[LIVE AS WE GO] Pritam Singh goes on trial for charges of lying to Parliament

[meridian]

Yudhishthra Nathan says Pritam Singh never told Raeesah Khan to take ownership and responsibility

Pritam Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy asks Mr Yudhishthra Nathan if Singh had told him about an Oct 3 conversation he had with Ms Raeesah Khan, in the meeting on Oct 12, 2021 between himself, Singh and Ms Loh Pei Ying.

Mr Nathan says Singh told him that “he had thought that the anecdote (about the sexual assault victim) could possibly come up the next day, on Oct 4”, and that was why Singh had visited Ms Khan on Oct 3.

The defence lawyer goes on to ask Mr Nathan if Singh mentioned that he said he would not judge Ms Khan. Mr Nathan says yes.

Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan did not clarify what Singh meant when he said he would not judge Ms Khan. Mr Nathan says he did not feel a need to do so at that point.

Following that, Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan recalled Singh telling Ms Khan to “take ownership and responsibility (for telling a lie in Parliament)”.

Mr Nathan says “Absolutely not, he never used those words”.

Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan would agree that it is something Singh could have said. No, says Mr Nathan.

Wa this pooh bor kia

 

[EdenHazard]

Wah suddenly this one the memory so clear!!

“ABSOLUTELY not” NO NO

ya... ABSOLUTELY NOT siol...

and when asked if pritam could have said it, he replied in the negative. i wonder what makes him so sure...

 

[xdivider]

ya... ABSOLUTELY NOT siol...

and when asked if pritam could have said it, he replied in the negative. i wonder what makes him so sure...

cos its now either the 3 musketeers were lying on his orders or decided to lie on themselves. one can shift blame, one cannot......

 

[sky00sky]

got happen and happen on chat the impression different ba

 

[elephantscannotfly]

Who knows? That could be a trick timing question to test the reliability of the earlier responses. Can deduce from the responses.

 

[couch.potato]

ya... ABSOLUTELY NOT siol...

and when asked if pritam could have said it, he replied in the negative. i wonder what makes him so sure...

Ya, “could have” also cannot
It’s ABSOLUTELY NO WAY PRITAM WOULD HAVE SAID THAT!!!

His memory works in astounding ways.

anyway, true or not only the three cronies know. Karma is real

 

[powerrr]

CNA (https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...nathan-ang-check-hock-andre-jumabhoy-4696621?):

He said that the exercise of comparing the witness' answers before the COP and in court would therefore not be "adversely affected" by the defence not having the documents.

He added that while there was no doubt as to the credibility of Mr Nathan, this was the case for all witnesses.

ST Live Updates:

While there is “no doubt” the credibility of Mr Nathan is an issue as with the credibility of all witnesses, the messages already submitted as evidence can and already have been used to test the accuracy of the evidence given by the witnesses, including Mr Nathan.
[/B]

The CNA story omitted the words “is an issue”. Why ah?

I could be wrong but the meanings seem different.

 

[ofallpplwhyme]

so some 3 years things can remember some cannot?

 

[rizhal]

Erm I don't think the judge said that though.

Not exact words, but alluded to that.

 

[xdivider]

CNA:

He said that the exercise of comparing the witness' answers before the COP and in court would therefore not be "adversely affected" by the defence not having the documents.



ST Live Updates:



The CNA story omitted the words “is an issue”. Why ah?

live update one is sarcasm le.......

 

[GreatPumpkin]

Dunno why you guys bother still following.

Writing is on the wall already.

Or rather big signboard with neon letters

 

[rizhal]

Wa this pooh bor kia

Hope Mr Jumabhoy can find a way to make him sound inconsistent.

 

[sales69]

CNA:



ST Live Updates:



The CNA story omitted the words “is an issue”. Why ah?

I could be wrong but the meanings seem different.

All news outlet have agenda.

 

[wawalau]

so far it doesn't seem that ahboy is making headways with Nathan. FAIL!

 

[Cyber_Ghost]

so some 3 years things can remember some cannot?

aiyah, he (nathan) is suffering from "SELECTIVE MEMORY LOST" disease, pls be kind to him.

 

[xdivider]

waiting for the impeachment attempt.......

 

[dezzo69]

Yudhishthra Nathan says Pritam Singh never told Raeesah Khan to take ownership and responsibility

Pritam Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy asks Mr Yudhishthra Nathan if Singh had told him about an Oct 3 conversation he had with Ms Raeesah Khan, in the meeting on Oct 12, 2021 between himself, Singh and Ms Loh Pei Ying.

Mr Nathan says Singh told him that “he had thought that the anecdote (about the sexual assault victim) could possibly come up the next day, on Oct 4”, and that was why Singh had visited Ms Khan on Oct 3.

The defence lawyer goes on to ask Mr Nathan if Singh mentioned that he said he would not judge Ms Khan. Mr Nathan says yes.

Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan did not clarify what Singh meant when he said he would not judge Ms Khan. Mr Nathan says he did not feel a need to do so at that point.

Following that, Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan recalled Singh telling Ms Khan to “take ownership and responsibility (for telling a lie in Parliament)”.

Mr Nathan says “Absolutely not, he never used those words”.

Mr Jumabhoy asks if Mr Nathan would agree that it is something Singh could have said. No, says Mr Nathan.

There was no way he would have known if PS said that because HE WASN'T EVEN THERE.

 

[meridian]

aiyah, he (nathan) is suffering from "SELECTIVE MEMORY LOST" disease, pls be kind to him.

He PhD = permanent head damage

 

[blueweed]

Judge rejects defence’s application to get full list of Yudhishthra Nathan’s redacted and unredacted messages to COP

Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan rejects the defence’s application to get the full set of Mr Yudhishthra Nathan’s unredacted messages from Oct 4 to 12, 2021, and his redacted messages which were submitted to the Committee of Privileges (COP).

The judge says he has carefully examined the documents, and is satisfied that none of the messages are relevant to the guilt or innocence of Pritam Singh.

He adds that the messages do not undermine the prosecution’s case or strengthen the defence’s case in the context of the criminal trial.

As the redactions were done for the purpose of the specific inquiry by the COP, the scope and basis of the redactions are not relevant to the current criminal trial, he says.

The judge also notes that a list of unredacted messages by Mr Nathan, as well as the full list of redacted and unredacted messages by Ms Loh Pei Ying have already been admitted as evidence for the trial.

While there is “no doubt” the credibility of Mr Nathan is an issue, as with the credibility of all witnesses, the messages already submitted as evidence can and already have been used to test the accuracy of the evidence given by the witnesses, including Mr Nathan.

then why cannot see anyway? nothing right? see lor?

 

[xdivider]

looking at this line of questioning, he is probably going to guide nathan to admitting rk is the one who keep insisting take it to grave......