by Alex Josey
Cross-examined by Mr Ponnudurai, Jayatilake said he was related to Jean and that he called her mother ‘Aunty’. He said the first time he met Karthigesu was at Jean’s funeral on 7 April 1979. The next time was at the alms-giving prayers a week after Jean’s death. Two weeks later he and Karthigesu made arrangements to lunch together, but the next day Karthigesu cancelled it saying he couldn’t make it. He denied a suggestion from Mr Ponnudurai that he went to Karthigesu’s house under the instructions of Acting DSP Shingara Singh. He further denied that he had been a police informer.
Jayatilake was missing when the Court assembled the following morning. The Judge said to the prosecution, “Why is he not here? Why is he frightened to be here? He is a very important witness.”
When the Court resumed in the afternoon, Jayatilake said he did not know that he had to attend. He thought this was not necessary as he had already given his evidence.
On the 24th day of the trial, the prosecution closed its case after calling its 40th witness. Before actually closing the prosecution’s case, the DPP amended the charge against Karthigesu regarding the time and place of the crime. The amended charge was that he murdered her between 11:10–11:40 pm on 6 April 1979 at the lay-in at the 11th mile Federal Highway near the underpass leading to Jalan Lapangan Terbang, Subang. He was earlier charged with murdering Jean between 11:00–1:35 pm at Pilmoor Estate, Subang, on 6 April 1979. Karthigesu pleaded not guilty.
Submission by the Defence
Mr Ponnudurai submitted to the Court that the defence had no case to answer. He said it was the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had inflicted the stab wounds on Jean, and there was no such evidence.
Mr Ponnudurai said the trial had gone on for 24 days, and now the prosecution had amended the charge to the original charge. (The original charge stated that the offence was committed at the underpass. This was amended to Pilmoor Estate at the preliminary inquiry.) Mr Ponnudurai said this clearly showed the prosecution was lost and was jumping from pillar to pillar. It appeared as if the prosecution was saying that because Karthigesu was found at the scene, he was presumed to have committed the murder. “His mere presence does not mean he committed the offence.”
Mr Ponnudurai said the prosecution had adduced evidence that Karthigesu was unconscious and murmuring when he was found at the scene. Medical evidence, he said, supported this.
Mr Ponnudurai then dealt with the evidence of Dr Devadass. He said the accused made no admission to the professor. On the contrary, Karthigesu had maintained his innocence. It was up to the Court to decide how much weight should be given to the evidence of the professor.
Referring to the amended charge, defence counsel said, “Our contention is, if the accused did it, the whole episode must have occurred within 15 minutes, between 11:15–11:30 pm. ASP Ramli stated that he did not find a speck of blood on Karthigesu’s white trousers, white shoes and red shirt. ASP Ramli had also examined the accused’s hands and did not find any blood even under the fingernails. Dr Yahya had stated it would have taken Karthigesu ‘some time’ to clean blood from under his fingernails. The prosecution was saying the incident took place within 15 minutes, and in an area where the visibility was so poor that three police cars had to be used to light up the area.
Mr Ponnudurai said ASP Ramli gave evidence that he took a sample of the sand from a footprint and sent it to the chemist. The chemist reported it did not correspond to samples of sand taken from outside the car, or from other parts of the car. He urged the Court to consider where the sand came from. Mr Ponnudurai argued that a third person must have been involved. He said if Karthigesu had been driving, and if he had put his foot on the seat the sand must correspond to that found on the foot-rest. The prosecution had not given any evidence to this effect. There was a foot print on the driver’s seat, and blood stains on the arm rest and the outside handle of the door on the driver’s side, but there were no blood stains on the rear seat or rear door.
From the injuries sustained, especially the wounds on the hand, the doctors were agreed that Jean had put up a fight. This would have left blood stains not only on Karthigesu’s hands but also on his clothes, if not his trousers, at least his shirt. There was not an iota of evidence that Karthigesu had worn any other shirt. Counsel said that the evidence of James Ritchie, a New Straits Times reporter, could not be relied upon.
As for Dr Narada Warnasurya of Sri Lanka and his letters, Mr Ponnudurai said, “The prosecution said they would prove it was a crime of passion and that the accused murdered Jean because of jealousy. There is no evidence of passion or jealousy. The only evidence produced was from Jean’s brother, Brian Perera, whom counsel for the defence described as ‘a very interested witness in this case and who must be looked upon with caution’.
Counsel said that Perera’s evidence that Jean wanted to go to Sri Lanka in April 1979 was suspect as there was no evidence in support.
Making his submission at the end of the case for the prosecution, the DPP admitted the prosecution depended largely on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession made by Karthigesu to prosecution witness, Bandhulananda Jayatilake.
The DPP told the Court that after the killing of Jean in the car, the accused washed himself at a pond nearby. Karthigesu then went back to the road and waited for passing vehicles. “As soon as he saw one he lay down on the ground hoping to be seen and taken to hospital where he could pull a yarn.” The DPP claimed that this contention was supported in the evidence given by police dog-handler Cpl K. Ramakrishnan. The dog-handler had told the Court, Keris, the dog, traced the scent to the pool and back to the road. That the accused had lain down on the ground each time he saw a vehicle was supported in the evidence of witnesses who said they saw his stomach heaving up and down. This would not have happened if Karthigesu had been unconscious.
Referring to the amended charge regarding the time and place of the crime, Mr Sambanthamurthi said the current charge was based on evidence adduced in Court. It was not true that the prosecution was not certain of its case. The DPP said that Karthigesu had told a highly improbable story to consultant psychiatrist Professor G. Devadass, that he had stopped his car near the underpass leading to Subang airport when four people drove up in a car ‘and they ruffled’.
DPP: If the accused is to be believed then it seems the four people were waiting for him, waiting at that very spot knowing that he will stop his car there, waiting there to kill Jean. If the accused is to be believed how did the four men know Jean was in the car, and that Jean was going to stop at that point? This is a highly improbable story. Why should anyone want to kill Jean? The whole of the prosecution case is that Karthigesu was pretending from the start, right from the killing.
The DPP said two MAS employees passed the scene at about 11:30 pm—Abdul Wahab bin Abu Amin and Ramli Othman. They passed within 10 minutes of each other and they both said they did not see anyone lying behind the car.
On medical evidence, the DPP said Dr S. Balakrishnan, the first doctor to attend to Karthigesu at University Hospital, said there was no injury on his head or body. Karthigesu appeared to be drowsy but he was conscious and rational and was able to answer questions. The doctor said it was highly improbable Karthigesu had been knocked on the head about an hour prior to his examination.
Another medical officer at the University Hospital, Dr Yahya Sofi bin Hussein examined Karthigesu at 2:00 am. He said the accused was well orientated to persons and places. His condition and behaviour were normal. The DPP said Dr Yahya Sofi told the court there was no laceration on the scalp of Karthigesu. He said Professor Devadass told the Court that when a person begins to recover from unconsciousness, he starts murmuring and mumbling continuously and incoherently which Karthigesu did not do. Dr Yahya Sofi also told the court that if someone did something seriously wrong, his pulse rate would go up to 120 beats a minute, like Karthigesu’s at the time of examination. The same would apply if a person was emotionally involved in wron
g-doing.
The DPP compared these facts with Karthigesu’s behaviour towards police officers. He said when the investigating officer ASP Ramli visited Karthigesu at the hospital at 2:30 am he could not get any reply from him. As a result ASP Ramli had to get the particulars he wanted from Karthigesu’s brother, Kugarajah. ASP Ramli tried to put Karthigesu on his feet to remove his clothing, but could not. Then a nurse helped him. Karthigesu was stiff and would not stand up or sit up. The DPP said when DSP Godwin Anthony saw him at 3:15 am on 7 April 1979, Karthigesu had his eyes open and was looking all around and asking for water.
At about 12:30 am, Karthigesu had put his hands in his pockets searching for his identity card. He said he had given his personal particulars to a staff nurse.
The DPP said it was his submission that Karthigesu was pretending before the police officers that he was unconscious—even the four policemen at the underpass who were trying to make him stand up. He said Karthigesu was lying down every time a vehicle came along, and when the police came unexpectedly he lay down forgetting about the direction.
The DPP said another piece of circumstantial evidence was Karthigesu locking up the car keys inside his car in Jalan Mewa, Petaling Jaya where he and Jean had gone to look for a house. It was the contention of the prosecution that Karthigesu did this deliberately so that he could be in Jean’s car that night. He did not want the killing to be done in his car because he would have to give more explanations and also his car would be taken away as an exhibit. The prosecution had adduced evidence that a Mazda Capella car could not be locked accidentally. Karthigesu deliberately locked his car with the ignition key inside.
The DPP said another feature of the case was the accused’s dentures which were found on the ground. He said Karthigesu must have deliberately removed them and placed them on the ground hoping to say they had fallen from his mouth when he was hit on the head.
Assuming this was true they should have fallen where the accused was first seen lying, which is two feet from the railway gate. Instead they were found in the middle of the road. The DPP said a dental surgeon had told the Court that it was not possible for the dentures to fall out of Karthigesu’s mouth unless the blow on the head was great enough to cause an injury which would render him unconscious. Looking at the evidence as a whole the DPP said it was clear the dentures could not have fallen out because of a knock on the head.
Mr Sambanthamurthi said it was the contention of the prosecution that Karthigesu induced Jean to take alcohol. He said alcohol was found in Jean’s bloodstream, stomach and urine. The chemist’s report as interpreted by Professor Sumithran showed there was about three ounces of alcohol in her bloodstream and about the same amount in her stomach. The alcohol had been recently consumed. The DPP said Valerie de Silva saw Jean at the junction of Jalan 222 and described Jean as having a dull appearance. Counsel submitted that Jean was intoxicated at that time.
The Judge pointed out there was violence that Jean was smiling. He asked how Jean could be dull and smiling at the same time. The DPP explained that Jean was dull in the sense that she did not behave in her usual way. Jean was not alert and ‘at the time of the incident was unable to put up resistance’.
The DPP spoke of Karthigesu’s conduct after ‘the incident’. He said the accused tried to win the sympathy of the public, and at the same time tried to mislead the police by saying he was going to marry Jean on 13 April 1979 which was wrongly described as a Saturday. “Karthigesu claimed they would have been married at the Civil Registry on that day and later they were to have been married by Father Edward Soosai.” Neither the marriage office nor Father Soosai knew of any planned marriage.
The DPP said Karthigesu also tried to mislead the public by making a statement to Lee Ah Chai, a journalist, at Jean’s funeral. The DPP referred to Lee’s report relating to Karthigesu’s pledge at Jean’s grave that he would take care of Jean’s three children. The accused had said he was puzzled as to why Jean was killed, but nowhere did he say he saw Jean being killed by some other people.
As for the jealousy motive, Karthigesu, said the DPP, had feared that Jean would leave with her children. The prosecution conceded that Karthigesu loved the children. But at the time of the killing he had no more love for Jean. He had found out that Jean had stayed at the Apollo Hotel with Dr Narada Warnasurya of Sri Lanka. The DPP said Karthigesu had questioned Jean about this and she had reported it to Dr Warnasurya, as was seen in the letter dated 7 December 1978, he sent to her. From that letter it was clear Karthigesu had questioned Jean about the doctor’s love letters.
In December 1978, Karthigesu had seen 15 or 16 letters Dr Warnasurya had sent to Jean and had shown them to her brother and their mother. Both of them advised him to return the letters. Hatred and jealousy began at that stage.
The DPP explained why Karthigesu had chosen April 1979 to kill Jean. Karthigesu by now was obsessed by the thought that Jean was going to meet Dr Warnasurya in Sri Lanka or that he would come to Singapore, where they could meet.
By now, said the DPP, Karthigesu was already raving mad, but being a psychologist, he continued to pretend being good to Jean. He continued to allow her to live with him in Klang, ‘and because he loved the children he had to close one eye over the matter.’
There were inconsistencies in Karthigesu’s description of events on that fateful night. Karthigesu told journalist James Ritchie, Brian Perera and Dr S. Balakrishnan that he was hit on the head while he was urinating and became unconscious. He told two others—Dr Yahya Sofi and staff nurse Goh Poh Yin—he was hit when he wanted to urinate.
And to Professor G. Devadass, Karthigesu said he had stopped the car to urinate while another car pulled up and four men appeared. He was held up and ruffled and forced to see the killing. He was then dragged on the ground and when he noticed the car number, he was knocked on the head.
The DPP said as the sand found on the seat of the car was not identical to the sand found at the place where the car was parked, this ruled out the involvement of a third person.
The DPP said 20 minutes is a long period and within that time Karthigesu did so many things and he should be asked to explain himself.
Defence Counsel’s Argument
In his submission on behalf of the defence, Mr Ponnudurai argued that apart from the fact that the accused was found behind the car in which Jean was murdered, there was no other evidence to connect him to the crime. He asked the Court to direct the jury to return a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ because the whole prosecution case was ‘strewn with suspicion’. Defence counsel said the prosecution had only one witness, Bandhulananda Jayatilake, who went to Karthigesu’s house on 16 April 1979. Karthigesu was alleged to have told him in front of his mother, ‘Worst come to the worst I will admit it and go in.’ He was supposed to have stated this because of harassment by the police and Karthigesu was alleged to have added, ‘The bitch did not deserve to live’.
Defence Counsel said according to the prosecution this was an admission of guilt on the part of Karthigesu. But it was the contention of the defence the words were never uttered, and even if they were uttered they would not amount to an admission. At no time did the accused say to the witness he had murdered Jean, or had any part in it.
Mr Ponnudurai said Jayatilake’s statement was recorded by ASP Singara Singh on 16 April, but it was ‘hidden’ from the police conference. DSP Godwin Anthony was the co-ordinator of the case and he was also the chairman of the meetings but he knew about the statement only at the preliminary inquiry. When the investigating officer, ASP Ramli, was asked why DSP Anthony was not informed, he replied that he had nothing to say. Defence Counsel alleged that Jayatilake’s statement was concocted.
Mr Ponnudurai said Jayatilake was a relative of Jean. In fact after the funeral Jean’s mother and Jean’s children had gone to live in Jayatilake’s house for a week. Counsel remarked: “Jayatilake is so close to Jean’s family that I wonder if his evidence has any merit.” If the statement was an admission, it wo
uld amount to an extra-judicial confession and it only amounted to suspicion. There was no corroborative evidence to support the statement alleged to have been made by Karthigesu.
The Judge called upon Karthigesu to make his defence after ruling that there was a prima facie case at the close of the prosecution submission.
Statement from the Dock
Karthigesu made a two-and-a-half-hour statement from the dock, which meant that he could not be cross-examined. Had he elected to go into the witness box he would have been on oath and would have been cross-examined.
In his two-and-a-half-hour defence Karthigesu spoke of his relationship with Jean, the events on the night of the killing, how Jean screamed for help but he was too frightened to help. When he began making his defence Karthigesu read from a prepared text. The Judge asked him not to read, saying he could look at it to refresh his memory. Karthigesu appeared to be calm. He spoke in a steady voice. Karthigesu said Jean moved into the house where he was staying with his mother, his brother Thuriappa, and his younger sister, Jayaletchumy on 1 January 1978—the day she lost her husband (who was his elder brother) in a road accident at the Jalan 222 junction in Petaling Jaya.
Karthigesu continued, “We lived as a happy family unit and everybody in the house was happy and contented. Jean used to tell me she is very fortunate to have a mother-in-law (that is my mother) in the house because she had no problem with regard to looking after the children. My mother, too, always tells me the advantage and beauty of having a daughter-in-law in the house because Jean began to take part in all household activities and decision-making.
From about April 1978 Jean used to receive anonymous telephone calls in the school where she was teaching and also anonymous letters. Most of these calls and letters simply emphasized and advised her to move out of the Klang house and live with her children in Petaling Jaya. They also threatened ill-luck that will befall her if she continued staying with me, my mother and my unfortunate brother and sister. These anonymous calls and letters invariably point out that my mother is an evil lady and that no one should stay with her.