Cold Blooded Murders (7 page)

Mr Coomaraswamy : I certainly want it
in.

His Lordship: But let us say no more at
this juncture. What I am concerned about is that he said that he had never been
asked to change the story, and the jury has heard it.

Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, my Lord, in view
of your Lordship’s observations, I still feel that I should explain myself and
my conduct at this stage. The reason is that your Lordship has used words like
‘scandalous’ and ‘appalling’.

His Lordship: Yes, Mr Coomaraswamy, and
I repeat them.

Mr Coomaraswamy: These words will
create a certain impression, and I feel, my Lord, not only for my personal
sake, but for the sake of my client, I should attempt to remove any impression
created by these words.

His Lordship: I shall myself tell the
jury when I come to sum up, when I reach that stage, that the issues they are
concerned with are clear and simple and nothing else. But I certainly, if you
feel that you are labouring under any sense of injustice, Mr Coomaraswamy, I
shall certainly allow you to continue your cross-examination if you like. If
you wish to add anything at the end of it you may certainly so do.

Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, in view of the
words used by your Lordship just now, I don’t think I need pursue the matter
any more.

His
Lordship: It is entirely your responsibility, Mr Coomaraswamy.
I shall tell the jury what they have to consider and nothing else.

Mr Coomaraswamy: As your Lordship
pleases.

His Lordship: But don’t let that debar
you from saying anything at this juncture that you think you should be allowed
to say, provided it is relevant and admissible, and has a bearing on the case.
I will give you every attention.

Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, in that event,
my Lord, I should like a few minutes to consider the position.

His Lordship: You needn’t make the
decision at the moment, but I will leave the matter before you at any time
during the continuance of this hearing.

Mr Coomaraswamy: As your Lordship
pleases.

Mr Coomaraswamy continued with his
cross-examination of the boatman, Yusuf, until the end of the day’s proceedings
when he asked the judge’s permission to make a personal statement. “My Lord,”
he began, “I must with the greatest respect differ from your Lordship as to
what is the proper conduct of an advocate and solicitor in the circumstances I
was placed— ”

His Lordship: What were the circumstances?

Mr Coomaraswamy : As to the taking of
the statement from this witness.

His Lordship: I am told he was given
some milk by somebody and he got $10, and he got another $30. This is
impropriety on the part of a solicitor. What were the circumstances? Why did
you do it?

Mr Coomaraswamy: That is what I am
about to explain.

His Lordship: I am sure you did it with
the best of intentions.

Mr Coomaraswamy: The position was that
I was informed of an attempt being made to interfere with this witness, and I
thought one way to ensure things would be to have a statement recorded from
him.

His Lordship: Surely the right thing to
do was to lodge a complaint forthwith with the State Advocate-General to the
effect that information has come to your ears that this key witness has been
interfered with? Surely this was the proper thing to have done?

Mr Coomaraswamy: Unfortunately, in this
particular case there were circumstances which made it impossible for me to
communicate with the State Advocate-General. I don’t want to disclose these
reasons now. In any case, my Lord, I think I am straying from the point, but I
have always known it to be the position, and this is the attitude taken by the
Law Society in England with the full approval of Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief
Justice, that there is no property in a witness whether it is a witness for the
defence or a witness for the prosecution. The defence can, as soon as a man is
arrested for an offence, serve subpoenas on everybody and thereby deprive the
prosecution of witnesses. Now, there are some persons who hold the view that
the position in Malaya is different because of certain provisions, but I see no
reason to make that distinction, and, in fact, before interviewing the witness,
I did consult a very senior criminal lawyer with a considerable criminal
practice.

His Lordship: Even the greatest of
criminal lawyers are known to make mistakes. Some of them have been warned by
the Law Society. But I accept your point. In the whole of my extensive career
both at the Bar and on the Bench, I have never heard of this being done before.

Mr Coomaraswamy: May I continue?

His Lordship: If you were informed of
an attempt to do so, surely you should have communicated with the Public
Prosecutor’s Department? Why didn’t you do it?

Mr Coomaraswamy: There were very good
reasons why I shouldn’t.

His Lordship: We are talking in
riddles. I accept that what you did you did with the best of intentions, and
that so far as you are personally concerned you feel that you did what was
right.

Mr Coomaraswamy went on to tell the judge
that he took the precaution of having another lawyer at his office, somebody
from an entirely different office and totally unconnected with the case, who
was there throughout the interview, and the purpose for which he was there was
also known to the witness, and there was absolutely no question of tampering
with the witness in any way.

His Lordship: It is not suggested in
your case. You say it was done under circumstances over which you had no
control. I accept your explanation.

Mr Coomaraswamy: In that case I
wouldn’t pursue this point.

His Lordship: And I shall tell the jury
in the clearest terms what their duties are in this case. If there is anything
you would like me to add to what I am going to say on this please let me know.
I will do it.

When, days later, Justice Buttrose began his
summing up he did in fact refer to this matter. He recalled that he had queried
the propriety and the wisdom of Mr Coomaraswamy interviewing the key witness
for the prosecution after Sunny Ang has been charged with murder. The judge
said that he had accepted Mr Coomaraswamy’s explanation, in that, according to
his lights at any rate, he did what he thought was proper in the interests of
his client. “You will,” said the judge, “remember that the boatman, in his
evidence, said that he never changed his story, nor did anyone ever ask him to
do so ... you will dismiss that incident from your mind entirely.”

Before the fifth day of the trial was over
the judge had been told to his astonishment that Yusuf had been brought to the
Supreme Court by Sunny Ang and a lawyer on 29 October 1964 (14 months after
Jenny had disappeared), to swear an affidavit.

His Lordship: The accused himself came
to Pulau Brani to see you?

Yusuf: Yes.

His Lordship: Who was the lawyer he
took you to?

Yusuf: I do not know the name of the
lawyer, my Lord. He is hunch-backed and bald-headed.

His Lordship: Let me look at those
affidavits. (He examines them.) Presumably somebody from Lim and Lee. Who is
this hunch-backed lawyer?

Mr Coomaraswamy: Mr Lim Tiong Quee, my
Lord.

His Lordship: More remarkable evidence,
Mr Coomaraswamy.

Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, this was long
before the accused was arrested.

His Lordship: I am once again
startled—not by you, but by what has been going on in this case. Very well, the
jury will no doubt form their own conclusion. Anyhow, the accused approached
you personally at Pulau Brani, brought you back and you saw somebody from Lim
and Lee. And you were then, presumably, asked to swear an affidavit. Right?

Yusuf: Yes.

Evidence was also given that Sunny Ang made
an affidavit (which was not read out in Court) and that Yusuf in his affidavit
said he agreed with it when it was read over to him.

Crown Counsel: Did the girl speak to
the accused in any language other than English?

Yusuf: The girl spoke one or two words
in Malay.

Crown Counsel: Can you remember what
they were?

Yusuf: ‘
Banyak chantek pandang dalam
ayer.
’ (Very beautiful under water.)

Crown counsel: The rest was in English
which you do not understand?

Yusuf: That is so.

Crown Counsel: Your affidavit confirms
that what Jenny said to the accused was true: how do you explain that, if you
don’t know what she said?

Yusuf: Well, I believed the accused
when he told me so.

Later, Yusuf was questioned about Sunny
Ang’s conduct. Crown counsel reminded him he had made a statement to Malaysian
Adjustment (an insurance investigation agency) that Ang was actually weeping.
In another statement he said he did not know whether the moisture on Ang’s face
was tears or sea water.

Yusuf: I remember that he was weeping
because the tears came out.

Crown Counsel: Now you say he was in
tears?

Yusuf: Yes.

Crown Counsel: You saw tears: did you
hear him crying?

Yusuf: No, I did not hear him.

Crown Counsel: Those tears or water you
saw. What was the volume? How many drops? Did they flow fast and furious?

Yusuf: I merely saw tears over this
part of the face below the eyes.

His Lordship: Just a little moisture
that you saw?

Yusuf: Yes.

His Lordship: Which appeared to you to
be tears having come from the eyes?

Yusuf: Yes.

Vernon Bailey, a marine officer attached to
the Singapore Marine Department, gave evidence that the channel between the two
Sisters Islands is not very wide. The narrow channel he described as ‘something
in the nature of a funnel’.

His Lordship: A funnel between the two
reefs, is that it?

Bailey: Funnel between the two islands
and between the two reefs.

His Lordship. Which makes it a more
constricted funnel?

Bailey: It makes it a more constricted
area, the funnel. By nature of the channel between the islands the water is
almost pushed in.

His lordship: Sucked in?

Bailey: Sucked in and blown out the
other end.

His Lordship: It blows out?

Bailey: Yes, accelerates and blows out
and you get whirls and eddies which are sort of circular motions of the water,
not to be confused with a whirl, a circular motion of water.

His Lordship: Of some force, of some
severity?

Bailey: Of some considerable force.

On Friday, 7 May, the sixth day of the
trial, Sunny Ang’s 15-year-old brother, William, was called by the prosecution
to give evidence that Sunny had taught him to scuba-dive. He had been
scuba-diving for six months and had read Sunny’s books on the subject. He said
that Sunny had warned him about the hazards.

Crown Counsel: What were the hazards
against which he warned you?

William Ang: The hazards were mainly
caused by pressure. Well, when you are diving and you are about to go up at say
from 50 feet, the pressure below is always greater than the pressure above, so
that as you go higher the air in your lungs will expand. So you must release
some of the air when you go up, or else your lungs will, with the air inside,
expand and burst your lungs. Therefore, it is very important to go up very
slowly.

The green flipper was produced and crown
counsel asked the witness if he recognized it.

William Ang: I think I do.

Crown Counsel: That was one of the two,
which you borrowed from David Benjamin Woodworth?

William Ang: I think so.

David Benjamin Woodworth, a student, was a
classmate of William Ang in 1963, and he gave evidence that he lent William two
pairs of flippers.

Crown counsel: Is that one of the green
pair you lent him?

Woodworth: Yes.

Crown Counsel: And when you lent it to
him in what condition was it?

Woodworth: I think it was in good
condition.

Crown Counsel: Was the strap burst?

Woodworth: No.

Crown Counsel: Or cut in any way?

Woodworth: No.

David Henderson, specially flown out from
England for the trial, said he was a senior aircraftsman at RAF Changi and a
member of the RAF Changi Sub-aqua Club when he dived down and found the green
flipper in the straits of Pulau Dua on 3 September 1963, a week after Jenny’s
disappearance. The boatman Yusuf and a police party were present. He went down
twice the day before.

Mr Coomaraswamy: My Lord—

His
Lordship: Just a moment, Mr Seow. Yes, Mr Coomaraswamy?