Blood Lust (34 page)

The DPP said this was supported by what
Karthigesu told Jayatilake in a fit of temper that Dr Warnasurya wanted Jean to
convert to Islam, that ‘the bitch’ did not deserve to live, and worst come to
worst he would admit it and go in. All this was admission that he murdered
Jean. The DPP said it was a preposterous suggestion on the part of the defence
that Jayatilake’s statement was concocted by the police. On the defence
contention that visibility was poor at the scene of the crime and Karthigesu
could not have killed her under that condition, Karthigesu knew the layout of
the car and Jean was not a moving target. According to Karthigesu’s story to
Professor Devadass some men attacked Jean and he was forced to see the killing.
If this was true there was no need to have asked a nurse where was ‘My Jean’
and ‘My wife’. If strangers had actually set upon Karthigesu, and there was a
ruffle, Jean would have attempted to get out of the car, although she was
intoxicated. Professor Devadass had also told the Court that Karthigesu did not
suffer from concussion because he remembered the number plate of the car in
which the alleged assailants came, the object which was used to hit him on the
head, the direction he was placed on the ground, and the distance he was
dragged from the car.

During Karthigesu’s two-and-a-half-hour
statement from the dock he said the four men who attacked him and Jean warned
him not to report to the police what he saw. He was merely to say he had been
assaulted. He was threatened that if he sought help from the police they would
‘get’ his mother, the children and finally himself. Karthigesu spoke of the
events on the fateful night, how Jean screamed for help, but he was too
frightened to help.

Defence Witness Ng

Defence witness Ng Kwai Yew told the
Court that on the night Jean was murdered he saw two cars parked at the scene,
one behind the other. He saw two or three people on the right side of the car
at the rear and they were holding some objects which emitted a faint light. “I
am not sure if they were reflected light or illuminated light.” Ng, an
assistant manager at Price Waterhouse and Co., said that on the evening of 6
April 1979, he had planned to play badminton and went to Selangor Badminton
Hall but found that the hall was fully booked. He had to meet his wife who was
arriving from Singapore on the last flight at Subang airport at 11:30
pm
. To pass the time he went to the
house of a friend, Ramakrishnan, in Bungsar Park. He spent two hours there and
left between 10:45–10:50
pm
to go
to the airport. On the way to the airport he saw an incident which aroused his
curiosity. He saw the incident for about four to seven minutes at the underpass
leading to Subang airport between 11:10–11:20
pm
.

“After turning into the airport road I mused
over the incident wondering why two cars were parked there.” The figures were
holding objects which looked like torch-lights. Then the torch-lights were
switched off. Mr Ng thought of four alternatives:

That friends were meeting on the road.

That people in the car wanted to relieve
themselves.

That one car had broken down and the other
car had stopped to help.

That a robbery was taking place.

Defence witness said when he read in the
New Sunday Times
on 8th April that a man had been attacked and his female companion
murdered, he mentioned what he had seen to his sister. Mr Ng said he did not go
to the police immediately because he could not identify the men he saw that
night.

Questioned by defence counsel, Mr Fernandez,
Ng said when he read newspaper reports about the preliminary inquiry he found
that nobody was coming forward to say anything about the two cars. He consulted
a lawyer, Sham Sunder, on 7 September 1979 and an appointment was made for him
to meet ASP Ramli at 2:00
pm
on
11 September, but Ng said he could not make it. He later contacted ASP Ramli
who told him to go to the Petaling Jaya magistrate’s court. Later Ng handed ASP
Ramli some notes he had written. He said ASP Ramli read the notes and told him
that what he had seen that night might not be very important because other
witnesses had seen Karthigesu alone with Jean.

The Judge told Ng to read out the notes he
had made for the police.

Ng said ASP Ramli told him he would discuss
with his boss and contact him if necessary, but to date he had not been
contacted and he had not made any statement. Ng said he was a total stranger to
Karthigesu and his family. He said he had discussed the matter with a partner
in his firm, Chua Teong, who advised him not to get involved. Despite this
advice he went to the police because he felt that if what he saw had anything
to do with the case then it should be raised in Court.

Cross-examined by the DPP, Ng agreed that he
was capable of making mistakes. In his notes he said that he was at the
Badminton Hall until about 9:00–9:15
pm
.

DPP: So you could not have been in
Ramakrishnan’s house at 8:45
pm
as you told the Court earlier?

Ng: No, my Lord. In my memo, I have
made mistakes regarding some of the times. I arrived in Ramakrishnan’s house
between 9:07–9:22
pm
, not at 8:45
pm
, as I told the Court earlier.

Asked why he had not dated and signed the
memo, Ng said they were notes to himself and it was not necessary to date and
sign it.

DPP: I put it to you. ASP Ramli told
you he did not believe your memo, and that it was tailored for this case.

Ng: No, my Lord.

DPP: You also thought it was not
necessary to put your name and address on it?

Ng: It was never meant to be produced
in Court in its present form.

DPP: In what form did you expect it to
be produced in Court?

Ng: I expected the police to type out
the notes with the date and name and ask me to sign it.

DPP: You expected the police to treat
the contents of this memo as a report?

Ng: Yes, my Lord.

Ng said he had written that he was not
sure of the location where the killing took place because he was not certain of
the exact spot.

When the DPP asked why he went to the
police, Ng said he saw
the cars and he saw
the figures. At that stage he added his information
could not really
assist the police.

Judge: Now it can?

Ng: In the interests of justice, yes.

Ng told the Judge he said he decided to give
information to the police when he found out there was no mention about two cars
when he read newspaper reports on the preliminary inquiry.

Questioned by the DPP, Ng said he did not
make any attempts to contact the people whose names appeared in the reports. He
also said he followed the preliminary inquiry for more details. He said he
could not dispute that the preliminary inquiry began on 30 July 1979. He agreed
that from newspaper reports it was stated that Jean died on 6 April 1979. He
agreed that he contacted ASP Ramli 158 days after what he saw. Mr Ng said when
he approached ASP Ramli he was not absolutely sure that what he saw had
anything to do with the case, and that if it had the police would know about
it.

Judge: Are you sure now? Are you
absolutely sure now?

Ng said he started to think on 7th September
1979 of what he saw in April. Questioned by the Judge, Ng said he thought about
writing it on 7 September 1979, but only started to write on the 8 and
completed on 9 September. Later, when the DPP questioned him, Ng said he had
glanced at his watch when he passed the scene. He told the Judge that the time
he wrote down in his memo was wrong. Asked if it was a false report, Ng told
the Judge there was an error in estimation. The Judge reminded him that time
was an important factor in the case. When Ng offered another estimation, the
Judge told him not to guess. A difference of one or two minutes was important to
determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Ng said that in that case he
was not sure of the time.

Judge: But you are sure you saw two
cars and figures?

Ng: I am sure of seeing the two cars
and I am sure of seeing the figures, but I am not sure of the time.

DPP: It could have been police officers
there?

Ng: It could be anything. I wouldn’t
even rule out if they were Martians.

DPP: It could be after the police
arrived and people came to see. You did not see the accused there, did you?

Ng: I cannot identify the accused.

Re-examined by Mr Fernandez, Ng said the
latest time he would be entering the underpass would be 11:20
pm
.

Closely questioned by the Judge, Ng said so
far as he was concerned he was only certain about the time at his friend’s
house, that is when he looked at the clock and it showed 10:45
pm
. He was not certain about the other
times. They were estimates.

On the night she was murdered, Jean danced
with Karthigesu in the Piano Lounge of Abad Century Hotel. Valentino Soliano,
who played in the band, gave evidence to this effect. He said they danced to
the tune of ‘Say you’ll stay until Tomorrow’ and other sentimental songs, five
tunes altogether. Witness said they danced like any other normal couple. They
left the lounge at 10:40
pm
. He
recognized Jean but not her partner.

Another defence witness, a teacher, F. A.
Jayachandran, told the Court that he was with two other teachers, Dorairaj and
K.N. Chandran at a pub in Klang called Fook’s Corner, at 7:15
pm
on
6 April. At 7:30
pm
, he
telephoned Karthigesu and asked him to join them for a drink. At first
Karthigesu declined, but he subsequently joined them. Karthigesu told them he
had accidentally locked his car in Petaling Jaya with the ignition keys inside
the car. He had been in a hurry then and it was raining. Karthigesu suggested
they all go to Petaling Jaya and they could bring his car back. Jayachandran
said they all went to Karthigesu’s house in K.N. Chandran’s car. Karthigesu had
come to the pub on a scooter and he went home by himself. Both Karthigesu and
Jean kissed Karthigesu’s mother on her forehead on leaving to go to Kuala
Lumpur in Jean’s car. Karthigesu drove, with Jean beside him. K.N. Chandran,
Jayachandran and Dorairaj sat in-the back. Jayachandran told the Court that the
relationship between Jean and Karthigesu was normal and cordial. They spoke
about Jean’s children. Witness said they went to the place where Karthigesu’s
car was, and Karthigesu opened the door with his spare keys. He threw the spare
keys into the glove compartment.

Jayachandran said he drove Karthigesu’s car
back to Klang with his two friends.

Questioned by Mr Ponnudurai, witness said a
week earlier there had been a stag party for Asok Kumar, who was to get married
on 1 April. Karthigesu was the only bachelor in the group. He was asked when
his turn was going to be. Karthigesu said he would be getting married to Jean.
Answering another question, Jayachandran said on 1 April at about 4:30
pm
, he went to Karthigesu’s house to
collect
two young coconut palms which Karthigesu had promised to give him. He met
Karthigesu’s mother, Jean’s mother and her sister, Merlyn. When witness asked
where Karthigesu was, Merlyn said he and Jean had gone to Pangkor Island. He
disagreed with the DPP that, being a Sunday, Jean’s mother and her sister were
at church that evening and not in Karthigesu’s house.

Defence witness, Hyacinth Pamela Menon, told
the Court that Jean’s mother (Mabel Perera) told her not to say in Court what
Jean had told her about getting married to Karthigesu. Witness said that Jean
had told her she was very happy because she had made up her mind to marry
Karthigesu.

Cross-examined by the DPP, witness said Jean
told her she said she would marry him soon.

DPP: Are you saying that Jean’s mother
told you to perjure in court if you were subpoenaed?

Menon: Yes.

Judge: When was this?

Menon: I can’t remember the date, but I
think it was when she herself was called to testify.

DPP: Do you know it is an offence to
perjure in Court?

Menon: Yes. I am swearing to tell the
truth.

P. Rajaratnam, a neighbour of Jean’s, told
the Court that Jean had asked her for advice as to whether she could wear the
thali
(symbol of marriage) and kodi (chain) which her late husband had
given her when she married his younger brother, Karthigesu. Mrs Rajaratnam said
she told Jean she could wear the same chain, but she should donate her
thali
to any Mariamman temple. Rajaratnam said Jean had confided that she
had chosen a man who would be the right father for her three children.

The next witness, P. Ganesan, said he had
known Jean for eight years. He also knew Jean’s late husband. He admitted to
the DPP, that he was a close friend of Karthigesu’s family. He told the Court
he had met Jean and Karthigesu at an Apex Club dinner where he had asked Jean about
rumours that she intended to get married. Jean had said that Karthigesu and she
intended to get married soon.