DEFENCE GRILLS WITNESS ON HER RECALL OF EVENTS
Earlier, Mr Tan noted that the witness previously told the court she could not recall the order of events relayed by the complainant on the video call.
He asked if this was also the case when she recorded her police statement at the end of 2021.
The friend said that from her first police interview, she told the investigation officer that she could not remember the order in which the complainant told her about the events as she was focused on giving the woman support.
“From the start, I did not seek to remember the order of things because I didn’t know it was important,” she said.
The friend previously testified that the woman was “very shaken up” and that the atmosphere of their video call was “very chaotic”.
On Thursday, the friend gave more details of the video call, including that the woman had “acted out” the alleged groping of her chest.
“I remember it so vividly, I can even tell you what she was wearing,” the friend said, adding that the complainant was crossing the road between Tang Plaza and Lucky Plaza in Orchard when she demonstrated how she was allegedly groped.
The friend also said that the complainant said “she was forced to kiss him as part of the interview”.
Mr Tan asked if the complainant said they were kissing at the time Lim allegedly groped her chest. The friend replied in the negative, saying “they were separate incidences”.
The lawyer asked if the complainant said Lim forced her to kiss him and then groped her, but the friend said she could not recall the order of events.
Saying this did not matter, Mr Tan doubled down: “Do you recall if she told you they were kissing when he grabbed her breast?”
“They were not kissing,” the friend said. She immediately asked to elaborate, but Mr Tan interjected to say there was “no need” and that the prosecution could re-examine her if she had more to say.
Later, when the prosecutor asked what she wanted to elaborate on, the friend said: “I think there is a difference between (when) both participants are willingly kissing each other versus being forced to kiss.
“What (the complainant) told me was that it was an event that was not consensual between both parties, not consensual on her end.”
The prosecution also asked the friend to elaborate on the complainant’s comment that she was forced to kiss Lim “as part of the interview”.
The friend said the woman mentioned she had kissed Lim during the interview process.
“It was not like both parties were both consensually doing it. She felt like she had to do it, she was forced to do it,” the friend testified. “It was like she had to complete it to pass this interview.”
Another detail the friend said the woman mentioned was that Lim said he had seen her artwork, which he described as “very dark and gruesome”, and that “he could help her push the boundaries of her work”.
After their video call in November 2021, the friend said there were other times the complainant talked to her about the alleged molestation and shared her “troubles” arising from the incident.
In their conversations, the friend said the complainant talked about not being aware of what it meant when she chose “change” during her meeting 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 also said that she was not aware the police were going to interview her about the allegation until they approached her at the end of 2021.
She said the context was that the complainant had hesitated to make a police report, and that she had been trying to convince the woman to do so.
She also said the complainant was considering other ideas for what to do, such as “doxxing” Lim – revealing his personal information online – or “catching him in the act”, instead of going to the police.
The trial continues.
