by Alex Josey
The judge drew the jury’s attention to the three letters which Ang sent to three insurance companies the day immediately following the tragedy. They were identical. Jenny had met with a tragic accident while scuba-diving off one of the islands south of Singapore at about 3:00 pm on 27 August 1963. The letter went on, ‘She is presumed to have either drowned or been attacked by a shark. Her body is yet to be found.’
And there the judge stopped, promising to ‘pick up the threads again’ at 10:30 am the following morning, when he pointedly reminded the jury that the insurance policies had all been not endowment policies but accident policies. He questioned whether Ang had in fact sold the poultry farm to Jenny. “One is tempted,” remarked the judge, “to wonder what the accused’s mother would have thought of this sale of the poultry farm to a bar girl, or ex-bar-girl, whom she had never met in any real sense of the term at all?” Jenny’s half-sister said Jenny owned no property, no poultry farm and was always short of money. “Eileen said Jenny did not know how to swim, but used to play about in the water.” Jenny was unable to pay half the rent of the flat because she was unemployed and had no money. Ang paid her share. Does this sound to you like Jenny being able to enter into an arrangement to buy a poultry farm for $10,000 and to have paid, on account of that sum, $2,000 to the accused?”
Justice Buttrose went into some detail about the evidence given by David Henderson, the RAF scuba-diver, who found the flipper on the sea-bed. “At the point where he found it, the sea-bed, he said, was rough. There was little mud over it, but it was plain to see. The heel-strap was severed, although the rubber was in good condition.” There were no barnacles. By that Henderson meant there was no sea-growth or fungus attached to that flipper on 3 September, when he discovered it, nesting by the side of these rocks. That was why, he told us, it was because of these rocks that the flipper had not been swept away. He said there was nothing whatever to indicate to him that the flipper had been there for any length of time.’ Henderson had said he found the current to be three or four knots and difficult to swim against. There was also an undertow, and a very powerful undertow because he could not stem it and was carried some 150 yards away. “That is the evidence, members of the jury, of an expert, first-class scuba-diver. If he couldn’t stem the tide and he was swept away 150 yards, what chance do you think a novice scuba-diver would have in those circumstances?” The judge reminded the jury that in Henderson’s considered opinion the area between the two islands was quite unsuitable for a novice scuba-diver.
Justice Buttrose dealt briefly with Henderson’s tests on the tanks. Henderson had dived, using a piece of string as a washer, to a depth of 100 feet and remained there for 21 minutes. “Is this not an outstanding instance of the old saying that ‘where there’s a will there’s a way’? The prosecution in this case say there was a way, but that the accused had not the will.” The judge suggested to the jury—“it’s entirely a matter for you to decide”—that Jenny was undoubtedly a novice diver and should never have dived alone. “You will ask yourselves: was not the accused an experienced diver and well aware of this?”
Coming back to the nipper, the judge said that the chemist, Phang Sin Eng had found that two areas of the heel-strap had clean cuts. Under microscopic examination, they were found to contain striations, or fine-line markings. The presence of these fine-line markings, in the opinion of the chemist, was consistent with the two cuts being caused by a sharp instrument, such as a knife, a razor blade or a pair of scissors. He said that the strength of the strap would obviously be weakened by these cuts and would require little effort to tear. In his opinion it was most unlikely that the two cuts were caused by coral, firstly because of the position of the two cuts, one from the top down and the other from the bottom up, and the presence of these striations, or fine-line markings: secondly the top cut had two directions, one vertically downwards and a second continued on at a slight angle downwards indicating two separate and independent actions in producing it. Finally, the chemist had given evidence that under the microscope there was no trace whatever of any particles of coral. There were no traces whatever of calcium carbonate in either of these cuts.
As to the argument of the defence that if the strap could easily be broken by stretching once it was cut—as the chemist demonstrated in court—then it could just as easily be broken putting it on, the judge demolished it by explaining that the chemist had performed his experiments 21 months after the flipper had been found. “Rubber does perish and if that flipper had been kept in a store in a police department for 21 months what effect do you think it would have on the resiliency of the rubber itself? Would it not have grown much more fragile, much more wasted and much easier to snap than it would have on 27 August 1963?” Besides much depended upon the way in which the heel-strap was put on. “If you use your right hand and use the right side of the heel-strap to lever it over your heel, and the cut is on the left side of the heel-strap, isn’t the tension likely to be far stronger on the right side which you are pulling round to fit on your heel than on the left?” The judge added. “These are matters for you to consider.”
Coming to the fateful day, the judge said that the party pushed off from Jardine Steps at 2:30 pm that afternoon. Ang was paying the boatman $12 for three hours hire on what was, ‘for all intents and purposes, to be a pleasant afternoon’s outing and some scuba-diving’.
The judge paused. “I pause here,” he explained, “to remind you that but some three hours earlier that very same morning the accused called at the offices of the American International Underwriters, taking with him Jenny’s application form already filled in, renewing the $150,000 policy which had expired the day before. You may think it odd why he did not himself renew his own policy with the same company which had expired the previous day also, for the sum of $10,000, but he did not.” The judge paused again. “And so,” he continued slowly, “at that precise moment Jenny was insured to the tune of some $450,000.”
They dropped anchor in mid-channel at Ang’s direction, and Jenny donned her scuba-diving equipment and went overboard. Jenny was underwater for some eight to 10 minutes and, said the judge to the jury, “you may agree with me that while some eight to 10 minutes had elapsed the accused did not appear to be in any hurry to show any enthusiasm in getting ready to go down and join Jenny. For the next half an hour, they were laughing and chatting in the boat. “How comes it then, that during that half-hour the accused was not able to be ready? What attempt, if any, did he make to get himself ready during that half-hour? The boatman did not see him making any preparations during that time, except that, at the expiry of the half-hour, he helped to change Jenny’s tank because he said there was insufficient air in it. After it was fitted on her back, Jenny went overboard for the second and last time. She never surfaced again. You will ask yourselves, again, as to why it was that the accused did not ask Jenny to wait so that they could go down together this time, for, after all, this was a joint coral hunt, in which presumably, they were going to enjoy themselves?”
Justice Buttrose said that he found Ang’s ‘ladies’ first’ excuse for not going down himself to investigate the perils of the deep ahead of her a little thin, but that was a matter for jury to decide. ‘But,’ he added, ‘can that possibly apply the second time as well? Does it not, gentlemen of the jury, force you to the conclusion that the accused had no intention whatsoever of going down under the water that day at all? That is the question you must ask yourselves.”
When Jenny went down the second time, the accused, according to the boatman, had no equipment on at all. Why not? This was important. Why not? Why didn’t he put it on while Jenny was in the boat with him during the half-hour they were chatting together? It was only after Jenny had gone down the second time that Sunny Ang asked the boatman to assist him to fit on the big tank, and then it was found, so Ang said, to have a leak and could not be used, the accused telling the boatman there was no washer in the tank. “You will ask yourselves: why? What was it that Sunny
Ang was doing to the tank when the boatman saw him working on it? Was Ang deliberately removing the washer?”
An improvised washer was made but there was still a leak and Ang decided he could not use the tank. During the whole of this operation Jenny had not surfaced. Then, apparently, and only then, did he decide he might as well pull the guide line. Having done so three times he returned to the tank and detached the assembly, the breathing apparatus. Then he asked the boatman, ‘Where is the girl?’ Ang pulled the guide line again, and yet again the girl failed to surface. Ang told the boatman to look for bubbles. Then Ang said, ‘What do we do now?’ and the boatman replied, ‘Nothing’. But the boatman suggested they had better go to St John’s Island to phone the Marine Police. And this they did. They returned with some Malay pawangs. They searched for half an hour for the girl, but no sign of her was found. On the evidence of the 63-year-old pawang, a strong current was running.
“Now,” continued the judge, “while this search was going on for the girl, whom Sunny Ang said he was in love with, and intended to marry, he was apparently having a conversation with a man named Jaffar, in the boat, as to whether the small tank the girl had first used, would float. Ang said maybe it would.” To test his belief he placed it in the sea and it promptly sank. It disappeared under the surface of the sea, “and has never been seen from that day to this—like the girl. The accused does not know what happened to the girl after she went down the second time, nor did he appear to have made any real attempt to find out. That is the boatman’s evidence.”
Coming back to the green flipper, Inspector Richard Lui was handed the flipper on 3 September 1963 by David Henderson, when Inspector Yeo was also present. The strap had been severed. Justice Buttrose said the defence had made some point because the inspector had said in the Lower Court that he had been handed the flipper on the 4th and not the 3rd of September. “Mr Coomaraswamy has told you that this is an unsatisfactory matter and must influence your minds in considering the whole question of the flipper. Is it unsatisfactory, members of the jury? A mistake in the date, by an inspector starting an investigation into one of the most difficult cases it has ever been my experience to try?” The judge indicated his own view by adding that he would not waste any more time with that aspect of the case. Inspector Lui handed the green nipper to the chemist on 25 September, though the chemist did see it a week or two before, perhaps three weeks earlier; but it was only a cursory glance because the inspector wanted to get his views on the flipper before he took it back to continue with his investigation. There was, therefore, no substance in the comment that the chemist only saw it really for the first time on 25 September 1963. On 21 December 1964, the inspector arrested the accused at Sennett Road. The judge reminded the jury that it was Inspector Lui who found the improvised washer in Ang’s swimming bag which he left at the police station on the night of the tragedy.
Justice Buttrose concluded his review of the case for the prosecution bv summarizing briefly, “the links in this chain of circumstantial evidence which the prosecution says binds the accused tight in its coils.” He listed 16.
1. The first was motive, which the judge described as ‘powerful and compelling’. Ang was a bankrupt, in need of large sums of money to carry out his ambitious plans for the future. ‘That is the motive for this crime.’
2. On the very day Jenny disappeared Ang had made sure that a policy which had lapsed the day before was renewed ‘to the tune of $150 000 by the girl but he did not renew his own’. That was the second link.
3. The third link was the opportunity to commit the crime. He picked a weekday. On Tuesday no other boats were likely to be in the vicinity of the Sisters Islands.
4. Fourth link was the dangerous, hazardous waters. There could be no dispute about that, or that the accused knew they were dangerous, hazardous waters. This was not the place to swim, let alone scuba-dive.
5. Fifth link: Jenny was a novice, barely able to swim and Sunny Ang knew this.
6. Sixth link: he sent Jenny down alone when he knew scuba-diving should not be done alone ‘let alone when you are a novice and in these dangerous waters’.
7. Seventh link: Ang did not go down himself and had no intention whatever of going down ‘or, as it was put to you, even wetting his feet that day’.
8. Eighth link: on Jenny surfacing he sent her down again, because, he said, his equipment was not ready.
9. The ninth link, the judge continued, was that the prosecution said that the accused contrived to render the remaining two tanks in the sampan useless so that they could not be used, or at least to the eyes of the unsuspecting boatman, who knows nothing about scuba-diving or its equipment.
10. The 10th link was that Sunny Ang made no attempt himself to use Jenny’s first tank, ‘which we know’ must have been more than a quarter full of air. “He did not make any attempt to use the tank before he, according to the prosecution, ruined the washer by prising and hacking it out with a knife.”
11. The vital green flipper was the 11th link in the circumstantial chain. It was found within six days after ‘the accident, or the tragedy’. The heel-strap had been severed, cut by a knife or other sharp instrument—‘and I don’t see how you can escape this conclusion’—and it had been identified conclusively as one of the flippers which Jenny was wearing that day. But, once more, the judge reminded the jury that this was entirely a matter for them to decide.
12. Twelfth link was the attitude and demeanour of Sunny Ang at, and after, the disappearance of the girl. Apparently utterly calm and unmoved, ‘as he has been throughout this trial, not, as I suggest you might expect, in a state of utter grief and despair at the loss of this girl whom he loved and intended to marry’. The judge drew the jury’s attention to the fact that while the pawangs were diving, looking for Jenny’s body, Ang was calmly discussing with Jaffar and the boatman the sinkability or floatability of the tank.
13. Less than 24 hours after this tragedy, with what has been described as somewhat ‘indecent haste’, he made formal claims on the three insurance companies. “You may think these letters show a somewhat casual and coldblooded approach to the matter.” That was the 13th link in the chain.
14. The 14th was Ang’s ‘hot pursuit’ of the insurance money. There was the compromise plan to stifle the probate proceedings which the insurance companies were going to contest: this compromise plan would have given him half the insured money for a quick pay-off. There was the telephone call to one company about a mis-description of Jenny in the policy. There were the series of letters to the coroner exhorting him to hurry to complete his inquiry. There was the fact that Ang had been round to a number of solicitors to enlist their aid.
15. Fifteenth link was the prosecution’s statement that the accused did not dive in at all because he wanted to remain in sight of the boatman. The boatman was his alibi, ‘and so it could never be said, gentlemen of the jury, that he went into the water himself after Jenny and killed her under the water. By remaining on the sampan throughout the whole incident, it was always open, he hoped, for him to say that it was an accident in which he was in no way concerned’.
16. Finally, the 16th link, the washer, one of the washers improvised in the sampan by the boatman and Sunny Ang: “It was tested here before our very eyes, gentlemen of the jury, both by David Henderson and by the accused himself. The washer worked perfectly on this very tank and never leaked at all.”
Justice Buttrose reminded the jury again about circumstantial evidence: one of its points was its cumulative effect. “The question for you is: where does the totality of them, the total effect of these links, lead you to? Adding them together, considering them, not merely each one in itself, but altogether, does it, or does it not, lead you to the irresistible inference and conclusion that the accused committed this crime? Or is there some other reasonably possible explanation of those facts? The prosecution case is that the effect of all this evidence drives you inevitably and inexorably to the one conclusion, and one conclusio
n only: that it was Sunny Ang, the accused, who intentionally caused the death of this young girl.”
Justice Buttrose went on to examine the defence. He said that Ang’s evidence on oath from the witness-box was, the gist of it, that this was an accident. “He cannot tell us what sort of an accident it was because, of course, he did not see it. He said she might have got tired of waiting for him and, I use his own words, ‘she may have wandered off on her own on the sea-bed and got swept away by the tide or current’.”
Ang completely excluded the possibility of Jenny swimming underwater to one or other of the Sisters Islands, ‘because he said that he and Yusuf examined them from the sampan for any sign of life or for footprints. There was no vestige of either. He did not however discard or discount the possibility of sharks. He, at any rate, is quite certain that she is dead and was of that same opinion right from the start’. The judge reminded the jury of the three letters to the insurance companies.
