Kovan murder trial: Prosecutors cite inconsistencies in defence

SINGAPORE — If car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin had seen through alleged murderer Iskandar Rahmat’s ruse, why would he try to place a dummy CCTV camera in his safe deposit box as instructed or offer the former cop a drink back at his home after that?

Prosecutors cited these two inconsistencies yesterday to discredit Iskandar’s version of events on the day of the double murder, which was that Tan, 67, had attacked him with a knife first, foiling his plan to grab a bag with S$200,000 in cash and flee.

Rather, Iskandar, 36, had intended to kill Tan and his son Chee Heong, 42, to silence them because he knew they would be able to identify him, argued Deputy Public Prosecutor Lau Wing Yum.

Cross-examining Iskandar for the first time, DPP Lau showed the court surveillance footage of the older Tan trying to fit a dummy CCTV camera into his safe deposit box at Certis CISCO hours before he was stabbed to death at home on July 10, 2013.

Iskandar had cooked up a story that thieves would try to steal from Tan’s safe deposit box again, and the dud camera was part of a covert police operation to catch the culprit red-handed.

Earlier in the trial, Iskandar contended that his ruse was exposed when Tan realised the dummy CCTV camera had no batteries. The robbery, defence lawyers are arguing, went awry after that as Tan pulled a knife on Iskandar.

DPP Lau, however, said yesterday that the elder Tan would have known that the dummy CCTV camera contained no batteries when he tried to fit it into his safe deposit box at Certis CISCO.

He argued that Iskandar had assured Tan the camera would work without batteries before escorting the victim home with his bag of money.

DPP Lau also contended that Tan would not have offered Iskandar a drink after they returned to his home at 14J Hillside Drive if he had smelled a rat.

He also questioned Iskandar’s intentions in using a public payphone in Ang Mo Kio to make calls to his own mobile number as well as to Tan’s mobile before carrying out the robbery ruse.

The prosecutor said it was Iskandar’s attempt to check if the call could be traced by the police, but Iskandar refuted this, saying he wanted to see if any phone number would appear on his mobile.

The prosecution also tried to point out inconsistencies in Iskandar’s claim that when Tan first made a police report on the theft of S$35,000 from his safe deposit box, it could have been Iskandar himself or his subordinate who had called Tan to find out how much money was left in the safe deposit box.

DPP Lau said the testimonies from Iskandar’s subordinate and investigating officer Daniel Wong showed that no officer on duty had called the victim when Mr Tan lodged the report about the theft .

The prosecution also pointed to evidence from Tan’s original case file of the police report on the theft case, which did not mention the S$200,000 that was left in his safe deposit box.

The hearing was adjourned early yesterday after DPP Lau fell ill. Iskandar will continue on the stand for cross-examination when the trial resumes tomorrow.

If convicted, Iskandar faces the death penalty.