Authors: Alex Josey
On the 24th day of the trial, the
prosecution closed its case after calling its 40th witness. Before actually
closing the prosecution’s case, the DPP amended the charge against Karthigesu
regarding the time and place of the crime. The amended charge was that he
murdered her between 11:10–11:40
pm
on 6 April 1979 at the lay-in at the 11th mile Federal Highway near the
underpass leading to Jalan Lapangan Terbang, Subang. He was earlier charged
with murdering Jean between 11:00–1:35
pm
at Pilmoor Estate, Subang, on 6 April 1979. Karthigesu pleaded not guilty.
Submission by the Defence
Mr Ponnudurai submitted to the Court
that the defence had no case to answer. He said it was the duty of the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had inflicted the
stab wounds on Jean, and there was no such evidence.
Mr Ponnudurai said the trial had gone on for
24 days, and now the prosecution had amended the charge to the original charge.
(The original charge stated that the offence was committed at the underpass.
This was amended to Pilmoor Estate at the preliminary inquiry.) Mr Ponnudurai
said this clearly showed the prosecution was lost and was jumping from pillar
to pillar. It appeared as if the prosecution was saying that because Karthigesu
was found at the scene, he was presumed to have committed the murder. “His mere
presence does not mean he committed the offence.”
Mr Ponnudurai said the prosecution had
adduced evidence that Karthigesu was unconscious and murmuring when he was
found at the scene. Medical evidence, he said, supported this.
Mr Ponnudurai then dealt with the evidence
of Dr Devadass. He said the accused made no admission to the professor. On the
contrary, Karthigesu had maintained his innocence. It was up to the Court to
decide how much weight should be given to the evidence of the professor.
Referring to the amended charge, defence
counsel said, “Our contention is, if the accused did it, the whole episode must
have occurred within 15 minutes, between 11:15–11:30
pm
. ASP Ramli stated that he did not find a speck of blood on
Karthigesu’s white trousers, white shoes and red shirt. ASP Ramli had also
examined the accused’s hands and did not find any blood even under the
fingernails. Dr Yahya had stated it would have taken Karthigesu ‘some time’ to
clean blood from under his fingernails. The prosecution was saying the incident
took place within 15 minutes, and in an area where the visibility was so poor
that three police cars had to be used to light up the area.
Mr Ponnudurai said ASP Ramli gave evidence
that he took a sample of the sand from a footprint and sent it to the chemist.
The chemist reported it did not correspond to samples of sand taken from
outside the car, or from other parts of the car. He urged the Court to consider
where the sand came from. Mr Ponnudurai argued that a third person must have
been involved. He said if Karthigesu had been driving, and if he had put his
foot on the seat the sand must correspond to that found on the foot-rest. The
prosecution had not given any evidence to this effect. There was a foot print
on the driver’s seat, and blood stains on the arm rest and the outside handle
of the door on the driver’s side, but there were no blood stains on the rear
seat or rear door.
From the injuries sustained, especially the
wounds on the hand, the doctors were agreed that Jean had put up a fight. This
would have left blood stains not only on Karthigesu’s hands but also on his
clothes, if not his trousers, at least his shirt. There was not an iota of
evidence that Karthigesu had worn any other shirt. Counsel said that the
evidence of James Ritchie, a
New Straits Times
reporter, could not be relied upon.
As for Dr Narada Warnasurya of Sri Lanka and
his letters, Mr Ponnudurai said, “The prosecution said they would prove it was
a crime of passion and that the accused murdered Jean because of jealousy.
There is no evidence of passion or jealousy. The only evidence produced was
from Jean’s brother, Brian Perera, whom counsel for the defence described as ‘a
very interested witness in this case and who must be looked upon with caution’.
Counsel said that Perera’s evidence that
Jean wanted to go to Sri Lanka in April 1979 was suspect as there was no
evidence in support.
Making his submission at the end of the case
for the prosecution, the DPP admitted the prosecution depended largely on
circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession made by Karthigesu to
prosecution witness, Bandhulananda Jayatilake.
The DPP told the Court that after the
killing of Jean in the car, the accused washed himself at a pond nearby.
Karthigesu then went back to the road and waited for passing vehicles. “As soon
as he saw one he lay down on the ground hoping to be seen and taken to hospital
where he could pull a yarn.” The DPP claimed that this contention was supported
in the evidence given by police dog-handler Cpl K. Ramakrishnan. The
dog-handler had told the Court, Keris, the dog, traced the scent to the pool
and back to the road. That the accused had lain down on the ground each time he
saw a vehicle was supported in the evidence of witnesses who said they saw his
stomach heaving up and down. This would not have happened if Karthigesu had been
unconscious.
Referring to the amended charge regarding
the time and place of the crime, Mr Sambanthamurthi said the current charge was
based on evidence adduced in Court. It was not true that the prosecution was
not certain of its case. The DPP said that Karthigesu had told a highly
improbable story to consultant psychiatrist Professor G. Devadass, that he had
stopped his car near the underpass leading to Subang airport when four people
drove up in a car ‘and they ruffled’.
DPP: If the accused is to be believed
then it seems the four people were waiting for him, waiting at that very spot
knowing that he will stop his car there, waiting there to kill Jean. If the
accused is to be believed how did the four men know Jean was in the car, and
that Jean was going to stop at that point? This is a highly improbable story.
Why should anyone want to kill Jean? The whole of the prosecution case is that
Karthigesu was pretending from the start, right from the killing.
The DPP said two MAS employees passed the
scene at about 11:30
pm
—Abdul
Wahab bin Abu Amin and Ramli Othman. They passed within 10 minutes of each
other and they both said they did not see anyone lying behind the car.
On medical evidence, the DPP said Dr S.
Balakrishnan, the first doctor to attend to Karthigesu at University Hospital,
said there was no injury on his head or body. Karthigesu appeared to be drowsy
but he was conscious and rational and was able to answer questions. The doctor
said it was highly improbable Karthigesu had been knocked on the head about an
hour prior to his examination.
Another medical officer at the University
Hospital, Dr Yahya Sofi bin Hussein examined Karthigesu at 2:00
am
. He said the accused was well
orientated to persons and places. His condition and behaviour were normal. The
DPP said Dr Yahya Sofi told the court there was no laceration on the scalp of
Karthigesu. He said Professor Devadass told the Court that when a person begins
to recover from unconsciousness, he starts murmuring and mumbling continuously
and incoherently which Karthigesu did not do. Dr Yahya Sofi also told the court
that if someone did something seriously wrong, his pulse rate would go up to
120 beats a minute, like Karthigesu’s at the time of examination. The same
would apply if a person was emotionally involved in wrong-doing.
The DPP compared these facts with
Karthigesu’s behaviour towards police officers. He said when the investigating
officer ASP Ramli visited Karthigesu at the hospital at 2:30
am
he could not get any reply from him.
As a result ASP Ramli had to get the particulars he wanted from Karthigesu’s
brother, Kugarajah. ASP Ramli tried to put Karthigesu on his feet to remove his
clothing, but could not. Then a nurse helped him. Karthigesu was stiff and
would not stand up or sit up. The DPP said when DSP Godwin Anthony saw him at
3:15
am
on 7 April 1979,
Karthigesu had his eyes open and was looking all around and asking for water.
At about 12:30
am
, Karthigesu had put his hands in his pockets searching for
his identity card. He said he had given his personal particulars to a staff
nurse.
The DPP said it was his submission that
Karthigesu was pretending before the police officers that he was
unconscious—even the four policemen at the underpass who were trying to make
him stand up. He said Karthigesu was lying down every time a vehicle came
along, and when the police came unexpectedly he lay down forgetting about the
direction.
The DPP said another piece of circumstantial
evidence was Karthigesu locking up the car keys inside his car in Jalan Mewa,
Petaling Jaya where he and Jean had gone to look for a house. It was the
contention of the prosecution that Karthigesu did this deliberately so that he
could be in Jean’s car that night. He did not want the killing to be done in
his car because he would have to give more explanations and also his car would
be taken away as an exhibit. The prosecution had adduced evidence that a Mazda
Capella car could not be locked accidentally. Karthigesu deliberately locked
his car with the ignition key inside.
The DPP said another feature of the case was
the accused’s dentures which were found on the ground. He said Karthigesu must
have deliberately removed them and placed them on the ground hoping to say they
had fallen from his mouth when he was hit on the head.
Assuming this was true they should have
fallen where the accused was first seen lying, which is two feet from the
railway gate. Instead they were found in the middle of the road. The DPP said a
dental surgeon had told the Court that it was not possible for the dentures to
fall out of Karthigesu’s mouth unless the blow on the head was great enough to
cause an injury which would render him unconscious. Looking at the evidence as
a whole the DPP said it was clear the dentures could not have fallen out
because of a knock on the head.
Mr Sambanthamurthi said it was the
contention of the prosecution that Karthigesu induced Jean to take alcohol. He
said alcohol was found in Jean’s bloodstream, stomach and urine. The chemist’s
report as interpreted by Professor Sumithran showed there was about three
ounces of alcohol in her bloodstream and about the same amount in her stomach.
The alcohol had been recently consumed. The DPP said Valerie de Silva saw Jean
at the junction of Jalan 222 and described Jean as having a dull appearance.
Counsel submitted that Jean was intoxicated at that time.
The Judge pointed out there was violence
that Jean was smiling. He asked how Jean could be dull and smiling at the same
time. The DPP explained that Jean was dull in the sense that she did not behave
in her usual way. Jean was not alert and ‘at the time of the incident was
unable to put up resistance’.
The DPP spoke of Karthigesu’s conduct after
‘the incident’. He said the accused tried to win the sympathy of the public,
and at the same time tried to mislead the police by saying he was going to
marry Jean on 13 April 1979 which was wrongly described as a Saturday.
“Karthigesu claimed they would have been married at the Civil Registry on that
day and later they were to have been married by Father Edward Soosai.” Neither
the marriage office nor Father Soosai knew of any planned marriage.
The DPP said Karthigesu also tried to
mislead the public by making a statement to Lee Ah Chai, a journalist, at
Jean’s funeral. The DPP referred to Lee’s report relating to Karthigesu’s
pledge at Jean’s grave that he would take care of Jean’s three children. The
accused had said he was puzzled as to why Jean was killed, but nowhere did he
say he saw Jean being killed by some other people.
As for the jealousy motive, Karthigesu, said
the DPP, had feared that Jean would leave with her children. The prosecution
conceded that Karthigesu loved the children. But at the time of the killing he
had no more love for Jean. He had found out that Jean had stayed at the Apollo
Hotel with Dr Narada Warnasurya of Sri Lanka. The DPP said Karthigesu had
questioned Jean about this and she had reported it to Dr Warnasurya, as was
seen in the letter dated 7 December 1978, he sent to her. From that letter it
was clear Karthigesu had questioned Jean about the doctor’s love letters.
In December 1978, Karthigesu had seen 15 or
16 letters Dr Warnasurya had sent to Jean and had shown them to her brother and
their mother. Both of them advised him to return the letters. Hatred and
jealousy began at that stage.
The DPP explained why Karthigesu had chosen
April 1979 to kill Jean. Karthigesu by now was obsessed by the thought that
Jean was going to meet Dr Warnasurya in Sri Lanka or that he would come to
Singapore, where they could meet.
By now, said the DPP, Karthigesu was already
raving mad, but being a psychologist, he continued to pretend being good to
Jean. He continued to allow her to live with him in Klang, ‘and because he
loved the children he had to close one eye over the matter.’
There were inconsistencies in Karthigesu’s
description of events on that fateful night. Karthigesu told journalist James
Ritchie, Brian Perera and Dr S. Balakrishnan that he was hit on the head while
he was urinating and became unconscious. He told two others—Dr Yahya Sofi and
staff nurse Goh Poh Yin—he was hit when he wanted to urinate.