Cold Blooded Murders (6 page)

Counsel went on to say that after Jenny
jumped in, Sunny Ang fastened on his own air-tank. Then he asked the boatman to
release the valve. When the boatman did this, Ang heard the sound of escaping
air, and so he asked the boatman to turn the valve off. Ang explained that the
air-tank was leaking. He took off the air-tank and detached the breathing assembly
and told the boatman there was no washer in the outlet of the tank. “This is
not such a startling discovery,” Mr Seow told the jury, “because it is
immediately apparent to anyone whether the washer in the outlet of the tank is
missing or not before the regulator is fixed to the tank. I suggest that Sunny
Ang deliberately tampered with his own tank so that the missing washer would
provide him with an excuse for not joining Jenny in the sea. This explained his
subsequent failure to search for her when Jenny failed to surface.”

Ang and the boatman managed to improvise a
washer from the strap of Ang’s own diving mask, which Ang fitted into the
outlet of his tank. But, when he released the valve the washer was forced out
of place. Ang made another washer, and, with the first, again tried to fit them
into the outlet. But the air still escaped. At this stage, Ang stopped working
on the tank and tugged at the ‘shot’ rope three times. Ang then asked the
boatman in Malay, “Where is that girl?” The boatman replied, “I don’t know.”
Ang then pulled in the ‘shot’ rope, but there was no sign of Jenny. Ang asked
the boatman to look for air bubbles, but there were none. The boatman advised
Ang to go to St John’s Island, to telephone the police, and so off they went.
From St John’s Island they went to a neighbouring island to collect some Malay
fishermen. Then they went back to the spot when Jenny had disappeared.
Repeatedly, the Malays dived in, but Jenny was missing. Ang, meanwhile,
remained in the boat. He did not join in the diving for the girl he planned, he
said, to marry. Instead, he had a discussion with one Malay fisherman about the
buoyancy of the air-tanks and to prove his argument that they would float, he
dropped Jenny’s original tank into the sea. It slowly sank out of sight. No
efforts were made to recover it. Ang did not ask the divers to get it, and thus
this tank, worth $125, disappeared, like Jenny. Counsel pointed out that an
air-tank, when it becomes empty, becomes progressively buoyant, and will,
therefore float. If Jenny’s original tank had been empty it would have floated
and not sunk to the sea-bed. The fact that it did sink proved the tank still
contained a lot of air. Why, therefore, did Ang change Jenny’s original tank?
Why did he not use this tank, after finding that his own was leaking, to search
for Jenny when she failed to surface? What did he do to the second tank he
strapped on Jenny’s back?

In response to his telephone call from St
John’s Island for help, Marine Police launches arrived on the scene, but they
were unable to join in the search because of darkness. It gets dark in
Singapore about seven o’clock most evenings throughout the year.

Counsel stressed that from the time when
Jenny disappeared and throughout the Malay divers’ search, Sunny Ang remained
‘singularly calm and detached’. He was brought back to the Marine Police
Station in Singapore, where he made a report. Later the same evening, Jenny’s
clothes and personal effects, including a gold ring, were returned to her
relatives. “Within five hours after Ang had renewed Jenny’s American Insurance
policy, Jenny was dead. In Ang’s own words Jenny was ‘presumed to have either
drowned or been attacked by a shark’. The next day Ang sat down and typed three
letters to the insurance companies informing them of the tragedy and the
circumstances of Jenny’s death.”

Royal Navy and RAF divers were brought in by
the Marine police to search for Jenny’s body. They carried out several
searches, but without success. On 3 September 1963, however, a former RAF diver
recovered a green flipper. The heel-strap had been severed. He found it wedged
between the rocks off the Sisters Islands. This flipper was subsequently
identified by a schoolboy as the one he had lent his classmate, William Ang,
brother of Sunny Ang. Counsel suggested the jury would have little difficulty
in coming to the conclusion that it was one of the flippers worn by Jenny that
fateful afternoon.

Experts decided that the strap had been cut
by a sharp instrument, a razor or sharp pair of scissors, in two places to
weaken the strap. Because of these cuts the strap had burst. The experts held
that the cuts could not have been caused by corals: the strap had been
deliberately cut.

Counsel then went on to tell the jury that
after Ang had been arrested, the police seized four books on skin-diving. In
one of these books,
Skin Diving with Snorkel and Aqualung
, the author.
Jack Atkinson, describes by way of a cautionary tale, a hypothetical story of
the dangers a boy and a girl could meet while skin-diving. It ended with this
interesting passage: ‘A torn fin strap, a broken mask buckle, or a loose
mouth-piece … could have ended in tragedy ... a tiny nick in rubber will tear
wide open with little strain.” Two-thirds of the strap on Jenny’s flipper had
been cut. Why? If, as a result of the cuts, the strap burst and the diver got
into difficulties and was drowned, who would benefit from her death? Who, asked
Mr Seow, had the strongest motives to see Jenny dead? Mr Seow revealed that Ang
had actually tried to get a total insurance coverage of $900,000 on Jenny’s
life. In the end he got $450,000.

Once Jenny had disappeared, Sunny Ang and
his mother, Madam Yeo Bee Neo, made strenuous efforts through various
solicitors to prove Jenny’s death in order to collect this money. They insisted
that Jenny was dead, ‘and, members of the jury, who was in a better position
than Sunny Ang to assert with such finality that Jenny was, indeed, dead?’

The rest of the first day of the trial was
taken up by witnesses involved in the insurance policies. An official of the
Great Eastern Life Insurance Company Limited produced a letter from Jenny. It
read as follows:

Cheok Cheng Kid

33, Lim Liak St.,

Singapore, 3.

28 June 1963

Dear Sir,

Regard to your letter LKT/MT
your agent have ask me many times to buy insurance. I think good idea to save
money. So I buy policy for 20 year endowment for $10,000 (with, not without
profit) cost about $40 one month and I also very happy can buy $200,000
insurance for only $20 one month. I feel happy got insurance because I dream my
died father tell me if I buy insurance I cannot get accident or harm—like good
luck charm. Also I can afford it, all only $60 one month. I earn more $450 one
month. If amount too big, less it, I not mind.

Next month I want to buy 10
year endowment for $30,000 policy. I want to save money for open dressmaking
shop next time. Then I no need work in bar. But I get cold now, cannot go for
doctor exam. My cold OK then I go.

Madam Yeo Bee Neo is old lady
is my friend mother I like better than my own mother. My own mother married
another man already. My father is died. But name I anyhow put, I may change to
my sister I also like very much. But now name not important, I can always
change.

Yours faithfully

[sgd] Cheok Cheng Kid

Later, the witness received another letter.
He read it to the Court. It went as follows:

Cheok Cheng Kid

33, Lim Liak St.,

Singapore, 3.

2 July 1963

The Actuary

The Great Eastern Life
Assurance Co Ltd

16, Cecil Street,

Singapore, 1.

Dear Sir,

Further to my letter dated 28
June, 1963, I wish to add, in order to dispel any fears you may justifiably
have, that I am prepared to narrow down the scope of your double indemnity
cover to exclude liability from death through third party agency, whether
felonious or accidental.

Believe me I want accident
cover just for the sake of having it for the reason I disclosed in my last
letter, and because I may make occasional flights in commercial aircraft in the
near future to the Borneo territories.

I expect of course a proportionate
reduction of the premium charged, or since I’ve paid about $21 DI premiums, how
much more cover can I obtain for the same premium at the reduced rate? The
above reduced-liability clause, would, of course, not apply to the endowment
sum.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

[sgd] Cheok Cheng Kid

By the end of the second day 13 witnesses
had given evidence for the prosecution, including K. T. Ooi, a senior partner
of Braddell Brothers, the lawyer who drew up a will for Jenny. She left her
estate to Ang’s mother. Ang was present when the will was drawn up. At the end
of the third day, Justice Buttrose granted the defence a week’s postponement
after being told that the prosecution intended to call an additional expert
witness. He said it was ‘most disgraceful’ that the prosecution had not
completed its investigation when the case came up for hearing. Mr Seow
explained that it was only after the case had been fixed for trial that it
occurred to him to call in a scuba-diving expert.

The key prosecution witness, the boatman,
Yusuf bin Ahmad, gave evidence when the trial was resumed on Wednesday, 5 May
1965, the fourth day of the trial. It was during this day’s hearings that the
judge described as ‘scandalous’ the circumstances which led to the defence
counsel interviewing Yusuf while Ang was under arrest.

Yusuf bin Ahmad gave his evidence in Malay.

In the Lower Court, during the inquiry, Mr
Seow had created something in the nature of a sensation when he revealed that
attempts had been made to suborn his main witness, Yusuf. Mr Seow told the
magistrate that Yusuf had been given two sums of money and a gift. Yusuf
himself disclosed that he had received two sums totalling $40 and a tin of milk
powder. Mr Seow protested that Yusuf had been approached by the accused’s mother,
and by his brother Richard, on both occasions after Ang’s arrest. Mr Seow said,
“Money, in fact, had been given to the witness and a gift in kind, before this
witness was brought to counsel for the defence. Money also had in fact been
given to him after he had seen Mr Coomaraswamy.” Mr Seow argued that Mr
Coomaraswamy had no business whatsoever to interview or record a statement from
Yusuf. “What,” he asked, “was the object of giving this witness money?”

Mr Coomaraswamy agreed that he did see
Yusuf. “I did it knowing full well what I was doing and after obtaining
professional advice on the matter.” He claimed he acted with the utmost
propriety both as an officer of the Court and also as an honest man.

Yusuf told the Lower Court that after his
interview with Mr Coomaraswamy he was given $30 by Mr Coomaraswamy to
compensate for loss of earnings for that day and his fare. He said his minimum
earnings a day were $3–4, and the highest was $20. He said Mr Coomaraswamy had
told him not to receive any money from any other person in connection with the
case.

At the trial before Justice Buttrose, this
interview with Mr Coomaraswamy in his chambers was the subject of a brisk
exchange
between Mr Coomaraswamy and Justice
Buttrose. Mr Coomaraswamy
was cross-examining Yusuf.

Mr Coomaraswamy: Did the accused’s
mother ever at any time ask you to change your story?

Yusuf: No.

Mr Coomaraswamy: Did I ask you at any
time to change your story?

Yusuf: No.

His Lordship: I would be delighted to
hear that, Mr Coomaraswamy, because if you did, you would be off the Rolls, I
am afraid.

Mr Coomaraswamy: My Lord, I do not want
to force myself into the position where I have to defend myself and defend my
client at the same time. But perhaps, in view of your Lordship’s earlier
statement about something scandalous, I have to make a statement—

His Lordship: Well, speaking entirely
for myself, Mr Coomaraswamy, when a crime has been committed and persons were
being arrested in connection with it, and you know full well that the person
you seek to interview is a key witness to this incident, I am appalled at what
has taken place. I will say no more than that—I am appalled. Well, it has
nothing to do with this case, so let us forget it for the moment. Quite apart
from other considerations it is crass foolishness doing a thing like that.
Can’t you see it yourself?

Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, I must, I am
afraid, defend myself at this stage.

His Lordship: No, no. There is no
question of defence—there are certain views which I should like to express at a
proper stage, if necessary. You will be given every opportunity to do so. I am
not going to say anything, but solely on this question of whether the accused
committed this offence or not.

Mr Coomaraswamy: Precisely, my Lord. I
want to say why this evidence was admitted.

His Lordshjp: It is not objected to.
You may well want it in, for all I know. If you do object, I want to deal with
that one way or another. But you have not objected, so I am not going to cut it
out.