Blood Lust Read online

  On the alleged holiday which Karthigesu and Jean had in Pangkor Island on 31 March and 1 April 1979, the DPP said there were two bills in the name of Karthigesu. Although the bills showed there were two people there was no evidence Karthigesu was with Jean. The defence produced some photographs but there was no evidence when and where they were taken.

  The DPP said Karthigesu’s intention in handing over to the police the birthday card Jean had sent Karthigesu on his 37th birthday along with four love letters Jean wrote to him was to show that Jean loved him even on 24 March 1979. There was evidence from the letters of Jean’s Sri Lankan lover, Dr Narada Warnasurya, that at that time she was vacillating between her love for Karthigesu and her love for Dr Warnasurya. At first Jean was in love with Karthigesu. She wrote the love letters to Karthigesu between 11 June and 2 July, 1978. Jean met Dr Warnasurya on 6 September that year and the doctor’s letters to her were between 26–27 December 1978.

  The DPP said no doubt the birthday card which Jean sent to Karthigesu was one meant for a sweetheart because he was her ex-lover, an old flame. If Karthigesu wanted the Court to believe Jean was still in love with him because she sent the birthday card and that they had plans to marry, then he should go into the witness box and explain. At one time Jean loved Karthigesu but when she sent the birthday card she was already in love with someone else who was prepared to marry her and provide her security. “If she did not send the card, he would immediately connect her with Dr Warnasurya.” At that time Jean was already imposing conditions on Karthigesu. She was not so seriously in love with him then as she was the previous year. Jean’s condition was that Karthigesu should live with her separately because she did not want to live with her mother-in-law. This was supported by the fact that she went house-hunting and the evidence of her brother, who said Jean was not happy living with her mother-in-law. Jean’s main problem was that she had no privacy in the house. She, her servant and her three children all had to sleep in the same room.

  The fact that she had no privacy was borne out by the letters she wrote to Karthigesu while they lived under the same roof.

  The DPP went on to say that it was the defence contention that because Karthigesu went house-hunting with Jean he had plans to move out with her after the Hindu New Year on 14 April, 1979. But there was the evidence of two housing agents that Karthigesu did not take an interest when Jean went to view a house in Bungsar and another in Jalan Mewah, Petaling Jaya.

  Turning to the evidence of Professor Devadass, the consultant psychiatrist, and Bandhulananda Jayatilake, it was clear Karthigesu had a feeling of hatred towards Jean which began in December 1978, when he discovered the letters Dr Warnasurya wrote and he had created a scene at her mother’s house in Kajang. Professor Devadass had said Karthigesu did not show any feeling of warmth towards Jean. He felt mostly anger and he did not show that her death was a personal tragedy. Professor Devadass had said Karthigesu referred to Jean as ‘this woman’ and ‘that woman’, he had complained that she had been unfaithful to many men for a long time and that she had been so even when her husband was alive. It could be seen that Karthigesu was not in love with her at that point. In fact he harboured a grudge against her because she was an unfaithful woman.

  The DPP said this was supported by what Karthigesu told Jayatilake in a fit of temper that Dr Warnasurya wanted Jean to convert to Islam, that ‘the bitch’ did not deserve to live, and worst come to worst he would admit it and go in. All this was admission that he murdered Jean. The DPP said it was a preposterous suggestion on the part of the defence that Jayatilake’s statement was concocted by the police. On the defence contention that visibility was poor at the scene of the crime and Karthigesu could not have killed her under that condition, Karthigesu knew the layout of the car and Jean was not a moving target. According to Karthigesu’s story to Professor Devadass some men attacked Jean and he was forced to see the killing. If this was true there was no need to have asked a nurse where was ‘My Jean’ and ‘My wife’. If strangers had actually set upon Karthigesu, and there was a ruffle, Jean would have attempted to get out of the car, although she was intoxicated. Professor Devadass had also told the Court that Karthigesu did not suffer from concussion because he remembered the number plate of the car in which the alleged assailants came, the object which was used to hit him on the head, the direction he was placed on the ground, and the distance he was dragged from the car.

  During Karthigesu’s two-and-a-half-hour statement from the dock he said the four men who attacked him and Jean warned him not to report to the police what he saw. He was merely to say he had been assaulted. He was threatened that if he sought help from the police they would ‘get’ his mother, the children and finally himself. Karthigesu spoke of the events on the fateful night, how Jean screamed for help, but he was too frightened to help.

  Defence Witness Ng

  Defence witness Ng Kwai Yew told the Court that on the night Jean was murdered he saw two cars parked at the scene, one behind the other. He saw two or three people on the right side of the car at the rear and they were holding some objects which emitted a faint light. “I am not sure if they were reflected light or illuminated light.” Ng, an assistant manager at Price Waterhouse and Co., said that on the evening of 6 April 1979, he had planned to play badminton and went to Selangor Badminton Hall but found that the hall was fully booked. He had to meet his wife who was arriving from Singapore on the last flight at Subang airport at 11:30 pm. To pass the time he went to the house of a friend, Ramakrishnan, in Bungsar Park. He spent two hours there and left between 10:45–10:50 pm to go to the airport. On the way to the airport he saw an incident which aroused his curiosity. He saw the incident for about four to seven minutes at the underpass leading to Subang airport between 11:10–11:20 pm.

  “After turning into the airport road I mused over the incident wondering why two cars were parked there.” The figures were holding objects which looked like torch-lights. Then the torch-lights were switched off. Mr Ng thought of four alternatives:

  That friends were meeting on the road.

  That people in the car wanted to relieve themselves.

  That one car had broken down and the other car had stopped to help.

  That a robbery was taking place.

  Defence witness said when he read in the New Sunday Times on 8th April that a man had been attacked and his female companion murdered, he mentioned what he had seen to his sister. Mr Ng said he did not go to the police immediately because he could not identify the men he saw that night.

  Questioned by defence counsel, Mr Fernandez, Ng said when he read newspaper reports about the preliminary inquiry he found that nobody was coming forward to say anything about the two cars. He consulted a lawyer, Sham Sunder, on 7 September 1979 and an appointment was made for him to meet ASP Ramli at 2:00 pm on 11 September, but Ng said he could not make it. He later contacted ASP Ramli who told him to go to the Petaling Jaya magistrate’s court. Later Ng handed ASP Ramli some notes he had written. He said ASP Ramli read the notes and told him that what he had seen that night might not be very important because other witnesses had seen Karthigesu alone with Jean.

  The Judge told Ng to read out the notes he had made for the police.

  Ng said ASP Ramli told him he would discuss with his boss and contact him if necessary, but to date he had not been contacted and he had not made any statement. Ng said he was a total stranger to Karthigesu and his family. He said he had discussed the matter with a partner in his firm, Chua Teong, who advised him not to get involved. Despite this advice he went to the police because he felt that if what he saw had anything to do with the case then it should be raised in Court.

  Cross-examined by the DPP, Ng agreed that he was capable of making mistakes. In his notes he said that he was at the Badminton Hall until about 9:00–9:15 pm.

  DPP: So you could not have been in Ramakrishnan’s house at 8:45 pm as you told the Court earlier?

  Ng: No, my Lord. In my memo, I have made mistakes rega
rding some of the times. I arrived in Ramakrishnan’s house between 9:07–9:22 pm, not at 8:45 pm, as I told the Court earlier.

  Asked why he had not dated and signed the memo, Ng said they were notes to himself and it was not necessary to date and sign it.

  DPP: I put it to you. ASP Ramli told you he did not believe your memo, and that it was tailored for this case.

  Ng: No, my Lord.

  DPP: You also thought it was not necessary to put your name and address on it?

  Ng: It was never meant to be produced in Court in its present form.

  DPP: In what form did you expect it to be produced in Court?

  Ng: I expected the police to type out the notes with the date and name and ask me to sign it.

  DPP: You expected the police to treat the contents of this memo as a report?

  Ng: Yes, my Lord.

  Ng said he had written that he was not sure of the location where the killing took place because he was not certain of the exact spot.

  When the DPP asked why he went to the police, Ng said he saw the cars and he saw the figures. At that stage he added his information could not really assist the police.

  Judge: Now it can?

  Ng: In the interests of justice, yes.

  Ng told the Judge he said he decided to give information to the police when he found out there was no mention about two cars when he read newspaper reports on the preliminary inquiry.

  Questioned by the DPP, Ng said he did not make any attempts to contact the people whose names appeared in the reports. He also said he followed the preliminary inquiry for more details. He said he could not dispute that the preliminary inquiry began on 30 July 1979. He agreed that from newspaper reports it was stated that Jean died on 6 April 1979. He agreed that he contacted ASP Ramli 158 days after what he saw. Mr Ng said when he approached ASP Ramli he was not absolutely sure that what he saw had anything to do with the case, and that if it had the police would know about it.

  Judge: Are you sure now? Are you absolutely sure now?

  Ng said he started to think on 7th September 1979 of what he saw in April. Questioned by the Judge, Ng said he thought about writing it on 7 September 1979, but only started to write on the 8 and completed on 9 September. Later, when the DPP questioned him, Ng said he had glanced at his watch when he passed the scene. He told the Judge that the time he wrote down in his memo was wrong. Asked if it was a false report, Ng told the Judge there was an error in estimation. The Judge reminded him that time was an important factor in the case. When Ng offered another estimation, the Judge told him not to guess. A difference of one or two minutes was important to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Ng said that in that case he was not sure of the time.

  Judge: But you are sure you saw two cars and figures?

  Ng: I am sure of seeing the two cars and I am sure of seeing the figures, but I am not sure of the time.

  DPP: It could have been police officers there?

  Ng: It could be anything. I wouldn’t even rule out if they were Martians.

  DPP: It could be after the police arrived and people came to see. You did not see the accused there, did you?

  Ng: I cannot identify the accused.

  Re-examined by Mr Fernandez, Ng said the latest time he would be entering the underpass would be 11:20 pm.

  Closely questioned by the Judge, Ng said so far as he was concerned he was only certain about the time at his friend’s house, that is when he looked at the clock and it showed 10:45 pm. He was not certain about the other times. They were estimates.

  On the night she was murdered, Jean danced with Karthigesu in the Piano Lounge of Abad Century Hotel. Valentino Soliano, who played in the band, gave evidence to this effect. He said they danced to the tune of ‘Say you’ll stay until Tomorrow’ and other sentimental songs, five tunes altogether. Witness said they danced like any other normal couple. They left the lounge at 10:40 pm. He recognized Jean but not her partner.

  Another defence witness, a teacher, F. A. Jayachandran, told the Court that he was with two other teachers, Dorairaj and K.N. Chandran at a pub in Klang called Fook’s Corner, at 7:15 pm on

  6 April. At 7:30 pm, he telephoned Karthigesu and asked him to join them for a drink. At first Karthigesu declined, but he subsequently joined them. Karthigesu told them he had accidentally locked his car in Petaling Jaya with the ignition keys inside the car. He had been in a hurry then and it was raining. Karthigesu suggested they all go to Petaling Jaya and they could bring his car back. Jayachandran said they all went to Karthigesu’s house in K.N. Chandran’s car. Karthigesu had come to the pub on a scooter and he went home by himself. Both Karthigesu and Jean kissed Karthigesu’s mother on her forehead on leaving to go to Kuala Lumpur in Jean’s car. Karthigesu drove, with Jean beside him. K.N. Chandran, Jayachandran and Dorairaj sat in-the back. Jayachandran told the Court that the relationship between Jean and Karthigesu was normal and cordial. They spoke about Jean’s children. Witness said they went to the place where Karthigesu’s car was, and Karthigesu opened the door with his spare keys. He threw the spare keys into the glove compartment.

  Jayachandran said he drove Karthigesu’s car back to Klang with his two friends.

  Questioned by Mr Ponnudurai, witness said a week earlier there had been a stag party for Asok Kumar, who was to get married on 1 April. Karthigesu was the only bachelor in the group. He was asked when his turn was going to be. Karthigesu said he would be getting married to Jean. Answering another question, Jayachandran said on 1 April at about 4:30 pm, he went to Karthigesu’s house to collect

  two young coconut palms which Karthigesu had promised to give him. He met Karthigesu’s mother, Jean’s mother and her sister, Merlyn. When witness asked where Karthigesu was, Merlyn said he and Jean had gone to Pangkor Island. He disagreed with the DPP that, being a Sunday, Jean’s mother and her sister were at church that evening and not in Karthigesu’s house.

  Defence witness, Hyacinth Pamela Menon, told the Court that Jean’s mother (Mabel Perera) told her not to say in Court what Jean had told her about getting married to Karthigesu. Witness said that Jean had told her she was very happy because she had made up her mind to marry Karthigesu.

  Cross-examined by the DPP, witness said Jean told her she said she would marry him soon.

  DPP: Are you saying that Jean’s mother told you to perjure in court if you were subpoenaed?

  Menon: Yes.

  Judge: When was this?

  Menon: I can’t remember the date, but I think it was when she herself was called to testify.

  DPP: Do you know it is an offence to perjure in Court?

  Menon: Yes. I am swearing to tell the truth.

  P. Rajaratnam, a neighbour of Jean’s, told the Court that Jean had asked her for advice as to whether she could wear the thali (symbol of marriage) and kodi (chain) which her late husband had given her when she married his younger brother, Karthigesu. Mrs Rajaratnam said she told Jean she could wear the same chain, but she should donate her thali to any Mariamman temple. Rajaratnam said Jean had confided that she had chosen a man who would be the right father for her three children.

  The next witness, P. Ganesan, said he had known Jean for eight years. He also knew Jean’s late husband. He admitted to the DPP, that he was a close friend of Karthigesu’s family. He told the Court he had met Jean and Karthigesu at an Apex Club dinner where he had asked Jean about rumours that she intended to get married. Jean had said that Karthigesu and she intended to get married soon.

  Psychiatrist for the Defence

  The next witness for the defence was Datuk M. Mahadevan, senior consultant psychiatrist in the Health Ministry and Director of the Hospital Bahagia in Ulu Kinta. He said he had been in the field of psychiatry for 20 years. Since 1967 he had given evidence in Malaysian courts. In 1980 he had given evidence about 20 times.

  Questioned by defence counsel, Mr Fernandez, witness said if a person had suffered head injury then alcohol would aggravate the condition. Asked if concussion
could be sustained without any visible injury, he said concussion was a reversible diffused cerebral damage but the damage was of a neuromal shock which meant that there could be a physiological or functional change but not a cellular change. To assess this, Datuk Mahadevan said that one must know whether the person has been conscious or unconscious. He said there were four kinds of coma:

  The first was when a person was rousable but sluggish and slow.

  The second was when he was rousable to painful and vocal stimuli but returns to sleep.

  The third was when a person was only rousable to intense painful stimuli, and

  The fourth when he was not rousable at all.

  He added that the mental status could be assessed from observation of the four stages of coma. These stages would help to assess the degree of damage to the brain. Following a head injury there would have to be other tests to determine cerebral damage at least for the first 24 hours. There were, he said, seven steps which were the minimum clinical tests before one could make a clinical evaluation to assess a head injury ‘and we invariably observe them for a minimum period of 24 hours’. Answering a question, Datuk Mahadevan said he would not make any judgement without the seven steps. He said recovery from concussion takes place in four stages: confusion, delirium, Korsakow stage and residual stage or defect. In the first stage he said, there is poverty and slowness of mental activity. He then went on to describe in detail the other three stages.

  The Judge commented that Datuk Mahadevan had given a good lecture on concussion and stages of coma. He added: “I have learnt a lot, but it’s got nothing to do with the case so far.”

  Cross-examined by the DPP, Datuk Mahadevan said he was an independent witness. He had not come to the Court to give an opinion but to answer questions. .