Authors: Alex Josey
ASP Ramli read another passage from the same
letter relating to a telephone call from Dr Warnasurya to Jean:
I tried yesterday between 3:40–3:50
pm
to the school. They said that you
were not available. I tried both 563141 and 51085. So today I tried the same.
Then they said that the school was closed. Darling, I was desperate to speak to
you, and I hadn’t seen your letter then, that I decided to call Klang. It was
about 4:10
pm
. Your
brother-in-law answered and said you were not in, and asked whether there was a
message.
ASP Ramli then read from another letter
dated 9 October 1978 in which Dr Warnasurya said: “I think we should plan to
meet again in April—in Sri Lanka or Malaysia.”
The jury were given photostats, and the
Deputy Public Prosecutor seized the opportunity to read from a letter dated 26
September 1978.
DPP: Distance is to love as wind is to
fire.
Judge: I know you love to read the
letters. For the moment I want to know your question. I will direct the jury to
read all the letters. What is your question on the letters?
DPP: There are certain portions which I
want the investigating officer to read.
Judge: Whether he reads or not it is
evidence. I want to save time. They have been marked.
Judge (to ASP Ramli): Have you read the
letters?
Ramli: Yes.
Judge: How do you describe the letters?
Ramli: They are love letters, my Lord.
Judge: All of them?
Ramli: Yes, my lord.
Judge: So now we have evidence that
they are love letters.
DPP: From?
Ramli: From Dr Warnasurya to the
deceased.
Earlier Mr Sambanthamurthi referred ASP
Ramli to the register book of the YMCA Hostel in Brickfields (in Kuala Lumpur).
ASP Ramli said Dr Warnasurya checked into
the hostel at 2:30
pm
on 2
September 1978 and left at 8:00
am
on 16 September 1978. At 9:50
am
on 5 September 1978, Jean checked in at the same hostel and checked out at 1:00
pm
the following day.
Questioned by the DPP, ASP Ramli said Dr
Warnasurya checked in at the Apollo Hotel in Jalan Bukit Bintang (Kuala Lumpur)
at 8:40
am
on 6 October 1978 and
checked out the next day.
ASP Ramli told the Court that the Malaysian
Police made an effort to get Dr Warnasurya to give evidence in Court. The
request was made through Interpol. Dr Warnasurya refused, despite a promise
that he would be given free passage and accommodation. Three telex messages
were sent to the doctor in Sri Lanka. They were not answered.
Earlier, ASP Ramli told the Court that from
his investigations, he found that Jean first met Dr Warnasurya in September
1978. He also said that four letters written by Jean to Karthigesu were written
prior to 3 July, 1978.
DPP: You are saying that the accused
never produced any letter from the deceased after she had met the doctor?
ASP Ramli: Yes.
ASP Ramli went on to say that on 9 June,
1979, Inspector Henry Yap and he took a Royal Malaysian Navy team to Port Klang
to search for clothes and weapons. As neither was produced in Court it might be
assumed that nothing was found.
Earlier, Karthigesu’s lawyer, Mr Ponnudurai,
objected to the prosecution introducing a psychiatrist’s-report on. Karthigesu,
on the grounds that it was very prejudical and damaging to him. Counsel argued
that this was a trial by jury, and members of the jury should not see the
report until the person who made this report, Professor Devadass, a consultant
psychiatrist, at University Hospital, had given evidence. The judge over-ruled
the objection. He ordered the jury to retire so that he could hear submissions
on the objection.
Mr Ponnudurai said Karthigesu went to see
Professor Devadass when he was in police custody and the report was prejudicial
to him.
Judge: Why is it inadmissible in
evidence? Merely being prejudicial is not sufficient.
Mr Ponnudurai: The third paragraph of
the report is very prejudicial, my Lord.
Judge: The whole of that paragraph?
Mr Ponnudurai: Yes.
Judge: Do you think the third paragraph
should be expunged?
Mr Ponnudurai: Not only the third
paragraph, my Lord, the last two lines of the second paragraph are also very
prejudicial and damaging to the accused.
Judge: But you are entitled to
cross-examine the professor. He will be called as a witness.
Mr Ponnudurai: I am not disputing the
admissibility of the report. I am disputing the contents of the report being
admitted at this stage because this is a jury trial. The jury should not see
this report until after the professor has given evidence.
In reply, the DPP said life was uncertain.
He might not be alive tomorrow to wait for the professor to come and give
evidence before putting in his report. The professor examined Karthigesu and
submitted his report.
DPP: It is a point of law and not a
question of what the defence would prefer. It is not because we are prejudicial
that we are putting it in. The professor has reduced into writing what the
accused told him and this is important.
The DPP said the defence could cross-examine
the professor when the time came. The defence had not objected to the
production of other reports, “and I see no reason why the defence should object
to the production of this report!”
Judge Azmi ruled that the report was
admissible.
Earlier, ASP Ramli told the Court that on
the fateful night of 6 April, he looked for blood trails on the ground below
the four doors of the car in which Jean was found dead, but there was none. He
also examined the spot on which Karthigesu was lying. It was not wet.
DPP: Were there any signs of urinating
there?
ASP Ramli: No, my Lord.
Judge: Any smell of urine?
ASP Ramli: No, my Lord!
Replying to a question, ASP Ramli said he
had made inquiries at the Registry of Marriages to see if any application had
been made by Karthigesu to marry Jean. The reply was ‘no’.
ASP Ramli produced 16 photographs taken at
the scene of the murder.
ASP Ramli: The accused was found lying
in three different positions at three different times by prosecution witnesses.
Answering a question, ASP Ramli said he
arrested Karthigesu 20 days after Jean died.
DPP: During those 20 days did the
accused lodge any report to the police about the alleged assault on himself, or
others?
ASP Ramli: No, my Lord.
Replying to other questions, ASP Ramli said the
accused’s trousers and underpants were not wet when he took possession of them
at University Hospital. There were no drag marks on the white shoes Karthigesu
wore that evening.
ASP Ramli was still in the witness box on
the fourth day of the trial. Answering a question from the DPP, ASP Ramli said
Dr Warnasurya in a letter dated 17 October 1978, showed concern that he had
selfishly upset the peaceful and homely atmosphere in Jean’s family. He
realised Jean was upset that her mother-in-law had tried to eavesdrop on their
conversation. The letter continued: “I am sure that she and Selvam (Karthigesu)
are both quite perturbed by my persistence in trying to contact you.” Dr
Warnasurya admitted he was endangering the only relationship which offered her
stability and security.
To a question by the DPP, ASP Ramli said the
first warning was in an undated letter which told her to be careful with his
letters and photographs, it would be disastrous if Karthigesu found them. In
another undated letter, Dr Warnasurya spoke of the possibility of Jean visiting
Sri Lanka in December 1978. He gave her his hospital telephone number so that
she could contact him in case of emergency. In the same letter the doctor said:
‘Darling, thanks for the lip imprint. I have been kissing it so much that the
paper is giving way.’
ASP Ramli said from a letter from Dr
Warnasurya to Jean it was clear that she had asked him for advice about her
future, for the doctor had replied: “I think you have to decide now whether you
want him or not, as to go on deceiving him would be disastrous for this
relationship.” He warned her that if she visited him in Sri Lanka in December
it would be impossible for her to hide from Karthigesu her continued contact
with him.
At this juncture the DPP asked the jury to
read a particular portion of the letter, which he had marked, when they were
free in the afternoon.
ASP Ramli: It is obscene, my Lord.
Judge: What is obscene? We are all
adults.
The Judge told the jury to read all the
letters. He explained he had asked the DPP not to read out in Court all the
letters because ‘otherwise we will be here for two months’.
ASP Ramli from the box said in a letter
dated 2nd November 1978, Dr Warnasurya spoke about taking Jean as his second
wife. ASP Ramli read:
I don’t think I can even divorce Ira. So
the only alternative is for you to be my second wife. I have thought about this
too, darling, in great detail. This is how I spend my time now.
There are two ways in which you could
be a second wife. One is for me to become a Muslim and then marry you legally
as my second wife. The other is for me to just live with you—at least
intermittently. This really would be a mistress rather than a wife.
The first method would for all
practical purposes be tantamount to divorcing Ira, as she would not accept it,
and neither would my relatives or society in Ceylon. The other problem about
this method is where are we going to live? For me to be in Ceylon and for you
to be my second wife in Malaysia would be meaningless. Problems of either of us
emigrating would also be tremendous. And, darling, if you are going to be my
wife I have to support you and your kids at least partially. I can’t live on
your wealth only.
In the same letter, Dr Warnasurya said: ‘But
darling I would always be yours, to fall back on for love, protection and
support for you and your kids.’
ASP Ramli was then asked to read a letter
from the doctor to Jean dated 4 November 1978, which said: ‘I possessed you
darling, in the same spirit that you gave yourself to me, purely and
completely.’ The doctor expressed a desire to have a child by Jean wrote: ‘I
would love to give you a child, my love. It would be a beautiful child, like
the mother: an exotic brown-eyed Malaysian beauty of Sinhalese descent.’
In the same letter, Dr Warnasurya told Jean
he wanted to meet her at least once before she committed herself. He wrote:
‘Please come to me darling. We can restrain ourselves from making love (if it
is necessary) but I want to talk to you, darling, about the future. We can’t do
it through letters and I am sorry that we didn’t spend more time during the
last two days we had together talking more about it. I want to make really sure
that you are going to be at least reasonably happy, otherwise I will prefer you
to remain a widow. (I hope you don’t mind me writing like this darling,
although I have no right at all.)’ The letter again warned Jean about his
letters. He said: ‘Please darling don’t bother about the letters and photos. I
will keep them. Even if they come out it will not be such a calamity for me but
what about my letters to you, darling, and the photos. It will be a much
greater disaster for your relationship with Selvam if ever they come out.’ He
asked, ‘Have you destroyed my letters? I feel sorry to ask you to, but darling,
please, please, be careful where you keep them.’ He wanted to see her once
again before she committed herself. ‘Can you come to Sri Lanka in December, if
not, in April? Don’t decide on anything definitely till then.’
In a letter dated 14 November 1978, Dr Warnasurya
referred to a shirt and sarong which Jean had given him. He said he did not
tell his wife that they were presents. He told her that he had bought them. ASP
Ramli read out from another letter from Dr Warnasurya dated 20 November 1978 in
which he wrote: ‘I felt like ringing Klang, but darling, I love you too much
and I don’t want to jeopardise your chances of happiness. So I restrained
myself with great difficulty. Darling, I hope you are collecting my letters
from school. I wouldn’t like them to get into anyone else’s hands. I hope I’ll
receive a letter from you within the next few days. If not darling, my
self-restraint wouldn’t hold and I will be tempted to give you a ring in Klang
or write you a platonic sounding letter to Klang. (In this letter he expressed
his fears for the fourth time.) Is there a chance of seeing you again, Jeannie?
Is it possible for you to come in December?’ In another part of the letter he
said: ‘If the problem is that Selvam has found out about me, please let me
know. I will write to him if necessary, taking full blame for misleading you.
Darling Jeannie, I love you. I need you. I want you to be happy.’