Ram Puneet Tiwary's re-trial begins

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Channel NewsAsia - Tuesday, September 1

SYDNEY: The re—trial of Singapore student Ram Tiwary, who was earlier convicted of murdering his two flatmates, has begun in Sydney.

Last December, an Australian Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, saying that the trial had been conducted improperly.

Tiwary has pleaded not guilty to killing fellow Singaporeans, Tay Chow Lyang and Tan Poh Chuan, who were studying engineering at the University of New South Wales.

Tiwary, wearing a dark suit in court on Monday, was arrested after the death of his two flatmates who were hit on the head with a blunt instrument and stabbed with a knife in September 2003.

The New South Wales Supreme Court heard that although the case against Tiwary was largely circumstantial, it was not necessarily weak.

Crown Prosecutor John Kiely said Tiwary, who was on a Singapore Army scholarship at the University of New South Wales, told police that he was asleep when he heard shouting outside his bedroom.

When he got up to investigate, he found Tan’s body lying near the front door and Tay’s body behind a couch near the back door. Both had suffered extensive head injuries.

When ambulance officers arrived, they found him shaking and visibly distressed, his hands covered in blood. Police officers also found an aluminium baseball bat in Tiwary’s bedroom.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions in this case, including the identity of two Asian men who were seen in a white car, which Tay climbed into outside the university just before he was murdered.


— CNA/so

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Singapore's Home Ministry and Judicial Apparatchik to be made freaking jackasses all over.


Dr Chee Soon Juan has already said it, and got $6,000 plus a day in the slammer (altogether a week in lieu) for it. So would I dare mouth it too? Why not? It's already gotten too bloody obvious for all and sundry except the most insistently thick skinned to ignore. The judicial apparatchik and the whole system of rule of law in Singapore can no longer be deemed to be impartial and independent. Familial relationships, networking, wealth, and even ethnic origin, has so colored the concept of equal justice for all to such an extent that assertions such as "nobody can be allowed to swing their arm save short of someone else's nose" turn rancid the second it leaves Wong Kan Seng's lips. Absolute power and corruption are such moot bedfellows.

You don't need to be a Nobel Laureate to be able to reason, when double murders are committed, one after the other, with a relatively short lapse of time in between, by one and the same person, that even if it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt the first murder was pre-meditated, the second can but only be deemed to be, unless it can be proven that it was committed with a weapon of mass destruction, the murderer had genocidal tendencies, or else transforms into something uncannily green and insurmountably strong like the HULK when provoked. In other words, the motivation for the second murder is pivotal in determining whether pre-meditation can conceivably be construed for both. The burden should then be on the defense to positively prove lack of motive for the second murder in the backdrop of the first (including the motive of silencing a witness that could produce a potentially damning 'frontline' insight into the initial murder). The defense could of course then attempt to allude to the possibility that the murders may not have been committed by one and the same person. Lightning has been known to strike twice, but in such dastardly close timing and proximity? I'll buy that argument when I win Lotto America.



Let's backtrack.



The Straits Times
July 10, 2006
By Andy Ho

Two criminal cases were in the headlines in recent weeks. In Sydney, 12 jurors unanimously found Ram Puneet Tiwary guilty of killing Tony Tan Poh Chuan and Tay Chow Lyang on Sept 15, 2003. All involved were Singaporeans. Tiwary is likely to be sentenced to two life sentences or 40 years.

In Singapore, Briton Michael McCrea killed his Singaporean driver Kho Nai Guan on Jan 2, 2002, and, a day later, Kho's girlfriend, a China national called Lan Ya Ming. After a bench trial (one without a jury), McCrea was sentenced to 24 years' jail.

Granted that their individual circumstances were different, a jury trial (in Australia) led to a longer sentence than a bench trial (in Singapore), even though both cases involved double killings.

Some people feel that Singapore should return to trial by jury. They say we should look at Japan, which passed a law in 2004 to implement a jury system in 2009. At the very least, they say, those charged with serious crimes in Singapore should have the option of a jury trial.

Would that improve the criminal justice system? Many factors say no.



What on earth is this 'kill' word? Genocide (Mass Murder)? Homicide (pre-Meditated Murder)? Culpable homicide (Man-slaughter)? So reluctant to dial 'M'? Further down in the commentary,



Jurors are amateur adjudicators. They have inherent limits in, first, time - their lives and work schedules cannot be interrupted indefinitely; second, experience - by design, jurors have little or none; and, third, resources - jurors have neither staff nor researchers to help them.

In Singapore, jury trials lasted from 1826 until 1960, when they became restricted to capital offences. In the first reading to amend the Criminal Procedure Bill in 1959 for this purpose, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew argued that juries could be swayed by eloquent defense lawyers.

In his 2000 memoirs, Mr Lee said he had himself secured the acquittal of four alleged murderers in a 1950 riot case - as was his professional duty to do so - in part by working on the weaknesses of the jury. That left him with 'grave doubts about the practical value of the jury system in Singapore'.

In 1970, juries were abolished altogether. Speaking during the second reading of the Criminal Procedure Bill for this purpose, Mr Lee argued that juries seemed 'overwhelmed' by the burden of finding a man guilty of a capital offence. After the second reading, the Bill was referred to a select committee, where Mr Lee had an exchange with Mr David Marshall, 'then our most successful criminal lawyer, (who) claimed he had 99 acquittals out of 100 cases he had defended for murder', as Mr Lee put it in his memoirs.

When Mr Lee asked him if the 99 had been wrongly charged, Mr Marshall replied that it was not for him to judge but to defend them, which only buttressed Mr Lee's point that a lawyer with the requisite oratorical skills and flair for the dramatic might just be able to sway juries.

In the select committee too, as Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang pointed out in a 1983 article he wrote while still a tutor at the National University of Singapore law faculty, two sets of jurors offered testimony which shed some light on how juries functioned here at the time. (The inner sanctum of jury deliberations is traditionally off limits to everyone else in virtually all jurisdictions.)

First, the foreman in a case dubbed the Peeping Tom murder revealed that a 4-3 decision had been reached rather than the minimum 5-2 required by law. However, he had erroneously reported a unanimous verdict. Realizing his mistake later on, he notified the High Court Registrar but, by then, no reversals could be made. The foreman revealed that at least four of the seven jurors were totally confused by the terms 'majority' and 'unanimous'.

Second, there was testimony that many jurors in what was dubbed the Murder By Car case could not even read the oath properly. Moreover, one juror had called another afterwards to say he was shocked at the death sentence, which he did not know was mandated by law. However, he mistakenly spoke to the juror's brother, who informed the killer's lawyer.

At select committee, the juror admitted to these facts but insisted that jury trials should be abolished. Clearly, he would have found the accused guilty of a lesser charge had he known about the mandatory death sentence. Another juror also expressed similar distress upon learning about the death sentence after the fact. These lent support to Mr Lee's point that local juries were hesitant to convict because of the death penalty.

Overall, at the time, public support for serving on juries was clearly less than enthusiastic. Unsurprisingly, the Bill passed with little opposition.

Would a more educated citizenry today make for better jurors?

We do know that they would certainly cost more. Operating a jury system will incur costs in gathering names to draw a list of possible jurors. There have to be staff to summon jurors, answer queries, reschedule those with conflicts, check jurors in on the first day of jury duty, and escort them to the right courtroom. In court, they must be instructed again and either is chosen or sent home. Those chosen must be then be sheltered and sometimes sequestered throughout the trial.

Costs are also incurred by jurors and their employers in terms of lost time, wages and productivity.

Also, jury trials are simply longer than bench trials. Jurors must be selected and instructed anew in each case. Motions must be filed and hearings conducted to shield jurors from inadmissible evidence. By contrast, in a bench trial, the judge can listen to all evidence submitted and decide which is not admissible.

Moreover, lawyers typically reiterate an important fact many times to make sure that no juror misses it. Thus trying a case will just take longer than a bench trial.

And as each trial gets longer, fewer can be tried, witnesses may move away, their recall could fade and some may even die in the interim.

These not inconsiderable costs aside, the cultural context to jury trials must be kept in mind. It was the fear of government oppression in the form of misguided legislatures, iniquitous judges or overzealous prosecutors that led Americans to favor divided over efficient government. Jury trials were part of that plan: Having both judge and jury approve each judgment meant that one would need to corrupt both court and jury to cause a miscarriage of justice.

Not so in Singapore. The idea here is that it is far better to choose the right personnel than look to checks and balances in the criminal justice system. With responsible and competent officials in charge, checks and balances are less important; if they are not, no checks and balances will suffice anyway.

Here, at bench trials, the judge functions to make sure that police and prosecutors have made no obvious errors in their pre-trial investigations which help to establish guilt. Such an approach trades off what would be long drawn-out jury trials for efficient administrative decisions.



When it's so tongue-tripping just negotiating the 'M' word, how could the Straits Times cover Ram Puneet Tiwary's sentencing. McCrea was sentenced to 24 years jail. No blue collar. If his stay in the slammer is uneventful, he'd be out in 18. That's Singapore perverted justice.

Ram Puneet Tiwary hails from an extended family that boasts several legal experts on Singapore law. Nobody told him Australian justice was different. Nobody told him to pay for his baseball bat in cold hard cash. Nobody told him to vary his methods a little. Nobody told him his plan stank a mile off. Nobody told him two hour breaks in-between 'killings' was pushing his luck (And no, not even if he took a day off in-between either).

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Uni student accused of killing flatmates
MARGARET SCHEIKOWSKI
August 31, 2009 - 5:49PM

A Singaporean scholarship student is accused of murdering his two flatmates by bludgeoning them with a baseball bat and stabbing them, a jury has been told.

But Ram Puneet Tiwary, now 30, told police he was asleep and woke to hear screams and a hitting sound before discovering the two bloodied bodies in their Sydney flat.

Tiwary has pleaded not guilty in the NSW Supreme Court to murdering Chow Lyang Tay and Poh Chuan Tan, both 26, on September 15, 2003, at their Kingsford flat.

On Monday, the jury was told the three were Singaporeans, studying engineering at the University of NSW.

Tiwary's barrister, David Dalton SC, made various admissions on his behalf, including that he had bought a baseball bat two days before the murder.

He was on a scholarship from the Singapore armed services and under an agreement his fees and an allowance were paid.

But he was required to study full-time, although he did not re-enrol for one of his semesters, and he had failed some subjects but told the army he had passed.

He also admitted that police found a note in his bedroom, in Mr Tay's writing, which set out a $5,054 debt owed by Tiwary.

He further agreed he was to take over paying the $2,172 monthly rent from two days before the murders but this was never paid.

In the crown opening address, John Kiely SC said these factors resulted in this being a "stressful time" for Tiwary.

At 2.20pm on September 15, Tiwary made a triple-zero call, saying there had been two murders at the flat, that he had been in his room and his friends were lying dead outside.

The victims had extensive head injuries and stab wounds to the neck, with one forensic expert saying the former were the most severe he had seen in his 20 years' experience.

Tiwary, who had dried blood on his hands, was observed by police to be agitated, shaking and rambling.

Mr Kiely said both victims had money in their wallets and nothing was reported missing from the unit.

"It would appear that robbery was not a motive in this particular case," he said.

Mr Dalton is expected to give a defence opening address on Tuesday at the trial before Justice Peter Johnson.

© 2009 AAP

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/rem...ml?utm_source=rss subscription&utm_medium=rss


S'porean on trial again for Sydney murders
[2009] 31 Aug_ST

Title: S'porean on trial again for Sydney murders
Source: Straits Times
Author: K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent

Legal News Archive

SIX years after two Singaporean students were found brutally battered to death in their Sydney apartment, the man accused of killing them goes on trial for the second time today.

This time round, though, Singaporean Ram Puneet Tiwary, now 28, will testify in his defence, unlike the first trial three years ago when he chose to remain silent.

Then, after 18 days of hearing, Tiwary was convicted of the double murders by a jury and was later ordered to be jailed for life. The jury took five days to deliberate before returning a guilty verdict.

He earned a reprieve last December when a New South Wales Appeal Court ruled that the way the trial judge instructed the jury to regard the evidence presented was improper.

The judges also felt some of the evidence presented by the prosecution did not support a conviction, but they also said they were not convinced Tiwary should be acquitted.

Tiwary is accused of murdering his fellow Singaporeans Tay Chow Lyang, 26, and Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, in September 2003 in a duplex apartment they shared near the University of New South Wales campus in Barker Street where they all studied.

He allegedly bashed and stabbed Mr Tay to death sometime before noon on Sept 5, 2003, and then did the same to Mr Tan when he returned from school two hours later.

The prosecution's case was that he killed them over a dispute over money - they had dug up evidence that Tiwary owed them money for rent.

Round two of the trial, which has been set for three weeks, will involve 20 witnesses.

It is understood that several witnesses from Singapore will also be travelling to Sydney to testify, though the relatives of the two murdered men have chosen not to go.

These witnesses will mainly be those who knew the three men during their time studying in Sydney at the University of New South Wales.

Tiwary is currently housed at the Long Bay Jail Complex, about 40 minutes drive from Sydney's central district, where the court is located.

His family, who will be in Sydney to attend the trial, has hired a Queen's Counsel from Australia to defend him.

In the first trial, Tiwary's lawyer was assigned by the state and it later emerged that it was the lawyer's first murder trial and he had less than three years' experience under his belt.

Tiwary's decision to take the stand this time round is expected to shed more light into what actually happened on the day of the murders.

None of the witnesses in the first trial saw what had happened in the flat before the police were called in.

Tiwary had maintained that he slept through the murders and had woken up to find his friends dead and had fled the apartment in fear.

Tiwary's lawyer from Singapore, Ramesh Tiwary, said: 'We hope to see a closure with this outcome as the families of the victims and everyone else need to move on with their lives.'

One of the murdered men's father, Mr Tan Wee Sea, who suffered a stroke last year, said the family would not be going for the re-trial.

'Of course I'm unhappy that there is another trial. This would probably never happen in Singapore,' said the 57-year-old.

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Aug 31, 2009
Tiwary's re-trial starts
By Sujin Thomas

In his opening address at the re-trial of Singaporean Ram Puneet Tiwary (left), Crown Prosecutor John Kiely gave the jury a summary of witness testimonies. --ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK


IN his opening address at the re-trial of Singaporean Ram Puneet Tiwary, Crown Prosecutor John Kiely gave the jury a summary of witness testimonies.

He was drawing attention to how Tiwary, who is charged with two counts of murder, behaved after he ran out of his flat at 109, Barker Street, to seek help from police officers and paramedics on September 15, 2003.

In nearly all accounts, Tiwary, then 23, was said to have been shaky and took time to answer questions posed to him.

That day, Tiwary's flatmates Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, and Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, were clubbed and stabbed to death in the apartment. Tiwary's baseball bat and a kitchen knife are believed to be the murder weapons.

Forensic examinations found Mr Tan's blood and strands of hair on them, but not Mr Tay's. Likewise, the only spots of blood found on Tiwary came from Mr Tan.

This is the second time the former engineering undergraduate is on trial for the murders of the two Singaporeans. All three were studying at the University of New South Wales.

On Monday, Tiwary looked confident as he sat in the dock, dressed in a black suit. He busily took notes during the proceedings and even engaged in friendly banter with court sheriffs during breaks, flashing a warm, broad smile.

His family members were absent from Sydney's King Street Courts, where the three-week trial is being held.

Crease lines on his forehead only began to show when Mr Kiely delved deeper into witness testimonies, summarising those of Tiwary's friends whom he had recounted the incident to in the weeks following the murders.

Tiwary had told them that he had been out on the day of the murders and came home to find his housemates dead. On the contrary, Tiwary said in his earlier police statement that he had been sleeping in his bedroom when he heard a commotion outside.

However, Mr Kiely cautioned the jury: 'People lie for various reasons. It does not mean that he is guilty. He may have been ashamed that he stayed in his room throughout the incident.'

The prosecution stressed that the apartment's monthly rent of AU$2,172.60 (S$2,630.25) - which the three men shared among themselves - is an important point in the case.

It alleges that Tiwary was not paying his share, going by notes found in the flat in Mr Tay's handwriting. The notes stated outstanding sums of money to him owed by Tiwary.

Mr Tay had been in charge of settling the rent each month, before collecting his housemates' share.

However, Mr Tan and Mr Tay were due to complete their studies and return to Singapore at the end of that semester, leaving Tiwary in the 'stressful situation' of taking on the rent himself, said Mr Kiely.

He also pointed out that both the dead men's wallets appeared intact and contained cash when police found them.

Mr Kiely said: 'It would appear that robbery was not a motive in this case.'

On Tuesday morning, the jury will be taken to the scene of the murders to get a clearer idea of the apartment's layout as well its surrounding areas. Video evidence of Tiwary being interviewed by the police will also be screened in court.

A total of 223 witnesses are due to take the stand during the trial.

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...deaths-shocked-accused-man-20090901-f6s4.html


Flatmates' deaths 'shocked' accused man
MARGARET SCHEIKOWSKI
September 1, 2009 - 5:59PM

A student who has denied murdering his two flatmates was embarrassed because he didn't leave his room to help them when he heard noises, a jury has been told.

In the defence's opening address, David Dalton SC said that explained why Ram Puneet Tiwary later lied to friends when he said he was not at the Sydney flat when they were murdered.

Tiwary, now 30, has pleaded not guilty in the NSW Supreme Court to murdering Chow Lyang Tay and Poh Chuan Tan, both 26, on September 15, 2003, at their Kingsford flat.

The three were Singaporeans, studying engineering at the nearby University of NSW.

The victims were stabbed and bludgeoned with a baseball bat.

On Tuesday, Mr Dalton said that one reason Tiwary was before the court was because he said he was asleep in the middle of the afternoon on a Monday in September, 2003.

"He was asleep in his room when his two friends and his two flatmates had been savagely and brutally beaten and killed," he said.

"But because he said he was asleep in his room that has given rise to suspicions."

Mr Dalton said he expected jurors would hear evidence that it was not unusual for Tiwary to be asleep in the middle of the day.

Another reason he was before the court was because of inconsistencies in what he told people about the way he discovered his friends and what ensued thereafter.

"On that issue, we will refer to what any human being will understand to be the sort of trauma, the sort of shock, he would be experiencing at that time," Mr Dalton said.

He said Tiwary told "untruths" to friends, but not to police, when he said he was out at the time of the murders.

But he referred to the "fairly human response" of Tiwary feeling "acute embarrassment" as a result of his not coming out of his room when he heard at least one friend being beaten.

Mr Dalton noted the crown alleged Tiwary had owed $5,000 in back rent and claimed his life was falling apart as a result of the debt and other matters.

"Ultimately, we will say to you how implausible it is that this man would kill his friends in that way, even if he did owe some back rent to Mr Tay," Mr Dalton said.

He said the jury would hear evidence of an unidentified car, with one man in it, leaving the scene.

Another witness reported seeing a different unidentified car parked in the laneway behind the units about 90 minutes before emergency services were called.

Further, Mr Dalton said two students would give evidence of seeing Mr Tan get into a car, near the university and near the units, about 25 minutes before Tiwary made the emergency call.

The car and its occupant, or occupants, had never been identified and Mr Dalton asked why Mr Tan got in shortly before he was murdered.

The trial is continuing before Justice Peter Johnson.

© 2009 AAP

 

[jw5]

The prosecution should focus on 2 things:

1. Was there any blood or hair on the baseball bat? If there was, how can he explain this? Why did he buy the baseball bat? Is these any past evidence that he likes baseball? Where did he buy the bat? Is there any evidence where he bought it?

2. Who was the witness who saw one of the victims get into a car with 2 men? Could the witness have been mistaken as to the identities or the date and time? Would the witness have any reason not to be telling the truth?

 

[TeeKee]

The prosecution should focus on 2 things:

1. Was there any blood or hair on the baseball bat? If there was, how can he explain this? Why did he buy the baseball bat? Is these any past evidence that he likes baseball? Where did he buy the bat? Is there any evidence where he bought it?

2. Who was the witness who saw one of the victims get into a car with 2 men? Could the witness have been mistaken as to the identities or the date and time? Would the witness have any reason not to be telling the truth?

cannot check if bat got print? mass spectrometry can detect wiped off stained blood...watch HK police drama lah...

how the bat is being swing can determine his guilt...

why so slow for a retrial? 4 years already...did the Ministry of Foreign affairs or SGP govt. get involved because he's a SAF scholar, to complicate matters?

we'll neber know....

 

[Watchman]

Very strange case . Maybe suspect is a Australian opposition's son and scrapgoat !

 

[TeeKee]

SGPlians used baseball bats?

How many Sinkies here play baseball? LOL!

I tot recently some Asians/PRCs got smacked killed by some OZ brandishing a baseball bats?

wah, there's a serial killer on the loose....another OZ version of Jack the Ripper with a baseball bat?

or SGP sent out some agents to discourage people from migrating to OZland?

Damn so many possibilities!

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Maybe you too young to remember?

SGP once had baseball. Remember my primary school still had anyway.

Suddenly, Old Fart decided to ban the game, I think.

SGPlians used baseball bats?

How many Sinkies here play baseball? LOL!

I tot recently some Asians/PRCs got smacked killed by some OZ brandishing a baseball bats?

wah, there's a serial killer on the loose....another OZ version of Jack the Ripper with a baseball bat?

or SGP sent out some agents to discourage people from migrating to OZland?

Damn so many possibilities!

 

[TeeKee]

Maybe you too young to remember?

SGP once had baseball. Remember my primary school still had anyway.

Suddenly, Old Fart decided to ban the game, I think.

i suppose he's older than both of us?

that's why he play baseball?

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Got baseball bat don't necessarily mean play baseball.

Can be buy to use as weapon.

i suppose he's older than both of us?

that's why he play baseball?

 

[TeeKee]

Got baseball bat don't necessarily mean play baseball.

Can be buy to use as weapon.

why he need a weapon to study in OZ land?

i din have any when i studied there...

SAF providing trainings there?

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

He chose to spend A$60+ to solve a A$5,000+ problem.

Got himself an aluminum baseball bat. Give his room-mates face already.

why he need a weapon to study in OZ land?

i din have any when i studied there...

SAF providing trainings there?

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 2, 2009
Worst crime scene: Police
By Sujin Thomas

Detective Sergeant Philip Elliott (left) has seen many a dead body after 19 years in the job but the badly battered bodies of two Singaporean students murdered in 2003 in Sydney were the worst he had ever come across. --ST PHOTO: SUJIN THOMAS


SYDNEY - DETECTIVE Sergeant Philip Elliott has seen many a dead body after 19 years in the job but the badly battered bodies of two Singaporean students murdered in 2003 in Sydney were the worst he had ever come across.

Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan's head was 'deformed and extensively damaged', said the veteran detective on the stand on Wednesday.

Pieces of plastic, presumably from a newly-bought aluminium baseball bat which was used on him, were stuck to his head in a bloody mess of skin, bone and hair.

The impact of the swinging bat also sprayed several of Mr Tan's teeth, and the lenses of his spectacles, across the living room, where he is believed to have been initially attacked. The assault even flung droplets of Mr Tan's blood onto the ceiling.

Frothy blood had also spurted from three stab wounds to his neck, soaking his clothes when police found his body.

Sgt Elliott, who was among the first police officers to arrive at the murder scene, said: 'In my experience, I have not seen that amount of injury to a deceased's head as a result of an attack by a weapon.'

The other victim, Mr Tay Chow Lyang, also had injuries to his head and stab wounds in his neck, although his injuries were not as severe.

His left index finger was crushed while Mr Tan's hands were swollen and bruised - signs that both men had tried to fend off the attacks with their hands and arms.

A day after the 12-member jury was shown a video of the crime scene taken within hours of the police arriving at the apartment, Sgt Elliott also spoke at length about the blood stains discovered there. He said the stains suggest that Mr Tan had managed to somehow move from the living room where he was attacked to the end of a hallway where his body was later found.

There was also blood spatter on the wall near where Mr Tan was found, suggesting the murderer had attacked Mr Tan there as well. Mr Tay's body was found behind a two-seater couch in the living room.

 

[mscitw]

This is an example explaining if a ah-neh and cobra are spotted, you should kill the ah neh first.

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Apu Neh thinks by staying at crime scene will make him look innocent?

Think motive, Apu Neh! Think motive, dumb fuck! Sign on some more!


Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 3, 2009
SYDNEY DOUBLE MURDER TRIAL
'Rattled, distressed'
By Sujin Thomas

The first thing Ram Puneet Tiwary told an emergency services operator on the telephone was that he needed help because there had been 'a murder' in his Sydney flat. -- ST PHOTO: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK


SYDNEY - THE first thing Ram Puneet Tiwary told an emergency services operator on the telephone was that he needed help because there had been 'a murder' in his Sydney flat.

He then went on to describe to the operator what he had seen just outside his bedroom in the apartment he shared with Singaporeans Mr Tony Tan Poh Chuan, 27, and Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26.

Heavily breathing, he stuttered: 'I think.. My friends are lying down outside. There's blood all over the place.' When the operator asked him what had happened, he frantically replied: 'I woke up and there was screaming outside.'

A voice recording of the '000' call made at about 2.20pm on September 15, 20003, was played in front of a tense New South Wales Supreme Court on Thursday.

As members of the 12-man jury busily took notes, Tiwary, 30, sat in the dock dressed in a black suit, with his head hung low and brow deeply furrowed.

During the call, which he said was made his bedroom, Tiwary is heard shouting expletives, when the operator puts him on call waiting to transfer him to another operator.

He later tells the operator that he had left his bedroom and found Tan lying in a pool of blood near the front door. He grabbed a softball bat, which he said was near Tan's body and went to the living room where he noticed that the rear door was open. The TV set was still on.

Closing the door, he ran to his room again, and barricaded himself behind the door with a black cabinet. Later on, when the operator told him that police were already outside his flat, he asked if he could go outside.

The operator suggested that he put down the softball bat first before leaving the building. He replied, stopping himself short: 'They're going to think.. Okay.'

Paramedics and police officers at the scene also took the stand on Thursday, describing Tiwary's state of mind when he approached them outside the flat. Almost all of them noticed his bloodied hands and said he was 'rattled', 'bewildered' and 'distressed'.

 

[TeeKee]

During the call, which he said was made his bedroom, Tiwary is heard shouting expletives, when the operator puts him on call waiting to transfer him to another operator.

Paramedics and police officers at the scene also took the stand on Thursday, describing Tiwary's state of mind when he approached them outside the flat. Almost all of them noticed his bloodied hands and said he was 'rattled', 'bewildered' and 'distressed'.

he's definitely the killer alright....kena possessed by SATAN

did he talk drugs or played with kongtau?

 

[Lee Hsien Tau]

Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Sep 6, 2009
Sydney double murder retrial
He didn't blame it on Chinese Triads
By Sujin Thomas

Sentenced to life imprisonment without reprieve, Tiwary got a second chance when an appeals court ruled that the trial judge had not properly directed the jury during the first trial. -- PHOTO: PETER MORRIS


SIX years on, the double murders of his flatmates in this Australian city - for which Singaporean Ram Puneet Tiwary is being retried - have lost none of their horror.

Sentenced to life imprisonment without reprieve, Tiwary got a second chance when an appeals court ruled that the trial judge had not properly directed the jury during the first trial.

This time round, there are 12 new people in the jury box, a different prosecutor - Mr John Keily - and a new formidable presence in the defence, Senior Counsel David Dalton.

There were grim faces during the first week of the hearing, while the crime scene was laid out - once again - in gruesomely graphic detail by the prosecution. Jury members frowned as they passed around sealed plastic bags containing the alleged murder weapons: A kitchen knife and an aluminium softball bat, both still bloodstained.

There was the seasoned police officer who reprised his testimony, describing the state of the bodies as the worst he had ever seen.

Accompanied by police officers, the judge and the lawyers, the 12 jury members were taken to view the flat in which the two young men were knifed and battered to death.

It is now repainted several times over and is accommodation to foreign graduate students who knew nothing of its tragic history.

The first few days of the hearing last week centred on Tiwary's reaction after finding his flatmates, Mr Tan Poh Chuan, 27, and Mr Tay Chow Lyang, 26, dead in the apartment which they shared in the student-populated suburb of Kingsford.

This was culled from statements given by police officers, as well as paramedics, who arrived at the scene on the balmy afternoon of Sept 15, 2003.

On the stand, nearly all of them used words such as 'distressed', 'bewildered' and 'shaking' to describe Tiwary's demeanour as he ran towards them.

Tiwary's account is that as his flatmates were being brutally murdered, he cowered in his room, barricading himself behind the locked door with a cabinet.