10
8.
5
permitted the Prisoner to stay at his place while the Prisoner was responsible in paying half of the monthly rental. Yet the Prisoner only returned to sleep occassionally, usually late in the night, without any prior notice to Mr. CHAN. Mr. CHAN remembered that the Prisoner was casual in clothing and was an easy going person. Anyhow Mr. CHAN
Mr. CHAN was completely ignorant of the Prisoner's background and social connection. was rather surprised to learn about the Prisoner's involvement in the present offence. Since the Prisoner was young in age, Mr. CHAN thought that a commutation of the death sentence should be given.
9.
Mr. TAM know the Prisoner in China when they learnt Chinese boxing under the same master. Yet he claimed that they were never close friends as the Prisoner was much younger in age. After arrival in Ilong Kong, Mr. TAM had met the Prisoner several times in his working place, i.e. in an electrical appliances shop where he worked as a salesman. As alleged, the Prisoner had requested Mr. TAM to introduce customers to buy drugs, but Mr. TAM had no such connection. Mr. TAM further denied that he knew anything about the problem the Prisoner encountered in the drug business nor of a planned murder, thus he felt very annoyed for being repeatedly interviewed by the Police and related personnels. He even refrained from giving any comments on the Prisoner's personality as he claimed to be unfamiliar with the Prisoner. Anyhow, he opined that the Prisoner would get into trouble sooner or later as long as he was engaged in the dangerous drug business.
Mr. CHAN was completely ignorant of the Deceased's, i.e. his second child, activities and association as the latter had moved out from the family at a very young age. In recent years, Mr. CHAN and other children were living at the above- address at Hung Hom in order to maintain his hawking business. The Deceased and his wife, plus two younger siblings, namely CHAN Ka-yan and CHAN Chuen-ming, stayed at Room 1347 & 1348, 3lock 9, Ngau Tau Kok Estate, though Mr. CHAN was the householder. Their activities were entirely concealed from the aged parents. Mr. CHAN had never met the Prisoner. Yet Mr. CHAN wished that the murderer should be duly punished by the law, as he had been brutal in taking away one's life and in disposing the dead body in such a cruel way.
Mr. CHAN came to know the Prisoner in 1977 through his elder brother, i.e. the Deceased's introduction. As Mr. CHAN had to be away from Hong Kong to supervise the drug business in Europe, Mr. CHAN claimed to have few contacts with the Prisoner. But he knew that the Prisoner was nicely treated by the Deceased and very often the Prisoner spent the nights at the Deceased's place. Mr. CHAN remarked that the Prisoner was a queer person who kept several addresses at one time and no body was informed of his background and association in detail. Mr. CHAN also stressed that the Prisoner had in fact involved in the drug circle before 1976, that was even before the latter came to link with the Deceased. Mr. CHAN also heard from hear-say that the Prisoner had previously involved in some robbery cases. Mr. CHAN described that the Prisoner was the kind of person who would plan systematically to revenge on the people who had grudges with him.
Cont'd./(F) Interview