Authors: Alex Josey
Asked about intense grief, the professor
said a grief-stricken person could die if he or she did not express his or her
emotions.
Answering another question the professor
said the story Karthigesu told to him during the interview was full of
contradictions.
Karthigesu had told him that when he was on
the ground (after being attacked) he saw the number plate of a car which he
mentioned to the police. “If he had a concussion he would have forgotten that
number.”
To a question asked by the Judge, Professor
Devadass said Karthigesu also told him he had heard a name and could even
remember a face. “That is why I thought that if he underwent narco-analysis a
whole set of facts would have come out.” The professor agreed with Mr Fernandez
the number which Karthigesu said he saw and the name he said he heard were both
before injury recollections.
Replying to another question, the professor
said it was highly unlikely a crash helmet falling on the accused by accident
when he was on the ground could make him conjure that he was hit by the helmet.
Mr Fernandez then asked Professor Devadass
if he began his interview with Karthigesu with the following words: “I am sure
you know why you are here. Would you like to tell me?”
The professor objected to the tone used by
Mr Fernandez. He said the tone he used was not a Gestapo tone.
Judge: You mean not like the way the
defence counsel is cross-examining you?
Professor: Precisely my lord. If I were
to speak like that, patients wouldn’t come to see me.
When Mr Fernandez asked Professor Devadass
numerous questions about psychiatry and disorder, Professor Devadass said, “My
Lord, I feel that I am going through the whole textbook of psychiatry and I
feel I am going for my membership examination again.”
Counsel explained that he had to ask certain
questions because he had the interest of his client at heart and Karthigesu was
facing a serious charge.
When Mr Fernandez said he was not trying to
impress anyone, Professor Devadass remarked, “Let us hope so.” Mr Fernandez
said he was not embarrassed to ask technical questions. Professor Devadass
retorted, “I am not embarrassed either. I am damned angry.”
Mr Fernandez told the professor that when he
was offensive to counsel he was being offensive to the Court. Professor Devadass
then apologised to the Judge.
Mr Fernandez then questioned Professor
Devadass on the statement accused made to the professor that he was well-versed
on narco-analysis. Karthigesu knew the legal implications as well as the
medical implications of this test ‘even before he came to see me. He also made
me feel that he is a very careful man’.
Questioned about the test, Professor
Devadass said one of the drugs used was pentothal and complications were rare.
The drug was used for major operations all over the world. If its dangers were
so severe, there would be hundreds of dead people around.
Professor Devadass said he was aware that
Karthigesu was a murder suspect and had been found at the scene of the crime
and had been arrested at the time of the interview.
When the Judge asked the professor why
Karthigesu had not been detained for observation for a longer period, Professor
Devadass said there was no evidence of mental illness. He spoke well.
Judge: I am asking this because
psychiatric evidence is relatively new in this country perhaps it would be wise
to follow more precautions so that psychiatrists giving evidence will not be
subjected to lengthy cross-examinations.
Re-examined by the DPP, Professor Devadass
said that when he saw Karthigesu, he did not appear to be a person who had gone
without sleep, or been deprived of food and sleep. Neither did he look like a
person who had been continuously interrogated for eight to nine days, or that
he had been suffering from sensory deprivation. The professor said he had the
impression that Karthigesu was quite comfortable and in no distress. He was
also neatly dressed.
Professor Devadass said Karthigesu had told
him that he had been forced to watch Jean’s murder.
Replying to another question, the professor
agreed that he had said if Karthigesu was shown the love letters it would be a
factor in making him angry.
Asked by the DPP why he had used the word ‘a
factor’ Professor Devadass said it was because Karthigesu had told him Jean had
been unfaithful for a long time and it was like rubbing salt into the wound.
At the end of his testimony Professor
Devadass was asked by the DPP to relate to the Court the circumstances which
led him to give evidence.
Judge: What do you mean?
The DPP said Professor Devadass was not a
willing witness for the prosecution. Answering a question from the Judge,
Professor Devadass said he would have refused to testify had he not been
subpoenaed.
On Monday, 14 July 1980, the 37th
prosecution witness, Wong Wan Kong, a former police inspector, was called to
give evidence. It was at this juncture that the DPP applied to the Court to
hear his evidence in the absence of the jury. This would enable the Court to
determine the admissibility of certain statements made by the accused to the
police. The first part related to statements and the second part related to
some photographs taken without the knowledge of Karthigesu. The Judge ordered
that ‘the trial within a trial’ must not be reported by the Press.
Nine witnesses, including Karthigesu gave
evidence in the ‘trial within a trial’ which lasted four days. Judge Azmi
ruled, at the end of ‘the trial’, that an oral statement made by Karthigesu to
the police was inadmissible. The Judge said: “In my view it is inherent from
the circumstances which led to the making of the statement that it was not made
freely. To my mind the fact of prolonged interrogation at the Petaling Jaya
police station and Jalan Bandar police station were by themselves sufficient to
render the cautioned statement inadmissible on grounds of inducement and threat
without proof of actual physical or mental torture. In the circumstances I hold
that the cautioned statement is inadmissible under Section 113 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.”
Justice Mohamed Azmi said it would follow
that statements made by Karthigesu to former Inspector Wong Wan Kong, Police
constable Michael Wong and other police officers at Pilmoor Estate or at the
wharf in Port Swettenham on 9 May 1979, were also inadmissible.
The Judge said Karthigesu was alleged to
have made an oral statement to Wong and to P.C. Wong at about 11:30
am
on 9 May 1979. It was the contention
of the prosecution that although the statement was made orally, it was
admissible under Section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it was made
voluntarily without any inducement, threat or promise. The defence contention
was that Karthigesu was coached by Special Branch Officers to make the
statement and that it was made as a result of inducement, threat and promise,
which rendered the statement inadmissible. The Judge said there were two points
for the determination of the Court—firstly whether Karthigesu made the oral
statement, and secondly if he did, whether it was made voluntarily without any
inducement, threat or promise. The Judge said that after considering all the
evidence
adduced and having considered the
submissions of Mr R. Ponnudurai,
counsel for Karthigesu, and DPP T.S.
Sambanthamurti, it was his finding that Karthigesu made the statement at 11:20
am
on 9 May 1979. Karthigesu made the
statement while he was in custody in the interrogation room of the Special
Branch at Jalan Bandar police station. On the issue of the voluntariness of the
statement the Judge said he had taken into consideration all the circumstances
which led to the making of the statement. The Judge said he particularly
considered four points.
1.
One, that Karthigesu had been in police custody
since 26 April 1979, a period of 13 days before he made the statement.
2.
Two, that during the period Karthigesu was under
detention at Petaling Jaya, he was interrogated by CID officers for a total of
70 hours without Karthigesu making any admission.
3.
Three, that on 4 May 1979 when CID officers
found they had made no headway in the interrogation, ASP Ramli Yusuff decided
to hand over Karthigesu to Special Branch officers for further interrogation.
4.
Four, that the accused was in custody in the
interrogation room of the Special Branch from 5 May and that he made the
statement on 9 May, five days after being transferred form Jalan Bandar police
station.
Judge: From all these facts and coupled
with the evidence of Inspector Wong himself that when the accused refused to
have his statement recorded he knew the accused did not intend to implicate
himself or to give evidence against himself, it is clear in my judgement the
accused could not have made the statement voluntarily, although I do not accept
the evidence of the accused regarding physical torture and mis-treatment by the
Special Branch officers in the Jalan Bandar Police station.
After the Judge gave his ruling the jury
were called in and he explained to them that during their absence he had made a
ruling that a certain statement made by the accused to the police was
inadmissible.
Jayatilake in the Witness Box
When the trial proper was resumed
the first witness to be called was Detective G. Patchimuthu of Klang—the
prosecution’s 38th witness. He met the accused in the accused’s house on 16
April 1979. The accused knew he was a detective. He spent about half an hour in
Karthigesu’s house. He said the accused did not seem to be happy.
Cross-examined by Mr Fernandez, witness said he would not describe Karthigesu
as his friend. He went to his house to make inquiries in relation to the case.
He denied that he went to Karthigesu’s house to support the story of Jayatilake
if the need arose.
In the witness box, Bandhulananda Jayatilake
said he saw the detective in Karthigesu’s house on 16 April 1979. He said half
an hour after the detective left, Karthigesu joined him in a conversation and
told him his visitor was from the police. Answering a question by the DPP,
Jayatilake, a sales manager, said that Karthigesu told him: ‘Worst comes to the
worst I will admit it.’
DPP: Did he say anything else?
Jayatilake: During the conversation the
accused told me the doctor wanted Jean to convert to Islam.
Judge: Which doctor?
Witness: From Sri Lanka.
DPP: For what purpose?
Jayatilake: To convert into a Muslim
and to marry her.
Judge: Marry whom?
Jayatilake: The doctor wanted Jean to
convert into a Muslim and to marry her.
DPP: You said just now the accused said
‘worst comes to the worst he will admit it’. Admit what?
Mr Ponnudurai objected to the question.
Jayatilake: Karthigesu said, ‘Worst
come to the worst I will admit it and go in.’
DPP: What is it? Did he say anything
else?
Judges: When he said ‘I will admit it’
did he explain what he was going to admit to?
Jayatilake: Admit and go in.
DPP: Did he explain what he meant by
it?
Judge: To go where? Go into the house?
He was already in the house. You must tell the truth. You are under oath.
Jayatilake: The accused told me he will
admit it and go in because of the harassment by the police.
Answering another question, witness said
Karthigesu’s tone was high when he said it. He said that Karthigesu’s mother
tried to calm him but he continued to tell him. ‘The bitch did not deserve to
live’. Karthigesu then went into his bedroom, but came out later. Witness said
he left the house shortly afterwards.
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.