Alex Josey - Cold blooded murders

Crown Counsel: Did he tell you the reason why his mother should be the beneficiary? Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, because he was bankrupt. He therefore suggested his mother instead. Crown Counsel: Did Ang tell you whether his mother knew that she had been named in the Great Eastern Life Assurance policies as Jenny’s beneficiary? Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, he told me that the mother was aware of it only after Jenny’s disappearance, after the 27 August. Crown Counsel: Did he tell you why Jenny should make a will leaving everything to Madam Yeo Bee Neo, Sunny Ang’s mother? Deputy-Supt Ong: Because, he said, Jenny disliked every member of her own family. The mother was the beneficiary in name only. His Lordship: The real beneficiary-did he tell you who the real beneficiary was? Deputy-Supt Ong: I remember the accused said that everything eventually would go to him. Crown Counsel: To him? Deputy-Supt Ong: Yes, because without him, the mother would never have been named the beneficiary. 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.