasies. In reality, he claims, he was Barbara Galway's confidant, her emotional support, her kindly and only trusted friend.
For she needed a trusted friend. She was unable to find friendliness and compassion from the members of her own family. Her brothers testified of their concern at her loose morality, their belief that she was immodest and flaunted her sexuality. And that she flaunted her sexual relationships outside of marriage, to their great disgust. Her very brothers testified that she attempted to coerce Allan Tehrankari into sex.
They were devoutly Christian and she was an unrepentant slut. As for Mr. Tehrankari, the avuncular and sweet companion for a distraught, newly-divorced woman who just happened to be his sister-in-law, her plight brought him to tears, and he, good man that he is, refused to judge her. "Many times she was basically desperate for anyone to listen to her. All I could do is just sit there, let her on my chest (sic), and just cry."
That trust, if it indeed existed - which is doubtful, given her unease with his persistent calls on her cell phone which made her uncomfortable enough to detail it to one of her friends - was certainly misplaced. And she paid for it with her life. She was viciously violated, while she struggled to fight off her very kind brother-in-law who suddenly revealed the ravening beast inside him. And he concluded his rampage by removing her from life-support.
Yet, it was his ordeal that he laboriously and in great detail compulsively explained to the jury, about his attackers who came to defile his masculinity with a gun and silencer to ensure his complicity. Hands tied, blindfolded, those dreadful men digitally invaded his rectum and massaged his prostate for the purpose of extracting semen. "It was horrifying. When they were done they told me, 'You can't look at us.'"
His trusting, adoring wife, defends her husband. Implausible to anyone with an iota of intelligence, but quite explicable, all her husband's outrageously inane explanations, to her. For they share a loving and stable marriage, as her husband describes it; all the more so, since his arrest. He has become a martyr to the truth, and his wife, good Christian that she is, knows martyrdom when she sees it.
It's so utterly compelling, his cleaving to his wife, for she is as a saviour to him, he declared. "Susan is my window to Jesus Christ, to God Almighty", he said. And, so tenderly and hopefully, to an improbable defence.
A murderer, furthermore, who considers himself to be cunning and believable, invested with such a low degree of consideration of the intelligence of others that he expects his ranting idiocies to be considered believable?
This scum of the earth who has exploited and manipulated a gullible family whose personal fundamentalist Christian belief has been appropriated by him to gain their trust, and who took it upon himself to violate the most basic tenet of any religion: to do no harm to others.
The degree to which this man's fundamental illiteracy of truth is being displayed at his trial is quite simply mind-boggling. Why the pretense of going through the procedure?
Is he a lunatic, or is our system of justice so patently, insipidly disingenuous that his insane choreography of victimhood and innocence is seen as a necessary protocol regardless of its clumsy pathology? He was warned by 'someone' to remain at a distance from the woman he murdered, but he's unable to explain exactly who that person might be, for "I'm forbidden to tell you his name".
Someone whom he claims threatened him, attacked him, withdrew semen from him, but he's honour-bound to refrain from revealing his identity? One can only suppose that the sitting justice, Colin McKinnon developed a splitting headache as a result of his incredulity at the revelations that he dismissed the jurors for the day.
Allen Tehrankari is to be excused his appearing to be somewhat peculiar, for he suffered greatly, living in Iran: "Because of a disagreement with my government, I was imprisoned and tortured." He became an orphan, at the age of nine, before joining the army. His experiences in Iran resulted in his distrust of police authority. Which explains his unwillingness to inform them of what had occurred.
Oh, not the brutal rape and strangulation and immolation of his sister-in-law; no, the frightening attack on his vulnerable person by some unnamed duo of strange men determined to extract semen from him and implant it into the body of his sister-in-law. Whom he loved dearly, and she him, but without the excitation of passion. They were platonically involved, like innocent children.
Her interest in him might well have been platonic; his most certainly was not. He isn't devious, not at all, simply incredibly, mind-bogglingly barking-mad. His story relates to an adolescent, execrably-written account of juvenile fantasies. In reality, he claims, he was Barbara Galway's confidant, her emotional support, her kindly and only trusted friend.
For she needed a trusted friend. She was unable to find friendliness and compassion from the members of her own family. Her brothers testified of their concern at her loose morality, their belief that she was immodest and flaunted her sexuality. And that she flaunted her sexual relationships outside of marriage, to their great disgust. Her very brothers testified that she attempted to coerce Allan Tehrankari into sex.
They were devoutly Christian and she was an unrepentant slut. As for Mr. Tehrankari, the avuncular and sweet companion for a distraught, newly-divorced woman who just happened to be his sister-in-law, her plight brought him to tears, and he, good man that he is, refused to judge her. "Many times she was basically desperate for anyone to listen to her. All I could do is just sit there, let her on my chest (sic), and just cry."
That trust, if it indeed existed - which is doubtful, given her unease with his persistent calls on her cell phone which made her uncomfortable enough to detail it to one of her friends - was certainly misplaced. And she paid for it with her life. She was viciously violated, while she struggled to fight off her very kind brother-in-law who suddenly revealed the ravening beast inside him. And he concluded his rampage by removing her from life-support.
Yet, it was his ordeal that he laboriously and in great detail compulsively explained to the jury, about his attackers who came to defile his masculinity with a gun and silencer to ensure his complicity. Hands tied, blindfolded, those dreadful men digitally invaded his rectum and massaged his prostate for the purpose of extracting semen. "It was horrifying. When they were done they told me, 'You can't look at us.'"
His trusting, adoring wife, defends her husband. Implausible to anyone with an iota of intelligence, but quite explicable, all her husband's outrageously inane explanations, to her. For they share a loving and stable marriage, as her husband describes it; all the more so, since his arrest. He has become a martyr to the truth, and his wife, good Christian that she is, knows martyrdom when she sees it.
It's so utterly compelling, his cleaving to his wife, for she is as a saviour to him, he declared. "Susan is my window to Jesus Christ, to God Almighty", he said. And, so tenderly and hopefully, to an improbable defence.
Labels: Human Relations, Realities
posted by Pieface @ 7:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home