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?”