Authors: Alex Josey
Continuing his cross-examination of ASP
Ramli, Mr Ponnudurai referred to four letters Jean wrote to Karthigesu. In the first
dated 11 June 1978, Jean had addressed him as ‘Darling Selvam’ and signed
‘Yours alone’. In the second letter dated 14 June 1978 Jean had asked
Karthigesu to keep her letter. In the third, dated 16 June 1978 Jean had
addressed Karthigesu as ‘My darling Aattan’ and signed it ‘Your wife, Jean.’
She had added 20 to 30 kisses.
ASP Ramli from the witness box, said he came
to know that Jean was having an affair with Dr Warnasurya after going through
the letters handed to him by Karthigesu.
From the witness box ASP Ramli denied a
suggestion by the defence counsel that he persistently questioned Karthigesu as
to whether Jean was running an illegal massage parlour in Kuala Lumpur.
ASP Ramli was in the witness box for five
days. On the last day (24 June 1980) he was questioned about another anonymous
letter. He said he found it in one of Jean’s handbags. Parts of the letter were
read out in Court by Mr Ponnudurai. It was addressed to ‘Our dear Miss Jean’
and it began: ‘We are very close and good friends of Dr Narada, a victim of
your malicious love game. He was a very happy man when he arrived here, but he
was fated to meet the devil, you. You showered him with gifts, shirts etc. You
took him out to the cinema, Lake Gardens, Templer Park etc. You visited him in his
room against his wish. You led him on and gave yourself freely to him.’
The letter was signed ‘Men of Fair Play and
Justice’. It ended with: ‘Now a friendly warning. Dr Nara will not take you. He
is happy with his family. So don’t make a play for him again. He has had enough
both in the form of pleasure and pain. Pleasure is what he got from you in his
room and pain in trusting you. We will not let you rest in peace. We will meet
your brother-in-law and tell him all that we know. We will be only happy when
we see you fall and be disgraced.’
ASP Ramli agreed with counsel that this was
a letter of hatred. ASP Ramli expressed the opinion that it might have been
written by someone who had read all the letters Dr Warnasurya had written to
her. He said he came to this conclusion because the writer knew details of the
love affair between the doctor and Jean. The letter had been posted in Kuala
Lumpur.
ASP Ramli said he found evidence which
proved that Jean had gone to Pangkor for a short holiday with Karthigesu about
a week before she was murdered.
Replying to other questions, ASP Ramli
referred to the letter written by Jean but not posted, in which she had stated
that she was going to marry Karthigesu. Since writing that letter she had
received 14 love letters from Dr Warnasurya which showed she had replied to his
letters. This proved that their friendship had continued.
ASP Ramli said that from investigations he
came to know that Jean visited her mother in Kajang once or twice a week. She
was also looking for a house in Petaling Jaya or Bungsar.
Medical Evidence
Lau Cheng Siew, a Government
chemist, was the next to take the stand. He said he examined a long-sleeved
batik shirt on which are found slight brownish stains. These stains were found
to bear traces of sand.
Another witness, Dr Krishnan, a pathologist
attached to the University Hospital, said he conducted a postmortem on Jean on 7
April 1979. He said he found Jean’s hair ruffled when he examined her, and she
was menstruating. Her clothes were soaked in blood and parts of her body were
covered in dried blood. Dr Krishnan said he found ten incised wounds, two of
which were major wounds. The first major injury was a three cm wide,
penetrating 9.5 cm deep stab wound with clean edges, three cm above the right nipple
in the right mid-clavicular line. The direction of the wound was from the above
right to the left, medially. It passed through the muscle of the fourth right
intercostal space and the right middle lobe of lung.
The second major wound was a three cm deep
wound with clean edges, three cm above and parallel to the right subcostal
margin in the mid-clavicular line. It passed through the right lobe of the
liver, bisected the right adrenal, went through the right dome of the diaphragm
and nicked the right paravertebral tissues just above the right attachment of
the diaphragm.
DPP: Could these wounds have been
self-inflicted?
Dr Krishnan: It was not possible to
self-inflict these wounds.
He said he was of the opinion that the
injuries were inflicted by a right-handed person, and that the assailant was
behind the victim and to her right inside the car.
The doctor had told the Court earlier that
he had inspected the car at the Petaling Jaya police station. He had sat in the
car in various positions and tested the arm movement.
Coming back to the injuries, Dr Krishnan
said there were four incised wounds over Jean’s right forearm. There was also a
2.5 cm long incised wound over the dorsum of the left hand proximal to the
middle finger, one cm long superficial wound over the dorsal aspect of the
metacarpo-phalangeal joint of the left index finger. Dr Krishnan said he was of
the opinion that these two wounds were defence wounds. He said there were two
incised wounds two cm long below the thyroid cartilage and 3.5 cm long just
above the sternal notch. Both were about 2.5 cm deep. These wounds were the
result of the assailant trying to slit the throat of the victim.
There were superficial linear abrasions
three cm long, below the right chin. There were also two small indistinct
bruise marks about 1 cm in diameter over the right upper arm. The abrasion and
the bruise marks could have been caused by a struggle which the victim put up
with the assailant.
Dr Krishnan told the Court that it was not
possible for Jean to have been attacked from the driver’s seat. After having
sat in the car, and also because of the nature of the wounds he was sure that
the assailant must have been behind the driver’s seat, though not necessarily
sitting down. The assailant could have held the victim’s hair with his left
hand at the time of the stabbing.
Replying to a question, he said he received
Jean’s body at 2:20
am
on 7 April
1979. He told the DPP that she could have died about four hours earlier.
He said there were two causes of death.
Firstly, Jean’s blood pressure fell irreversibly due to extensive haemorrhage
caused by the two penetrating stab wounds. Secondly, because of blood and air
in the thorax, these having compressed the lung to such an extent that it
stopped functioning.
Dr Krishnan, answering a question from the
DPP, said that Jean could have been under the influence of alcohol. She must
have consumed at least three ounces of alcohol.
Cross-examined by defence counsel, Mr
Jeffery Fernandez, Dr Krishnan was asked for his reasons for telling the Court
that the assailant must have been behind and to the right of the victim. Dr
Krishnan said his conclusion was based on four factors: the direction of the
two major penetrating wounds and the defence wounds; the examination of the car
in which the victim was found and having assumed positions in the car to
estimate the range of arm movements which would have been necessary to cause
the stab wounds; the assumption that the assailant restrained the victim by
holding her hair or right shoulder with his left hand; and the blood streaks on
the windscreen in front of the victim. “These confirmed my belief that the
assailant was behind the victim.”
Asked if he assumed that Jean was static
during the attack, Dr Krishnan said there must have been some movement, but the
assailant would have restrained her to some extent.
Answering another question, Dr Krishnan said
the two major injuries were caused by the same knife, or two knives with the
same dimensions. The other injuries could have been caused by any other sharp
weapon. He said he did not rule out the possibility of there being two
assailants.
Asked if the assailant would have blood
stains if he had been in the driver’s seat, Dr Krishnan said his clothes would
have been stained if Jean was turned towards him.
Asked if Jean would have receded to the
corner of the seat because she was fighting for her life, Dr Krishnan said it
would not have been possible for her to move if the assailant had held her
firmly.
Mr Fernandez then asked the pathologist to assume
that the assailant was in the driver’s place, left foot on the driver’s seat
and right foot somewhere near the clutch and brake pedals, facing the passenger
seat holding a knife in the right hand. To a question based on the assumption,
Dr Krishnan said the victim would have used both hands to ward off the blows.
Her right hand would have been more effective.
Asked if the assailant, bent on making sure
that Jean was dead could have held her hair in his left hand, pushed her head
backwards and slit her throat with his right hand, Dr Krishnan said it was
difficult to-visualise the situation if the victim was cringing in a corner of
her seat. In that position a person who was cringing would tuck in her chin.
Dr Krishnan said before he formed
his conclusion he had a look at the car and bloodstains were pointed out to
him. He also noted that there were bloodstains on the handle of the door on the
victim’s side.
Mr Fernandez: Were you told by the
police that they had a suspect with no bloodstains on his clothes or on his
person?
Dr Krishnan: Yes, my Lord.
Mr Fernandez: So in your investigation
of the car you concentrated on seeking solutions to explain why there were no
bloodstains on the suspect or on his clothes.
Dr Krishnan: I don’t agree, my Lord.
Judge: Are you saying that what the
police said did not influence you?
Dr Krishnan: No, my Lord.
Mr Fernandez: Did it not influence you
in your subconscious?
Dr Krishnan: If you talk about the
subconscious, then I can’t answer. I can only talk about what was in my
conscious.
Asked if he would have expected to find
blood on the hands and fingernails of the assailant and also in the cuffs of
his shirt, Dr Krishnan said: “Yes, my Lord, if he was using his bare hands.”
Asked if he was curious that there were no
bloodstains on the back doors of the car, Dr Krishnan said he was not curious
because he assumed that the offside rear door was open. He added: “There was no
reason for the assailant to open or close the door or touch the handle.”
Asked what he would have to say to the fact
that the police found the car with the four doors shut, Dr Krishnan replied:
“We cannot assume that the position of the car when the police found it was the
same as when the crime was committed.”
Dr Krishnan protested when Mr Fernandez said
the doctor went on a wild hypothesis and conjecture as to how the crime was
committed. Dr Krishnan said he did not go on a wild hypothesis and conjecture.
Questioned about the alcoholic content in
Jean’s blood (60 mg of ethyl alcohol per 100 ml of blood), Dr Krishnan said in
many countries this amount was sufficient for a person to be charged with
drunken driving. Some countries had a limit ranging from 30 mg to 40 mg. Sweden
and the United States had a level far below 60 mg per 100 ml of blood.
Mr Fernandez produced a book which stated
the different reactions in persons with different levels of alcohol in their
blood. It said a person who had 60 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood would
normally lose self-control, be talkative and increasingly confident. Counsel
asked if he agreed with that. Dr Krishnan said the effects of alcohol could not
be treated like mathematics. One could not expect definite patterns of
behaviour because there were other factors to be considered like the
constitution of the person and his drinking habits.
Re-examined by the DPP, Dr Krishnan said the
evidence he gave was based on medical reasoning, what he saw and what he
concluded.
Asked by the foreman of the jury which of
the two major wounds were inflicted first, Dr Krishnan said he did not know. He
told the Judge that either could have caused death. Considerable force would
have been necessary to inflict the injuries.
Replying to the DPP, Dr Krishnan said Jean’s
mental state would have been impaired because of the alcohol.
***
Professor Eric Sumithran, consultant
pathologist at the University Hospital, testified that he supervised Dr
Krishnan in performing the post-mortem on Jean on 7 April 1979. He concurred
with the findings made by Dr Krishnan. The consultant told the DPP that the assailant
would have to be behind Jean and to her right. The assailant could have opened
the door behind the driver’s seat, entered the car, and after attacking her,
came out and closed the door with any part of the body except his hands.
The man who saw the car at the junction of
the Federal Highway and Jalan 222 Petaling Jaya on the fateful night was Adrian
de Silva. In the witness box, de Silva, a marketing executive, testified that
he was at the junction when a car driven by Karthigesu pulled up on his left.
He told his wife who turned to look, and said that his passenger was Jean. “Mrs
Sinnappa (Jean) smiled and waved to us,” Mr de Silva added. He said that
Karthigesu was wearing a shirt which was reddish and flowery, like batik.