Authors: Alex Josey
Jayatilake was charged in the Sessions Court
on 29 June 1981 with giving false evidence. He pleaded not guilty, but DPP
Sheik Daud Ismail successfully applied for the case to be heard in the High
Court. Jayatilake was allowed bail of $5,000 with two sureties. He appeared in
the High Court on 16 July 1981 and pleaded guilty. From the witness box he
testified that he lied during Karthigesu’s trial, and had been asked to do so
by a senior police officer, Jean’s mother and Jean’s brother. He later
approached Karthigesu’s lawyers to get the matter ‘off his chest’. He had also
been harassed by the police.
Jayatilake’s lawyer, Mr Y. Sivaloganathan,
told the Court he had received a letter from Karthigesu in which Karthigesu
said he bore no grudge against Jayatilake nor entertained any ill-will towards
him. Karthigesu said he had been praying for Jayatilake ‘in the expectation
that the Good Lord will grant him peace of mind’. Karthigesu said he would be
ready to come to Court to plead for mercy if this would help.
In mitigation, Mr Y. Sivaloganathan said in
February Jayatilake lost his son, aged four, and Jayatilake took to drinking.
He also had the added misery of being in financial shambles and he had
approached Karthigesu at the time of Jean’s death to sign as guarantor for a
personal loan of $3,000. Mr Y. Sivaloganathan said Jayatilake’s financial
difficulties and drinking habits were well known among his circle of friends
and he was aware that they might refuse to sign as guarantors. Counsel said it
was Jean’s mother, Mrs Mabel Perera, who broached the subject of wanting
Jayatilake to concoct a story about what happened when he was in Karthigesu’s
house. He was subsequently coached by DSP Shingara Singh and Jean’s brother
Brian. Jayatilake had a lot of useful years ahead of him. He was no longer the
drunken, irresponsible man he once was. Mr Sivalo-ganathan urged the Court to
give him a chance to return to society
to lead a useful and meaningful life.
The DPP said the allegations made against
Mabel Perera, DSP Shingara Singh and Brian were not substantiated and the three
persons named were not given an opportunity to defend themselves. The DPP
submitted that in the context of the judicial system there was nothing more
despicable than the offence of perjury. He submitted that anyone committing
perjury should not be shown any mercy. He asked for a deterrant sentence to be
imposed. He agreed with the defence counsel that this was the first case of its
kind in Malaysia and he urged the Court to impose a sentence which would ensure
that this case would be the one and only case in existence.
Judge Ajaib Singh sentenced Jayatilake to 10
years. The Judge said that the offence of judicial perjury which Jayatilake had
committed was of such a grave nature, involving the risk of human life, that
public interest and justice must outweigh the mitigation plea which had been
advanced on his behalf. “The evidence of the accused in the High Court was very
material because it provided the main link in the largely circumstantial
evidence which was adduced by the prosecution in the murder trial of
Karthigesu.”
“The accused was bound under oath to speak
the truth. But he obviously had no intention whatsoever of respecting the
sanctity of oath. Instead he deliberately perverted the cause of justice by
deceiving and misleading the Judge and jury with his false evidence. His
excuse, that he was under emotional strain when, he made the false statements,
cannot be accepted. He is no ignoramus. He was well-educated and must be taken
to be a man of responsibility, having a wife and three children and a
comfortable job. He must have known the damage which his false evidence was
going to cause in the murder trial.”
Saying that Jayatilake now says he ‘has
found the courage to come forward and tell the truth’, the Judge added: “He
should remain brave and take the consequences in his stride. By receiving
punish-ment he will atone for his crime and find peace with himself, with his
soul and with God.”
On behalf of Jayatilake, Mr Sivaloganathan
submitted that public interest and justice would be served if Jayatilake was
not sent to prison, but released on a bond to be of good behaviour. The Judge
thought otherwise. Jayatilake filed a notice of appeal. It was heard by the
Federal Court two months later and dismissed.
The punished perjurer had 10 long and lonely
years to reflect upon the strange workings of Fate. He had unburdened his
conscience. Karthigesu would not hang. The ironic truth was that Karthigesu
might have been set free even had the perjurer kept silent and not confessed
his crime. The Judges of Appeal had considered several other factors as well.
Inadmissible evidence had been set before the jury. The words of the presiding
Appeal Judge must have sounded hollow in Karthigesu’s ears. “No jury properly
directed,” said the Judge, “would have found Karthigesu guilty.” The perjurer
had 10 years to think about that.
What Dr Devadass Thought about
Karthigesu’s Story of Four Assailants.
What Jean Revealed in her
Passionate Love Letter To Her Brother-in-Law.
In Malaysia in a murder case
Preliminary Inquiry is held in a Magistrate’s Court to determine whether the
evidence justifies sending the accused for trial.
Normally, the evidence produced under oath
is repeated at the trial. Sometimes it is not.
At the trial of Karthigesu, the judge
ordered some of the conclusions reached by Dr Devadass, the consultant
psychiatrist, after his interview with Karthigesu, to be expunged.
The preliminary inquiry began on 30 July
1979 before Magistrate Wan Adnan. Some of the 19 ‘torrid’ love letters Dr
Narada Warnasurya wrote to Jean were read out in Court by the DPP, but some he
declared were too vulgar. The DPP said one of the vulgar letters “beats D.H.
Lawrence, author of
Lady
Chatterley’s Lover
.” The letters revealed that the
Sri Lankan doctor came to Kuala Lumpur in October 1978 and Jean spent some time
with him. The doctor wrote to her after the visit:
My darling Jeanie. I can think of every
little detail of your body, darling. I caressed it, kissed it, smelt it and I
can remember every little gesture ... act of love on your part. When I think of
them, my pet, my hunger grows.
Another letter gave details of how he would
make love to her when they met again. The DPP said this letter could not be
read out in Court.
Altogether, 23 love letters were produced in
Court. Four of them were written by Jean to Karthigesu.
The DPP read from a letter from the doctor
to Jean dated 26 September 1978:
My dearest darling Jeanie. Distance is to
love as wind is to fire. It blows out the small and rekindles the great. I am
just burning up like a great big bonfire. I just cannot get you off my chest,
Jeanie.
Another letter read:
We will try to book into Wisma Belia as the
Apollo is too expensive, darling, and you are paying the bill. I feel like a
heel but I think I will sacrifice my pride as I want to see you so badly. I
don’t want to reduce on the presents for my wife and family as I feel bad to do
so. But as for myself, darling, I would deprive myself of anything.
“Another letter dealt with what he would do
to Jean, but it could not be read out,” said the DPP. In another love letter he
said of a letter Jean wrote to him:
I could see your love in every word. I could
feel it vibrant and passionate in every syllable of your letters ... I would
like to offer you a lifelong partnership because I would love to have you by me
every night, soft, warm and lively.
In another letter dated 7 October, Dr
Warnasurya referred to a telephone call he had made.
Forgive me, darling, but I feel so much like
your husband that I thought for this letter I could call you that. I am sorry
darling about something. So cold and polite when I spoke to you tonight but I
was feeling a bit rattled after talking to your brother-in-law and I thought he
was listening in. You must be sure that you want him and he wants you.
Another letter was dated 10 October.
The phone rang and they read out your cable
to me. Darling I could have cried with relief and happiness, relieved to hear
that everything is normal and that I have not disrupted the steady flow of your
family life. I think we should plan to meet again in April in Sri Lanka or
Malaysia. It would be worthwhile for two weeks if we do not rush it. The whole
of last night I relived the details of our lively honeymoon. About your
brother-in-law, how are things? I feel the green-eyed monster raising its tiny
head though he has no right to in my case. Just ignore it.
The DPP read out extracts from another letter dated 11
October
:
I will have you in my heart for the rest of
my life. If ever circumstances prevent us from getting together, even in 15
years I will want to do so. You might not be keen on an old man of 49, but then
you at 45 would still be a darling bride to me ... My darling Jeanie, I can
think of every little detail of your body ... when I think of them, my pet, my
hunger grows. Your visit to Sri Lanka in December 1978/April 79 is more
realistic, but if both of us feel the hunger to be unbearable let us risk it in
December.
During the preliminary inquiry the Court was
told that the Malaysian police, acting through Interpol, made attempts to get
Dr Narada Warnasurya to come to Kuala Lumpur at the expense of the Malaysian
Government to give evidence. The doctor refused to make any statement or answer
any questionnaire, or to come to Kuala Lumpur to give evidence for the
prosecution.
Defence counsel Mr Ponnudurai, asked Jean’s
brother, Brian Perera to read out a letter dated 18 June 1978 from Jean to Karthigesu.
It said:
My darling Athan (a Tamil endearment),
I refer to you in this manner because that
is what you are to me. I am convinced that you are nothing else but my husband
after our trip to see the house in Damansara. When I went into the bedroom
downstairs to find you and Achee there, this is what Achee told me: ‘This is my
room.’ Darling, it shall be our room when we all move in there.
Though I felt alone and lost and
unmotivated for a future life during our first visit there, this year, I felt
quite different somehow. I felt your brother has somehow come back in you to
live there like he so dearly craved. My dearest, I want so much for him to come
back to us and deep within me I know he will come soon to us in that house in
Damansara. As you talked to your brother-in-law about things concerning the
house I did feel my husband talking, and I felt the children had a father.
Imagine living in the same house, breathing the same air and eating the same
food, yet the distance between you and me is so great. Oh how I envy every
object, be it solid or gas that is able to grace your body and caress your lips
without having to care for anything at all. I can only draw comfort for the
ever-so-moments you afford me, like last Saturday for instance—the shortest and
yet by far the sweetest yet painful moments together. Sweetest because you
unfolded to me that you took me because you desired me, painful because of the
briefness. My dearest, I know it will be a long time before you take me out
again and the waiting won’t be that unbearable if you would talk to me like
this at least.
Surely, my love, you can afford 10 minutes
to write to me something sometime or another. I am sure after making love to me
so many times and being able to read me so accurately, you must be aware of how
intensely and deeply I have attached myself to someone I love and how
passionately loving I can be. That is why I need your tender words, your kisses
and if not these then pen me something at least.
All my kisses, tender and passionate, your
wife, Jean.
Professor G. Devadass, University Hospital
consultant psychiatrist, said that Karthigesu told him that four men forced him
to watch while Jean was stabbed to death. He said he closed his eyes and did
not look because he did not like the sight of blood. Dr Devadass who
interviewed Karthigesu for an hour told the Court that Karthigesu had shown no
signs of shock due either to emotional trauma or a knock on the head. “I felt
Karthigesu had told me a story which was perhaps not true. He said that
throughout the interview Karthigesu referred to Jean as ‘this woman’ or ‘that
woman’. Karthigesu talked freely about the murder and there was no evidence of
any disturbance in his thinking.”
The psychiatrist said Karthigesu told him he
had stopped his car at the Subang Jaya flyover to ease himself that night but
before he could get out, another car stopped alongside his. Four men got out
and pulled him out. They forced him to watch while Jean was stabbed to death.
The men then dragged him about 10 feet from the car and made him lie face down.
They threatened that he would get the same treatment as Jean if he told the
police or made any noise. Karthigesu said the man hit him with a crash helmet
before they left. Professor Devadass told the Court he allowed Karthigesu to
talk without interruption in order to assess the extent of his memory, whether
he witnessed the so-called murder and whether he was in a state of shock. Dr
Devadass said it was his opinion that Karthigesu was not suffering from an emotional
shock which would cause a block in his memory. The doctor explained that when a
person suffers loss of memory because of an emotional shock (if he witnessed a
painful event), he normally goes into a dazed state which could last a few
seconds. He said his conclusions were that Karthigesu had told him a story that
perhaps was not true.