Authors: Alex Josey
Questioned by the DPP about a letter dated
12 December 1978, ASP Ramli said it appeared that Karthigesu had questioned Jean
about her relationship with Dr Warnasurya. The doctor said: “Your letter has
just reached me and I am just completely flabbergasted. Oh darling please,
please, believe me all these allegations are completely baseless. I will swear
upon my little daughter’s life that I have never shown your letters to
anybody.’
Later in the letter he said: ‘I have the
letters with me and mine are the only eyes that have seen them. I could post
them back to you, but I think that would not be safe. Do you want me to destroy
them?’
In the next letter dated 6 December 1978, Dr
Warnasurya wrote: ‘Darling, I was benumbed with anger, grief and frustration at
the accusation levelled at me. Oh darling, I have kissed your feet, as you
would remember, and I feel so much for you. Why did you ever consider for a
moment that it could be true? Oh darling, I am not angry with you, but please
do believe me, and most of all have no fear in your heart. The letters are safe
with me and no-one has seen them. But Selvam has obviously heard something
about us. I don’t know from where. Perhaps the rest of it is his own guessing,
but he must have some inkling, because it does not sound like a wild guess
(especially about the medical leave). I am seriously wondering whether my
letters to you have been read by someone else. In the aerogrammes it is
possible to read them if you hold them to a mirror. In the others in envelopes,
of course they could have steamed them open. Lately of course I have been
signing over the flap to make it like a seal as it would be difficult to
re-position the letters when you re-paste it. Even if they have been read,
there would have been no time to photostat them as you probably would have
collected them as soon as they have arrived. So, darling don’t be afraid. No
one would have documentary evidence. But it is possible that someone may have
seen us on our outings. Think carefully and write to me what you want me to
do.’
The DPP asked ASP Ramli to read an anonymous
letter written to Jean. It was signed ‘An attributable onlooker and
sympathiser.’ The letter said:
Dear Jean,
You have lost your husband. You are
alone and free, free of the curse that bound you when you married into that
family. What are you still hovering around that curse for? Don’t you see the
curse is upon the extremely possessive nature of the old woman. You must have
been aware of it by now, or are you still not convinced? She has taken her
husband. She has taken her first son. And it will go on in that order until it
becomes your son’s turn.
Do you want that to happen? Do you want
to be stuck, to have to care for the old woman and her cursed two all alone by
yourself for the whole of your life? Get out from there. See sense. You are
young, intelligent, capable and extremely beautiful. The whole world is at your
feet. For your children’s sake start afresh. Don’t be foolishly sentimental.
Start afresh. Start to smile again. Your husband was a wonderful man but born
into the wrong family, you would have had him longer. Think and act fast and
wisely.
Judge Azmi described the letter as a vicious
attack on Jean’s mother-in-law. “But we still don’t know who wrote it.” He
said: “I would not be surprised if the writer of the anonymous letter is in the
courtroom today.”
The DPP said the facts in the letter were
true and the ‘cursed two’ referred to the two disabled children of the
mother-in-law.
In reply to a question ASP Ramli said that
at the time of her death Jean was worth $500,000. She had $115,000 insurance
money, two houses and some jewellery.
When the Court resumed on 23 June 1980,
after the long weekend break, the defence produced a memo which, said Mr
Ponnudurai, had been received by the police from a ‘civic-conscious’ member of
the public. Mr Ponnudurai said the memo (which was undated and unsigned) was
from Ng Kwai Yeu, an accountant with Price Waterhouse and Co. It was an account
of what Ng saw in the
under-pass of the road leading to the airport on the night of the tragedy.
ASP Ramli said Ng gave him the memo and his
business card in the Petaling Jaya Magistrate’s Court when the preliminary
inquiry into Jean’s case was going on. Asked by Mr Ponnudurai why he did not
investigate the information contained in the memorandum, ASP Ramli said he
found the story in the memo untrue in view of the information available to the
police. In his memo, Ng said he was on his way to the airport to pick up his
wife who was coming from Singapore on the late flight. Ng said he saw two cars
parked on the under-pass. One was light coloured and the other dark. Ng stated
that his attention was drawn by two or three figures standing on the right side
of the car at the back. There were some objects in their hands ‘which gave off
some illumination with small circles of light’. Ng said he thought it peculiar
that people should park in strange dark spots. He later read about the killing
in the
New
Sunday Times
, and recalled the incident. Later he
gave the memo to the police. ASP Ramli, still in the witness box, said he told
Ng he would contact him if necessary.
Mr Ponnudurai: Did you check his story?
ASP Ramli: No, I felt it was not
necessary to check his story because by that time the case was already
highlighted in the newspapers. The preliminary inquiry was half-way through.
Mr Ponnudurai: Here was a man, an
independent witness, who comes to you with information and you sent him away?
Judge: Did you consider him an
independent witness?
ASP Ramli: No, my Lord, because the
case was already high-lighted in the newspapers by then.
Mr Ponnudurai remarked that it would
have been very easy for the police to check Ng’s story. Did his wife return
from Singapore that night?
ASP Ramli denied a suggestion by Mr
Ponnudurai that by the time of the preliminary inquiry the police had some
theory on how the murder was commited. If the police found the information in
the memo was true, the whole theory would have been blown sky high.
Replying to another question, ASP Ramli said
there was no witness to the actual murder. Jean and Karthigesu were last seen
together by Mr Adrian de Silva and his wife at the junction of the Federal
Highway and Jalan 222 Petaling Jaya about 11:00
pm
on the night of the murder. He agreed that the police had
conducted trial runs between the junction and the underpass and Pilmoor Estate.
Driving at 40 mph it took five minutes 29.3 seconds to go from the junction to
the underpass and three minutes 51 seconds from the underpass to Pilmoor
Estate. At 50 mph it took four minutes 18.2 seconds from the junction to the
under-pass and three minutes 7.5 seconds from the underpass to the estate.
Replying to a question, ASP Ramli told the Judge that the police theory was
that Karthigesu took Jean to Pilmoor Estate first from the junction at Jalan
222.
Judge: Do you agree that it is police
theory that the offence was committed in Pilmoor Estate?
ASP Ramli: Yes, my Lord.
Asked why he did not believe Mr Ng’s story
that he saw two cars at the under-pass between 11:00–11:05
pm
. ASP Ramli said this was because
prosecution witness Adrian de Silva saw the couple at Jalan 222 at that time.
Mr Ponnudurai: I am putting it to you
that you are driving away civic-conscious witnesses by not investigating what
Ng told you. In this case the police were suppressing evidence.
DPP: I object.
Judge: I don’t think the police
suppressed evidence. Whether Ng is a civic-minded person or a witness not to be
believed we don’t know now. Perhaps Ng was telling the truth, perhaps not.
Mr Ponnudurai requested a short adjournment.
When the Court resumed 20 minutes later, Mr Jeffery Fernandez (appearing for
the defence) asked the Court to give an assurance that civic-minded witnesses
would be well treated if they came forward to give evidence. This was a murder
trial and investigators could not go round intimidating witnesses.
Judge: What are you making now, a
speech, a submission or what?
Mr Fernandez: I am only asking the
Court to give an assurance to the public so that people will come forward to
give evidence and will not be afraid.
Judge: People know that already.
Mr Ponnudurai continued his
cross-examination of ASP Ramli who said there was no blood on Karthigesu’s
wristwatch, his clothes, hands or finger-nails.
Answering other questions, ASP Ramli said
that on the day the accused was charged in Court (9 May 1979), he and Inspector
Yap went to the Pilmoor Estate about 3:30
pm
.
They conducted a thorough search but failed to find any traces of blood.
Mr Ponnudurai: Did you find any car
tyre marks?
ASP Ramli: No, my lord.
Mr Ponnudurai: Did you find any plastic
containers?
ASP Ramli: No, my Lord.
ASP Ramli added that he found a plastic
container in the boot of the car. It was filled to the brim with water. There
were no bloodstains on it.
Questioned about the bloodstains inside the
car, ASP Ramli agreed that some of the marks could have been made when the
assailant rubbed his hands. The marks appeared to have been made deliberately.
He agreed that the bloodstains on the door handle near the driver’s seat could
have been caused if the murderer had used his bloody hand to open the door.
In the course of the cross-examination ASP
Ramli read extracts from a letter dated 11 October 1978 which Jean had written
to Dr Narada Warnasurya, but which was never posted to him. In the letter, Jean
had told him not to waste his time and money any more and that she loved her
brother-in-law, Karthigesu, and was convinced that her marriage to him would
not be a gamble.
You really must not waste your time and money
any more, please. I feel bad about the whole issue. Not that I do not love you.
You are a wonderful person and would definitely make some fortunate girl a good
husband. But Narada dear, had I been single and not a mother of three, maybe
things could have been different.
In another part of the letter she said: ‘I
can foresee a lot of problems if we should get married. Above all, dear Narada,
the one and only reason why I cannot marry you is because I really and truly
love my brother-in-law. Please don’t be shocked when I state that in retrospect
I can say I care for him more than I did care for my late husband.’
Judge: At the time of writing that
letter she was in love with the accused?
ASP Ramli: Yes, my Lord.
Judge: But this was never sent?
ASP Ramli: It was never sent.
ASP Ramli read another extract from the
letter: ‘Anyway, ours is a beautiful unit—so strong and secure the knot people
will find hard to understand how it could be so. Furthermore, I’m now firmly
convinced that he loves me in return as much as I love him, if not more. My
marriage to him will not be a gamble as my children look upon him as their
father.’
Earlier, ASP Ramli read from a letter dated
27 December 1978 which Dr Warnasurya wrote to Jean:
Dearest Jean,
Though I have sent you a previous
letter and a Christmas card after the call, I have not heard from you at all.
Oh Jean, am I being a nuisance to you? I know that your future is not going to
be with me, but Jean I sincerely love you, so is it too much to ask you to let
me know how you are getting on? And your kids, too. I want to know, Jean. I
want to know that you are happy and well. I sincerely wish you happiness for
the future. I do not want to intrude upon your life, Jean, but please accept my
genuine wishes to you, your kids, Selvam and mum-in-law. If you really feel
that my continued contacts are an intrusion on your life, please let me know. I
will then cease being a nuisance! But please do send me at least one more
letter telling me of your present, and future. How was Bangkok? Did you enjoy
yourself there? It is a man’s world isn’t it? How are your kids getting on,
Jean? Can’t you send me a photo of yourself with the kids? Jean, I really wish
you and your loved ones, including Selvam, all the best! I know it sounds
paradoxical to say it in the same breath but please do remember that you have
someone who feels for you sincerely, always available in case of sorrow or
unhappiness. I hope you never see any of it. I really do. I will wind up now,
Jean, and hopefully await a reply.
Sincerely yours,
Narada.
PS: Jean. Is there any chance of my
seeing you ever again? As a friend? Or would I be persona non grata for ever?
Questioned by defence counsel, ASP Ramli
agreed that the love affair between Jean and Dr Warnasurya had fizzled out.