Ken Lim’s lawyer is questioning the alleged victim’s friend over a “very graphic” description of their encounter

DEFENSE TITLE PRESENTS THE WITNESS TO HER RECALL OF THE EVENTS

Earlier, Tan noted that the witness had previously told the court that she did not remember the sequence of events relayed by the complainant during the video call.

He asked if this was also the case when she recorded her statement to the police at the end of 2021.

The friend testified that during her first police interview she told the investigating officer that she did not remember the order in which the applicant told her about the events because she was focused on providing support to the woman.

“From the beginning, I didn’t try to remember the order of things because I didn’t know it was important,” she said.

The friend previously testified that the woman was “very shaken” and the atmosphere on their video call was “very chaotic.”

On Thursday, the friend provided more details about the video call, including that the woman “acted out” the alleged chest groping.

“I remember it so vividly that I can even tell you what she was wearing,” the friend said, adding that the complainant was crossing the street between Tang Plaza and Lucky Plaza in Orchard when she demonstrated how she was allegedly groped.

The friend also said the complainant stated that “as part of the interrogation she was forced to kiss him.”

Tan asked if the complainant had stated that they were kissing when Lim allegedly groped her chest. The friend replied in the negative, stating that “these were separate cases.”

The lawyer asked whether the complainant had stated that Lim had forced her to kiss her and then groped her, but the friend said she did not remember the sequence of events.

Saying it didn’t matter, Mr Tan doubled down: “Do you remember if she told you they were kissing when he grabbed her breast?”

“They didn’t kiss,” the friend said. She immediately asked for clarification on the details, but Mr Tan interjected, saying there was “no need” and that the prosecution could question her again if she had more to say.

Later, when the prosecutor asked what she wanted to elaborate, the friend replied: “I think there is a difference between (when) both participants kiss voluntarily and when they are forced to do so.

“(The complainant) told me that this was an event that did not take place consensually or with the consent of both parties.”

The prosecutor also asked the friend to expand on the complainant’s comment that she was forced to kiss Lim “as part of the interrogation.”

The friend said the woman mentioned that she had kissed Lim during the job interview.

“It wasn’t like both sides were doing it by mutual consent. She felt she had to do it, she was forced to do it,” the friend testified. “It looked like she had to complete it to get that interview.”

Another detail the woman friend mentioned was that Lim said he had seen her artwork, which he described as “very dark and macabre” and that it “could help her push the boundaries of her art.”

Following a video call in November 2021, the friend said the complainant had repeatedly spoken to her about the alleged harassment and shared her “issues” arising from the incident.

In conversations, the friend stated that the complainant said she was not aware of what it meant when she chose “change” during the meeting with Lim, and that if she had known “what the change meant, which was that she was molested” , then she wouldn’t go to meet him.

The friend also said she didn’t know police were going to question her about the allegations until she contacted her in late 2021.

She said the context was that the complainant was hesitant to make a police report and that she was trying to persuade the woman to do so.

She also said the complainant had considered other ideas on what to do, such as “doxxing” Lim – revealing his personal information online – or “catching him in the act” instead of going to the police.

The process continues.