Woodlands MRT's Clock exposed famiLEE LEEgime LIARS!
This is regarding the case famiLEE LEEgime is charging Dr. Chee Soon Juan & myself for speaking on 8.April.2006 just less than 1 month before the polling day (6.May.2006), at Woodlands MRT station. The trial began on 27.Nov.2007. They had yet again amended our charges (for the time) that now I am charged for speaking at 1608hr instead. As of today this trial had been adjourned until 18.Feb 2008 (after Chinese New Year).
On the first day 27.Nov.2007: the judge; Dr. CSJ & myself were given this evidence which is a pick folder consisting of 4 photographs (click photo to enlarge view), which marked Date and time photos taken 8.4.2006 @ 1545hrs, this was during prosecutor DPP Lim Tse Haw's examination of his own 1st witness Loh Zhen Hong. As DPP Lim read from his own copy of this pink folder, I heard him stated a different time (1700Hr) as on the folder cover of my copy:
I interrupted immediately and verified that not only time but Location was stated differently on his own copy, from copies given to judge Jasvindar Kaur; Dr CSJ & myself. Which DPP's Location was something like "open space between Woodlands MRT & Causeway point". He then told the court he had no idea why there are 2 different versions, but misled us all that time should be 1700hr & location should be "open space between Woodlands MRT & Causeway point".
DPP Lim was ordered by the judge to double check on that.
The first copy of photo inside this pink folder is this:
Mata Photo Exhibit P4:
2nd witness Senior Investigating officer Charles Soon Fook Kong on oath and at witness stand misled us that ALL the 4 photos P4 P5 P6 & P7 were taken by the 4th witness Scene of Crime Officer SSGT Lam Tien Chiang at his direction after SDP was seen packed up and left the scene around 1730hr.
In the confusion I asked for clarification about the time photos were taken, the judge directed us to amend time as 1700hr. Dr CSJ on the 2nd day, 28.Nov.2007 spotted on the above photo that Woodlands MRT Station's clock had been captured by that photo, but was too small on our copies to tell the time. I applied to court to have enlarged copies of this clock portion, and judge ordered accordingly. So the following was produced:
Mata Photo Exhibit P8 (enlarged from P4 above): [click on photo for enlarged view]
Clock in MRT Station from above (image enhanced by Uncleyap with Linux GIMP tool)
Unsharp-mask filter applied again on selected area from above:
Clock-face marking guide in red added to above:
This looks more like 0920hr to me, but the DPP the judge and witnesses Charles Soon & Lam Tien Chiang all stated and testified with oath that this time looked like 1545hr to them. The witnesses changed their own testimonies on the stand regarding the time.
A similar clock at Chinese Garden MRT:
To illustrate such a clock in MRT station, I took a picture myself of Chinese Garden MRT Station's similar clock.
We had spent great length of time in cross examinations, and confronted DPP Lim Tse Haw about his different versions of time. In particular he had amended charges against us in the aspect of changed time of offenses. This could be very serious, because based on time of the evidence and charges, some defendant's alibi could be seriously compromised in some cases, although not for this case.
During Dr. Chee's cross-examinations of witness SSGT Lam Tien Chiang, it became clearer that things are really too fishy. That the witness on the stand has began to RECOVER from his originally LOST memories that he took photo P4 from a distance at 1545hr before he entered the MRT area. Dr CSJ asked the judge to remove this witness from the stand so that we could challenge DPP Lim about his misleadings. However, after being ordered to return to the witness room (so that he won't hear this part of our proceedings) I saw him eavesdropping the proceedings with his face only inches from the glass of the witness room! I pointed out to Dr CSJ, and ask him to raise this to the judge, because the judge had repeatedly prevented me from confronting DPP Lim together with Dr CSJ. In his hot arguments Dr CSJ forgot to point out to the judge what we saw, that SSGT Lam was eavesdropping the proceeding from witness room.
I registered a complain with the judge that her ruling preventing my objections during Dr CSJ's confrontation with DPP Lim, is indeed a very unfair thing to me, because she merely disallowed me to stand up to speak, citing the reason that wasn't my turn of cross-examination yet. I pointed out that Dr CSJ's debate with DPP Lim regarding the discrepancy on time of photo P4 taken by the witness on the stand was a dynamic development, and for judge to prevent my participation on the spot is so unfair because when it came to my turn of cross-examination (would be on the following day) the dynamic matter became stale, and prosecution would had sufficient to collude their stories to cover up for this discrepancy.
DPP Lim reacted very strongly when I challenged him to take the witness stand and take oath regarding what he claimed to be how he went about checking the discrepancy of time in the witness room. Judge disapproved my proposal to put DPP Lim on the stand.
I became clear later, that DPP Lim at 3 occasions on 2 different days went into witness room when witnesses SSGT Lam; Ms Toh; Inspector Jason Lim & IO ASP Jeremy Koh were all in there to talk about the discrepancy of time in the witness room, and the witnesses heard it. Additionally, the witnesses were also during & via DPP Lim's conversation in the witness room became aware of the fact that the defense made application for enlarged portion of the photo to show the MRT station's clock.
Without that happening, their testimonies regarding the time photo P4 being take won't be changed on the stand, and that major time discrepancy could had allowed Dr CSJ and myself to apply for the doubtful evidence to be struck-out according to Evidence Act.
The actions of DPP Lim Tse Haw inside the witness room I think indeed constitute to unwittingly committed Tempering Of Witnesses and causing Miscarriage Of Justice.
For more irony he gave a hard-copy of LEGAL PROFESION (PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT) RULES to the judge; Dr CSJ & myself, and the judge rejected the copy back to him. He used highlighting pen to mark up the section No communication with witness under cross-examination of these rules. Judge Jasvendar Kaur looked very unhappy or insulted on her face as she rejected this hard-copy back to DPP Lim. :-)
SSGT Lam Tien Chiang had also been repeatedly liar on the witness stand on oath, particularly he repeatedly confirm with Dr CSJ's cross-examination that NO ONE HAD LED HIM TO KNOW ABOUT THE TIME DISCREPANCY & HE HAD DISCOVERED IT WHILE ON THE STAND. The testimonies of Inspector Jason Lim & ASP Jeremy Koh pointed out clearly that SSGT Lam was in the witness room in at least 2 occasions during DPP Lim's conversation regarding the time discrepancy and the need of enlargement of clock portion of photograph P4.
Prosecution witness PW4 Scene Of Crime Officer SSGT Lam Tien Chiang is also the person who took the police evidence video given to us on DVD which I had placed online at following URL with approval of court:
Part 1: 9 min +
On the first day 27.Nov.2007: the judge; Dr. CSJ & myself were given this evidence which is a pick folder consisting of 4 photographs (click photo to enlarge view), which marked Date and time photos taken 8.4.2006 @ 1545hrs, this was during prosecutor DPP Lim Tse Haw's examination of his own 1st witness Loh Zhen Hong. As DPP Lim read from his own copy of this pink folder, I heard him stated a different time (1700Hr) as on the folder cover of my copy:
I interrupted immediately and verified that not only time but Location was stated differently on his own copy, from copies given to judge Jasvindar Kaur; Dr CSJ & myself. Which DPP's Location was something like "open space between Woodlands MRT & Causeway point". He then told the court he had no idea why there are 2 different versions, but misled us all that time should be 1700hr & location should be "open space between Woodlands MRT & Causeway point".
DPP Lim was ordered by the judge to double check on that.
The first copy of photo inside this pink folder is this:
Mata Photo Exhibit P4:
2nd witness Senior Investigating officer Charles Soon Fook Kong on oath and at witness stand misled us that ALL the 4 photos P4 P5 P6 & P7 were taken by the 4th witness Scene of Crime Officer SSGT Lam Tien Chiang at his direction after SDP was seen packed up and left the scene around 1730hr.
In the confusion I asked for clarification about the time photos were taken, the judge directed us to amend time as 1700hr. Dr CSJ on the 2nd day, 28.Nov.2007 spotted on the above photo that Woodlands MRT Station's clock had been captured by that photo, but was too small on our copies to tell the time. I applied to court to have enlarged copies of this clock portion, and judge ordered accordingly. So the following was produced:
Mata Photo Exhibit P8 (enlarged from P4 above): [click on photo for enlarged view]
Clock in MRT Station from above (image enhanced by Uncleyap with Linux GIMP tool)
Unsharp-mask filter applied again on selected area from above:
Clock-face marking guide in red added to above:
This looks more like 0920hr to me, but the DPP the judge and witnesses Charles Soon & Lam Tien Chiang all stated and testified with oath that this time looked like 1545hr to them. The witnesses changed their own testimonies on the stand regarding the time.
A similar clock at Chinese Garden MRT:
To illustrate such a clock in MRT station, I took a picture myself of Chinese Garden MRT Station's similar clock.
We had spent great length of time in cross examinations, and confronted DPP Lim Tse Haw about his different versions of time. In particular he had amended charges against us in the aspect of changed time of offenses. This could be very serious, because based on time of the evidence and charges, some defendant's alibi could be seriously compromised in some cases, although not for this case.
During Dr. Chee's cross-examinations of witness SSGT Lam Tien Chiang, it became clearer that things are really too fishy. That the witness on the stand has began to RECOVER from his originally LOST memories that he took photo P4 from a distance at 1545hr before he entered the MRT area. Dr CSJ asked the judge to remove this witness from the stand so that we could challenge DPP Lim about his misleadings. However, after being ordered to return to the witness room (so that he won't hear this part of our proceedings) I saw him eavesdropping the proceedings with his face only inches from the glass of the witness room! I pointed out to Dr CSJ, and ask him to raise this to the judge, because the judge had repeatedly prevented me from confronting DPP Lim together with Dr CSJ. In his hot arguments Dr CSJ forgot to point out to the judge what we saw, that SSGT Lam was eavesdropping the proceeding from witness room.
I registered a complain with the judge that her ruling preventing my objections during Dr CSJ's confrontation with DPP Lim, is indeed a very unfair thing to me, because she merely disallowed me to stand up to speak, citing the reason that wasn't my turn of cross-examination yet. I pointed out that Dr CSJ's debate with DPP Lim regarding the discrepancy on time of photo P4 taken by the witness on the stand was a dynamic development, and for judge to prevent my participation on the spot is so unfair because when it came to my turn of cross-examination (would be on the following day) the dynamic matter became stale, and prosecution would had sufficient to collude their stories to cover up for this discrepancy.
DPP Lim reacted very strongly when I challenged him to take the witness stand and take oath regarding what he claimed to be how he went about checking the discrepancy of time in the witness room. Judge disapproved my proposal to put DPP Lim on the stand.
I became clear later, that DPP Lim at 3 occasions on 2 different days went into witness room when witnesses SSGT Lam; Ms Toh; Inspector Jason Lim & IO ASP Jeremy Koh were all in there to talk about the discrepancy of time in the witness room, and the witnesses heard it. Additionally, the witnesses were also during & via DPP Lim's conversation in the witness room became aware of the fact that the defense made application for enlarged portion of the photo to show the MRT station's clock.
Without that happening, their testimonies regarding the time photo P4 being take won't be changed on the stand, and that major time discrepancy could had allowed Dr CSJ and myself to apply for the doubtful evidence to be struck-out according to Evidence Act.
The actions of DPP Lim Tse Haw inside the witness room I think indeed constitute to unwittingly committed Tempering Of Witnesses and causing Miscarriage Of Justice.
For more irony he gave a hard-copy of LEGAL PROFESION (PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT) RULES to the judge; Dr CSJ & myself, and the judge rejected the copy back to him. He used highlighting pen to mark up the section No communication with witness under cross-examination of these rules. Judge Jasvendar Kaur looked very unhappy or insulted on her face as she rejected this hard-copy back to DPP Lim. :-)
SSGT Lam Tien Chiang had also been repeatedly liar on the witness stand on oath, particularly he repeatedly confirm with Dr CSJ's cross-examination that NO ONE HAD LED HIM TO KNOW ABOUT THE TIME DISCREPANCY & HE HAD DISCOVERED IT WHILE ON THE STAND. The testimonies of Inspector Jason Lim & ASP Jeremy Koh pointed out clearly that SSGT Lam was in the witness room in at least 2 occasions during DPP Lim's conversation regarding the time discrepancy and the need of enlargement of clock portion of photograph P4.
Prosecution witness PW4 Scene Of Crime Officer SSGT Lam Tien Chiang is also the person who took the police evidence video given to us on DVD which I had placed online at following URL with approval of court:
Part 1: 9 min +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_72IzRVASuU
Part 2: 9 min +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51MPaAl_tps
Part 3: 8 min +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvRj1hNgAd4
posted by uncleyap at 8:58 PM
<< Home