3.
3
4.
The Prisoner was said to have little contact with his siblings except with Mr. HO Siu-kei who was his youngest brother. During their free time, they used to go to movies and play mahjong. However, Mr. HO siu-kei did not know nor nad he heard about the Frisoner's friend 'Hung Chai' until his arrest. Though the Prisoner was hot-tempered at times, he was not sure whether the Prisoner had actually committed the murder crime. Nevertheless, he commented that his uncle, Mr. CHAN Bing-chuen who was the deceased's husband, was kind towards his family and the stolen property was discovered in the Prisoner's bedroom.
5.
Mr. CHLUNG had known the Prisoner since childhood. From the Prisoner, he came to know that conflict existed between the Prisoner and his uncle, Mr. CHAN Bing-chuen. However, the reason for their conflict was ignorant to Mr. CIILUNG. To him, the Frisoner seemed to be a hot-tempered youth. Apart from thus, he was unable to pass any comment on the Prisoner's character or about the present murder crime.
Mr. CHAN was the uncle and the former employer of the Prisoner. Mr. CHAN alleged that he had very good relationship with the Prisoner's mother. Thus he promised to take care of and to supervise the Prisoner while he was working in his company. Assuming a guardian's role, he would advise the Prisoner not to engage in horse-gambling and questioned him about the stolen money which happened in July 1980. It might be due to his strict supervision that the Prisoner had emerged his hatred towards him. Regarding the Prisoner's work performance, he was said to be lazy and did not snow eagerness to learn. The Frisoner was also described to be vain and materialistic as his clothings tended to follow the fashion. In the present offence, he thought that the Prisoner was too cruel and brutal as his wife had never had any conflict with him but was kind towards the Frisoner's family. However the Prisoner had mutilated her body. Ilis aman, LLUNG Kin, was also a kind old woman who was also victimized in the present offence. Ile wished that the Prisoner could be duly punished by law, if he was guilty of the offence.
6.
According to Mr. YAU, the Prisoner tended to be an unsociable person and had only worked at his company for only a short time. Thus he was unable to give a clear account of his personality. However, the Prisoner seemed to have average work performance and it was confirmed that he had taken a day's leave on 18.9.1980 which was the date for the offence.
Cont'd./P.. 4
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.