READ THIS CASE OF AGNES Doris LIUNDI (1978) How she killed her Three children and remained only one Taji Liundi.

na Mzava Mbonea kutoka facebook.

SOMA KESI HII YA AGNES DORIS LIUNDI YA MWAKA 1978 ALIVYO WAUA WATOTO WAKE 3 NA KUBAKIZA TAJI LIUNDI PEKEE, ENDELEA KISHA TOA MAONI .
       
            Tukio lenyewe lilitokea hapo majira ya asubuhi mnamo Februari 21, 1978. Ni baada ya kuambiwa mumewe wakati anaenda kazini kwamba akirudi asimkute hapo nyumbani, na kama akimkuta, atamtoa hapo nyumbani kwake uchi. Alikuwa na watoto wao wanne hapo nyumbani. Baada ya mumewe kuondoka, na yeye aliondoka na gari kuelekea mjini ambapo alinunua chupa kadhaa za sumu ya kuulia wadudu.



Alipofika nyumbani kwake, aliwaita watoto wake wote wanne chumbani kwake na kujifungia nao ndani, kisha akawaambia “tunaondoka” watoto wale walimuuliza, “tunakwenda wapi?” yeye akawajibu, “tunasafiri, lakini huko tunakokwenda hatupajui.” Aliwabusu watoto wale na wao wakambusu mama yao na kisha wakapeana mikono kama ishara ya kutakiana safari njema. Baada ya tukio hilo, aliwapa kila mmoja kikombe chenye mchanganyiko wa ile sumu na Orange Squash na yeye akachukua mchanganyiko huo uliokuwa kwenye kikombe na kunywa. Baada ya kunywa mchanganyiko huo wote walianza kutapika, kutokana na kutapika huko, aliamua kunywa Iodine. Pia alikunywa vipande vya chupa zilizosagwa na kujifungia katika chumba kingine.

Mfanya kazi wake wa hapo nyumbani aitwae Ramadhan na mtu mwingne aliyetajwa kwa jina la Bibie waliwasikia watoto wakilia huko chumbani. Baadae kidogo alifungua mlango na kumwambia Bibie amuoshe mmoja wa watoto wale ambaye alikuwa ni mdogo kwa wenzie kwani alikuwa anatapika na kuharisha kisha akarudi ndani na kujifungia katika chumba hicho peke yake.

Aliombwa na Ramadhan pamoja na Bibie watumie simu ya pale nyumbani kumjulisha mumewe juu ya tatizo lile lakini alikataa.

Wale watoto wengine watatu nao walianza kutapika na kuharisha na hali zao zilibadilika na kuwa mbaya. Ramadhan aliwajulisha majirani na walipofika, yeye alikwenda hadi chumba cha pili alipokuwa amejifungia na kumuuliza kama ni kitu gani kimewatokea wale watoto. Alimwambia, “Ramadhan, naomba uniache nife na watoto wangu, kwa sababu baba Taji (yaani Mumewe) hanipendi.”

Wote walikimbizwa hospitalini na watoto watatu waliripotiwa kufariki lakini yeye na mwanaye mkubwa madaktari walifanikiwa kuyanusuru maisha yao.

Taarifa ya kitabibu ilithibitisha kwamba wale watoto watatu walifariki kutokana na kunywa sumu, ambayo walinywesha na mama yao.

Kesi hii ni ya mwaka 1979 ya Agnes Doris Liundi, alishitakiwa na Jamhuri kwa kosa la kuwauwa watoto wake watatu kwa kuwanywesha sumu hapo mnamo tarehe 21 Februari 1978 nyumbani kwake. Kosa hilo la Kuua kwa kukusudia (Murder) limeainishwa kwenye kanuni ya adhabu (Penal Code) kifungu cha 196.

Kwa mujibu wa maelezo yaliyosomwa pale mahakamani wakati wa kusikilizwa kwa kesi hii ilielezwa kwamba, Agnes Doris Liundi aliolewa na George Liundi mnamo Februari 1967.

Baada ya miaka miwili ya maisha yao ya ndoa iliyokuwa na furaha na amani, ghafla kukazuka kutoelewana na ugomvi usiyoisha kati ya wanandoa hao. Sababu iliyoelezwa kusababisha kutokuelewana huko ni hofu aliyokuwa nayo mume kuwa huenda mkewe siyo muaminifu kwake.

Kutokana na ugomvi huo, mtuhumiwa alifukuzwa hapo nyumbani kwao na mumewe.

Kama wiki moja hivi kabla ya kutekeleza mauaaji hayo, Mtuhumiwa na mumewe walihudhuria sherehe fulani. Wakiwa hapo kwenye hiyo sherehe ndipo mumewe alipomuona mwanaume mmoja ambaye alimtuhumu kwamba alikuwa na uhusiano wa kimapenzi na mkewe na ndipo ule uhasama wao ukaibuka upya na kukazuka ugomvi mkubwa kati yao, yaani mtuhumiwa na mumewe, na ndio ukapelekea mtuhumiwa kutekeleza mauaji hayo siku ya tarehe 21, Februari 1978.

Ilielezwa pale mahakamni kwamba, kabla ya kutekeleza mauaji hayo, mtuhumiwa aliandika barua nne na zote zilikuwa na tarehe hiyo ya 21 Februari 1978, na barua hizo ziligunduliwa na Polisi na zilifikishwa pale mahakamani kama kidhibiti. Barua tatu zilikuwa zimendikwa kichwa cha habari kisemacho, “kwa yeyote anayehusika,” na moja ilikuwa inamuhusu mtu mmoja aliyetajwa kwa jina la mama Gaudensia ambaye ni rafiki wa mtuhumiwa.

Barua moja kati ya zile tatu zilizoandikwa kichwa cha habari kisemacho “Kwa yeyote anayehusika” ilisomwa pale mahakamani kama ifuatavyo:

c/o Box 9050
DAR ES SALAAM

21/2/1978

KWA YEYOTE ANAYEHUSIKA

Uamuzi niliouchukuwa ni wa mwisho. George mume wangu naomba asisumbuliwe au kuteswa au kulazimishwa kwa namna yoyote kwa sababu nilikuwa nampenda.

Nimewachukuwa wanangu kwa sababu sitaki wateseke kama nilivyoteseka katika upweke wa kutisha. George mume wangu, hukujua ni kiasi gani nilikupenda nilipokuwa hai. Lakini sasa unaelewa.

KWA AFISA WA POLISI

Tafadhali msimchukulie mume wangu hatua yoyote kwa sababu hana hatia.

Kwa mujibu wa maelezo yake aliyoandikisha Polisi hapo mnamo 3 April 3, 1978, ikiwa ni miezi miwili baada ya tukio hilo la mauaji, mtuhumiwa alieleza historia ya maisha yake tangu utotoni. Alieleza jinsi alivyoishi maisha ya tabu na mashaka baada ya mama yake kufariki ambapo alililelewa kwa mateso na upweke na mama yake wa kambo.

Mtuhumiwa alielezea maisha yao ya ndoa na mumewe yalivyokuwa na furaha na amani kwa kipindi cha miaka miwili tangu waoane, na jinsi maisha yalivyobadilika na ndoa yake kukumbwa na misukosuko isiyoisha.

Alisema kwamba, matatizo yalianza baada ya yeye kudai kwamba aliwahi kubakwa na kaka wa mmoja wa marafiki zake, na kutokana na kitendo hicho alimuambukiza mumewe maradhi ya zinaa. Hakuthubutu kumweleza mumewe kuhusu tukio hilo la kubakwa kwa muda mrefu alitunza siri hiyo, lakini baadae aliaamua kumweleza mumewe, jambo ambalo lilimletea matatizo makubwa katika ndoa yake mpaka kupelekea tukio hilo la tarehe 21 Februari 1978.

Wakati mumewe anaondoa hapo nyumbani siku hiyo ya tarehe 21 Februari 1978, mtuhumiwa alichanganyikiwa na alianza kukumbuka maisha yake ya utotoni jinsi yalivyokuwa ya mateso na kujikuta akiwa hana pa kwenda. Alimuona mumewe kama mama yake, baba yake, kaka yake na dada yake na maisha yake yote alikuwa akimtegemea mume wake huyo.



Aliamua kwenda kununua sumu na kurudi nayo nyumbani, alijaribu kulala lakini hakupata lepe la usingizi na hakupata suluhu, nini cha kufanya kuhusiana na jambo hilo, na ndipo alipoamua kunywa hiyo sumu.

Kwa maelezo yake mwenyewe alisema:

“Nilikuwa na hasira na wasiwasi kuhusiana na matatizo kati yangu na mume wangu. Nilijiuliza, ina maana matatizo haya yamefikia hatua ya kutisha kiasi cha mume wangu kufikia hatua ya kunifukuza. Nilijiwa na wazo kwamba, acha nijimalize (Kujiuwa) mwenyewe niwaache wanangu wakiwa hai. Lakini baadae nilianza kukumbuka maisha yangu ya utotoni jinsi yalivyokuwa ya mateso na upweke, na nilijiuliza kwamba huenda na wanangu nao wataishi maisha kama yangu kwa kuishi na mama wa kambo. Kwa kuwa mume wangu aliniambia nitakapoondoka nihakikishe siwaachi wanangu nyuma, niliamua kuwachukuwa na kuingia nao chumbani na kufunga mlango. kisha nikawaambia “tunaondoka” wakaniuliza, “tunakwenda wapi?” nikawajibu, “tunasafiri, lakini huko tunakokwenda hatupajui.” Kisha nikawabusu na wao wakanibusu, wakapeana mikono kama ishara ya kutakiana safari njema. niliwapa kila mmoja kikombe chenye mchanganyiko wa ile sumu na Orange Squash na mimi nikachukua mchanganyiko huo uliokuwa kwenye glasi na kunywa. Baada ya kunywa mchanganyiko huo wote tulianza kutapika, kutokana na kutapika huko, aliamua kunywa Iodine. Pia nilikunywa vipande vya chupa zilizosagwa na kujifungia katika chumba kingine. Kutoka muda huo, nilipoteza fahamu na sikuweza kutambua kilichotokea baada ya hapo”

Wakati alipokamatwa mtuhumiwa alikuwa chini ya uangalizi wa daktari aliyejulikana kwa jina la Dk. Haule, huyu ni mtaalamu wa magonjwa ya akili aliyekuwa akifanya kazi katika Hospitali ya Muhimbili.

Aliwasilisha ripoti yake pale mahakamani na pia alitoa ushahidi wake pale mahakamani. Kwa kifupi katika maoni yake Dk. Haule alisema kwamba, wakati akitekeleza tukio hilo la mauaji, mtuhumiwa alikuwa anajua ni nini anachokifanya, alikuwa anajua kwamba anawauwa watoto wake kwa kuwalisha sumu, lakini hakujua kwamba kufanya kitendo hicho ni kosa.

Kwa mujibu wa vifungu vya 12 na 13 vya sheria ya kanuni ya adhabu ambavyo vinahusika na swala hili la uwendawazimu vinaeleza kama ifuatavyo:

Kifungu cha 12. Sheria inamchukulia mtu yeyote kuwa ni mwenye akili timamu kwa wakati wowote mpaka pale itakapoamuliwa vinginevyo.

Kifungu cha 13. Mtu yeyote hawezi kuchukuliwa kuwa ametenda kosa kama kutenda kwake au kutokutenda kwake na katika muda wa kutenda au kutokutenda alikuwa anasumbuliwa na ugonjwa na akili na hivyo kumfanya kutokutambua alichokuwa anakifanya.

Dk. Haule katika ushahidi wake kwenye ripoti yake aliainisha vidokezo vifuatavyo,

Kwa mara ya kwanza alipomuona mtuhumiwa muda mfupi baada ya tukio hilo la mauaji, mtuhumiwa hakuwa katika hali ya kawaida na hakuonekana kujali. “nilikuwa kama vile naongea na mti.” Alisema Dk. Haule. Kwa maoni yake Dk. Haule alisema, inawezekana kwamba mtuhumiwa alikuwa katika hali ya isiyo ya kawaida kwa majuma mawili au zaidi kabla ya tukio hilo, na kwamba, mtuhumiwa alikuwa anajua ni nini anachokifanya wakati alipokuwa akiwanywesha sumu wanae, lakini hakujua kwamba kitendo hicho ni kosa.

Alielezea juu ya kipindi kigumu cha maisha ya ndoa ya mtuhumiwa alichopitia, jinsi maisha yake ya ndoa yalivyokumbwa na misukosuko ya kutoelewana na mumewe. Nafasi aliyokuwa nayo, maisha aliyopitia utotoni na jinsi alivyokuwa akimtegemea na kumtii mumewe. Dk. Haule, alikuwa na maoni kwamba, kitendo cha mtuhumiwa kuamua kujiuwa na kuwaua wanae, aliamini kwamba, alikuwa amemriwa na mumewe afanye hivyo. Alisema kwamba, alisoma barua zilizokuwa zimeandikwa na mtuhumiwa kabla ya kutekeleza mauaji hayo lakini barua hizo hazikuweza kubadili maoni yake juu ya jambo hilo.

Wakati fulani Dk Haule alidai kwamba mtuhumiwa hakuwa na tatizo la kurukwa na akili lakini baadae alisema kwamba mtuhumiwa alikuwa na tatizo hilo.

Kwa maneno yake mwenyewe Dk. Haule alisema. “Alikuwa amerukwa na akili, na aliona kitendo alichokifanya kilikuwa kinakubalika.”

Dk. Haule alisema kwamba, mwaka mmoja baada ya tukio hilo hali ya mtuhumiwa iliimarika, kiasi cha kujua kwamba, kitendo alichokifanya kilikuwa ni kosa, lakini bado alikuwa kwenye matibabu.

Katika kesi hii mwanasheria aliyekuwa akimtetea mtuhumiwa alikuwa ameegemea kwenye utetezi wa uwendawazimu.

Akitoa utetezi wake wakili Jadeda alisema kwamba, wakati mtuhumiwa akitekeleza mauaji hayo, hakuwa akijua kwamba kitendo anachokifanya ni kosa. Wakili huyo alirejea maoni ya Dk. Haule.

Wakili huyo alisema kwamba, mtu yeyote aliyerukwa na akili anaweza kupanga hatua kwa hatua kutekeleza mauaji kama aliavyofanya mtuhumiwa na asijue kama kitendo alichokifanya ni kosa.
Wakili Jadeda alikuwa akipinga maoni ya upande wa mashitaka kwamba, mtuhumiwa alikuwa kijua kitendo anachokifanya ni kosa.

Akisoma hukumu Mheshimiwa Jaji Makame alikubaliana na swala la mtuhumiwa kuwa na dhamira ovu (Malice aforethought), hasa kwa kuangalia vitendo vya mtuhumiwa tangu maandalizi, dhamira na akiwa na utambuzi kwamba, akiwanywesha wanae sumu itawasababishia kifo, na hiyo inadhihirisha kwamba mtuhumiwa alikuwa anajua ni nini anachokifanya, na si lazima ajue kwamba kufanya hivyo ni kosa.

Hata hivyo Mheshimiwa Jaji Makame alikuwa ameshawishika kuamini hivyo kutokana na barua nne alizoziandika mtuhumiwa kabla ya kutekeleza mauaji hayo, ambazo aliziandika sambamba na tendo alilofanya tarehe 21 Februari 1978. Barua hizo kwa uwazi zilionyesha kabisa kwamba mtuhumiwa alikuwa anajua anachokifanya ni kosa.

Kwa maneno yake Mwenyewe Mheshimiwa Jaji Makame alisema, “Katika barua ambayo ilisomwa hapa mahakamani wakati wa shauri hili, mtuhumiwa alisema wazi kwamba mumewe asije akaadhibiwa au kuteswa kwa kitendo alichokifanya yeye mtuhumiwa. Pia kulikuwa na ombi la mtuhumiwa kwa Polisi kwamba, wasije wakamchukulia hatua mumewe kwa sababu hana hatia.”

Muheshimiwa Jaji Makame aliendelea kusema kwamba, wazo la kutokuwa na hatia na kutompa mumewe adhabu katika barua alizoandika mtuhumiwa, linadhihirisha wazi kwamba mtuhumiwa alikuwa anajua kwamba kitendo anachokifanya ni kosa na alitaka kuweka wazi kuwa mumewe hahusiki kwa namna yoyote na kitendo alichokifanya yeye mtuhumiwa. Alijua kama mumewe akihusishwa na kitendo alichokifanya yeye mtuhumiwa, ataadhibiwa kwa kosa hilo.

Mheshimiwa Jaji Makame aliendelea kusema,

“Ni kweli Dk. Haule alisema kwamba, ukiachana na barua hizo alizoziandika mtuhumiwa, lakini yeye alikuwa na maoni kwamba, mtuhumiwa hakuwa anajua anachokifanya kuwa ni kosa. Alisema, barua zilimuonesha kwamba, mtuhumiwa alikuwa akimtegemea mumewe kwa kiasi kikubwa na hasa katika mahusiano yao. Kama tunamuelewa Dk. Hauli vizuri, alikuwa huenda anamaanisha kwamba, hizo barua zilikuwa na uhusiano na imani aliyokuwa nayo mtuhumiwa kwamba, alikuwa ameshurutishwa kujiuwa na kuwauwa watoto wake na mumewe. Kwa bahati mbaya barua haijaeleza kuwa mtuhumiwa alikuwa na imani ile. Ilikuwa ni ahuweni aliyoiweka Dk Hauli. Japokuwa barua ilieleza kuwa mtuhumiwa alikuwa anamtegemea sana mumewe, lakini bado zilikuwa zinathibitisha kwamba mtuhumiwa alikuwa anajua kitendo anachokifanya ni kosa.
Pia nashindwa kuunganisha maelezo ya barua hizo na maoni ya kurukwa na akili yaliyotolewa na Dk. Haule, aliposema kwamba, mtuhumiwa aliamini kuwa ameamriwa na mumewe ajiuwe na kuwauwa watoto wake.”

Mheshimiwa Jaji aliendelea kusema,

“Kwangu mimi, namuona Dr. Hauli kama mtaalamu mwenye uzoefu na ujuzi mkubwa wa magonjwa ya akili, pamoja na mambo mengine, pia ni mwanachama Royal College of Psychiatrists na anayo Diploma ya Psychiatric Medicine aliyoipata nchini Uingereza. Naheshimu sana maoni yake kulingana na utaalamu wake na ninashindwa kupinga ushahidi wake. Pia ninakubaliana na ukweli kwamba hata kama mtuhumiwa ataonyesha kurukwa lakini hiyo itakubalika iwapo kutakuwa na kipimo chenye uwelekeo (Balance of Probability).

Mtuhumiwa lazima aoneshe ushahidi wote; kwamba kutokuwa na akili timamu ni zaidi ya kuwa timamu. Ingawa inawezekana ikawa chini ya tunachodhamiria. Katika kuliweka sawa hili mamlaka ya kuthibitisha inafananishwa na kesi ya Nyinge Siwato Vs Jamhuri 1959 East Africa 974 ikifuatiwa mara nyingi sana ikihusishwa na MbekuleV-R. 1971, East Africa 479. Jaji Enzi zake alielezea katika kesi ya Siwato “Mahakama haifungwi kukubaliana na ushahidi wa hospitalini (Medical Testimony) kama/endapo kuna sababu madhubuti ya kutofanya hivyo. mwisho wa siku ni kazi ya mahakama kutafuta ushahidi na viambatanisho katika kufanya hivyo, ni wajibu wangu kuangalia na kulipima na ushahidi uliotolewa kabla na ikiwemo utaalam wa Daktari.”

Mheshimiwa Jaji Makame akihitimisha hukumu hiyo alisema:

“Inawezekana hasa kwamba sheria yetu katika swala la kurukwa na akili imepitwa na wakati na ni ya zamani sana, Dk. Haule katika ushahidi alieleza kuwa katika utaalamu wa sasa, utofauti kati ya kurukwa na akili na kutojitambua katika utenedaji vinapingana. Bunge la Jamhuri ya Muungano kwa hekima linaweza kulifanyia marekebisho hili sambamba na sheria ndogo ndogo na kulileta katika utandawazi wa kitabibu. Mipaka ya kimahakama, ikiwemo ya Afrika Mashariki wamefanya hivyo.”

Mtuhumiwa katika kesi hii alihukumiwa kunyongwa.



In english by utomatic Google translator

READ THIS CASE OF AGNES Doris LIUNDI 1978 How strike her children three and retaining the Taji LIUNDI ONLY, then provide ongoing OPINION. 

      Event itself took place at the time of the morning on February 21, 1978. Only after being told her husband when he went to work finding that he returned to the house, and if he is found, he gave it to his house naked. She and their four children at home. After her departure, and she left the car to the city where he bought several bottles of toxic pesticides.When he reached his house, he called all his children four in his room and locked herself in them in, and then he said "we left" those children were asked, "Are we going?" He answered, "we traveled, but there we are going we do not know." kiss those kids and they kissed their mother and then they shook hands as a symbol of offering each other a good trip. After the event, gave each of the cup containing the mixture of toxic and Orange Squash and he took the mixture, which was in a cup and drink. After drinking the mixture all started vomiting, due to vomiting there, he decided to drink iodine. 

            He also drank a bottle pieces Crushed and locked herself in another room.His labors at home and someone called Ramadan another mentioned the name of madam they heard children crying in the bedroom. A little later he opened the door and told madam wash one of those kids who was limited to the other as he was vomiting and diarrhea then went back inside and locked herself in a room alone.She was worshiped by Ramadan with the madam of the house to use the phone to tell her about the problem but he refused.The three other children and they started vomiting and diarrhea and their situation had changed and become worse. Ramadan has informed the neighbors and they came, he went to the next room as he shut and asked if what happens to those children. She says, "Ramadan, please let me die with my children, because the father Crown (ie her husband) does not love me."Both were rushed to hospital and three children were reported to have died, but he and his son succeeded to save great doctors their lives.Medical reports confirmed that the three children had died from drinking poison, which they make drink with their mother.This case is of 1979 to Agnes Doris Liundi, was charged with the offense of killing the Republic for his three children to give drink poison there on February 21, 1978 at his home. Offense of Murder (Murder) showed  the Penal Code (Penal Code) section 196.According to the reading the court during this trial, it was noted that Liundi Doris Agnes married George Liundi in February 1967.
               After two years of married life with a joy and peace, and suddenly there was not finished misunderstandings and quarrels between the couple. The reason stated cause misunderstanding there is fear that he had been going to her husband is not faithful to him.According to the argument, the defendant was dismissed at home with her husband.As this week before implementing these murder , defendant and her husband attended a ceremony. While at the same party when her husband saw a man who was accused that he had a sexual relationship with his wife, and then the tension they may emerge again and there was serious quarrel between them, ie, the defendant and her husband, and is the lead suspect implement killings on Thursday 21 , in February 1978.It was mentioned at court that, before implementing the killings, defendant wrote a letter all four were on the day of February 21, 1978, and the letters were discovered by the police and the court send as manager. 

             Three letters were written headline that says, "for any charge," and one was a man named is for for Gaudensia mother's name, who is a friend of the defendant.E one of three written headline that says "For anyone involved," read the court as follows:c / o Box 9050DAR ES SALAAM21/2/1978FOR ANY ONE IN CASESI takes my decision is final. I let my husband George disturbed  or tortured or forced in any way because I have that I love.i have takes my children because I do not want to suffer as I have suffered the terrible loneliness. George my husband, he did not know how much I loved you when I was alive. But now you know.
         FOR POLICE OFFICER  
   Please do not Take my husband any action because he was innocent.According to him, the police  on 3 April 3, 1978, which is two months after the incident of the murder, the defendant explained the history of his life since childhood. She explained how she lived a life of difficulty and adversity after his mother died when he torture and isolation from his foster mother.The suspect was described married life with her husband, they were happy and peaceful for the past two years since marry, and how his life has changed and marriage faced a crisis endless.He said that the problems began after she demanded that he never raped by the brother of one of his friends, and because the practice was transmit husband sexually transmitted diseases. never tell her husband about the rape incident has long kept secret, but later was judge to tell her husband, which is source of  serious problems in her marriage to leading event on February 21, 1978.
                While her husband is away at home on the day of February 21, 1978, the defendant was confused and began to remember the early life of suffering and how they were to find themselves having no place to go.she saw her husband as her mother, her father, her brother and her sister and all his life he was dependent on her husband.He decided to buy toxic and return it home, tried to sleep but could not get the sleep and sleepiness did not find a solution, what to do about it, and then he decided to drink the poison.In his own statement, he said:"I was angry and concerned about the problems between me and my husband. I wondered, means these problems have reached the point of frightening amount of my husband to the point of chasing me. i have feeling with the idea that, let  (killing) yourself let sons alive. But then I started to remember my childhood life how they were suffering and loneliness, and I wondered that goes with my sons and they will live my life as a mother and stepfather live. For my husband told me I will never forsake I must not leave my children behind, I decided to enter them takes to room and shut the door. then I say "we left" they asked, "Are we going?" I replied, "we traveled, but there we are going we do not know." Then I kissed and they kissed me back, and shook hands as a symbol of offering each other a good trip. I gave each one a cup with the mixture of toxic and Orange Squash and I took the mixture, which was in a glass and drink. After all the mixed drinks we began vomiting, due to vomiting there, he decided to drink iodine. I also drink a bottle pieces Crushed and locked herself in another room. From time to time, I lost consciousness and did not realize what happened after that "When he was arrested suspect was under the care of a doctor who was known by the name of Dr. Haule, this is a professional psychiatrist who was working at Muhimbili Hospital.bring report at court and also testified at trial. In short, in his opinion dr. Haule said that, when performing the murder incident, the defendant was aware of what he is doing, he knows that she killed her children by feeding poison, but did not know that doing the act is done.In accordance with the provisions of Law 12 and 13 of the penal code that are responsible for the issue of crazy books were as follows:Article 12. Law in the lining anyone that is sane at any time until decision otherwise.Article 13. No one can be considered to be guilty of an offense if his act or omission by the time his act or omission was that he suffers from mental illness and don't knowing making him what he was doing.
        Dr. Haule in his testimony in its report identified the following tips,For the first time he saw the suspect shortly after the incident of the murder, the defendant was not in a normal condition and did not appear to mind. "I was like talking to a tree." Said dr. Haule. In his view Dr. Haule said, it is possible that the accused was in a state of odd for two weeks or more before the event, and that the defendant was aware of what he is doing when he was watered poison her children, but she did not know that the act is done.He explained about the life time of the marriage the defendant was humanity passing through, how his life and marriage gets disturbances disagreements with her husband. Chance he had of his childhood experiences and how he used to trust and obey her husband. Dr. Haule, was of the opinion that, the act of killing and the defendant decided to kill her children, she believed that he had been ordered by her husband to do so. He said that he read the letter that was written by the defendant prior to the implementation of the killings, but the letters did not change his opinion on the matter.Sometimes Dr. Haule claimed that the defendant did not have a problem with mental trances but later said that the suspect had a problem.In her own words dr. Haule said. "He was insane, and he saw what he did was acceptable practice."Dr. Haule said that, one year after the incident the suspect whose implementation was, the amount of knowledge that the act he was doing was wrong, but still had the treatment.In this case the lawyer who was defending the accused leaned on the crazy defense.
        Citing Jadeda defense attorney said that, when performing the murder suspect, not knowing that an act is done is done. Marquis returned to the opinion of Dr. Haule.Counsel said that, anyone who is insane can plan step by step as he does implement murder suspect and not knowing if the act was done is done.Attorneys Jadeda he opposed the views of the prosecution that the accused was aware of the act he is doing is wrong.at reading judgment Mr. Justice Makame agreed to issue the defendant had the intent evil (Malice aforethought), especially to watch the actions of the defendant from the preparation, determined by reference to the realization that she watered her children formed it will cause death, and it appears that the defendant was aware of what he is doing, and do not necessarily know that to do so is an offense.However, Mr. Justice Makame he was convinced to believe it because he wrote four letters accused before implementing the killings, which he recorded alongside the act was committed on February 21, 1978. The letters indicated quite clearly that the defendant was aware of what he is doing is wrong.In his own words, Mr. Justice Makame said, "In a letter which read here in court during this trial, the accused testified that her husband lest he be punished or tortured him for an act he did suspect. There was also a request for the police suspect that, lest they bare stage because her husband is innocent. "Venerable Judge Makame went on to say that the idea of ​​innocence and not having communicated her sentence in a letter he wrote defendant, demonstrates clearly that the defendant was aware that the act he is doing is wrong and he wanted to make clear that her husband is not connected in any way with the act had done him a suspect. She knew if her husband in connection with the act had done him a suspect, he will be punished for that offense.Mr. Justice Makame went on to say,"It really dr. Haule said that, let alone suspect he wrote the letters, but he had the opinion that the defendant had no idea what he's doing is wrong. That said, show that that the defendant was largely dependent on her husband, especially in their relationships. If we understand Dr. Hauli well, he probably means that the letters were connected with his faith suspect that he had committed suicide and threatened to kill her children and her husband. Unfortunately, the letter does not measure that defendant had the belief. It was a ahuweni which he hath Dr Hauli. 

               Although the letter stated that the accused was very dependent on her husband, but was still prove that the defendant was aware of the act he is doing is wrong.Also can not seem to connect the details of the letters and insane views expressed by Dr. Haule, he said that he believed the defendant was ordered to kill her husband and her children ajiuwe. "Mr. Justice went on to say,"For me, i see Dr. Haule as an experienced professional with extensive knowledge of mental illness, among other things, also is a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and has a Diploma in Psychiatric Medicine he could find in the UK. Much they respect his opinion based on his expertise and I can not resist his testimony. I also agree with the fact that even if the defendant will show trances, but it is accepted if there will be a test emotional (Balance of Probability).Defendant must reveal all the evidence, that no sane is more likely to be stable. Although perhaps less than we've got. In putting this same authority to verify likened to the case include the additional truth Vs Siwato Republic East Africa 974 1959 followed very often linked with MbekuleV-R. 1971, East Africa 479. His Majesty the judge explained in the case of Siwato "The court does not agree with the evidence hospital (Medical Testimony) if / when there is a reason not to do so effective. end of the day is the work of the court to find evidence supporting documents, in doing so, it is my responsibility to look and examine the evidence presented before and including the expert doctor.

          "Mr. Justice Makame concluding the trial said:"Probably exactly that our laws in regard to the mental trances are outdated and very old, dr. Haule in evidence stated that the expertise of now, the difference between intelligence and not understand self trances in inaction violates. Parliament of the United Republic of wisdom may have to review this in line with laws and bringing in the globalization of medical services. Limits of judicial, including the South East have done so. "The suspect in this case was sentenced to death.