Authors: Alex Josey
Referring to the evidence of the accountant
who said he saw two cars parked at the scene, Mr Ponnudurai said if the
prosecution had been fair it would have recorded a statement from him, but it
did not do it because the prosecution theory would have been blown sky-high.
Mr Ponnudurai said another piece of most suspicious
evidence was that Acting Supt. Cornelius had said he did not know anything
about Jayatilake’s statement to the police until he read about it in the
newspapers. Why should this have been kept away from a senior police officer?
Mr Ponnudurai said it was his contention that this evidence was concocted by
the prosecution to support its case. He asked the jury not to place any weight
on the statement by Jayatilake and on what Karthigesu was supposed to have told
him.
Mr Ponnudurai concluded his submission by
claiming that the defence had raised more than a reasonable doubt against the
prosecution’s story. “Accordingly I ask you, the jury, to acquit and discharge
Karthigesu.”
The DPP’s Submission
The DPP (T.S. Sambanthamurthi) told
the jury that circumstantial evidence, if convincing, was more cogent than the
evidence of an eye-witness. The evidence against Karthigesu was circumstantial
coupled with an extra-judicial confession. No witness saw Karthigesu plunging
the knife through Jean’s body. “There is no rule of law which says that if
there is no eye-witness to a murder, that the accused should not be found
guilty of that crime on circumstantial evidence alone.”
The DPP said circumstantial evidence should
be “such that when you look at all the surrounding circumstances you find a
series of undesigned unexpected coincidences that, as a reasonable person, you
find your judgement is compelled to one conclusion that that person is the
murderer. It is my humble submission that you members of the jury, you as the
sole judge of facts must consider the several links of circumstantial evidence,
not link by link, but as a whole. Where the evidence is wholly circumstantial,
what has to be considered is not only the strength of each individual strand of
evidence but also the combined strength of these strands when twisted together
to make a rope.”
The DPP argued that Karthigesu had every
opportunity and reason to kill Jean. “It is my submission that there are
numerous trends, numerous links of circumstantial evidence which when linked
together and considered as a whole, closely point to the guilt of the accused
and no one else as the very murderer.”
The DPP said there were two questions the
jury must answer. Did Karthigesu kill his sister-in-law? If he did, did he
attack her with the intention of causing her death? Intention was proved by the
type of injuries Jean sustained, the type of weapon used to inflict the
injuries, and the knowledge of probable consequence. He said the person who
inflicted the wounds on Jean knew they would cause death, and he intended to
cause her death and nothing less.
The DPP said ASP Ramli had established that
this was not a case of robbery because all the jewellery Jean wore was still on
her body. Karthigesu had also not been robbed. The DPP said when ASP Ramli
examined the car he found streaks of blood on the whole inside of the left
front door from top to bottom and on the front left half of the windscreen. ASP
Ramli said the gearbox area, the gear handle, the steering wheel and dashboard
were wiped clean. He also felt that the inside of the car was cleaned up and
bloodstains found near the right front door handle were deliberately done. The
DPP said ASP Ramli then went to the hospital where he saw Karthigesu on a
trolley in the accident and emergency room. When he. spoke to Karthigesu he
could not get any answer, for Karthigesu just murmured. According to ASP Ramli,
Karthigesu kept still when his clothes were removed. Karthigesu did not have
his purse, his identity card, driving licence, not even the bill from Hotel
Century. The DPP suggested the articles were in the clothes worn at the time of
the murder. Could it be believed that a person would take his girlfriend to a
good hotel without his identification papers, his driving licence and money?
The DPP said Karthigesu did not have his singlet on when his clothes were
removed.
The DPP then referred to an anonymous letter
which Karthigesu had handed to ASP Ramli. The letter was signed ‘A Man of Fair
Play’. The DPP submitted that the letter had been ‘manufactured’ by Karthigesu
himself. The contents of the letter were based on the facts mentioned in the
love-letters written by Dr Narada Warnasurya of Sri Lanka to Jean. Those facts
would not be known to anyone who had not seen the letters. ASP Ramli had
testified that the love letters were recovered from a handbag in an unlocked
wardrobe in Jean’s room. They were accessible to everyone in the house. Brian
Perera, Jean’s brother, had testified that Karthigesu brought the letters to
their house in Kajang some time in December 1978.
The DPP dwelt upon the conflicting evidence
as to where Karthigesu was lying at the scene of the crime. Two witnesses did
not see Karthigesu near the gate, while two others saw him about 10 feet away.
When the police found him he was in a different position. The DPP suggested he
was pretending. The DPP added that if Karthigesu had seen the killing of Jean
he would have told someone when he was taken to the hospital.
The DPP remarked that Professor Devadass in
his evidence did not say that Karthigesu missed Jean, nor did he show any sign
to indicate her death was a personal tragedy.
The DPP described Karthigesu as a jealous
and angry man who was mad over the relationship between Jean and her Sri Lankan
lover, Dr Narada Wamasurya. No amount of cross-examination could destroy the
fact that Karthigesu was harbouring a feeling of ill-will towards Jean. Urging
the jury to return a verdict of guilty the DPP said: “It is my submission to
you that it is the accused who murdered Jean deliberately. Justice, he said,
did not mean only justice to the accused but also to the community. The
responsibility of a jury is to consider its verdict. What would be the
consequence of your verdict is not your concern. It is the concern of his
Lordship. You should not be moved by sentiment or emotion.”
Mr Sambanthamurthi said it was the duty of
the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, but not beyond a
shadow of doubt. “The degree of proof need not reach certainty, but it must
carry a high degree of probability.” “If,” he said, “the evidence against a man
is so strong as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be
dismissed, of course it is possible, but not in the least probable, the case is
proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice.” The
DPP submitted that Karthigesu committed a preplanned murder. He pointed out
that consultant psychiatrist Professor G. Devadass in his evidence stated that
Karthigesu displayed anger whenever Jean’s name was mentioned. Karthigesu told
the professor she had been an unfaithful woman to many men for a long time. He
said he was afraid he would talk about the many quarrels he had with Jean. The
DPP said this contradicted defence evidence that Karthigesu and Jean were
happy. “What was in the heart of Karthigesu they did not know. What was his
opinion of her? Taking her to Pangkor Island does not mean he loved her.”
Karthigesu had carried on an amorous relationship with Jean until she met Dr
Warnasurya on 5 September 1978. Later Dr Warnasurya came from Bangkok to see
her and they stayed at the Apollo Hotel. Subsequently Dr Warnasurya went to Sri
Lanka, but he continued to write to Jean. When Jean was in Bangkok for a
holiday on 4 December 1978 Karthigesu ransacked her cupboard and found the love
letters. He took them to Jean’s mother in Kajang and asked her to advise Jean
to stop corresponding with the the doctor. If Karthigesu was not a jealous man,
asked the DPP, why should he worry about a widow corresponding with the doctor?
There was evidence to show that Karthigesu did not like Dr Warnasurya. In one
of his letters to Jean the doctor had asked her to work out a formula to
‘rehabilitate my image’ in Karthigesu’s mind.
The DPP said the defence had produced
witnesses to say that Karthigesu’s family was peaceful. Neighbours said it was
a happy family. Members of the family were seen sitting in the garden and
talking and Jean always kissed her mother-in-law on the forehead. But judging
from the evidence Jean was a troubled person.
There was also evidence that Karthigesu
found out about Jean’s meeting with the doctor in the Apollo Hotel, and there
were suspicions and quarrels.
The DPP said that in a murder case the
prosecution did not have to prove motive, and yet in this case it had proved
motive. One of the letters from Dr Warnasurya said he could not divorce his
wife, Ira, and the only alternative was for Jean to become his second wife. One
way in which she could become the second wife was for Dr Warnasurya to become a
Muslim and marry her. The DPP said Karthigesu did not want Jean to leave his
house and take her children and her money with her. He knew that once Jean left
the house he would no longer have control over her. The DPP said some of these
things added up to his motive for killing her. The evidence pertaining to
Karthigesu’s conduct should not be seen in isolation but they should be strung
together. Karthigesu’s feelings were seen when he showed the love letters to
Jean’s mother and her brother, and his outburst to prosecution witness,
Bandhulananda Jayatilake.
The DPP said Karthigesu deliberately locked
his car with the key inside because he wanted to go out in Jean’s car that
night. Karthigesu had said that the door had locked accidentally, but the
prosecution had brought expert evidence to prove that Karthigesu’s car could
not be locked accidentally.
“If,” said the DPP, “the murder had been
committed in his car he would have to do some explaining and his car would have
been taken away as an exhibit. Karthigesu was wearing white pants and shoes and
this in itself was preparation to committing the murder,” said the DPP.
On Karthigesu’s statement from the dock, the
DPP said what the prosecution had been telling the Court was that Karthigesu
was the killer, and that he had been lying to the Court. The DPP said
Karthigesu told the Press on 8 April 1979 that he did not know why Jean was
killed because she had no enemies. Yet he handed to the police an anonymous
letter which Jean had received.
Karthigesu, in his statement from the dock
told the Court that whatever he was telling was the truth and all his earlier
stories were lies. He had to lie because the people who killed Jean threatened
him and he was hit many times. “If the men killed Jean, and they did not wear
masks, would they leave the accused alive for him subsequently to identify
them? If they had ruthlessly hit him many times on the head why did they not
kill him?”
The DPP said the defence had told the Court
Jean had not made any preparations to go to Sri Lanka but the fact that she
intended to go there was clear in one of the love letters. The doctor suggested
that she could stay at a hotel near the medical college and he would drop in
and see her whenever he was free.
The DPP said it was suggested the prosecution
was suppressing evidence by not calling accountant Ng Kwai Yew and ASP Shingara
Singh, but they were made available to the defence.
“We don’t want to fall into traps set by
anyone,” he said.
Referring to the statement by Jayatilake and
the fact that it was not shown to Acting Supt. Cornelius, the DPP said
Karthigesu was an intelligent man and he visited the police station often to
pick up bits and pieces. It was for this reason that the statement was
‘frozen’.
The DPP said that the prosecution had adduced
evidence to show that Jean had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol that
evening and she would not have been alert. It would have been easy for anyone
to kill her.
On the positions in which Karthigesu was
found at the scene, the DPP said he was first seen on the ground near a railway
gate facing the Subang housing complex. Later he was found in the middle of the
road facing Subang Jaya. When the police found him he was lying facing the
airport. The two doctors who examined him at University Hospital said he did
not suffer from concussion. He had no injury and he could not have been
unconscious, Karthigesu did not rebut this evidence. The dental surgeon told
the Court it was not possible for Karthigesu’s dentures to have fallen out of
his mouth unless he received a very heavy blow which would have left an injury.
Also, the dentures was not found where he first fell but in a different spot.
Karthigesu did not offer any explanation. Neither did he explain how he came to
be in various positions.
At the hospital he did not explain what had
happened to his wallet, identity card, driving licence and other personal
belongings. It was the contention of the prosecution that the items were in the
other set of clothes he used before he murdered Jean.
The DPP said Karthigesu told the Court the
people who killed Jean had held a sharp object at his neck and hip, and he had
struggled, but there was no evidence of injury on him.
In his statement Karthigesu said he went out
with Jean socially in November 1978, but this was not true because her four
love letters to him showed she was going out with him as early as June 1978.
Commenting on Ng’s evidence, the DPP
recalled that Ng told the Court he thought a robbery could be taking place. If
that was true why did he not report it at the police post at the airport where
he was going to fetch his wife? Ng was far from the civic-minded person the
defence made him out to be. He was a highly irresponsible person and his story
was concocted to get an acquittal for Karthigesu. His intention was to lead the
prosecution astray.