Ken Lim told alleged victim he was accused of sexual misconduct before and got away with it, her friend testifies

A 25-year-old woman allegedly molested by music producer Ken Lim claimed she was groped in a 2021 interview with him, a court heard on Wednesday ( Nov 27 ).

The person also shared that Lim, her friend, had told her that he had previously been accused of sexual misconduct and had gotten away with it.

These details surfaced during Lim’s test after an allegation of sexually assaulting the girl on November 23, 2021, during a function meeting at the Hype Records office on Henderson Road.

Lim, 58, is best known as a judge on Singapore Idol and served as the executive producer of Hype Records.

He is also accused of making sexual remarks to ladies between 1998 and 2013 in addition to the molestation cost.

He has fought the allegations in five distinct tests and has denied all seven of the seven allegations that five women have made against him.

On December 11, Lim’s second trial trial is scheduled to hear his ruling for supposedly making physical comments to a 2012 aspiring singer-songwriter.

During that test, Lim accused the alleged victim of making up “blatant” lies, and his attorneys claimed the girl was upset after Lim “dissed” her music.

Wednesday’s reading was part of the second of Lim’s investigations to start. The prosecution opened in October.

Earlier in the week, the plaintiff testified in secret. All alleged sexual offender patients in Singapore are required to waive their right to speak in open court.

The claimant’s identity is protected by a gag attempt, which extends to the calling of different witnesses that could lead to her being identified.

The person’s boyfriend at the time was the next witness for the prosecution.

The man mentioned Lim’s use of love and a kissing emoji in texts to the lady, which made him question his motives for meeting his then-girlfriend.

After her interview with Lim, he even remembered that she was very quiet and kept to herself when he met his girlfriend on November 23, 2021.

The defense asked the man why he did n’t press her to discover what was bothering her on Wednesday when they were being cross-examination. He stated that he would allow her to take some time to formulate the appropriate response.

On November 24, 2021, the person finally informed him that Lim had molested her in a word information.

The girl claimed in a subsequent phone call that Lim had kissed her, forced himself on her, and groped her neck, according to the person.

The partners also discussed what should happen future. Ideas included having the woman join him for supper, secretly recording Lim at another meeting, and holding a stakeout to get him in the act.

The man responded,” There is a sense of fear if you’ve been possibly sexually assaulted,” that the situation could have become more violent or hostile, when asked why they did n’t carry out these ideas besides capturing the text messages.

The victim’s partner claimed to have exchanged texts with Lim during a secret Telegram conversation. A self-destruct clock indicates that information sent in secret conversations cannot be forwarded.

The pair reported Lim to the police on December 1st, 2021, and sent pictures of her Telegram communications to the authorities.

The guy was questioned about why he did n’t post a complete set of pictures of the different text messages.

He claimed that the investigation official “handpicked” which emails to be related to the report they were producing when he gave pictures of entire discussions to the police.

The man claimed he could not be with the person 24 hours a day to take pictures of all self-destructing information in the case of key chats between Lim and the girl.

The man was even questioned about the text messages he and the plaintiff allegedly exchanged on December 1, 2021 with his brother.

In the emails, the person wrote to his nephew to state that Lim had told the plaintiff he had” three murder allegations”.

The complainant’s identity was confirmed by the defense when the defense inquired as to whether this knowledge had been provided by the defendant.