Blood Lust Page 16

  Continuing his statement from the dock, Karthigesu said he was arrested on April 26 and was kept at Petaling Jaya police station where he was subjected to interrogation and also given much information by the police about Jean. “They told me that Jean was unfaithful to me. They told me she was unfaithful to many other men. They told me she was even unfaithful to my brother and they subjected me to all forms of humiliation and they drummed into my mind that there was a name which I should be able to recall, that I was having a mental block and that this would come out if I subjected myself to narco-analysis. They told me if I agreed willingly to narco-analysis that it would be a strong point for me for showing cooperation with the police. My Lord, in my own studies I know a little bit about narco-analysis, and this little bit unfortunately is about the ill-effects of narco-analysis. I was unable to make up my mind and I was constantly reminded that I could remember a name and that I should remember and that if I go through with the narco-analysis I am cooperating with the police.”

  Karthigesu said he told the police officers, especially DSP Godwin Anthony and DSP Cornelius, to allow him to speak to either Mr Ponnudurai or his friend Dr Chan Hong Leng, but he never got the privilege.

  On May 3 he was taken to see Professor G. Devadass by ASP Ramli, DSP Godwin and a detective. “I explained to Professor Devadass the humiliations and torture that I was undergoing and told him all the police had told me about Jean. I did not tell the professor that I had consulted Mr Ponnudurai and Dr Chan. I told him that I had asked for police permission to meet either of them in relation to the narco-analysis. I did not tell the professor that Jean was unfaithful to my brother, but I told him the police are telling me things to this effect.

  “I complained to the professor about the treatment I was getting from the police. He was just listening to me.”

  At the trial, ASP Ramli said Dr Warnasurya checked into the YMCA at 2:30 pm on 2 September 1978 and left at 8:00 am on 16th September. On 5 September at 9:50 am Jean checked in and

  checked out at 1:00 pm the following day.

  ASP Ramli told the Court that on 9 June 1979 he and Inspector Henry Yap took a Royal Malaysian Navy team to Port Klang to search for clothes and weapons.

  Earlier, Mr Ponnudurai objected to the prosecution introducing a psychiatrist’s report on Karthigesu on the grounds that it was very prejudicial and damaging to the accused. He said this was a jury trial and members of the jury should not see the report until the person who made the report, Professor Devadass, a consultant psychiatrist at University Hospital, had given evidence.

  Judge Azmi over-ruled the objection.

  ASP Ramli read extracts from a letter dated 11 October 1978 which Jean had written to the Sri Lankan doctor, but which had never been posted. Jean confessed that ‘the one and only reason why I cannot marry you is because I really and truly love my brother-in-law. Please don’t be shocked when I state that in retrospect I can say I care for him more than I did care for my late husband.’

  The DPP argued that Karthigesu washed himself at a pond nearby after killing Jean. Then the accused 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 said this could be supported in the evidence by police dog handler, Corporal K. Ramakrishnan who told the court his dog Keris traced the scent to the pool and back to the road. That Karthigesu 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. Counsel said this would not have happened if he had been unconscious, as Karthigesu claimed he was.

  Mr Sambanthamurthi said Karthigesu had told a highly improbable story to consultant psychiatrist, Professor Devadass. He said he had stopped his car near the underpass leading to the Subang airport when four people drove up in a car, ‘and they ruffled’. “If the accused is to be believed, then it seems the four people were waiting for him, 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 that Jean was in the car, and that Jean would stop at that spot? 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 that Karthigesu had found out that Jean had stayed with the doctor at the Apollo Hotel. It was clear that Karthigesu had questioned Jean about Dr Narada’s love letters. Hatred and jealousy. Why had Karthigesu chosen April 1979 to kill Jean? The DPP said Karthigesu was obsessed by the thought that Jean was going to meet Dr Warnasurya in Sri Lanka or that he would be coming to Singapore where they could meet. By this time, the DPP said, Karthigesu was ‘already raving mad’ but, being a psychologist he continued to pretend being good to Jean. Karthigesu went to Subang Airport to pick up Jean and her sister when they returned from Thailand and took them to Kajang. Karthigesu continued to allow Jean to live with him in Klang, and, because he loved the children, he had to close one eye over the matter.

  The DPP pointed to inconsistencies in Karthigesu’s account of what happened at the scene of the crime. Karthigesu told journalist, James Ritchie, Brian Perera and Dr Balakrishnan 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. And to Professor Devadass, Karthigesu said he had stopped the car to urinate when another car pulled up and four men appeared. He was held up and ruffled and forced to see the killing. He was then dragged on the ground and when he noticed the car number he was knocked on the head. As the sand found on the seat of the car was not identical to the sand found at the place where the car was parked, this ruled out the involvement of a third person.

  The Trial

  The trial began in the High Court, Malaysia, on 16 June 1980, Justice Mohammed Azmi sitting with a jury.

  The first witness was ASP Ramli Yusof, senior investigating officer at the Petaling Jaya police station. After midnight on 6th April 1979 he was summoned to the scene by a telephone call from a police constable. When he got there he found the bonnet of the car warm.

  ASP Ramli said Jean was wearing a blue flowered sari with a yellow base. She was covered with blood from several wounds in her chest, neck and hands. Her body was tilted towards the left door. Her hair was crumpled. Her right palm was over her left palm on her lap. ASP Ramli told the Court that he could see nine injuries: two in her throat, two on the right side of the chest, four on the right forearm, and one in the left hand. On the back seat was a handbag which appeared to be made of crocodile skin. In the bag he found among other items a chain with a lock on which was inscribed ‘With all my love’.

  ASP Ramli said he found bloodstains on the windscreen in front of the passenger’s seat, the front passenger’s floor boards, the rear floor board, the rear floor board between the front passenger seat, and the left front door. He did not however find any blood-stains on the driver’s seat, the gear box and handle, the foot pedal or the steering wheel. He found no finger prints anywhere. There was a smearing of blood outside the driver’s door. In his opinion this had been done deliberately.

  Later, about 2:30 am he went to the Emergency Room at the University Hospital, where he saw Karthigesu. Karthigesu was lying on a trolley. Karthigesu did not speak to him or answer any of his questions. Karthigesu kept murmuring to himself and ASP Ramli thought he was drunk. He tried to pull him to his feet but could not do so because Karthigesu was lying stiff. With the help of a nurse ASP Ramli took possession of Karthigesu’s clothing and shoes.

  ASP Ramli told the Court that on 13 April 1979, he took Karthigesu and a police party to Karthigesu’s house at Jalan Solok Pulai, off Jalan Telok Pulai. In the wardrobe in the room where Jean stayed Ramli said he found 19 letters in two handbags. They were letters from Dr Narada Warnasurya, alias Digagamini, from Colombo, Sri Lanka. There were no love letters from Karthigesu but there were four from Je
an to him.

  ASP Ramli said on 7 April he attended a post mortem conducted on Jean by a pathologist, Dr R. Krishnan. Professor Eric Sumitran was also present. Dr Krishnan gave him four articles belonging to Jean—a bloodstained blouse with two holes, a bloodstained sari, a bloodstained brassiere with a hole in the right cup, and a bloodstained slip. During the afternoon that day together with constable Sulong and photographer Othman Din he lifted fingerprints from the car in which the murder was committed. Apart from one (not Karthigesu’s), all prints were inconclusive.

  ASP Ramli said he arrested Karthigesu at 11:00 pm on 26 April at the police station. Three days later he took Karthigesu to a house in Jalan Mewa, Petaling Jaya, which Jean had planned to rent. He asked him to show the spot where he had parked his car on the evening on 6 April.

  ASP Ramli read extracts from the letters from Dr Narada Warnasurya to Jean. In one of the letters written on 11 October 1978 from the YMCA Hostel in Bangkok, he wrote about their proposed meeting planned for December. He said that perhaps April 1979 would be more realistic. The letter continued. “But if both of us feel the hunger to be unbearable, let us risk it in December.”

  ASP Ramli read another passage from the same letter relating to a telephone call from Dr Warnasurya to Jean:

  I tried yesterday between 3:40–3:50 pm to the school. They said that you were not available. I tried both 563141 and 51085. So today I tried the same. Then they said that the school was closed. Darling, I was desperate to speak to you, and I hadn’t seen your letter then, that I decided to call Klang. It was about 4:10 pm. Your brother-in-law answered and said you were not in, and asked whether there was a message.

  ASP Ramli then read from another letter dated 9 October 1978 in which Dr Warnasurya said: “I think we should plan to meet again in April—in Sri Lanka or Malaysia.”

  The jury were given photostats, and the Deputy Public Prosecutor seized the opportunity to read from a letter dated 26 September 1978.

  DPP: Distance is to love as wind is to fire.

  Judge: I know you love to read the letters. For the moment I want to know your question. I will direct the jury to read all the letters. What is your question on the letters?

  DPP: There are certain portions which I want the investigating officer to read.

  Judge: Whether he reads or not it is evidence. I want to save time. They have been marked.

  Judge (to ASP Ramli): Have you read the letters?

  Ramli: Yes.

  Judge: How do you describe the letters?

  Ramli: They are love letters, my Lord.

  Judge: All of them?

  Ramli: Yes, my lord.

  Judge: So now we have evidence that they are love letters.

  DPP: From?

  Ramli: From Dr Warnasurya to the deceased.

  Earlier Mr Sambanthamurthi referred ASP Ramli to the register book of the YMCA Hostel in Brickfields (in Kuala Lumpur).

  ASP Ramli said Dr Warnasurya checked into the hostel at 2:30 pm on 2 September 1978 and left at 8:00 am on 16 September 1978. At 9:50 am on 5 September 1978, Jean checked in at the same hostel and checked out at 1:00 pm the following day.

  Questioned by the DPP, ASP Ramli said Dr Warnasurya checked in at the Apollo Hotel in Jalan Bukit Bintang (Kuala Lumpur) at 8:40 am on 6 October 1978 and checked out the next day.

  ASP Ramli told the Court that the Malaysian Police made an effort to get Dr Warnasurya to give evidence in Court. The request was made through Interpol. Dr Warnasurya refused, despite a promise that he would be given free passage and accommodation. Three telex messages were sent to the doctor in Sri Lanka. They were not answered.

  Earlier, ASP Ramli told the Court that from his investigations, he found that Jean first met Dr Warnasurya in September 1978. He also said that four letters written by Jean to Karthigesu were written prior to 3 July, 1978.

  DPP: You are saying that the accused never produced any letter from the deceased after she had met the doctor?

  ASP Ramli: Yes.

  ASP Ramli went on to say that on 9 June, 1979, Inspector Henry Yap and he took a Royal Malaysian Navy team to Port Klang to search for clothes and weapons. As neither was produced in Court it might be assumed that nothing was found.

  Earlier, Karthigesu’s lawyer, Mr Ponnudurai, objected to the prosecution introducing a psychiatrist’s-report on. Karthigesu, on the grounds that it was very prejudical and damaging to him. Counsel argued that this was a trial by jury, and members of the jury should not see the report until the person who made this report, Professor Devadass, a consultant psychiatrist, at University Hospital, had given evidence. The judge over-ruled the objection. He ordered the jury to retire so that he could hear submissions on the objection.

  Mr Ponnudurai said Karthigesu went to see Professor Devadass when he was in police custody and the report was prejudicial to him.

  Judge: Why is it inadmissible in evidence? Merely being prejudicial is not sufficient.

  Mr Ponnudurai: The third paragraph of the report is very prejudicial, my Lord.

  Judge: The whole of that paragraph?

  Mr Ponnudurai: Yes.

  Judge: Do you think the third paragraph should be expunged?

  Mr Ponnudurai: Not only the third paragraph, my Lord, the last two lines of the second paragraph are also very prejudicial and damaging to the accused.

  Judge: But you are entitled to cross-examine the professor. He will be called as a witness.

  Mr Ponnudurai: I am not disputing the admissibility of the report. I am disputing the contents of the report being admitted at this stage because this is a jury trial. The jury should not see this report until after the professor has given evidence.

  In reply, the DPP said life was uncertain. He might not be alive tomorrow to wait for the professor to come and give evidence before putting in his report. The professor examined Karthigesu and submitted his report.

  DPP: It is a point of law and not a question of what the defence would prefer. It is not because we are prejudicial that we are putting it in. The professor has reduced into writing what the accused told him and this is important.

  The DPP said the defence could cross-examine the professor when the time came. The defence had not objected to the production of other reports, “and I see no reason why the defence should object to the production of this report!”

  Judge Azmi ruled that the report was admissible.

  Earlier, ASP Ramli told the Court that on the fateful night of 6 April, he looked for blood trails on the ground below the four doors of the car in which Jean was found dead, but there was none. He also examined the spot on which Karthigesu was lying. It was not wet.

  DPP: Were there any signs of urinating there?

  ASP Ramli: No, my Lord.

  Judge: Any smell of urine?

  ASP Ramli: No, my Lord!

  Replying to a question, ASP Ramli said he had made inquiries at the Registry of Marriages to see if any application had been made by Karthigesu to marry Jean. The reply was ‘no’.

  ASP Ramli produced 16 photographs taken at the scene of the murder.

  ASP Ramli: The accused was found lying in three different positions at three different times by prosecution witnesses.

  Answering a question, ASP Ramli said he arrested Karthigesu 20 days after Jean died.

  DPP: During those 20 days did the accused lodge any report to the police about the alleged assault on himself, or others?

  ASP Ramli: No, my Lord.

  Replying to other questions, ASP Ramli said the accused’s trousers and underpants were not wet when he took possession of them at University Hospital. There were no drag marks on the white shoes Karthigesu wore that evening.

  ASP Ramli was still in the witness box on the fourth day of the trial. Answering a question from the DPP, ASP Ramli said Dr Warnasurya in a letter dated 17 October 1978, showed concern that he had selfishly upset the peaceful and homely atmosphere in Jean’s family. He realised Jean was upset that her mother-in-law had tried to eavesdrop on their
conversation. The letter continued: “I am sure that she and Selvam (Karthigesu) are both quite perturbed by my persistence in trying to contact you.” Dr Warnasurya admitted he was endangering the only relationship which offered her stability and security.

  To a question by the DPP, ASP Ramli said the first warning was in an undated letter which told her to be careful with his letters and photographs, it would be disastrous if Karthigesu found them. In another undated letter, Dr Warnasurya spoke of the possibility of Jean visiting Sri Lanka in December 1978. He gave her his hospital telephone number so that she could contact him in case of emergency. In the same letter the doctor said: ‘Darling, thanks for the lip imprint. I have been kissing it so much that the paper is giving way.’

  ASP Ramli said from a letter from Dr Warnasurya to Jean it was clear that she had asked him for advice about her future, for the doctor had replied: “I think you have to decide now whether you want him or not, as to go on deceiving him would be disastrous for this relationship.” He warned her that if she visited him in Sri Lanka in December it would be impossible for her to hide from Karthigesu her continued contact with him.