Footprints at crime scene suggest alleged murderer was lying in ambush: Prosecution

SINGAPORE — Pointing to the prints left by Iskandar Rahmat’s blood-soaked socks behind the main door of 14J Hillside Drive, prosecutors brought up a theory today (Nov 11) that the former cop was actually lying in ambush for Tan Chee Heong, moments after knifing the latter’s father to death.

Iskandar, 36, knew that someone was coming to the house after overhearing car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin’s phone call, and had waited behind the door to “land a surprise attack”, charged Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Prem Raj.

Defence lawyers have been making the case that Iskandar’s grab-and-flee robbery plan on July 10, 2013, went awry after the older victim, 67, saw through the scam cooked up by 
Iskandar and charged at him with a knife.

While Iskandar was fending off the attack, Tan’s son, 42, entered the house and came at him, leading to another struggle, they argued.

But DPP Prem questioned this version of events, saying Iskandar’s sock prints behind the door suggested he had been standing there, lying in wait.

Iskandar, however, said the stains could have been left there when he went to pick up some of his belongings that had been strewn during the struggle with the older victim.

He also claimed that he did not know that the older Tan had a son, much less that the latter would be going to the house that day.

DPP Prem then sought to poke holes in another aspect of Iskandar’s defence.

If Iskandar was strong enough to wrest the knife out of the older Tan’s hands, he could have just pushed him away and fled, if murder was not his intention, he argued.

“Now you say you’re not strong enough to push a man, twice your age with knee problems, away?” asked DPP Prem. He also pointed to the defensive wounds found on the older victim’s hands, which did not square with Iskandar’s claim that he had stabbed Tan in self-defence, he added.

Rather, Iskandar intended to silence Tan so he could not be identified, DPP Prem contended.

Iskandar was also questioned on why he could not have gotten away from the younger victim — who was unarmed and 30kg lighter — given his training in unarmed combat tactics in the police force.

But Iskandar said he had never had to use these combat skills during his time as a patrol officer.

The father-and-son pair also sustained 40 wounds on vital parts of their bodies from the killings on July 10, 2013, as opposed to the sole deep laceration wound found on the back of Iskandar’s right hand, said the prosecution. This was “totally disproportionate” to someone who was acting in self-defence, the prosecutor added.

Contending that Iskandar had walked around the car to look for the younger Tan who had stumbled out of the house after the stabbing, DPP Prem added that this was so he could intentionally run over the victim with the car to make sure he was dead.

The questioning of witnesses for the trial ended today (Nov 11) and both sides will return to court on Nov 23 to make their final submissions. If convicted, Iskandar faces the death penalty.