*Tell us a bit about Karim’s condition, the interrogations and the charges against him. Do you, as Karim’s lawyer, accept these accusations?
If I say that he did this, I have spoken against the interests of my client. From the moment I entered the case as a lawyer, Karim strongly denied doing these acts, even in the prison interview he claimed that all statements were due to pressure.
As a lawyer, you speak based on evidence. You defended Karim very strongly in court. Do you consider your evidence sufficient?
In my opinion, the raised objections are reasonable, although the acceptance or non-acceptance is the responsibility of the judicial authority. The most important issue that I mentioned was the issue of the translator, and the other was the presentation of the audio of the conducted interrogations and Karim’s confessions during the interrogation stage, none of which were taken into account. All four defendants had the problem of a translator, although they were able to speak Persian, but the mother tongue of the defendants is completely incomprehensible to Persian speakers. Even one of the defendants has stated in the case that Karim spoke to them in the local language, which means that their local language was different from Farsi. The meaning of some Afghan and local words in this case was different from the meaning of Iranian Persian words. All four defendants did not know Persian well in terms of speaking and listening, and this deficiency in understanding the meaning of words and the meaning of sentences was well evident in the meetings. In my opinion, a translator should have been with them legally.
The third point is motive. Of course, as a lawyer, I am aware that motive is not the reason for murder, but it can be the trigger for murder. Karim did not have a strong motive for murder.
*You spoke in court about Karim’s very strict and strict behavior in the issue of halal and haram. What have you seen from your client that makes you say that?
Karim lived in Mr. Mehrjooi’s house for 10 days and took care of his house. It is interesting to know that in these 10 days Mr. Mehrjooi did not use even a drop of water from his home and he took mineral water with him. I mean, Kareem is such a bound person. Of course, I emphasize again that my issue is not to deny or confirm Karim’s accusation, because it is possible that a person may not have sufficient motive to commit murder but commit murder, or a person may have sufficient motive but not commit murder. In Alborz province, after the murder of Mr. Mehrjooi and his wife, police investigation and technical measures were immediately and fully implemented by mobilizing police, security and judicial facilities, and it is really commendable to solve the mystery of these murders in a short time. I do not mean to express these objections to negate the efforts of friends and loved ones. The issue is the ambiguities that still exist in the case. The case of the murder of Mr. Mehrjooi and his wife is a very complicated case that may never be resolved. There is no strong motive in these murders. The answer to this question is still unsolved, why should four defendants start an operation with a single plan, in a single place and with a single intention and motive, but with an excuse and a problem, they give up the action, but a week later, the same team in the same place with the same people to carry out the plan and kill the late Mehrjooi and his wife? If the intention and motive was murder, how can the difference between these two dates be justified? Karim, my client is a strongly religious person, even witnesses who are residents of the same town said that they strongly trusted Karim. The keys to 10 villas were in Karim’s hands, and Mr. Mehrjooi’s villa was nothing compared to those villas.
* What was the reason for Karim’s anger towards Mr. Mehrjooi and his wife?
He himself says that I was not angry with Mr. Mehrjooi and that Mirwais was angry. Karim even says that Mr. Mehrjooi loved and trusted him. But the late Mohammadifar had text messages in which he told his daughter Mona that I think Karim has come to our house.
So what was the reason for such heinous murders?
Pay attention to the fact that these murders are real and took place in the real world. The murders were not based on a script and in a cinematic way, which were flawless and completely planned. In real murders, there are always mysteries that cannot be solved. The media thinks that there should be a careful planning and that everything has logic and calculations, but in reality it is not like that. Many times the murders that happen are with mysteries that are never solved. It is possible that in this case too, Anan’s work was lost, that is, there was no intention to kill and they were forced to do so in the situation. Mirwais says that I intended to kill, but I did not kill anyone, but other people who did not intend to kill have committed murder.
*What do you think about the objections that the Mehrjooi family’s lawyer made in the case? Do you know the errors?
If you mean the objections made by Dr. Manouchehri, such as saying that Mr. Mehrjooi was wearing a party dress, I honestly do not accept these objections. What we saw in the film was not a party dress, although it was the opinion of a respected colleague, considering his familiarity with the deceased’s family, it may be closer to reality. Or the objections raised about rejection. 300 lines have been deleted. Mr. Dr. Hajipour, the investigator of the case and respected Fardis prosecutor, conducted the necessary research and investigations in this regard. But we have to admit that some events in this case cannot really be solved. For example, how is it possible to enter the scene of a crime but leave the iPhone and tablet untouched? Do you commit murder in a town but continue to work in the same place? Mirwais’s problem is with the late Mehrjooi for three years before the murder, why should he hold grudges for three years and then take action? How did he know the cameras were broken and not repaired yet? How is the time difference between Karim’s departure from the work villa and his arrival at the deceased’s villa justified? However, the law enforcement and judicial authorities stated that the technical problem of the cameras and the failure to include the real time was the reason for this confusion. In front of the judicial and law enforcement authorities, he also has convincing and documented words, the film of the reconstruction of the scene, mutual confessions in the interrogations, etc.
* In any case, the Supreme Court made a series of objections.
The court did not object to the main issue (murders).
Does that mean there is no doubt that the murders were committed by these four accused?
Yes, that’s right. The court did not make any objections in this regard, and the objections it made are related to details. For example, about whether other people were involved in ordering the murder or not. Or, for example, has the restraining order been issued or not? In my opinion, the announcement of the court’s opinion was to resolve the existing ambiguities and objections raised by the lawyers of the victims, that is, everything that they want should be re-examined, the existence of the principal and the agent, etc.
* Does this mean that the issue of motive in murder, which you also said, is also an ambiguous issue for the court?
The first criminal branch in Karaj has well-educated and experienced judges. Almost most of the important cases of the province have been handled in this branch. The judges of this branch are famous for their good character, management and literacy. The problem is that there is no problem in general. But there is a problem in the details. The court wrote a 19-page verdict and the objection it made is about the separation of the roles of these four defendants. Another objection is about the order of killing and execution of these people, which should be investigated. I mean, there was no doubt for the court that these people committed murder.
*Mr. Mehrjooi’s wife said in an interview that they told me not to think that we are afraid, we will kill you. Does your client accept this conversation?
My client completely denies it, but the other defendants have said that they went to the place. But they did not approve this dialogue. I emphasize that the reason for the flaws is that we look at the story in a very cinematic way, and as I said, murder does not happen in reality with such small details.
* My opinion from your words is that the behavior of the accused is not compatible with our logic, but it is true that they have committed murder. Did I understand correctly?
It is almost true. Our logic is cinematic, we think that like in police and crime genre films, the defendants should have planned and divided in advance who will go from where and what to do, but in reality this did not happen. There are many questions, for example, how come the killer washes his hands after the murder, but not the knife and killing tool? How much time did it take to get into the victim’s phone and delete social software? What was their reason and what is its logic? But it can also be argued that they were not professional killers. My main point is that it is not the case that Karim is omnipotent and that the other defendants have no role in the murders.
* Does that mean you think there was a partnership?
My exact point is that it is not true to say that Karim was versatile. It means that it is not true that Karim is the leader and everyone listens to his command. The point is that among these four people, Karim is perhaps the weakest in terms of arm strength and physical strength, and even if he is strong, the other three people have definitely had superior strength and power to Karim.
* We have seen a lot of murders that have happened due to the left eye, parking space or ulterior motives. Therefore, it can be accepted that there are murders with arbitrary motives, but it comes to mind that the murder of someone like Mehrjooi requires a plan, and the fact that the motive of the murders is so trivial makes it unbelievable. What you are saying is that it is compatible with the logic of the four detained accused and it is not compatible with our logic (considering the position of Mr. Mehrjooi). Is this what I said right?
dindeed Each of these four defendants has done this with a motive. The person who went to kill did not kill anyone and did not steal, and the person who went to steal was accused of murdering two people. The killer does not have any fingerprints or signs at the place of the murder, but the others have complete traces.
Another point is that the security, political, and economic challenges of Afaghaneh’s presence in Iran are very, very serious. This class of people also has delinquents and criminals in their population and sometimes they commit dangerous actions. However, most of these people are also engaged in economic activities in Iranian society, and a part of the economic cycle is on the shoulders of these people. In my opinion, having a pessimistic view of the issue and ascribing the issue to the presence of Afaghaneh from a pessimistic view and abusing this issue will intensify the differences and will not solve the problem.
In the end, I would like to say that maybe, according to respected judicial authorities and dear judges, there is no legal duty to investigate and answer some of the requests of Shakat’s lawyers and defendants, but I wish that considering the conditions and position of the victims as well as the attacks of abusers and abusers, with the management and Cooperation, part of the demands included watching the video of the crime scene reconstruction or presenting the audio of the interrogation of the accused, in order to remove the ambiguity and soften the public opinion and raise more awareness, it was provided to the lawyers of the case or even the media members.
