Archive for April 8, 2014

Why CHC Leaders Should Engage Experienced Lawyers (Part 1)

Been thinking a lot about CHC leaders, my own leaders, these days.
In particular, today was the start of “No Case” submission by the defense lawyers.
If the judge approves this “No Case”, the leaders will be acquitted right away.
If the judge does not approve, the defense will then get their turn in the next tranche.

As I read through online forums, there are two questions I am interested in:
1.) If the leaders are innocent, why do they need to engage experienced lawyers like the Senior Counsels? Why not young lawyers?
2.) If the leaders have so much faith in God, why do they need to engage experienced lawyers? Why don’t they simply pray to their Father God?

The first question is a technical question, meaning it does not involve any particular religion.
Both religious and non-religious can ask this kind of question.
The second question is a religious question. It involves much discussion in using Bible concepts.

Today’s post is dedicated to answering the first question.
I am not speaking on behalf of the leaders, btw.
I am simply speaking out of my personal opinion.

If they are innocent, why do they need to engage experienced lawyers?
It is because, realistically speaking, innocence alone is not enough; innocent people can still be jailed for the crime they do not do.

One classic example.
In 1980, Lindy Chamberlain told the authorities a dingo had taken her baby.
Surprisingly, the authorities accused her of murdering her own baby.
The forensic evidence of the blood seemingly pointed out that Lindy killed the baby, not the dingo killed the baby.
Despite the witnesses’ testimony which did not agree with the prosecutors, Lindy was still jailed.
Some time later, an evidence emerged: the baby’s jacket was found near a dingo’s lair.
Lindy was then acquitted of all charges.

It is very unfortunate that the evidence emerged very late.
A mother who lost her baby, who was innocent… was jailed.
An innocent person was jailed.

(Now, I do not know whether Lindy engaged any lawyers or not.
If she did, I do not know whether Lindy engaged inexperienced or experienced lawyers.
If she really did engage experienced lawyers, that would actually enforce my point further:
sometimes, innocence + experienced lawyers may not even be enough for acquittal)

Why not just engage young lawyers?
In the court, in the midst of heated argument, inexperienced defense lawyers would crumble against experienced prosecutors.
Additionally, inexperienced lawyers might not be able to see evidence in the midst of piles of documents.
Hence, by engaging Senior Counsels, CHC leaders actually receive fair footing to defend themselves.
Experienced defense lawyers vs experienced prosecutors.
Fair and square.

Some may say that in the end, being guilty or innocent all depends on how well the lawyers argue.
To certain extent, this statement is technically correct.
A friend told me a story of Mr. X. My friend considered Mr. X guilty due to insider trading.
However, Mr. X engaged a lawyer who could argue so well that Mr. X was able to sue back.

In this midst of this “No Case” submission, I am really praying the judge will approve a “No Case”.
Once it is approved, CHC leaders can have a normal life.
They can always tell their side of story and present evidences from their side.
Just that they do not need to do it inside the court room anymore.

I will address the second question next time.

References:
1.) http://creation.com/the-australian-dingo-a-wolf-in-dogs-clothing
2.) http://creation.com/lindy-chamberlain-creighton-interview
3.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_Chamberlain-Creighton

CHC Trial: “No Case” Submission 8, April, 2014

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/04/defense-prosecution-has-presented-no-direct-evidence/

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/04/chc-trial-prosecution-created-a-cut-and-paste-conspiracy-says-defense/

This morning was the beginning of the oral presentation for “No Case” submission.
Both Kenneth Tan and Edwin Tong argued that the prosecution had not given any evidence to show that John Lam and Pastor Kong were guilty.

In the afternoon, N. Sreenivasan, Michael Khoo, Kannan Ramesh had their turns.
Links to CityNews above will explain their arguments.

Yes! Go go go, defense lawyers! God is with you!! I will pray for your success too!!