The case of the alleged exorcism in the Novena Church resumed on Wednesday after a two-week break.
A new witness, Resham Singh, was cross examined.
Defence lawyers said Mr Resham is the man who played a role in crafting the lawsuit against the two priests and six other helpers.
But Mr Resham turned the tables on the lawyers with serious allegations about the credibility of a doctor brought in by the defence.
He also claimed that Amutha Valli, the woman at the centre of the case, was so traumatised by the alleged exorcism that three years on, she is still fearful that the priests and helpers may harm her.
It would take some time before Amutha makes another appearance at the Supreme Court. Her lawyer told the court that the 51-year-old plaintiff had been hospitalised at the Changi General Hospital until 20 November.
So the court called the next witness, Mr Resham, who is said to be a close family friend and is like a brother to Amutha.
Defence lawyer, Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim, started by cross examining Mr Resham on his version of what happened on that fateful night of 10 August 2004.
Throughout the cross examination, Mr Resham stuck to the same version that Amutha’s daughter Subashini had told the court, which lawyers said is diametrically opposite to what the church and its defendants are claiming.
Mr Resham testified that he saw Amutha praying in front of a statue “about 1.5-metre tall” though he was not sure whether the statue was of a man or Mother Mary.
He also denied that he was the one who ordered Amutha (said to be “possessed” at that time) to “march” into the pastoral centre, where the alleged exorcism took place.
The court also heard that within 36 hours after the alleged exorcism, Amutha made six visits to different doctors – from general practitioners to doctors at the National University Hospital and the Tan Tock Seng Hospital.
Defence lawyer Jimmy Yim said Amutha was simply ‘doctor shopping’ for testimonies to show she had been traumatised for life.
But all that the doctors gave her were painkillers and drugs to calm her nerves as her condition was not serious enough to be admitted into hospital.
Mr Yim went on to ask Mr Resham – who had accompanied Amutha on most of her doctor visits since the incident – whether he remembered if Amutha had told a Dr Tay from Flame Tree Clinic that she was “still adamant in pursuing her case in court” and whether he was aware that her son had called the Prime Minister’s Office and the television station to publicise her case.
In reply, Mr Resham, who is a law graduate, said: “With Dr Tay, anything is possible.”
Mr Yim cautioned the witness that he was making serious allegations about Dr Tay fabricating evidence.
But Mr Resham insisted that he had seen Dr Tay ‘break certain rules’ and that Dr Tay had never been comfortable with Amutha’s case.
Mr Resham also accused the private investigator’s 1,000-hour video surveillance as being biased.
The private eye had reportedly filmed Amutha behaving normally and that she only looked weak and pale on the days she had to see her psychiatrist.
The hearing continues. – CNA/ir