The Three Boxes: Misleading and Inaccurate Sketch by Police
Prosecution witness 4 was police crime specialist, Goh See Kiat. During the State Court trial, Goh testified that he drew a sketch plan of Liew Mun Leong’s residence on 21 March 2018, about 18 months after Parti Liyani was fired and repatriated on 28 October 2016.
In Defence’s submissions, it was noted that this sketch contained “non-contemporaneous information” regarding the location of the three boxes. In other words, Goh had drawn three boxes in his sketch, when there were no longer three boxes present at the time at the house.
Goh had first testified that one of the three boxes had been relocated from Liew Mun Leong’s house to Karl Liew’s house on or before 3 December 2016 (some 15 months before his sketch was made). Later on in his evidence, Goh said that, as of 3 December 2016, “two or three” of those boxes were still at Liew Mun Leong’s house.
ASP Tang, on Day 1, testified that he went to Karl Liew’s house on 3 December 2016, wherein Karl had provided him with various ‘exhibits’. ASP Tang had also stated that Karl Liew had moved one box from Liew Mun Leong’s house to his own house.
Karl Liew also testified in Court that two of the boxes were moved from his parents’ house to his house, days after the police report was made on 30 October 2016.
Therefore, based on the evidence of these three prosecution witnesses, there was no longer three boxes at Liew Mun Leong’s residence by March 2018.
Goh, the crime scene specialist, testified that on 21 March 2018, when drawing the sketch, ASP Tang’s instruction to Goh was that there were three boxes at Liew Mun Leong’s house on 3 December 2016. Goh then drew the sketch based on this “consultation” with ASP Tang, rather than the evidence in front of him. Goh essentially drew the sketch of the alleged crime scene not based on what he witnessed, but on what he was instructed to draw by ASP Tang.
As pointed out in Defence’s submissions, this ought to have been a “straightforward and obvious” aspect of the scene. The inconsistencies and confusion are symptomatic of a more “troubling issue”, that is, that “the failure to duly secure the integrity of the physical evidence in an expeditious and thorough manner left crucial evidence open to being relocated, added to, or otherwise interfered with”.
Defence also raised that it is one thing to accidentally lose evidence, and quite another to “include ostensibly objective evidence that officers had no first-hand knowledge of”. It indicates that prosecuting authorities were “prepared to adduce evidence which was not what it purported to be on the face of it”. ASP Tang directed Goh to “essentially doctor evidence” in the sketch so as to impress upon the Court a layout of the house he did not have direct knowledge of.
In Defence’s submissions, it was noted that this sketch contained “non-contemporaneous information” regarding the location of the three boxes. In other words, Goh had drawn three boxes in his sketch, when there were no longer three boxes present at the time at the house.
Goh had first testified that one of the three boxes had been relocated from Liew Mun Leong’s house to Karl Liew’s house on or before 3 December 2016 (some 15 months before his sketch was made). Later on in his evidence, Goh said that, as of 3 December 2016, “two or three” of those boxes were still at Liew Mun Leong’s house.
ASP Tang, on Day 1, testified that he went to Karl Liew’s house on 3 December 2016, wherein Karl had provided him with various ‘exhibits’. ASP Tang had also stated that Karl Liew had moved one box from Liew Mun Leong’s house to his own house.
Karl Liew also testified in Court that two of the boxes were moved from his parents’ house to his house, days after the police report was made on 30 October 2016.
Therefore, based on the evidence of these three prosecution witnesses, there was no longer three boxes at Liew Mun Leong’s residence by March 2018.
Goh, the crime scene specialist, testified that on 21 March 2018, when drawing the sketch, ASP Tang’s instruction to Goh was that there were three boxes at Liew Mun Leong’s house on 3 December 2016. Goh then drew the sketch based on this “consultation” with ASP Tang, rather than the evidence in front of him. Goh essentially drew the sketch of the alleged crime scene not based on what he witnessed, but on what he was instructed to draw by ASP Tang.
As pointed out in Defence’s submissions, this ought to have been a “straightforward and obvious” aspect of the scene. The inconsistencies and confusion are symptomatic of a more “troubling issue”, that is, that “the failure to duly secure the integrity of the physical evidence in an expeditious and thorough manner left crucial evidence open to being relocated, added to, or otherwise interfered with”.
Defence also raised that it is one thing to accidentally lose evidence, and quite another to “include ostensibly objective evidence that officers had no first-hand knowledge of”. It indicates that prosecuting authorities were “prepared to adduce evidence which was not what it purported to be on the face of it”. ASP Tang directed Goh to “essentially doctor evidence” in the sketch so as to impress upon the Court a layout of the house he did not have direct knowledge of.