*I was so INSPIRED by the eminence of the lawyering that I just HAD to transcribe certain epic moments.
*I have replaced our Dear Learned Lawyer's name with the initials SBF = Stupid Bumbling Fool. And I'm being kind.
SBF: "So you never testified in court outside Thailand?"
Witness: "Never."
SBF: "Your evidence was never accepted as expert evidence outside Thailand?"
Opposing counsel: *looking at each other going WTF*
SBF: "You never testified outside Thailand...so your evidence was never accepted outside Thailand?"
Opposing Counsel: *jumping to his feet* "Wait... if she never testified outside Thailand, how can her evidence be accepted outside Thailand? That's the problem! What kind of question is this?"
Random person in court: *loudly* "AIYOH!"
SBF: "I think you know ah... your university is not recognised by government of Malaysia."
Witness: "What? I cannot understand."
SBF: "Anybody who graduated from Mahidol University was not recognised under our Medical Act."
Witness: "I don't know, but Mahidol University is the top 5 of Asia!"
Audience: *cheers and claps*
SBF: "Either top 1...top 2, is never mind. But we have a law: Medical Act. But that is why you are not allowed to conduct the autopsy, because you are not qualified."
Witness: "No! Not because I have no authority".
SBF: "But today... you look so excellent to comment that our qualified doctors...and Peter V... but you are not qualified in terms of our law." (WTF what does that even mean?)
Opposing Counsel: *can't take it anymore* "With due respect...can I just object here? I think to say that she's not recognised is one thing, but to say that she's not qualified is another. I think my learned friend should get it clear what he wants to ask."
Witness: "You have to understand, I work for the rights of the dead. Not for the Selangor.. or for the Malaysian... or the Party." (Yeah you ROCK Dr. Rojanasunand!)
Audience: *loud spontaneous applause*
Judge: "Audience, listen only ya."
Part 2:
SBF: "So all the while, when you testify this morning, you said that somebody harmed him. You said...something about strangulation.... Or he strangle himself?" (WTF somebody kill me NOW!)
Opposing Counsel 1: "I think my learned friend should go back to his notes. This witness has not said anything about strangulation this morning, she's gone beyond that."
Opposing Counsel 2: *musing wonderingly* "He strangled himself??!"
Judge: "It's more than strangulation."
Opposing Counsel 2: *rising and pointing to SBF* "Did my learned friend just say 'he strangled himself'?"
Audience: *LAUGH*
SBF: "Yah."
Opposing Counsel 2: "Ok... go!"
SBF: *ACTUALLY ATTEMPTING TO STRANGLE HIMSELF WITH HIS HANDS* (Nooooooooo .... it's killing me slowly...I'm dying here....)
Opposing Counsel 2: "Can you show us how you can..."
SBF: *HANDS AROUND NECK* "Ah ah.. like this..."
Audience: *dying from laughter*
Judge: "Order! Order!"
SBF: "After 3:30am there is no reason why anybody would want to harm the deceased."
Random person in court: "Aiyoh..."
youtube comment: "So before 3:30am there is a reason to harm him?"
SBF: "There's no eyewitness to confirm that.. you said he was strangled."
Witness: "I didn't say he was strangled. You have to review back my evidence... I never said that."
Judge: "Yeah yeah she never mentioned about strangling."
SBF: "So he was not strangled?'
Judge: "Haemorrhage ...haemorrhage."
SBF: "So you rule out manual strangulation?" (What on EARTH is 'manual strangulation'? As opposed to what? Auto-strangulation?)
Random person in court: "Aiyoh..."
Opposing Counsel: "I think my learned friend wants to look back at his notes. She said blunt trauma to the neck."
Witness: "Yeah yeah... that's why I said you have to look back at your notes... because I talked about [blunt trauma].. clearly. CLEARLY. Never talked about strangulation."
SBF: "So you did maintain about manual strangulation?" (OMG he's still going on about 'manual strangulation')
WItness: *giving up* "No."
Part 3:
SBF: "And now, I can recall... although I was not here..."
Random person in court: *snort*
SBF: "So when you said about 80% homicide. But caused by whom? Nobody? Nobody caused the homicide?" (excuse me but isn't it the POLICE'S JOB to find the murderer? Not the forensic pathologist's?)
SBF: "So you do not have enough information, but yet bravely informed this court, about 80% homicide. And next day, front page... all our media..."
Opposing Counsel: *muttering under breath* "Your media..."
SBF: "... including website."
Part 4:
SBF: *holding up x-ray* "You have the ashtray (I swear that's what he said, I SWEAR) supplied to you about this ankle injury."
Witness: "NOT ANKLE! Ankle is above!"
SBF: "Alright..."
Witness: "I said that from the beginning. I think you have to read back."
SBF: "I spent 3 days to study what you said."
Opposing Counsel: "Spend more... maybe a few months."
Audience: *laughs*
Judge: *stifling a laugh* "Order!"
SBF: "Ok if you say blunt object...what type of weapon? Ah, you cannot say? Any chair or sheep (sorry I is understanding fail, WHAT?), iron?
Clerk in front: *FACEPALM*
Part 5:
Continued from above:
SBF: "Ok...so what type of weapon can cause that type of injury?"
Witness: "I have question.... whether you are lawyer or not."
Audience: *roars with laughter*
SBF: "Maybe I'm younger than you, but I already served 24 years as a lawyer." (Oh really how did you manage to NOT kill anyone with your stupidity all those 24 years...)
Witness: "May I ask how many lawyers will ask me? Because I have to fly back today." (Yeah I don't blame you for wanting to get the hell out of here)
Judge: "What time is your flight?"
SBF: "We wait for you for about 1o months, and you really want to go back?"
SBF: "Mr V (another expert) fly over 12 hours to come here, and you only have what, 2 hours to go back? Don't worry."
Opposing Counsel: "This is mental."
SBF: "So you agree that he was alive."
Witness: "I never said that he died. Never."
SBF: "Alright?"
Judge: "It was between conscious and unconscious."
Witness/Audience/Opposing Counsel: "YAH correct!"
SBF: "So you are saying that at that time [when he was at level 14] he was unconscious, then suddenly landed... [he was] conscious?" (Gnashing my teeth and trying not to rip out my hair...
Witness: "What? Who said that?"
Opposing Counsel: *groans* "Nooooooo....."
(This scene was repeated about 3 times in the space of 3 minutes:
- SBF claiming that the witness said the deceased was unconscious before falling down, then miraculously conscious when he landed (as opposed to the normal procedure - being conscious when falling, and unconscious after you hit the ground).
- Witness vehemently denying she said anything of that sort.
- Opposing counsel shaking their heads and face-palming.
- The judge laughing and attempting to explain.
- The rest of the court groaning.)
SBF: "No no... she confirmed that before falling, unconscious; while going down, landed, conscious." (let me just wring your neck...)
Witness: "NO no no! You can review the tape."
Random person in court: "What university is he from?"
SBF: "So you confirm he was conscious at the time he landed?"
Witness: "NO!"
Judge: "Ahaha... unconscious."
Witness: "You have to believe the judge."
SBF: "You know, from level 14 to level 5, it's about 99 feet okay. And if he was unconscious, you agree with me that his body would be heavier, agree?" (*speechless*)
Witness: *staring* "No."
SBF: "No?"
Witness: "There would be no difference between the weight!"
Opposing Counsel: "HAHAHAHAHAHA."
Witness: "Scientifically, how can be weight loss [depending on whether he was conscious]?!"
youtube comment:
New Physics Law founded by ARMisa, i.e. the weight of a living object W =mgc, where m is the mass of the object, g is the gravitational force, and c is the degree of conciousness of the living object. It's a potential Nobel prize winner! Malaysia Boleh!
SBF: "My point is that, if he was unconscious, he would drop directly near the building."
Witness: "Oh no.."
SBF: "Nevermind... nevermind."
Witness: "You have to listen...because I have experience in going to the scene..."
SBF: "You have experience? You already jumped down? Experience jumping down?"
Audience: *GROANS*
Random person 1: "Aiyoh..."
Random person 2: "Jesus..." (My sentiments exactly.)
SBF: *asking some impossibly incoherent question, ending with "agree or not?"*
Witness: *confounded by question* "You have to look at the .... "
SBF: "Never mind never mind...disagree?"
Witness: *trying again* "You have to..."
SBF: "If you want to go back early, just answer yes or no."
Witness: "Ok ok alright. Disagree. DISAGREE."
This entire part is incoherent and utterly incomprehensible, thanks entirely to the best efforts of our Favourite Stupid Bumbling Fool.
Part 7:
Opposing Counsel: "My learned friend's style of questioning is making some of us want to jump out ourselves!" (Hear hear!)
Opposing Counsel: "I think my learned friend should not put words in the witness's mouth."
Judge: "I think she knows how to answer."
Opposing Counsel: "But I think my learned friend does not know how to cross.... (long pause) ....with respect." (respect... *snort*)
SBF: "When you crossed my witnesses..."
Opposing Counsel: "Did you have any occasion to object? That's the point!"
SBF: *continuing on completely oblivious* "....including pointing your finger to the witness, saying that you killed the deceased... So harsh! But I'm so...comfortable..."
*everyone laughs*
Opposing Counsel: "Yeah he's the more handsome counsel."
Judge: "Tit for tat."
SBF: "You can imagine... from level 14, to reach [sic: fall] down, how long it will take?"
Witness: "I don't know."
SBF: "You don't know? You have no experience?"
Witness: "NO!"
SBF: "You agree?"
Witness: "Disagree."
SBF: "You agree?"
Witness: "DIS-agree!!!!"
SBF: *holding up 4 or 5 X-rays* "These 4, 5 X-rays"
Witness: *starts explaining..."
SBF: "You don't want to look at that?"
Witness: "No! I looked at that! It's MY field, not your field!"
Part 8:
SBF: "He showed the injury on both legs and both hands..." (except he pronounces 'both' as 'bose')
Opposing Counsel: "Bose...^^"
SBF: *trying to get witness to agree that she's not credible*
Witness: "I think the judge can evaluate the [credibility of] evidence from the witness."
SBF: "We work on majority!" (yeah for sure, we go around the court and poll the audience to see whether the majority thinks the witness is credible!)
Audience: *GROAN*
Opposing Counsel: *half rises to object, then gives up because of the ridiculousness of the situation*
SBF: "Never mind." (except he pronounces it nyaumine)
Judge: "Audience, don't disrupt the proceedings, please." (who can blame them?)
Witness: *evidence that injury cased by an object (and not from falling as suggested)*
SBF: "But you cannot confirm caused by what object? Whether finger... whether pen..."
Witness: "But you have to look at the picture..."
SBF: "Pen also could cause? Pen?" *proceeds to take out pen from suit pocket*
Witness: "WHY??? No! A pen cannot cause such a large area..."
SBF: "No? But we found 1 pen in the pocket of the deceased."
Opposing Counsel: *muttering under breath* "Big pen..."
SBF: "You rule out the pen...to cause that injury?" (Poor SBF, you just don't get it do you?)
SBF: "I put it to you...that you only imagined [that] the cause of death was strangulation."
Witness: "Disagree! Because I reviewed the case and the evidence."
SBF: "Ok.. I put it to you.. that whatever you said to do, was only to guess.. like a fortune teller only." (thereby relegating the whole branch of study called forensic science into the dustbins of disrepute....)
Witness: "DISAGREE!"
SBF: "Thank you."
And so, the farce ends... let me go kill myself...
