Abhijeet Singh purchased the rope. The rope used to bind an elderly couple in their beds before a brutal attack. But his lawyer stood before the courtroom, asserting a critical absence: proof Singh was ever *at* the scene of the crime.
The case against Singh, accused alongside two others in the deaths of Arnold and Joanne De Jong, hinges on that very point. Andrew Cochrane, Singh’s lawyer, argued the prosecution’s entire narrative “collapses” without evidence placing his client inside the De Jong’s home on that fateful night in May 2022.
The prosecution points to Singh’s DNA on the rope, purchased at a Home Depot the day before the murders. Cochrane countered that the DNA’s presence could simply be a result of the purchase itself, a trace left during a routine transaction. He acknowledged a degree of “moral culpability,” suggesting Singh may have known of a planned robbery and later possessed stolen items.
Singh, 22, is accused with Khushveer Toor and Gurkaran Singh, both students who worked for Singh’s cleaning company. That company had recently serviced the De Jong’s property, cleaning their roof and gutters. This connection, the prosecution argues, provided opportunity.
The details of the attack are harrowing. Joanne De Jong, 76, was beaten and her throat slashed. Arnold De Jong, 77, was suffocated. The prosecution alleges a calculated intrusion, a violent assault carried out while the couple slept.
Evidence presented during the two-month trial revealed Singh purchased not only rope, but also a screwdriver and a softball bat. Security footage from Home Depot captured him with these items. The bat was later found in a car linked to the three accused, bearing traces of Joanne De Jong’s DNA.
The prosecution suggested the bat was kept as a chilling trophy, a “treasured” instrument of murder. But Cochrane questioned whether the bat – or even the screwdriver – was used at all, suggesting the DNA could have been transferred incidentally. He cast doubt on the certainty of the evidence.
Crucially, Singh’s cellphone data places him miles away, near his home in Surrey, during the estimated time of the murders. This “ping” from a local cell tower contradicts the prosecution’s timeline. Further complicating matters, Singh’s post-murder Google searches – concerning penalties for lesser charges and immigration consequences – were deemed ambiguous.
A fraudulent money transfer account created in Arnold De Jong’s name, and later use of his Visa card, were also presented as evidence. Cochrane argued these actions could have been carried out by anyone with access to Singh’s tablet, and didn’t definitively link him to the murders, only to possession of stolen property.
Following the murders, Singh used the stolen credit card to purchase a new iPhone, send money to his sister for tuition, and provide funds to his father. The prosecution contends these actions demonstrate a coordinated effort, a shared responsibility for the crimes.
The courtroom, consistently filled with over 50 family and friends of the De Jongs, heard closing arguments from the defense. The lawyer for Khushveer Toor questioned the reliability of DNA evidence linking her client to the scene, while Gurkaran Singh’s lawyer is expected to present their case.
Outside the court, the De Jong’s daughters spoke of their parents’ kindness and the devastating loss. Kimberley Coleman emphasized the unwavering support they’ve received, a testament to the lives their parents lived. Heather Hoogland remembered her father’s willingness to give anyone a chance.
Sandra Barthel spoke of the joy her parents found in their grandchildren, a joy now tragically cut short. The family had celebrated Mother’s Day together just the day before the discovery of their parents’ bodies, a stark reminder of the happiness stolen by violence.
