SINGAPORE: A 29-year-old man died after being hit by a vehicle in the rain in Choa Chu Kang, with the vehicle claiming that he had dashed up.
However, the home of the late Seow Han Yen, Sean, raised several questions about the event and the behavior of the 23-year-old pilot, who reportedly left the scene and took Mr Seow’s cellphone with her.
The family and their attorneys, Mr. Raj Singh Shergill and Ms. Desiree Koh, showed up on Monday ( Nov. 11 ) to hear the facts of the case.
The case’s top investigating officer took the stand and shared his results.
Ilycia Chua Yue-Lin, a 23-year-old Singaporean, was driving her boyfriend and his nephew in her vehicle at around 7am on March 3.
Her car collided with Mr. Seow, who is alleged to possess crossed the road from her right after passing the intersection of Choa Chu Kang Loop and Choa Chu Kang Drive in Teck Whye Avenue.
The incident occurred behind Ms. Chua’s vehicle, but an off-duty police officer did not witness the collision.
He arrived to assist after noticing Ms. Chua’s car was fixed on a two-lane road with its risk lights on.
He saw Ms. Chua and two other women standing around Mr. Seow after he noticed him lying on the straight side of the second street.
He asked if anyone had called for an ambulance. He called for one after being informed that no one had and warned the group against touching Mr. Seow.
The off-duty officer therefore returned to check on Mr. Seow, who was still breathing, but he received no response.
The agent then called 999 to report the incident while the doctors waited before leaving.
Bill OF THE Pilot
She used the Waze software to guide her boyfriend’s brother, according to Ms. Chua, who had driven after midnight to get home.
She claimed that she was avoiding any other vehicles because the traffic light was clean and that she was not in any danger of collision.
Her husband’s brother claimed he was not present when the accident occurred because he was playing with his phone, while her boyfriend’s boyfriend claimed that the lights were clean in her favor.
Ms. Chua claimed she saw Mr. Seow crossing the commuter bridge but stopped between roads.
When Mr. Seow abruptly crossed the road, she claimed she had continued immediately. She veered off and collided with him in the process.
She then stopped her car and flew over to check on Mr. Seow, and the off-duty officers agent intervened to assist her.
Mr. Seow was taken to the hospital by an emergency.
After waiting for about 15 days, Ms Chua decided to leave. Before going to city to run some errands, she claimed to have driven to her home in Choa Chu Kang and parked at the multi-story carpark.
Her brother called her later that morning to inform her that the customers police were looking for her at their residence, and she met them.
The research agent stated in his report that Ms. Chua’s boyfriend had taken Mr. Seow’s belongings and stored them in Ms. Chua’s vehicle for safekeeping, and that she had fled home because she lacked options.
The police eventually found her car and Mr Seow’s goods, including his mobile, at a multi-storey car park in Choa Chu Kang.
A couple days after the accident, Mr. Seow passed away from accidents consistent with those sustained in a road traffic accident.
His sister claimed that he had been an expert for two decades while living with their family in Woodlands Circle.
He would typically get a common vehicle to work at 6 a.m. On the day of the event, it was a Sunday, and he left home to mind to SAFRA Choa Chu Kang for gym classes.
She claimed that he was by himself at the time of the accident and that he was a lovely person with no suicidal tendencies and no conflicts with anyone.
There was no evidence to support terrible play in this case, according to the authorities.
There was no report camera images that depicted the incident, either from Ms Chua’s car or the off-duty officer’s.
The police recovered video from the nearby Choa Chu Kang vehicle exchange, which obscures a portion of the incident while the rain more obscures the view.
Although the incident caused the car to have a cracked windscreen and a bumper dent, it was later determined that it was in good condition. No problems with the nearby visitors lights were reported either.
Inquiries FROM FAMILY LAWYER
On behalf of Mr. Seow’s household, Mr. Shergill posed numerous questions to the research officer, keeping in mind that the coroner’s warning that such questions are merely a fact-finding exercising and not intended to establish liability.
Before he was shown walking around the period of the incident, he showed a Google Timeline from Mr. Seow’s cellphone that indicated the system was at the bus interchange that day.
From 6.58am to 7.34am, the telephone was afterwards shown to be at the bus exchange.
Mr. Shergill inquired to the police whether Ms. Chua had stayed at the picture or taken Mr. Seow’s belongings, including his smartphone, to the bus interchange for about 30 minutes.
The investigating official claimed he was unable to confirm that notion.
Additionally, he added that” not stated” was the doctors ‘ time arriving at the scene.
Mr. Shergill inquired about Ms. Chua’s previous night’s having.
The officer claimed that when the authorities detained her at prevent 287A, Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2, at 12.37pm that evening, she did not waft of beer.
Mr. Shergill noted that the research official was the second person to enter the case, despite the fact that this occurred more than five hours after the incident.
On further questioning, the official said Ms Chua’s mobile had not been checked to investigate if she had been using it just before the incident.
No evidence that she had purchased alcohol prior to the crash was found on her credit card bills or other online tracker.
The investigating officer, nevertheless, pointed out that the off-duty officer had been contacted by the off-duty officer to inquire whether Ms. Chua smelt alcohol.
He said she did no, and that her posture was solid, her conversation was not slurred and her face was no flushed.
According to Mr. Shergill, images from a condo complex close to the crash location suggested that Mr. Seow was thrown three to four vehicle lengths away from the crossing.
The research officer pointed to the lawyer’s video in court, which showed the range as being about two vehicle lengths, but the investigation officer said he was unable to determine this distance.
He explained that the car had vanished when the police arrived and that the path had no visible signs of blood because it was pouring strongly.
He even said it did no look, from the limited film obtained, that Ms Chua was driving pretty quickly.
The alleged picture was repeatedly played in jury. Therefore, Mr. Shergill inquired if the photo of another individual traveling in Mr. Seow’s path was ever released.  ,
The research official said he could discover a black figure traveling in the opposite direction of Mr. Seow’s location, but he was unable to identify whether it was a man or” anything else.”
The officer was therefore questioned by Mr. Shergill about the current traffic light sequence and whether the driver’s lights might have been red instead.
According to the investigation officer, Ms. Chua should have received the lights in a particular order. He acknowledged, however, that there might be a second series, with Mr. Seow’s lights being efficient and Ms. Chua’s.
After the crash, when her vehicle was later discovered at Block 287A, Mr. Shergill also inquired as to why Ms. Chua had driven to Block 271, Choa Chu Kang Avenue 2, afterward.
The officer claimed that the woman’s car was discovered at Block 287A, but that” we’re not certain why she was that at 271.”
He claimed Ms. Chua did n’t know she had to remain at the scene. The two gentlemen who were there with her were unaware of the requirement to be there and were” surprised and shocked.”
She claims to have driven home and left to work activities. And after staying out the entire evening, did you check with her about the errands she would need to work at seven in the morning? asked Mr Shergill.
” They went to Far East to do a blog survey”, answered the investigation official, adding that he could hardly verify if this was work-related.
He said an officer went to Ms Chua’s residence at 10.15am but found only her nephew, who tried to call her but did not find an answer.
Ultimately, Mr Chua called the police again at about 11am and met the officers at her vehicle just at about 12.35pm.
Before adjourning the situation, the prosecutor demanded that some of the footage used by Mr. Shergill been made available to the court. He also issued some other administrative guidelines.
He even asked the research agent to check on details of Ms Chua’s driving knowledge, as requested by Mr Seow’s home.
At a later time, the pathologist will release the results.
Ms Chua has yet to be charged.