by Alex Josey
Henderson: The heel-strap was severed. The rubber was in good condition. There were no barnacles or growth of any type or other.
Crown Counsel: That means to show that it had been lying there for a long time?
Henderson: Yes.
Crown Counsel: Did you find any current?
Henderson replied that there was a current, and that visibility was about 12 feet at the bottom on the seabed. There was also an undertow that carried him downwards. He stemmed it with considerable effort but at one point he was carried away about 150 yards.
Later the witness emphasized that a novice diver should never dive alone.
Crown Counsel: Is this what the Americans call the Buddy System?
His Lordship: Let us try and still carry on in the English language, with due respect to any American.
Crown Counsel: You must always dive with another person with you?
Henderson: Yes.
Crown Counsel: Would you be able to tell this Court what would be a scuba-diver’s greatest enemy under water?
Henderson: Panic.
Crown Counsel: What would happen to a diver who suddenly loses his, one of his, flippers while he is scuba-diving?
Henderson: His equilibrium would be upset, his mobility would be impaired, and this may well lead to panic in the case of an inexperienced diver.
Crown Counsel: Have you yourself experienced losing a flipper while scuba-diving?
Henderson: I have.
Crown Counsel: Can you tell this Court what happened to you?
Henderson: My flipper came off. They were slightly too big for me. One came off, and like I said, equilibrium was upset, mobility was impaired, so I dropped my weight belt and surfaced.
Cross-examined by defence counsel, Henderson said that while there were no barnacles on the flipper when he found it, there were certain types of growth.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Like what?
Henderson: I do not know the name.
Mr coomaraswamy: How long would the thing have to be under water before barnacles grow?
Henderson: I would say round about two to three weeks.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Is it not correct that when you found the flipper it was in fact wedged in rocks?
Henderson: It was not wedged or surrounded by rocks.
Mr Coomaraswamy: What was the nature of the rocks at the place where you found this flipper? Were they high or undulating in between?
Henderson: High, very different forms.
Having agreed roughly on the map the place where the flipper was found, defence counsel asked, “Would a thing like a flipper sink to the bottom?”
Henderson: This type would.
Mr Coomaraswamy: You spoke of undertow.
Henderson: I did.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Would there be currents nearest the bed of the sea?
Henderson: Yes.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Would undertows form?
Henderson: Yes, at various times.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Would that undertow down move a flipper?
Henderson: Not over a rough terrain.
Later, Henderson was asked about fitting on a flipper. He was asked if it were correct to say that the modern tendency is to put the feet first and then the heel. He agreed.
Mr Coomaraswamy: In other words, shoe-fitting?
Henderson: Yes.
Mr Coomaraswamy: What is the normal way?
Henderson: First the foot, the heel and then stretch over the back of the heel.
Mr Coomaraswamy: With what?
Henderson: With the finger.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Would you agree any other way would be difficult?
Henderson: I cannot see any other way of doing it.
Mr Coomaraswamy: More or less run your finger round the heel from the side?
Henderson: Just below the back.
Defence counsel concluded his cross-examination by putting it to him that he did not find the flipper where he said he did. “I am telling the truth,” said Henderson.
Phang Sin Eng, a government chemist gave evidence that he received the green flipper from Inspector Richard Lui on 25 September 1963. He examined it under a microscope and found that the strap had two cuts. The cuts had been made, he said, by a knife, a razor or a pair of scissors.
Crown Counsel: Is it possible for these cuts to be the result of the strap being cut by coral?
Phang Sin Eng: No, I think it is most unlikely.
Crown Counsel: Why do you say that?
Phang Sin Eng: For the following reasons. First of all the position of the cuts: one cut is from the top of the strap and the other is from the bottom of the strap. And under microscopic examination there was striation marking in both cases. The cut from the top of the strap has two directions: one direction is vertically down and then continues in another direction at a slight angle indicating two separate and independent actions in producing the cut from the top, one vertically down and one at an angle.
Cross-examined by defence counsel, the witness was asked, “If one were to pull the strap up with one’s fingers and put it over the arm like that (demonstrating) would that pressure be enough to break it?” “I don’t know,” said Phang Sin Eng.
***
Inspector Evan Yeo stepped into the witness-box on the afternoon of the seventh day of the trial and was questioned about a 61-page statement he took from Sunny Ang on 30 August 1963, three days after Jenny’s disappearance.
William Ang was called for cross-examination by the defence counsel during the morning and was rebuked by the judge for being impertinent. Crown counsel, re-examining, had asked him if Sunny Ang knew anything about cars.
Crown Counsel: Does he tinker with cars? Does he open up the bonnet and have a look at the car, generally tinkering with the car as a lot of people do?
William Ang: He seldom does that.
Crown Counsel: Does he know anything about cars?
William Ang: I can’t read his mind.
His Lordship: Don’t be impertinent.
William Ang: I don’t understand him.
His Lordship: It is a perfectly simple question. Try.
William Ang: I suppose he knows a little.
The prosecution next called Maxime Bertrand, director of a firm which dealt in scuba-diving equipment, and an experienced scuba-diver with nine years’ experience in Singapore and Malayan waters. He gave evidence about the tests he had made at the request of the police in the Straits of Pulau Dua, and tests of home-made washers on an air-tank specified by the police. He said there was not a perceptible leak in his tests with his home-made washers. He told Mr Seow that if a novice should suddenly lose a flipper, and if there was a strong under-current the novice would surely feel alarmed. The situation would be very serious.
Inspector Evan Yeo, of the Special Investigation Section of the CID, said he interviewed Sunny Ang in the evening of 30 August 1963. Ang told him that when Jenny went down the second time she was wearing a pair of flippers belonging to a friend of his younger brother.
Crown Counsel: Did you ask Ang why he did not dive to see if he could find Jenny when she failed to surface?
Inspector Yeo: I did.
Crown Counsel: And did he give you any reply?
Inspector Yeo: The answers he gave me are as follows. Firstly, his equipment was not serviceable. Secondly, he could not hold his breath for long and therefore he could not dive in those rather deep waters. Thirdly, he saw no point in diving when he failed to see Jenny’s air bubbles around the boat; and visibility in that depth was only a few feet. And fourthly that Jenny might have been attacked by sharks, according to him, and his instinct for self-preservation prevented him from going down.
The inspector said that Sunny Ang told him that he had paid about $500 on Jenny’s premiums, money borrowed from his father. The inspector said that, according to Ang, the extension of the policy on the day of Jenny’s disappearance was necessary as he and Jenny had intended to catch the mail train to Seremban, to drive back the car
he had borrowed from Sidney Kong of Singapore.
Cross-examined by Mr Coomaraswamy, Inspector Yeo agreed that Jenny, according to Ang, had given Ang $600 later to settle the $500 loan taken by Ang from his father, and to pay other premiums on her insurance. The inspector told counsel that Deputy Superintendent Ong Kim Boon did most of the interrogation of Ang, though he was present.
Deputy Superintendent Ong, in charge of the SIS of the CID, said that, questioned several times in August and September, 1963, Ang told him that he was very friendly with Jenny and had intended to marry her. Ang told him about the insurance policies.
Crown Counsel: Did he tell you the reason why his mother should be the beneficiary?
Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, because he was bankrupt. He therefore suggested his mother instead.
Crown Counsel: Did Ang tell you whether his mother knew that she had been named in the Great Eastern Life Assurance policies as Jenny’s beneficiary?
Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, he told me that the mother was aware of it only after Jenny’s disappearance, after the 27 August.
Crown Counsel: Did he tell you why Jenny should make a will leaving everything to Madam Yeo Bee Neo, Sunny Ang’s mother?
Deputy-Supt Ong: Because, he said, Jenny disliked every member of her own family. The mother was the beneficiary in name only.
His Lordship: The real beneficiary—did he tell you who the real beneficiary was?
Deputy-Supt Ong: I remember the accused said that everything eventually would go to him.
Crown Counsel: To him?
Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, because without him, the mother would never have been named the beneficiary.
Crown Counsel: Did Ang tell you whether or not Jenny had ever been to 8 Karikal Lane?
Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, my Lord, he did. He told me that Jenny went on a few occasions. And that she met his mother only once. Except for that one occasion she waited outside the house.
Crown Counsel: Do you know who lives at 8 Karikal Lane?
Deputy-Supt Ong: Sunny Ang and his family.
Crown Counsel: What did Ang tell you about the conversation with his mother?
Deputy-Supt Ong: Her reaction was more to his concern than to the actual benefits.
His Lordship: She was more interested in the accused than she was with the benefit she was getting under the will?
Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes.
His Lordship: Anything else? What did she say if she got the money?
Deputy-Supt Ong: Everything will be given to him.
His Lordship: The mother would give everything to Sunny Ang?
Deputy-Supt Ong: Because without him she would not have been made the beneficiary.
The witness was questioned about what Sunny Ang told him, during interrogation, about the letters he wrote to the insurance companies. He asked Ang why he wrote so early and Ang replied that there was a condition in the policies that the company should be informed as soon as the insured died, and in this case there was no point in delaying, for in his mind he was satisfied that Jenny had died.
Under cross-examination by defence counsel, Deputy-Superintendent Ong was asked if Ang had told him how it came about that Jenny wanted accident cover.
Deputy-Supt Ong: Ang explained that Jenny was working in a bar, and there were some hazards as a bar waitress. A month before she was assaulted by customers when they got drunk. Under ordinary insurance policies if you were injured or maimed by assault you would not be compensated. Therefore, she thought of having personal coverage, personal accident coverage. According to Ang the initiative came from Jenny.
Defence Counsel: Did he tell you on whose initiative it was that Jenny made the will?
Deputy-Supt Ong: On the advice of Sidney Kong.
Defence Counsel: Did he tell you that since Jenny got separated she had not seen her husband and children?
Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, he did.
***
Mr Francis Seow concluded the case for the prosecution at 3:00 PM on the afternoon of Tuesday, 11 May 1965, after calling 47 witnesses. Mr Coomaraswamy at once submitted, in an argument lasting half an hour, that the prosecution had failed to make out a prima facie case. There was no evidence that the accused had committed the offence. The bulk of the evidence was evidence that Ang had a hand in taking out various insurance policies on the life of Jenny. He argued that looking at that evidence from the worst possible point of view, no one for a moment suggested that the motive was to kill. He pointed out that the prosecution had relied upon circumstantial evidence to prove every single ingredient of the offence. There was no proof of death. All the evidence showed was that Jenny went diving and had not been heard of since. “It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that Jenny is dead. One question that the jury will have to ask themselves over and over again, as indeed your Lordship must do yourself at this stage, is whether one can convict for murder in the absence of a body.”
His Lordship: Are you suggesting that can’t be done, because there is a wealth of authority against you—and when I say wealth, I mean copious authority both in England, Australia, New Zealand, and France, I think.
Mr Coomaraswamy: I do not know about France, my Lord, but I do know of the existence of the other authorities.
His Lordship: But are you suggesting that you cannot convict for murder in the absence of a body? Because if so I shall rule against you. Don’t waste time.
Mr Coomaraswamy: No, what I am saying is that it is so unsafe to convict in the absence of a body, or even to call upon the defence in the absence of a body. And this particular case is one of those very unsafe ones.
Mr Coomaraswamy spoke about the flipper. If, he submitted, that flipper was in fact the flipper that Jenny was using that day, “it is strange that it should be there in spite of these fierce currents that the prosecution speak about.”
His Lordship: I hate to interrupt you, but Mr Henderson, if the jury believe him, and I do not suggest any reason why they shouldn’t, said it is because this was found hemmed in by rocks in a little cove. Because it was surrounded by rocks, that is the only reason why. He may be lying, but when we arrive at the summing-up stage, I shall address the jury that I can suggest no reason why they shouldn’t believe him. But it is entirely a matter for them.
Mr Coomaraswamy: But, with respect, Henderson’s evidence, my Lord—I do not think there is any question of his stating that the flipper was hemmed in by rocks.
His Lordship: It was found in a place that was surrounded by rocks. I can find it if you like, because I was reading it over myself yesterday.
Mr Coomaraswamy: But I do not think he used the words ‘hemmed in’.
His Lordship: No, ‘hemmed in’ is my own interpretation of his evidence—my gloss on his evidence.
Mr Coomaraswamy continued that his other point was that if the flipper was, in fact, Jenny’s flipper, the presence of the rocks could well account for the flipper having come off. He described the evidence of the discovery and subsequent location of the flipper as ‘totally unsatisfactory’.
Counsel dealt with the assumptions he had made. First, no proof of Jenny’s death. Second, no evidence that she died from drowning. What was the act? “I have yet to hear what the prosecution say was the act done by the accused and upon which they rely on this charge of murder.” Counsel said it was his submission that if that heel-strap was cut in any way it would not have survived the tension that would be applied to it in the process of putting it on. It would be a matter of law for the judge to indicate whether one can ‘in the state of our Penal Code’, commit a murder by inducement. “In any event, my Lord, it is my submission that there is absolutely no evidence of the accused having induced Jenny to do anything at all.” Defence counsel submitted, “most respectfully, my Lord, that one must not decide to call upon the defence purely out of curiosity as to what the accused would say.”