Blood Lust Page 18

  The letter was signed ‘Men of Fair Play and Justice’. It ended with: ‘Now a friendly warning. Dr Nara will not take you. He is happy with his family. So don’t make a play for him again. He has had enough both in the form of pleasure and pain. Pleasure is what he got from you in his room and pain in trusting you. We will not let you rest in peace. We will meet your brother-in-law and tell him all that we know. We will be only happy when we see you fall and be disgraced.’

  ASP Ramli agreed with counsel that this was a letter of hatred. ASP Ramli expressed the opinion that it might have been written by someone who had read all the letters Dr Warnasurya had written to her. He said he came to this conclusion because the writer knew details of the love affair between the doctor and Jean. The letter had been posted in Kuala Lumpur.

  ASP Ramli said he found evidence which proved that Jean had gone to Pangkor for a short holiday with Karthigesu about a week before she was murdered.

  Replying to other questions, ASP Ramli referred to the letter written by Jean but not posted, in which she had stated that she was going to marry Karthigesu. Since writing that letter she had received 14 love letters from Dr Warnasurya which showed she had replied to his letters. This proved that their friendship had continued.

  ASP Ramli said that from investigations he came to know that Jean visited her mother in Kajang once or twice a week. She was also looking for a house in Petaling Jaya or Bungsar.

  Medical Evidence

  Lau Cheng Siew, a Government chemist, was the next to take the stand. He said he examined a long-sleeved batik shirt on which are found slight brownish stains. These stains were found to bear traces of sand.

  Another witness, Dr Krishnan, a pathologist attached to the University Hospital, said he conducted a postmortem on Jean on 7 April 1979. He said he found Jean’s hair ruffled when he examined her, and she was menstruating. Her clothes were soaked in blood and parts of her body were covered in dried blood. Dr Krishnan said he found ten incised wounds, two of which were major wounds. The first major injury was a three cm wide, penetrating 9.5 cm deep stab wound with clean edges, three cm above the right nipple in the right mid-clavicular line. The direction of the wound was from the above right to the left, medially. It passed through the muscle of the fourth right intercostal space and the right middle lobe of lung.

  The second major wound was a three cm deep wound with clean edges, three cm above and parallel to the right subcostal margin in the mid-clavicular line. It passed through the right lobe of the liver, bisected the right adrenal, went through the right dome of the diaphragm and nicked the right paravertebral tissues just above the right attachment of the diaphragm.

  DPP: Could these wounds have been self-inflicted?

  Dr Krishnan: It was not possible to self-inflict these wounds.

  He said he was of the opinion that the injuries were inflicted by a right-handed person, and that the assailant was behind the victim and to her right inside the car.

  The doctor had told the Court earlier that he had inspected the car at the Petaling Jaya police station. He had sat in the car in various positions and tested the arm movement.

  Coming back to the injuries, Dr Krishnan said there were four incised wounds over Jean’s right forearm. There was also a 2.5 cm long incised wound over the dorsum of the left hand proximal to the middle finger, one cm long superficial wound over the dorsal aspect of the metacarpo-phalangeal joint of the left index finger. Dr Krishnan said he was of the opinion that these two wounds were defence wounds. He said there were two incised wounds two cm long below the thyroid cartilage and 3.5 cm long just above the sternal notch. Both were about 2.5 cm deep. These wounds were the result of the assailant trying to slit the throat of the victim.

  There were superficial linear abrasions three cm long, below the right chin. There were also two small indistinct bruise marks about 1 cm in diameter over the right upper arm. The abrasion and the bruise marks could have been caused by a struggle which the victim put up with the assailant.

  Dr Krishnan told the Court that it was not possible for Jean to have been attacked from the driver’s seat. After having sat in the car, and also because of the nature of the wounds he was sure that the assailant must have been behind the driver’s seat, though not necessarily sitting down. The assailant could have held the victim’s hair with his left hand at the time of the stabbing.

  Replying to a question, he said he received Jean’s body at 2:20 am on 7 April 1979. He told the DPP that she could have died about four hours earlier.

  He said there were two causes of death. Firstly, Jean’s blood pressure fell irreversibly due to extensive haemorrhage caused by the two penetrating stab wounds. Secondly, because of blood and air in the thorax, these having compressed the lung to such an extent that it stopped functioning.

  Dr Krishnan, answering a question from the DPP, said that Jean could have been under the influence of alcohol. She must have consumed at least three ounces of alcohol.

  Cross-examined by defence counsel, Mr Jeffery Fernandez, Dr Krishnan was asked for his reasons for telling the Court that the assailant must have been behind and to the right of the victim. Dr Krishnan said his conclusion was based on four factors: the direction of the two major penetrating wounds and the defence wounds; the examination of the car in which the victim was found and having assumed positions in the car to estimate the range of arm movements which would have been necessary to cause the stab wounds; the assumption that the assailant restrained the victim by holding her hair or right shoulder with his left hand; and the blood streaks on the windscreen in front of the victim. “These confirmed my belief that the assailant was behind the victim.”

  Asked if he assumed that Jean was static during the attack, Dr Krishnan said there must have been some movement, but the assailant would have restrained her to some extent.

  Answering another question, Dr Krishnan said the two major injuries were caused by the same knife, or two knives with the same dimensions. The other injuries could have been caused by any other sharp weapon. He said he did not rule out the possibility of there being two assailants.

  Asked if the assailant would have blood stains if he had been in the driver’s seat, Dr Krishnan said his clothes would have been stained if Jean was turned towards him.

  Asked if Jean would have receded to the corner of the seat because she was fighting for her life, Dr Krishnan said it would not have been possible for her to move if the assailant had held her firmly.

  Mr Fernandez then asked the pathologist to assume that the assailant was in the driver’s place, left foot on the driver’s seat and right foot somewhere near the clutch and brake pedals, facing the passenger seat holding a knife in the right hand. To a question based on the assumption, Dr Krishnan said the victim would have used both hands to ward off the blows. Her right hand would have been more effective.

  Asked if the assailant, bent on making sure that Jean was dead could have held her hair in his left hand, pushed her head backwards and slit her throat with his right hand, Dr Krishnan said it was difficult to-visualise the situation if the victim was cringing in a corner of her seat. In that position a person who was cringing would tuck in her chin.

  Dr Krishnan said before he formed his conclusion he had a look at the car and bloodstains were pointed out to him. He also noted that there were bloodstains on the handle of the door on the

  victim’s side.

  Mr Fernandez: Were you told by the police that they had a suspect with no bloodstains on his clothes or on his person?

  Dr Krishnan: Yes, my Lord.

  Mr Fernandez: So in your investigation of the car you concentrated on seeking solutions to explain why there were no bloodstains on the suspect or on his clothes.

  Dr Krishnan: I don’t agree, my Lord.

  Judge: Are you saying that what the police said did not influence you?

  Dr Krishnan: No, my Lord.

  Mr Fernandez: Did it not influence you in your subconscious?

  Dr Krishnan:
If you talk about the subconscious, then I can’t answer. I can only talk about what was in my conscious.

  Asked if he would have expected to find blood on the hands and fingernails of the assailant and also in the cuffs of his shirt, Dr Krishnan said: “Yes, my Lord, if he was using his bare hands.”

  Asked if he was curious that there were no bloodstains on the back doors of the car, Dr Krishnan said he was not curious because he assumed that the offside rear door was open. He added: “There was no reason for the assailant to open or close the door or touch the handle.”

  Asked what he would have to say to the fact that the police found the car with the four doors shut, Dr Krishnan replied: “We cannot assume that the position of the car when the police found it was the same as when the crime was committed.”

  Dr Krishnan protested when Mr Fernandez said the doctor went on a wild hypothesis and conjecture as to how the crime was committed. Dr Krishnan said he did not go on a wild hypothesis and conjecture.

  Questioned about the alcoholic content in Jean’s blood (60 mg of ethyl alcohol per 100 ml of blood), Dr Krishnan said in many countries this amount was sufficient for a person to be charged with drunken driving. Some countries had a limit ranging from 30 mg to 40 mg. Sweden and the United States had a level far below 60 mg per 100 ml of blood.

  Mr Fernandez produced a book which stated the different reactions in persons with different levels of alcohol in their blood. It said a person who had 60 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood would normally lose self-control, be talkative and increasingly confident. Counsel asked if he agreed with that. Dr Krishnan said the effects of alcohol could not be treated like mathematics. One could not expect definite patterns of behaviour because there were other factors to be considered like the constitution of the person and his drinking habits.

  Re-examined by the DPP, Dr Krishnan said the evidence he gave was based on medical reasoning, what he saw and what he concluded.

  Asked by the foreman of the jury which of the two major wounds were inflicted first, Dr Krishnan said he did not know. He told the Judge that either could have caused death. Considerable force would have been necessary to inflict the injuries.

  Replying to the DPP, Dr Krishnan said Jean’s mental state would have been impaired because of the alcohol.

  ***

  Professor Eric Sumithran, consultant pathologist at the University Hospital, testified that he supervised Dr Krishnan in performing the post-mortem on Jean on 7 April 1979. He concurred with the findings made by Dr Krishnan. The consultant told the DPP that the assailant would have to be behind Jean and to her right. The assailant could have opened the door behind the driver’s seat, entered the car, and after attacking her, came out and closed the door with any part of the body except his hands.

  The man who saw the car at the junction of the Federal Highway and Jalan 222 Petaling Jaya on the fateful night was Adrian de Silva. In the witness box, de Silva, a marketing executive, testified that he was at the junction when a car driven by Karthigesu pulled up on his left. He told his wife who turned to look, and said that his passenger was Jean. “Mrs Sinnappa (Jean) smiled and waved to us,” Mr de Silva added. He said that Karthigesu was wearing a shirt which was reddish and flowery, like batik.

  Mr de Silva said he and his wife had been friendly with Mr and Mrs Sinnappa before Mr Sinnappa was killed in a road accident on 1 January 1978. Mr de Silva said he and Karthigesu used to play rugby together.

  Mr de Silva said that on the evening in question, his wife and he were returning home after visiting relatives in Setapak. They left about 10:30 pm. He was waiting at the traffic lights at the junction of the Federal Highway and Jalan 222 when Karthigesu drove up on his left. Mr de Silva said he drew his wife’s attention because he had not seen Karthigesu for a long time, not since the death of Mr Sinnappa. His wife turned to look and she told him Jean was sitting next to Karthigesu. Then the lights changed. When he took another look, the cars began to move. He saw Jean smile and wave. He turned right and headed home. Karthigesu drove straight towards Klang.

  Mr de Silva said it was about 11:05 pm when he saw Karthigesu and Jean in the car at the traffic lights. Asked if he had merely guessed the time he was at the junction, de Silva said no, he was hurrying home because his wife wanted to see a particular television film. This started at 11:06 pm. It took him about three minutes to get to his house from the junction. So he must have been at the junction at 11:02–11:03 pm.

  Mr Ponnudurai: Jean was alert and recognized you and your wife? She could not have been sleeping?

  de Silva: No.

  Judge: How could she have been sleeping? You saw her smiling and waving at you.

  de Silva: Yes, my Lord.

  The jury asked him if he could remember what Karthigesu was wearing, de Silva said: “I did not pay particular attention to what both of them were wearing, but I can remember that Karthigesu was wearing a shirt. It seemed to me to be reddish and flowery, something like a batik.”

  The next witness was Abdul Wahab Abu Amin, an aircraft mechanic at Subang Airport. He said that on the evening in question he finished work at 11:20 pm. He was driving home to Shah Alam when at the underpass he saw a white car parked by the side of the road. He saw the back part of the car but did not see anyone behind it. “If there had been anyone at the back of the car I would have seen him,” he said. Replying to questions he said there was only one car parked at the underpass. It was not raining and there was no one walking about.

  The next witness was Tan Tiong Keng, an aircraft maintenance engineer. He told the Court that he was driving home to Subang Jaya with a colleague when his car lights picked up someone lying on the road leading to the railway gate. As he moved up the slope towards Shah Alam he asked his colleague (Ting Hua) whether he had seen anyone on the road. Ting said he had not. Puzzled, Tan said he made a U-turn and drove back. He stopped his car so that the headlights shone on the body. He sounded his horn to attract the person’s attention. The person was lying on his belly, and breathing heavily. He was an Indian.

  Tan said he then reversed his car and drove to the side of the white stationary car. The white car’s lights were off. The door on the driver’s side was slightly ajar. He saw some black stains outside the driver’s door. When he flashed his torchlight on the door he saw blood around the handle. He saw a body covered with blood. He told the Judge that all this while he was in his car. He didn’t get out. He drove on and reported the matter to the police. Cross-examined, Tan said that the door on the driver’s side of the white car was closed but not flush. He said there was no response from the person on the ground when he sounded his horn.

  Another maintenance engineer, Cheah Wei Keong gave evidence. He told the Court that he was on his way home on his motorcycle via a short-cut along the railway track that night when he saw a body lying on the ground. He did not stop but drove off.

  Hours before Jean was stabbed to death, she and Karthigesu went house-hunting together.

  A sub-contractor, Lim Ming Moy told the Court that he met them at a house in Petaling Jaya at 6:30 pm on the evening of 6 April 1979. Lim said while he was talking to Jean, Karthigesu disappeared for a few minutes. When he returned he told them he had accidentally locked his car with the keys inside. He asked for a lift, and they got into the car of Mrs Chu Tong Sang, the house owner’s daughter. Jean and Karthigesu got out in front of University Hospital.

  Earlier, Professor Eric Sumithran, the consultant pathologist, re-examined by the DPP, said that Jean was intoxicated when she was stabbed to death. He judged from the result of a blood analysis that she must have consumed three ounces of liquor that evening equivalent to two pints of beer. It could have been any liquor—brandy, whisky, beer or gin.

  Asked how long it would take blood to stop flowing, he estimated 10 minutes, because by then the blood would have coagulated. The professor agreed that if someone had taken precautions there would be no blood on him.

  Asked how the assailant could have held Jean the pro
fessor replied: “I would think by holding her by her hair would be the best way. But this is purely hypothetical.”

  Replying to another question Professor Sumithran said in his opinion it was highly improbable that two persons inflicted those injuries from behind the driver’s seat. He added: “All my conclusions are based on scientific findings and sound reasoning.”

  The jury foreman asked him whether he had considered the possibility of Jean having been stabbed outside the car. He said from the post mortem he could not say where she had been killed. But on examination of the car and the spurts of blood on the windscreen, he felt the stabbing must have been done in the car because arteries stop spurting blood very soon after being stabbed.

  Would the assailant have had enough room to stab in the car? Professor Sumithran: “You don’t have to raise your hand so much. Just up to the shoulder would be sufficient. A knife goes in quite easily, particularly if it is sharp.”

  Judge Azmi asked the jury if they would like to see a demonstration of how Jean could have been stabbed. He instructed the police to bring the car to the Court premises for a demonstration after lunch.

  The Judge asked Professor Sumithran how long it would take alcohol to be absorbed into the blood stream. The professor said it would take about one hour and a half to be at its peak level. If the stomach was empty, within ten minutes of consumption there would be appreciable absorption and peak blood levels reached within one hour. “The rate of absorption is faster if the stomach is empty,” he added.

  Defence counsel and the professor clashed when Mr Fernandez questioned him closely on the collection of Jean’s urine and blood samples, and upon his status as consultant. Counsel suggested to witness that the status of consultant which the university gave him was a sort of promotion.