Blood Lust Page 19

  Professor Sumithran: I beg your pardon. There are some people over 60 years who are yet to be made consultants.

  He said it was something doctors had to work for. It was not like being promoted from standard one to standard two.

  The DPP suggested to the Judge that the Court should go to the rescue of the professor.

  Judge: I think the professor is doing very well.

  Professor Sumithran: My Lord, we are dealing with bread and butter pathology.

  Mr Fernandez assured the professor that he did not mean any offence and was not trying to belittle him but certain questions had to be asked to get certain answers.

  Judge Azmi said if counsel belittled the professor he would be the first to stop him.

  Professor Sumithran went on to explain how a person became a consultant.

  Before hearing resumed in the afternoon, the jury attended a demonstration by Professor Sumithran at the main entrance to the High Court building. Judge Azmi, the DPP, and counsel for the defence were also present. With the help of Mr Fernandez, who sat in the passenger seat, the professor demonstrated how the two major wounds were inflicted on Jean.

  The Court resumed after the demonstration, and Professor Sumithran took the stand once again, but there were no further questions and he left the witness box.

  ***

  The defence recalled ASP Ramli to produce 18 coloured photo-graphs and 22 black and white pictures. Some of the photographs showed Karthigesu and Jean with their arms around each other. Some were taken at Pangkor Island. Bills showed that a double room had been booked. Five days after the holiday Jean was murdered.

  ***

  On the 10th day of the trial (1 July 1980), a constable, D.F. Tanggappan, gave evidence that four policemen tried to get Karthigesu up on his feet, after he was found lying on the ground. He could not stand. So they lifted him into a patrol car, and took him to University Hospital. He tried to speak to Karthigesu, but he merely muttered ‘hem’. P.C. Tanggappan told the Court that he was doing patrol duty along with P.C. Mohamed Ali who was driving the car. They were at Jalan Templer, Petaling Jaya, when they heard a radio message, and proceeded to the scene of the murder. When they reached the under-pass leading to the airport, he saw a white car parked by the side of the road. When he got out of the car he noticed a man lying on the ground about 12 feet behind the car. P.C. Tanggappan said the man’s head was towards Subang and his feet in the direction of a railway gate. With the aid of his torchlight he looked into the car and saw a woman seated in the front with the safety belt on. Both hands were on her thighs. He relayed a message to the Petaling Jaya police station.

  About five minutes later, another patrol car arrived with P.C. Razali and P.C. Mohamed in it. The DPP asked witness if the ground was wet. Were there any signs of urination? P.C. Tanggappan said there were not. The ground was dry. P.C. Tanggappan said after ASP Ramli arrived he found a denture on the ground and gave it to him.

  Defence counsel, (Mr Ponnudurai) asked P.C. Tanggappan if he saw what ASP Ramli did. P.C. Tanggappan said it was dark and he did not see what ASP Ramli did. Witness said his primary concern was to get Karthigesu to hospital.

  Asked if Karthigesu did not want to stand or could not stand, P.C. Tanggappan said he could not stand. Shown a photograph, P.C. Tanggappan said it did not show the correct position of the car in relation to a signboard also shown in the photograph. He was shown two other pictures. He said they did not show the true position of Jean’s hands. They showed her hands placed neatly one palm over the other, but when he saw them they were stretched out on her thighs in front of her.

  Re-examined by the DPP, P.C. Tanggappan said Jean wore a sari. The DPP said it would not be possible for a woman wearing a sari to place her hands the way witness said he saw them. He was questioned again about the four constables being unable to get Karthigesu on his feet. Did the accused not want to stand or could he not stand?

  P.C. Tanggappan: He could not stand, my Lord.

  Judge: Do you know the difference? Did ‘not want to stand’ mean that he refused to stand? He ‘could not stand’ means that his physical condition was such that he could not stand. Which is correct?

  P.C. Tanggappan: He could not stand, my Lord.

  DPP: Would you know if this man was pretending or not?

  P.C. Tanggappan: No, my Lord.

  Teng Hua Kiet, another prosecution witness, said he got a lift from his workmate, Tan Tiong Heng. He said Tan slowed down at a ‘Stop’ sign and turned right. As they were going up a gradient Tan asked him if he saw anyone lying in the road. Teng said he didn’t. Tan decided to make a U-turn and they drove back to the spot.

  Teng Hua Kiet: My friend sounded his horn and flashed the headlights to attract the attention of the person on the ground.

  Teng said there was another car parked further up the road.

  He said the person on the ground was lying on his stomach and breathing heavily.

  Questioned by the Judge, Teng said the car was facing Klang. The man on the ground had his head towards Subang and legs towards the airport. The man was about 16 feet from the car.

  P.C. Mohammed Noor bin Endut told the Court that he and P.C. Razali were in another patrol car and they arrived on the scene after the others. He turned the man over on his back, and patted his chest and face. He sounded as if he was groaning. They tried to put him on his feet but Karthigesu did not want to stand up. He was carried into the rear seat of the patrol car driven by P.C. Mohammed Noor, and taken to University Hospital.

  P.C. Mohammed Noor said that when P.C. Razali called out ‘Encik! Encik!’ to Karthigesu he uttered the same groaning sound. On arrival at the hospital, Karthigesu did not want to stand up. With the help of P.C. Razali he was carried out of the car and put on a trolley. “His eyes were closed all the time,” P.C. Mohammed Noor added.

  Questioned by the DPP, he said he did feel the ground where Karthigesu was found. He did not see any dampness. Neither did he smell urine.

  Questioned by the Judge, P.C. Mohammed Noor said that Karthigesu appeared to be unconscious. He said that Karthigesu was wearing white trousers, white shoes and a batik shirt. He saw no bloodstains on Karthigesu or on his clothing.

  Re-examined by the DPP, P.C. Mohammed Noor said he couldn’t say if Karthigesu was pretending or not. He saw no injuries on the accused.

  DPP: He appeared to be unconscious. He could be pretending?

  P.C. Mohammed Noor: Yes, he could be pretending, but I don’t know.

  The jury asked if P.C. Mohammed Noor smelt any liquor when Karthigesu was lifted into the patrol car. Witness said he did not smell any liquor.

  Judge: Why did the four of you carry him into the patrol car?

  P.C. Mohammed Noor: To take him to the hospital.

  Judge: Why?

  P.C. Mohammed Noor: Since he could not stand all of us thought he was ill.

  Another witness, Mrs Wong Ah Chai (alias Goh Poh Yin), a staff nurse at the University Hospital, testified that in the Accident Emergency Unit, Karthigesu was attended to promptly.

  Nurse: I asked him what was wrong, took his blood pressure and read his pulse.

  Wong said she found Karthigesu’s blood pressure to be normal, but his pulse rate was rapid: 120 beats per minute. The normal rate is 60 to 80 per minute.

  Wong said she examined Karthigesu’s body but did not find any visible injury. She spoke to him, but there was no reply.

  Wong said she then referred Karthigesu to Dr S.N. Balakrishnan and was present when the doctor examined him. Karthigesu said that he was hit by someone on the head when he stopped his car by the roadside to urinate. Karthigesu kept on saying ‘Where is my wife?’ and ‘Where is my Jean?’. Karthigesu also said that Jean was still in the car.

  Wong: To calm him down Dr Balakrishnan suggested we telephone the house to find out if Jean had gone home.

  Karthigesu gave her the number and she phoned the house in Klang, but was told by a man that Jean was not there. She explained that Kart
higesu had met with an accident, and asked him to come to the hospital.

  DPP: Was he in a state of shock?

  Wong: No, No.

  DPP: Was he pretending?

  Wong: I don’t know.

  DPP: Could he have been pretending?

  Wong: Yes.

  Answering a question from the Judge, Wong said she did not examine his head. This was done by the doctor. Dr Balakrishnan was then on a post-graduate course in the United Kingdom.

  Judge Azmi said Dr Balakrishnan was a crucial witness to both the defence and prosecution.

  Dr Balakrishnan did however leave a deposition which had been recorded in the magistrate’s court during the prelimary inquiry. The magistrate, Wan Adnan bin Mohammed who conducted the inquiry, told the Court he recorded Dr Balakrishnan’s evidence on 22 August 1979. He read out the deposition. Dr Balakrishnan said when he saw Karthigesu he was lying on a trolley. He was a bit drowsy but conscious and rational. Karthigesu told him that he had been to a party and on the way home he stopped his car to pass urine when some men knocked him on the head and he became unconscious.

  Dr Balakrishnan said Karthigesu kept on asking for his wife. He said that he had probably lost his identity card. Dr Balakrishnan said Karthigesu did not have a scratch or lump, and if he had received a blow on the head which knocked him unconscious, the blow must have been severe. There ought to have been some swelling and it would take 13–18 days to disappear.

  Dr Balakrishnan said that he was of the opinion that it was highly improbable that Karthigesu was knocked unconscious. If he was he would have fallen down, and that would have resulted in further injuries, particularly if he had fallen on a metal road. Under cross-examination the doctor agreed that Karthigesu’s pulse rate of 120 was very high and it could have been due to a number of reasons like excitement, injuries, physical exercise or loss of blood.

  Dr Balakrishnan said after he completed his examination he sent Karthigesu to the surgical unit where Dr Yahya Sofi bin Hussein examined him. Dr Yahya reported that there was tenderness in both the parietal and occipital regions (in the head).

  The DPP applied to the Court to place on record the deposition of Dr Balakrishnan through Wan Adnan.

  Mr Ponnudurai, for the defence, objected. The Judge, quoting the law, over-ruled him. The DPP’s application was allowed.

  In the box, Dr Yahya said that on examining Karthigesu he found there was pain and tenderness in the head but he could not find any haematoma, laceration or abrasion on the skull. There was no injury in any part of the body. He said he asked Karthigesu what happened and Karthigesu said he had stopped his car to pass urine when he was set upon by strangers. Beyond that he could not remember anything. He appeared rational and well orientated to person and place.

  Questioned by the DPP, the doctor said tenderness was something which could not be seen. It is determined by feeling the affected parts and the patient’s reactions. If a patient told him that a certain part of his head was tender he would not be able to say if he was pretending. “If the accused had bluffed me there would be no way of knowing.” Karthigesu had complained of tenderness on both sides of his head. It was unlikely that he was hit on both sides.

  Dr Yahya said in his opinion a certain amount offeree would be necessary to knock a person unconscious, but it might not necessarily result in a swelling. In a majority of cases there would be some form of swelling, laceration or abrasion, but there were some exceptions. If the accused, who weighed about 160 lbs, was standing when he was knocked on his head and he fell unconscious, there would be injuries on his body depending on the direction of the fall and which part of the body hit the ground first.

  Crossed-examined by Mr Fernandez, Dr Yahya agreed that Karthigesu had a pulse rate of 120 and was drowsy and that would suggest ‘something abnormal was going on’. He gave him five days’ medical leave on compassionate grounds to settle his affairs. Karthigesu appeared to be depressed (he thought he had lost his wife). Dr Yahya said Karthigesu had been under observation at the hospital for seven hours, and he personally saw him for about an hour. When he discharged Karthigesu he told him to return immediately to the hospital if there was any vomiting, headache or drowsiness.

  Judge: Did he return?

  Dr Yahya: No, my Lord.

  Dr Yahya said he was present when DSP Godwin Anthony informed Karthigesu of Jean’s death. He asked Karthigesu whether he would like to talk about it. He answered: “Oh, those bastards.”

  The DPP asked him about the pulse rate. Would it go up if someone had done something wrong?

  Dr Yahya: Yes.

  Replying to another question, Dr Yahya said that Karthigesu talked to him after he was told of Jean’s death. Karthigesu seemed to be talking to himself. Questioned by the jury, the witness said no urine test was carried out to ascertain intoxication. When the jury asked what sort of object could cause unconsciousness without leaving any abrasion or contusion, the doctor said he did not know of any. Answering another question the doctor said that the blood pressure of a person under stress or highly excited would be higher than normal.

  Replying to questions by the Judge, Dr Yahya said that Karthigesu’s story about being hit in the head and being unconscious was not consistent with his findings.

  The next witness was Dr Khoo Soo Cheng, a dental surgeon. He said Karthigesu had been a patient of his five or six years ago. He made him a movable denture. It had three sets of clasps to clasp on to the natural teeth to give retention to the denture so that it would not fall.

  DPP: If the accused had this denture in his mouth when standing up to urinate and if he was knocked on the head would the denture fall or fly from the mouth?

  Dr Khoo: In my opinion it is very unlikely, unless the blow was great enough to cause an injury at the point of impact, or render a person unconscious. The denture could easily be removed by hand.

  He disagreed with a suggestion by defence counsel that the dentures could have been removed by the tongue.

  Answering another question, Dr Khoo said he would not know if Karthigesu’s girl friend would object to him wearing the denture while he was kissing her. Neither would he know whether Karthigesu liked wearing a denture when kissing a girl. He agreed it was possible that Karthigesu took out his denture and put it in his pocket on the night in question.

  DPP: Is it necessary to take out the denture when kissing or making love?

  Dr Khoo: No, my Lord.

  Jean’s Brother Testifies

  Andrew Brian Perera, the 28-year-old brother of Jean, told the Court the following day, that Karthigesu some time in December, 1978, took a batch of Jean’s love-letters from Dr Warnasurya to Kajang where Perera lived with his father and mother. Perera stopped reading the letters when he found they were of a very intimate nature. He did not allow his mother to read the letters because of their content.

  Perera said he told Karthigesu he had no business to read the letters and advised him to put them back where he had found them. He added: “In my family it is considered rude to read other people’s letters.”

  Perera said Karthigesu became very angry and shouted that he would kill Dr Warnasurya. He called the doctor a bastard. Karthigesu said the doctor had the cheek to call him a green-eyed monster. He wanted to make Jean a Muslim. Perera said Dr Warnasurya was the reason he would not allow Jean to visit Sri Lanka that month. Instead Jean and her sister, Merlyn, went to Thailand.

  Perera said his sister Jean had three children—a son Damendra, and two girls, Rohini and Malini. Since her husband’s death she had lived in Klang with her in-laws.

  Questioned by the DPP, witness said Karthigesu was also known as Selvam. The witness was then shown four love letters which Jean had written to Karthigesu while both lived in the same house.

  Perera said he thought Jean did not have enough privacy; that was why she had to correspond with Karthigesu while living in the same house.

  Perera said he was aware Jean and her late husband had taken a joint loan from the Gover
nment to build a house in Damansara. After her husband died she lived in Klang but planned to move to her own house when it was completed.

  Answering another question, Perera said Jean was on holiday in Thailand when Karthigesu brought the letters over for him to read. Karthigesu told them he got the letters from a cupboard in his mother’s house where Jean and he were living.

  Perera said he went to the hospital early in the morning the day after the tragedy, when he was allowed to see Karthigesu in the observation ward. “He told me he left Abad Hotel at 10:40 pm with Jean and somewhere along the by-pass he stopped his car to ease himself. While he was standing and urinating he was knocked on the back of the head with a crash helmet. He fell forward unconscious.”

  Perera said Karthigesu believed that more than one person attacked him. Otherwise he could have fought back. The next thing he knew was that he was in hospital.

  Cross-examined by Mr Ponnudurai, Perera denied he had come to Court to tell a pack of lies and to commit perjury.

  Mr Ponnudurai: You are here to convince the Court that your sister wanted to leave Klang because she could not get along with her mother-in-law?

  Perera: Yes, my Lord.

  Answering another question, Perera said he knew that Jean was drawing a pension since her husband’s death. He also knew that Jean paid a monthly contribution for the maintenance of her children.

  Mr Ponnudurai: Do you know how much?

  Perera: I do not know.

  Counsel referred him to Jean’s diary where it stated that Jean received a pension of $654.75 and $350 was for her mother-in-law.

  Perera said that after he had identified Jean’s body and made arrangements for the funeral, he went to Klang accompanied by Karthigesu, and James Ritchie, a friend and reporter. ASP Ramli had asked him to collect Jean’s identity card and a photo of her.