Cold Blooded Murders by Alex Josey Read Free Book Online Page A

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