|
SINGAPORE : There were tears and tension in a packed high court on the second day of the alleged exorcism trial on Thursday.
The plaintiff's daughter broke down when cross-examined by the lawyer defending a Novena Church priest.
The judge had to intervene several times and even asked a Senior Counsel to apologise.
Throughout the first two days of cross-examination, 22-year-old Subashini Jeyabal rejected almost every account that defence lawyers Tito Isaac and Jimmy Yim put to her.
Two consistent, yet conflicting versions of what happened on 10 August 2004 had emerged in court.
The version by the plaintiff - 51-year-old Madam Amutha Valli and her family - was that they never asked the Novena Church priests to exorcise her. Rather, it was forced upon her, leaving her traumatised for life.
In defence, the priests and six other helpers, together with several other witnesses, testified that it was the family who said the woman was possessed and asked the priests to pray over her.
At the outset, defence lawyers went all out to test the credibility of Subashini's evidence, saying that her family fabricated the story for money.
The court also heard how she and her brother blew $30,000 during a trip to Australia after the incident. And by May 2006, creditors from Tan Tock Seng Hospital were also asking them for the $45,000 owed.
Defence lawyer Issac, who is representing Father Simon Tan and the Novena Church said it's incredible that Subashini claimed she is not aware of her mother's marital difficulties, alcoholism and psychiatric problems, which the court heard date back some 25 years. Subashini insisted they had a warm and close relationship at home.
Senior Counsel Yim then read out the doctors' records, noting how Madam Valli had told them that she was beaten by her son, daughter and husband.
She also told doctors that she was saddened when her daughter called her a slut and prostitute. At this point Subashini broke down and sobbed in court, prompting Justice Lee Seiu Kin to call for a 10-minute break so that she could recompose herself.
Earlier, Senior Counsel Yim exposed several alleged untruths in Subashini's testimony, such as her mother praying before a statue of Mother Mary when there was none there.
He also quoted the testimonies of 10 churchgoers who witnessed how Amutha 'marched' like a soldier - as if she was possessed - into the Pastoral Centre where the alleged forced exorcism took place. But this contrasts with Subashini's account that her mother was helped by two men into the room.
Subashini also refuted testimonies by four witnesses that her family's close friend Resham - whom she called Uncle Sham - had suffered a bloody scratch after a quarrel at dinner, after which the family decided to go to the Novena Church to pray on that fateful night.
Senior Counsel Yim also asked if she knew about the intimate relationship which their family friend Resham appeared to have with her mother.
Subashini denied this and said her parents have a normal husband and wife relationship, even though surveillance videos by the defence's private eye found that Amutha spent a lot more time with Resham than with her husband.
The judge also reprimanded Yim for his terse comments when he was repeatedly interrupted by the plaintiff's lawyer Bajwa Singh.
Yim was asked to apologise in open court, but he refused. The judge later met the lawyers in Chambers.
Hearing continues on October 31. - CNA /ls
|
|
|
