friendster evidence

I remember learning in JC that e-mails could not be accepted as evidence for the legal process. We've certainly come a long way ...

May 24, 2006
Friendster testimonials used in molestation trial

STATEMENTS made by teenagers on the Internet have once again come into play in the trial of William Ding, the 33-year-old teacher accused of molesting three students at an all-boys secondary school.

In the defence's cross-examination of one of the boys on Wednesday, Senior Counsel Engelin Teh referred to comments, called testimonials, sent and received by the 18-year-old and other witnesses on online social network Friendster.

Ms Teh's aim was to show the court that the complainants were close friends who held grudges against her client, their water polo teacher, because of his strictness.

'That is the defence's case: that they are close friends who colluded with each other (against Ding),' she said.

The teenager, who is accusing Ding of molesting him twice in 2001, had been shown his blog earlier this month to jog his memory, after he said he could not remember how he felt when he read in the papers that Ding intended to plead innocent.

While District Judge Jasbendar Kaur allowed Ms Teh to use the testimonials, both sent and received by the teenager, in her cross-examination, she ruled that the testimonials sent by the other boys could not be submitted as evidence until those boys confirmed with their lawyers that they had really made those statements.

This was due to Deputy Public Prosecutor John Ng's objection that the court could not verify that the youths really owned the accounts from which the testimonials were made, and that even if they owned the accounts, someone else could have used their accounts to send the testimonials.

Both parties agreed that those testimonials would be marked for identification, and that witnesses would be referred to the testimonials.