Iris Koh court drama

[NanoSpeed]

The police witnesses admitted in Court that they did not carry out any forensic tests (serology) on the patients who allegedly received saline injections instead of proper vaccine. In other words, the patients believed that they had received saline injections and such belief was based solely on the verbal confirmation of Dr Jipson to the patients.

If that is the case, Dr Jipson can now claim that the patients had in fact received proper vaccines such as Sinopharm or Sinovac, and the police will NOT be able to prove otherwise since it's too late to do a serology test on the patients. The prosecution can prefer a new charge against Dr Jipson for some dishonesty charges [against the patients], but the charges in relation to HPB over fake COVID shots will have to be dropped because the prosecution has simply no evidence that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the patients did not receive the proper vaccine. Yes, there may still be doubts over whether the proper vaccines were administered, but the benefit of the doubt is exclusively the prerogative of the accused.

If the prosecution cannot prove Dr Jipson, the principal accused, cheated HPB over fake COVID shots, then surely Iris Koh must also be deemed innocent. ​

 

[NanoSpeed]

View attachment 228887

@sbfuncle Do you think IK was clear minded?

 

[sbfuncle]

View attachment 228903
@sbfuncle Do you think IK was clear minded?

Cb I have lost touched with this case KNN
I read briefly what you posted now and think that the serology test should be the first thing that needed to be done during the time when hpb issued the charges.
That's why long ago, I had asked you why the test wasn't done, and now is too late.

And now seem like iris and loctor can get off the hook, since prosecutor cannot prove that saline was given.

Lucky for them lor.

As to your question of "is iris clear minded" I can't tell now as I'm lost in jungle.
Who is the "I" in your post?

 

[NanoSpeed]

Who is the "I" in your post?

Iris.

 

[sbfuncle]

Iris.

Ahh, then she beat the polis to puppy with clear minded challenge.
Well done!

 

[NanoSpeed]

Ahh, then she beat the polis to puppy with clear minded challenge.
Well done!

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...-quah-trial-member-testify-saline-jab-5319666

You should read the testimony of Cedric before you start clapping for Iris.

 

[sbfuncle]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...-quah-trial-member-testify-saline-jab-5319666

You should read the testimony of Cedric before you start clapping for Iris.

Is this an example of what iris claimed about the hearsay?
If prosecutor cannot prove it, and only based on witness claims, it is considered a hearsay, isn't it?
Or if there are many witnesses, then it will no longer a hearsay?

 

[NanoSpeed]

Is this an example of what iris claimed about the hearsay?
If prosecutor cannot prove it, and only based on witness claims, it is considered a hearsay, isn't it?
Or if there are many witnesses, then it will no longer a hearsay?

Yes, when Iris cross-examined the IO, she was referring to the testimony of the IO (Tian) who took the statement of Cedric Lim, the Grab patient.

Iris did not explain what hearsay was. Hearsay is not just an English word. It's a legal term which carries its own legal definition.​

 

[jsctan]

Fabrication needed by police? I thought I can only see it in Korea drama?
Adter police investigation, last line of defence is the court but I have lost confidence in our judicial system too. Does SG still have good moral in all the public servants including the press?

 

[sbfuncle]

Yes, when Iris cross-examined the IO, she was referring to the testimony of the IO (Tian) who took the statement of Cedric Lim, the Grab patient.

Iris did not explain what hearsay was. Hearsay is not just an English word. It's a legal term which carries its own legal definition.​

From the current info gathered, I think iris can get off the hook for this charge.
Spf doesn't seem to have solid proof to charge her conspiracy with loctor.
The rest of the charges, maybe can, but those are minor charges.

 

[NanoSpeed]

From the current info gathered, I think iris can get off the hook for this charge.
Spf doesn't seem to have solid proof to charge her conspiracy with loctor.
The rest of the charges, maybe can, but those are minor charges.

Iris should have asked : "Did the police conduct a serology test on Cedric to prove that he was NOT administered with the vaccine?"

This way, the IO cannot say "I'm not aware." If IO die die say "I'm not aware," then Iris can say : "That is to say you are not able to verify the truth of Cedric's statement with respect to whether it was saline or vaccine that was being administered." This time, IO cannot say "I'm not aware" liao because it's not a question of awareness; it's whether the IO can verify or cannot verify. And having said she was not aware if the police conducted any serology test on Cedric, she can only conclude that she cannot verify the allegation that Cedric was administered with saline. ​

 

[NanoSpeed]

From the current info gathered, I think iris can get off the hook for this charge.
Spf doesn't seem to have solid proof to charge her conspiracy with loctor.
The rest of the charges, maybe can, but those are minor charges.

The objective of cross examining the IO with respect to the "statement taking" of Cedric is to identify if there was any procedural irregularities that would render the statement inadmissible - such as coercion.

Q.11 is irrelevant because it concerns the standard of proof as in what evidence is required in order to convict the accused. It's the domain of the judge, not the IO. If Iris thinks that the evidence is insufficient to convict her, this ought to be a submission to the Court after cross examination, and not an answer to be elicited from the IO.

Q.12 is also irrelevant because the IO is not the prosecuting officer. Again, if Iris thinks that a serology test is required as evidence and the prosecuting officer hasn't been able to meet the standard of proof, it's a submission that she should make to the Court, not a question that she should ask the IO.

These 2 questions achieved nothing for Iris, to be honest. Beating someone to puppy may be shiok for the ego, but it may not necessarily achieve the desired outcome.​

 

[sbfuncle]

View attachment 228934

The objective of cross examining the IO with respect to the "statement taking" of Cedric is to identify if there was any procedural irregularities that would render the statement inadmissible - such as coercion.

Q.11 is irrelevant because it concerns the standard of proof as in what evidence is required in order to convict the accused. It's the domain of the judge, not the IO. If Iris thinks that the evidence is insufficient to convict her, this ought to be a submission to the Court after cross examination, and not an answer to be elicited from the IO.

Q.12 is also irrelevant because the IO is not the prosecuting officer. Again, if Iris thinks that a serology test is required as evidence and the prosecuting officer hasn't been able to meet the standard of proof, it's a submission that she should make to the Court, not a question that she should ask the IO.

These 2 questions achieved nothing for Iris, to be honest. Beating someone to puppy may be shiok for the ego, but it may not necessarily achieve the desired outcome.​

I think better send you there as the controller of the hearing, then the case need not drag so long KNN

 

[NanoSpeed]

Is this an example of what iris claimed about the hearsay?
If prosecutor cannot prove it, and only based on witness claims, it is considered a hearsay, isn't it?
Or if there are many witnesses, then it will no longer a hearsay?

If Iris was referring to the statement of Cedric, she cannot allege that the IO was relying on hearsay because Cedric testified personally in Court. It's no longer a hearsay.

The prosecutor is not stupid. He will make every witness testify in Court. There is no issue of hearsay. Iris should have cross examined Cedric when the latter took to the stand. According to Cedric, the Dr put two vials on the table - one saline and another vaccine - and let him choose. Cedric chose saline. Then the Dr removed the vials from the table. This last part is important.

At this point, Iris or her lawyer should have asked Cedric that since the vials were removed from the table, subsequently when the Dr returned to administer the liquid, did he witness the Dr drawing the liquid from the saline bottle ? The Dr could have given him the real vaccine. ​

 

[sbfuncle]

If Iris was referring to the statement of Cedric, she cannot allege that the IO was relying on hearsay because Cedric testified personally in Court. It's no longer a hearsay.

The prosecutor is not stupid. He will make every witness testify in Court. There is no issue of hearsay. Iris should have cross examined Cedric when the latter took to the stand. According to Cedric, the Dr put two vials on the table - one saline and another vaccine - and let him choose. Cedric chose saline. Then the Dr removed the vials from the table. This last part is important.

At this point, Iris or her lawyer should have asked Cedric that since the vials were removed from the table, subsequently when the Dr returned to administer the liquid, did he witness the Dr drawing the liquid from the saline bottle ? The Dr could have given him the real vaccine. ​

As long as got witness, then is not a hearsay, even if the witness does not have physical proof of what he had said? And upto the judge to determine if the witness word is true?
Actually whatever happened in the clinic at that point of time has no cctv and can only leely on what they wished to say de woh.
Imho only serology test can tell the real storlee,and it was not done.

 

[NanoSpeed]

As long as got witness, then is not a hearsay, even if the witness does not have physical proof of what he had said? And upto the judge to determine if the witness word is true?
Actually whatever happened in the clinic at that point of time has no cctv and can only leely on what they wished to say de woh.
Imho only serology test can tell the real storlee,and it was not done.

If A says she is a virgin, and B repeats what A says about herself, it's hearsay.

If A says she is a virgin, and A goes to the witness stand to repeat the statement in Court it's not a hearsay.

That she did make that statement is no longer a hearsay. But whether she is a virgin or not is an entirely different matter.

Okay boh, Mr Clear Minded ?

 

[sbfuncle]

If A says she is a virgin, and B repeats what A says about herself, it's hearsay.

If A says she is a virgin, and A goes to the witness stand to repeat the statement in Court it's not a hearsay.

That she did make that statement is no longer a hearsay. But whether she is a virgin or not is an entirely different matter.

Okay boh, Mr Clear Minded ?

Like that will have no outcum like gansiokbin lor. This topic has been talked for more than 10 years already de woh.

 

[tobelightlight]

I am surprised that he has not yet reported that I am going to strike out 2 defendants that is represented by Counsels allegedly supported by a non profit that Ben Leong is supporting.

Yet they are still ordered to amend their defence or risk striking out. One of the phrases used by judicial officer, "I would allow it to survive if you amend".

Be careful when you listen to Critical Spectator's advice. He is making advice that is very dangerous to all those who follow him.

1) He has mentioned that I lost my Rice Media defamation lawsuit, and cannot sue anyone for Rice Media related defamation. Yet the striking out is proceeding on positively in spite of that. The Counsel knew about Rice Media's case, and this does not stop my striking out.

Critical Spectator was wrong on this count.

2) He has mentioned that I have been charged with 12 charges. Yet in the Court, the judicial officer asked the Defence Counsel, "what about the presumption of innocence". The mentioning of my 12 charges is embarrassing to Justice as charges are not convictions. My points in my pleadings are that, even if convicted, the defendants still defamed me - as to my exact legal points, I shall not indicate here as I don't want the defendants to prepare themselves.

Critical Spectator was wrong on this count.

3) Now Critical Spectator mentioned about the AGC's S74 application. Even in the most positive assumption and in the most unlikely situation that AGC may be successful, it only means that I need to ask Court's permission before starting new defamation lawsuits. Given that I have positive results in Rice Media defamation, the permission would be granted for Rice Media related defamation anyway. Or outright, even in the case AGC's application S74 application were to be granted, it would not include Rice Media related lawsuits.

Critical Spectator is going to be wrong on this. That is assuming that AGC would be successful, which this application has a tremendously high burden of proof that AGC has to fulfill. I did not know that they have assigned 4 Counsels on this case, and all of them have 1st Class Honours in Law.

4) And 1 case is already proceeding to assessment of damages. I shall not talk much as it is before the Courts.

I have not seen such concerted efforts from society to discredit both me and Iris Koh. Somehow these people got us banned from Facebook, we sued them and got our accounts back.

And please don't listen to Critical Spectator, as you would expose yourself to legal risk of being sued by me, even if AGC's application is successful (which we do not concede that they would be).

 

[Geneco]

Need some advice who ish SURE notch happy about the lack of critical thinking from critical spectator lololololol

 

[tobelightlight]