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.”