Blood Lust (29 page)

The DPP argued that Professor Devadass
should be allowed to give his findings and it would be up to the Court and jury
to accept his findings or otherwise.

Allowing the objections of the defence, the
Judge said if all findings of psychiatrists were allowed it would be a trial by
psychiatrist and not a trial by jury. The prosecution could bring up 10
psychiatrists to say why the story of an accused should not be believed, and
the defence could bring up another ten to say why it should be believed,

Asked what was the difference between a
psychologist and a psychiatrist, Professor Devadass said a psychiatrist has to
have a basic medical degree and be a qualified doctor before he specialises in
this branch of medicine which involves not only studying normal and abnormal
behaviour, but also the assessment and treatment of abnormal human behaviour.
Psychology had many different branches like clinical psychology and educational
psychology. Psychologists studied normal human behaviour and devised tests to
assess normal human behaviour. It was essential to have a knowledge of psychology
to be a psychiatrist.

Cross-examined by Mr Fernandez, Professor
Devadass said he had given evidence in Court before but this was the first time
he was giving evidence in a murder trial.

The professor said Karthigesu told him he
was helping the police in the investigation. Professor Devadass said the police
told him Karthigesu was brought in for the truth serum test. He was aware
Karthigesu was brought to him one month after the incident and that he
submitted voluntarily to the examination.

Mr Fernandez: Were you aware that
Karthigesu was brought to the hospital in manacles?

Professor Devadass: No.

Mr Fernandez: Do you know that when he
was brought in to you he had been in the Petaling Jaya lockup for nine days?

Professor Devadass: I knew he was in police
custody for several days.

Mr Fernandez: Did you know he was being
interrogated night and day?

Professor Devadass: That’s what he
said. If it was so I would have known and I would not have continued.

Karthigesu told him the police wanted him to
admit to the killing.

Asked if Karthigesu also said the police
confronted him with the torrid love letters written to Jean by her Sri Lankan
lover, Dr Narada Warnasurya, Professor Devadass said that was what he meant
when he said earlier that Karthigesu told him the police interrogation was
humiliating. Karthigesu also told him the police had shown him photos of Jean.

Asked if the photographs could have been
psychologically upsetting to Karthigesu, Professor Devadass said “I really
don’t know. On the average it could be upsetting, but specifically to the
accused I do not know.”

Professor Devadass said Karthigesu did not
seem to be very upset. He was angry.

He agreed it could have been upsetting for
Karthigesu if he was shown the love letters for the first time, letters written
to the woman he was going to marry.

When Mr Fernandez suggested that the letters
referring to sexual intercourse in all its lurid details were reason enough to
make Karthigesu change his attitude towards Jean from ‘my Jean’ to ‘this woman’
and ‘that woman’, Professor Devadass said that would have been a factor.

Answering another question, Professor
Devadass agreed that Karthigesu was taken to him because he had a mental block
regarding a name and the purpose of the interview was to see if he had a memory
impairment. The accused had not been taken to hospital for an interrogation.
Asked if he himself was involved in investigation for the police, Professor
Devadass said “No. Are you asking me if I was losing my objectivity?”

Mr Fernandez: Precisely.

Professor Devadass: I was not losing my
objectivity. I do this sort of thing all the time.

Replying to another question, the professor
said he had not been told that Karthigesu had been arrested for murder. DSP
Anthony told him Karthigesu had been arrested in connection with a murder since
he was found at the scene. DSP Anthony told him Karthigesu had some name at the
back of his mind which was important but which he could not recollect. The
professor said that was the reason why Karthigesu had agreed to see him, so
that he could help in the investigation. The professor added: “I don’t know if
the information was going to be used against him or someone else.”

Asked how many minutes Karthigesu was with
him, before he started talking, the professor said when Karthigesu sat face to
face with him he introduced the subject and Karthigesu began to talk.

The professor said that as a result of his
tests he came to the conclusion that Karthigesu was a man of average
intelligence—‘or even above average’— but more tests would have to be conducted
to determine further.

Professor Devadass: My assessment was
that basically there was no serious abnormality in his personality and he could
pass as a very normal person.

The professor said Karthigesu could feel
emotions, had sufficient control of them and was not garrulous. “I did not feel
he was obnoxious.” During his interview with Karthigesu (which lasted one hour
and 10 minutes), some aspects of Karthigesu emerged but there was no evidence
of sensory deprivation or any illness. Asked if Karthigesu’s original
personality would make any difference to his assessment, the professor said it
would. “I would take his general personality into consideration, if I was
taking him for treatment.” But it was not necessary in the case of Karthigesu
because he saw him on a single occassion and there was no follow-up treatment.

Professor Devadass agreed with Mr Fernandez
that emotional shock would change a person’s personality but it was temporary
and reversible in a single emotion. He added that in the case of Karthigesu, it
was not necessary for him to know his original personality.

Questioned about Karthigesu’s refusal to
undergo the narco-analysis (truth serum test), Professor Devadass said he did
not persuade him to undergo the test because Karthigesu had very mixed feelings
about it. Similarly if Karthigesu had mixed feelings about going to see the
professor the interview would not have taken place. “It is no use seeing a
person who does not want to see me.”

Professor Devadass said Karthigesu’s reason
for not undergoing the test was because he felt the police wanted him to admit
to the killing of Jean, “But I feel the police were not out to trick him.”
Professor Devadass said the main reason for suggesting the test was to get Karthigesu
to remember the name he had forgotten and some events related to the name.

There was a clash between Professor Devadass
and Mr Fernandez. The professor told the Judge, “My Lord, I don’t like this
kind of questioning.” (Mr Fernandez was asking questions about a form)

Judge: You will have to answer him.

Professor: Can I give my reason first?
Then I will answer him. He is trying to say since yesterday that I do not know
the laws about psychiatry. This I detest.

Professor Devadass then continued to explain
that Form A was used in cases of detention and observation for three days and
Form B was used if the detention was for four weeks. In the case of Karthigesu
neither form was used because University Hospital is an ungazetted mental
hospital. Karthigesu had come merely for an interview.

Answering a question, Professor Devadass
said he was aware that there were factors weighing heavily on Karthigesu’s
mind, but it did not matter because he was not taking Karthigesu for treatment.
He added: “I felt it was not necessary to probe any more into the matter.”

Professor Devadass agreed with Mr Fernandez
that Karthigesu had undergone police interrogation, and that he was worried
about his mother and Jean’s children.

Asked if these factors together with the
fact that he had been asked to undergo narco-analysis could have caused
considerable stress and anxiety, Professor Devadass replied: “I categorically
say no, and I have my reasons for this.” He said even before Karthigesu went to
see him he had spoken to some friends, one of whom was a pharmacologist, and he
had enough knowledge on narco-analysis and the chemicals used in the process.
“If this was going to cause him considerable anxiety and stress he could not
have come to see me at all.”

Secondly, Professor Devadass continued, if
right from the start this was the most pressing matter which was upsetting
Karthigesu, he would have started off with that at the interview. Karthigesu’s
opening remarks at the interview were that he was willing to help the police in
every way.

Thirdly, said Professor Devadass, when they
discussed narco-analysis Karthigesu did not show any tension or anxiety of a
man forced to undergo the test. “In the case of the accused there was no
evidence of disturbance of his thinking or his speech.”

Asked if he inquired into disturbance of
sleep or appetite, Professor Devadass said he went into those areas only if he
felt it was caused by mental illness or severe depression.

Asked whether it was not necessary for him
to find out if the accused had eaten well and slept well, Professor Devadass
said he had been in psychiatry since 1966 and he had sufficient experience to
decide when to pursue those questions and when not to. He said it was not
relevant in the case of the accused.

Answering another question, the professor
said whatever Karthigesu said about the unfaithfulness of Jean was his own
personal knowledge and observation. The feelings he experienced when he spoke
on the subject were very appropriate. When Karthigesu spoke about the incidents
prior to the murder the sequence was very clear.

About the incident itself Karthigesu had
said he could not remember and gave three reasons—that he was afraid to see
blood, he was knocked on the head and he became unconscious and although they,
the assailants, were forcing him to see the killing he tried to avoid doing so.

Professor Devadass said regarding incidents
prior to the knock on the head, Karthigesu said he recorded the registration
number of a car, and what was used to hit him on the head, the direction he was
placed face down, and how far the assailants had dragged him from the car.

Mr Fernandez asked the professor to explain
sensory deprivation. Professor Devadass said what kept us sane was the fact
that we were constantly having sensations from outside. If a person was kept in
a sound-proof room with the lights on for 48 hours he would be deprived of
outside sensations. He would then begin to see and hear things which were not
there and he would go crazy. This was a technique used in brainwashing when a
maximum deprivation was needed to break a person. Intense deprivation would
lead to catastrophic reactions where a person breaks down easily and shows
emotion.

The professor said during his interview,
Karthigesu was tearful once and angry on two occasions, but his feelings were
very appropriate, definitely not catastrophic reactions. Professor Devadass
said men would not generally cry. “I wish they would cry a bit more, it helps a
lot.” He agreed that the fact Karthigesu was in police custody made him sad
because that was what kept him away from his family.

Replying to Mr Fernandez the Professor said
his conclusion that Karthigesu did not suffer from concussion was based on
positive and negative findings. The positive finding was that Karthigesu could
remember the number of the assailants’ car, the object which was used to hit
him on the head and the approximate distance he was dragged. The negative
finding was a gap in his memory regarding the actual murder.

Later, when Mr Fernandez questioned
Professor Devadass on his observation that Karthigesu hardly showed any
emotional feeling when describing the incident, Professor Devadass said he had
expected Karthigesu to show, not his fear of looking at blood, but the horror
of the whole thing and the sadness of losing somebody.

Mr Fernandez: Here is a man in love
with a woman who was killed in terrifying circumstances. He discovers that she
had deceived him by reading love letters. He is arrested on suspicion of
murder. He is exposed to interrogation. Isn’t this likely to cause him
disorientation?

Professor Devadass: It need not.

Mr Fernandez asked what sort of severe
stresses would cause disorientation. The doctor replied that a person would be
disorientated if he was deprived of factors such as sleep, proper food and
sewage.

Judge: Third degree torture?

Professor: Yes, my Lord.

When Mr Fernandez asked the professor
whether it was normal for a person to say ‘To hell with it’ after experiencing
horror, the professor replied: “A person does not experience murder every day
to the extent of making him uncaring, unless he is a professional psychopathic
killer.”

Professor Devadass said there was bound to
be emotional reaction even after the lapse of time, and it would take six
months to a year for a painful memory to be slowly erased.