On Nancy Kissel


Nancy Kissel

Updated on 28 July 2016

A new writ has been presented at HK High Court asserting special circumstances in her case.
Nancy Kissel is serving a life sentence at the Tai Lam Centre for women.
In a writ presented on the 27 of July her lawyers argued that her mental state and distress were not taken into consideration at the time of the sentencing. They are asking to deport her to an American prison, it is rightly said in the writ that “She presents no danger to society and is high unlikely ever to offend.”

Her late defence counsel Alexander King SC claimed Kissel had been subject for five years of forceful anal sex and physical assault by her ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ husband who used cocaine and was watching child pornography in internet.

I discuss her case in my next book:










Updated on 26 January 2014.

Again bad news for Nancy Kissel. Yesterday there was another ruling stating that she cannot take her appeal up to the Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong Top Court.

Is the US Consul General in Hong Kong going to step in and try to help one of her citizens or just keep quiet?

Kissel, 49,  could not even walk alone into the dock denying to her the chance that here we have a case of manslaughter not murder.Kissel

She should be allowed, at least, to serve her sentence in the US, closer to her children. Why is Hong Kong insisting on keeping her here?

The Court of Appeal on the last 3nd of December has ruled that a nine-member jury guilty verdict in the murder trial of Nancy Kissel was “neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory” and therefore she should spend the remaining years of her life behind bars. Her murder date to 2003 and a retrial was held in 2011. I disagree with the harshness of her treatment, even if I cannot base on facts and details but rather on principles. The nine-member jury findings has forced the Court to reject her plea of a diminished responsibility which, in my view, would have been proper and just. This was decided in spite of the medical evidence presented by Nancy Kissel’s defense team of three psychiatrists and one psychologist, being sane of mind it is not clear why between divorce and assassination she chose the latter and not the former.

I believe that this 49 years old mother of three is the victim of a kind of soft bigotry, of creeping anti-feminism and racial characterization, visible in Hong Kong. Even the South China Morning Post choose to offer the front page to William Kissel, the father of the murdered, who expressed his relief that this ruling will be the end of Nancy Kissel’s “litany of lies and character slander of my son to justify her evil actions.” In doing this even this paper seems to endorse a very partial view of the case.

The Kissels in happier times.
The Kissels in happier times.

While sympathizing with William Kissel and for his sufferings caused by the grisly circumstances of his son’s murder, I do believe that justice should be taken out of the hands of the victims and raised above their heads.

Two books were written on this story and there were rumors that a movie was planned. The Kissels were a couple of high-flyers, a type common within the expatriate community in Hong Kong and yet, in November 2003, she killed him, smashing his skull after having laced his milk shake with a powerful cocktail of sleeping pills. Then she wrapped his body in a carpet, hiding it in a storage room. Once discovered she was arrested, tried and sentenced to life imprisonment. During the trial all the local newspapers published the filthy details of their daily ménage. She told the jury that he was beating and sodomized her. There was cocaine, the boredom of daily life, the easy money of an investment banker with little scruples and a perverse sexual appetite. All Hong Kong citizens were smitten, mesmerized as we were all following the trial.

She had obtained a retrial in 2011, but the public opinion and the media were against her. She was still portrayed as a sort of killer with eyes of ice, the milkshake murderess, even if in fact she was only a wretched woman who felt lost and lonely in Hong Kong. I agree that this does not constitute a justification for killing a man but I am also convinced that by keeping her locked up for life will not change anything, and it will not improve our society. She has already paid a very heavy price.

Nancy Kissel did not want to live in Hong Kong but her husband, Robert Kissel, received an offer from Merrill Lynch that – as we say – could not be refused. So he decided to quit Goldman Sachs and scrap his plans for a return to the United States, in spite of the promise he had made to Nancy. I have spoken with several people who came in contact with Rober Kissel and I have yet to find one capable of defining him a nice or even an agreeable person, quite the contrary! Even if this, I repeat, doesn’t constitute a sufficient case for murder, otherwise I myself would be dead a long time ago.

But wrapping his body in a carpet, what kind of plan was that, was that really planned murder as the jury had ruled once more on the 3nd of December?

Quite the contrary, that in my view is a sufficient proof that it was not a planned murder but just the act of a desperate woman and she couldn’t hope to get away with it.

The so-called planning of the murder could have started while they saw a movie together, Unfaithful with Diane Lane and Richard Gere. A fine example of how an adulterous relationship can destroy the lives of ordinary people. A woman, whom Nancy must have identified herself with, bored with life, had sex with another man and could finally disentangle herself only by smashing the man’s skull.

Nancy Kissel during the trial.
Nancy Kissel during the trial.

I am also surprised by the fact that no one seems to question why Hong Kong taxpayers should foot the bill for keeping this American citizen locked up in Hong Kong forever. Sending her back to the USA will also help her children to stay closer to her mother. She indeed is the killer of their father but she is, and will always be, their mother, no matter what the HK jury will rule.

10 commenti su “On Nancy Kissel

  1. Angelo, you are such a weak person. Why should this murderess be allowed to come to the USA? She MURDERED her husband in Hong Kong, NOT in the USA. She broke the law in HK, not here in the USA. Her children, by the actions taken to sue her, want NOTHING to do with the murdering bitch. She needs to die in prison in HK, away from anyone she knows. She is a worthless POS!

  2. I wonder how many of the respondents are religious. I note with some humour that Nancy has Jesus on her side. What she really needs to realize is that God the bible and all the superstitious nonsense contained within are created by men to protect the powerful and elite and to keep sheep under control. Once people including Nancy realize the waste of time and effort believing in such crap, hoping for a safe haven in death, then they can concentrate on making THIS life a better place now and for the reason of our existence…to create a better world for our genes…Our children. War and killing people is not the way forward. PLEASE. The courts are just as bad as religion for controlling sheep. 10 years of tax payers money??? Plus all those years in prison while good people die of starvation?? Get it yet? Baaaa! !! .

  3. I knew Nancy in high school and she was a very close friend….although I don’t condone what she did, I just find it so hard to believe that she turned into the person the media is putting her out to be. I knew her to be a passionate, wonderful, funny, very personable girl. My heart breaks for her children, and my prayers go out to Rob’s family…..whatever lead her to this will probably forever be a mystery.

  4. She broke the law in another country, its their decision if they want to keep her in jail or ship her back here and never be allowed in their country again. Her kids sued her so there goes the theory of letting mom be closer to the kids.

    Also when you kill someone you deserve jail. You don’t deserve a lesser punishment. If you don’t want to go to jail for murder, don’t murder period. She made the decision to kill him when she could have divorced him instead.

  5. This article is very subjective it seems to be written of the lawyer if the murderer. The children do not want to see the murderer of their father. The article insists the opposite.

Lascia un commento

Questo sito usa Akismet per ridurre lo spam. Scopri come i tuoi dati vengono elaborati.