438
edits
Parti Liyani legal case: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
SGPolitico (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
SGPolitico (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
Furthermore, the Defence contended that this was not merely a case of lost evidence, but of ''“prosecuting authorities being prepared to adduce evidence which was not what it purported to be.”'' By directing Goh to depict a layout he had no direct knowledge of, ASP Tang had ''“essentially doctored evidence”'' to mislead the court. | Furthermore, the Defence contended that this was not merely a case of lost evidence, but of ''“prosecuting authorities being prepared to adduce evidence which was not what it purported to be.”'' By directing Goh to depict a layout he had no direct knowledge of, ASP Tang had ''“essentially doctored evidence”'' to mislead the court. | ||
=== Independent Valuation of Alleged Stolen Items === | |||
During the trial, Parti’s lawyer, Anil Balchandani, cross-examined Investigating Officer (IO) Assistant Superintendent (ASP) Tang Ru Long about the valuation of the 144 allegedly stolen items. | |||
ASP Tang admitted that he had not assessed the value of the items himself but had instead taken the figures from the Liew family—Liew Mun Leong, Karl Liew, Liew Cheng May, and Heather Lim—without requiring any supporting documentation. | |||
When further questioned, ASP Tang also confirmed that he had not verified whether the items were original or counterfeit. This was particularly significant in the case of high-value watches listed in the charge sheet, as later expert testimony revealed major discrepancies. | |||
==== '''Expert Testimony on Valuation Discrepancies''' ==== | |||
* '''Gerald Genta Watch''' | |||
** Karl Liew claimed the watch was worth '''S$25,000''', but an independent horologist valued it at '''no more than S$500''', given its poor condition. | |||
** Despite this, '''District Judge Olivia Low''' only reduced its value to '''S$10,000''' instead of accepting the expert’s assessment. | |||
* '''Helix Watch''' | |||
** Karl Liew valued this at '''S$50''', but horologist '''Eric Ong''', founder of Bonfield, testified that it was a '''door gift with no value'''. | |||
* '''Vacheron Constantin Watch''' | |||
** Ong determined this was a '''counterfeit''' and stated that '''Vacheron Constantin does not manufacture this model''', meaning it had no legitimate market value. | |||
* '''Swatch Watch''' | |||
** Similarly, a '''Swatch watch valued at S$75''' by Liew Cheng May was also found to be '''a counterfeit with no value'''. | |||
=== The Knives: The Pink Knife & the Black-Handled 'Jarmay' Knife === | === The Knives: The Pink Knife & the Black-Handled 'Jarmay' Knife === | ||