AAB to 4th Floor boys: What happened ?

4th Floor boys: Dunno.

AAB to the public: I don’t know.

http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/blowing.htm

It is both direct and circumstantial. It depends on the issue or issues.

Let’s see if we could agree on the issues:

1. Video - relevant and not hearsay, to prove accuracy (recording not been tampered with)
2. Identity of the caller - relevant and statement not hearsay, to prove the existence of a conspiracy at the highest level of government

VIDEO

Maker needs to appear as a witness to testify as to the facts i.e. he made the recording, how he did it etc. If the maker is not available as a witness (e.g. fearing for his life), then the father assuming he was present when the recording was made could testify as to the making of the recording. If he was only made aware of the recording after the fact, his testimony would still be relevant.

Is the motive for the recording relevant? No.

Is the video relevant? Yes.

The video is relevant to show that it was Lingam who was seen talking and heard talking (direct evidence). The contents of the telephone conversation must be relevant to an issue in the case. It is relevant in this case to prove the existence of the alleged conspiracy to ‘fix’ judicial appointments (direct evidence).

IDENTITY OF THE CALLER

The issue. The identity of the caller is relevant to the issue of conspiracy to ‘fix’ judicial appointments AND that it involves the CJM and the highest level of government.

Do we need to know the identity of the caller to prove that there is the existence of a conspiracy to ‘fix’ judicial appointments? No.

We have only the word of Lingam as to the identity of the caller. But it is not hearsay. It is circumstantial evidence. The problem is how much weight to give to it. Lingam has no reason to lie. His reply to the question as to who he was speaking to soon after the conversation could be corroborated by other witnesses present.

Are the witnesses independent witnesses? Is there sufficient corroboration? Do they have a motive to fabricate evidence? If Lingam denies he said that, then the fact that the witnesses had reason or reasons to lie are relevant and goes to the weight to attach to the evidence. If Lingam does not deny saying it was the CJM, then their motive is irrelevant.

“However, that evidence cannot be used to prove that the person on the line was in fact the Chief Justice.” HB Lim

Why not? We have the admission of a witness (Lingam) to another witness soon after the fact. It is a statement which is incriminatory of the maker - and therefore very reliable. It is not hearsay. It proves Lingam was part of some conspiracy. It proves the CJM was involved.

“Now, he has to tell us who that someone else is.” HB Lim

He just did - to the witnesses present. I suspect in his testimony Lingam would deny saying in the presence of any of the witnesses in the room that it was the CJM. But then he would still have to identify who he was speaking to. Tough call - because whoever it was he said he was talking to he would be called to testify. Should Lingam refuse to answer the question by the prosecutor, he would be held in contempt and detained in jail until he decides to tell the court who it was.