“Why did you do this to mother, boy?” a 56-year-old woman repeatedly asked her son, after the 33-year-old allegedly raped her in the early hours of Oct 4, 2013 in the family’s one-bedroom flat.
“I don’t want to see your face anymore! … You as a son … do this to me”, the distraught woman can be heard saying in an audio recording of the pair’s phone conversation hours after the alleged rape.
This recording was played on Wednesday (Jul 20) at the High Court, where the man is on trial for raping his biological mother almost three years ago. He is also denying two other charges against him - one count each of molestation and aggravated molestation.
“I like … I want again”, the man, a former safety coordinator, can be heard telling his mother.
Translator Mohammad Rashikin Rajah of the Criminal Investigation Department took the stand on Wednesday morning. Mr Rashikin had translated the contents of the phone call into English.
Defence lawyer Lin Chunlong asked Mr Rashikin whether the words “rape”, “sex” and the like were mentioned by mother or son during their phone call. “No mention”, the translator responded.
INVESTIGATORS LATE TO SEIZE “MATERIAL EVIDENCE”
Another of the man’s lawyers, Mr Andy Lem, questioned the prosecution’s next witness, investigating officer for the case ASP Thermizi Tho.
Much of Mr Lem’s questioning centred on why the officer of 28 years had not seized what he called “material evidence” until one to five days after the alleged rape.
A blue nightdress worn by the woman during the alleged rape was not seized by ASP Tho until the day after the rape, despite the officer having access to the flat on Oct 4, hours after the rape.
“I was aware (the victim) was wearing a dress but only later I established it was a (blue) nightdress”, ASP Tho said, explaining why he had not seized it earlier.
This comment prompted Judicial Commissioner Foo Chee Hock, who is presiding over the trial, to step in, saying “if you’re an expert investigator, you would be asking for all … (the evidence) to make sure the evidence is not contaminated”.
Mr Lem then said photographs of the flat, the alleged crime scene, were not taken until five days after the alleged rape. ASP Tho insisted “this is not a changing scene exposed to (the) elements or disturbances”.
Mr Lem noted that the bedsheet and pillow cases of the bed the victim was allegedly raped on had not been seized by investigators. ASP Tho said his team had examined the sheets using UV light, but had not found any traces of semen or other stains. “Therefore, it wasn’t seized.”
Neither were the accused’s shorts or towel he had used on the night of the alleged rape seized - despite his mother testifying that he had been wearing one or the other when he allegedly raped her. “(But) these were not used in the commission of the (alleged) rape”, ASP Tho argued.
The officer also revealed the towel had been put to wash before his team could examine it.
The lawyer also noted that although the man was charged with his mother’s rape the day after it allegedly took place, it took investigators about eight months to press charges for the molestation and aggravated molestation charges.
Mr Lem asked ASP Tho what evidence he had gathered before charging his client with rape, besides the victim’s complaint, the audio recording and the victim’s phone (containing the audio recording). “Anything else?”, he asked ASP Tho, who responded: “That’s about it.”
“So you did not have the medical evidence or any DNA evidence”, the lawyer said.
The trial continues.