Kohli confessed - but jury was never told (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Kohli confessed - but jury was never told
2:45pm Tuesday 25th November 2008 in Hannah Foster
Hannah Foster killer Maninder Pal Singh Kohli has confessed to murdering the Southampton teenager - but the jury during his trial was never told.
The 41-year-old admitted killing the 17-uyear-old after his arrest in India three years ago.
"She was crossing the road. I was coming out of a pub. I was totally drunk. I abducted, raped and killed Hannah," he said.
For the past seven weeks Kohli's confession before TV cameras has been kept a secret while the Daily Echo and all other media have been banned from reporting it.
Today we can reveal how the 41-year-old, who is facing life behind bars for grabbing Hannah off the street and then raping and strangling her, told police and media how he wanted "to unburden" himself, adding he was "tired of running".
On national TV in India, Kohli said that after snatching Hannah and raping her he told her not to report it to police.
Kohli's confession caught on video
Making his confession just two weeks after Hannah's parents Hilary and Trevor Foster travelled to India to plead for information on his whereabouts, Kohli was flanked by police as he said: "She said she had to tell police, talk to her parents." He then added: "I strangled her".
Asked at the time why he had decided to confess, Kohli said: "I want to unburden myself. I want to tell the truth."
However, in May 2005, Kohli went on to withdraw his comments, claiming Indian police, on the instruction of officers from britain, had "forced" him into it.
Announcing he was going to sue a senior Hampshire detective working on the case, his lawyers issued a writ that claimed Punjab police used "force, coercion and threat".
Earlier in 2005, while in custody, Kohli had written to the British High Commissioner in India complaining of his ill treatment.
In the letter he wrote: "I was even pressurised to say whatever had been written on a piece of paper by a senior police official and was made to rehearse the same several times.
"At that time my brothers were also in custody and their hair was being pulled out and I was made to hear their cries through the telephone."
Comments(16)
Number6
says...
3:06pm Tue 25 Nov 08
Barristers are highly educated individuals, therefore this ridiculous blackmail defence shouldn't have seen the light of day.
Forest Resident
says...
3:36pm Tue 25 Nov 08
Number6 wrote:Sadly our legal system is still trapped in the middle ages in terms of providing effective and transparent justice, this coupled with the farcical human rights act means the whole system only serves to prolong the pain and indignity of the aggrieved and their family. The government would do better to completely rewrite the lawbooks than to continue introducing poorly thought out and impractical peacemeal legislation as they have all done in the last few decades. That aside, I sincerely hope the Foster family can find some form of closure in todays verdict, and I share their view that life really should mean life for sick individuals like Kohli.
Kohli's QC would also have known this, but he continued his farcical defence. No doubt coaching his witness on how to react to his and prosecution questions.The whole time prolonging the agony of the Foster family. Barristers are highly educated individuals, therefore this ridiculous blackmail defence shouldn't have seen the light of day.
Dan Wilson
says...
4:32pm Tue 25 Nov 08
But I can nit understand that why it had to go to a long trial for the parents of Hannah to witness if this evil man had already admitted the offence!?
My thoughts are with the family.
Rudd Gillett
says...
5:05pm Tue 25 Nov 08
Henry's world
says...
5:44pm Tue 25 Nov 08
Andy Locks Heath
says...
6:59pm Tue 25 Nov 08
skippy126
says...
7:25pm Tue 25 Nov 08
AlanCalvert
says...
8:21pm Tue 25 Nov 08
Andy Locks Heath
says...
11:24pm Tue 25 Nov 08
Rudd Gillett
says...
11:54pm Tue 25 Nov 08
skippy126 wrote:The QC did nothing wrong???? You sure about that?
The QC did nothing wrong. He is entitled to a fair trial. If his QC had refused to do his best, and deliberately colluded with the prosecution to get it over with, Maninder Kohli would have had instant grounds for appeal. How do you know the Indian police didn't give him a kicking? I wouldn't put it past them. He was found guilty without that evidence and the verdict is safe as a result. I cannot believe people are seriously saying the Kohli should not have been allowed to have his say. Trial by jury is how it works, you can't say "oh we know he's guilty so tell him to shut up and get back in his cell." Colin Stagg would still be in prison if that was the case. Stefan Kitsko went to jail because of police corruption, and would have died there without being entitled to a defence. Yes it's frustrating when someone who is guilty comes up witha stupid and ridiculous defence, but there's no better system. Tell me your workable solution that's better.
skippy126
says...
9:39am Wed 26 Nov 08
Rudd Gillett wrote:Yes I am. Obviously there will be times when a defence QC does their job so well a guilty person walks free. But what is the solution?
skippy126 wrote:The QC did nothing wrong???? You sure about that?
The QC did nothing wrong. He is entitled to a fair trial. If his QC had refused to do his best, and deliberately colluded with the prosecution to get it over with, Maninder Kohli would have had instant grounds for appeal. How do you know the Indian police didn't give him a kicking? I wouldn't put it past them. He was found guilty without that evidence and the verdict is safe as a result. I cannot believe people are seriously saying the Kohli should not have been allowed to have his say. Trial by jury is how it works, you can't say "oh we know he's guilty so tell him to shut up and get back in his cell." Colin Stagg would still be in prison if that was the case. Stefan Kitsko went to jail because of police corruption, and would have died there without being entitled to a defence. Yes it's frustrating when someone who is guilty comes up witha stupid and ridiculous defence, but there's no better system. Tell me your workable solution that's better.
The prosecution gives their evidence, the defence give theirs. The jury decides if the defence is reasonable.
Tell me your system. You and others keep saying that the defence QC should be ashamed but no one can point to a system that that prevents this without causing wrongful convictions. He HAS to be allowed to present his version of events.
For the record, I've heard crazier defences than this. Look at the Sally Anne Bowman murder and what Mark Dixie came up with....these things happen. But there's no better system. Any system that prevents a defendant having his or her say would inevitably result in wrongful convictions.
Lost in the crowd
says...
9:55am Wed 26 Nov 08
The problem I have is the moral blackmail we always encounter when subjects like this are discussed. Yes, there are terrible proven cases of injustice - but two wrongs don't make a right.
Endlessly increasing the cost and time of the judicial system is not leading to fairer justice.
There may have been some golden age when our adversarial system worked well, but it is simply not working properly now.
Andy Locks Heath
says...
11:37am Wed 26 Nov 08
skippy126
says...
1:33pm Wed 26 Nov 08
To answer your points in short
1)He did not KNOW Kohli was lying since there is nothing to prove it 100%. The DNA simply proves his semen and blood is on the body. How it got there is a matter of opinion.
Was he having an affair with the wife of Mr Dennis? nothing to say he wasn't.
Was he driving the van on the night? can't be proven absolutely, only that it was his van and he had been driving it earlier and subsequent.
etc.etc.
The QC will always say something like
"Kohli says...."
"The defence witness says...."
"The prosecution claim......how do you respond to that Mr Kohli?"
He simply tries to find evidence to support his client's version of events and to attack the weaknesses in the prosecution case......please tell me where he says something which he KNEW could not possibly be true by any stretch of the imagination. Everything he said was either in the 3rd voice "He says...." or could be true in theory with the evidence available, even if it was very very unlikely.
2)If he leads his client into a story he knows to be false then he CAN be charged with perverting justice.
Kohli's version of events is theoretically possible. There is nothing to prove that he wasn't kidnapped, or that the sex with Hannah was not forced by a 3rd party, or that the black eye witnesses saw was from Hannah. It's simply, in the the opinion of you and me and the Jury and Judge, very unlikely in the extreme that it happened that way with all the evidence.
Forest Resident
says...
2:36pm Wed 26 Nov 08
Prior to court, in order to be charged with an offence the prosecution (Police) needs to provide substantive evidence of the accuseds supposed guilt. To that end, should the defence therefore not also be obliged to provide substantive evidence of their clients innocence, if it indeed exists at all?
skippy126
says...
5:18pm Wed 26 Nov 08
The debt owed to the person who tipped off the police was certainly very relevant. Raising the possibility of this person setting him up in revenge for not paying back the debt seems fair enough in principle. Once he was on the stand and once his version of events was looked at in detail his story was exposed as fantasy. That's the point of a trial. That's where the evidence is examined and compared. Not in a closed room away from prying eyes where it's decided that someone's story is too stupid to be heard.
He's presumed innocent and the prosecution have to provide evidence to the contrary - beyond all reasonable doubt.
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with