Cold Blooded Murders (16 page)

Coming back to the nipper, the judge said that
the chemist, Phang Sin Eng had found that two areas of the heel-strap had clean
cuts. Under microscopic examination, they were found to contain striations, or
fine-line markings. The presence of these fine-line markings, in the opinion of
the chemist, was consistent with the two cuts being caused by a sharp
instrument, such as a knife, a razor blade or a pair of scissors. He said that
the strength of the strap would obviously be weakened by these cuts and would
require little effort to tear. In his opinion it was most unlikely that the two
cuts were caused by coral, firstly because of the position of the two cuts, one
from the top down and the other from the bottom up, and the presence of these
striations, or fine-line markings: secondly the top cut had two directions, one
vertically downwards and a second continued on at a slight angle downwards
indicating two separate and independent actions in producing it. Finally, the
chemist had given evidence that under the microscope there was no trace
whatever of any particles of coral. There were no traces whatever of calcium
carbonate in either of these cuts.

As to the argument of the defence that if
the strap could easily be broken by stretching once it was cut—as the chemist
demonstrated in court—then it could just as easily be broken putting it on, the
judge demolished it by explaining that the chemist had performed his
experiments 21 months after the flipper had been found. “Rubber does perish and
if that flipper had been kept in a store in a police department for 21 months
what effect do you think it would have on the resiliency of the rubber itself?
Would it not have grown much more fragile, much more wasted and much easier to
snap than it would have on 27 August 1963?” Besides much depended upon the way
in which the heel-strap was put on. “If you use your right hand and use the
right side of the heel-strap to lever it over your heel, and the cut is on the
left side of the heel-strap, isn’t the tension likely to be far stronger on the
right side which you are pulling round to fit on your heel than on the left?”
The judge added. “These are matters for you to consider.”

Coming to the fateful day, the judge said
that the party pushed off from Jardine Steps at 2:30 pm that afternoon. Ang was
paying the boatman $12 for three hours hire on what was, ‘for all intents and
purposes, to be a pleasant afternoon’s outing and some scuba-diving’.

The judge paused. “I pause here,” he
explained, “to remind you that but some three hours earlier that very same
morning the accused called at the offices of the American International
Underwriters, taking with him Jenny’s application form already filled in,
renewing the $150,000 policy which had expired the day before. You may think it
odd why he did not himself renew his own policy with the same company which had
expired the previous day also, for the sum of $10,000, but he did not.” The
judge paused again. “And so,” he continued slowly, “at that precise moment
Jenny was insured to the tune of some $450,000.”

They dropped anchor in mid-channel at Ang’s
direction, and Jenny donned her scuba-diving equipment and went overboard.
Jenny was underwater for some eight to 10 minutes and, said the judge to the
jury, “you may agree with me that while some eight to 10 minutes had elapsed
the accused did not appear to be in any hurry to show any enthusiasm in getting
ready to go down and join Jenny. For the next half an hour, they were laughing
and chatting in the boat. “How comes it then, that during that half-hour the
accused was not able to be ready? What attempt, if any, did he make to get
himself ready during that half-hour? The boatman did not see him making any
preparations during that time, except that, at the expiry of the half-hour, he
helped to change Jenny’s tank because he said there was insufficient air in it.
After it was fitted on her back, Jenny went overboard for the second and last
time. She never surfaced again. You will ask yourselves, again, as to why it
was that the accused did not ask Jenny to wait so that they could go down together
this time, for, after all, this was a joint coral hunt, in which presumably,
they were going to enjoy themselves?”

Justice Buttrose said that he found Ang’s
‘ladies’ first’ excuse for not going down himself to investigate the perils of
the deep ahead of her a little thin, but that was a matter for jury to decide.
‘But,’ he added, ‘can that possibly apply the second time as well? Does it not,
gentlemen of the jury, force you to the conclusion that the accused had no
intention whatsoever of going down under the water that day at all? That is the
question you must ask yourselves.”

When Jenny went down the second time, the
accused, according to the boatman, had no equipment on at all. Why not? This
was important. Why not? Why didn’t he put it on while Jenny was in the boat
with him during the half-hour they were chatting together? It was only after
Jenny had gone down the second time that Sunny Ang asked the boatman to assist
him to fit on the big tank, and then it was found, so Ang said, to have a leak and
could not be used, the accused telling the boatman there was no washer in the
tank. “You will ask yourselves: why? What was it that Sunny Ang was doing to
the tank when the boatman saw him working on it? Was Ang deliberately removing
the washer?”

An improvised washer was made but there was
still a leak and Ang decided he could not use the tank. During the whole of
this operation Jenny had not surfaced. Then, apparently, and only then, did he
decide he might as well pull the guide line. Having done so three times he
returned to the tank and detached the assembly, the breathing apparatus. Then
he asked the boatman, ‘Where is the girl?’ Ang pulled the guide line again, and
yet again the girl failed to surface. Ang told the boatman to look for bubbles.
Then Ang said, ‘What do we do now?’ and the boatman replied, ‘Nothing’. But the
boatman suggested they had better go to St John’s Island to phone the Marine
Police. And this they did. They returned with some Malay pawangs. They searched
for half an hour for the girl, but no sign of her was found. On the evidence of
the 63-year-old pawang, a strong current was running.

“Now,” continued the judge, “while this
search was going on for the girl, whom Sunny Ang said he was in love with, and
intended to marry, he was apparently having a conversation with a man named
Jaffar, in the boat, as to whether the small tank the girl had first used,
would float. Ang said maybe it would.” To test his belief he placed it in the
sea and it promptly sank. It disappeared under the surface of the sea, “and has
never been seen from that day to this—like the girl. The accused does not know
what happened to the girl after she went down the second time, nor did he
appear to have made any real attempt to find out. That is the boatman’s evidence.”

Coming back to the green flipper, Inspector
Richard Lui was handed the flipper on 3 September 1963 by David Henderson, when
Inspector Yeo was also present. The strap had been severed. Justice Buttrose
said the defence had made some point because the inspector had said in the
Lower Court that he had been handed the flipper on the 4th and not the 3rd of
September. “Mr Coomaraswamy has told you that this is an unsatisfactory matter
and must influence your minds in considering the whole question of the flipper.
Is it unsatisfactory, members of the jury? A mistake in the date, by an
inspector starting an investigation into one of the most difficult cases it has
ever been my experience to try?” The judge indicated his own view by adding
that he would not waste any more time with that aspect of the case. Inspector
Lui handed the green nipper to the chemist on 25 September, though the chemist
did see it a week or two before, perhaps three weeks earlier; but it was only a
cursory glance because the inspector wanted to get his views on the flipper
before he took it back to continue with his investigation. There was,
therefore, no substance in the comment that the chemist only saw it really for
the first time on 25 September 1963. On 21 December 1964, the inspector
arrested the accused at Sennett Road. The judge reminded the jury that it was
Inspector Lui who found the improvised washer in Ang’s swimming bag which he
left at the police station on the night of the tragedy.

Justice Buttrose concluded his review of the
case for the prosecution bv summarizing briefly, “the links in this chain of
circumstantial evidence which the prosecution says binds the accused tight in
its coils.” He listed 16.

1.
     
The first was motive, which the judge described
as ‘powerful and compelling’. Ang was a bankrupt, in need of large sums of
money to carry out his ambitious plans for the future. ‘That is the motive for
this crime.’

2.
     
On the very day Jenny disappeared Ang had made
sure that a policy which had lapsed the day before was renewed ‘to the tune of
$150 000 by the girl but he did not renew his own’. That was the second link.

3.
     
The third link was the opportunity to commit the
crime. He picked a weekday. On Tuesday no other boats were likely to be in the
vicinity of the Sisters Islands.

4.
     
Fourth link was the dangerous, hazardous waters.
There could be no dispute about that, or that the accused knew they were
dangerous, hazardous waters. This was not the place to swim, let alone
scuba-dive.

5.
     
Fifth link: Jenny was a novice, barely able to
swim and Sunny Ang knew this.

6.
     
Sixth link: he sent Jenny down alone when he
knew scuba-diving should not be done alone ‘let alone when you are a novice and
in these dangerous waters’.

7.
     
Seventh link: Ang did not go down himself and
had no intention whatever of going down ‘or, as it was put to you, even wetting
his feet that day’.

8.
     
Eighth link: on Jenny surfacing he sent her down
again, because, he said, his equipment was not ready.

9.
     
The ninth link, the judge continued, was that
the prosecution said that the accused contrived to render the remaining two
tanks in the sampan useless so that they could not be used, or at least to the
eyes of the unsuspecting boatman, who knows nothing about scuba-diving or its
equipment.

10.
 
The 10th link was that Sunny Ang made no attempt
himself to use Jenny’s first tank, ‘which we know’ must have been more than a
quarter full of air. “He did not make any attempt to use the tank before he,
according to the prosecution, ruined the washer by prising and hacking it out
with a knife.”

11.
 
The vital green flipper was the 11th link in the
circumstantial chain. It was found within six days after ‘the accident, or the
tragedy’. The heel-strap had been severed, cut by a knife or other sharp
instrument—‘and I don’t see how you can escape this conclusion’—and it had been
identified conclusively as one of the flippers which Jenny was wearing that
day. But, once more, the judge reminded the jury that this was entirely a
matter for them to decide.

12.
 
Twelfth link was the attitude and demeanour of
Sunny Ang at, and after, the disappearance of the girl. Apparently utterly calm
and unmoved, ‘as he has been throughout this trial, not, as I suggest you might
expect, in a state of utter grief and despair at the loss of this girl whom he
loved and intended to marry’. The judge drew the jury’s attention to the fact
that while the pawangs were diving, looking for Jenny’s body, Ang was calmly
discussing with Jaffar and the boatman the sinkability or floatability of the
tank.

13.
 
Less than 24 hours after this tragedy, with what
has been described as somewhat ‘indecent haste’, he made formal claims on the
three insurance companies. “You may think these letters show a somewhat casual
and coldblooded approach to the matter.” That was the 13th link in the chain.

14.
 
The 14th was Ang’s ‘hot pursuit’ of the
insurance money. There was the compromise plan to stifle the probate
proceedings which the insurance companies were going to contest: this
compromise plan would have given him half the insured money for a quick
pay-off. There was the telephone call to one company about a mis-description of
Jenny in the policy. There were the series of letters to the coroner exhorting
him to hurry to complete his inquiry. There was the fact that Ang had been
round to a number of solicitors to enlist their aid.

15.
 
Fifteenth link was the prosecution’s statement
that the accused did not dive in at all because he wanted to remain in sight of
the boatman. The boatman was his alibi, ‘and so it could never be said,
gentlemen of the jury, that he went into the water himself after Jenny and
killed her under the water. By remaining on the sampan throughout the whole
incident, it was always open, he hoped, for him to say that it was an accident
in which he was in no way concerned’.

16.
 
Finally, the 16th link, the washer, one of the
washers improvised in the sampan by the boatman and Sunny Ang: “It was tested
here before our very eyes, gentlemen of the jury, both by David Henderson and
by the accused himself. The washer worked perfectly on this very tank and never
leaked at all.”