The trial lasted 13 days. The foreman of the seven-man jury was a Dane, Nielsen Jorgan Neinholdt. Court documents showed that the case had been marked No. 13 of 1965. Mr Francis Seow, prosecuting on behalf of the State, was assisted by Mr Syed Alwee bin Ahmad Alsree.
The charge was: “That you, Sunny Ang, alias Sunny Ang Soo Suan, alias Anthony Ang, on or about the 27 day of August 1963 at or about 5:00 PM at sea off Pulau Dua, also known as the Sisters Islands, Singapore, committed murder by causing the death of one Jenny Cheok Cheng Kid and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code Chapter 119.”
“I claim trial,” said Sunny Ang.
Mr Francis Seow’s opening speech was not unduly lengthy. “The case for the prosecution,” he began briskly, “is that Sunny Ang on 27 August, 1963, at about 5:00 PM murdered Jenny Cheok Cheng Kid by causing her to be drowned whilst she was scuba-diving in the Straits between Pulau Dua… the prosecution suggests that her body was carried by the currents probably out to the open sea. At any rate, it was never found, despite intensive search for several days by divers from the Royal Navy and from the RAF Changi Sub-aqua Club.”
At once Mr Seow sought to establish the legal fact that murder can be determined through circumstantial evidence even though the body of the victim is missing. He said, “This is the first case of its kind to be tried in our Courts. There is no body here. There is a general belief that you cannot charge a person with, let alone convict him of, the offence of murder where the victim’s body has not or could not be found. This is, of course, quite fallacious. If a person who kills another person is crafty enough to dispose of the body of the victim successfully, say by dissolving it in an acid bath or where he intentionally causes his victim to drown at sea, using his knowledge of the tides and currents, calculates that his victim’s body would be carried by tidal streams out to the open sea (which makes it difficult if not impossible to recover the body), it does not mean that he cannot be prosecuted for murder, and if prosecuted, cannot be convicted of it. It only means that the onus of proof on the prosecution becomes heavier than usual. In such cases, there are two main questions which the prosecution will have to prove to your satisfaction. The first is: is the person named in the charge dead? Is Jenny dead? If so, the second question will be, at the end of this trial: has it been proved that the prisoner, Sunny Ang, murdered her? In the context of this case, members of the jury, and subject to what my Lord may say, murder is the intentional killing of one human being by another human being.”
“Jenny,” continued counsel, “at the time of her disappearance was 22 years of age. She received her formal education in English up to Standard Three. She was married according to Chinese rites at an early age to Yui Chin Chuan, with whom she had two children. A few years later she separated from him and continued to remain separated up to the date of her disappearance. Her father had died and her mother married Toh Kim Seng. They had a daughter, Eileen Toh, with whom Jenny grew up and with whom she later lived.”
Jenny worked as a waitress at the Odeon Bar, North Bridge Road, where she earned a modest wage of $90 a month, in addition to which she would receive tips from customers whose generosity, no doubt, depended upon the quality of service she had rendered to them. In any event, Jenny’s average daily income by way of tips was about $10. In all, she earned approximately $350 a month.
Sunny Ang was 27. He came from a middle class family of not inadequate means. Since leaving school in 1955 with a Grade One pass, he had a varied career. He included part-time studies in law, canvassing for insurance, and poultry-farming, among his many activities. In 1962 he was made a bankrupt, which meant that his affairs were, ‘and still are’ being managed by the Official Assignee.* (*The Official Assignee had given evidence at the inquiry that Ang had been made a bankrupt on the petition of Madam Goh Ah Eng who obtained judgment for $2,091. Ang in his statement of affairs admitted that he also owed a total of $3,187 to two other creditors.)
Jenny met Sunny Ang sometime about May 1963. He proceeded to cultivate Jenny’s acquaintanceship. “You may think, in the course of this trial,” remarked counsel, “that Jenny was a simple and naive girl, who, flattered by Sunny Ang’s attentions, fell completely under his spell. He came from a world so very much different from hers. He was far superior in intellect and in education to this unhappy waitress. The stage was soon reached when Jenny began to entertain notions of matrimony and the probability that Ang encouraged her in that belief cannot be excluded. Indeed, members of the jury, you will hear evidence that he intended to marry her. At any rate, within two months or so after they had first met. Sunny Ang had so completely won Jenny’s confidence that at his suggestion, and without so much as a murmur of protest, she was to leave everything she possessed to Yeo Bee Neo, a woman whom she hardly knew.”
Mr Seow then dealt with the insurances which Sunny Ang hurriedly look out on Jenny’s life. On 18 June 1963 Jenny applied to the Great Eastern Life Assurance Company, through Sunny Ang, for a $10,000 endowment insurance policy for 20 years with accident benefits of $200,000, the premium for which was $453 per year, and the premium for the $200,000 additional accident benefits was $250 per year. Thus the total premium payable was $703 per year, or $61.60 per month. Sunny Ang filled in the application form, and Jenny’s occupation was given as, ‘I serve food and drink to customers at a bar and restaurant’. The beneficiary was named as Madam Yeo Bee Neo. She was described as a close friend.
The Great Eastern Life Assurance wrote to Jenny asking her why she wanted accident benefits of $200,000 and why Madam Yeo was named as beneficiary. “You may agree with the company,” Mr Seow told the jury, “that it was most unusual that Jenny should want to leave the benefits to a relative stranger when she had other relations living, among whom was her half-sister, Eileen, for whom she had real affection.”
On 29 June, the Great Eastern Life Assurance received a letter from Jenny in which she attempted to answer the queries, but the company was not satisfied. A few days later, the company received another letter dated 2 July. This was also signed by Jenny. It was a further attempt to answer the queries. Jenny said she intended to make flights in commercial aircraft to the Borneo territories. This was completely untrue, and was obviously said in the hope that the company would be influenced to grant the policy. There was a marked difference in the English language between the two letters. Although signed by Jenny it was in fact written by Sunny Ang. Neither of the letters satisfied the company, which remained suspicious; and they decided to grant only $20,000 accident benefits, and not $200,000. This brought the total premium down to $41.90 per month.
On 9 July, the company received another application signed by Jenny. This was for a 1-2-4 policy for $40,000. This was a policy which ensured that at the end of the assurance term Jenny would receive $40,000. In the event of death by natural causes the beneficiary would receive twice that amount, but in the event of death by accident the beneficiary would get four times the sum assured, in this case $160,000. In her letter, Jenny again described herself as ‘I serve food and drink to customers at a bar and restaurant’. Again, Madam Yeo Bee Neo was named as the beneficiary. Mr Seow raised his eyes from his notes and directly addressed the jury. “Who,” he asked, “is this Madam Yeo Bee Neo? She is none other than Sunny Ang’s mother. She did not know Jenny. Why should she be named beneficiary? Why?”
Counsel pointed out that the premium for this 1-2-4 policy would have come to $212.65 per month. Where would a waitress, whom her sister said was always ‘broke’, get the money to buy and maintain such a large policy? If she did not have that kind of money who then would pay? “If it was Sunny Ang, as we say it was, why was he doing it? These are some of the questions (and there are many more), which I ask you to bear in mind… questions the answers to which, I submit, will irresistibly and inexorably bring the charge of murder home to the prisoner.”
Mr Seow went on to say that when the application for the 1-2-4 policy was received by the company, the managing director, Allen Geddes, instructed a member of his staff, Lo Ku Him, to find out why Jenny wanted such a large policy. Consequently, Lo called on Jenny at 33 Lim Liak Street, where Jenny rented a room. Lo asked Jenny why she wanted such a large policy, and why the beneficiary was not even a close relative. Jenny replied that she knew nothing about the policy application. The letter she said had not been written by her. Her friend wrote it. “All the insurance forms, with one exception,” observed counsel, “were in fact filled in by Sunny Ang and signed by Jenny.”
Lo was not satisfied, and made arrangements for Jenny to meet Geddes the next day, but she failed to keep the appointment. Counsel suggested that Ang had advised her against it. “Ang knew,” argued Mr Seow, “that if Jenny had kept the appointment with Geddes, Jenny’s gullibility would have been revealed and Ang’s own complicity in the affair would have been prematurely exposed.”
When Lo reported to Geddes after his interview with Jenny, Geddes sent for the agent, Sidney Kong, and told him that he did not like the application, and instructed Kong to cancel both policies.
Sidney Kong was a friend of Sunny Ang. Later it was to be revealed that it was Sidney Kong’s car which Sunny Ang borrowed to take Jenny to Kuala Lumpur. This was the car which Sunny Ang used in what was believed to be his first attempt to murder Jenny, in a carefully contrived road accident which severely damaged the car, but only slightly injured the unsuspecting Jenny. Sidney Kong never appeared in Court during the trial. Mr Seow told the jury that he understood that Sidney Kong had left the country.
Kong did not in fact have an opportunity to carry out Geddes’ instructions to cancel the two policies, for, following Lo’s interview, Jenny wrote to the company expressing her wish to withdraw the policies ‘for personal reasons’, and asking for the return of the premium which had already been paid on one of them. Curiously, the letter was dated 28 July, the day before Geddes instructed Sidney Kong to cancel the policies. The company sent a cheque for $335.80 made out in favour of Jenny. That cheque was paid into the account of Low Bock Seng, one of Ang’s creditors. Low is a poultry-feed dealer.
About this time, certainly after the cancellation of the Great Eastern Life Assurance Company’s policies, the Prudential Assurance Company received an application from a young girl for $100,000, for a policy on her life with accident coverage. This application was referred to the branch manager, Blyth. He recalled a luncheon conversation with Geddes during which Geddes had told him about his company’s recent experience. Blyth checked with Geddes and discovered the applicant was in fact Jenny. Blyth promptly rejected the application.
On or about 26 July, Jenny gave up her job as a waitress at the Odeon Bar. From then until her disappearance almost a month later, Jenny was unemployed. On 27 July, one day before Jenny wrote to the Great Eastern to withdraw her two policies, she went with Ang to Edward Lumley and Sons, in Raffles Place. Lumley’s were brokers to Lloyds, the London underwriters. Jenny, it must be remembered was now unemployed. With Ang she inquired about personal accident policies. Ang told the claims manager, Seow Chong Pin, that Jenny wanted an insurance cover for flying risks for a sum between $150,000 and $200,000. The manager referred Ang and Jenny to Michael Rutherford, the managing director. With Rutherford, Ang negotiated on behalf of Jenny, an accident policy for $100,000, and a flying risks policy for $50,000, making a total of $150,000. Ang told Lumley’s that Jenny intended to take up flying at the Royal Singapore Flying Club. Ang said that Jenny had inherited a chicken farm from her father, and, because she was the eldest in the family, she wanted to provide for her death duties.
All this, of course, was completely untrue. Jenny was unemployed. What was Ang’s purpose in telling Lumley’s all these lies? Sunny Ang did all the negotiations. Jenny remained silent. Ang filled up the forms and handed them to Jenny to sign. The premium on this particular policy was $518. Ang paid it. Jenny’s occupation was now changed to that of a poultry-farm proprietress, and the beneficiary was shown as Jenny’s estate. The next day Ang returned alone to collect the policy. That was on 29 July. Jenny did not have many more days to live. On 30 July, Sunny Ang again called at Lumley’s. He was alone. He said he wanted another $100,000 accident coverage for Jenny. After negotiations this was reduced to $50,000, subject to the approval of Lloyds of London. The next day, Ang telephoned Lumley’s. He was told that Lloyds had approved. Later the same day he went to Lumley’s, paid a premium of $100.50 and collected the policy.
Sunny Ang had been busy on 30 July. In addition to calling on Lumley’s to discuss the extra accident coverage on Jenny, he also went to the American International Underwriters. He took away some forms. The next day he brought back one of the forms applying for a $10,000 coverage on himself for a period of 21 days with effect from 4 August 1963. A policy was accordingly issued to him. Twenty-four hours later Ang came back with a travel accident insurance form, filled in by him and signed by Jenny, for $150,000. This policy was for 14 days to take effect from 12 August, beginning at 7:00 AM. Time for Jenny was fast running out. Ang paid the $81.30 premium. The beneficiary under this policy was shown as Jenny’s estate.
“You will have noted,” crown counsel told the jury, “that the beneficiary under the various accident insurance policies was now given as Jenny’s estate, not Madam Yeo Bee Neo. I suggest this change was due in no small measure to the fact that the Great Eastern had previously questioned Jenny about her relationship with this woman.” Mr Seow said evidence could be produced to prove that if Madam Yeo’s name had been given in these policies, they would in fact have been queried by the companies. Mr Seow explained that the effect of putting the word ‘estate’ as beneficiary meant that benefits would go to Jenny’s estate. If she had died without making a will, this estate would have been distributed among her next-of-kin. If this had happened there would be little purpose in Sunny Ang paying out large sums for Jenny’s policies. And so on 7 August 1963, he took Jenny to a solicitor, K. T. Ooi, of Braddell Brothers, in Raffles Place, in order to make a will. This was drawn up, and was interpreted and read back to Jenny in Ang’s presence. Jenny left her entire estate to Madam Yeo Bee Neo, Sunny Ang’s mother. Jenny hardly knew her. Who then was the real beneficiary? “You need not go far to seek his true identity. We will show you,” declared counsel, “that the real beneficiary was Sunny Ang. Why was all this subterfuge necessary? Ask yourselves. Was it to throw suspicion away from himself from any accusation that he was responsible for Jenny’s death if she suddenly died?”
After the will was signed, it was left with Ooi. Two days later, Ang was back again at Braddell Brothers with a letter, signed by Jenny, authorizing Ooi to give him the will.
On 13 August, three days after Jenny had made her will, Sunny Ang borrowed Sidney Kong’s car, ostensibly to take Jenny for a fortnight’s tour of Malaya. They arrived in Kuala Lumpur the same day. They booked in at the Kowloon Hotel at about 6:30 PM in the evening. The very next morning, Ang called at the Insurance Company of North America, and obtained forms for a travel accident insurance policy. He filled in the form for Jenny, and asked if he could also sign it on her behalf. He was told he could not. So he took the form away and brought it back a quarter of an hour later, signed by Jenny. It was an accident insurance policy on Jenny’s life for $100,000. Ang told the insurance representative, Tan Kim Heng, that he wanted the policy for two weeks, as Jenny and he and a group of friends intended to go from Kuala Lumpur to the Cameron Highlands. The policy was due to expire on 28 August 1963 at 11:00 AM. Ang paid the premium of $48.50. Jenny’s estate was given as the beneficiary. Ang also took out a policy on himself for $30,000 for a fortnight. The premium was $14.50.
About noon, almost immediately upon his return to the hotel with the insurance policies, Sunny Ang and Jenny checked out of the Kowloon Hotel, and, instead of heading northwards to continue their tour of Malaya, they turned south and headed back for Singapore, but did not actually leave Kuala Lumpur until about 5:00 PM. Within two hours it would be dark. Near Rembau, some 12.5 miles from Seremban, driving along an unlit road, Ang braked hard to avoid a dog on the road. Jenny was thrown forward against the windscreen. Ang veered left and crashed into an embankment. The nearside of the car, the side where Jenny sat, was very badly damaged. Jenny was bruised on her body and face. “From the damage to the car, and from her injuries, it would appear that Jenny had a close brush with death. Ang came out of the accident apparently unscathed. They returned to Singapore by train. The car was left where it was, and was subsequently towed to the Lian Seng Hackney Motor Workshop at Seremban.”
“This incident,” said counsel, “standing on its own, probably would excite little or no comment. But looking at it against the background of the facts which we now have, you may agree it assumes a somewhat sinister significance. Was it a brazen attempt to kill Jenny under the guise of a road accident?”
In Singapore, Ang gave Jenny $1 to see a doctor about her injuries. Mr Seow said it was inconceivable that Ang should think that the services of a doctor could be obtained for such a paltry sum. Jenny’s sister Eileen had to give her $10, and Jenny’s mother, ‘who had been cut off from her will without so much as a cent’, brought her to see a doctor to have her injuries examined. “Is it not a strange commentary on Ang’s attitude towards Jenny, a strange commentary on Ang’s so-called love for Jenny?”
Mr Seow said that on 16 August, Ang and Sidney Kong went to Seremban and saw the manager of the Lian Seng Hackney Motor Company. The manager told them that the car would not be ready for the road for a month. In fact it was not ready for two months.
On 25 August, Ang’s American International personal travel accident policy for $10,000 lapsed. He did not renew it. Jenny’s policy for $150,000 lapsed at 7:00 AM the next morning. On 27 August at 11:00 AM, Ang called at the American Insurance office to extend Jenny’s lapsed policy for another five days. Ang paid the premium of $48. Jenny’s policy with the Insurance Company of North America was due to expire the next day. “If anything was to happen, if any accident was to happen,” said Mr Seow, “I suggest in the very nature of things it must happen within the next 24 hours.” The tragic climax was not far off.
During the afternoon of 26 August, Ang brought three air-tanks to the Singapore Oxygen Company’s place in Bukit Timah Road, and left them there to be charged with air. Later in the day he returned to collect them.
On 27 August, the fateful day, Sunny Ang took Jenny scuba-diving off Pulau Dua. This was a Tuesday, a working day. Pulau Dua are two little islands separated by a straits, about 700 feet apart. The straits varies in depth between 30–35 feet. The islands are about four miles from Jardine Steps in Singapore Harbour, and they are among the southernmost islands of the Southern Islands, beyond which stretches the open sea, with Indonesia in the distance.
Mr Seow quoted Captain Vernon Bailey, of the Singapore Marine Department as saying that the waters around the Sisters Islands were extremely hazardous. They were dangerous because of the remarkable eddies and swirls which occur there, and the speed of the current around the islands varies with the state of the tides from half a knot to some four knots.
Ang, that Tuesday afternoon, hired a boat from Jardine Steps and directed the boatman, Yusuf bin Ahmad, to go to Pulau Dua. They arrived there about 3:30 PM, about three minutes before high tide. Ang told the boatman to drop anchor at a spot in the straits. Ang then dropped what is known as a ‘shot’ rope, to which was attached a piece of weight, into the sea, and told Jenny to go down first.
“I think,” said counsel, “it is necessary at this stage for me to say something about Jenny’s scuba-diving prowess. The word ‘scuba’ stands for ‘self-contained underwater breathing apparatus’. This consists of a tank into which air is compressed under very high pressure, and a breathing assembly which consists of a demand valve regulator, a mouthpiece with two tubes, one for inhaling air from the tank and the other for exhaling used air into the water. The regulator controls the flow of air from the tank as and when demanded by the diver. When not in demand the regulator shuts itself off so that the air from the tank is not unnecessarily wasted.” Mr Seow went into detail about how the tank is carried on the back of the diver by means of harnesses which, in the interests of safety, have a quick release buckle, or device. There were certain other accessories which completed the scuba-diver’s equipment: the mask which enables the diver to see underwater; the swim-fins or nippers, which give him speed and manoeuvrability; lastly, the weight belt which is an important item of a scuba-diver’s equipment. The average person is naturally buoyant, and therefore, to counteract this buoyancy he has to wear a weight belt. The amount of weight varied according to the natural buoyancy of the diver, but usually it was not more than five pounds. The weight belt must have a quick release so that in an emergency the diver could release it without difficulty. “We know that until Jenny met Sunny Ang she could not swim. He taught her to swim, and to skin-dive with scuba equipment. The prosecution, however, submits that in the very short time that Ang had known Jenny she could not have acquired a sufficient knowledge of her scuba equipment, nor could she have reached that degree of proficiency in scuba-diving which made it safe for her to dive in such a place as the straits between the Sisters Islands.”
Without emotion, counsel went on to describe Jenny’s last hours alive. In the boat, he said, Jenny wore: · a one-piece, tri-coloured (black, white, orange vertical stripes) bathing costume; · a pair of green Walter web-feet nippers; · a black Espadon face mask; · an improvised Scout belt with two weights tied to it, weighing two and a half pounds each; · a sheath knife; · a small axe in a leather case, which also held the knife, fixed to her Scout belt; · a Sealion 40 cubic feet tank, blue in colour, to which was attached a Sealion breathing assembly.
After Jenny had fastened on her improvised weight belt, Ang helped her to fasten the Sealion tank on her back, before she jumped into the sea. Ang then gave the boatman his transistor radio, ‘with which to divert himself’, while Sunny attended to the other scuba equipment in the boat. Eight to 10 minutes later, Jenny surfaced, and Sunny Ang assisted her into the boat. Jenny and Sunny chatted for a while, and then Jenny went down again. But this time, before she jumped, Sunny Ang changed her air-tank. Why? Was it really because it had no more air?
Counsel went on to say that after Jenny jumped in, Sunny Ang fastened on his own air-tank. Then he asked the boatman to release the valve. When the boatman did this, Ang heard the sound of escaping air, and so he asked the boatman to turn the valve off. Ang explained that the air-tank was leaking. He took off the air-tank and detached the breathing assembly and told the boatman there was no washer in the outlet of the tank. “This is not such a startling discovery,” Mr Seow told the jury, “because it is immediately apparent to anyone whether the washer in the outlet of the tank is missing or not before the regulator is fixed to the tank. I suggest that Sunny Ang deliberately tampered with his own tank so that the missing washer would provide him with an excuse for not joining Jenny in the sea. This explained his subsequent failure to search for her when Jenny failed to surface.”
Ang and the boatman managed to improvise a washer from the strap of Ang’s own diving mask, which Ang fitted into the outlet of his tank. But, when he released the valve the washer was forced out of place. Ang made another washer, and, with the first, again tried to fit them into the outlet. But the air still escaped. At this stage, Ang stopped working on the tank and tugged at the ‘shot’ rope three times. Ang then asked the boatman in Malay, “Where is that girl?” The boatman replied, “I don’t know.” Ang then pulled in the ‘shot’ rope, but there was no sign of Jenny. Ang asked the boatman to look for air bubbles, but there were none. The boatman advised Ang to go to St John’s Island, to telephone the police, and so off they went. From St John’s Island they went to a neighbouring island to collect some Malay fishermen. Then they went back to the spot when Jenny had disappeared. Repeatedly, the Malays dived in, but Jenny was missing. Ang, meanwhile, remained in the boat. He did not join in the diving for the girl he planned, he said, to marry. Instead, he had a discussion with one Malay fisherman about the buoyancy of the air-tanks and to prove his argument that they would float, he dropped Jenny’s original tank into the sea. It slowly sank out of sight. No efforts were made to recover it. Ang did not ask the divers to get it, and thus this tank, worth $125, disappeared, like Jenny. Counsel pointed out that an air-tank, when it becomes empty, becomes progressively buoyant, and will, therefore float. If Jenny’s original tank had been empty it would have floated and not sunk to the sea-bed. The fact that it did sink proved the tank still contained a lot of air. Why, therefore, did Ang change Jenny’s original tank? Why did he not use this tank, after finding that his own was leaking, to search for Jenny when she failed to surface? What did he do to the second tank he strapped on Jenny’s back?
In response to his telephone call from St John’s Island for help, Marine Police launches arrived on the scene, but they were unable to join in the search because of darkness. It gets dark in Singapore about seven o’clock most evenings throughout the year.
Counsel stressed that from the time when Jenny disappeared and throughout the Malay divers’ search, Sunny Ang remained ‘singularly calm and detached’. He was brought back to the Marine Police Station in Singapore, where he made a report. Later the same evening, Jenny’s clothes and personal effects, including a gold ring, were returned to her relatives. “Within five hours after Ang had renewed Jenny’s American Insurance policy, Jenny was dead. In Ang’s own words Jenny was ‘presumed to have either drowned or been attacked by a shark’. The next day Ang sat down and typed three letters to the insurance companies informing them of the tragedy and the circumstances of Jenny’s death.”
Royal Navy and RAF divers were brought in by the Marine police to search for Jenny’s body. They carried out several searches, but without success. On 3 September 1963, however, a former RAF diver recovered a green flipper. The heel-strap had been severed. He found it wedged between the rocks off the Sisters Islands. This flipper was subsequently identified by a schoolboy as the one he had lent his classmate, William Ang, brother of Sunny Ang. Counsel suggested the jury would have little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it was one of the flippers worn by Jenny that fateful afternoon.
Experts decided that the strap had been cut by a sharp instrument, a razor or sharp pair of scissors, in two places to weaken the strap. Because of these cuts the strap had burst. The experts held that the cuts could not have been caused by corals: the strap had been deliberately cut.
Counsel then went on to tell the jury that after Ang had been arrested, the police seized four books on skin-diving. In one of these books, Skin Diving with Snorkel and Aqualung, the author. Jack Atkinson, describes by way of a cautionary tale, a hypothetical story of the dangers a boy and a girl could meet while skin-diving. It ended with this interesting passage: ‘A torn fin strap, a broken mask buckle, or a loose mouth-piece… could have ended in tragedy… a tiny nick in rubber will tear wide open with little strain.” Two-thirds of the strap on Jenny’s flipper had been cut. Why? If, as a result of the cuts, the strap burst and the diver got into difficulties and was drowned, who would benefit from her death? Who, asked Mr Seow, had the strongest motives to see Jenny dead? Mr Seow revealed that Ang had actually tried to get a total insurance coverage of $900,000 on Jenny’s life. In the end he got $450,000.
Once Jenny had disappeared, Sunny Ang and his mother, Madam Yeo Bee Neo, made strenuous efforts through various solicitors to prove Jenny’s death in order to collect this money. They insisted that Jenny was dead, ‘and, members of the jury, who was in a better position than Sunny Ang to assert with such finality that Jenny was, indeed, dead?’
The rest of the first day of the trial was taken up by witnesses involved in the insurance policies. An official of the Great Eastern Life Insurance Company Limited produced a letter from Jenny. It read as follows: Cheok Cheng Kid 33, Lim Liak St.,
Singapore, 3. 28 June 1963
Dear Sir, Regard to your letter LKT/MT your agent have ask me many times to buy insurance. I think good idea to save money. So I buy policy for 20 year endowment for $10,000 (with, not without profit) cost about $40 one month and I also very happy can buy $200,000 insurance for only $20 one month. I feel happy got insurance because I dream my died father tell me if I buy insurance I cannot get accident or harm-like good luck charm. Also I can afford it, all only $60 one month. I earn more $450 one month. If amount too big, less it, I not mind. Next month I want to buy 10 year endowment for $30,000 policy. I want to save money for open dressmaking shop next time. Then I no need work in bar. But I get cold now, cannot go for doctor exam. My cold OK then I go. Madam Yeo Bee Neo is old lady is my friend mother I like better than my own mother. My own mother married another man already. My father is died. But name I anyhow put, I may change to my sister I also like very much. But now name not important, I can always change.
Yours faithfully [sgd] Cheok Cheng Kid
Later, the witness received another letter. He read it to the Court. It went as follows:
Cheok Cheng Kid 33, Lim Liak St., Singapore, 3. 2 July 1963 The Actuary The Great Eastern Life Assurance Co Ltd 16, Cecil Street, Singapore, 1. Dear Sir, Further to my letter dated 28 June, 1963, I wish to add, in order to dispel any fears you may justifiably have, that I am prepared to narrow down the scope of your double indemnity cover to exclude liability from death through third party agency, whether felonious or accidental. Believe me I want accident cover just for the sake of having it for the reason I disclosed in my last letter, and because I may make occasional flights in commercial aircraft in the near future to the Borneo territories. I expect of course a proportionate reduction of the premium charged, or since I’ve paid about $21 DI premiums, how much more cover can I obtain for the same premium at the reduced rate? The above reduced-liability clause, would, of course, not apply to the endowment sum. Thank you. Yours faithfully [sgd] Cheok Cheng Kid
By the end of the second day 13 witnesses had given evidence for the prosecution, including K. T. Ooi, a senior partner of Braddell Brothers, the lawyer who drew up a will for Jenny. She left her estate to Ang’s mother. Ang was present when the will was drawn up. At the end of the third day, Justice Buttrose granted the defence a week’s postponement after being told that the prosecution intended to call an additional expert witness. He said it was ‘most disgraceful’ that the prosecution had not completed its investigation when the case came up for hearing. Mr Seow explained that it was only after the case had been fixed for trial that it occurred to him to call in a scuba-diving expert.
The key prosecution witness, the boatman, Yusuf bin Ahmad, gave evidence when the trial was resumed on Wednesday, 5 May 1965, the fourth day of the trial. It was during this day’s hearings that the judge described as ‘scandalous’ the circumstances which led to the defence counsel interviewing Yusuf while Ang was under arrest.
Yusuf bin Ahmad gave his evidence in Malay.
In the Lower Court, during the inquiry, Mr Seow had created something in the nature of a sensation when he revealed that attempts had been made to suborn his main witness, Yusuf. Mr Seow told the magistrate that Yusuf had been given two sums of money and a gift. Yusuf himself disclosed that he had received two sums totalling $40 and a tin of milk powder. Mr Seow protested that Yusuf had been approached by the accused’s mother, and by his brother Richard, on both occasions after Ang’s arrest. Mr Seow said, “Money, in fact, had been given to the witness and a gift in kind, before this witness was brought to counsel for the defence. Money also had in fact been given to him after he had seen Mr Coomaraswamy.” Mr Seow argued that Mr Coomaraswamy had no business whatsoever to interview or record a statement from Yusuf. “What,” he asked, “was the object of giving this witness money?”
Mr Coomaraswamy agreed that he did see Yusuf. “I did it knowing full well what I was doing and after obtaining professional advice on the matter.” He claimed he acted with the utmost propriety both as an officer of the Court and also as an honest man.
Yusuf told the Lower Court that after his interview with Mr Coomaraswamy he was given $30 by Mr Coomaraswamy to compensate for loss of earnings for that day and his fare. He said his minimum earnings a day were $3–4, and the highest was $20. He said Mr Coomaraswamy had told him not to receive any money from any other person in connection with the case.
At the trial before Justice Buttrose, this interview with Mr Coomaraswamy in his chambers was the subject of a brisk exchange between Mr Coomaraswamy and Justice Buttrose. Mr Coomaraswamy was cross-examining Yusuf. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did the accused’s mother ever at any time ask you to change your story? Yusuf: No. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did I ask you at any time to change your story? Yusuf: No. His Lordship: I would be delighted to hear that, Mr Coomaraswamy, because if you did, you would be off the Rolls, I am afraid. Mr Coomaraswamy: My Lord, I do not want to force myself into the position where I have to defend myself and defend my client at the same time. But perhaps, in view of your Lordship’s earlier statement about something scandalous, I have to make a statement- His Lordship: Well, speaking entirely for myself, Mr Coomaraswamy, when a crime has been committed and persons were being arrested in connection with it, and you know full well that the person you seek to interview is a key witness to this incident, I am appalled at what has taken place. I will say no more than that-I am appalled. Well, it has nothing to do with this case, so let us forget it for the moment. Quite apart from other considerations it is crass foolishness doing a thing like that. Can’t you see it yourself? Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, I must, I am afraid, defend myself at this stage. His Lordship: No, no. There is no question of defence-there are certain views which I should like to express at a proper stage, if necessary. You will be given every opportunity to do so. I am not going to say anything, but solely on this question of whether the accused committed this offence or not. Mr Coomaraswamy: Precisely, my Lord. I want to say why this evidence was admitted. His Lordshjp: It is not objected to. You may well want it in, for all I know. If you do object, I want to deal with that one way or another. But you have not objected, so I am not going to cut it out. Mr Coomaraswamy: I certainly want it in. His Lordship: But let us say no more at this juncture. What I am concerned about is that he said that he had never been asked to change the story, and the jury has heard it. Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, my Lord, in view of your Lordship’s observations, I still feel that I should explain myself and my conduct at this stage. The reason is that your Lordship has used words like ‘scandalous’ and ‘appalling’. His Lordship: Yes, Mr Coomaraswamy, and I repeat them. Mr Coomaraswamy: These words will create a certain impression, and I feel, my Lord, not only for my personal sake, but for the sake of my client, I should attempt to remove any impression created by these words. His Lordship: I shall myself tell the jury when I come to sum up, when I reach that stage, that the issues they are concerned with are clear and simple and nothing else. But I certainly, if you feel that you are labouring under any sense of injustice, Mr Coomaraswamy, I shall certainly allow you to continue your cross-examination if you like. If you wish to add anything at the end of it you may certainly so do. Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, in view of the words used by your Lordship just now, I don’t think I need pursue the matter any more. His Lordship: It is entirely your responsibility, Mr Coomaraswamy. I shall tell the jury what they have to consider and nothing else. Mr Coomaraswamy: As your Lordship pleases. His Lordship: But don’t let that debar you from saying anything at this juncture that you think you should be allowed to say, provided it is relevant and admissible, and has a bearing on the case. I will give you every attention. Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, in that event, my Lord, I should like a few minutes to consider the position. His Lordship: You needn’t make the decision at the moment, but I will leave the matter before you at any time during the continuance of this hearing. Mr Coomaraswamy: As your Lordship pleases.
Mr Coomaraswamy continued with his cross-examination of the boatman, Yusuf, until the end of the day’s proceedings when he asked the judge’s permission to make a personal statement. “My Lord,” he began, “I must with the greatest respect differ from your Lordship as to what is the proper conduct of an advocate and solicitor in the circumstances I was placed- ”
His Lordship: What were the circumstances? Mr Coomaraswamy: As to the taking of the statement from this witness. His Lordship: I am told he was given some milk by somebody and he got $10, and he got another $30. This is impropriety on the part of a solicitor. What were the circumstances? Why did you do it? Mr Coomaraswamy: That is what I am about to explain. His Lordship: I am sure you did it with the best of intentions. Mr Coomaraswamy: The position was that I was informed of an attempt being made to interfere with this witness, and I thought one way to ensure things would be to have a statement recorded from him. His Lordship: Surely the right thing to do was to lodge a complaint forthwith with the State Advocate-General to the effect that information has come to your ears that this key witness has been interfered with? Surely this was the proper thing to have done? Mr Coomaraswamy: Unfortunately, in this particular case there were circumstances which made it impossible for me to communicate with the State Advocate-General. I don’t want to disclose these reasons now. In any case, my Lord, I think I am straying from the point, but I have always known it to be the position, and this is the attitude taken by the Law Society in England with the full approval of Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, that there is no property in a witness whether it is a witness for the defence or a witness for the prosecution. The defence can, as soon as a man is arrested for an offence, serve subpoenas on everybody and thereby deprive the prosecution of witnesses. Now, there are some persons who hold the view that the position in Malaya is different because of certain provisions, but I see no reason to make that distinction, and, in fact, before interviewing the witness, I did consult a very senior criminal lawyer with a considerable criminal practice. His Lordship: Even the greatest of criminal lawyers are known to make mistakes. Some of them have been warned by the Law Society. But I accept your point. In the whole of my extensive career both at the Bar and on the Bench, I have never heard of this being done before. Mr Coomaraswamy: May I continue? His Lordship: If you were informed of an attempt to do so, surely you should have communicated with the Public Prosecutor’s Department? Why didn’t you do it? Mr Coomaraswamy: There were very good reasons why I shouldn’t. His Lordship: We are talking in riddles. I accept that what you did you did with the best of intentions, and that so far as you are personally concerned you feel that you did what was right.
Mr Coomaraswamy went on to tell the judge that he took the precaution of having another lawyer at his office, somebody from an entirely different office and totally unconnected with the case, who was there throughout the interview, and the purpose for which he was there was also known to the witness, and there was absolutely no question of tampering with the witness in any way. His Lordship: It is not suggested in your case. You say it was done under circumstances over which you had no control. I accept your explanation. Mr Coomaraswamy: In that case I wouldn’t pursue this point. His Lordship: And I shall tell the jury in the clearest terms what their duties are in this case. If there is anything you would like me to add to what I am going to say on this please let me know. I will do it.
When, days later, Justice Buttrose began his summing up he did in fact refer to this matter. He recalled that he had queried the propriety and the wisdom of Mr Coomaraswamy interviewing the key witness for the prosecution after Sunny Ang has been charged with murder. The judge said that he had accepted Mr Coomaraswamy’s explanation, in that, according to his lights at any rate, he did what he thought was proper in the interests of his client. “You will,” said the judge, “remember that the boatman, in his evidence, said that he never changed his story, nor did anyone ever ask him to do so… you will dismiss that incident from your mind entirely.”
Before the fifth day of the trial was over the judge had been told to his astonishment that Yusuf had been brought to the Supreme Court by Sunny Ang and a lawyer on 29 October 1964 (14 months after Jenny had disappeared), to swear an affidavit. His Lordship: The accused himself came to Pulau Brani to see you? Yusuf: Yes. His Lordship: Who was the lawyer he took you to? Yusuf: I do not know the name of the lawyer, my Lord. He is hunch-backed and bald-headed. His Lordship: Let me look at those affidavits. (He examines them.) Presumably somebody from Lim and Lee. Who is this hunch-backed lawyer? Mr Coomaraswamy: Mr Lim Tiong Quee, my Lord. His Lordship: More remarkable evidence, Mr Coomaraswamy. Mr Coomaraswamy: Well, this was long before the accused was arrested. His Lordship: I am once again startled-not by you, but by what has been going on in this case. Very well, the jury will no doubt form their own conclusion. Anyhow, the accused approached you personally at Pulau Brani, brought you back and you saw somebody from Lim and Lee. And you were then, presumably, asked to swear an affidavit. Right? Yusuf: Yes.
Evidence was also given that Sunny Ang made an affidavit (which was not read out in Court) and that Yusuf in his affidavit said he agreed with it when it was read over to him. Crown Counsel: Did the girl speak to the accused in any language other than English? Yusuf: The girl spoke one or two words in Malay. Crown Counsel: Can you remember what they were? Yusuf: ‘ Banyak chantek pandang dalam ayer. ’ (Very beautiful under water.) Crown counsel: The rest was in English which you do not understand? Yusuf: That is so. Crown Counsel: Your affidavit confirms that what Jenny said to the accused was true: how do you explain that, if you don’t know what she said? Yusuf: Well, I believed the accused when he told me so.
Later, Yusuf was questioned about Sunny Ang’s conduct. Crown counsel reminded him he had made a statement to Malaysian Adjustment (an insurance investigation agency) that Ang was actually weeping. In another statement he said he did not know whether the moisture on Ang’s face was tears or sea water. Yusuf: I remember that he was weeping because the tears came out. Crown Counsel: Now you say he was in tears? Yusuf: Yes. Crown Counsel: You saw tears: did you hear him crying? Yusuf: No, I did not hear him. Crown Counsel: Those tears or water you saw. What was the volume? How many drops? Did they flow fast and furious? Yusuf: I merely saw tears over this part of the face below the eyes. His Lordship: Just a little moisture that you saw? Yusuf: Yes. His Lordship: Which appeared to you to be tears having come from the eyes? Yusuf: Yes.
Vernon Bailey, a marine officer attached to the Singapore Marine Department, gave evidence that the channel between the two Sisters Islands is not very wide. The narrow channel he described as ‘something in the nature of a funnel’. His Lordship: A funnel between the two reefs, is that it? Bailey: Funnel between the two islands and between the two reefs. His Lordship. Which makes it a more constricted funnel? Bailey: It makes it a more constricted area, the funnel. By nature of the channel between the islands the water is almost pushed in. His lordship: Sucked in? Bailey: Sucked in and blown out the other end. His Lordship: It blows out? Bailey: Yes, accelerates and blows out and you get whirls and eddies which are sort of circular motions of the water, not to be confused with a whirl, a circular motion of water. His Lordship: Of some force, of some severity? Bailey: Of some considerable force.
On Friday, 7 May, the sixth day of the trial, Sunny Ang’s 15-year-old brother, William, was called by the prosecution to give evidence that Sunny had taught him to scuba-dive. He had been scuba-diving for six months and had read Sunny’s books on the subject. He said that Sunny had warned him about the hazards. Crown Counsel: What were the hazards against which he warned you? William Ang: The hazards were mainly caused by pressure. Well, when you are diving and you are about to go up at say from 50 feet, the pressure below is always greater than the pressure above, so that as you go higher the air in your lungs will expand. So you must release some of the air when you go up, or else your lungs will, with the air inside, expand and burst your lungs. Therefore, it is very important to go up very slowly.
The green flipper was produced and crown counsel asked the witness if he recognized it. William Ang: I think I do. Crown Counsel: That was one of the two, which you borrowed from David Benjamin Woodworth? William Ang: I think so.
David Benjamin Woodworth, a student, was a classmate of William Ang in 1963, and he gave evidence that he lent William two pairs of flippers. Crown counsel: Is that one of the green pair you lent him? Woodworth: Yes. Crown Counsel: And when you lent it to him in what condition was it? Woodworth: I think it was in good condition. Crown Counsel: Was the strap burst? Woodworth: No. Crown Counsel: Or cut in any way? Woodworth: No.
David Henderson, specially flown out from England for the trial, said he was a senior aircraftsman at RAF Changi and a member of the RAF Changi Sub-aqua Club when he dived down and found the green flipper in the straits of Pulau Dua on 3 September 1963, a week after Jenny’s disappearance. The boatman Yusuf and a police party were present. He went down twice the day before. Mr Coomaraswamy: My Lord- His Lordship: Just a moment, Mr Seow. Yes, Mr Coomaraswamy? Mr Coomaraswamy: Fully conscious of any possible repercussions that may arise by my standing up so frequently- His Lordship: I am delighted to see the enthusiasm with which you are conducting the defence, Mr Coomaraswamy. Mr Coomaraswamy: I mean, I should be regarded as an irritating counsel by you- His Lordship: You may by your colleagues, but certainly not by myself and my fellow brother judges.
Mr Coomaraswamy went on to complain about the legal technicalities concerning the notice of this evidence.
Henderson continued with his evidence of the second day’s diving, on 3 September 1963. He said he made two dives wearing full equipment, about 11:00 AM. Crown Counsel: On your first dive did you find anything? Henderson: No. Crown Counsel: What was the depth you reached on the first dive? Henderson: Forty-five feet. Crown Counsel: That was at sea bottom? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: For how long were you under? Henderson: Fifty-five minutes. Crown Counsel: You came up to change your tank? Henderson: Yes, I did. Crown Counsel: Then you went down again? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: What depth did you reach this time? Henderson: Forty-five feet. Crown Counsel: Did you find anything? Henderson: I found a green-coloured flipper. Crown Counsel: I see. Where? Henderson: On the sea-bed. His Lordship: How did you find it? How was it on the sea-bed? Henderson: It was lying on the sea-bed at that particular point- or rather rough rocks, or what-have-you. It was lying beside those rocks. His lordship: Was it in any way covered or was it just quite open to view? Henderson: Quite open to view. His Lordship: Not covered with sand or mud? Henderson: There was a little mud over it, but not very much. His Lordship: Not very much. It was quite plain to the eye was it? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: You handed it subsequently to the police? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: Can you describe the condition of the flipper as you found it that day? Henderson: The heel-strap was severed. The rubber was in good condition. There were no barnacles or growth of any type or other. Crown Counsel: That means to show that it had been lying there for a long time? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: Did you find any current?
Henderson replied that there was a current, and that visibility was about 12 feet at the bottom on the seabed. There was also an undertow that carried him downwards. He stemmed it with considerable effort but at one point he was carried away about 150 yards.
Later the witness emphasized that a novice diver should never dive alone.
Crown Counsel: Is this what the Americans call the Buddy System? His Lordship: Let us try and still carry on in the English language, with due respect to any American. Crown Counsel: You must always dive with another person with you? Henderson: Yes. Crown Counsel: Would you be able to tell this Court what would be a scuba-diver’s greatest enemy under water? Henderson: Panic. Crown Counsel: What would happen to a diver who suddenly loses his, one of his, flippers while he is scuba-diving? Henderson: His equilibrium would be upset, his mobility would be impaired, and this may well lead to panic in the case of an inexperienced diver. Crown Counsel: Have you yourself experienced losing a flipper while scuba-diving? Henderson: I have. Crown Counsel: Can you tell this Court what happened to you? Henderson: My flipper came off. They were slightly too big for me. One came off, and like I said, equilibrium was upset, mobility was impaired, so I dropped my weight belt and surfaced.
Cross-examined by defence counsel, Henderson said that while there were no barnacles on the flipper when he found it, there were certain types of growth.
Mr Coomaraswamy: Like what? Henderson: I do not know the name. Mr coomaraswamy: How long would the thing have to be under water before barnacles grow? Henderson: I would say round about two to three weeks. Mr Coomaraswamy: Is it not correct that when you found the flipper it was in fact wedged in rocks? Henderson: It was not wedged or surrounded by rocks. Mr Coomaraswamy: What was the nature of the rocks at the place where you found this flipper? Were they high or undulating in between? Henderson: High, very different forms.
Having agreed roughly on the map the place where the flipper was found, defence counsel asked, “Would a thing like a flipper sink to the bottom?”
Henderson: This type would. Mr Coomaraswamy: You spoke of undertow. Henderson: I did. Mr Coomaraswamy: Would there be currents nearest the bed of the sea? Henderson: Yes. Mr Coomaraswamy: Would undertows form? Henderson: Yes, at various times. Mr Coomaraswamy: Would that undertow down move a flipper? Henderson: Not over a rough terrain.
Later, Henderson was asked about fitting on a flipper. He was asked if it were correct to say that the modern tendency is to put the feet first and then the heel. He agreed.
Mr Coomaraswamy: In other words, shoe-fitting? Henderson: Yes. Mr Coomaraswamy: What is the normal way? Henderson: First the foot, the heel and then stretch over the back of the heel. Mr Coomaraswamy: With what? Henderson: With the finger. Mr Coomaraswamy: Would you agree any other way would be difficult? Henderson: I cannot see any other way of doing it. Mr Coomaraswamy: More or less run your finger round the heel from the side? Henderson: Just below the back.
Defence counsel concluded his cross-examination by putting it to him that he did not find the flipper where he said he did. “I am telling the truth,” said Henderson.
Phang Sin Eng, a government chemist gave evidence that he received the green flipper from Inspector Richard Lui on 25 September 1963. He examined it under a microscope and found that the strap had two cuts. The cuts had been made, he said, by a knife, a razor or a pair of scissors.
Crown Counsel: Is it possible for these cuts to be the result of the strap being cut by coral? Phang Sin Eng: No, I think it is most unlikely. Crown Counsel: Why do you say that? Phang Sin Eng: For the following reasons. First of all the position of the cuts: one cut is from the top of the strap and the other is from the bottom of the strap. And under microscopic examination there was striation marking in both cases. The cut from the top of the strap has two directions: one direction is vertically down and then continues in another direction at a slight angle indicating two separate and independent actions in producing the cut from the top, one vertically down and one at an angle.
Cross-examined by defence counsel, the witness was asked, “If one were to pull the strap up with one’s fingers and put it over the arm like that (demonstrating) would that pressure be enough to break it?” “I don’t know,” said Phang Sin Eng.
Inspector Evan Yeo stepped into the witness-box on the afternoon of the seventh day of the trial and was questioned about a 61-page statement he took from Sunny Ang on 30 August 1963, three days after Jenny’s disappearance.
William Ang was called for cross-examination by the defence counsel during the morning and was rebuked by the judge for being impertinent. Crown counsel, re-examining, had asked him if Sunny Ang knew anything about cars.
Crown Counsel: Does he tinker with cars? Does he open up the bonnet and have a look at the car, generally tinkering with the car as a lot of people do? William Ang: He seldom does that. Crown Counsel: Does he know anything about cars? William Ang: I can’t read his mind. His Lordship: Don’t be impertinent. William Ang: I don’t understand him. His Lordship: It is a perfectly simple question. Try. William Ang: I suppose he knows a little.
The prosecution next called Maxime Bertrand, director of a firm which dealt in scuba-diving equipment, and an experienced scuba-diver with nine years’ experience in Singapore and Malayan waters. He gave evidence about the tests he had made at the request of the police in the Straits of Pulau Dua, and tests of home-made washers on an air-tank specified by the police. He said there was not a perceptible leak in his tests with his home-made washers. He told Mr Seow that if a novice should suddenly lose a flipper, and if there was a strong under-current the novice would surely feel alarmed. The situation would be very serious.
Inspector Evan Yeo, of the Special Investigation Section of the CID, said he interviewed Sunny Ang in the evening of 30 August 1963. Ang told him that when Jenny went down the second time she was wearing a pair of flippers belonging to a friend of his younger brother.
Crown Counsel: Did you ask Ang why he did not dive to see if he could find Jenny when she failed to surface? Inspector Yeo: I did. Crown Counsel: And did he give you any reply? Inspector Yeo: The answers he gave me are as follows. Firstly, his equipment was not serviceable. Secondly, he could not hold his breath for long and therefore he could not dive in those rather deep waters. Thirdly, he saw no point in diving when he failed to see Jenny’s air bubbles around the boat; and visibility in that depth was only a few feet. And fourthly that Jenny might have been attacked by sharks, according to him, and his instinct for self-preservation prevented him from going down.
The inspector said that Sunny Ang told him that he had paid about $500 on Jenny’s premiums, money borrowed from his father. The inspector said that, according to Ang, the extension of the policy on the day of Jenny’s disappearance was necessary as he and Jenny had intended to catch the mail train to Seremban, to drive back the car he had borrowed from Sidney Kong of Singapore.
Cross-examined by Mr Coomaraswamy, Inspector Yeo agreed that Jenny, according to Ang, had given Ang $600 later to settle the $500 loan taken by Ang from his father, and to pay other premiums on her insurance. The inspector told counsel that Deputy Superintendent Ong Kim Boon did most of the interrogation of Ang, though he was present.
Deputy Superintendent Ong, in charge of the SIS of the CID, said that, questioned several times in August and September, 1963, Ang told him that he was very friendly with Jenny and had intended to marry her. Ang told him about the insurance policies.
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.
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? Sunny Ang: Because, from experience, there was little or no current at beaches I have been to at high tide. On the Sunday I went with Jenny there was a slight current. Mr Coomaraswamy: Where did you anchor? Sunny ang: We took the trouble to be over the spot where we were over the previous Sunday, according to the land marks I mentioned just now. The water was calm.
Ang said that he helped Jenny with her equipment. She put on the green flippers. Mr Coomaraswamy: You then released the air supply to the regulator? You turned it on? Sunny Ang: I turned on the tap on the tank. Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did you do it and not Jenny? Sunny Ang: No particular reason. I was behind her and I did it for her. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did she then jump into the water? Sunny Ang: Yes, near the guide line. His Lordship: At that time had you taken off your clothes? Sunny Ang: I was in my bathing costume. His Lordship: And you had done nothing about your own equipment? Sunny Ang: I think I was getting my own equipment ready. His Lordship: But you couldn’t be doing both at the same time could you? You have told us that you assisted Jenny with her equipment. By that time had you done anything about your own equipment? You could not be doing both at the same time. Sunny Ang: No. On the way in the boat I had the equipment ready, you see, and I was just starting to get my own equipment ready when we anchored.
He said that when Jenny surfaced she said they were not exactly over the spot they had marked out that day, but there were equally good coral where they were. Ang told the judge that Jenny got back into the boat and they chatted for 20 minutes to half an hour, during which time he got back to fixing the tanks. His Lordship: You were not in a hurry to join her in the next jump apparently? Sunny Ang: Neither was she. What I mean is we both got ready eventually at the same time. In fact we had both gotten ready and she was about to go down when she told me there was not enough air left in her tank. So I had to undo everything all over again.
He changed her tank, turned on the valve and Jenny dived into the water. Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did she go in first? Sunny Ang: It’s more or less a matter of courtesy. His Lordship: That she should brave the perils of the deep before you? Sunny Ang: Not exactly, my Lord, but always ladies first. His Lordship: I see, even in deep waters? Sunny Ang: Immediately she went down I tried to open the air valve in my own tank. It was rather awkward. I asked Yusuf to do it for me. He did, but there was a loud rush of air. So I asked him to turn it off immediately.
Together they took off the tank. “I soon discovered that the cause was that the washer that should have been between the regulator and the tank was missing.” He tried to improvise a washer, and so did Yusuf, but was unsuccessful. He tried to make use of the washer in the first tank Jenny used but damaged it and that was unusable. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you have any reason to think that Jenny would have surfaced by now? Sunny Ang: No. What I mean is normally she is a patient girl. I thought she would have waited for me down there. His Lordship: How long did you think she would have waited? Sunny Ang: Ten to 15 minutes. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you have any arrangement with her to wait for you? Sunny Ang: No. Before she jumped I told her she could go down first and I would follow immediately. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you become anxious? Sunny Ang: Not immediately. When I realized I could not go down because of the missing washer, I signalled her to surface. I assumed she might be at the other end of the guide line. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you have any pre-arranged signal? Sunny Ang: Yes. Three jerks meant come up.
Two minutes later, when she had not surfaced, and while he was still attending to his tank, he again pulled on the guide line. “I noticed there were no air bubbles breaking on the surface of the water.” Mr Coomaraswamy: What did you do? Sunny Ang: I was not alarmed. I thought she might have got tired of waiting for me and may have wandered off on her own. So I looked around and could not see any air bubbles. I then asked Yusuf to look around too. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did either of you see any air bubbles? Sunny Ang: We did not. Mr Coomaraswamy: What did you do then? Sunny Ang: My reaction was not one of alarm. His Lordship: What was your reaction? Sunny Ang: That she might have been playing with me; that is she might have been directly under the boat when the bubbles would not have been noticed; or she might have swum to and landed on one of the islands. His Lordship: One of the Sisters Islands? Sunny Ang: Yes. His Lordship: You seriously thought that at that time? Sunny Ang: Yes. His Lordship: Do you still think so? Sunny Ang: I don’t think so. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you come to realize that day that an emergency existed? Sunny Ang: Yes, I looked under the boat on both sides but I could not see any bubbles at all, and both Yusuf and myself scanned both the islands for traces of footsteps or any other signs that would show that she had landed but we found none. It was about that stage I realized she had gotten into trouble. His Lordship: I would prefer the word ‘got’ to ‘gotten’. Mr Coomaraswamy: What did you do then? Sunny Ang: I then asked Yusuf what could be done. I vaguely remembered there was a telephone on St John’s. He confirmed this and we decided to go to St John’s to ring up for help. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did you at any time ask Yusuf to go faster? Sunny Ang: No, I did not. Mr Coomaraswamy: Why not? Sunny Ang: Because the boat went as fast as it could. Mr Coomaraswamy: Yusuf says that you were normal at that time. Could that be a correct description? Sunny Ang: I was alarmed. But there was no outward expression of it. Mr Coomaraswamy: He also said that at one time you were weeping, and further he said he saw tears in your eyes. Would that be correct? Sunny Ang: Water came out from my eyes, but there was no particular sign. His Lordship: He is saying the truth or what? Sunny Ang: I may have shed tears without consciously knowing it.
On the jetty at St John’s Island he met Jaffar bin Hussein, and told him what had happened, and he went to the telephone. He remembered running, but not whether it was to the telephone or back to the jetty. The judge asked, “Either coming or going?”
“That is so,” said Sunny Ang.
Asked about the disappearance of Jenny’s first tank while the Malay divers were searching for Jenny, Ang told the Court, “I gave a casual demonstration. I had forgotten that the tank was… I was under the impression that tanks are buoyant.” His Lordship: You have forgotten what? Sunny Ang: I was under the impression that tanks would float regardless whether they were full or empty. His Lordship: The tank sank? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Coomaraswamy: Did this happen in the straits between the two islands? Sunny Ang: Yes, more or less over the spot where Jenny disappeared. Mr Coomaraswamy: Why did you not dive into the water? Sunny Ang: With the Malay fishermen? Mr Coomaraswamy: Yes. His Lordship: Any time after you pulled the rope? Sunny Ang: The main reason was her air bubbles could not be located. She would be under where air bubbles were… I presumed she was nowhere around. So there was no point in diving. There were other vague and hazy reasons which crossed my mind, but they were not important. His Lordship: Other reasons? Sunny Ang: She might have been attacked by sharks. I think that is about all.
Defence counsel went on to ask him why he wrote three letters to the insurance companies the next afternoon. Ang explained that it was necessary in accident policies that notification should be given to the companies. “Any time limit?” asked the judge.
“No.” Ang replied.
In the afternoon, when the trial continued, defence counsel asked Ang if he had cut the green flippers Jenny had used. “No, I did not cut them,” said Sunny Ang.
The next question came from crown counsel. “Do you,” he asked Ang, “describe yourself as a truthful person?” The battle of wits which Ang had purposely sought by going into the witness-box, with the representative of the State, the people, had begun. Calm and at ease, Sunny Ang replied, “Normally I tell the truth. Sometimes I do tell white lies.” Mr Francis Seow: When do you depart from the truth? Sunny Ang: I cannot give you instances. Everybody does depart from the truth some time or other. Mr Francis Seow: Would you depart from the truth when it suits your purpose? Sunny Ang: Not exactly. Mr Francis Seow: Then when? Sunny Ang: I told you I cannot quote instances, but I do. Mr Francis Seow: In this particular case have you told any untruth? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: Not one? Sunny Ang: Not one untruth. Mr Francis Seow: Either to the insurance companies or to any person in connection with this case? Sunny Ang: I admit I did tell some untruths to the insurance companies. His Lordship: Would you describe them as white lies or blunt untruths? Sunny Ang: Untruths. His Lordship: They were falsehoods. Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: To gain a certain purpose? Sunny Ang: Not exactly. Can you give me an example? Then I will tell you whether I did for a certain purpose or not. Mr Francis Seow: What about the letters to the Great Eastern Life for the purpose of getting insurance which Jenny had applied for? Sunny Ang: That was not the primary reason. The primary reason was to get commission, which I would get if the policy is accepted. His Lordship: You lied with the golden hope of gaining? Sunny Ang: To get commission. Mr Francis Seow: Where is Jenny? Sunny Ang: I do not know. Mr Francis Seow: Is she dead? Sunny Ang: Presumably so. Mr Francis Seow: Why do you presume she is dead? Sunny Ang: Because she has not been heard of since. Mr Francis Seow: If she is alive would she have contacted you? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: And she has done that? Sunny Ang: No.
Crown counsel asked Ang about his plans to change his name, about his participation in the Singapore Grand Prix in 1961, and about his anxiety to have a coroner’s inquiry into Jenny’s disappearance. Mr Francis Seow: Because the coroner could make a finding that she is formally dead? Sunny Ang: We had hopes of that. Mr Francis Seow: You had hopes of that? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: And, once the coroner makes that finding, the way is then very clear for you to collect $450,000 through your mother? Sunny Ang: $300,000. Mr Francis Seow: You have calculated that? Sunny Ang: That is obvious. Mr Francis Seow: You had hopes to collect that other $150,000? You were going to contest it? Sunny Ang: It is impossible to contest. Mr Francis Seow: But you were prepared to contest for $100,000? Sunny Ang: Not prepared, but we were thinking of doing so. Mr Francis Seow: Anyway, the $300,000 was practically safe in the kitty if you could get the coroner’s formal findings? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: And with that end in view, you badgered your counsel to chase after the coroner. Isn’t that correct? Sunny Ang: I didn’t badger: the solicitor badgered. Mr Francis Seow: On your instructions? Sunny Ang: I gave instructions but he did it by himself.
Ang admitted he went to five different lawyers before Mr Lim of Lim and Lee advised him to take up civil proceedings. Mr Francis Seow: Because of the coroner’s failure to hold an inquiry for which you had hoped? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Therefore you forced the pace by taking up civil proceedings? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: In the meanwhile you read up various aspects of insurance law?
Ang said he had made many trips to the High Court Library to read up law, insurance law and other matters. He told crown counsel he did not know that the insurance companies were going to resist his probate action. “This motion you were taking out to presume Jenny’s death?”
“I did not know,” said Sunny Ang.
Ang told crown counsel that he knew papers had been served on the companies but did not know that the companies intended to contest the proceedings. He denied that he could short-circuit these proceedings with a compromise plan. Mr Francis Seow: Did you discuss this compromise plan with any of your counsel? Sunny Ang: Yes. But after the civil proceedings started. Mr Francis Seow: What was the compromise plan? Sunny Ang: We would settle for a lesser amount, provided they did not contest the claim.
Ang denied he rang up Rutherford of Edward Lumley and Company with the intention of discussing the compromise plan. Mr Francis Seow: Do you recognize this red book? (Handing it to Ang.) Sunny Ang: Yes, it’s my diary, for 1964. Mr Francis Seow: 27 May. You have a note there: ‘Ring Rutherford’. Is that not so? Sunny Ang: No. ‘Ring up Richard, good.’ His Lordship: Ring up Richard? Sunny Ang: No, the letter ‘R’. It stands for Richard, my brother. His Lordship: Ring up? Sunny Ang: Either ‘food’ or ‘good’. There is an ‘R’ and a dash. Mr Francis Seow: I suggest to you that this is an abbreviation which you use for Rutherford? ‘R-ford’? Sunny Ang: I do not think so. Mr Francis Seow: Now, look at the entry for 28 May, the next day. Isn’t there an entry to the effect: ‘Ring up Rutherford’, which you spell ‘Ruth’d’? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: What is it then? Sunny Ang: I don’t know. If I had abbreviated Rutherford into, as you say, ‘R-ford’ I would have stuck to the same one. His Lordship: How do you abbreviate ‘Rutherford’? Sunny Ang: I don’t abbreviate ‘Rutherford’. His Lordship: In your diary do you always write ‘Rutherford’ in full? Sunny Ang: I don’t know. I never had the opportunity to write it in the diary. His Lordship. What do you say that entry is then? Tell me. It is in your handwriting, in your diary. Tell me what it is. Sunny Ang: I wouldn’t know. Sometimes I write things, and, for the life of me, I can’t say what they are. His Lordship: Well, you had better try now, for the life of you. What do you think that is? Sunny Ang: I don’t know. Neither can I say. Mr Francis Seow: Now look at the entry for 2 June 1964. Isn’t that ‘Ring up Rutherford’? Sunny Ang: It isn’t. Mr Francis Seow: To whom does that refer? Sunny Ang: To a friend of mine. Mr Francis Seow: Who is that? Sunny Ang: It is a girl. His Lordship: What is her full name and address? Sunny Ang: She lives in Kuala Lumpur. His Lordship: What is her full name? Sunny Ang: Ruth Tan. Mr Francis Seow: What is her address in Kuala Lumpur? Sunny Ang: I wouldn’t know. Mr Francis Seow: What is her telephone number? Sunny Ang: I don’t know. But I know where she lives. Mr Francis Seow: Look at the entry for 4 June 1964. Is that not ‘Ring up Rutherford’? Sunny Ang: It is ‘Ring up Ruth again’. Mr Francis Seow: On one page is ‘Ring up Ruth’. And on the opposite page ‘Ring up Ruth. Not in desk. Enroute to UK.’ His Lordship: Doesn’t that suggest to you that is Mr Rutherford? Sunny Ang: It does not. His Lordship: What does it suggest? That Ruth Tan has gone to UK for a holiday is that it? Sunny Ang: I don’t know. It says ‘On leave in the UK’. His Lordship: You don’t know what the diary means? Mr Francis Seow: I put it to you that it refers to Mr Rutherford who, you were told, was on leave in theUnited Kingdom? Sunny Ang: No.
Sunny Ang, questioned about a telephone call to McDougall, the then acting manager of Edward Lumley and Sons, who took over while Rutherford was in the United Kingdom, denied he made the call or suggested to McDougall that he was prepared to swear an affidavit that Jenny was not a chicken farm proprietress if the company were prepared to settle for less. “Right. What was this compromise plan of yours?” asked Mr Francis Seow.
“Just to settle for a lesser amount,” said Sunny Ang.
Ang was asked to comment on the fitting of washers to the tank, produced in court, which Ang said leaked on 27 August 1963, thus preventing him from going down to search for Jenny. He denied that he had loosened it deliberately so that there would be a leak for Yusuf’s benefit. His Lordship: You saw Henderson fix the washer into this tank and there was no leak at all? Sunny Ang: Yes. His Lordship: Using this improvised washer which you made on the boat on the day in question? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Can you explain why it did not leak? Sunny Ang: This is quite impertinent. For the same reason as Mr Henderson would not be able to explain why his washer leaked. Mr Francis Seow: I’m asking you about the particular washer, which was cut and improvised on the day you did not go down into the sea, because you said that the tank leaked. Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Now, using that same washer on the same tank and the same regulator, the tank leaked. Can you explain why? His Lordship: Apparently it leaked on 27 August 1963, but not two days ago. Sunny Ang: Many-a few reasons. His Lordship: Let’s have them.
Ang said the washer may not have been put in properly that day. It might not have been clamped sufficiently tight. There might have been dirt on the washer.
Replying to further questions by crown counsel, Sunny Ang said he first met Jenny by accident near the coroner’s court. He did not know her then. He agreed in response to cross-examination that he had only known her three months before she disappeared. He told the judge that it had taken him 15 years to become a good swimmer. He said he taught Jenny to swim and skin-dive in a dozen lessons spread over two months. She learned to scuba-dive at the same time. He was questioned by crown counsel about the gloves. Mr Francis Seow: Why is it necessary to bring gloves along with you? Sunny Ang: Because the coral is sharp. Mr Francis Seow: This was an expedition to collect coral? Sunny Ang: Primarily. Mr Francis Seow: And when Jenny went down the second time was that with the object of collecting coral? Sunny Ang: Not she alone. Both of us would have done it together. His Lordship: When she did go down the second time, her intention was to collect coral? Sunny Ang. Not her intention alone, my Lord. Our intention was. Mr Francis Seow: Her intention and your intention were to collect coral? Sunny Ang: Our collective intention was. His Lordship: Don’t be silly. I shall lose my patience with you. Mr Francis Seow: Jenny had gone down first with that object? Sunny Ang: Her object was to help me to collect coral. Mr Francis Seow: How? Sunny Ang: Help to carry them. Mr Francis Seow: From the bottom of the sea? Sunny Ang: Yes, after having chipped them off. She was supposed to help: general help. Mr Francis Seow: And it was necessary to wear gloves for that? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Did she wear gloves when she went down the second time? Sunny Ang: She did. Mr Francis Seow: Do you recognize this bag? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: It was left by you at the Marine Police Station? Mr Francis Seow: That is right. Mr Francis Seow: What colour gloves did Jenny wear when she went down? Sunny Ang: I can’t remember. Mr Francis Seow: Can you explain how the two pairs of gloves are still here in the swimming bag? Would you care to look at them? (Ang. smelt the gloves.) Sunny Ang: I can’t explain. His Lordship: She never wore any gloves? Sunny Ang: So far as I remember, she did. Mr Francis Seow: Please explain how these two pairs of gloves are still in your swimming bag which you left in the Marine Police Station. Sunny Ang: Ask the police. His Lordship: Don’t be impertinent. Sunny Ang: I’m sorry. Mr Francis Seow: I’m asking you. Sunny Ang: I cannot explain. Mr Francis Seow: Do you agree that those two pairs of gloves are still very new? In fact they have not even touched water? Sunny Ang: That is why I smelt them, yes.
Sunny Ang told crown counsel that he did not know about Jenny’s unhappy past until about a month after he met her.
Mr Francis Seow: Would it be fair to say that you were intimate with her in every sense of the word? Sunny Ang: I refuse to answer the question. His Lordship: Why? Sunny Ang: It is irrelevant. His Lordship: You will answer the question. You were on intimate terms with her in every sense of the term? Sunny Ang: Yes.
He agreed that Sidney Kong was a close friend, a confidante, a sort of adviser, with whom he had discussed the compromise plan to settle for half the amount of one of the claims. Ang said he was going to lend him $50,000 from the insurance money to invest in a housing enterprise in the United Kingdom. (Kong left Singapore a week after Ang’s arrest.) Mr Francis Seow: I suggest to you that this $50,000 is his cut of the proceeds? Sunny Ang: He was going to pay me interest of $500 a month.
Crown counsel questioned Sunny Ang in detail about the car accident near Seremban. He said that when they got back to Singapore he had $3. He gave Jenny $1 to see a doctor, and $1 for a taxi. The last dollar he spent on a bus to go home. His Lordship: Tell me, were you in love with Jenny? Sunny Ang: Yes. His Lordship: Did you intend to marry her? Sunny Ang: Well, it was more a tacit than an expressed understanding. His Lordship: Did you intend to marry her? Sunny Ang: Yes, my Lord. Mr Francis Seow: Do you know that Jenny’s education was only of Standard Three level? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: She was not a particularly bright girl, was she? Sunny Ang: Oh, she was. Mr Francis Seow: Very bright? Sunny Ang: Not very bright. But she learned things fast. Mr Francis Seow: Under your expert tuition? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Would you describe her as somewhat naive? Sunny Ang: No, I wouldn’t. Mr Francis Seow: Simple? Sunny Ang: She was simple. But not naive. His Lordship: What do you understand by ‘naive’? Sunny Ang: Well, sort of believing everything she is told. Mr Francis Seow: Impressionable? Sunny Ang: No, she had a mind of her own. Mr Francis Seow: She trusted you? Sunny Ang: No, she did not. His Lordship: You intended to marry her, but you say she did not trust you? Sunny Ang: She did not trust me, well, in my driving. Mr Francis Seow: We are not talking about trusting you in your driving. Sunny Ang: And also about going out with other women. Mr Francis Seow: Apart from that she trusted you, in your good faith, in your integrity? Sunny Ang: I don’t know about that. His Lordship: You don’t know? Sunny Ang: She could be suspicious at times. His Lordship: With justification? Sunny Ang: With justification. Mr Francis Seow: Your mother, Madam Yeo Bee Neo, dotes on you, doesn’t she? Sunny Ang: She loves me as a mother loves her son. Mr Francis Seow: When her name was put in as beneficiary in the Great Eastern Life Assurance application form, Jenny had not yet met your mother? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: And your mother was unaware of the fact that she had been named as Jenny’s beneficiary? Sunny Ang: She was unaware. Mr Francis Seow: In actual fact you were the real beneficiary? Sunny Ang: Yes.
Ang gave evidence that Jenny, sometime in July 1963, met his mother at 8 Karikal Lane. “You can’t call it a natural meeting. My mother was in the kitchen, cooking and Jenny was outside in the sitting room. And just as we got to the door I did call out to my mother and I said, ‘Mum, this is Jenny Cheok.’” His Lordship: That was all? Sunny Ang: I think Jenny smiled at my mother and I think my mother said, ‘Hullo’. That was all. His Lordship: So they had never really met at all? That could hardly be described as a substantial meeting: it was merely a passing greeting, a nod and a smile. And that was the only time they ever met? Sunny Ang: Yes.
Ang agreed with crown counsel that it was untrue to describe Jenny on the form as a close friend of his mother. Mr Francis Seow: Is that the only occasion you departed from the truth? Sunny Ang: I did not depart from the truth. (His friend Sidney Kong actually wrote the words on the form.) Mr Francis Seow: But you were party to an untruth? Sunny Ang: Well, yes, but here again… may I say something? His Lordship: Yes, indeed. Sunny Ang: The primary purpose of agents, or even divisional managers, in an insurance company is to effect business and I may say with all sincerity that many untruths and misrepresentations occur in filling up application forms. His Lordship: Well, I should think insurance companies would be shocked, because insurance companies work on the principle of the utmost good faith. Sunny Ang: I know that. His Lordship: But you say that it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance? Sunny Ang: Yes, it is a common practice among insurance companies.
Asked to confirm that Jenny had been inside his home only once, Ang at first agreed, and then remembered she had been there on another occasion but had not met his mother.
His Lordship: You told me a minute ago you were quite sure it was only the one occasion. Now you say a second occasion. Sunny Ang: I just remembered. His Lordship: Well now, is that absolutely final? Only twice? Or are you going to think of another one in another minute? Sunny Ang: My Lord, with all respects, I do not like such insinuations. His Lordship: Just answer the questions. You have already said only one. I am asking you: is that all, or are you going to remember another one later on? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: If Jenny were suddenly to die after having effected any insurance policy, and if your name had been put down as beneficiary, do you agree you would have been the first suspect? Sunny Ang: Suspected of what? Mr Francis Seow: Of her murder, her death? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: If your mother’s name had been on it there would be less suspicion? Sunny Ang: Worse-more suspicion. His Lordship: On you? Sunny Ang: Even more on me. Mr Francis Seow: Why do you say that? Sunny Ang: Well, it was an obviously-how shall I say? His Lordship: Palpable ruse? Sunny Ang: Let us say it was a cheap attempt to try to divert- His Lordship: What I am saying is that it could be looked upon as a palpable ruse to switch the suspicion on you-that is what you are trying to say? Sunny Ang: That is right. Mr Francis Seow: Your mother is very ambitious for you? Sunny Ang: No. His Lordship: What an unusual mother! I thought mothers were always ambitious for their children. Doesn’t your mother want you to get on? Sunny Ang: Well, it depends upon the degree of ambition. His Lordship: Isn’t she ambitious for your future? Sunny Ang: She is not ambitious for me. She wants me to settle down. Mr Francis Seow: Well, are you ambitious? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: You want to get on? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: You want to be a barrister-at-law? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Among other things? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Are you a student of the University of Singapore? Sunny Ang: No. His Lordship: Have you ever been? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: Have you ever sat for the entrance examination? Sunny Ang: No. Mr Francis Seow: And if you were to say you had, that would be untrue? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: In December 1964, did you tell the Under Treasurer of Gray’s Inn in a letter that you are a student at the University of Singapore? Sunny Ang: I can’t remember. His Lordship: Can’t remember! Wait a moment. You first of all said you never were. Now you say you can’t remember whether you said to the Under Treasurer at Gray’s Inn that you were a student in the University of Singapore. Sunny Ang: I can’t remember whether I wrote to Gray’s Inn at all. His Lordship: Possibly your memory may be refreshed? (Hands Ang a letter.) Mr Francis Seow: Is that your letter? Sunny Ang: It is my letter. But it was never sent. Mr Francis Seow: Are you quite sure you never sent it? Sunny Ang: I can’t remember if I sent it. I never mailed it. The letter is torn here. I couldn’t have sent a torn letter. His Lordship: It could have been torn on its return, or while it was in England, if it were ever sent. Is that possible? Sunny Ang: That is quite possible, but I couldn’t have. Mr Francis Seow: Will you please look at that letter and see the postal cancellation marks, the traces, on it? His Lordship: Have a good look Ang, please. And take your time. Answer the question and let the answer be right. (Ang is shown the letter.) Did you send it? Sunny Ang: I must have.
Justice Buttrose read the letter, which was signed by Sunny Ang: it was addressed to the Under Treasurer, Gray’s Inn, London WC1. Dear Sir, I am a student at the University of Singapore but I intend to join Gray’s Inn next year. My admission to the University of Singapore was gained not through obtaining a Higher School Certificate but through passing their University Entrance Examination. However I possess a School Certificate Grade 1 with distinctions in English and Science. I would appreciate it very much if you could tell me if I am eligible as a scholar with Gray’s Inn. Thanking you, I am, Yours faithfully, [sgd] S. Ang Sunny Ang: May I explain? His Lordship: Yes, indeed you may. Sunny Ang: I wrote the letter because I wanted to find out if there was any way of getting into Gray’s Inn without having two Principal Level subjects as advanced subjects. And I wanted to find out if, being a student at the University, and having passed the Entrance Examination, which I believe would be easier to do than to take the Higher School Certificate. Join the university for a few months and then qualify myself to — His Lordship: Yes, Ang, I accept all that. But the thing that the jury and I are interested in is: do you think that is a good way to start your entrance into Gray’s Inn, by writing to the Under Treasurer and telling him things that are not true? Do you think that is a good way to start your legal career? Sunny Ang: No, my Lord, but only I did it with the best of intentions. I had to present them with my qualification eventually, so there is no point in lying to them. I did intend to take the Entrance Examination. His Lordship: Supposing you did not succeed in passing, but failed: they still have your letter saying not only that you were a student at the University, but that you passed an examination you have not even sat for? Mr Francis Seow: That is the only time you departed from the truth? His Lordship: That is repetition, and we are wasting time.
Ang, by now, had firmly established himself as a man not to be believed. He admitted sending another letter stating he was, in 1964, a licenced commercial pilot, when in fact he was not.
Shown another entry in his 1964 diary, Ang wrote, ‘the police are damn sure she was murdered, i.e. she is dead’. He was asked by crown counsel if he wrote that. His Lordship: That is in your handwriting and you made that entry? Sunny Ang: Yes. (He smiles.) His Lordship: You seem to be amused. Is it funny? Sunny Ang: I have my reasons. His Lordship: Perhaps. We shall investigate that in a moment. Mr Francis Seow: Is she dead? Sunny Ang: Yes, to me she is dead. His Lordship: That is a matter for the jury and not for this witness.
Giving evidence about the chicken farm, which Ang said he had sold to Jenny (he said she had made two payments, one of $500 and another of $1,500, the remaining $8,000 to be paid out of profits), Sunny Ang said they did not intend to get married for five years. He agreed that Jenny had no experience in running a chicken farm.
Shortly after lunch on the third day of the defence, the 10th day of the trial, crown counsel cross-examined him about the fateful Tuesday afternoon. Ang said he knew it would take at least half an hour for the sampan to get to St John’s Island, and half an hour to get back. “Time was of the essence if this girl is to be rescued?” asked Mr Francis Seow. “Yes,” said Sunny Ang.
Asked why he did not use Jenny’s tank to dive down to search for her, he said it did not occur to him. His Lordship: Why not? Sunny Ang: If she had been anywhere round the boat I would have seen her air bubbles. His Lordship: Did you realize that this girl, whom you love and whom you were going to marry, had gone down and disappeared, and you calmly turn round to the boatman and said, ‘All right. Go to St John’s’? Sunny Ang: If she was anywhere around the boat we would have seen her air bubbles. His Lordship: It didn’t occur to you to go down and search for her? Sunny Ang: No. His Lordship: Why? Sunny Ang: Because I thought there was obviously a leak and also if she was anywhere around the boat we would have seen her air bubbles. Mr Francis Seow: But the point remains that the Sealion tank of Jenny in the boat could have been used if you had used it? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: And it had seven minutes of air or more? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: And your answer is: ‘It never occurred to me’? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: You had skin-diving equipment with you in the boat? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: The girl you were going to marry was obviously in difficulty, if not actually dead already. Why didn’t you use your skin-diving equipment to go down?
Sunny Ang paused for several long minutes. The courtroom was hushed when he replied, “I was not quite sure what sort of difficulties she was in. It occurred to me-it was a vague thought-that she might have been attacked by sharks. In fact, I remarked upon that to Yusuf. Not then, but long after the incident.”
His Lordship: You could have gone down to find out? Sunny Ang: She might have been attacked by sharks. Mr Francis Seow: Was one of the main reasons that sharks may be lurking where your boat was? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: Why did you bring her there in the first place, if sharks were lurking there? Sunny Ang: The idea of sharks being there never occurred to me. In fact, it was Yusuf who recommended the spot to me-I mean the Sister Islands. Mr Francis Seow: When did you change back into your street clothes? Sunny Ang: I think I remember I put them on, on my way to St John’s Island. Mr Francis Seow: So that when the Malay divers were going in you were then in your street clothes, and you saw no point in joining them? Sunny Ang: I do not say I saw no point. I was in my street clothes and there were more experienced skin-divers, and there were five of them. Besides I knew the chances of finding her were very slim. His Lordship: You never got into the water at all that day? You never got your feet wet? Sunny Ang: That is so.
Sunny Ang admitted to crown counsel that on 28 August 1963 (the day after Jenny’s disappearance), Robert Cheok, brother of Jenny, came to his house and insinuated that Ang had murdered her.
Mr Francis Seow: And didn’t you tell him that if you had gone down together with Jenny, and if you had surfaced without her, then he could suspect you, and not otherwise? Sunny Ang: Yes. Mr Francis Seow: I put it to you that, after you insured Jenny heavily, you deliberately took her out to Pulau Dua where you tampered with her scuba equipment so that she would drown underneath the sea? Sunny Ang: I did not. Mr Francis Seow: So that you could collect the money? Sunny Ang: No.
Ang was in the witness-box for eight hours over three days. His counsel did not re-examine, and, when Ang returned to the dock, called Yeo Tong Hock of Penang. Yeo gave his evidence in Hokkien. He said he was a food hawker, but in 1963 a brothel-keeper, and a pimp. At first he claimed that he had seen a woman similar to Jenny alive in Penang, and later in Kedah, after her reported disappearance. Later, shown a picture of Jenny, he agreed it was not the same girl.
He agreed with defence counsel that a photograph was first shown to him by an insurance investigator. He went to the High Court in Kuala Lumpur to make an affidavit.
Cross-examined by crown counsel, Yeo admitted he had bad eyesight. In September 1964, he met Stephen Lim, an investigator from Malayan Adjustment. He was shown a photograph. The investigator suggested it might be Jenny Cheok. He said he was prepared to make a statement but not swear an affidavit. Crown Counsel: And Lim told you that if you did not swear an affidavit, and if the girl was subsequently found, you would not be entitled to any award? Yeo: Yes. Crown Counsel: And he told you that $25,000 would be for you if you swear out this affidavit? Yeo: No. He said if this person were to be found then there would be a reward for me. Crown Counsel: The insurance company would pay you $25,000? Yeo: Yes. His Lordship: Can you say, looking at this photograph now, in this court, at this moment, that it is the same girl you saw in Penang? Defence Counsel: Could he look at both the photographs? His Lordship: Certainly. (Photographs shown to witness.) Tell me. on sober reflection, now, with the greatest care with your answer-can you say absolutely whether or not that is the girl? Yeo: Not the same.
As Mr Coomaraswamy rose to re-examine the witness. the judge told Yeo that he need fear no consequences of any answer he may give to any question he may be asked. Mr Coomaraswamy: Now, where have you been living for the past 10 days? Mr Francis Seow: I object to that- His Lordship: How does this come up in cross-examination? Mr Coomaraswamy: My instructions are that he was held incommunicado by the Penang police and threatened that he would be in trouble if he gave evidence in support of what he said in the affidavit. His Lordship: Where have you been for the past 10 days? Yeo: I left Penang on 2 May for Taiping. From Taiping I went to Kuala Lumpur. Last night I received a phone call saying I was wanted in Singapore. His Lordship: I am bound to say, exercising all the restraint I can, that I think it was, Mr Coomaraswamy, a most unhappy remark for you to say that this witness had been kept incommunicado by the Penang police for 10 days. There is not the slightest evidence to support it. I shall have a lot to say about this to the jury when I come to sum up. Mr Coomaraswamy: I was doing it on instruction, my Lord, and the instructions were given to me by a responsible person.
On the 11 ^ th day of the trial (the fourth day of the defence), Mr Coomaraswamy drew the court’s attention to a report in The Straits Times that Richard Ang was facing charges in connection with a witness in the case. The judge called for a copy of the paper and ordered the jury not to read the report.
Defence counsel said that Richard Ang had been arrested on 22 April and produced in court on 23 April. The case was mentioned on 30 April and hearing fixed for August. (Subsequently the case against Richard Ang was dropped). Mr Coomaraswamy complained that it was significant that the report should have appeared when his intention of calling him as a witness had already been known. Mr Seow assured the judge that the prosecution had nothing to do with the report. “I should be horrified if you had,” said the judge.
Mr Coomaraswamy closed his case after calling three more witnesses: two police officers who gave evidence about the car accident, and 16-year-old William Ang. One policeman said he had never in two and a half years in the area even seen dogs in the vicinity of the accident and William Ang said that Jenny had learned to swim ‘quite fast’. He said he had seen Jenny scuba-diving twice off Changi Beach.
Both Mr Coomaraswamy, for Ang, and Mr Francis Seow addressed the court on the 12 ^ th day of the trial. Defence counsel spoke for two hours. Crown counsel spoke altogether for an hour and a quarter. Then the judge began his summing up. He addressed the jury for three-quarters of an hour on Monday, 17 May 1965, and for another hour and three-quarters on Tuesday morning.
The Trial: The Defence
In his two-hour speech for the defence, Mr Coomaraswamy spoke from rough notes. He submitted there were numerous ways in which Jenny could have met her death-if, in fact, she was dead. She could have been swept away, or struck her head against some coral and become unconscious and subsequently lost her flipper. She might have been attacked by a shark. She might have been suffering from nitrogen narcissus (a form of numbness). “In a case like this, you cannot act on evidence that maybe she is dead. You cannot even act on evidence that allows you to say, ‘You may be pretty sure she is dead.’ You have to go beyond that and act only if you can be morally certain beyond reasonable doubt that she is dead.”
He submitted that on the evidence, the jury could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did kill Jenny in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
Quoting extensively from a law book on the assessment of circumstantial evidence, Mr Coomaraswamy said that the prosecution evidence, put simply and stripped of all the trimmings, was that the accused stood to gain by the death of Jenny, that he was with her when she disappeared, that after her disappearance he made representations that he presumed her to be dead, and that he had told untruths in the witness-box. “On this basis the prosecution is going to ask you to return a verdict that he is guilty of murder.”
Dealing with the allegation that Ang told untruths in the witness-box, Mr Coomaraswamy read extracts from accused’s diary and submitted that if the diary was a ‘diary of truth’, as the prosecution contended, it was strange that it contained no entry on 8 June of a telephone call to McDougall (a director of Edward Lumley Limited, the insurance company).
Ang had also been cross-examined on certain representations he had made to institutions of higher learning as to his qualifications and his name. “What has this to do with the case?” asked counsel. “For this, are we going to convict him of murder?”
He asked the jury to consider the accused’s evidence as a whole and his evidence in relation to the statement he made to the police soon after the incident, when there was no time for fabrication. They could then ask, was he telling the truth or not?
Mr Coomaraswamy also invited the jury to look at those parts of the accused’s evidence, where he could easily have lied, but where obviously he had given truthful answers. For instance, there was an important matter on which he could have lied: that he and not his mother was the real beneficiary by Jenny’s death.
Mr Coomaraswamy reminded the jury that, as the prosecution had freely acknowledged, the evidence against the accused was purely circumstantial and, correspondingly, the prosecution’s task and burden was greater. In other words, the prosecution must produce in seven ‘independent minds’ a degree of persuasion very much greater than it would have had to achieve had there been direct evidence of death and the mode by which death was achieved.
Counsel then cited a long passage from an authority on the assessment of circumstantial evidence, with the tendency of police officers to form a conclusion, and then seek out evidence to support that conclusion.
Counsel said that within two to three weeks of the alleged offence, accused was subjected to a long interrogation and he made a ‘full and frank statement’. Counsel submitted that the prosecution had all the evidence it wanted by October 1963, but it was not until 16 months later that the accused was arrested.
Mr Coomaraswamy said that it was always possible to place a suspicious interpretation, if one so wished, on any piece of evidence. For instance, the prosecution had asked the accused if he knew that Jenny treasured a ring, which was handed over to the Marine Police. Accused had admitted that he did. The interpretation sought to be placed on this admission was that this man, who had so professed his love for the girl, would have wanted to retain the ring as a memento. But if the accused had, in fact, retained the ring, he would have been described as an evil man who, not satisfied with the money he stood to collect from her death, also took the ring that belonged to the girl. “What the prosecution is going to ask you to do is to act on suspicion and speculation.”
Nevertheless, the prosecution had not yet tried to crystallize the speculation and theories so that the defence could meet them. One clue to the prosecution’s speculation was in crown counsel’s question to the accused, suggesting that after he had insured her heavily he took her out to Pulau Dua so that she could drown at sea, and so that he could collect the money.
Counsel said that the evidence should be examined to see how it fitted this theory. Jenny was a bar girl, who encountered a large number of men, each adopting different methods to win her favours. “To put it shortly, you must accept it that she was a worldly-wise girl,” said Mr Coomaraswamy. He submitted that Jenny wanted insurance for her own reasons. The jury must believe that there were limits to gullibility even for a bar girl.
Dealing with the question of the beneficiary under the insurance policy, defence counsel said that accused had said in his police statement that his mother, Madam Yeo Bee Neo, had been named beneficiary because he himself was a bankrupt.
With regard to the will, counsel said that it was difficult to conceive the circumstances in which an unwilling or uncooperative person would make one. He submitted that in this particular instance there was very good reason for a girl like Jenny to make a will. She was married and estranged from her husband, and in the event of her death the only person who could enforce any claims on what Jenny might have had would have been the estranged husband. “It is in my submission quite clear that Jenny knew exactly what the will was, knew the consequence of making it and knew its effect,” said Mr Coomaraswamy. The evidence was clear that she was a full and willing party to the making of this will.
Defence counsel also touched on the theory that the accused had designed an accident on the road to kill Jenny so that he could get the insurance money, but having failed in that had set up another device. “It is my submission that accused’s story of the accident is the correct one, that he was driving fast round this notorious bend,” said Mr Coomaraswamy. Another improbability of the prosecution theory on this was that the accused would design a serious motor accident with himself as the driver. “My submission is that the prosecution theory is as fanciful as the rest of their case.”
In his argument on the evidence regarding one of the flippers which was found, counsel said there were three possibilities: · the flipper was not cut when Jenny went down for her first dive; · the flipper was cut between the first and second dives; and · the flipper was not cut at all.
He asked the jury to dismiss the second possibility and to consider whether or not the flipper was cut before the first dive. If, as the prosecution alleged, it was the accused’s object to kill Jenny on her first dive, the accused could have tampered with either her aqualung, weight belt or flipper.
If the flipper had been cut the first time, Jenny would have discovered it, and the flipper would not have withstood the tensions applied to it while it was being put on. But she went into the water and came up again with no apparent sign of difficulty.
Counsel submitted that if the prosecution theory was true, the only possible assumption about the accused was that he was a calculating and cold-blooded killer. “Would accused have taken the risk of Jenny detecting the cut flippers?” he asked. “In the light of the evidence it is my submission that the evidence of this flipper is not enough and it is highly dangerous to act on it.”
Defence counsel said that the speculation in the case finally crystallized on the answers to two questions. The first was: is Jenny dead? “On this, you will have to disregard anything you have heard outside this court, and the views of all other persons,” he told the jury, “and you will have to come to a conclusion upon the hard facts of the evidence adduced before you.”
“It is not my task, nor that of my client, to explain the non-production of the body but the task of the prosecution to satisfy you that Jenny is, in fact, dead, although her body has not been found.”
He referred to the evidence of a witness, Yeo Tong Hock, who in November 1964 was willing to swear an affidavit that the person whom he knew to be Jenny was seen by him in late August 1963, in Penang, and subsequently in Alor Star. This was the only evidence available of whether Jenny was alive or not.
Mr Coomaraswamy said it was possible that Jenny was carried by currents, but did not find her air-tank unserviceable. The theory was not too far-fetched. It was strange that her body had not been found if, in fact, she was dead.
“In a case like this, you cannot act on evidence that maybe she is dead,” he submitted. “You cannot even act on evidence that allows you to say, ‘You may be pretty sure she is dead.’ You have to go beyond that and act only if you can be morally certain beyond reasonable doubt that she is dead.”
He submitted that the jury could not reach that conclusion on the evidence given. He reminded them that the accused was not being charged with fraud or telling lies, which carried penalties of imprisonment on conviction. Accused was charged with the most serious offence. The more serious and grave the punishment, the more careful they must be in making inferences.
If the jury came to the conclusion that Jenny was dead, they must reach a further conclusion. How did she come by her death? “Unless you come to the conclusion where you feel that the accused is responsible for her death, you cannot find him guilty of murder,” said counsel.
Even assuming for a moment that accused did cut Jenny’s flipper, could the jury say with moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt, after eliminating all other things that could have happened, that the accused was responsible for her death? “Can you, acting so that you are morally certain beyond a reasonable doubt, come to the conclusion that the accused did kill Jenny in the manner put forward by the prosecution?”
Mr Coomaraswamy concluded, “It is my submission that there are many explanations to the disappearance that are possible, and even on the assumption that she is dead, there are many ways in which she could have come to her death.”
Prosecution’s Closing Speech
In his closing speech, Mr Seow argued that it had been clearly established that, until Jenny met Ang, she did not know how to swim or scuba-dive. Ang had apparently taught her to do both in the short space of three months. “Do you think she could have possibly reached that degree of proficiency in scuba-diving to make it safe for her to dive in the channel between the Sisters Islands? Jenny was at best still a novice in scuba-diving, and Sunny Ang her instructor knew this.”
Yusuf was Ang’s regular boatman. He remembered having taken Jenny and Ang together only once before: that was to Pulau Tekukor, about two months before 27 August 1963, and on this occasion Jenny did not scuba-dive. The boatman did however have an opportunity of observing Jenny’s prowess at swimming. He described this as ‘unskilled’. The only occasion Yusuf had taken Jenny and Ang scuba-diving was on 27 August, which was Jenny’s first scuba-venture out at sea. Eileen Toh, who was at a picnic at Tanah Merah Besar, noticed that Jenny could barely swim as late as August.
Counsel made much of what he called ‘the cursory search’ for Jenny when she failed to respond to Ang’s jerking on the rope. Ang was in his swimming trunks: he was a very good swimmer and yet he did not go into the water in search of Jenny. In fact he never got his feet wet at all that day. Why did he not go in himself in search of Jenny? “You are left with the inescapable feeling that the prisoner was reluctant, most reluctant to look for her. And indeed we have his own word for it. Astonishing as it may sound, he saw no point in diving to look for her because he could not see her air bubbles anywhere near the boat, and because visibility in that depth could be only a few feet.” Ang further thought that sharks might have attacked her and his instinct for self-preservation prevented him from diving down.
Counsel said that it took Ang some 15 minutes or more to realize that he had an emergency situation on his hands. “And, upon that realization, was he galvanized into immediate action to save the girl he says he loved, and whom he says he had intended to marry? With all the scuba-diving equipment on board, all he did was vaguely to recall that there was a telephone on St John’s Island, some distance away, and, upon confirming this with the boatman, went there to summon the police for help. On the way, Ang apparently found time to change back into his street clothes.”
At St John’s Island, Jaffar bin Hussein, the guard, advised Ang that, until the police arrived, some pawangs (sea witch doctors) should be summoned to help, and accordingly five were brought to the spot where Jenny disappeared. They did not find her.
“What,” asked Mr Seow, “were her chances of survival in those treacherous waters? The torn and cut flipper, which Ang does not dispute was worn by Jenny, which was recovered near the spot where she last dived, suggests unmistakably that Jenny, as intended by Ang, swam into difficulties. Having regard to the strong currents known to be prevalent in that area, to her inexperience in swimming and in scuba-diving, the sudden and unexpected loss of the flipper triggered off a chain of panic-stricken reaction, with the inevitable result that she drowned.”
There was, remarked counsel, never any doubt in Sunny Ang’s mind that Jenny was dead. To put the matter of Jenny’s death beyond any doubt, Ang and his mother instructed their counsel to instigate and to expedite a coroner’s inquest into Jenny’s disappearance so that a formal finding of her death could be returned, failing which they next attempted to move the High Court by way of probate proceedings to presume that Jenny had died on 27 August 1963. “That was the degree of their certainty that Jenny was dead.”
Counsel said that it was incredible that after Ang had asserted, not only in various letters and documents, but also in the witness-box, that Jenny is dead, he should call as his witness Yeo Tong Hock to suggest in effect that a girl whom he once saw in Penang in 1963, and presumably again in Kedah in 1964, was in fact Jenny. “Yeo Tong Hock now affirms before you quite positively that the girl he saw was not Jenny.”
Mr Seow permitted himself to be amazed that the defence ‘should be in such confusion, such disarray, that in one breath it asserts that Jenny is dead, and in the next breath that she is still alive.’ He argued that if Jenny was alive it meant that she was hand-in-glove with Ang in a conspiracy to cheat the insurance companies. “Now assuming the evidence of the boatman is a truthful account of what took place, which I submit it was, there are two possible ways in which the deception could have been achieved. Firstly, Jenny swam the four miles back from the Sisters Islands to Singapore, which, having regard to her known swimming or scuba experience, was most unlikely. Or, secondly, she swam underwater part of the distance, surfaced, and was picked up by a boat lurking nearby. Here again, her scuba, swimming prowess precludes any such spectacular effort. No such boat, or anyone nearby, was seen by the boatman that day (which was confirmed by Ang in his own diary), and you may therefore rule out that possibility.”
The prosecutor went on to argue that if, for argument’s sake, Jenny did somehow manage to get back to Singapore and was alive, surely Ang would have told the police by now that she was alive? “Do you not think that, if he could, he would have produced Jenny and thus provided a complete defence to the charge that he had murdered her?” Mr Seow addressed the jury, “Ask yourselves: would not Jenny, were she alive, have walked through the very doors of this Court by now, to save Ang?”
Counsel dealt briefly with the insurances on Jenny’s life. He said that a matter that called for some comment was Jenny’s conduct. Did she know what was happening? He thought not. “The picture which emerges from the evidence is that of a young and lowly educated and impressionable girl with an unhappy past (although Ang describes her as simple), who, it seems, could be as easily fascinated by a typewriter as by a poultry farm, and who could be as equally interested in flying as in scuba-diving. Contrast her with Ang. Is it any wonder that within a month of meeting her he was able to sell an insurance policy and persuade Jenny to name his mother as her beneficiary-a woman Jenny never met? She thought he was going to marry her. In such circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine this ignorant and love-struck barmaid signing her life away. Ang virtually supported her, paid all the subsequent accident policies. Jenny had no poultry farm and Ang’s assertion that she had was another figment of his vivid imagination.”
Ang, said Mr Seow, was an expert and skilled motorist. He had been among the first 10 in the 1961 Singapore Grand Prix of 180 miles. Was not the so-called accident, in which he and Jenny were involved, contrived by him? Was this not a brazen attempt by Ang to kill Jenny? Within 13 days of that accident, Jenny was involved in another accident-this time at sea. After the first abortive attempt on her life, this unsuspecting bar waitress without any visible means of support was heavily insured by Ang and taken out scuba-diving by him. Ang knew the treacherous nature of the waters, especially the undertows. And it was to this very place that he brought his inexperienced pupil on a quiet and lonely Tuesday afternoon to scuba-dive. Against all rules of safety, he instructed her to dive in alone. Against all rules of safety, she was allowed to put on her weight belt first, after which her air-tank was harnessed on her back. After her tank was changed by Ang, Jenny went below alone and never surfaced again. Counsel said that Ang had never satisfactorily explained why he had changed her tank when it still had a lot of air in it.
“It would have been awkward for Ang if both he and Jenny had gone down together and only he came up. He had to create an alibi that he was in the boat when she swam into difficulties, and was drowned. Ang also had to create an excuse for himself for not going into the sea when Jenny failed to surface-an alibi and an excuse which could be vouched for by a third party, the boatman Yusuf. What was the alibi? What was the excuse? Well, washers do not normally drop out by themselves. How, then, did the washer of Ang’s tank come to be missing? It was deliberately removed by him. “Nevertheless the fact remains that, due to wear and tear, washers do occasionally drop out-and therein lies the ingenuity of Ang’s stratagem.
But if it did drop out, you would immediately be aware of this, before you fixed the breathing assembly to the tank. How was it that Ang was not immediately aware of this? Why did he not test the tank after he had fixed the breathing assembly to see if it leaked? This would have been the most natural thing to do before he put the tank on his back. But he says he did not. Why? After the tank had been harnessed on he asked the boatman to turn the valve on, as it was tight. Then he heard the loud outrush of escaping air. When he discovered that the cause of the leak was the missing washer, Ang, oddly enough, did not remark to Yusuf that it might have dropped out in the sampan, or start a search for it. Does not his behaviour strike you as that of a person who knew that the washer was not there? Because he had deliberately removed it? What he did was simply to go through the motions of play-acting for the benefit of the unsuspecting boatman. A washer was improvised from a rubber strap of a diving mask. But the tank still leaked.”
Counsel reminded the jury that the improvised washer in question was put in as an exhibit by the defence. “And with that very same washer, on that very same Healthway tank-which Ang said leaked-Henderson demonstrated before your very eyes and ears that the tank did not leak. But Yusuf also said he heard it leak. What then is the explanation? It is very simple. The washer was fixed on the tank by Ang but he deliberately did not clamp it tight, so that when the valve was turned on, the tank was bound to leak. Henderson was himself able to cause a deliberate leak on his own tank in that manner when he dived on 26 April 1965 off Pulau Dua. And, to prove it beyond doubt, you have seen in this Court how with its proper washer the Healthway tank leaked if it was not clamped on tight. Yusuf of course had no means of knowing this. Firstly because he knew nothing of scuba-equipment (a fact known to Ang), and secondly, it was Ang who had fitted it on.”
Counsel recalled that they had examined the improvised washer before and after Henderson’s demonstration in Court “so that you could see a slight impression on it whereas there was none before. This indicates that the washer was never clamped on tight as it should have been on 27 August 1963. Ang said he next attempted to prise out the washer from the 40-cubic-feet Sealion tank (originally used by Jenny) with a knife which had cut the washer. Ang had said that relying on common sense he knew he was unable to use it on his own Healthway tank. Yusuf did not remember this.”
On instructions from the police, Bertrand had experimented with cut washers, and washers which had been gouged or prised out from their seats, after which he had used them on his tank. In all instances there was no perceptible leak. “Henderson has also told you how, with an improvised rubber washer in his own tank, he had been able to dive to a depth of 45 feet, where he remained for 10 minutes. And how he repeated this experiment with a string, reaching a depth of 100 feet, where he remained for 22 minutes without any apparent discomfort. If you accept the evidence of Henderson and Bertrand on this-and also the evidence of your own eyes and ears, it shows conclusively that Ang had been lying about the washer, about the leak, and about the unservice-ability of his scuba equipment. Why should he lie? This was an emergency. His best girl had not surfaced. She had been down some 15 minutes or so, and, on his own calculations, there would be little or no air left in her tank-if nothing else in the meanwhile had happened to her. This was the girl he was going to marry. He was a very good swimmer. He was also a skin-diver. He had all the equipment on board. He was an instructor in scuba-diving. And yet he never dipped one little finger into the water, so to speak, to render her immediate assistance. He never made so much as a token dive to look for her. His bathing trunks never got wet.”
Counsel asked the jury: “What would you have done if your best girl, someone you love most dearly had gone down and not surfaced for 15 minutes? Would you not have been frantic with fear, with anxiety, for her safety? If you were a very good swimmer and a skin-diver, would you not in the circumstances have plunged into the sea to search for her? Why did Ang not do so? The boatman saw moisture below Ang’s eyes. He was not sure whether this was sea water or tears. I suggest to you that this moisture was in fact sea water from his diving mask. Yusuf never heard him weep. If Ang had been truly concerned over Jenny, he would have bestirred himself into greater energy than he had shown. He did not in fact appear a bit concerned or alarmed at Jenny’s disappearance. He did not urge the boatman to hurry to get to St John’s Island. On the contrary, he appeared to have found time to change back into his street clothes. At St John’s Island, Jaffar walked with him to the telephone, and back to the jetty. Ang did not hurry the boatman back to Pulau Dua. Ang wanted her to die. He wanted to make sure she really died. If he had carefully planned her death there was not much point in him going down to look for her-and that, I suggest, was the reason he did not do so.”
Mr Seow said that Ang had told the Court that they were at Pulau Dua to collect corals. Because they were sharp it was necessary to wear gloves. Ang had therefore brought two pairs of gloves. Jenny had gone below to wait for him: they were to collect corals. Yet she never wore her gloves. Ang could not explain how, if Jenny had indeed worn them, they were found in his swimming bag later. “This was no coral-collecting excursion. This was an excursion where, at the end of it, Ang was to collect $400,000 for himself.” Ang had also brought along two improvised weight belts. They had been specially improvised for Jenny. Ang never used a weight belt. The weights were tied at Jenny’s back, but as water is a lubricant it was possible, owing to gravity, for the belt to swing round back to front. “In that eventuality I think you would agree that it would be extremely difficult for Jenny, in an emergency, to jettison the belt, and surface.”
Mr Seow turned next to the flipper. “Who cut the strap? The person who engineered her death. There were three persons in the boat. One of them is the killer. Why was the strap cut? Who had an opportunity of cutting it? Who had the strongest motives to want Jenny’s death? Sunny Ang was the answer to all those questions.’” Counsel argued that all the evidence led to the irresistible inference that Sunny Ang knew that Jenny was dead, and that Ang had killed her, and that he was determined to profit as speedily as possible from her death. “This is a case of a man who planned, and carefully planned, to murder for gain, for $400,000, and who hoped to succeed, as he thought he would, if no trace of the body of his victim could be found.”