Cold Blooded Murders (9 page)

Crown Counsel: Did Ang tell you whether
or not Jenny had ever been to 8 Karikal Lane?

Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, my Lord, he did.
He told me that Jenny went on a few occasions. And that she met his mother only
once. Except for that one occasion she waited outside the house.

Crown Counsel: Do you know who lives at
8 Karikal Lane?

Deputy-Supt Ong: Sunny Ang and his
family.

Crown Counsel: What did Ang tell you
about the conversation with his mother?

Deputy-Supt Ong: Her reaction was more
to his concern than to the actual benefits.

His Lordship: She was more interested
in the accused than she was with the benefit she was getting under the will?

Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes.

His Lordship: Anything else? What did
she say if she got the money?

Deputy-Supt Ong: Everything will be
given to him.

His Lordship: The mother would give
everything to Sunny Ang?

Deputy-Supt Ong: Because without him
she would not have been made the beneficiary.

The witness was questioned about what Sunny
Ang told him, during interrogation, about the letters he wrote to the insurance
companies. He asked Ang why he wrote so early and Ang replied that there was a
condition in the policies that the company should be informed as soon as the
insured died, and in this case there was no point in delaying, for in his mind
he was satisfied that Jenny had died.

Under cross-examination by defence counsel,
Deputy-Superintendent Ong was asked if Ang had told him how it came about that
Jenny wanted accident cover.

Deputy-Supt Ong: Ang explained that
Jenny was working in a bar, and there were some hazards as a bar waitress. A
month before she was assaulted by customers when they got drunk. Under ordinary
insurance policies if you were injured or maimed by assault you would not be
compensated. Therefore, she thought of having personal coverage, personal
accident coverage. According to Ang the initiative came from Jenny.

Defence Counsel: Did he tell you on
whose initiative it was that Jenny made the will?

Deputy-Supt Ong: On the advice of
Sidney Kong.

Defence Counsel: Did he tell you that
since Jenny got separated she had not seen her husband and children?

Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, he did.

***

Mr Francis Seow concluded the case for the
prosecution at 3:00
pm
on the
afternoon of Tuesday, 11 May 1965, after calling 47 witnesses. Mr Coomaraswamy
at once submitted, in an argument lasting half an hour, that the prosecution
had failed to make out a prima facie case. There was no evidence that the
accused had committed the offence. The bulk of the evidence was evidence that
Ang had a hand in taking out various insurance policies on the life of Jenny.
He argued that looking at that evidence from the worst possible point of view,
no one for a moment suggested that the motive was to kill. He pointed out that
the prosecution had relied upon circumstantial evidence to prove every single
ingredient of the offence. There was no proof of death. All the evidence showed
was that Jenny went diving and had not been heard of since. “It cannot, by any stretch
of imagination, be said that Jenny is dead. One question that the jury will
have to ask themselves over and over again, as indeed your Lordship must do
yourself at this stage, is whether one can convict for murder in the absence of
a body.”

His Lordship: Are you suggesting that
can’t be done, because there is a wealth of authority against you—and when I
say wealth, I mean copious authority both in England, Australia, New Zealand,
and France, I think.

Mr Coomaraswamy: I do not know about
France, my Lord, but I do know of the existence of the other authorities.

His Lordship: But are you suggesting
that you cannot convict for murder in the absence of a body? Because if so I
shall rule against you. Don’t waste time.

Mr Coomaraswamy: No, what I am saying is
that it is so unsafe to convict in the absence of a body, or even to call upon
the defence in the absence of a body. And this particular case is one of those
very unsafe ones.

Mr Coomaraswamy spoke about the flipper. If,
he submitted, that flipper was in fact the flipper that Jenny was using that
day, “it is strange that it should be there in spite of these fierce currents
that the prosecution speak about.”

His Lordship: I hate to interrupt you,
but Mr Henderson, if the jury believe him, and I do not suggest any reason why
they shouldn’t, said it is because this was found hemmed in by rocks in a
little cove. Because it was surrounded by rocks, that is the only reason why.
He may be lying, but when we arrive at the summing-up stage, I shall address
the jury that I can suggest no reason why they shouldn’t believe him. But it is
entirely a matter for them.

Mr Coomaraswamy: But, with respect,
Henderson’s evidence, my Lord—I do not think there is any question of his
stating that the flipper was hemmed in by rocks.

His Lordship: It was found in a place
that was surrounded by rocks. I can find it if you like, because I was reading
it over myself yesterday.

Mr Coomaraswamy: But I do not think he
used the words ‘hemmed in’.

His Lordship: No, ‘hemmed in’ is my own
interpretation of his evidence—my gloss on his evidence.

Mr Coomaraswamy continued that his other
point was that if the flipper was, in fact, Jenny’s flipper, the presence of
the rocks could well account for the flipper having come off. He described the
evidence of the discovery and subsequent location of the flipper as ‘totally
unsatisfactory’.

Counsel dealt with the assumptions he had
made. First, no proof of Jenny’s death. Second, no evidence that she died from
drowning. What was the act? “I have yet to hear what the prosecution say was
the act done by the accused and upon which they rely on this charge of murder.”
Counsel said it was his submission that if that heel-strap was cut in any way
it would not have survived the tension that would be applied to it in the
process of putting it on. It would be a matter of law for the judge to indicate
whether one can ‘in the state of our Penal Code’, commit a murder by
inducement. “In any event, my Lord, it is my submission that there is
absolutely no evidence of the accused having induced Jenny to do anything at
all.” Defence counsel submitted, “most respectfully, my Lord, that one must not
decide to call upon the defence purely out of curiosity as to what the accused
would say.”

His Lordship: I shan’t do that, Mr
Coomaraswamy.

Mr Coomaraswamy: No, I have no doubt
that your Lordship would not do that. But, nevertheless, I feel it necessary to
state, if not for present purposes, at least for subsequent purposes, my Lord,
that one does not call upon the accused to make his defence purely out of
curiosity, or to know what it is he would say.

His Lordship: Come, come! You are
wasting time, Mr Coomaraswamy, please. We are not here out of curiosity. We are
here to try and do justice in a case where a man is on trial for his life. No
one is curious. We are trying to perform a very onerous and responsible duty to
the best of our ability.

Mr Coomaraswamy: The point I was making
was this, my Lord: that the sense of ‘Let us find out what he has to say’
should not be a consideration in deciding whether or not to call upon the
defence.

His Lordship: It does not enter my
mind, Mr Coomaraswamy.

Mr Coomaraswamy: Now, as I said
earlier, my Lord, we are going purely on assumptions, and I submit to your
Lordship that there is no evidence that the accused committed this offence as
to make it necessary for his defence to be called.

The judge did not trouble Mr Seow to rebut
defence counsel’s submission. He said, “In my judgment there is evidence that
the accused committed this offence. Whether the evidence in the eyes of the
jury is acceptable or satisfactory and sufficient is entirely a matter for
them, and I shall therefore call upon the accused to enter upon his defence.”

The judge addressed the accused, “Ang, now
is the time for you to make your defence to this charge of murder. You can do
it in any one of three ways. You can go into the witness-box and make it on
oath, in which event you are liable to be cross-examined by the prosecution,
asked questions by myself and members of the jury. You can remain in the dock
and make an unsworn statement, in which event you are not liable and cannot be
asked any questions at all. You can remain silent. Which of these three courses
do you wish to adopt?”

“I elect to give my evidence on oath,” said
the accused.

“Let him be sworn.”

Calm and confident, aware that all eyes in
the court were upon him, knowing that he was making headlines in all the
newspapers, Sunny Ang, who the prosecution said murdered a bar girl for the
money to go to England to become a barrister, stepped into the witness-box to
defend himself. He was asked by crown counsel to speak louder.

“Ang, try to keep your voice up,” said his
Lordship. “It must carry right across to the jury. They are very interested to
hear what you have to say.”

Ang said he could not remember exactly when
he first met Jenny, but it was at the beginning of 1963. “We were on very
friendly terms. I took her home frequently from her bar.”

To questions by his counsel on how the
question of insurance cropped up, Ang said that Jenny had of her own accord
asked him to describe the various types of policies available from the Great
Eastern Life Assurance Company Limited. This led to her submitting a proposal
form.

Ang said he first went out skin-diving with
her a few days after meeting her early in 1963. “She could float around and
that was about all. Subsequently she learnt to swim. She became a reasonably
good swimmer,” he said, before they went scuba-diving. “She made amazing
progress.”

On the second day of the defence (the ninth
day of the trial), Mr Coomaraswamy asked Ang how his mother, Madam Yeo Bee Neo,
came to be named beneficiary in the policies.

Sunny Ang: Jenny had wanted to make me
the beneficiary, but I suggested my mother instead.

His Lordship: Why?

Sunny Ang: For a few reasons.

His Lordship: Let’s have them.

Sunny Ang: One of them is that this
form would have to pass through Mr Sidney Kong (divisional manager of the Great
Eastern and a friend of Ang), and I was afraid he would tease me about it if my
name were on the form as a beneficiary. I was in the habit of having my other
properties in my mother’s name.

His Lordship: What do your other
properties consist of?

Sunny Ang: I have a car.

His Lordship: In your mother’s name?

Sunny Ang: Yes, and the financial
aspect of the poultry farm is also in my mother’s name. Also a few shares.

His Lordship: Also shares?

Sunny Ang: Yes.

His Lordship: Is that because you are a
bankrupt?

Sunny Ang: Yes, my Lord.

After giving his version of how Jenny came
to take out the insurance policies, Sunny Ang told defence counsel about the
car accident. He then went on to give evidence about scuba-diving with Jenny.
He said that before 27 August 1963, he had definitely been out ‘at least’ once
with her on a scuba-diving expedition in the Pulau Dua Straits. This was on a
Sunday—two days before her disappearance. He said the boatman was Yusuf. (Yusuf
on oath denied this.)

Sunny Ang: Both Jenny and I dived. We
saw some good coral specimens. We went down two or three times, a total of an hour.
I took the trouble of roughly marking up that spot with the aid of the visual
eye in relation to trees and other points of the two islands.

He said that on the morning of 27 August, he
went to the offices of the American International Underwriters to extend a
policy, a personal accident policy on Jenny.

Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did you extend
Jenny’s policy?

Sunny Ang: Because we might have to
drive back the car from Seremban, if it was ready, and the prospect of having
to do that made her insist upon extending the policy.

His Lordship: Why not leave her behind?

Sunny Ang: Well, if the car was ready,
we would look around. We would go to Malacca and then back to Singapore. I just
wanted to take her along with me—that’s all.

His Lordship: I want to be fair: I
thought you told us she disliked to be driven at all after the accident at
Seremban?

Sunny Ang: I insisted on taking her
along.

He told Mr Coomaraswamy that “we intended
that afternoon to collect the coral we had seen the previous Sunday at Pulau
Dua. We intended to go diving at high tide.”

Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did you fix high
tide?