Blood Lust Page 21

  Professor Devadass said Karthigesu’s reason for not undergoing the test was because he felt the police wanted him to admit to the killing of Jean, “But I feel the police were not out to trick him.” Professor Devadass said the main reason for suggesting the test was to get Karthigesu to remember the name he had forgotten and some events related to the name.

  There was a clash between Professor Devadass and Mr Fernandez. The professor told the Judge, “My Lord, I don’t like this kind of questioning.” (Mr Fernandez was asking questions about a form)

  Judge: You will have to answer him.

  Professor: Can I give my reason first? Then I will answer him. He is trying to say since yesterday that I do not know the laws about psychiatry. This I detest.

  Professor Devadass then continued to explain that Form A was used in cases of detention and observation for three days and Form B was used if the detention was for four weeks. In the case of Karthigesu neither form was used because University Hospital is an ungazetted mental hospital. Karthigesu had come merely for an interview.

  Answering a question, Professor Devadass said he was aware that there were factors weighing heavily on Karthigesu’s mind, but it did not matter because he was not taking Karthigesu for treatment. He added: “I felt it was not necessary to probe any more into the matter.”

  Professor Devadass agreed with Mr Fernandez that Karthigesu had undergone police interrogation, and that he was worried about his mother and Jean’s children.

  Asked if these factors together with the fact that he had been asked to undergo narco-analysis could have caused considerable stress and anxiety, Professor Devadass replied: “I categorically say no, and I have my reasons for this.” He said even before Karthigesu went to see him he had spoken to some friends, one of whom was a pharmacologist, and he had enough knowledge on narco-analysis and the chemicals used in the process. “If this was going to cause him considerable anxiety and stress he could not have come to see me at all.”

  Secondly, Professor Devadass continued, if right from the start this was the most pressing matter which was upsetting Karthigesu, he would have started off with that at the interview. Karthigesu’s opening remarks at the interview were that he was willing to help the police in every way.

  Thirdly, said Professor Devadass, when they discussed narco-analysis Karthigesu did not show any tension or anxiety of a man forced to undergo the test. “In the case of the accused there was no evidence of disturbance of his thinking or his speech.”

  Asked if he inquired into disturbance of sleep or appetite, Professor Devadass said he went into those areas only if he felt it was caused by mental illness or severe depression.

  Asked whether it was not necessary for him to find out if the accused had eaten well and slept well, Professor Devadass said he had been in psychiatry since 1966 and he had sufficient experience to decide when to pursue those questions and when not to. He said it was not relevant in the case of the accused.

  Answering another question, the professor said whatever Karthigesu said about the unfaithfulness of Jean was his own personal knowledge and observation. The feelings he experienced when he spoke on the subject were very appropriate. When Karthigesu spoke about the incidents prior to the murder the sequence was very clear.

  About the incident itself Karthigesu had said he could not remember and gave three reasons—that he was afraid to see blood, he was knocked on the head and he became unconscious and although they, the assailants, were forcing him to see the killing he tried to avoid doing so.

  Professor Devadass said regarding incidents prior to the knock on the head, Karthigesu said he recorded the registration number of a car, and what was used to hit him on the head, the direction he was placed face down, and how far the assailants had dragged him from the car.

  Mr Fernandez asked the professor to explain sensory deprivation. Professor Devadass said what kept us sane was the fact that we were constantly having sensations from outside. If a person was kept in a sound-proof room with the lights on for 48 hours he would be deprived of outside sensations. He would then begin to see and hear things which were not there and he would go crazy. This was a technique used in brainwashing when a maximum deprivation was needed to break a person. Intense deprivation would lead to catastrophic reactions where a person breaks down easily and shows emotion.

  The professor said during his interview, Karthigesu was tearful once and angry on two occasions, but his feelings were very appropriate, definitely not catastrophic reactions. Professor Devadass said men would not generally cry. “I wish they would cry a bit more, it helps a lot.” He agreed that the fact Karthigesu was in police custody made him sad because that was what kept him away from his family.

  Replying to Mr Fernandez the Professor said his conclusion that Karthigesu did not suffer from concussion was based on positive and negative findings. The positive finding was that Karthigesu could remember the number of the assailants’ car, the object which was used to hit him on the head and the approximate distance he was dragged. The negative finding was a gap in his memory regarding the actual murder.

  Later, when Mr Fernandez questioned Professor Devadass on his observation that Karthigesu hardly showed any emotional feeling when describing the incident, Professor Devadass said he had expected Karthigesu to show, not his fear of looking at blood, but the horror of the whole thing and the sadness of losing somebody.

  Mr Fernandez: Here is a man in love with a woman who was killed in terrifying circumstances. He discovers that she had deceived him by reading love letters. He is arrested on suspicion of murder. He is exposed to interrogation. Isn’t this likely to cause him disorientation?

  Professor Devadass: It need not.

  Mr Fernandez asked what sort of severe stresses would cause disorientation. The doctor replied that a person would be disorientated if he was deprived of factors such as sleep, proper food and sewage.

  Judge: Third degree torture?

  Professor: Yes, my Lord.

  When Mr Fernandez asked the professor whether it was normal for a person to say ‘To hell with it’ after experiencing horror, the professor replied: “A person does not experience murder every day to the extent of making him uncaring, unless he is a professional psychopathic killer.”

  Professor Devadass said there was bound to be emotional reaction even after the lapse of time, and it would take six months to a year for a painful memory to be slowly erased.

  Asked about intense grief, the professor said a grief-stricken person could die if he or she did not express his or her emotions.

  Answering another question the professor said the story Karthigesu told to him during the interview was full of contradictions.

  Karthigesu had told him that when he was on the ground (after being attacked) he saw the number plate of a car which he mentioned to the police. “If he had a concussion he would have forgotten that number.”

  To a question asked by the Judge, Professor Devadass said Karthigesu also told him he had heard a name and could even remember a face. “That is why I thought that if he underwent narco-analysis a whole set of facts would have come out.” The professor agreed with Mr Fernandez the number which Karthigesu said he saw and the name he said he heard were both before injury recollections.

  Replying to another question, the professor said it was highly unlikely a crash helmet falling on the accused by accident when he was on the ground could make him conjure that he was hit by the helmet.

  Mr Fernandez then asked Professor Devadass if he began his interview with Karthigesu with the following words: “I am sure you know why you are here. Would you like to tell me?”

  The professor objected to the tone used by Mr Fernandez. He said the tone he used was not a Gestapo tone.

  Judge: You mean not like the way the defence counsel is cross-examining you?

  Professor: Precisely my lord. If I were to speak like that, patients wouldn’t come to see me.

  When Mr Fernandez asked Professor Devadass numerous
questions about psychiatry and disorder, Professor Devadass said, “My Lord, I feel that I am going through the whole textbook of psychiatry and I feel I am going for my membership examination again.”

  Counsel explained that he had to ask certain questions because he had the interest of his client at heart and Karthigesu was facing a serious charge.

  When Mr Fernandez said he was not trying to impress anyone, Professor Devadass remarked, “Let us hope so.” Mr Fernandez said he was not embarrassed to ask technical questions. Professor Devadass retorted, “I am not embarrassed either. I am damned angry.”

  Mr Fernandez told the professor that when he was offensive to counsel he was being offensive to the Court. Professor Devadass then apologised to the Judge.

  Mr Fernandez then questioned Professor Devadass on the statement accused made to the professor that he was well-versed on narco-analysis. Karthigesu knew the legal implications as well as the medical implications of this test ‘even before he came to see me. He also made me feel that he is a very careful man’.

  Questioned about the test, Professor Devadass said one of the drugs used was pentothal and complications were rare. The drug was used for major operations all over the world. If its dangers were so severe, there would be hundreds of dead people around.

  Professor Devadass said he was aware that Karthigesu was a murder suspect and had been found at the scene of the crime and had been arrested at the time of the interview.

  When the Judge asked the professor why Karthigesu had not been detained for observation for a longer period, Professor Devadass said there was no evidence of mental illness. He spoke well.

  Judge: I am asking this because psychiatric evidence is relatively new in this country perhaps it would be wise to follow more precautions so that psychiatrists giving evidence will not be subjected to lengthy cross-examinations.

  Re-examined by the DPP, Professor Devadass said that when he saw Karthigesu, he did not appear to be a person who had gone without sleep, or been deprived of food and sleep. Neither did he look like a person who had been continuously interrogated for eight to nine days, or that he had been suffering from sensory deprivation. The professor said he had the impression that Karthigesu was quite comfortable and in no distress. He was also neatly dressed.

  Professor Devadass said Karthigesu had told him that he had been forced to watch Jean’s murder.

  Replying to another question, the professor agreed that he had said if Karthigesu was shown the love letters it would be a factor in making him angry.

  Asked by the DPP why he had used the word ‘a factor’ Professor Devadass said it was because Karthigesu had told him Jean had been unfaithful for a long time and it was like rubbing salt into the wound.

  At the end of his testimony Professor Devadass was asked by the DPP to relate to the Court the circumstances which led him to give evidence.

  Judge: What do you mean?

  The DPP said Professor Devadass was not a willing witness for the prosecution. Answering a question from the Judge, Professor Devadass said he would have refused to testify had he not been subpoenaed.

  On Monday, 14 July 1980, the 37th prosecution witness, Wong Wan Kong, a former police inspector, was called to give evidence. It was at this juncture that the DPP applied to the Court to hear his evidence in the absence of the jury. This would enable the Court to determine the admissibility of certain statements made by the accused to the police. The first part related to statements and the second part related to some photographs taken without the knowledge of Karthigesu. The Judge ordered that ‘the trial within a trial’ must not be reported by the Press.

  Nine witnesses, including Karthigesu gave evidence in the ‘trial within a trial’ which lasted four days. Judge Azmi ruled, at the end of ‘the trial’, that an oral statement made by Karthigesu to the police was inadmissible. The Judge said: “In my view it is inherent from the circumstances which led to the making of the statement that it was not made freely. To my mind the fact of prolonged interrogation at the Petaling Jaya police station and Jalan Bandar police station were by themselves sufficient to render the cautioned statement inadmissible on grounds of inducement and threat without proof of actual physical or mental torture. In the circumstances I hold that the cautioned statement is inadmissible under Section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code.”

  Justice Mohamed Azmi said it would follow that statements made by Karthigesu to former Inspector Wong Wan Kong, Police constable Michael Wong and other police officers at Pilmoor Estate or at the wharf in Port Swettenham on 9 May 1979, were also inadmissible.

  The Judge said Karthigesu was alleged to have made an oral statement to Wong and to P.C. Wong at about 11:30 am on 9 May 1979. It was the contention of the prosecution that although the statement was made orally, it was admissible under Section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it was made voluntarily without any inducement, threat or promise. The defence contention was that Karthigesu was coached by Special Branch Officers to make the statement and that it was made as a result of inducement, threat and promise, which rendered the statement inadmissible. The Judge said there were two points for the determination of the Court—firstly whether Karthigesu made the oral statement, and secondly if he did, whether it was made voluntarily without any inducement, threat or promise. The Judge said that after considering all the evidence adduced and having considered the submissions of Mr R. Ponnudurai, counsel for Karthigesu, and DPP T.S. Sambanthamurti, it was his finding that Karthigesu made the statement at 11:20 am on 9 May 1979. Karthigesu made the statement while he was in custody in the interrogation room of the Special Branch at Jalan Bandar police station. On the issue of the voluntariness of the statement the Judge said he had taken into consideration all the circumstances which led to the making of the statement. The Judge said he particularly considered four points.

  1. One, that Karthigesu had been in police custody since 26 April 1979, a period of 13 days before he made the statement.

  2. Two, that during the period Karthigesu was under detention at Petaling Jaya, he was interrogated by CID officers for a total of 70 hours without Karthigesu making any admission.

  3. Three, that on 4 May 1979 when CID officers found they had made no headway in the interrogation, ASP Ramli Yusuff decided to hand over Karthigesu to Special Branch officers for further interrogation.

  4. Four, that the accused was in custody in the interrogation room of the Special Branch from 5 May and that he made the statement on 9 May, five days after being transferred form Jalan Bandar police station.

  Judge: From all these facts and coupled with the evidence of Inspector Wong himself that when the accused refused to have his statement recorded he knew the accused did not intend to implicate himself or to give evidence against himself, it is clear in my judgement the accused could not have made the statement voluntarily, although I do not accept the evidence of the accused regarding physical torture and mis-treatment by the Special Branch officers in the Jalan Bandar Police station.

  After the Judge gave his ruling the jury were called in and he explained to them that during their absence he had made a ruling that a certain statement made by the accused to the police was inadmissible.

  Jayatilake in the Witness Box

  When the trial proper was resumed the first witness to be called was Detective G. Patchimuthu of Klang—the prosecution’s 38th witness. He met the accused in the accused’s house on 16 April 1979. The accused knew he was a detective. He spent about half an hour in Karthigesu’s house. He said the accused did not seem to be happy. Cross-examined by Mr Fernandez, witness said he would not describe Karthigesu as his friend. He went to his house to make inquiries in relation to the case. He denied that he went to Karthigesu’s house to support the story of Jayatilake if the need arose.

  In the witness box, Bandhulananda Jayatilake said he saw the detective in Karthigesu’s house on 16 April 1979. He said half an hour after the detective left, Karthigesu joined him in a conversation and told him his visitor w
as from the police. Answering a question by the DPP, Jayatilake, a sales manager, said that Karthigesu told him: ‘Worst comes to the worst I will admit it.’

  DPP: Did he say anything else?

  Jayatilake: During the conversation the accused told me the doctor wanted Jean to convert to Islam.

  Judge: Which doctor?

  Witness: From Sri Lanka.

  DPP: For what purpose?

  Jayatilake: To convert into a Muslim and to marry her.

  Judge: Marry whom?

  Jayatilake: The doctor wanted Jean to convert into a Muslim and to marry her.

  DPP: You said just now the accused said ‘worst comes to the worst he will admit it’. Admit what?

  Mr Ponnudurai objected to the question.

  Jayatilake: Karthigesu said, ‘Worst come to the worst I will admit it and go in.’

  DPP: What is it? Did he say anything else?

  Judges: When he said ‘I will admit it’ did he explain what he was going to admit to?

  Jayatilake: Admit and go in.

  DPP: Did he explain what he meant by it?

  Judge: To go where? Go into the house? He was already in the house. You must tell the truth. You are under oath.

  Jayatilake: The accused told me he will admit it and go in because of the harassment by the police.

  Answering another question, witness said Karthigesu’s tone was high when he said it. He said that Karthigesu’s mother tried to calm him but he continued to tell him. ‘The bitch did not deserve to live’. Karthigesu then went into his bedroom, but came out later. Witness said he left the house shortly afterwards.