Blood Lust (28 page)

Questioned by the DPP, Perera said there
were flare-ups between Jean and her mother-in-law in Klang. They sometimes
happened in his presence. He said sometimes Jean’s mother-in-law complained to
him about Jean’s movements and late nights. Jean was not very happy living in
Klang. She did not have privacy.

Asked by the Judge what he meant, witness
said that Jean had one room which she shared with her three children and their
servant.

DPP: Was Jean doing anything to
overcome the problem?

Perera: She was trying to rent a house
somewhere in Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya.

Judge: What about her own house in Damansara?

Perera: At that time it was not
completed.

The DPP asked him if he had borrowed money
from Jean. Perera said he had a loan of $3,000, and he had repaid it after two
or three weeks. The DPP referred the Judge to a certified copy of the cheque
which Perera had signed in respect of the loan. Perera was asked if he knew
that Jean was assigned two life insurance policies.

DPP: Do you know what the two policies
were worth?

Perera: At that time I did not know.
Now both are worth $100,000.

Judge: Was she paid the money?

Perera: Yes.

Judge: Was Jean also the beneficiary of
the house in Damansara?

Perera: Yes, my Lord.

DPP: Do you know how much it is worth
now?

Perera: Anything between $250,000 and
$300,000.

DPP: Are you aware that Jean bought a
house in Berkely Gardens, Klang?

Perera: Yes.

Answering another question, Perera said he
loved his sister. They were very close, and her death was a terrible blow. He
said Jean had planned to go to Sri Lanka for the April holidays last year.

Earlier, Perera said while Karthigesu and he
and a friend were in the car on the way to Klang, Karthigesu told him of his
plans to marry Jean on 13 April. Karthigesu also mentioned that he always
hero-worshipped his late brother (Jean’s husband) even to the extent of kissing
his feet.

Perera said on arrival at Klang,
Karthigesu’s mother gave him Jean’s identity card and a small photograph of
her. He then returned to the hospital with Karthigesu and his friend James
Ritchie. He subsequently took Jean’s body back to Kajang with the help of the
casket company. “We placed her in the centre of the hall and kept vigil that
night. Karthigesu made no attempt to go near the body.”

Perera told the DPP that he knew Dr
Warnasurya. Jean had introduced the doctor to him some time in September during
the Hari Raya holidays. They had a chat about family matters.

Asked by the DPP if Jean had told him about
her plans to marry Karthigesu on 13 April 1979, Perera replied, “Definitely
not.”

DPP: Would Jean have kept the date a
secret from you?

Perera: No, my Lord, she would have
told me.

Judge: Why must she tell you?

Perera: We were very close. She would
not have kept any secrets from me.

Evidence was given by Father Edward Soosai,
of Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Klang, and A.A. Rayan, Director of National
Registration (Marriage Division) that no application had been made to them to
get married on 13 April, or on any other date.

Cross-examined by Mr Ponnudurai, Jean’s
brother, Andrew Brian Perera, said Jean’s family knew of her intention to marry
her brother-in-law, but did not know when the wedding would take place. But the
condition was that Karthigesu should be prepared to leave his mother and live
with Jean and her children. Perera said his family had no objections to Jean
marrying Karthigesu.

Mr Ponnudurai: You felt that was the
best match for Jean and the children?

Perera: No, my Lord. Not the best
match, but we had no objections.

Mr Ponnudurai: Do you agree that the
children looked to him as a father?

Perera: They loved him.

Mr Ponnudurai: How do they call him?

Perera: They call him Asai Appu (loving
father).

Mr Ponnudurai: Would you have agreed if
Jean had become a Muslim to become the second wife of Dr Narada in Sri Lanka?

Perera: We would not have agreed. (Jean
was a Catholic.)

Perera said he did not know if Jean had
bought her air tickets or obtained permission from the Education Ministry to
leave the country. “I know she was planning to go to Sri Lanka.”

Judge: Were the deceased and the
accused in love?

Perera: From my observation they were casual.
I would not be able to say if they were in love.

Shown the four letters Jean wrote to
Karthigesu, Perera on looking at these letters said he would agree they were in
love.

Judge: What sort of a person was Jean?
Was she a wild sort of person, a rich widow looking for a new husband?

Perera: No.

Judge: Why was she keeping late nights?

Perera: I don’t know.

Judge: She didn’t tell you?

Perera: No. Sometimes she would visit
us in Kajang.

Judge: You don’t know where she went on
her own?

Perera: No.

Next in the witness box was a journalist
James Ritchie of the
New
Straits Times
.

He said Karthigesu told him Jean’s death was
a tragedy because they had planned to get married the following Saturday. He
said Karthigesu told him this when they were on their way, in a car driven by
Perera, to Klang to get a photo of Jean for his story. Karthigesu did not know
at the time that he was a journalist. “When Karthigesu found out further along
the journey he looked at me, then he looked away.” Ritchie said he did not question
Karthigesu after that.

Questioned by the Judge, Ritchie said
Karthigesu looked disturbed. He looked as though he was reluctant to say
anything more. Ritchie said Karthigesu had told him he was on his way home from
Century Hotel with Jean when he stopped near the Subang by-pass to urinate.
While he was urinating he was jostled from behind and hit on the head either by
a piece of wood or a crash helmet. He said he lost consciousness.

Mr Ponnudurai referred the witness to his
story in the New Straits Times. Who gave him the information? Ritchie replied
that the police gave him the information. The Judge asked the reporter if he
had any explanation as to why in his report he attributed the reference to the
statement in the report to ‘close relatives’ (meaning Karthigesu) instead of to
Karthigesu, who had actually given him the news that Jean and Karthigesu had
planned to marry ‘next Saturday’. Ritchie said it was a question of style.

Ritchie denied he was a reckless reporter.

Valerie de Silva was called to the witness
box to testify that she had seen Karthigesu and Jean in a car on the night Jean
was killed. Jean appeared to be preoccupied and dull. They had stopped at the
traffic lights and her husband drew her attention to the driver of a car on
their left. She saw it was S. Karthigesu. Jean was sitting next to him. Jean
smiled and waved and she waved back. She and Jean were family friends.
Karthigesu was looking straight ahead. Valerie de Silva said when the lights
changed Karthigesu drove straight ahead. The de Silvas’ turned to the right.
When she got home she turned on the television.

Mr Fernandez asked whether Jean waved with
enthusiasm, with lots of warmth in it.

Valerie de Silva: No, it wasn’t.

Mr Fernandez: What was it then?

Valerie de Silva: She just waved
casually and smiled as the car moved forwards.

Judge: Raising her right hand?

Valerie de Silva: Yes.

To another question by Mr Fernandez, Valerie
de Silva said Jean was a very friendly person with high spirits and would
normally wave actively.

Mr Fernandez: Do you remember the
clothes the accused was wearing that night?

Valerie de Silva: The accused was
wearing a long-sleeved reddish coloured shirt.

When she was shown a red batik shirt she
said she was not sure whether it was the shirt which Karthigesu wore on the
fateful night.

Asked about Jean’s sitting position in the
car, Mrs de Silva said Jean was leaning half against the door and half against
the seat.

Judge: She was sitting at an angle?

Valerie de Silva: Yes.

Mr Fernandez: You said Jean appeared
dull. Would you agree a woman who is menstruating would appear to be off
colour?

Valerie de Silva: Some do.

Re-examined by the DPP, Valerie de Silva
said she was ‘very certain’ she saw Jean in the car at the junction that night.

Another witness, Lee Ah Chai, a reporter on
the
New
Straits Times
, told the Court that he interviewed
Karthigesu after the funeral on 8th April 1979. During the interview Karthigesu
said Jean’s three children would be staying with him and his mother. He added
that two of the children knew he was going to marry their mother.

The DPP referred Lee to a paragraph about
marriage in the report, and asked him to tell the Court how the conversation
started.

Lee said he had asked Karthigesu when the
wedding was to have taken place.

DPP: What did he say?

Lee: He told me it was to be on
Saturday, April 13.

Judge: Meaning April 13 1979?

Lee: Yes.

Witness said he also asked about their
wedding plans. Karthigesu said there was no point in talking about something
which could not materialize.

Lee: Karthigesu said he was still
puzzled as to why Jean was killed. ‘We had no enemies,’ he added.

A Dog-handler’s Evidence

Cpl K. Ramakrishnan, a police dog-handler
gave evidence that Keris, his dog, scented the same person at the scene of the
murder. He said he first took Keris on a leash to one of three spots pointed
out to him by DSP Godwin Anthony. He made the dog smell for clues at a spot
where there was a white notice board. Then he released the dog. Keris went to
the middle of the road. It went through an opening beside the railway gate,
across the railway line to the pond nearby. It started sniffing at the edge of
the pond and returned to the notice board, sniffed near the notice board, came
to the middle of the road in front of the railway gate and lay down.

Cpl Ramakrishnan said all this happened at
about 10:00
am
the morning
following Jean’s murder.

The DPP asked him the significance of the
dog’s behaviour. What did it all mean?

Witness replied that what it meant was that
the police dog had picked up the scent of someone who had been near the board …
The person who was near the board was also near the middle of the road. The
same person went to the three spots. Replying to a question, Cpl. Ramakrishnan
said he had handled Keris for eight years.

Answering another question, witness said he
had come to the conclusion that there was a person near the notice board who
had moved along the route taken by the dog.

Cross-examined by defence counsel, Mr R.
Ponnudurai, Cpl Ramakrishnan said he did not ask for the suspect’s clothes
because it was possible for the dog to track foot-prints or trails of blood. He
admitted he did not know whose scent the dog Keris had picked up. He agreed it
would have been better if he had been shown the suspect’s clothes, shoes or
dentures.

Another witness, Zabri Adil, programme
supervisor at Radio/Television Malaysia testified that the serial Peyton Place
was telecast at 11:18
pm
on 6
April 1979. (This was the feature Mrs de Silva hurried home to see on the night
of the murder.)

A Psychiatrist’s Report

Considerable interest had been
aroused by the report of a psychiatrist, Professor G. Devadass. Defence counsel
objected to the professor giving evidence on his conclusions regarding the
veracity of Karthigesu. Justice Mohamed Azmi ruled that extracts from Professor
Devadass’ report be expunged. All the other evidence in the psychiatrist’s
report would be admissible.

The Judge made this ruling when defence
counsel Mr Jeffrey Fernandez, raised his objection. The DPP said the object of
the evidence relating to the conversation between the professor and Karthigesu
was for him to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the accused Karthigesu was
telling the truth or not.