Blood Lust Read online

  Questioned by the DPP, Perera said there were flare-ups between Jean and her mother-in-law in Klang. They sometimes happened in his presence. He said sometimes Jean’s mother-in-law complained to him about Jean’s movements and late nights. Jean was not very happy living in Klang. She did not have privacy.

  Asked by the Judge what he meant, witness said that Jean had one room which she shared with her three children and their servant.

  DPP: Was Jean doing anything to overcome the problem?

  Perera: She was trying to rent a house somewhere in Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya.

  Judge: What about her own house in Damansara?

  Perera: At that time it was not completed.

  The DPP asked him if he had borrowed money from Jean. Perera said he had a loan of $3,000, and he had repaid it after two or three weeks. The DPP referred the Judge to a certified copy of the cheque which Perera had signed in respect of the loan. Perera was asked if he knew that Jean was assigned two life insurance policies.

  DPP: Do you know what the two policies were worth?

  Perera: At that time I did not know. Now both are worth $100,000.

  Judge: Was she paid the money?

  Perera: Yes.

  Judge: Was Jean also the beneficiary of the house in Damansara?

  Perera: Yes, my Lord.

  DPP: Do you know how much it is worth now?

  Perera: Anything between $250,000 and $300,000.

  DPP: Are you aware that Jean bought a house in Berkely Gardens, Klang?

  Perera: Yes.

  Answering another question, Perera said he loved his sister. They were very close, and her death was a terrible blow. He said Jean had planned to go to Sri Lanka for the April holidays last year.

  Earlier, Perera said while Karthigesu and he and a friend were in the car on the way to Klang, Karthigesu told him of his plans to marry Jean on 13 April. Karthigesu also mentioned that he always hero-worshipped his late brother (Jean’s husband) even to the extent of kissing his feet.

  Perera said on arrival at Klang, Karthigesu’s mother gave him Jean’s identity card and a small photograph of her. He then returned to the hospital with Karthigesu and his friend James Ritchie. He subsequently took Jean’s body back to Kajang with the help of the casket company. “We placed her in the centre of the hall and kept vigil that night. Karthigesu made no attempt to go near the body.”

  Perera told the DPP that he knew Dr Warnasurya. Jean had introduced the doctor to him some time in September during the Hari Raya holidays. They had a chat about family matters.

  Asked by the DPP if Jean had told him about her plans to marry Karthigesu on 13 April 1979, Perera replied, “Definitely not.”

  DPP: Would Jean have kept the date a secret from you?

  Perera: No, my Lord, she would have told me.

  Judge: Why must she tell you?

  Perera: We were very close. She would not have kept any secrets from me.

  Evidence was given by Father Edward Soosai, of Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Klang, and A.A. Rayan, Director of National Registration (Marriage Division) that no application had been made to them to get married on 13 April, or on any other date.

  Cross-examined by Mr Ponnudurai, Jean’s brother, Andrew Brian Perera, said Jean’s family knew of her intention to marry her brother-in-law, but did not know when the wedding would take place. But the condition was that Karthigesu should be prepared to leave his mother and live with Jean and her children. Perera said his family had no objections to Jean marrying Karthigesu.

  Mr Ponnudurai: You felt that was the best match for Jean and the children?

  Perera: No, my Lord. Not the best match, but we had no objections.

  Mr Ponnudurai: Do you agree that the children looked to him as a father?

  Perera: They loved him.

  Mr Ponnudurai: How do they call him?

  Perera: They call him Asai Appu (loving father).

  Mr Ponnudurai: Would you have agreed if Jean had become a Muslim to become the second wife of Dr Narada in Sri Lanka?

  Perera: We would not have agreed. (Jean was a Catholic.)

  Perera said he did not know if Jean had bought her air tickets or obtained permission from the Education Ministry to leave the country. “I know she was planning to go to Sri Lanka.”

  Judge: Were the deceased and the accused in love?

  Perera: From my observation they were casual. I would not be able to say if they were in love.

  Shown the four letters Jean wrote to Karthigesu, Perera on looking at these letters said he would agree they were in love.

  Judge: What sort of a person was Jean? Was she a wild sort of person, a rich widow looking for a new husband?

  Perera: No.

  Judge: Why was she keeping late nights?

  Perera: I don’t know.

  Judge: She didn’t tell you?

  Perera: No. Sometimes she would visit us in Kajang.

  Judge: You don’t know where she went on her own?

  Perera: No.

  Next in the witness box was a journalist James Ritchie of the New Straits Times.

  He said Karthigesu told him Jean’s death was a tragedy because they had planned to get married the following Saturday. He said Karthigesu told him this when they were on their way, in a car driven by Perera, to Klang to get a photo of Jean for his story. Karthigesu did not know at the time that he was a journalist. “When Karthigesu found out further along the journey he looked at me, then he looked away.” Ritchie said he did not question Karthigesu after that.

  Questioned by the Judge, Ritchie said Karthigesu looked disturbed. He looked as though he was reluctant to say anything more. Ritchie said Karthigesu had told him he was on his way home from Century Hotel with Jean when he stopped near the Subang by-pass to urinate. While he was urinating he was jostled from behind and hit on the head either by a piece of wood or a crash helmet. He said he lost consciousness.

  Mr Ponnudurai referred the witness to his story in the New Straits Times. Who gave him the information? Ritchie replied that the police gave him the information. The Judge asked the reporter if he had any explanation as to why in his report he attributed the reference to the statement in the report to ‘close relatives’ (meaning Karthigesu) instead of to Karthigesu, who had actually given him the news that Jean and Karthigesu had planned to marry ‘next Saturday’. Ritchie said it was a question of style.

  Ritchie denied he was a reckless reporter.

  Valerie de Silva was called to the witness box to testify that she had seen Karthigesu and Jean in a car on the night Jean was killed. Jean appeared to be preoccupied and dull. They had stopped at the traffic lights and her husband drew her attention to the driver of a car on their left. She saw it was S. Karthigesu. Jean was sitting next to him. Jean smiled and waved and she waved back. She and Jean were family friends. Karthigesu was looking straight ahead. Valerie de Silva said when the lights changed Karthigesu drove straight ahead. The de Silvas’ turned to the right. When she got home she turned on the television.

  Mr Fernandez asked whether Jean waved with enthusiasm, with lots of warmth in it.

  Valerie de Silva: No, it wasn’t.

  Mr Fernandez: What was it then?

  Valerie de Silva: She just waved casually and smiled as the car moved forwards.

  Judge: Raising her right hand?

  Valerie de Silva: Yes.

  To another question by Mr Fernandez, Valerie de Silva said Jean was a very friendly person with high spirits and would normally wave actively.

  Mr Fernandez: Do you remember the clothes the accused was wearing that night?

  Valerie de Silva: The accused was wearing a long-sleeved reddish coloured shirt.

  When she was shown a red batik shirt she said she was not sure whether it was the shirt which Karthigesu wore on the fateful night.

  Asked about Jean’s sitting position in the car, Mrs de Silva said Jean was leaning half against the door and half against the seat.

  Judge: She was si
tting at an angle?

  Valerie de Silva: Yes.

  Mr Fernandez: You said Jean appeared dull. Would you agree a woman who is menstruating would appear to be off colour?

  Valerie de Silva: Some do.

  Re-examined by the DPP, Valerie de Silva said she was ‘very certain’ she saw Jean in the car at the junction that night.

  Another witness, Lee Ah Chai, a reporter on the New Straits Times, told the Court that he interviewed Karthigesu after the funeral on 8th April 1979. During the interview Karthigesu said Jean’s three children would be staying with him and his mother. He added that two of the children knew he was going to marry their mother.

  The DPP referred Lee to a paragraph about marriage in the report, and asked him to tell the Court how the conversation started.

  Lee said he had asked Karthigesu when the wedding was to have taken place.

  DPP: What did he say?

  Lee: He told me it was to be on Saturday, April 13.

  Judge: Meaning April 13 1979?

  Lee: Yes.

  Witness said he also asked about their wedding plans. Karthigesu said there was no point in talking about something which could not materialize.

  Lee: Karthigesu said he was still puzzled as to why Jean was killed. ‘We had no enemies,’ he added.

  A Dog-handler’s Evidence

  Cpl K. Ramakrishnan, a police dog-handler gave evidence that Keris, his dog, scented the same person at the scene of the murder. He said he first took Keris on a leash to one of three spots pointed out to him by DSP Godwin Anthony. He made the dog smell for clues at a spot where there was a white notice board. Then he released the dog. Keris went to the middle of the road. It went through an opening beside the railway gate, across the railway line to the pond nearby. It started sniffing at the edge of the pond and returned to the notice board, sniffed near the notice board, came to the middle of the road in front of the railway gate and lay down.

  Cpl Ramakrishnan said all this happened at about 10:00 am the morning following Jean’s murder.

  The DPP asked him the significance of the dog’s behaviour. What did it all mean?

  Witness replied that what it meant was that the police dog had picked up the scent of someone who had been near the board … The person who was near the board was also near the middle of the road. The same person went to the three spots. Replying to a question, Cpl. Ramakrishnan said he had handled Keris for eight years.

  Answering another question, witness said he had come to the conclusion that there was a person near the notice board who had moved along the route taken by the dog.

  Cross-examined by defence counsel, Mr R. Ponnudurai, Cpl Ramakrishnan said he did not ask for the suspect’s clothes because it was possible for the dog to track foot-prints or trails of blood. He admitted he did not know whose scent the dog Keris had picked up. He agreed it would have been better if he had been shown the suspect’s clothes, shoes or dentures.

  Another witness, Zabri Adil, programme supervisor at Radio/Television Malaysia testified that the serial Peyton Place was telecast at 11:18 pm on 6 April 1979. (This was the feature Mrs de Silva hurried home to see on the night of the murder.)

  A Psychiatrist’s Report

  Considerable interest had been aroused by the report of a psychiatrist, Professor G. Devadass. Defence counsel objected to the professor giving evidence on his conclusions regarding the veracity of Karthigesu. Justice Mohamed Azmi ruled that extracts from Professor Devadass’ report be expunged. All the other evidence in the psychiatrist’s report would be admissible.

  The Judge made this ruling when defence counsel Mr Jeffrey Fernandez, raised his objection. The DPP said the object of the evidence relating to the conversation between the professor and Karthigesu was for him to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the accused Karthigesu was telling the truth or not.

  The DPP argued that Professor Devadass should be allowed to give his findings and it would be up to the Court and jury to accept his findings or otherwise.

  Allowing the objections of the defence, the Judge said if all findings of psychiatrists were allowed it would be a trial by psychiatrist and not a trial by jury. The prosecution could bring up 10 psychiatrists to say why the story of an accused should not be believed, and the defence could bring up another ten to say why it should be believed,

  Asked what was the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist, Professor Devadass said a psychiatrist has to have a basic medical degree and be a qualified doctor before he specialises in this branch of medicine which involves not only studying normal and abnormal behaviour, but also the assessment and treatment of abnormal human behaviour. Psychology had many different branches like clinical psychology and educational psychology. Psychologists studied normal human behaviour and devised tests to assess normal human behaviour. It was essential to have a knowledge of psychology to be a psychiatrist.

  Cross-examined by Mr Fernandez, Professor Devadass said he had given evidence in Court before but this was the first time he was giving evidence in a murder trial.

  The professor said Karthigesu told him he was helping the police in the investigation. Professor Devadass said the police told him Karthigesu was brought in for the truth serum test. He was aware Karthigesu was brought to him one month after the incident and that he submitted voluntarily to the examination.

  Mr Fernandez: Were you aware that Karthigesu was brought to the hospital in manacles?

  Professor Devadass: No.

  Mr Fernandez: Do you know that when he was brought in to you he had been in the Petaling Jaya lockup for nine days?

  Professor Devadass: I knew he was in police custody for several days.

  Mr Fernandez: Did you know he was being interrogated night and day?

  Professor Devadass: That’s what he said. If it was so I would have known and I would not have continued.

  Karthigesu told him the police wanted him to admit to the killing.

  Asked if Karthigesu also said the police confronted him with the torrid love letters written to Jean by her Sri Lankan lover, Dr Narada Warnasurya, Professor Devadass said that was what he meant when he said earlier that Karthigesu told him the police interrogation was humiliating. Karthigesu also told him the police had shown him photos of Jean.

  Asked if the photographs could have been psychologically upsetting to Karthigesu, Professor Devadass said “I really don’t know. On the average it could be upsetting, but specifically to the accused I do not know.”

  Professor Devadass said Karthigesu did not seem to be very upset. He was angry.

  He agreed it could have been upsetting for Karthigesu if he was shown the love letters for the first time, letters written to the woman he was going to marry.

  When Mr Fernandez suggested that the letters referring to sexual intercourse in all its lurid details were reason enough to make Karthigesu change his attitude towards Jean from ‘my Jean’ to ‘this woman’ and ‘that woman’, Professor Devadass said that would have been a factor.

  Answering another question, Professor Devadass agreed that Karthigesu was taken to him because he had a mental block regarding a name and the purpose of the interview was to see if he had a memory impairment. The accused had not been taken to hospital for an interrogation. Asked if he himself was involved in investigation for the police, Professor Devadass said “No. Are you asking me if I was losing my objectivity?”

  Mr Fernandez: Precisely.

  Professor Devadass: I was not losing my objectivity. I do this sort of thing all the time.

  Replying to another question, the professor said he had not been told that Karthigesu had been arrested for murder. DSP Anthony told him Karthigesu had been arrested in connection with a murder since he was found at the scene. DSP Anthony told him Karthigesu had some name at the back of his mind which was important but which he could not recollect. The professor said that was the reason why Karthigesu had agreed to see him, so that he could help in the investigation. The professor added: “I don’t know i
f the information was going to be used against him or someone else.”

  Asked how many minutes Karthigesu was with him, before he started talking, the professor said when Karthigesu sat face to face with him he introduced the subject and Karthigesu began to talk.

  The professor said that as a result of his tests he came to the conclusion that Karthigesu was a man of average intelligence—‘or even above average’— but more tests would have to be conducted to determine further.

  Professor Devadass: My assessment was that basically there was no serious abnormality in his personality and he could pass as a very normal person.

  The professor said Karthigesu could feel emotions, had sufficient control of them and was not garrulous. “I did not feel he was obnoxious.” During his interview with Karthigesu (which lasted one hour and 10 minutes), some aspects of Karthigesu emerged but there was no evidence of sensory deprivation or any illness. Asked if Karthigesu’s original personality would make any difference to his assessment, the professor said it would. “I would take his general personality into consideration, if I was taking him for treatment.” But it was not necessary in the case of Karthigesu because he saw him on a single occassion and there was no follow-up treatment.

  Professor Devadass agreed with Mr Fernandez that emotional shock would change a person’s personality but it was temporary and reversible in a single emotion. He added that in the case of Karthigesu, it was not necessary for him to know his original personality.

  Questioned about Karthigesu’s refusal to undergo the narco-analysis (truth serum test), Professor Devadass said he did not persuade him to undergo the test because Karthigesu had very mixed feelings about it. Similarly if Karthigesu had mixed feelings about going to see the professor the interview would not have taken place. “It is no use seeing a person who does not want to see me.”