Murder of Iordanka Apostolova

Iordanka Apostolova

On 13 January 1998, a Bulgarian student named Iordanka Apostolova (Иорданка Апостолова), alias Tamia Pachinko (Тамиа Пачинко), was discovered dead in a canal at , Singapore. Investigations led to the police to arrest one male suspect, who was Iordanka’s friend while another man surrendered himself to the police. The two men were charged with her murder and later hanged in 1999. A third accomplice, the wife of one of the executed men who helped concealing the evidence of the murder and for failing to report the crime to the authorities, was subsequently imprisoned for six years by the courts.^[1]

Discovery of victim and investigations[]

On 13 January 1998, 56-year-old You Ah Kam was fishing at the canal near Tanah Merah Ferry Road when he fished out the dead body of a Caucasian young woman, who had her legs tied to a heavy sack. The woman was also found wearing a shirt that has badges pinned to it, indicating her as a boxing fan. Due to this, she was later identified as 26-year-old Iordanka Apostolova Apostolova (or simply, Iordanka Apostolova; alias Tamia Pachinko, nicknamed Dani), a Bulgarian student who first came to study in Singapore in October 1996.^[2]

The police were contacted and forensic pathologist Chao Tzee Cheng was called to conduct an autopsy on Apostolova. Professor Chao ascertained that the victim has died a slow and painful death, as he found multiple incised wounds on the woman's neck which were caused by a sharp object slicing her neck, and these wounds could cause slow bleeding that would result in death due to excessive loss of blood. The death, Professor Chao found, was escalated by the woman being drowned after being thrown into the canal, as Apostolova's lungs contained around 600 millilitres of water, meaning that she breathed in water while she was underwater in the canal; in other words, Apostolova was still barely alive at the time she was thrown into the canal after being knifed, and she was at most, merely unconscious at the time her body was disposed.^[3]

Meanwhile, the police, led by Richard Lim Beng Gee, investigated and found a receipt within the area near the canal. It was traced back to a petrol station where CCTV footage showed two Malay men purchasing the contents shown on the receipt. Coincidentally, Apostolova's acquaintances told police that Apostolova were close friends with a Malay man,^[4] who was later identified as 22-year-old Shaiful Edham bin Adam (he was one of the two Malay men captured in the CCTV footage). The police also found that Apostolova was trading commodities with Shaiful, and was a client of the firm where Shaiful worked as a trade director. For this, Shaiful, then married to 23-year-old Hezlinda binte A. Rahman and a father to one newborn daughter named Nur Esteela Marthia, was called in for questioning on 15 January 1998. Shaiful later confessed to police that he indeed killed Apostolova on 11 January 1998. Kevin Walter Hector, Shaiful's employer who rented his Depot Road flat to Shaiful and his family, also found bloodstains in the flat which were later tested and matched the DNA of Apostolova.

Soon after his confession, Shaiful was charged with murder on 19 January 1998.^[5] Two days later, after confessing to his uncle and parents that he helped Shaiful to dispose Apostolova's body, 26-year-old Norishyam s/o Mohamed Ali (the other man in the CCTV footage), a friend of Shaiful from his two-year mandatory training at National Service (NS), surrendered himself to the police and told police about his role in the murder. Norishyam was then charged with murder on 22 January 1998.^[6] Both Shaiful and Norishyam would stand trial together for Apostolova's murder in late July 1998.

Trial of Shaiful Edham Adam and Norishyam Mohamed Ali[]

The prosecution's case[]

Shaiful Edham bin Adam, the first accused who allegedly planned to kill Apostolova beforehand

On 29 July 1998, Shaiful Edham bin Adam and Norishyam s/o Mohamed Ali stood trial in the High Court of Singapore for the murder of Iordanka Apostolova. Lawyer Peter Fernando represented Norishyam while James Bahadur Masih was in charge of defending Shaiful.

The prosecution's case was based on the police statements given by Shaiful and Norishyam. In their statements, the men admitted that Apostolova died due to Shaiful cutting Apostolova's throat using a parang, and they had disposed of the body in the canal with Hezlinda's help, and even bought items to ensure that the body remained underwater while using the rest to clean up the flat. Also, the prosecution, led by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Francis Tseng, charged that the two men shared a common intention to kill Apostolova, since they acted together in ensuring her death and disposing of her body. It was also revealed that Shaiful had planned to murder Apostolova all along, as he and Apostolova originally planned to buy a Toyota car (which was owned by Shaiful's second employer Eric Tan), and Apostolova, per their agreement, transferred around $40,000 from her bank account as down-payment, but due to the deal which might incur losses on Apostolova's part, Apostolova kept pestering at Shaiful over the issues, which made Shaiful gradually annoyed at the harassment and eventually wanted to kill her.

After Professor Chao Tzee Cheng took the stand and presented his autopsy findings, the defence counsel of the two men tried to argue that although the wounds were inflicted to kill Apostolova, the two men genuinely believed that Apostolova has died from the parang attack, and never knew she was alive when they disposed her body. As for the prosecution's arguments that Shaiful had long before planned the murder, Shaiful's colleague, Mohammed Noor bin Rahmat (alias Bobby), came to court as a witness and testify about a phone call conversation between him and Shaiful, in which Shaiful tried to get him involved in the murder by offering him S$14,000, and Mohammed Noor rejected Shaiful's offer, calling him not to do something stupid and feeling he was crazy. The phone call was made in the presence of Shaiful's employers Erickson Pereira and Kevin Hector, and both Pereira and Hector confirmed about the conversation between Hector and Shaiful. Still, Shaiful's lawyer James Masih tried to raise doubts over Mohammed Noor's credibility by suggesting that due to Mohammed Noor owed Shaiful some money and gold and given his alleged annoyance at Shaiful's demands to return the cash, Mohammed Noor fabricated his story about the phone call conversation.

Michael Gan, a car dealer, was another witness who got knowledge of Shaiful's plan to kill the Bulgarian student, as he told the court that Shaiful asked him to look for a professional killer to help kill someone who showed interest in his wife; this conversation was confirmed by Koh Tee Hong and Koh Tee Yang, who knew Gan through the car purchase deal and heard about Shaiful's murder plot from Gan. Masih tried to paint Gan as a liar who lied about Shaiful's plan to murder Apostolova in order to get revenge at Shaiful for the failed deal to sell the car and loss of his commission for the car.

The defence's case[]

When Shaiful went up the stand to give his evidence, while he recounted the friendship he shared with Apostolova, he stated that on the day of Apostolova's murder, he and Apostolova argued about the disputes in the deal to sell the car, and during the argument, Apostolova allegedly threatened to call her "foreign friends" (referring to the Mafia, presumably) to use force to settle the issues, and this escalated into vulgarities and Apostolova using a knife to fight Shaiful; Shaiful claimed that the knife wound he made on Apostolova's neck during their struggle was accidental, and he initially wanted to call for an ambluance but Apostolova said she did not want to as she did not want to get Shaiful into trouble. It so happened that, from Shaiful's account, Norishyam was already in the flat, due to Shaiful inviting him for a drink and offering S$7,000 for Norishyam's wedding plans. After asking for a drink and laid down on the floor, Apostolova, still bleeding, asked to end her life to not die a painful death from her wound, which led to Shaiful enlisting his guest Norishyam's help to kill Apostolova by telling Norishyam to cut Apostolova's neck before disposing her in the canal.^[7][8]

Norishyam s/o Mohamed Ali, the second accused whose defence was he only helped dispose the victim's body, not to kill Apostolova

Norishyam however, gave a different account: he stated that he was offered S$7,000 to help Shaiful kill Apostolova. He stated that he had no wedding plans at the time, and Shaiful asked him to help kill Apostolova. He stated he came there to try to dissuade Shaiful from committing murder and did not want to accept the money. Upon entering the flat, he saw Apostolova already on the floor, bleeding from the wound while still alive, and he tried to leave, but Shaiful told him that he was already involved. Norishyam said that out of fear towards Shaiful, he helped push the cushion on her face and held her legs down while Shaiful brought the parang down on Apostolova's neck. He stated that he did not kill Apostolova, and only helped Shaiful to dispose of the body with Hezlinda's help. Norishyam also demonstrated to the court how Shaiful used the parang to hack Apostolova's throat.^[9][10][11]

Hezlinda supported her husband's testimony and also placed the full blame of the crime on Norishyam as she went on stand to give her evidence; she was not yet charged for her role in the murder at this point. However, she admitted under DPP Tseng's questioning that she would lie to save her husband from the death penalty, which was a fatal mistake as it affected both her and Shaiful's credibility, which indirectly led to him sentenced to hang.^[12][13][14]

Verdict[]

On 14 August 1998, High Court judge Kan Ting Chiu delivered his verdict. He found both Shaiful and Norishyam guilty of murder and sentenced both of them to death.

Reasoning first why he convicted Shaiful of murder, Justice Kan stated that there was evidence to back up the theory that Shaiful had offered money to Norishyam to help him in killing Apostolova, and there was no regular contact maintained between both men since their days together while serving National Service. Shaiful’s claim that the first slash wound was accidental was inconsistent with the pathologist’s evidence that the injury to the front of the neck was caused by slicing; Norishyam also confirmed that Shaiful sliced Apostolova’s neck by running the parang blade against the neck. He also stated that Shaiful clearly had the intent to cause Apostolova’s death over their unsettled issues, and there was no reason for the witnesses like Mohammed Noor, Michael Gan and others to lie to further frame Shaiful for the murder since he at times, expressed to them his intentions and plot to kill Apostolova, and they were truthful in their testimony.

As for why Norishyam was guilty of murder, Justice Kan gave a longer explanation, telling Norishyam that he, as what he admitted earlier, knew about Shaiful’s plan to murder Apostolova prior to leaving his home to meet him at Depot Road. Justice Kan said that if Norishyam had genuinely intended to dissuade Shaiful from proceeding with his plan, he should have made a choice to leave the flat, which he in fact did so and was alone at the ground floor after that, before deciding to return to Shaiful’s flat. After his return, not only did Norishyam never stop Shaiful from assaulting Apostolova, he even helped hold down Apostolova's legs and prevent her from making sounds while Shaiful used the parang on the victim. He even actively participated in cleaning the flat and helping the couple to dispose of Apostolova's body in a canal in . Since he acted in accordance with Shaiful's intention to cause Apostolova's death, Norishyam should be held responsible for committing Apostolova's murder.^[15]

Also, even though Apostolova's neck wounds were not fatal enough to grant an immediate death, they shared the common intention to cause her death and inflicting fatal neck wounds on her to kill her, and although the disposal of the victim's body in the water was responsible for escalating her process to death and was done under the mistaken belief that she died, it did not downplay the intention of the duo to murder Apostolova. Therefore, the judge ruled that the men were to be held liable to murder convictions and hence imposed the mandatory death sentences on the two of them.^[16]

Trial of Hezlinda A. Rahman[]

On 21 September 1998, Hezlinda binte A. Rahman was arrested and charged in the district courts of Singapore with abetting her husband and Norishyam to dispose Apostolova’s corpse, and also for not reporting the murder to the police. Given that she was not involved in the planning to kill Apostolova and executing the murder itself, Hezlinda was not liable to a capital murder charge unlike her husband and Norishyam. The couple’s daughter was entrusted to the care of their relatives while they were undergoing court proceedings.^[17]

On 29 January 1999, Hezlinda was found guilty and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Senior district judge , in sentencing Hezlinda, called her “wicked” and her conduct “reprehensible” as he referred to the cold blooded nature of her crime and her active role as lookout while her husband killed Apostolova.^[18][19][20]

Execution of the murderers[]

After being sentenced to death, both Shaiful and Norishyam appealed against their sentences. Both men reused their defences and arguments made in their trial to ask the Court of Appeal of Singapore to review their cases and convictions.

However, the judges - Chief Justice Yong Pung How, Judge of Appeal and High Court judge Tan Lee Meng - found that the evidence against the two men were indicative of the common intention between them to commit the murder and no error in the trial judge's observations and ruling; and having cited past murder cases involving the concept of common intention, they decided to dismiss the appeals of Shaiful and Norishyam on 11 January 1999. In an sarcastic remark when it comes to Norishyam's claim that he only helped dispose the body, CJ Yong commented, "If he (Norishyam) did not share a common intention, what was he there for? To do a charitable act?"^[21][22]

On 2 July 1999, despite Amnesty International's pleas for clemency, both 23-year-old Shaiful Edham bin Adam and 27-year-old Norishyam s/o Mohamed Ali were hanged in Singapore's Changi Prison, the one and only state prison where the country's death row inmates were held before their executions in the same prison's state gallows. Before his execution, Shaiful reportedly wanted to divorce his wife, possibly due to him not wanting her to suffer from the stigma of being a murderer's wife.^[23][24][25]

Aftermath[]

Crime documentary series Crimewatch re-enacted the case in 1999.^[26] Similarly, True Files also re-enacted the case in 2002, and the show's 11th episode which featured the murder and trials of the murderers first aired on 11 July 2002. The re-enactments were available in meWATCH.^[27] A third show, Whispers of the Dead, which features the famous cases solved by late pathologist Chao Tzee Cheng, re-enacted the case and aired it as the 8th and final episode of the show's second and final season. The names of the victim and convicts were changed to protect their identities and for dramatic purposes.^[28]

In the True Files episode, the host of the show, Lim Kay Tong, together with the producers of the show, arrived at the Depot Road flat where Apostolova was murdered. The flat was shown to be vacant and no one was living in it; the original owner Kevin Hector never returned to the flat since the night Apostolova died, according to the neighbours living near it. The flat was thus effectively considered abandoned. Also, one of the trial witnesses, Mohamed Noor bin Rahmat, who was originally approached to help Shaiful murder Apostolova, was interviewed by the show's producers, albeit with his face concealed to protect his identity. Mohamed Noor stated that he declined to help Shaiful due to him feeling that he, as a human being, had no right to take another person's life no matter how bad his character is, and he, out of conscience, was not enticed by Shaiful's monetary offer.^[29]

See also[]

• Capital punishment in Singapore
• List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–present)
• List of major crimes in Singapore (before 2000)

References[]