Blood Lust Read online

  At this juncture the DPP asked the jury to read a particular portion of the letter, which he had marked, when they were free in the afternoon.

  ASP Ramli: It is obscene, my Lord.

  Judge: What is obscene? We are all adults.

  The Judge told the jury to read all the letters. He explained he had asked the DPP not to read out in Court all the letters because ‘otherwise we will be here for two months’.

  ASP Ramli from the box said in a letter dated 2nd November 1978, Dr Warnasurya spoke about taking Jean as his second wife. ASP Ramli read:

  I don’t think I can even divorce Ira. So the only alternative is for you to be my second wife. I have thought about this too, darling, in great detail. This is how I spend my time now.

  There are two ways in which you could be a second wife. One is for me to become a Muslim and then marry you legally as my second wife. The other is for me to just live with you—at least intermittently. This really would be a mistress rather than a wife.

  The first method would for all practical purposes be tantamount to divorcing Ira, as she would not accept it, and neither would my relatives or society in Ceylon. The other problem about this method is where are we going to live? For me to be in Ceylon and for you to be my second wife in Malaysia would be meaningless. Problems of either of us emigrating would also be tremendous. And, darling, if you are going to be my wife I have to support you and your kids at least partially. I can’t live on your wealth only.

  In the same letter, Dr Warnasurya said: ‘But darling I would always be yours, to fall back on for love, protection and support for you and your kids.’

  ASP Ramli was then asked to read a letter from the doctor to Jean dated 4 November 1978, which said: ‘I possessed you darling, in the same spirit that you gave yourself to me, purely and completely.’ The doctor expressed a desire to have a child by Jean wrote: ‘I would love to give you a child, my love. It would be a beautiful child, like the mother: an exotic brown-eyed Malaysian beauty of Sinhalese descent.’

  In the same letter, Dr Warnasurya told Jean he wanted to meet her at least once before she committed herself. He wrote: ‘Please come to me darling. We can restrain ourselves from making love (if it is necessary) but I want to talk to you, darling, about the future. We can’t do it through letters and I am sorry that we didn’t spend more time during the last two days we had together talking more about it. I want to make really sure that you are going to be at least reasonably happy, otherwise I will prefer you to remain a widow. (I hope you don’t mind me writing like this darling, although I have no right at all.)’ The letter again warned Jean about his letters. He said: ‘Please darling don’t bother about the letters and photos. I will keep them. Even if they come out it will not be such a calamity for me but what about my letters to you, darling, and the photos. It will be a much greater disaster for your relationship with Selvam if ever they come out.’ He asked, ‘Have you destroyed my letters? I feel sorry to ask you to, but darling, please, please, be careful where you keep them.’ He wanted to see her once again before she committed herself. ‘Can you come to Sri Lanka in December, if not, in April? Don’t decide on anything definitely till then.’

  In a letter dated 14 November 1978, Dr Warnasurya referred to a shirt and sarong which Jean had given him. He said he did not tell his wife that they were presents. He told her that he had bought them. ASP Ramli read out from another letter from Dr Warnasurya dated 20 November 1978 in which he wrote: ‘I felt like ringing Klang, but darling, I love you too much and I don’t want to jeopardise your chances of happiness. So I restrained myself with great difficulty. Darling, I hope you are collecting my letters from school. I wouldn’t like them to get into anyone else’s hands. I hope I’ll receive a letter from you within the next few days. If not darling, my self-restraint wouldn’t hold and I will be tempted to give you a ring in Klang or write you a platonic sounding letter to Klang. (In this letter he expressed his fears for the fourth time.) Is there a chance of seeing you again, Jeannie? Is it possible for you to come in December?’ In another part of the letter he said: ‘If the problem is that Selvam has found out about me, please let me know. I will write to him if necessary, taking full blame for misleading you. Darling Jeannie, I love you. I need you. I want you to be happy.’

  Questioned by the DPP about a letter dated 12 December 1978, ASP Ramli said it appeared that Karthigesu had questioned Jean about her relationship with Dr Warnasurya. The doctor said: “Your letter has just reached me and I am just completely flabbergasted. Oh darling please, please, believe me all these allegations are completely baseless. I will swear upon my little daughter’s life that I have never shown your letters to anybody.’

  Later in the letter he said: ‘I have the letters with me and mine are the only eyes that have seen them. I could post them back to you, but I think that would not be safe. Do you want me to destroy them?’

  In the next letter dated 6 December 1978, Dr Warnasurya wrote: ‘Darling, I was benumbed with anger, grief and frustration at the accusation levelled at me. Oh darling, I have kissed your feet, as you would remember, and I feel so much for you. Why did you ever consider for a moment that it could be true? Oh darling, I am not angry with you, but please do believe me, and most of all have no fear in your heart. The letters are safe with me and no-one has seen them. But Selvam has obviously heard something about us. I don’t know from where. Perhaps the rest of it is his own guessing, but he must have some inkling, because it does not sound like a wild guess (especially about the medical leave). I am seriously wondering whether my letters to you have been read by someone else. In the aerogrammes it is possible to read them if you hold them to a mirror. In the others in envelopes, of course they could have steamed them open. Lately of course I have been signing over the flap to make it like a seal as it would be difficult to re-position the letters when you re-paste it. Even if they have been read, there would have been no time to photostat them as you probably would have collected them as soon as they have arrived. So, darling don’t be afraid. No one would have documentary evidence. But it is possible that someone may have seen us on our outings. Think carefully and write to me what you want me to do.’

  The DPP asked ASP Ramli to read an anonymous letter written to Jean. It was signed ‘An attributable onlooker and sympathiser.’ The letter said:

  Dear Jean,

  You have lost your husband. You are alone and free, free of the curse that bound you when you married into that family. What are you still hovering around that curse for? Don’t you see the curse is upon the extremely possessive nature of the old woman. You must have been aware of it by now, or are you still not convinced? She has taken her husband. She has taken her first son. And it will go on in that order until it becomes your son’s turn.

  Do you want that to happen? Do you want to be stuck, to have to care for the old woman and her cursed two all alone by yourself for the whole of your life? Get out from there. See sense. You are young, intelligent, capable and extremely beautiful. The whole world is at your feet. For your children’s sake start afresh. Don’t be foolishly sentimental. Start afresh. Start to smile again. Your husband was a wonderful man but born into the wrong family, you would have had him longer. Think and act fast and wisely.

  Judge Azmi described the letter as a vicious attack on Jean’s mother-in-law. “But we still don’t know who wrote it.” He said: “I would not be surprised if the writer of the anonymous letter is in the courtroom today.”

  The DPP said the facts in the letter were true and the ‘cursed two’ referred to the two disabled children of the mother-in-law.

  In reply to a question ASP Ramli said that at the time of her death Jean was worth $500,000. She had $115,000 insurance money, two houses and some jewellery.

  When the Court resumed on 23 June 1980, after the long weekend break, the defence produced a memo which, said Mr Ponnudurai, had been received by the police from a ‘civic-conscious’ member of the public. Mr Ponnudurai said the memo (which wa
s undated and unsigned) was from Ng Kwai Yeu, an accountant with Price Waterhouse and Co. It was an account of what Ng saw in the

  under-pass of the road leading to the airport on the night of the tragedy.

  ASP Ramli said Ng gave him the memo and his business card in the Petaling Jaya Magistrate’s Court when the preliminary inquiry into Jean’s case was going on. Asked by Mr Ponnudurai why he did not investigate the information contained in the memorandum, ASP Ramli said he found the story in the memo untrue in view of the information available to the police. In his memo, Ng said he was on his way to the airport to pick up his wife who was coming from Singapore on the late flight. Ng said he saw two cars parked on the under-pass. One was light coloured and the other dark. Ng stated that his attention was drawn by two or three figures standing on the right side of the car at the back. There were some objects in their hands ‘which gave off some illumination with small circles of light’. Ng said he thought it peculiar that people should park in strange dark spots. He later read about the killing in the New Sunday Times, and recalled the incident. Later he gave the memo to the police. ASP Ramli, still in the witness box, said he told Ng he would contact him if necessary.

  Mr Ponnudurai: Did you check his story?

  ASP Ramli: No, I felt it was not necessary to check his story because by that time the case was already highlighted in the newspapers. The preliminary inquiry was half-way through.

  Mr Ponnudurai: Here was a man, an independent witness, who comes to you with information and you sent him away?

  Judge: Did you consider him an independent witness?

  ASP Ramli: No, my Lord, because the case was already high-lighted in the newspapers by then.

  Mr Ponnudurai remarked that it would have been very easy for the police to check Ng’s story. Did his wife return from Singapore that night?

  ASP Ramli denied a suggestion by Mr Ponnudurai that by the time of the preliminary inquiry the police had some theory on how the murder was commited. If the police found the information in the memo was true, the whole theory would have been blown sky high.

  Replying to another question, ASP Ramli said there was no witness to the actual murder. Jean and Karthigesu were last seen together by Mr Adrian de Silva and his wife at the junction of the Federal Highway and Jalan 222 Petaling Jaya about 11:00 pm on the night of the murder. He agreed that the police had conducted trial runs between the junction and the underpass and Pilmoor Estate. Driving at 40 mph it took five minutes 29.3 seconds to go from the junction to the underpass and three minutes 51 seconds from the underpass to Pilmoor Estate. At 50 mph it took four minutes 18.2 seconds from the junction to the under-pass and three minutes 7.5 seconds from the underpass to the estate. Replying to a question, ASP Ramli told the Judge that the police theory was that Karthigesu took Jean to Pilmoor Estate first from the junction at Jalan 222.

  Judge: Do you agree that it is police theory that the offence was committed in Pilmoor Estate?

  ASP Ramli: Yes, my Lord.

  Asked why he did not believe Mr Ng’s story that he saw two cars at the under-pass between 11:00–11:05 pm. ASP Ramli said this was because prosecution witness Adrian de Silva saw the couple at Jalan 222 at that time.

  Mr Ponnudurai: I am putting it to you that you are driving away civic-conscious witnesses by not investigating what Ng told you. In this case the police were suppressing evidence.

  DPP: I object.

  Judge: I don’t think the police suppressed evidence. Whether Ng is a civic-minded person or a witness not to be believed we don’t know now. Perhaps Ng was telling the truth, perhaps not.

  Mr Ponnudurai requested a short adjournment. When the Court resumed 20 minutes later, Mr Jeffery Fernandez (appearing for the defence) asked the Court to give an assurance that civic-minded witnesses would be well treated if they came forward to give evidence. This was a murder trial and investigators could not go round intimidating witnesses.

  Judge: What are you making now, a speech, a submission or what?

  Mr Fernandez: I am only asking the Court to give an assurance to the public so that people will come forward to give evidence and will not be afraid.

  Judge: People know that already.

  Mr Ponnudurai continued his cross-examination of ASP Ramli who said there was no blood on Karthigesu’s wristwatch, his clothes, hands or finger-nails.

  Answering other questions, ASP Ramli said that on the day the accused was charged in Court (9 May 1979), he and Inspector Yap went to the Pilmoor Estate about 3:30 pm. They conducted a thorough search but failed to find any traces of blood.

  Mr Ponnudurai: Did you find any car tyre marks?

  ASP Ramli: No, my lord.

  Mr Ponnudurai: Did you find any plastic containers?

  ASP Ramli: No, my Lord.

  ASP Ramli added that he found a plastic container in the boot of the car. It was filled to the brim with water. There were no bloodstains on it.

  Questioned about the bloodstains inside the car, ASP Ramli agreed that some of the marks could have been made when the assailant rubbed his hands. The marks appeared to have been made deliberately. He agreed that the bloodstains on the door handle near the driver’s seat could have been caused if the murderer had used his bloody hand to open the door.

  In the course of the cross-examination ASP Ramli read extracts from a letter dated 11 October 1978 which Jean had written to Dr Narada Warnasurya, but which was never posted to him. In the letter, Jean had told him not to waste his time and money any more and that she loved her brother-in-law, Karthigesu, and was convinced that her marriage to him would not be a gamble.

  You really must not waste your time and money any more, please. I feel bad about the whole issue. Not that I do not love you. You are a wonderful person and would definitely make some fortunate girl a good husband. But Narada dear, had I been single and not a mother of three, maybe things could have been different.

  In another part of the letter she said: ‘I can foresee a lot of problems if we should get married. Above all, dear Narada, 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.’

  Judge: At the time of writing that letter she was in love with the accused?

  ASP Ramli: Yes, my Lord.

  Judge: But this was never sent?

  ASP Ramli: It was never sent.

  ASP Ramli read another extract from the letter: ‘Anyway, ours is a beautiful unit—so strong and secure the knot people will find hard to understand how it could be so. Furthermore, I’m now firmly convinced that he loves me in return as much as I love him, if not more. My marriage to him will not be a gamble as my children look upon him as their father.’

  Earlier, ASP Ramli read from a letter dated 27 December 1978 which Dr Warnasurya wrote to Jean:

  Dearest Jean,

  Though I have sent you a previous letter and a Christmas card after the call, I have not heard from you at all. Oh Jean, am I being a nuisance to you? I know that your future is not going to be with me, but Jean I sincerely love you, so is it too much to ask you to let me know how you are getting on? And your kids, too. I want to know, Jean. I want to know that you are happy and well. I sincerely wish you happiness for the future. I do not want to intrude upon your life, Jean, but please accept my genuine wishes to you, your kids, Selvam and mum-in-law. If you really feel that my continued contacts are an intrusion on your life, please let me know. I will then cease being a nuisance! But please do send me at least one more letter telling me of your present, and future. How was Bangkok? Did you enjoy yourself there? It is a man’s world isn’t it? How are your kids getting on, Jean? Can’t you send me a photo of yourself with the kids? Jean, I really wish you and your loved ones, including Selvam, all the best! I know it sounds paradoxical to say it in the same breath but please do remember that you have someone who feels for you sincerely, always available in case of sorrow or
unhappiness. I hope you never see any of it. I really do. I will wind up now, Jean, and hopefully await a reply.

  Sincerely yours,

  Narada.

  PS: Jean. Is there any chance of my seeing you ever again? As a friend? Or would I be persona non grata for ever?

  Questioned by defence counsel, ASP Ramli agreed that the love affair between Jean and Dr Warnasurya had fizzled out.

  Continuing his cross-examination of ASP Ramli, Mr Ponnudurai referred to four letters Jean wrote to Karthigesu. In the first dated 11 June 1978, Jean had addressed him as ‘Darling Selvam’ and signed ‘Yours alone’. In the second letter dated 14 June 1978 Jean had asked Karthigesu to keep her letter. In the third, dated 16 June 1978 Jean had addressed Karthigesu as ‘My darling Aattan’ and signed it ‘Your wife, Jean.’ She had added 20 to 30 kisses.

  ASP Ramli from the witness box, said he came to know that Jean was having an affair with Dr Warnasurya after going through the letters handed to him by Karthigesu.

  From the witness box ASP Ramli denied a suggestion by the defence counsel that he persistently questioned Karthigesu as to whether Jean was running an illegal massage parlour in Kuala Lumpur.

  ASP Ramli was in the witness box for five days. On the last day (24 June 1980) he was questioned about another anonymous letter. He said he found it in one of Jean’s handbags. Parts of the letter were read out in Court by Mr Ponnudurai. It was addressed to ‘Our dear Miss Jean’ and it began: ‘We are very close and good friends of Dr Narada, a victim of your malicious love game. He was a very happy man when he arrived here, but he was fated to meet the devil, you. You showered him with gifts, shirts etc. You took him out to the cinema, Lake Gardens, Templer Park etc. You visited him in his room against his wish. You led him on and gave yourself freely to him.’