Wimen lol. That’s why so many powerful men kena KO by a woman because they can simply flip a switch the next day (or years as in this case lmao) and have you and your career destroyed.

They can have sex today and then years after breakup they can suddenly regret having the said sex and claim rape because they have no more romantic feelings (indifference).

Singapore and their overprotective women law. Crazy shit.

Are you sure that the text messages constitute crucial evidence?

At most you can only infer from the messages that he did not leave when asked to.

Read the text messages here: https://archive.is/MJjBk

The b*tch seduced him after that incident and asked him to reconcile twice but he rejected both times because he realised he was a doormat.

She led him on until he called her out on it and now she lost a soldier. So now that she couldn’t control her soldier, she wanted him ruined.

Typical narcissistic b*tch. Can’t control liao then choose destruction. That’s why I hate simps - throw our face je by becoming soldiers to b*tches like this one.

Chronology in my own order as the basis for my conclusion stated above:

25 The Defendant claimed that the Claimant’s attitude towards him and interactions with him after the events of 10 July 2016 were nothing out of the ordinary. They continued to communicate and interact on friendly and cordial terms, some of which were of a sexually intimate nature or initiated by the Claimant. In particular, the Defendant pointed to the Claimant inviting him to go shopping with her on 4 August 2016 and to meet her on 7 August 2016. The Defendant also pointed to the Claimant asking him to give her a wake-up call on 11 August 2016 at around 1 a.m. and inviting him to a house party at her place on 12 August 2016. In or around September 2016, the Claimant also invited him to spend the night at her place and greeted him dressed only in her undergarments. She invited him to stay the night which he did.

22 According to the Defendant, he and the Claimant were peers working as staff officers in the same unit or office between January 2015 and January 2017. By May 2015, he and the Claimant were in a complicated on-and-off romantic relationship. They were sexually intimate and had consensual sexual relations during the on-and-off romantic relationship. Despite this, they did not enter into a formal boyfriend-girlfriend relationship during that period of time as the Claimant refused to commit to one. He only ended his romantic interest in the Claimant in or around October 2016 after he found out that he was merely someone the Claimant would turn to whenever she was bored and that the Claimant regarded him as “very accommodating” in that regard.

27 He and the Claimant had dinner together on 10 January 2017 on the Claimant’s initiative. On 15 January 2017, he and the Claimant met at a bar at Rail Mall where she asked if he would consider giving their relationship one last shot which he rejected.

16 Sometime in mid-2017 (my own words: how convenient that she only suddenly realised it’s sexual assault after he rejected her twice), she was exposed to the rise of the “Me Too” movement, a global social movement against sexual violence. As she read about the stories of various survivors of sexual violence, she came to the sudden realization that she had been sexually assaulted by the Defendant that day.

More inconsistencies but apparently the biased female judge stated it’s “acceptable” lmao:

37 In her AEIC, the Claimant had used the words “You should go home. This isn’t happening.” On the stand, the Claimant stated that this meant that sex was not going to happen. She admitted that she did not use the words “we are not going to have sex”. However, in her letters to Rachel and Eugene, she stated that she specifically said that they were not going to have sex. In the Claimant’s letter to Eugene, she had said that she had told the Defendant NO or GET OUT. On the stand however, she distinctly recalled that she said GET OUT but could not remember whether she also said NO.

There are more inconsistencies in the link so you can read them yourself.

Everything the defendant said is not credible and everything the claimant said is credible even though there are so many inconsistencies lol.

The defendant should appeal.

Her friends’ responses showed what the judge needed to know btw because they knew about her BS:

17 The Claimant did not tell anyone about what had happened until she met up with her university friend group, consisting of Rachel Lai Yanfen (“Rachel”), Choong Hui Ping and Cheah Suet Ping on 28 January 2018. During their lunch, she informed them that she was sexually assaulted by the Defendant back in 2016. As her friends were very quiet and the atmosphere turned extremely dull after that, the Claimant decided to put up a strong front and tried to change the topic.

19 The Claimant subsequently wrote letters to her friends Rachel and Lim Jia Jun Eugene (“Eugene”) on 15 and 22 November 2020 respectively that she had felt hurt that they had not been as supportive as she had hoped when she first told them about the sexual assault. These letters were the first and second instances where she had written down and documented the sexual assault in detail.

Really hope her friends avoid her from now on lol because of how manipulative she is.

And what does that prove?

“I got out of control again” immediately followed by a message saying “I shouldn’t have thrown a hissy fit and should have left”.

So out of control could have meant the hissy fit when reading the messages as a whole instead of reading the message individually without any context.

Context matters. Read again.

You basically provided no counter-argument other than saying “this evidence is concrete” without providing the reason why it is “concrete” while I have explained to you in detail why it is not.

Try harder next time or don’t reply at all if you don’t have any counter-argument lol.

Do you have comprehension problem?

You said the text is “concrete evidence” and I said it is not. It is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with the outcome of the case.

The sentence “got out of control” is not as incriminating as you think since I explained that it was referring to the “hissy fit”.

We were discussing about whether the text messages were “concrete evidence”, not whether he was guilty or not because that involves discussing about other evidence like her claims and FIR reports and etc (which I did do a brief discussion but that was my view).

In fact my first reply to you was “Are you sure that the text messages constitute crucial evidence?”

If you can’t even differentiate the difference, like I said, don’t bother replying to me lmao because you couldn’t even form your own arguments as to why you think 1 is 1 but could only be a sheep that says “oh, he/she said 1 and so the answer is 1”.

And your statement “the judge already decided the case” seems to imply that there is no appeal available to the defendant, which is not the case here.

Just because a case has been decided does not mean that we can’t present our own views or discuss about it - if like that all defence lawyers can close shop d. Unfortunately I am not a sheep like you who is incapable of thinking for himself.

How much do you know about consent in the context of law anyway? That woman ajak for sex and then told him to leave but instead of making sure he left, she headed straight to her bed - you think that made any sense? She pancing him for several times and when he went for it suddenly she didn’t consent to it? After kena rejected twice?