Oh it’s a syndrome now is it, not a murderous hatred of women but a nice literary syndrome with the prestige of Shakespeare behind it.
A man was experiencing “Othello syndrome”, the baseless belief that his wife was having an affair, when he stabbed her to death on the grounds of a hospital in Sydney’s east, a court has heard.
That’s not a syndrome, it’s misogyny crossed with jealousy and dominance.
Mourad Kerollos is on trial by judge alone in the NSW Supreme Court accused of murdering his wife Gihan Kerollos – known as Gigi – as she left work at Prince of Wales Hospital in Randwick about 8.30pm on May 18, 2019.
…
A forensic psychiatrist, Dr Kerri Eagle, examined Mr Kerollos in May 2020 and is expected to tell the trial that he had a major depressive disorder at the time of the stabbing, or a psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
“He had delusional beliefs, he had referential ideation, he had auditory hallucinations, and he had a systematised belief associated with morbid jealousy – in the absence of any apparent proof – that his wife was acting as a sex worker and having affairs,” Mr Barrett said.
It’s interesting though how such delusional beliefs track familiar patterns of jealous controlling male behavior toward women they think of as their property.
Comments
5 responses to “Othello syndrome”
Of course, Othello had his Iago. Looks like this guy just had his delusional, jealous beliefs.
Not that either justifies murder.
It’s reminiscent of the term “Texas self-defense,” which meant that it was justifiable homicide for a husband to kill his wife or her lover if he caught them in the act.
Up until now, I had assumed that was an urban legend, or just a term for Texas juries being willing to engage in a little jury nullification in such situations. But it turns out that, until 1974, Texas actually had a statute that said:
This doesn’t explicitly authorize killing the wife, but I would think that if the angered husband tried to shoot the other man and wifey got caught by a stray bullet, well whatchagonnado?
Screechy, if “before they are separated” means while they are still in the act, then if the bullet goes through him and into her, well, totally justified, right?
Ha, according to an old law review article I came across while searching on this, the “separated” part doesn’t mean literally still in the act, so to speak. It still counts as “justifiable” if the dude is putting on his pants and heading for the door or whatever — the restriction just means you can’t go track him down the next day. It’s basically a “heat of the moment” thing.
You see, men are such emotionally fragile creatures that they can’t be expected to distinguish right from wrong and behave logically in a fraught situation. It’s why they shouldn’t be president. Can’t trust a male president not to push the nuclear button because a foreign leader made a pass at his wife or something.
Before or after he opens the front door? Before or after he gets in his car? Before or after he starts the engine? Before or after he’s out of the driveway?
I see Mister Outraged, standing there on the porch with his gun, watching the car back into the street and wondering if it’s too late to open fire.