Jury considers verdict in Ivan Esack murder case after fatally stabbing wife Natalie Esack at Ashford hair salon
The salon where Ivan
Esack stabbed his estranged wife to death
by Keith Hunt and Tricia Jamieson
The jury in the murder trial of former Kent detective Ivan Esack
continues considering its verdict today.
The eight men and four women began their deliberations late
yesterday afternoon before being sent home for the night.
In his summing up, Judge Charles Byers told the jury not to
allow emotion to influence their verdict.
He said they had to examine the defence case of whether Esack
had suffered from a loss of self control or diminished
responsibility when he stabbed his estranged wife Natalie to death
in her hair salon in Ashford on April 30, last year.
Esack, who was said to suffer from a narcissistic personality
disorder, did not give evidence in his defence.
Judge Byers told the jury that was his right and they should not
assume he was guilty because of that.
“You try the case according to the evidence,” he said. “You may
take it [Esack’s silence] into account if you think it is fair and
proper to do so.”
Judge Byers also reminded the jury of evidence about Esack’s
violence towards Natalie, his text messages and threats to kill her
and his addiction to alcohol and cocaine.
Earlier, the jury had seen at their request a video of Esack’s
first interview with police after his arrest.
Ivan Esack
(left) stabbed his wife Natalie to death at her Ashford
salon
They saw Esack break down in tears when he told officers of his
and Natalie’s failed attempts to start a family because of his low
sperm count.
Describing what had happened in the salon, he said: “I have
taken a life, killed her.”
He talked about the breakdown of their marriage, affairs both
had and said she had “pushed him to the brink”.
Esack, of Rosewood Drive, Ashford, denies murder but admits
manslaughter.
Maidstone Crown Court earlier heard he went to Esack Hair and
Beauty in Ashford High Street on the morning of April 30 last year
after buying a knife and stabbed her 11 times in front of teenage
employee Chelsea Ford.
Prosecutor Philip Bennetts QC referred to Esack contacting
Natalie, who was 33, by text and telling her he was closing the
salon, claiming she had sex with two other men.
Natalie replied: “Over my dead body.”
Esack responded: “This won’t end happy. You blame me for
everything. You might regret your last text.”
Natalie told him: “Please don’t contact me. I don’t want you
telling me you are going to kill me any more.”
Mr Bennetts said Esack made other threats, telling Natalie: “You
are going to die, babe. I hope you are happy.”
Esack also threatened to kill Natalie’s new boyfriend Justin
Khadaroo, who he called “Monkey Head”.
He spoke of “doing 10 years inside for you or Monkey Head or
both”.
Police forensics officers
at the Ashford salon. Picture: Andy Clark
Mr Bennetts said: “Ten years for what, you may ask. Certainly
not murder, although that is what his threats are to the effect
of.”
The QC said Esack had shown no regret or remorse. He did
not say: “I can’t believe what I have done. It is a terrible thing
I have done.” Instead, he went home and had a cigarette and a can
of Special Brew lager.
Mr Bennetts said the jury was entitled to ask why Esack had
chosen not to give evidence and suggested it was because he feared
his lies would be revealed.
“It is open to you to conclude he was a violent and controlling
person,” he continued.
There were two different scenarios to consider. One was that
following threats to kill and the purchase of the knife,
commonsense showed it was a deliberate and premeditated
killing.
The couple lived in
Rosewood Drive, Ashford
The other was Esack’s claim he was so distraught when he learnt
Natalie was in a new relationship he planned to kill himself in
front of her. He also claimed that he “lost it” when Natalie told
him to get out of the salon.
Mr Bennetts suggested that on the evidence of Miss Ford, Natalie
did not tell Esack to “get out”.
There was a “chilling portrait of a determined killer who was
not to be distracted in his intent”.
“You can be satisfied so you are sure, giving full weight to his
personality disorder, there was no qualifying trigger,” said the
QC. “If you reach that conclusion, then loss of control does not
feature as a defence in this case.”
08/01/13
- Click here for more Ashford news...
- Click here for more news from across the county...