DEFENCE GILLS RECALL OF Activities
Mr. Tan noted before that the witness had previously told the court that she could not recall the order in which the complainant’s video call was relayed.
He inquired as to whether this was the event when she taped her officers statements at the end of 2021.
The friend claimed that because she was concentrating on supporting the woman during her first police interview, she had told the inspection officer that she could never recall the attempt the plaintiff had told her about the events.
” From the start, I did not seek to remember the order of things because I did n’t know it was important”, she said.
The friend recently claimed that the girl was “very shaken up” and that their film contact was “very chaotic.”
On Thursday, the companion gave more information of the video phone, including that the girl had “acted out” the alleged fondling of her neck.
The plaintiff was allegedly groped while she was crossing the street between Tang Plaza and Lucky Plaza in Orchard, according to the companion, who added that she could tell the story” so vividly that I could also tell what she was wearing.”
The friend added that the complainant claimed that she was forced to love him during the interview.
Mr. Tan inquired if the plaintiff claimed that Lim allegedly groped her breasts while kissing her. The colleague replied in the bad, saying” they were distinct incidences”.
The friend claimed she was not recall the events that Lim forced her to love and finally groped, but the lawyer inquired.
Mr. Tan doubled over and said,” Do you remember if she told you they were kissing when he grabbed her breasts?”
” They were never kissing”, the friend said. She pleaded not to elaborate, but Mr. Tan retorted and said there was” no need” for the prosecution to re-examine her if she had more to say.
The friend responded to the prosecutor’s question about the subject matter of her reply,” I think there is a difference between ( when ) both participants are willingly kiss each other versus being forced to kiss.
” What ( the plaintiff ) told me was that it was an event that was not lawful between both events, not sexual on her close.”
The prosecutors also asked the companion to expound on the plaintiff’s remark that she was forced to love Lim” as part of the exam”.
The lady mentioned having a kiss with Lim during the exam process, according to the companion.
It was n’t as though both parties were doing it on their terms. She felt like she had to do it, she was forced to do it,” the companion testified”. She felt pressured to move this discussion because of it.
Another thing the person mentioned, according to the companion, was that Lim claimed to have seen her work, which he said was “very gloomy and gruesome” and that he could “help her push the boundaries of her work.”
The friend claimed that the plaintiff had spoken to her about the admitted molestation several other times after their video phone in November 2021 and that she had been given her “issues” from the event.
In their discussions, the friend said the plaintiff talked about not being informed of what it meant when she chose” shift “during her conference with Lim, and that if she had known” what that change entailed, which was her being molested”, she would not have gone to meet him.
The friend added that she was n’t aware that the police would speak with her about the allegations until they approached her at the end of 2021.
She claimed that the plaintiff had been trying to persuade the person to do so when she had been hesitant to file a police report.
She added that the claimant was considering other options, like as “doxxing Lim– revealing his personal details online – or” catching him in the act” rather than going to the police.
The test continues.