Kovan Double Murder thread

[Prodigy]

Re: Kovan double murder trial set to begin


Kovan double murder trial: Accused intentionally ran over the younger victim, says prosecution

Published Nov 11, 2015, 1:28 pm SGT
Lee Min Kok
Selina Lum
Shawn Lee

SINGAPORE - The eighth day of the high-profile Kovan double murder trial on Wednesday (Nov 11) saw the prosecution maintain its stance that former police officer Iskandar Rahmat had killed both his victims to silence them.

Iskandar is accused of stabbing and slashing Mr Tan Boon Sin, 67, during an attempt to rob the car workshop owner in his Hillside Drive home on July 10, 2013. Mr Tan's 42-year-old son, Chee Heong, who arrived during the struggle, was also attacked by Iskandar.

Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Prem Raj Prabakaran, who cross-examined the 36-year-old Iskandar on Wednesday, sought to prove that Iskandar was aware that the elder Mr Tan had called his son, despite the accused's claims to the contrary.

Iskandar had hid behind the main door to await the younger Mr Tan's arrival and launch a surprise attack, said DPP Prem.

Iskandar disagreed with the assessment.

According to DPP Prem, Iskandar also knew where the younger Mr Tan was as he was fleeing from the house, as he had walked around to look for the victim and had intentionally run him over with the car to make sure he was dead.

Iskandar's behaviour in the aftermath of the attacks, said the prosecution, was also not in line with someone in a state of panic. He had gone to the toilet to take towel, picked up scattered items from the floor and even adjusted the folded-in left view mirror of the car he drove.

He had hatched a plot to steal money from the elder Mr Tan's safe deposit box out of desperation, as he was facing imminent bankruptcy and possible dismissal from the force.

To trick Mr Tan, Iskandar posed as an intelligence officer and said he had to install a fake closed-circuit television camera in the safe deposit box.

In his testimony on Oct 30, Iskandar insisted that his plan all along had been to grab the money and run, but things went wrong when Mr Tan discovered his ruse and came at him with a knife.

Oral submissions are due on Nov 23.

 

[Prodigy]

Re: Kovan double murder trial set to begin


Prosecution uses bloody trail to make its case

Kovan double murder suspect, Iskandar Rahmat, being taken to court in a 2013 photo. He disagreed with Deputy Public Prosecutor Prem Raj Prabakaran (above), insisting that he had wanted to simply grab the money and flee from the house.PHOTOS: ST FILE

Published Nov 12, 2015, 5:00 am SGT

It disputes defendant's account as trial closes, saying he had lain in wait for second victim

Selina Lum

Prosecutors wrapped up the Kovan double murder trial yesterday by putting forward their own theory - based largely on blood evidence - of how the accused, Iskandar Rahmat, killed a father and son in a robbery attempt two years ago.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Prem Raj Prabakaran suggested that after slashing 67-year-old car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin to death, the policeman had walked around the Hillside Drive house to search for Mr Tan's valuables.

And contrary to Iskandar's claim that he was caught unawares when Mr Tan's 42-year-old son Chee Heong entered the house and came charging at him, the DPP suggested that the accused was lying in wait behind the main door as he knew that someone was coming.

Iskandar, who is fighting for his life on two counts of murder, calmly disagreed with the prosecution's version and stuck to his own account.

His testimony is that on July 10, 2013, desperate to resolve his financial woes, he had carried out a plan to trick Mr Tan into taking out his valuables from his safe deposit box.

He knew Mr Tan had money in the box as he was the initial investigating officer when the elderly man made a police report after $35,000 of his money was stolen.

Iskandar insisted that he wanted to simply grab the money and flee from the house, but the plan went wrong when the elderly man discovered the ruse and attacked him with a knife.

Iskandar said that he managed to snatch the knife away, suffering two cuts to his right hand in the process. He said he swung his arm wildly at Mr Tan in a bid to get away from the elderly man, who bit him and was tugging at him.

Just as Mr Tan fell to the floor, the son came in, shouted "Pa!" and came at him, throwing a punch, said Iskandar.

He said he retaliated, not realising he had a knife in his hand, and continued swinging his arms at the younger Mr Tan, who was stopping him from making his getaway.

Iskandar said that after the younger Mr Tan staggered out of the house, he walked to the toilet at the utility room to get a towel to wrap around his bleeding hand.

He said he did not know that the son had collapsed behind his father's Toyota Camry parked in the driveway. Iskandar, who made his getaway in the car, also said he was unaware that the body was dragged a kilometre to Kovan MRT station.

Yesterday, DPP Prem rubbished Iskandar's account. He pointed to how Mr Tan's car was covered with Iskandar's blood while "not a single drop" of his blood was found on the way to the toilet.

The DPP concluded that Iskandar did not hurt his hand in the scuffle with the older Mr Tan.

The trail of bloody footprints to the toilet was not from his search for a towel, but from him searching the house for the money after killing Mr Tan , contended the DPP.

Iskandar disagreed, saying his blood may not have dripped to the floor as he was cradling his hand.

The DPP also showed a photograph of Iskandar's sock prints behind the main door.

The DPP noted that Mr Tan had phoned his son twice while he was in the house with Iskandar and the cop, who was paying attention, knew that someone was coming. "You stood behind the door because you wanted to launch a surprise attack at the person," said the DPP.

Iskandar disagreed. He said the prints could be due to him picking up his things after killing both men.

The DPP also pointed to blood in the driveway to support the eyewitness account of a neighbour's maid that Iskandar had walked around the back of the Camry. He accused Iskandar of reversing the car even though he knew the man's body was there. Iskandar disagreed.

The DPP also pointed out the number of injuries on the two men.

The older Mr Tan, who was twice Iskandar's age and had knee problems, suffered 23 knife wounds. The younger victim, who was 30kg lighter than Iskandar, had 17 injuries. Iskandar said he could not remember how he inflicted the injuries as "everything happened very fast".

The DPP contended that Iskandar brought along a knife to rob Mr Tan and attacked the elderly man when he refused to hand over the money.

The DPP noted that Iskandar, who was trained in police unarmed tactics, was taught how to block and push away a knife-wielding assailant. But he replied: "If there's an immediate threat to our life, we take out our gun and fire."

The trial, which came to a close after eight days of hearing, has been adjourned for oral submissions on Nov 23.

 

[Prodigy]

Re: Kovan double murder trial set to begin


Kovan double-murder verdict set to be revealed on Dec 4

Published 10 hours ago
Selina Lum

SINGAPORE - The verdict for the Kovan double murder trial has been set for Dec 4, after the prosecution and defence on Monday (Nov 23) made closing submissions to sum up their cases.

Policeman Iskandar Rahmat, 36, is accused of murdering car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin, 62, and his son Chee Heong, 42, at the elderly man's Hillside Drive house on July 10, 2013.

He fled to Johor Baru on his scooter that night but was arrested at a popular eatery there two days later and extradited back to Singapore.

Iskandar, who had hatched a plot to rob the older man of his money, does not dispute that he stabbed both men and caused their deaths.

He insists that the older Mr Tan first attacked him with a knife, and that he stabbed and slashed him after wresting the knife away. Similarly, when the younger Mr Tan entered the house and charged at him with fists clenched, he retaliated, swinging his knife wildly.

One issue before the court is Iskandar's intention in inflicting the multiple knife wounds on father and son. The court also has to decide whether Iskandar can rely on self-defence and sudden fight as defences to murder.

On Monday, Public Prosecutor Lau Wing Yum urged Justice Tay Yong Kwang to convict Iskandar of murder with intention to kill under Section 300(a) of the Penal Code, for which the death penalty is mandatory.

The DPP said that the nature, number and location of the knife wounds, mainly on the vital areas such the head, neck and chest, clearly showed that Iskandar had intended to kill them.

He said that Iskandar had failed to adequately explain why he inflicted 23 knife wounds on the father and 17 on the son, even after discounting the defensive injuries on the men.

Iskandar's lawyer, Mr Shashi Nathan, argued that just because the victims suffered a large number of injuries did not mean Iskandar had intended to kill them.
Related Story
From The Straits Times archives: Kovan double murder

"I'm not asking you to acquit him of murder," he told the court. "He knows he has killed two people, he knows he has to suffer the consequences."

Mr Nathan contended that Iskanadr should be found guilty under Section 300(c), in which murder is committed with the intention of causing bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.

The death penalty is not mandatory under Section 300(c) and the court has the discretion to sentence the accused to life imprisonment and caning.

 

[Nuance]

Re: Kovan double murder trial set to begin


Prosecution: Murder, beyond reasonable doubt

Kovan double murder suspect, Iskandar Rahmat, being brought to the Subordinate Court on 15 July 2013.

Photo: The Straits Times

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2015

The prosecution has proved its case "beyond a reasonable doubt", Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Lau Wing Yum told the court yesterday.

To show that suspended police officer Iskandar Rahmat, 36, had intentionally wanted to kill his two victims, he cited these main points:

THE INJURIES

DPP Lau told the court that the extensive injuries found on both victims indicated that Iskandar had intended to kill motor workshop owner Tan Boon Sin, 67, and his son, businessman Tan Chee Heong, 42, in the father's Hillside Drive house on July 10, 2013.

He stressed that the older Mr Tan had 27 knife wounds while his son had 20, one of which had caused an open fracture to his skull.

DPP Lau added that the force used was so great that fragments of fractured bone were found in Mr Tan Chee Heong's brain.

Iskandar had also admitted in an investigation statement that shortly after he stabbed Mr Tan Boon Sin, the latter started shouting and Iskandar covered his mouth to silence him.

When Mr Tan Boon Sin bit his hand, Iskandar stabbed him several times in the neck until his body went limp.

"(Due to) the severity (of the injuries) and (Iskandar's) failure to explain how they came about, the prosecution's submission is that the only irresistible and necessary inference is that he intended to kill," DPP Lau said.

ISKANDAR WANTED TO LAUNCH SURPRISE ATTACK

DPP Lau told Justice Tay that Iskandar had left bloody sock prints behind the front door when he stood there after attacking Mr Tan Boon Sin.

He said: "The accused hid behind the front door to wait for this 'someone', who turned out to be (the younger Mr Tan), so that he could launch a surprise attack."

CLAIM OF ACTING IN PRIVATE DEFENCE NOT CREDIBLE

DPP Lau said Iskandar had killed his two victims to silence them so they could not identify him.

He submitted that Mr Tan Boon Sin never threatened or attacked Iskandar with a knife.

Citing some examples, he said that the older Mr Tan served the former policeman a drink when they reached his house.

DPP Lau added: "He left the electronic gate (to his house) open because he trusted the accused, who told him that there was no need to close it as his supposed partner would be coming soon."

He urged Justice Tay Yong Kwang to convict Iskandar under the most serious section of the murder charges - Section 300(a), under which offenders must be sent to the gallows.

Under the other sections, offenders may be jailed for life and caned instead.

DEFENCE: NOTHING TO SUGGEST IT'S MURDER

In his closing submissions, defence lawyer Shashi Nathan said there was nothing that emerged during the trial that suggested his client had committed murder.

While there was a motive, Iskandar Rahmat's sole intention had always been to take the money and he had never intended to kill, he said.

NO PLAN

While the prosecution said that killing car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin had always been part of Iskandar Rahmat's plan, Mr Nathan disagreed.

If he had planned to kill Mr Tan, he would have parked his rental car closer to Mr Tan's house at 14J, Hillside Drive, instead of Eunos Industrial Park, a 15-minute drive away.

In fact, Iskandar had not even taken a change of clothes and he had not stabbed Mr Tan the moment they entered the house.

"If (Iskandar) had a knife (as the prosecution suggested), he would have killed (Mr Tan) the moment they stepped into the house. No need for this facade of (having Mr Tan) get him a drink, and (Iskandar) going out to smoke," Mr Nathan said, referring to the incident where Mr Tan took out a canned drink for Iskandar.

In fact, the knife said to be used in the killings was never recovered, Mr Nathan said, adding that there was no evidence that Iskandar had taken the knife to Mr Tan's house.

FOOTPRINTS

Much had been made of the bloody footprints Iskandar left at the house.

But Iskandar's prints were in a linear direction, showing him going from the living room into the dining area before going into the toilet in the utility room and back into the common area, Mr Nathan said.

This was consistent with Iskandar's version of events that after the confrontation with Mr Tan Boon Sin and his son, he had gone in search of a towel to wrap his injured hand.

"If he had been trying to look for something, the footprints would be going in multiple directions," the lawyer added.

The last time Iskandar saw the bag containing Mr Tan's valuables, it was near the staircase leading to the second storey. But there were no footprints in that area.

NO INTENTION

Iskandar had no intention to kill both men, much less run over Mr Tan Chee Heong to ensure that he was dead, Mr Nathan said.

His client maintains that he never went out to look at the younger Mr Tan lying on the ground outside, nor did he know that the younger Mr Tan was trapped under his father's Toyota Camry.

Said Mr Nathan: "He knows he shouldn't have done this. For a minor offence (of stealing money), he killed people. I'm not asking you to acquit him, (Iskandar) has killed two people, knows the consequences and must be punished.

"But the intention never developed to kill them. In the course, things went awry."

Mr Nathan wrapped up his submissions by asking Justice Tay Yong Kwang to acquit Iskandar of the 300(a) murder charge, which carries a mandatory death penalty, and to convict him of a lower murder charge.

ABOUT THE CASE

On July 10, 2013, the body of Mr Tan Chee Heong, 42, was found with stab wounds at a taxi stand outside Kovan MRT Station.

The body had been dislodged after being dragged nearly 1km by his father's car.

The car was driven by Iskandar Rahmat, 36, who is on trial for the double murders of Mr Tan and his father, Mr Tan Boon Sin, 67.

The father's body was found with multiple stab wounds in his home at 14J, Hillside Drive.

Iskandar fled to Malaysia that night but was arrested in a Johor Baru eatery two days later.

Iskandar, a police officer with the Bedok Police Division, was facing disciplinary proceedings because of a $50,000 debt to OCBC Bank.

The prosecution maintains that he had hatched an elaborate plan to rob and kill the older man to ease his money problems.

His defence says the incident was a theft gone wrong, with tragic consequences.

Justice Tay Yong Kwang will deliver his verdict on Dec 4.

 

[zhihau]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

Death Penalty!!!

 

[Semaj2357]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

Death Penalty!!!

has to be, the date says so.....

 

[mojito]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

Death Penalty!!!

My bleeding heart says no. What if it is all a misunderstanding? Community service is punishment enough.

 

[xebay11]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

My bleeding heart says no. What if it is all a misunderstanding? Community service is punishment enough.

Yah what if the victims was your father and brother?

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

This m&d got the death penalty

 

[Buckethead]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

Crime of passion pay the price, for him, the passion is money....

 

[ChineseDog]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

My bleeding heart says no. What if it is all a misunderstanding? Community service is punishment enough.

Good job my fellow chinese dog. Only us chink murderers deserve to get the death penalty. Non chinks like this malay deserve to be let off.

 

[po2wq]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

has to be, the date says so.....

wat if judge consults his chinese calendar? ... :o

 

[spotter542]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

It took 28 months to prosecute the Mat cop
Is this how a first world juridical system works ?

 

[bic_cherry]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

They claim to have a first class civil service because we have a "first class political leadership and judiciary", yet wat is being seen is more often than not just low class corruption/ misconduct (see subsequent photos etc)...

Senior civil servants receiving bribes (in kind) in Singapore:

Even everyday policemen are lazy/ corrupt:

http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/lazy-policeman-forged-logbook-entries-avoid-doing-work

SCDF trained to save lives and protect property? 'Protect property' certainly isn't true the way they treated public property, (I.e. their own bunk): 'Singapore Civil Defence Force bunk thrashed so hard you wouldn’t believe your eyes': http://mothership.sg/2015/04/singap...rashed-so-hard-you-wouldnt-believe-your-eyes/

Which is why nowadays, when people tell me that they are senior civil servant or even politicians, I always look at them with skew eyes.

 

[spotter542]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

When are they going to hang the murderer ?
This case seemed to drag forever
The victims family members must be damn pissed off that the culprit is still breathing

 

[spotter542]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

Either we have a kangaroo judge or a kangaroo court , this Mat is enjoying Nasi Padang in Changi Hotel till today

 

[cuckoldoolittle]

Re: Brother Golden Dragon, any updates on Kovan murder?

Either we have a kangaroo judge or a kangaroo court , this Mat is enjoying Nasi Padang in Changi Hotel till today

The stage has already been set.
The wayang Malay Elected President grant Royal Pardon.
Credit goes to AssLoong's PAP
The Malay community should be grateful to AssLoong PAP right?
Wow... AssLoong orgasm!

What about the victim's family? And who did they voted?
What about their elite connections, Comrade?
Well, they are just numbers to AssLoong the Mad-mati-hsien.

Ever since Obama's State Dinner, AssLoong thought he has been given authority to reign beyond the tiny dot.
AssLoong sought to chastise The Great Red Dragon but was taken ill and engulfed when The Great Red Dragon farted.
Now AssLoong is in India, Great Sage of India kindly returned a humble gesture by ferrying AssLoong in a Chartered Bus.

 

[songsongjurong]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...e-death-penalty-for-kovan-double/3237092.html

SINGAPORE: Three years after he murdered two men, former police officer Iskandar Rahmat is fighting to save his own life.

The Court of Appeal reserved judgment on Wednesday (Oct 26) on Iskandar’s appeal against two death sentences handed down to him for the murder of Mr Tan Boon Sin, 67, and his son Chee Heong, 42, on Jul 10, 2013.

Iskandar’s lawyer, Wendell Wong argued the murder convictions should be overturned and replaced with reduced charges, sparing Iskandar the noose. He urged the apex court to consider new evidence in the form of two reports – a forensic pathology report and a psychiatric report.

The forensic pathology report states that Iskandar suffered defensive injuries, lending weight to the defence’s case that Mr Tan Boon Sin was the aggressor, and that Iskandar had wrested the knife from his hand and killed him in self-defence.

The latter report said Iskandar was diagnosed with two mental illnesses at the time of the murders. This “abnormality of mind … substantially impaired his mental responsibility” for the killings, psychiatrist Dr John Bosco Lee stated.

FATHER, SON DIED FROM MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS

Iskandar, 37, was found guilty of two counts of murder and sentenced to death on Dec 4 last year. High Court Justice Tay Yong Kwang found “no doubt” that the policeman, facing bankruptcy and dismissal from the force, intended to kill the elderly man for his money.

When Mr Tan’s son, Chee Heong, appeared “at the most inopportune moment” at his father’s house, “he quickly became collateral damage”, Justice Tay said.

Father and son died from multiple stab wounds – 21 and 17 respectively – on areas like the scalp, face, neck and chest. The elder Tan died in Iskandar’s arms, while the younger Tan staggered out of the house and collapsed behind a car in the driveway.

His body got caught under Iskandar's getaway car and was dragged nearly 1km before it dislodged in front of Kovan MRT station. It also left a trail of blood leading back to 14J Hillside Drive, where the other body was discovered.

During his 10-day trial, Iskandar insisted he stabbed the men in self-defence, when the elder Tan came at him with a knife after he realised Iskandar had tricked him into removing S$600,000 in cash from a safe deposit box.

Iskandar maintains all he intended to do was to rob the man, not kill him.

The younger Tan barged in to find Iskandar covered in his father’s blood and wielding a knife, and came at him with fists clenched, Iskandar had testified.

Prosecutors said Iskandar intended to kill Mr Tan for the money and decided to finish his son off too, to “silence completely the two persons who had seen him”.

DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL ILLNESS 3 YEARS LATE, "UNRELIABLE"

On Wednesday, they attempted to block Mr Wong from presenting new evidence, pointing out that the reports were prepared more than three years after the killings and more than eight months after the trial.

In response to Mr Wong’s submission that Iskandar was suffering from Acute Stress Reaction and Adjustment Disorder around the time of the murders, Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Lit Cheng pointed out Iskandar himself had denied this at trial.

Iskandar cannot be allowed to now rely on “unreliable, self-serving” reports based on interviews three years after the fact, the prosecutor argued.

Urging the apex court to uphold the death sentence, DPP Lee said Iskandar had “no choice” but to kill Mr Tan “or face certain reprehension”, because of the great lengths to which he had gone to trick the elderly man into removing cash and valuables from a safe deposit box.

PLAN GONE WRONG

Iskandar called Mr Tan from a payphone on Jul 10, and introduced himself as an officer from the Police Intelligence Department. He told the elderly man the police had “intel” that his safe deposit box would be “hit”. Mr Tan agreed to replace his valuables with a CCTV camera, under the impression he was participating in a secret police operation.

The men met later that afternoon at a Shell petrol station in Paya Lebar, where Iskandar passed Mr Tan a dummy CCTV camera to put in his safe deposit box.

Mr Tan did as he was told and returned later with cash and valuables in tow. Iskandar offered to escort him home as he was carrying a lot of money, and Mr Tan agreed.

It was when the pair arrived at the Tan family home at Hillside Drive that things went horribly wrong.

“Your client is the only person alive who was there,” Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said, pressing Iskandar’s lawyer for an explanation as to why Mr Tan and his son ended up dead, when Iskandar claims he was the one attacked with a knife.

The CJ pointed out there appears to be no explanation for why Mr Tan allegedly attacked Iskandar suddenly, after following the policeman’s instructions and even allowing him into his home.

“I have to tell you that that’s something that causes me a great deal of difficulty,” CJ Menon said, especially because “the only evidence (Iskandar has) put forward pivots on this point – that (Mr Tan) attacked him”.

Mr Wong said there was no way the murder weapon could have come from Iskandar. The policeman was dressed in office wear and would not have been able to conceal a knife under his clothes, he argued.

To that, the prosecution reiterated that no knives were missing from the Tan family home and highlighted that Iskandar was "able to describe the knife in detail”. He even drew a picture of it for investigators, despite the fact that its details would have been obscured by blood, DPP Lee said.

Iskandar’s family was allowed to spend a few minutes with him after the three-hour hearing. The Tan family was not present.

 

[Prodigy]

Kovan murders: Apex court reserves judgment

Iskandar, 37, was found guilty of killing car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin, 67, and his son Chee Heong, 42, at the older man's Hillside Drive house.

Published Oct 27, 2016, 5:00 am SGT

Ex-cop appeals against death sentence, says he killed in self-defence

Selina Lum

The fate of former cop Iskandar Rahmat, who was sentenced to death for the Kovan double murder, continues to hang in the balance after judgment was yesterday reserved on his appeal.

He was found guilty last December of killing car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin, 67, and his son Chee Heong, 42, on July 10, 2013, at the older man's Hillside Drive house.

Iskandar, 37, then escaped in the older victim's Toyota Camry. The son's body was caught under his father's car and was dragged for more than 1km.

At the hearing before the three Court of Appeal judges yesterday, his lawyer Wendell Wong relied on an argument that was raised earlier - that it was the father who attacked Iskandar first.

During the trial last year, Iskandar, who was facing bankruptcy, said he planned to only rob Mr Tan. He had found out that the victim kept a large amount of cash in a Certis Cisco safe deposit box, after Mr Tan lodged a police report about money being stolen from it.

To steal the remaining money, Iskandar posed as an intelligence officer. He persuaded Mr Tan to take out all his valuables, on the pretext of putting a surveillance camera inside the safe deposit box. He then offered to escort Mr Tan to his three-storey terraced house as he was carrying a lot of money. There, he killed the man.

But Iskandar said Mr Tan realised he was being tricked, became angry and attacked him with a knife. So, he slashed him in self defence.

Mr Wong yesterday said Mr Tan had reason to confront Iskandar as he stood to lose the $600,000 he had taken out from the safe deposit box. He said Mr Tan hid the money in the storeroom after he came home, and that suggested he had become suspicious of Iskandar.

The judges asked what could have alerted Mr Tan - who until then had been "comfortable" following Iskandar's instructions - to make him attack Iskandar with a knife.

Mr Wong suggested that Mr Tan's suspicions could have been raised during a phone conversation with his son when he was at home with Iskandar. The son left his office and drove to his father's house after the call.

Mr Wong urged the court to take a "holistic view" of "all the moving parts in the case", which did not gel with a plan to kill.

Besides, he knew "the wages of murder" was capital punishment, said Mr Wong.

The lawyer also tried to admit a forensic pathology report to support his contention that Iskandar suffered defensive injuries.

He also sought to admit a psychiatric report that showed Iskandar suffered from an acute stress reaction and an adjustment disorder at the time, and that qualified him for a defence of diminished responsibility.

But Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Lit Cheng said the psychiatric report was not reliable as it was based on the "self-serving" account Iskandar gave to the defence psychiatrist. She added that Iskandar did not complain of any symptoms when he was interviewed by a government psychiatrist immediately after the killings.

Ms Lee said: "It's a clear case of double murder." She added that the multiple injuries suffered by both men showed that the attack was ferocious and intended to kill.

The apex court will give its decision at a later date.

 

[spotter542]

I believe he lost his appeal and he is still breathing