648
411
388.
if he purchased any at all that day he only purchased one but even that one is suspect when you consider F22 and P115. It just does not tie in in any way with his directive. At least one comply to his previous statement is that this is an invented afterthought not one of deliberate action to 14 but rather like the dog who is in fear of his master goes off
to Look for a bone and goes back to his master and gets a pat on his head.
Court adjourned to 2.30 p.m.
11th December 1975
Core: A. Garcia, .J. in Court.
Court resumes at 2.30 p.m.
Appearances as before.
(sd.)
A. Garcia
District Judge
11/12/75
649
rir. Hampton:
Business card of song Tak wing found in the premises of
1st accused. My recollection of ..ong's evidence is that ong stated he only took up employment as night club manager after he ceased working
for a. In addition wong in cross-examination denied that he knew
1st accused. It seems than to me that for my learned friend to suggest that this business card proves a connection between Wong and 1st accused
at the material time is flying in the face of the evidence. I assume
the prosecution are bound by what their witnesses say. Prosecution put them forward as witnesses of truth and my learned friend cannot be
heard to say that you should draw an inference from the existence of the business card printed as I believe the evidence shows after the material time, which contradicts his own witness's testimony.
A far
as circumstantial evidence is concerned this appears to me confined to evidence of the purchase of drafts to accounts which it is alleged are
those of the first accused. These drafts have been admitted in evidence
but that is by ho means the end of the story because at this stage
prosecution must satisfy you beyond all reasonable doubt that these were the accounts of the 1st accused On that the Crown urges upon you
in relation to these drafts amounts to guilt by association. There is
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.