On September 18, 2008, Cairo Court of Appeal set October 18, 2008 as a date for the trial of Hisham Talaat Mustafa, the second defendant in killing Lebanese pop star Suzan Tamim. On September 20, 2008, I wrote here about the expected trial and predicted a possible dialogue between Mustafa and the judge:
Judge: Did you give $2 million to Mohsen al-Sukary to kill Tamim? Mustafa: Yes! Judge: Did you help him get a visa and did you transfer money to him when he was abroad? Mustafa: Yes! Judge: Did you ask al-Sukary to kill Tamim? Mustafa: Yes! Judge: Then you confess you encouraged him to kill her? Talaat: No! Judge: How is that? Mustafa: I paid him $2 million to get back some photos taken of me with Tamim in a moment of human weakness before being made public. Judge: Do you think that al-Sukary took the money and killed Tamim? Mustafa: I do not know. I imagined that dialogue and that the judge would be deposed. I also imagined that Mustafa's defense would focus on the fact that it was right that Mustafa gave al-Sukary $2 million and helped him get a visa. But I believe he never asked him to kill Tamim! Since October 18, 2008 until last Thursday, many court sessions were held until Mustafa and al-Sukary were sentenced to death. The death sentence must still be certified by the Egypt's top religious official, the Grand Mufti. However, the Mufti's opinion is unbinding, as the court has the right to accept or reject it. Further more, the attack on the judge, who issued the ruling, is unjustifiable. Does this attack aim to put pressure on him to give up the case? I think such an attack will not change anything because the sentence is like a bullet that has been shot and will never return. herefore, I call on Mustafa's defense to change its way of defending in the Cassation Court. It should focus on certain details after its previous defense failed to save Mustafa from execution; the maximum penalty an accused can get. Attacking the judge is, in fact, a crime with which the defense should not be occupied!
