The case that landed in Thurston County last summer reads like a horror story that never got the full script. A 16 year old girl, Fatima Ali, was choked by her own father on a school parking lot. The doctors who later treated her told the court the injuries were serious – a broken airway, a lung that expelled air like a balloon popping, and a rule that she could not swallow for a full day. Those facts alone sound brutal, but the courtroom drama that followed was anything but straightforward.
The defense called their own medical expert. He said the lung problem could have been caused by the rescuers trying to pull her loose, not by the father’s grip. He added, perhaps, that the injuries were “relatively minor.” That claim, though, met with immediate skepticism. How could a choke that stopped a teen’s breath for seconds leave only a “minor” bruise? The question lingered in the jury’s mind, though the judge kept the focus narrow.
Ihsan Ali, 44, and his wife, Zahraa Subhi Mohsin Ali, 40, faced second degree attempted murder charges for the October 18, 2024 attack. The jury, after weeks of testimony, found them not guilty of the most serious charge on July 31. Instead, they were convicted of lesser offenses. The sentencing gave Ihsan three years behind bars, a parenting class, 18 months of community service, and a ten year no contact order with his daughter. Zahraa got a separate sentence for breaking a restraining order – she had already spent time in pre trial detention. Both also received credit for time already served.
Judge Christine Schaller did not mince words. In her opinion, she called Ihsan’s conduct “horrific” and described the assault as “vicious.” She also noted that she barred the prosecution from mentioning an alleged “honor killing” motive or an arranged marriage that had supposedly been planned for Fatima. The judge explained that such details would prejudice the jury. As a result, the courtroom never heard the phrase “honor killing,” even though the press and the public kept using it.
The courtroom was a mess of conflicting narratives. Fatima’s own testimony painted a picture of terror: she said she lost consciousness four times and feared death. Her boyfriend, 16 year old Isiah, cried on the stand, describing how Fatima’s face turned pale, her eyes rolled back, and her lips turned purple. A motorist named Josh Wagner stopped his car and ran to help, saying, “Her face was changing color… she was gonna lose consciousness if it kept going.” Other students described punching and kicking Ihsan until he let go. One classmate even said Zahraa tried to finish the choking herself after Fatima escaped her father’s grip.
What was left out? The prosecution’s original theory that Fatima was being forced into an arranged marriage in Iraq never made it into the trial. Police reports filed after the attack said her father had threatened an “honor killing” because she refused to fly to Iraq for a wedding to an older man. Those reports, however, were excluded by the judge. The defense argued that the whole honor killing narrative was a product of Islamophobia, and that there was no evidence to back it up. Their memorandum claimed, “There is no evidence of either honor killing or arranged marriage supported by the evidence uncovered in the investigation of the case.”
The public kept talking about the “honor killing trial.” Headlines blared about a Muslim father trying to kill his daughter for refusing an arranged marriage. Inside the courtroom, the term was never uttered. Even the prosecutor, Olivia Zhou, avoided any reference to the supposed cultural motive in her opening statement. The only mention of Iraq came from Fatima’s earlier police interviews, where she said she feared being sent back to a country where women have fewer rights. Those interviews were never read aloud in court, though a Daily Mail story later published 100 pages of them.
Was there a motive at all? The defense suggested the trip to Iraq was simply to get passports for the younger brothers. They said, “There’s no nefarious intent. There’s an intent to take your daughter home, a 17 year old daughter who’s run away.” The prosecution, on the other hand, tried to rely on the fact that Fatima’s ticket was one way and that she said she didn’t feel safe in her birth country. But without the arranged marriage angle, that argument felt thin.
The aftermath is just as tangled as the trial. Fatima now lives in extended foster care. She is 18, an adult, and cannot be forced to return to her parents. Her mother, Zahraa, broke down in tears when Fatima read a victim impact statement, calling Ihsan a “monster.” The father, meanwhile, will spend almost three years in jail, but much of that time is already counted thanks to the ten months he spent in detention right after the attack.
Looking back, the case raises questions about how the legal system handles cultural claims, especially when judges try to keep the jury from prejudice. Does excluding the “honor killing” narrative hide the truth, or does it protect a fair trial? Could the outcome have been different if the jury had known about the alleged threats of an arranged marriage? Those are the kinds of doubts that will linger long after the gavel’s final bang.
In sum, the trial was a clash of medical testimony, emotional eyewitness accounts, and a legal strategy that deliberately sidestepped the very story that captured public attention. The result—a mixture of conviction, punishment, and lingering uncertainty—reflects the complexity of trying to fit a human tragedy into the neat categories of law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
