Yup he is
the woman was merely inconsistent with the dates
his vicious lawyer smelled blood and went for the kill
Law prevails for those who can afford a better lawyer
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious Anaesthetist not guilty of molesting Chiobu at Mount E!
- Thread starter Pinkieslut
- Start date
the woman was merely inconsistent with the dates
his vicious lawyer smelled blood and went for the kill
Law prevails for those who can afford a better lawyer
Well he deserves it
he is a grade A foreign trash A hole
i personally met reps who have been groped by him
but he has money for better lawyer
AGC should let him counter sue and re open the case. The woman should get a better lawyer and let all the dirt come out
maybe the bros in this forum can crowdfund Davinder Singh for her
https://www.agc.gov.sg/docs/default...-of-modesty-case-involving-dr-yeo-sow-nam.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 1 SEPTEMBER 2021
RESPONSE TO THE ONLINE CITIZEN’S ARTICLE ON THE OUTRAGE OF MODESTY CASE INVOLVING DR YEO SOW NAM
On 1 September 2021, The Online Citizen (“TOC”) posted an article (“the article”) on its website relating to the media statement issued by the AttorneyGeneral’s Chambers (“AGC”) on 31 August 2021 (“the media statement”) involving the proceedings against Dr Yeo Sow Nam (“Dr Yeo”) who was represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam (“Mr Thuraisingam”).
The article contains a series of complete falsehoods and makes a variety of unsubstantiated and inflammatory allegations.
2 TOC claims that AGC should have done the “right thing by charging the complainant”. TOC has therefore, without basis, determined the guilt of the complainant. This is highly irresponsible. AGC’s reasons for not charging the complainant have been explained in the media statement. It is unfortunate that TOC has not dealt with those reasons, no doubt because they serve as an inconvenient rebuttal of TOC’s position.
3 TOC further contends that AGC misled the public by stating that Mr Thuraisingam had to withdraw his application to lift the gag order (“the application”) because it was AGC which highlighted various provisions of the Women’s Charter and the Criminal Procedure Code to show why the application must fail. This makes no sense. To accuse AGC of being misleading when it correctly and properly opposed the application, and drew Mr Thuraisingam’s attention to the relevant legal provisions, is absurd. TOC conveniently glosses over the fact that this proves it would have been obvious that any such application is bound to fail. If so, why was it filed by Mr Thuraisingam to begin with and what were the motivations for his oral submissions on 16 August 2021 in support of an application he knew full well he had to withdraw?
4 TOC then alleges that “AGC is protecting its own skin” by not charging the complainant with any offence as it may be revealed during any such hearing that only “one round of interview” was done with the complainant and that AGC did so “without any double-checking”. This is categorically false. The article unsurprisingly provides no evidence to support this assertion, instead conveniently couching it as supposition on the author’s part. The making of such serious allegations under the guise of asking “who knows” is disingenuous and dishonest.
5 Underlying the article is the baseless assertion that where a prosecution concludes with an acquittal, whether by virtue of the Prosecution withdrawing charges, or the Court acquitting an accused after a full trial, it evidences wrongdoing on the part of AGC. This mischaracterises AGC’s role and the nature of the judicial process. AGC assesses each case it prosecutes very carefully. However, prosecutions can, at times, not result in a conviction for a variety of reasons, including interpretations of the law, a Court concluding that a case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, or, as in this case, where the Prosecution withdraws the charge(s) if it is of the view that the legal standards required to pursue the case in Court are no longer met. This is inherent in the nature of the judicial process. Unfortunately, TOC, in pursuing its own agenda, ignores this reality.
* * * ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S CHAMBERS STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 1 SEPTEMBER 2021
RESPONSE TO THE ONLINE CITIZEN’S ARTICLE ON THE OUTRAGE OF MODESTY CASE INVOLVING DR YEO SOW NAM
On 1 September 2021, The Online Citizen (“TOC”) posted an article (“the article”) on its website relating to the media statement issued by the AttorneyGeneral’s Chambers (“AGC”) on 31 August 2021 (“the media statement”) involving the proceedings against Dr Yeo Sow Nam (“Dr Yeo”) who was represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam (“Mr Thuraisingam”).
The article contains a series of complete falsehoods and makes a variety of unsubstantiated and inflammatory allegations.
2 TOC claims that AGC should have done the “right thing by charging the complainant”. TOC has therefore, without basis, determined the guilt of the complainant. This is highly irresponsible. AGC’s reasons for not charging the complainant have been explained in the media statement. It is unfortunate that TOC has not dealt with those reasons, no doubt because they serve as an inconvenient rebuttal of TOC’s position.
3 TOC further contends that AGC misled the public by stating that Mr Thuraisingam had to withdraw his application to lift the gag order (“the application”) because it was AGC which highlighted various provisions of the Women’s Charter and the Criminal Procedure Code to show why the application must fail. This makes no sense. To accuse AGC of being misleading when it correctly and properly opposed the application, and drew Mr Thuraisingam’s attention to the relevant legal provisions, is absurd. TOC conveniently glosses over the fact that this proves it would have been obvious that any such application is bound to fail. If so, why was it filed by Mr Thuraisingam to begin with and what were the motivations for his oral submissions on 16 August 2021 in support of an application he knew full well he had to withdraw?
4 TOC then alleges that “AGC is protecting its own skin” by not charging the complainant with any offence as it may be revealed during any such hearing that only “one round of interview” was done with the complainant and that AGC did so “without any double-checking”. This is categorically false. The article unsurprisingly provides no evidence to support this assertion, instead conveniently couching it as supposition on the author’s part. The making of such serious allegations under the guise of asking “who knows” is disingenuous and dishonest.
5 Underlying the article is the baseless assertion that where a prosecution concludes with an acquittal, whether by virtue of the Prosecution withdrawing charges, or the Court acquitting an accused after a full trial, it evidences wrongdoing on the part of AGC. This mischaracterises AGC’s role and the nature of the judicial process. AGC assesses each case it prosecutes very carefully. However, prosecutions can, at times, not result in a conviction for a variety of reasons, including interpretations of the law, a Court concluding that a case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, or, as in this case, where the Prosecution withdraws the charge(s) if it is of the view that the legal standards required to pursue the case in Court are no longer met. This is inherent in the nature of the judicial process. Unfortunately, TOC, in pursuing its own agenda, ignores this reality.
* * * ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S CHAMBERS STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT
https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...ss-and-irresponsible-calculated-to-put-pm-lee
TOC better wake up fast to the fact that the government owns the court
YSN is a known serial molester and guilty as fuck
But the fault lies with the stupid cow who failed to get proper legal counsel and so behaved like a hysterical idiot in court
if the public wants her named and shamed I have no issue with that
otherwise every ugly chow ah Lian will accuse us chaste and pious samsters of molest just by looking at their fuck faces
TOC better wake up fast to the fact that the government owns the court
YSN is a known serial molester and guilty as fuck
But the fault lies with the stupid cow who failed to get proper legal counsel and so behaved like a hysterical idiot in court
if the public wants her named and shamed I have no issue with that
otherwise every ugly chow ah Lian will accuse us chaste and pious samsters of molest just by looking at their fuck faces
ALWAYS HAVE A NIRSE INSIDE CONSULTATION ROOM TOGETHER WITH PATIENT TO AVOID BEING ACCUSED , THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES OF WELL KNOWN DOCTORS WHO MISBEHAVED BEING HUMAN , ITS IRRISTABLEDOCTOR IS INNOCENT . WHEN THEY HAVE THE CHANCE IN A ROOM WITH A PRETTY GIRL AND NO NURSE PROTECTING THEM AS WITNESS.NOT EVERY
This case has something fishy. The prosecution in actual fact is not a patient, not a member at Dr Yeo's clinic and also not a fellow doctor. So, it clearly seems that the Kangaroo AGC is trying to protect someone of "significant" rather than executing a fair trial. This is the very reason why there is this gag order.
I think it is because AGC knows that Dr YSN wont countersue lah.
Case closed liao.
And the lawyers have no interest in defending Drs.
Suing Drs is a cash cow. Bao jiak one.
You wait and see. Maybe they will tekan the Dr YSN lawyer Eugene to set example. Then no lawyers dare to defend drs anymore in future. Drs have to defend themselves in court (no legal training)
Lagi more bao jiak.
YSN is a known serial molester ?
ask any rep in the private sector who deals with him professionally
it's quite clear TOC has aligned itself with the other Lee. it has nothing to fear. TOC is playing for the court of public opinion. far more powerful than the courts itself.
Can he now only see male patient and clients only? This would save him from 4 years of unnecessary stress.
Even married man also kanna this type of female BS.
Even married man also kanna this type of female BS.
From Bertha Henson
Woman in acquitted doctor case is a Medical Sales rep who defence was going to portray as worried that doc was going to complain about her behavior
Woman in acquitted doctor molest case is a Medical Sales rep who defence was going to portray as worried that doc was going to complain about her tardy behaviour such as not showing up to meetings, bringing wrong literature, delivering the wrong amount of medicine etc.
Okay, so I went through that five days of transcript on the molest case of Dr Yeo. There’s a gag order on identifying the victim but it’s okay to give the facts of what happened at the trial. He’s been acquitted, or rather, the prosecution withdrew charges before the doctor or his nurses were even called to the stand.
She’s a medical sales rep trying to sell a new pain relief product to the doctor. (There’s apparently no truth at all to all these rumours about spurned love etc or any kind of relationship beyond the professional. ) There were two business dinners with the two of them, plus her colleagues, before the said molest took place.
To cut a long story short, she wasn’t a reliable witness. She kept flip flopping on her account of what happened, such as where the molest took place. She at first said corridor but CCTV showed nothing. Then she said in consultation room. There was also confusion about where exactly she was touched by the doctor.
What the defence tried to show in the line of questioning was that she cooked up the molest charges because was worried that the doc would complain to her company about her tardy professional behaviour, like not turning up for an appointment, not bringing the right literature for the meds or getting the amount of meds delivered wrong. In fact, she agreed that the doc was angry with her at that time.
At some points during the trial, she actually admitted to lying about certain things or that she omitted telling some things to her bosses. I can’t tell if the lies were ‘material’ or not as a layperson, suffice to say that she didn’t come across as very credible in holding her ground on what happened.
She also consulted five doctors/psychologists after the molest for PTSD. The prosecution didn’t dwell very much on them but defence made great hay of findings that she was impulsive and can’t focus on things for long.
I can understand why the prosecution withdrew charges. Whether high threshold or whatever threshold supposed to be reached for a he said/she said case, my own layman view is that she couldn’t stand up to cross-exam by Eugene T. I almost wish the case continued to the end so the judge can make some findings on the veracity of the case.
Anyway, this is only my reading of the trial. I hope I did a fair job.
Woman in acquitted doctor case is a Medical Sales rep who defence was going to portray as worried that doc was going to complain about her behavior
Woman in acquitted doctor molest case is a Medical Sales rep who defence was going to portray as worried that doc was going to complain about her tardy behaviour such as not showing up to meetings, bringing wrong literature, delivering the wrong amount of medicine etc.
Okay, so I went through that five days of transcript on the molest case of Dr Yeo. There’s a gag order on identifying the victim but it’s okay to give the facts of what happened at the trial. He’s been acquitted, or rather, the prosecution withdrew charges before the doctor or his nurses were even called to the stand.
She’s a medical sales rep trying to sell a new pain relief product to the doctor. (There’s apparently no truth at all to all these rumours about spurned love etc or any kind of relationship beyond the professional. ) There were two business dinners with the two of them, plus her colleagues, before the said molest took place.
To cut a long story short, she wasn’t a reliable witness. She kept flip flopping on her account of what happened, such as where the molest took place. She at first said corridor but CCTV showed nothing. Then she said in consultation room. There was also confusion about where exactly she was touched by the doctor.
What the defence tried to show in the line of questioning was that she cooked up the molest charges because was worried that the doc would complain to her company about her tardy professional behaviour, like not turning up for an appointment, not bringing the right literature for the meds or getting the amount of meds delivered wrong. In fact, she agreed that the doc was angry with her at that time.
At some points during the trial, she actually admitted to lying about certain things or that she omitted telling some things to her bosses. I can’t tell if the lies were ‘material’ or not as a layperson, suffice to say that she didn’t come across as very credible in holding her ground on what happened.
She also consulted five doctors/psychologists after the molest for PTSD. The prosecution didn’t dwell very much on them but defence made great hay of findings that she was impulsive and can’t focus on things for long.
I can understand why the prosecution withdrew charges. Whether high threshold or whatever threshold supposed to be reached for a he said/she said case, my own layman view is that she couldn’t stand up to cross-exam by Eugene T. I almost wish the case continued to the end so the judge can make some findings on the veracity of the case.
Anyway, this is only my reading of the trial. I hope I did a fair job.
This woman should have her vagina flogged.
Similar threads
