Rights
Monthly urban judicial district
Lawyer
Its owners and creators *
The one with meat is behind you
After being hidden for this period, it returns to existence, greeting its readers, those who desire it, and those who activate it. It will soon be published monthly, as usual, in the size of this report, containing established laws, regulations, and decisions of the courts, especially the courts of cassation, and from Sharia and legal investigations, from civil, commercial, and criminal, and from pleadings, news of the law, forensic medicine, and poetry of interest to the judge, lawyer, doctor, merchant, litigants, students of jurisprudence, and so on. Than Rights and other stakeholders, etc., etc. Its annual allowance: 50 francs in Syria and Lebanon and an Egyptian beer abroad, with immediate payment.
Negotiations: with its construction manager
Lawyer Naguib Khalaf
In his office – in the Fakhry Bey Building. Beirut Tanf 32
When my daughter Josephine brought her from Houraniya, she entered the toilet and fell There, she told her brother Joseph, and he took it out and put it between my thighs. Rather, how did this birth happen when his father does not know? Perhaps he learned magic from the police! If the father was in a coma, why did his coma only last a few seconds before the search? Although Josephine says that she arrived and found her father sitting in bed (101 Trial), and Joseph also says (105), and Nasib Salim Al-Onbashi says that he was sitting on the bed while he was conscious of himself and his brother, and that they both spoke to him (128). Rather, is it not impossible for all of this to happen or not? He knows the people of the house and they are the reins of six people, their mattresses arranged in rows, and Najib counted them as one of the accused, and they are his sister, his two uncles, his cousin’s wife, and his cousin’s children (S 136) and his two uncles Noman and Salim (S) 37 were true in his statement? Why did Joseph choose his father’s pants? Yes, perhaps the place is the most secure, the most secret, and the most hidden! How was the matter hidden from all of them and was it possible that she was next to her father on his bed, as Nasib Salim testified? 28 trial). Perhaps she was then the one who fulfilled the hidden judgement. 1 Then did he not feel that he had been moved from the time they began the search until they seated him on the chair? Rather, how did all that happen and the police in the house? Josephine herself (104) says that Maroun Mansour entered the house with me and stayed with me until Al-Onbashi came, and she says: Yes, the military man was sitting with me in the house. Nasab says that this took 15 minutes. Wasn’t Josephine sitting near her father’s bed the secret of the whole secret? . And if this knife has no significance, as the court asked and Professor Al-Souda asked, then why do they care about it when it is a kitchen knife/or a hunting knife? And why did they not put it among the knives? With all this clarity, the defending professor says that there is a contradiction between Maroun and us with the knife issue! ! As if there was no knife! No suspicious incidents accompanied the two residents!! . Let us come to the individual. What is hidden in the hideout? In “Al-Takhtaba” under the pile of luggage To increase the misleading? Then why did he deny the existence of an individual? The interrogator says, “Although we have warned them that we will search for a knife, clothes contaminated with blood, etc.” Then why did they claim that it had been hidden for a year from the boy Joseph, one of my heroes, obliterated except for traces? Joseph himself says that his mother told him that he was lost (Trial (106)) And why did they deny that he was divorced? And what are those papers in their house that are his own? Rather, why so much time in denial: Why play with effects all of this, because the truth cannot be individualized? To be hidden when the truth is most prevalent and its proof is gray Her mother, father, and uncle Salim intercepted the police and demanded that he leave her and bring her into the house against his will (Q. 34)? But why did they prepare for her as soon as she entered the house, even making the police ask for her? Power from the boss to take it? How did she admit to the existence of the knife after all these amazing denials and concealments? Then why did she see him in the toilet? . If it happened unintentionally, how did she know it had happened and how did she confide in her brother that he was there? (Q40) Otherwise, how did he know he was there? Why did he wrap him in a towel, where did he get the towel from, did it fit in his pocket, and why was he putting the towel in his pocket? (Trial 107). We wanted to go with the defense in imagination because here it is feared that the gendarmes were playing tricks with their collusion with the people of Al-Khoury (who are absent from the religion of thousands of miles away, and perhaps they were instructed by the alleged head of the party, Suleiman Bey Kanaan!) in order to create against them and the judiciary this strange village in a strange way, The gendarme takes a knife from his pocket, and we put it with astonishing agility into Numan’s pants, without undoing it and then pretending that it is a knife, but agility, skill, and tact, no matter how smart the gendarme is, cannot put in the mouth of the daughter of one of the two criminals, the actress, Ward al-Kareem al-Azim, words that would diminish her blindness. He puts a confession on her tongue, a deed in her hand, a knife in her chest, and in her movements a command to accuse her father. He even puts a towel in Joseph’s pocket, and a knife in his trousers, while he is tied with a buckle. And if the gendarmes in the country have begun to perform wonders, then there is nothing left of them. There is a need for interrogators, rather for rulers, to study matters and uncover secrets. The police understand what they want, and are even able to produce signs and uncover hidden things! But above all of this, we whisper the question: Where did he get the knife from? And if Naaman did not put it in his pants, as his son Joseph says (Q. (40) (So I handed it over to my son and my father, and he put it in his girdle.) And as is understood from both, it is (Q. 144). Whereas he says that this skewer was brought to me by my son Joseph while I was sleeping in the bed and he put it in my waistband. Likewise, his brother Salim said (Q. 45): “I heard from my nephew Joseph that he had scraped his sister’s hair in the bathroom, and that he came to him and put it in my brother Numan’s waistband.” And if he did not put it on his visit, but rather his son, as Sahih returned, he lied after he showed him the knife ( (S from p. 44 and Trial 260) So how did this become possible for him? Did he not know about the matter? Yes, he knew about it and remained silent, deeply rooted and fraught with fear and terror. Rather, he planned the matter from the beginning. Or does he not see that after all that denial came In the same trial, he said when he was asked, “How did you find the filth on her?”
Joseph, without anyone asking him – or did anyone say? He told her (1)? Why did Josephine hide it? That is what the Presidency asked her (p. 99) and here is the funny, crying thing. She said, “I saw a knife in my hunting practice, so I took it and put it on my burden out of fear of it.” She was asked, “What is your fear of him?” until you took the knife out of drag with the intention of putting it in your chest. She replied, “I was terrified of it.” She was also asked why I hid it. She said, “I was afraid that the soldier would hit me if he saw it, as he was digging me up.” I was asked, “As long as I brought it with a bandana out of fear of him, what prevented you when you arrived home from giving it to your mother or to one of the family members? You got it, but I did not give it to anyone.” Neither the court nor we blame her for the matter. Even though we feel emotional pain, I am a daughter who wants to hide the crime of her father and her family. However, that does not prevent Without the judiciary of taking evidence that shed light on the crime and the criminals, she hid it in her chest and denied putting anything in it, so if the police did not see what was in her chest when He asked her that and she thought about it? Why did she repeatedly ask him to stay away from her (39 trials). And why, after she acknowledged that, when she was asked about that, did she say that I did not tell him about her existence because he responded? I have to ask? (Q. 38). Where is the dress of the woman who first claimed that she had put it in her bosom? Then she claimed that she had not put her hand in her mouth (101 trials), then she denied that she had put her hand in her mouth (102 trials), and if she had You put it at home, so why didn’t you bring it from him? Why is the police officer threatening her when he brought her safely and soundly? Why did he and his companion curse her? What is the meaning of these summaries? At the same time, she says that nothing happened between her and the soldier On the road while the guard was guarding her from every accident (Q. 38) And why did she raise her stake in front of her house, crying and crying out to her family to help her? The police officers came out to her. (1) In The Last Rule (p. 104), she has an explanation that may be somewhat acceptable. She was asked when she brought the knife, what did you intend to do with it? She replied, “Let me put it in the house!” Then she said and give it to her To the public prosecutor) and why did you not give it because it! ) I fell in the toilet! (2) It was mentioned in her words at the trial (p. 98) that he started threatening me and telling me untruthful things. It is appropriate to mention him, so I was asked what was the meaning of that speech. She said: He was cursing me. I was asked if he insulted you She said, “He used to say to me, ‘Oh, your father’ and curse.”
The blood on her was not human blood, and the Supreme Court’s decision has become a final matter of this nature! As for us, we are not used to this saying having any meaning at all. He convinced you, O rulers, that you followed this opinion, so all that remains for you is to tell the defense: Take your clients and leave them unharmed. It is impossible to determine the matter in any other way, but in a thousand ways. Isn’t that something like the negative testimony of Baz? Proof testimony: If something is proven with positive evidence, then dozens of negative pieces of evidence cannot be established against that environment? If two people testified before you that Zaid committed a crime, and the people of the town and even the people of the country came and said why You see Zaid being a criminal, will you acquit him?
How strange is the statement that he also commented on the knife issue, saying that it was the opinion of the Court of Cassation Justification for my dangerous explanations! The accused and their families even played to hide the traces of the crime, so we ask the public right, where are they? But ! The representatives of public rights today are different from those of yesterday, and we are not attacking a specific group or individual. Rather, it has been inferred that IDA is playing from behind the scenes, even by concealing traces and stabbing the judiciary in the chest. But in his throat! There is no harm in hearing some of what was stated in the defense of our colleague, Professor Al-Souda: Does the defense want us to believe, and does the court believe, that coincidences have brought together all of these things? Suspicions! And turn all this evidence! On the accused, as if the coincidences had fruits on them, so all of them were placed Is this evidence to prove the crime against them and no one else? If it becomes clear that coincidences have surprises, no rational person will accept that coincidences govern the evidence and evidence to this extent, otherwise there would be no need for proof in the issues. Criminal way » or. And I say: If the criminal seizures were not dangerous and related to crime and criminals, then why? It was not the shrewd Josephine, but the police officer, Maroun Mansour, who prevented her from entering The house is in the hoor with an intention, denying him the possibility of opening it? (Q. 36 and the trial on March 15 (920: 39) Why were her words confused about the reason for her going there? She once said that she came to find it difficult to return (Q. 36) And once to bring milk from the mancala (Q. 37) (The Houraniyya is not on the way to the mancala.) It becomes religious, but it is farther from it than it is religious, and there is no way to it. And one time I want to take figs (Trial 49) Here we say, if the knife was not the murder instrument, then why did they deny the existence of a weapon? If the knife was brought from the Houraniyya, whether Josephine brought it from herself, as her brother says It is signed and signed that Joseph put the knife in my waistband, and I do not know where he got it from. He himself said that his daughter brought it from Al-Houraniyya and gave her the joseph while he delivered it. And his statement after that that he told me that her situation did not change anything from the frankness of his admission of the matter, and it was sound to say in the interrogation that he knew who the knife belonged to, and he came in the trial saying that his brother had a lover and husband, where was the boy who knew nothing, Josephine, that unaware girl! – She is very old! – Josephine, who, without realizing it, created this coincidence on her father and her family! Josephine The champion of clever concealment! Her astonishing and astonishing statements were mentioned: First, she denied that she had anything on her chest, 20 rather, she denied that she had put her hand on her chest, 30 and then, in another statement, she misleadingly claimed that she was carrying it on her chest.
=
The lady’s dress, and when the interrogator asked her to show it to him, she said that it had stayed at home. . Although she said in the trial that the soldier was a traitor, when he asked her about him, she did not tell him because he repeated the question to her (p. 37 interrogation). 6 This woman said that the soldier threatened her, insulted her, etc., even though when she was first asked by the interrogator, she said that nothing had happened between her and the soldier on the road, no. This boy! Extremely manipulative words! The plaintiff is of limited mind and lack of maturity! The one whom the professor is trying to convince you is a child, and you have seen her and noticed her movements, her movements, her secrecy, and her cunning. Rather, her stature is tall, her body shakes in denial, and her face turns red in shame from the lie Disgraceful, and deliberately concealing the clear truth. I call on you, honorable professor of the legal profession, to take a stand in proving evidence that turns a young woman into a child and turns a boy into a fetus. The little girl was asked why were you afraid? We did not say that she had an order or an oath in her hand regarding her dignity, diamonds. But it was the matter of that knife alone that terrified her and her father and mother And her uncle, and her brother, etc., etc. And this is Joseph, the young boy as well, who repeatedly declared his short-mindedness: – He is the most intelligent and most intelligent – he said that he wrapped the knife in a towel and put it in his father’s pants while he was sleeping. And he himself said peace The knife belonged to his father, so he put it in his belt If it is proven that there is blood on that knife that occurred on it due to accidents such as wiping with dirt and water, rust, analysis with filthy acids, or persistence, then the period, if it is proven in one way that it Human blood is sufficient evidence, whether it is proven in other ways or not. This evidence is not denied They clung to Warajiv’s statements and cited Hazrat Michel Bey Moawad against him (1). He did not support a statement for them, but rather his words were in accordance with the words of the doctor, and when the defense did not find a way to get rid of the effects of the crime, he came to say that the original traces had not been seized. We say: Do the defendants now deny its existence at the time, before the manipulative hands that tamper with the judiciary play with it? Let them deny these explicit objections. Rather, let them betray all the traces and deny the trace of the oil, on the individual’s tube and the image of the knife that was freed from human rats. There is no longer any reason to hide and deny it, especially since they are still arguing with us about it and discussing with us its essence and secret.
. After this, we see the defense blaming the interrogation and accusing the investigation! This is an oath on us, dear colleague, that the defense was lenient with the court, with the prosecution, and with us.
To debate the matter with us as a matter of controversy, especially when there is no conclusive evidence or evidence in the claim!!
However, he spoke about what was not considered sufficient to contain evidence that could fit a few dozen newspapers. We thank the colleague for his tolerance in entering with us, with kindness and generosity, in this abstract controversy! As for us, it was our opinion not to say a word in his defence, because we did not see anything. A: A hand that requires inam. But so that the words are not affected by dust, We wanted to prevent this dust, so that it does not have traces in the ears of the judiciary.
I can almost say that your observers will not pass through one of the pages of interrogation and trial without finding There is a sign in it, rather it is evidence and evidence of murder. Rather, how would you have looked at the three serial killers if you would have found the crime? It is depicted on their faces, marked on their foreheads with the poison of fire, and evident in every drop of sweat that drips from their faces. If the interrogator was biased, the public prosecutor was correct, and the police officers were biased, then what do you do with the private internal civil evidence?
As for our evidence against them, which is on their own tongues, they have cut off the defender’s argument with their tongues, and the breach in reality has widened!
Numan, who fainted and malingered, who says that I did not put a knife in my waistband and was unconscious, but I was told that my son put it between my thighs, he himself said something in the interrogation.
(1) Although these two witnesses were appointed to cite a specific case, the court opened and we opened The door was wide open for them to ask whatever they wanted, but they did not benefit from it at all
Interrogation). Joseph said in the trial (p. 106) that his mother told him that it was lost, then they denied
it, saying that the bullet had not been used for a year, so their statement was false. Then they denied the presence of bullets of the same type as the bullet that was seized, so the investigation lied to them, and Numan said (Q (3)) that the bullet belonged to my healthy brother. Nazeera, Numan’s wife (S (31),) said that the individual concerns Numan and Salim. They said that the bullets seized did not match the bullets that injured the dead man, and they lied in reality.
Today, they are clinging to the matter again, and here is a secret: a new secret that has been done again, and neither we nor the judicial plan know about it, nor does the former public prosecutor, with whom some of the traces were erased. But they thought, and their suspicions led to laughter, that if they erased the traces of the crime – and the masters of the art, the investigators, and the witnesses saw it and believed it themselves, then the crime would also be erased and its traces erased. They forgot that her officers had seen her (1). The investigators believed her. And the art people examined it. The accused referred to it, knew it, and verified it in his religion. And Noman himself says (Q44 I know this skewer, yes, this skewer that you caught from my pants that day and this towel that was wrapped in it. And when he is asked where the filth came from, he says no.
I know where my son Joseph brought it from.
They said that there is no knife in Houraniya. This knife was a sign of miracles to reveal the truth And the environment of environments. Josephine carried it in her chest, then she denied that it was a connective tissue in her chest – Kina, so she returned to unpacking herself, and Maroun Mansour and Hanna Youssef Asaad lied to her. Rather, she was lied to by the apparent blade of the knife. Then they came to say that the knife had been changed, and they attributed to the doctor the statement that he thought that the knife with which the dead person was injured was a double-edged knife, in order to reduce How much of the knife that was seized is between the traces of the crime and what is missing with it now!!!! The doctor lied to them and showed goodness in his words and sincerity of intent What caught the eye of the judiciary to admire him
(1) Rather, there is clear evidence of the honesty of one of them, Maroun, in what happened to Al-Faqa in court, when the
Presidency showed him a knife that it mistakenly thought was one of the league’s seizures, and asked him if this was it, and he said no. Here the court says that he examined it and found that it was the knife that was seized on the pretext of killing Rachid Al-Khoury. Then he found a drawing of the knife and showed it to him, and he said it looked similar. So, yes, this is a truthful witness, and this is one of the two witnesses What the defense agent says are contradictions!
Lying from all sides, and they have slandered others, some of them dead (yes, they have called the dead witnesses and accused), some of them fleeing from the government, and some of them do not exist except in their imaginations, so if The investigation lies to them, and the accusation ring responds to them with their false evidence, so they return to accusing the righteous priest of things in order to make the killing attach to the people of the town, so the investigation lies to them.
In every way, that investigation removed the decorative indication that the door was found locked from the inside. Yes, and if that lock was one of the Western locks that closed on their own, then what was it? Perhaps they want to say that it was that poor maid who made a living from serving the good shepherd who scattered the clothes, overturned the luggage, and filled the floor of the room and even the windows with bloodstains. In fact, perhaps he committed suicide!
Rather, she was the one who killed her employer!!! And other falsehoods that deny themselves, and they prove that the witnesses are disbelieved in sense, and they asked for the location to be revealed, but they themselves came back with a picture.
Deviant, as they stated that there were no barriers that they first mentioned when they asked for it, so as not to bring New evidence for themselves, even though they took its failure to be a reason for veto They denied the existence of clothes with blood on them, as is understood from the words of the interrogator by revealing it. Then, when the investigation took place, a keffiyeh smeared with blood was found on them. They were asked about it, so they claimed that it was from nosebleeds, but they did not prove that. However, let them deny this, and let them deny the sweat that was oozing from their foreheads in every session of the trial.
This is the only evidence of them They denied the presence of Habib on the morning of the murder, but their own statements lied to them, as Joseph declared his coming on that day (Q40) and it was permissible (p. 100). Josephine denied that her grandmother Latifa was with them every week or on washing day, so her mother Nazira, the daughter of Latifa, lied to her. They contradicted me on the issue of washing on that cold night, and my professor, my colleague, explained it, and he was sufficient and rich. However, I urged the judiciary to drown Latifa Umm Numan in denying what she had done that day, as the interrogator asked her what she had done in Numan’s house, and she replied that she had not done anything and had not helped my daughter at all. Although he did not insinuate in the question that she was helping her daughter. In all of this, they wanted to be unfair to the judiciary and whatever it was The judiciary leads astray, but yes, the judiciary leads to the truth from this They said that they did not have an individual, so if there were two individuals, she remembered the individual in question. They were asked about him, and the mother replied that she had hidden him from her son’s side out of caution. Her husband, Noman, Salim, and Habib, said, “We had asked her about them” (that is, about the two pistols), and she said that Joseph had lost them (p. 28).
And not after it.” It is a strange statement in its context, so take note, Honorable Defense, of the report of the people of art The description in the present is nonsense.” What is even stranger than this is to say, “And since the decision of the Court of Cassation, and you followed it from this point of view, it became final because of the lack of insistence against it, and it was decisive and conclusive in this regard, that is, because the gun was not considered a trace of a crime, etc., so this point has become a decisive factor.” I say, “I do not think that a lawyer has tried to mislead the judiciary in such a way.” What the honorable colleague did was to convince them, through the magic of the statement, that they had made a decision they had not decided, or had seen an opinion they had not seen. In it, we also say that the courts of cassation are circles of criticism that cannot touch the conscience of the judges. They cannot say that this matter is considered codified evidence and that is not considered convincing evidence because the matter is related to the conscience of the ruling judges alone. It says to them, “You made a mistake in the principles taken and you violated.” The law applies to such-and-such and nothing else, so sentimental matters are not exposed, especially the issue of evaluating evidence The ruling circles, not the critical circles Accordingly, all the courts of cassation and the Ottoman Court of Cassation agreed on this meaning in decisions Many of them, including: A decision on June 14, 1327 stating that the sufficiency of information or its lack is an issue. It is discretionary and the courts are protected from being subject to it The deficiencies related to the conduct of the proceedings have now been resolved, and the door has been wide open for the defendants to resume the investigation. The evidence has confirmed its decision and increased its empowerment. After this, we can confirm that they did not intend in their distinction except to beg to prolong the trial times, so that they might benefit from Considering the claim in the last resort and with laxity, and that is what we saw with our own eyes, and what is astonishing is that they did not abandon the claim of the lies, they are reality, sense, witness, and art.
And eliminate it. They said that they were ill and that it was impossible for them to leave their home to commit the crime Because they were infected with malaria, art, reason, and scenes lied to them that malaria does not prevent a person from leaving his home for any work. And reality belied them by seeing them outside their home, rather outside their village, and that is what the witnesses have proven and what their wise man known as Al-Abd has proven – p. 89, as proven by reality.
The well-known observer attributed the killing to miscreants from outside the country and provided evidence that was marred and surrounded by misinformation and confusion.
AND
Extremely brutal. This also does not negate the fact that the Anmar were calm during their afternoon nap before killing that meek sheep at night. This is if we accept that they were of no use in preparing for the assassination. If we accept that what was among them was whiter than snow, then it is enough that they dyed it with the pigment of hell on a black night like charcoal. Their prey, but what is the meaning of that statement that is devoid of them?
And he is devoid of all proof? We come to them with certainty, and they come to us with suspicious doubt A house that is a breeding ground for such thorns, a manifestation of such abominations, and a station for those infernal machines, machines of destruction. It cannot be said that it is a house known for its piety, dignity, piety, virtue, etc. And they have had enough of these praises and praises, not an iota of the weight of the crime and the horror of the punishment escapes them. How astonishing is the defense agent’s astonishment when he says (or makes sense (they are among the people of reason)) that They sacrifice their lives, their dignity, their honor, and their families, committing murder for the sake of salvation, etc. Or is it possible (they are among the people of reason and wisdom) to sacrifice their souls and endure the bitterness and humiliation of prison, and thus fall into the victim’s life? We say yes, it is reasonable, that is all reason for every person with reason! Because all killers, including killers, may have been defended by the greatest defenders, and they are killers who exposed themselves to what they exposed themselves to. Rather, they stormed the depths until their heads were toppled just as they had toppled heads. They did this knowing full well what they would encounter and what turn they would face. Rather, I say to such people, these killers take advantage of the darkness
If it is ridiculous to consider that one of the reasons for killing a priest is his not attending the funeral of a relative of the killer, then it is one of the funniest of the ridiculous cases to consider this trivial reason to be… In fact, it is harmful for these lizards to prey on their prey. As for the question, if the reasons that the prosecution is pleading with (ignoring the specific allegation as if it did not exist in the mind of the honorable colleague) – the action would not have been so late, then we respond to it by saying
This is evidence of the utmost truth and that such an infernal mental fetus has been incubating for a
long time in the minds of these murderers, until it emerges as a ferocious, bullying monster. We do not need our colleague to walk with us on delusion, imagination, and guesswork, for without him are the muscular arms. And solid, chunky muscle As for his statement that the Court of Cassation overturned the previous ruling on the grounds that the art proved that the gun seized from the relative of one of the accused was not used or fired from before the incident until the date of its occurred Let the moon hide the fallacy of the witnesses, although the witnesses saw what they saw at a time when the moon
was still shining, which was about midnight, and although these naive witnesses do not have watches in their pockets, and they may take the crow of the rooster as a clock, and they may be concerned with the time and not concerned with the sights, the astronomical report has been weak. For their testimony, let the tangible viewer deny it, and then say that the witnesses contradict each other Even though they are not contradictory in the substance of the case with any of the legal texts on the subject, “The same applies if the two witnesses disagree about the witnesses, days,
hours, etc., unless he says, ‘We were with the student in one place on one day,’ and if he acknowledges that, then they disagree about the days, the country, and the countries. Then Abu Hanifa said, I permit the testimony.” They must keep the time in testimony. Abu Yusuf said the matter is as Abu Hanifa said in analogy. The owner of the betrayal said, “I approve and invalidate this testimony, unless they differ over two hours of the same day, in which case it is permissible even if they differ regarding the clothing on the applicant or the wanted person, or one of them says, ‘So-and-so was with us.’”
The other said: It was not originally mentioned that this certificate is permissible or invalid. This is if there are those who wink at our witnesses, and the situation is that they agree to testify based on the opinion of an eye and the truth of the tongue, and then our witnesses are contradicted – and there is no contradiction in reality – so what can be said regarding conclusive proofs?
Which truth was brought by the Sunnis, the accused themselves, the two sons of one of them, Numan, and the rest of their family members, and even their servants as well? So much so that there was not a single person left in that house who spoke or was silent who did not speak ill of them, as he did not see the defense holding firm. Let the defense sing of the exploits of its clients, sing the praises of their praises, and let it be shaken. They are kind of redundant We have seen him spend a long time proving that enmity, no matter how intense it is, and rivalry, no matter how severe, cannot generate murder between the adversaries, meaning that he wants to say that not all disputes cause murder, and there is no need for the defense to exhaust itself in detail in proving this theory. We acknowledge it to him on the basis of Release it. But we tell him that if the disputes had not occurred, this crime would have been insignificant it is terrible enough that the rivalry is considered a reason for such a terrible killing. If three or four wild tigers seized a single, defenseless sheep, devoid of a helper, then they cut it down and hammered its bones – it is not possible to deny them an incident that he fabricated – that it has not been proven that The two teams have great enmity by nature, or of course, or it is not clear that there is a severe rivalry and an old dispute! Rather, if that is the case, then the killing is more horrific and the intention behind it is heinous because it indicates an evil nature and ferocitynce.
Reply last
The defending professor was about to support the abyssal wall with the skill of his introductory work, but when logic was unable to support it, the wall collapsed in the face of the shock of truth. If the prosecution’s evidence was limited to its own evidence, the defense would have argued with it. But the heroes of the defense have gained their strength recently. The latter, after they were overwhelmed
by the horror of the incident, so they dispersed into groups, and the truth, with its trembling terror, asked it to the commander of the defense force, but he too, after much struggle, was unable to repel the strengthened bearers of the truth. It is no wonder that falsehood is on its way for an hour and the truth is on its way until the Hour comes, and the bearers of truth have caught up with the accused and are using it They have their weapons, so you show them their arrows and seize them as they do their deeds. Most of the evidence and evidence that was established against the accused are the ones who brought it, from their own mouths. We condemn them and use their arguments to defeat them. The defense criticized the public prosecution for not putting it in the hands of wisdom as a result of this The trial was criticized by the defense (at the same time angry at the details of the private prosecution). The public prosecution did not see anything new in everything that happened, but in everything that the accused did in their petitions, especially during the cassation case, that would support the defence. Rather, all he saw was that the evidence against the accused became stronger and more consistent. Everything stated by the defense side was nothing but an imagination, but a mirage. The public right saw it with insight, and the private right judged it with impressive evidence. It is before the eyes of the judges and they will consider it They will see the face of truth as bright as the dawn He can transfer the defense based on the existing hostility and recognized severe rivalry as he wishes, and let him analyze it
With the chemistry of the statement and to weaken its effect. And to reduce the seriousness of the threat that compared it, and to reduce the intensity of its influence on the souls of his clients, and to reduce its jealousy on the breasts of the indignant and murderous, represented by the body of their poor eunuch. And let them deny with the wonderful logic what the sharp blades have spoken with the effective tongue. gesticulate. ..
She plunged daggers into the juicy body. And to turn a blind eye to the bullets penetrating the noble body
4
Judgment is judgment. I would not have had a pen run or a mouth speak to me, calling on
God to judge unjustly. But see, gentlemen, the atrocity in the lawsuit that a ferocious beast does not do to its fellow predators, not to all of it, but to all of the grass that grows in the land that its claim is in possession of. So the hand of such blood, which summons all that is within you
as a human being, abides, and has mercy on you. Blood, blood and state are worthy of tenderness, and even of jealousy.
I refuse to be beaten by sinners, dipped in innocent blood An old man, a celibate ascetic, a poor Sufi, despite his weakness and his condition, a few muscular people with strong arms come to him at night? They inflicted on him while he was sleeping in his bed with deadly wounds. They did not take into account religion, law, emotion, or nature in killing him, with hands worse than the fangs
of lions. Rather, they stabbed him in the back, stomach, and chest with twenty-odd knife stabs, the horror of which doctors described as piercing the bone. That is what Except for the ones that didn’t come back! – They turn him back onto his stomach, turn him side to side, and stab him with a knife and bullets They enjoy watching the spilled blood, until the soul is given up This is an incident that chills the body and calls for the utmost grief and grief from the soul. So when you, gentlemen, judges, examine the facts of the case, you will become convinced with certainty that we are not…
These defendants are criminals, and we do not call on you to judge until you give up your opinion and a fair arbitrator will appear. At the same time, we do not ask you to oppress the innocent among them, if they are innocent.
Gentlemen, even though it is the group’s primary right to protect blood, the acquittal of al-Bari also does not deviate from that ruling. If it appears to you that the daughter of the accused Noman had nothing to do with the incident in the first place, but rather limited herself to hiding the knife – the knife – even if he was the instrument of that grave crime, out of sympathy for her father, and even if she had underestimated the police in the first place, and abstained from manipulation and deception in order to hide the traces of the crime, out of respect for her. Her father is Noman. We have no plaintiffs against her, and here is the total evidence against the accused After the pleading, three of the defendants were sentenced to murder, and Habib Al-Khoury Girgis acquitted the ruling due to errors in the principles of Josephine Noman Al-Khoury, so the convict was summoned to judge them by cassation, and it was overturned.
Trial. Then, in one of the new trial sessions, the following report was submitted:
Locality of rights
Allegation report
Raise it
To the Presidency of the Criminal Court in Greater Lebanon,
Lawyer Najib Khalaf, representative of the heirs of Father Youhanna Abi Suleiman, from the city of Laqsh, against Noman, Father Girgis, his brother Salim, and their sister’s son, Najeeb, from her.
In response to the defense of Professor Gabriel Effendi Nassar and the other defendants’ agents
-Previous introduction=
Murder is the most horrific of things and the greatest of evils, not because it destroys God’s structure in
my children, nor because it only causes grief to the individual than to some individuals, but rather because of the fear of losing security, the spread of evil, and the disruption of the peace of the group, in a way that irritates the human nature in which the love of life, comfort, safety, and submissiveness is centered. The murderer, let alone the murderer, kills his human brother – who, like him, has the right to life The source of destruction, so it cuts one of the wires of the higher life. By cutting it, how much damage is caused?
It creates danger, causes the loss of a family member and deprives the group of a useful member. So he stopped Man, since the beginning of history, has been in the face of thugs on the day Qabin was killed by Bel and Kan In its early days, Sharia law meant that a person would take revenge for himself, his relative, or whomever he sought help from.
Then this right was transferred from the individual to the tribe, from there to its leader, and from there to the whole group Allegation report
Zafaa » –
To the Presidency of the Criminal Court in Greater Lebanon
Lawyer Naguib Khalaf
Representative of the heirs of Father Youhanna Abi Suleiman, from the city of Laqsh
Against the defense he made
Honorable lawyer, Professor Gabriel Effendi Nassar and his companions
on
Both Noman and Salim Al-Khoury Girgis and her sister’s son Najib: from her
Printed by Sabra Press in Beirut
Dear Mr
Respected