Posted on 11/30/2002 7:12:19 AM PST by Jalapeno
By PHILIPPE DUPUY
November 28, 2002 -- MONACO - The trial of an American male nurse accused of starting the fire that killed billionaire Edmond Safra came to a halt yesterday as France's chief rabbi offered a prayer for the late financier.
Jurors, witnesses and visitors all stood up in the Monaco courthouse as Rabbi Joseph Sitruk, a witness for the prosecution, prayed for the soul of the 67-year-old Safra, one of the world's richest men until his death in a fire at his Monaco penthouse in December 1999.
Safra's two brothers appeared visibly moved as his 65-year-old widow, Lily, ranked Britain's eighth-richest woman, wept openly.
Ted Maher, 44, of Stormville, N.Y., is accused of causing the deaths of the financier and another nurse by setting a wastebasket on fire. Maher allegedly set the fire so he could be a hero when he rescued Safra.
November 29, 2002 -- The brother of billionaire Edmond Safra told a Monaco court yesterday that the family was heartbroken by his brother's tragic death in a fire. For the first time, Joseph Safra described his often difficult relationship with his brother. Edmond Safra, 67, and one of his nurses - Vivian Torrente, 52 - died of asphyxiation in the bizarre 1999 blaze at his Monaco mansion.
One of the financier's other nurses - Ted Maher, 44, of Stormville, N.Y. - is on trial for causing their deaths by setting a bathroom wastebasket ablaze. Maher had hoped to win the mogul's favor by rescuing him.
"Edmond was a real brother and a father to us because our parents died very young," Joseph Safra told the court.
The Safras consisted of three brothers and three sisters. It was Edmond who held them together, Joseph said.
"We miss him very much. We worked together, and for 45 years, every day I spoke to him on the phone," Joseph said.
But Joseph said their once close relationship was strained during the mogul's final years. A fight over business and well-documented disagreements over Edmond's widow, Lily, meant they never had a chance to say goodbye.
"We weren't so close in the time just before he died, but I am sure we will meet again with the same love and affection," he said.
By PHILIPPE DUPUY and RITA DELFINER
November 30, 2002 -- A teary-eyed Lily Safra said yesterday the male nurse accused of starting the blaze that killed her billionaire husband told her earlier on the night of the tragic fire, "Tonight you will have a good sleep."
Financier Edmond Safra's widow testified that in mulling over Ted Maher's remark to her as she headed to her room, she now believes it may have had ominous overtones.
"Maybe he wanted to kill us all," she told the court.
Lily Safra took refuge in another room of the lavish Monaco penthouse after a security alarm sounded shortly before the Dec. 3, 1999 fire. She survived the deadly dawn fire unharmed.
Her husband, who was 67 and suffered from Parkinson's disease, died with another nurse, Vivian Torrente, in his bathroom as fumes from the fire engulfed the 20-room penthouse.
Maher, 44, of upstate Stormville, contends he set a small fire in a waste-paper basket so that he could be a hero when he rescued the banking tycoon.
He said he pretended there were intruders in the apartment and then started the fire to set off the alarm so cops would come - but the flames got out of control.
In other testimony yesterday, a lawyer for Lily disputed Maher's version and said he wanted the whole apartment to burn because he suddenly realized there was no way to explain how intruders could have entered the ultra-secure penthouse.
"There were a lot of ways to set off the alarm in the house," said Safra's lawyer, Marc Bonnant.
"But [Maher] chose to start the fire - not to set off the alarm - but to burn the whole place."
MONTE CARLO, Monaco - Lily Safra, the Gilded Lily of international society, offered teary-eyed testimony yesterday in the trial of the male nurse accused of setting the fire that killed her husband and left her the world's richest widow.
Clad in a conservative brown pantsuit with none of her famous jewelry, Safra wept as she described seeing the burned body of her billionaire banker husband, Edmond Safra.
"It was very hard for me to go in and see him. He was covered with soot," she said. "I looked at his eyes and I could tell that he was dead."
Safra also told the jury she never would have dreamed that Ted Maher, one of her husband's two nurses, was capable of murder.
Asked by lawyers what Maher, 44, a former Army Green Beret, did to justify a $160,000 salary, Safra said: "I was not in charge of the money for employees, and I did not handle the payments. But my husband was always very generous."
The banker, who suffered from Parkinson's disease, employed two nurses, including Maher.
Safra said that on the day of the 1999 murder, she was awakened by a 4:45 a.m. phone call from her husband saying intruders had broken into their ultrasecure Monte Carlo apartment and that she should lock herself in and call police.
Asked why her husband had dispensed with his Mossad-trained bodyguards, Safra told the jury, "My husband and I felt so safe living in Monaco, we did not feel the need for any bodyguards."
She said she called a guard, who was off-duty, and summoned him to come immediately from nearby Cap Ferrat.
Prosecutors charge that Maher faked the attack, started a fire and stabbed himself with a knife to make it appear that intruders had invaded the apartment.
He allegedly herded Edmond Safra into a bathroom and locked him inside with another of his nurses, Vivian Torrente. The financier refused to leave, despite calls into the bathroom from his wife insisting that it was safe.
The banker and Torrente apparently fought for control of the locked door. Both died in the blaze.
Safra said that on the fatal night, she was on the other side of the vast apartment when the fire broke out and that she communicated with her husband by cell phone.
Maher, who speaks little French, often seemed confused as a translator rendered lawyers' questions into English.
"I am willing to take responsibility for the act that I did," he said. But, he added cryptically: "I do not expect to take responsibility for the actions of other people."
He was not asked to elaborate.
"It would be against my true nature for me to ever harm anyone," the former soldier said. "It was not my intention to ever bring harm to any person."
Ted is a true blue hero who just wanted attention, and didn't mean to kill anybody. After a couple of years of denials orchestrated by his wife and her family, of course, he finally was free to admit that.
Let the twit rot.
The Maher family has done a lot of damage here, and not helped Ted's cause at all. It would be best if all you Mahers left.
You don't have the right to tell people who can post on this thread and who can't. You don't own this forum. Jim Robinson does. This thread is open to any Freeper with posting privileges. If you want a closed thread for your brother Ted, go to your own website and post there.
Jalapeno, is this a thread for brother Ted and no one stating the truth is allowed to post?
Ahem. And in these parts, accidentally killing someone while doing such a thing would be called "criminally negligent homicide".
If you have trouble accepting that others who post here might have differing opinions about this case, I would suggest you find another forum. Good day.
And I'm from a city where an arson investigator was convicted of 1st degree intentional homicide by setting a fire in his ex-wife's house, but forget to vent the place so the fire went out for lack of oxygen. He still says he's innocent. His appeals have gone nowhere.
"Cannot say"? Your family has been posting all kinds of preposterous theories on this website from day one.
What can you "not" say that you haven't already said? Another nutso conspiracy theory that cannot be verified?
Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer - I wasn't meaning to dispute what you said, so much as add to it ;)
Anyway, if we take his statements that he never intended the man to die at face value, then he's not looking at murder. In another sense, it's of little consequence - he is, by his own admission, responsible for the death of another, and the only question now is how long he's going away for. Whether Monaco or New York or wherever, he'd be facing the exact same problem - "guilt" is no longer a question, only "guilty of what, exactly?"
That's the rub of the trial. The arson charge was leveled because Monaco's out for blood, and it carries a life sentence. The Negligent Homicide is six years. With time served and good behavior, he could be out next late Spring.
But there is a presumption of guilt in the Monaco courtroom. Maher has to prove he did not intend to kill them. Sure he can say it, how can he prove it?
The prosecution has already argued in earlier documents that regardless of the scenario with Ted wanting to be a hero, he was aware that fire, once set, is not controllable, and could (did) have fatal results. In other words, they will argue he was willing to risk their lives for his heroism, thus the intent was there.
I don't know. Perhaps that consequence is something that Maher himself should have considered before doing what he did.
We here tend to get rather testy over the perception that the US is losing its sovereignty to foreign powers - it's hardly a stretch to imagine that the government and citizenry of Monaco feel much the same way of their sovereignty. Maher may very well be a sacrifical lamb, with whom the prosecutors will make an example for others.
However, that fact buys him zero consideration from me. This is the risk that we all take traveling abroad - you have no protections from the Constitution when you set foot outside the United States. Instead, you are subject to the local laws and customs, which is exactly as it should be. If the rules of Monaco require him to prove his own innocence, I can sympathize insofar as I am glad it's not me, but on the other hand, he put himself exactly where he is now. Nobody else is to blame for his current predicament, and he should probably count himself lucky that he is at least being given some semblance of due process - there are plenty of places in this world where being accused of a crime while carrying an American passport will buy you a summary execution.
And in the end, we are left with the fact that he has already admitted his guilt. Whether he can prove it was an accident or not is neither here nor there - he is responsible for another person's death, by his own admission. Here in the States, he'd have all the same problems he has in Monaco. The fact that he committed this crime in Monaco does not suddenly buy him a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The prosecution has already argued in earlier documents that regardless of the scenario with Ted wanting to be a hero, he was aware that fire, once set, is not controllable, and could (did) have fatal results. In other words, they will argue he was willing to risk their lives for his heroism, thus the intent was there.
And if they think they can prove that case, they should be entitled to try. If it were a citizen of Monaco accused of the same thing in your town, wouldn't you want them to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law? What would you say if the shoe were on the other foot?
Absolutely correct. For example, many people don't know about the horrible conditions in many jails and prisons in Japan, a country with a presumably "advanced" justice system. For example, if you do not have friends or family on the outside to bring food to you while incarcerated, you get mighty hungry.
Instead, you are subject to the local laws and customs, which is exactly as it should be. If the rules of Monaco require him to prove his own innocence, I can sympathize insofar as I am glad it's not me, but on the other hand, he put himself exactly where he is now.
Isn't Monaco's system based on the Napoleonic code, where the accused is essentially guilty until proven innocent?
Very true. I certainly didn't know about it until reading about it of FR, with respect to the Japanese system of capital punishment ;)
Isn't Monaco's system based on the Napoleonic code, where the accused is essentially guilty until proven innocent?
According to this (great resource for pocket comparisons of governments and legal systems, BTW), the law in Monaco is based on the Napoleonic Code, but the accused does enjoy a presumption of innocence. What I think has happened here is that Maher, by admitting that he did it, but claiming it was an accident, has essentially done is raised an affirmative defense. And like affirmative defenses in most Western countries (including the US), making such a claim shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that it was, in fact, an accident.
It's exactly the same way here, of course. If you are accused of killing a person, claiming innocence requires the prosecution to prove that you are guilty. If, on the other hand, you admit that you did it, but claim it was done in self-defense, then the burden is on you to prove that it was self-defense.
As a side-note, I first started clicking on these threads to see examples of the horrible miscarrriages of justice being perpetrated on Ted Maher. But in all the time I've seen these threads, I don't think I've seen him subject to any procedure, process, or presumption that he wouldn't also have faced in an American courtroom. And the bottom line is that he's admitted he did it, which is kind of hard for me to ignore ;)
Ted Maher admitted that he started the fire. Safra died because of that fire. Period, end of sentence.
BTW, Mr. Maher, when did your brother go through Robin Sage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.