Novena Church exorcism suit begins

adetet SG

Interesting so many doctors are “biased”. Today’s trial will continue with testimonies from doctors she saw and whom she tried to hide the fact from the defense. Biased? Or is it uncovering of more lies and blatant attempt to defraud! And don’t forget the two who spoke in her defence said that she lied, they didn’t know she saw other doctors, she exaggerated symptoms etc. SNAKY MALINGERER.

adetet SG

Doc says: Not stress, but she was suffering from…
Defence psychiatrist says victim of alleged exorcism has trance disorder
By Arul John
July 30, 2008
The New Paper

SHE did not suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Psychiatrist Ken Ung said Madam Amutha Valli Krishnan was instead suffering from depression and dissociative trance disorder (DTD).

Dr Ung, a senior consultant child, adolescent and adult psychiatrist at Adam Road Hospital, made this statement while giving his testimony during the Novena Church exorcism trial yesterday.

Madam Amutha, 52, claims she was the victim of a forced exorcism at the church on 10Aug 2004.

She is seeking compensation and is suing the Redemptorist Order which runs the church, two priests and six church-goers who allegedly helped in the ritual.

URGE TO TALK
Dr Ung told the court: ‘A person suffering from PTSD has the following symptoms – persistent avoidance of the stimuli from the experience, being hesitant and needing prompting, and great trepidation and reluctance to speak of the experience.’

He said he met Madam Amutha twice – on 29 Jun and 13 Jul last year – and each time, she had a strong urge to talk about her experience at the church, which he said was ‘unusual’ for PTSD sufferers.

Dr Ung said that he based his diagnosis of DTD on her ability to go into trances, especially possession trances.
He said she showed trance states every five to 10 minutes during the interviews with her and each would last one or two minutes.

Dr Ung said she also went into possession trances, where she would show stereotyped and culturally determined behaviour or movements that showed she was controlled by a ‘possessing agent’.

He said in his affidavit that she showed such behaviour when she was allegedly possessed three times on the day of the exorcism – by the spirit of ‘Koh Chee Meng’, by the ‘snake spirit’ and by ‘Lucifer’.

Dr Ung said that during such cases, the possessed person could have partial or total amnesia, which would account for Madam Amutha’s being unable to recall her strange behaviour during those states, such as moving like a snake.

In his affidavit, he included several conversations taken from Father Simon Tan’s affidavit where he conversed with Madam Amutha while she was possessed by ‘Koh Chee Meng’, a snake spirit and ‘Lucifer’. (See excerpts, rights.)
Father Tan is one of the priests involved in the alleged exorcism.

Madam Amutha’s lawyer, Mr R S Bajwa, said Dr Ung was biased as he accepted the defendants’ version of what happened that day and totally ignored Madam Amutha’s version.
To which he calmly replied: ‘I am biased in favour of the truth.’

To back up his claim that Madam Amutha was not suffering from PTSD, Dr Ung told defence lawyer Darrell Low that based on previous medical records, Madam Amutha told her doctors the following:

16 Oct 2004: She remembered that six men were at Novena Church

22 Oct 2004: She said she did not want to forget that night and must win the court case

2 Feb 2006: She said she kept the skirt she wore during that night, a sign that she was voluntarily trying to keep the event in her memory

11 Aug 2007: She said that she wanted to tell the incident to the media

As she had clear memory of what happened, it is unlikely she suffered from PTSD, he said

Pintoneo SG

I went away and came back not expecting to see the saga is still going on! The judge should just throw out the case, slap a hefty fine on the woman and jail her family who perjured themselves.

adetet SG

Singapore

Valli laughed off priests' prayer attempts, says doc Khushwant Singh 31 July 2008

Straits Times English

GP testifies that plaintiff found early part of alleged incident amusing

AFTER nine months, 31 witnesses and 40 days of courtroom drama, Singapore's sensational 'exorcism' hearing came to a close yesterday, but not before a doctor offered more insight into the woman at the centre of the case.

Dr Kartika Hanafi told the High Court that Madam Amutha Valli Krishnan, who claims that she was traumatised by a church 'exorcism' in 2004, was amused by the incident.

Two days after the alleged incident in which church-goers and priests had tried to drive an evil spirit out of her, Madam Valli said that the priests were silly and that she enjoyed the stupidity of the occasion, Dr Kartika testified.

Later, upon cross-examination by Madam Valli's lawyer R.S. Bajwa, Dr Kartika agreed that the woman was referring only to the early part of the incident, when she found herself surrounded by five praying church-goers after fainting in the Novena Church on Aug 10, 2004.

Madam Valli is claiming that two priests and six church-goers pinned her down and began chanting over her to 'exorcise' a spirit, an ordeal that left her with post-traumatic stress disorder. The defendants deny the allegations and say she is faking her symptoms.

Dr Kartika, a general practitioner at the Flame Tree Medical Centre, also said that Madam Valli later became depressed because of flashbacks and nightmares of the incident at the church. She also complained of being lethargic and unable to sleep.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the defendants told Dr Kartika that Madam Valli had also visited other doctors. Earlier in the hearing, they suggested that she was shopping for doctors to sign off on her claims of depression.

Mr Darrell Low, who is acting for three church-goers, produced a compilation of Madam Valli's visits to Dr Kartika's clinic and another clinic between October and Nov 1, 2004. She obtained 74 sleeping pills from the two clinics while being treated at Tan Tock Seng Hospital for psychiatric problems.

Dr Kartika said she would not have prescribed the pills to Madam Valli had she known that the woman had been given medication by another doctor.

The doctor also said that Madam Valli had asked for a medical report that did not mention her alcoholism, family problems and depression. Dr Kartika refused the request.

[email protected]

About this case

YESTERDAY marked the final day of testimony in a civil hearing in which Madam Amutha Valli Krishnan claims she was traumatised by a forced exorcism at the Novena Church on Aug 10, 2004.

The 52-year-old part-time tutor is suing the Redemptorist Order that runs the church, two priests and six church-goers.

The last witness was Dr Kartika Hanafi, who saw Madam Valli two days after the alleged exorcism.

Dr Kartika said that Madam Valli was initially amused by the experience, calling the priests and church-goers who chanted over her silly.

Both sides are to submit their final arguments by Sept 29.

Pintoneo SG

If she was possessed and in a real trance, what is there for her to be amused by? And worse, to remember she felt amused.

I salute the Defense team for uncovering her fake medical history. She lied when she went to the Novena Church and she has been consistently lying all these years with her song-and-dance with the doctors.

Newbienewbie SG

Read about case in America, girl 17-at-the-time was held down over two days, she was shouting and all that to be released but the youth pastor and his gang were convinced she had been possesed by Devil!

Anyway, so went to court... and High Court in Texas decided: We can't help you, because this is a case of disputed church doctrine and so protected under freedom of religion! Like, wacko.

Pintoneo SG

America is a good white protestant country. If the claims was filed against the Catholic Church, the judge may have made a different call. It is also a disgustingly litigation mad country. If you try to help someone, you could be sued for interference. If you stop a criminal, he is capable of turning around to sue you. So bah to the USA and their legal system!

adetet SG

Doctor of alleged exorcism victim refers to her medical notes in court and says:

She wanted me to lie about her medical history

By Arul John

August 01, 2008

SHE told her doctor in 2004 that she did not mind having her previous medical history and family problems revealed.

At that time, she was adamant about taking those allegedly behind her exorcism to court.

However, about a year later, Madam Amutha Valli Krishnan wanted those details covered up when she asked the same doctor for a medical report.

The last witness of the Novena Church exorcism trial, Dr Kartika Hanafi, revealed this in court yesterday, the last day of the trial.

Madam Amutha, 52, claims she was the victim of a forced exorcism at the church on 10 Aug 2004.

She is seeking compensation and is suing the Redemptorist Order that runs the church, two priests and six churchgoers.

Cross-examined by defence lawyer Anthony Lee, Dr Kartika said Madam Amutha had been a patient at Flame Tree Medical Centre (FTMC) since 15 Oct 2003.

COMPLAINTS

She said she frequently complained of insomnia and stress caused by problems with her work and family, and also told Dr Kartika of her alcohol dependency to help her sleep.

Dr Kartika said that on 11 Aug, the day after the alleged exorcism, Madam Amutha visited the clinic and told the doctor examining her, Dr Doreen Ang, what had happened to her.

She visited FTMC again the next day and told Dr Kartika the same account. Referring to her medical case notes, the doctor said Madam Amutha told her on 9 Aug she had gone with her family to the Novena church to pray.

Madam Amutha said she fainted in the church and woke up in a room there and saw people around her.

Reading from her case notes, she said: 'The patient (Madam Amutha) asked who they were and someone said, 'I am Jesus'. She became angry and said, 'Then I am Lucifer'.

'There were four men holding her down and a lady read a Bible and sprinkled holy water. A 'pastor' asked her to identify the cross and eat the holy wafer. The patient all along felt they were all 'silly' and she was enjoying the stupidity of the situation.'

On 18 and 24 Aug, Dr Kartika said, Madam Amutha visited FTMC and told the doctor examining her that she could not help thinking of the events of 10 Aug, and wanted to take the priests involved to court.

She said Madam Amutha visited her at the clinic on 30 Aug 2004, and told her she was adamant in pursuing the case in court.

She said: 'Madam Amutha told me her son had called the PM's office and TV to publicise the case. I advised her to see a psychiatrist.'

Dr Kartika said Madam Amutha told her she was not worried that her psychiatric history, alcoholism or family problems would be known.

'Madam Amutha said, 'This (the medical history) is irrelevant to the case! I want justice'.'

But on 21 Oct 2005, Madam Amutha changed her tune.

Dr Kartika said: 'She came to see me after an absence of one year. She said she was advised to get a medical report from her doctors, past and present, to ascertain her mental state prior to the incident on 10 Aug 2004.

'She wanted me to write a medical report but wanted no mention of her family problems, alcoholism and depression.

'I told her it would not be legal or right because it would be a great omission of the truth. She insisted on the medical report but in the end, I informed her that I could not write it.'

Both sides' lawyers are supposed to hand in their written submissions by 29 Sep, said defence lawyer Tito Isaac.

He said oral replies would be made in the week starting 13 Oct, followed by Justice Lee Seiu Kin's judgment.

the Bear SG

so, is this case over for the time being until the solicitors hand in their written submissions?

i wonder if Singtel is going to sue SW?

Pintoneo SG

I don’t know why I could be shocked that she could ask the doctor to lie for her! So much for being too traumatic to think clearly. And so much for her family’s denials about not knowing about her doctor shopping.

Honeybunz SG

I am very interested to see what happens after the verdict.

If SW loses the case, will she and her family commit mass suicide? If she doesn't kill herself, how is she going to pay the huge legal fees?

SingaporeMacross SG

I am very interested to see what happens after the verdict.

If SW loses the case, will she and her family commit mass suicide? If she doesn't kill herself, how is she going to pay the huge legal fees?

I suppose, the Redemptorist Order could subsidize some of the legal costs. Of course that will surely cause plenty of uproar.

ObiterDicta SG

I would like to read Justice Lee's judgement, and see what points of law were argued for and taken into account in the decision.

adetet SG

I suppose, the Redemptorist Order could subsidize some of the legal costs. Of course that will surely cause plenty of uproar.

Huh? Are you saying the Redemptorist Order could subsidise some of the lying cheating plaintiff's legal costs? Why should they do that? It is a different story if this was a genuine case needing financial assistance! But this is a deliberate attempt to swindle money.

Did you read the papers that before the case came to trial, as soon as the plaintiffs had a lawyer stupid enough to take the case, it was her son who contacted several journalists as they wanted the case to be publicised. No wonder before the trial began and in the early days of the trial, the reporters sounded so sympathetic to that SM and her family of con artists.

Faircomment SG

you obviously have closed your mind and are unable to see that the ST reports says that Simon Tan had accepted that he went beyond prayer. Since he has admitted what is your problem??????? Were you there??? Those who have attended in the public gallery and who obviously have open minds unlike you including catholics like me appreciate that alot of smoke has been thrown up by the church whilst the real issue is very clear, she was subjected to more than a prayer and Simon agrees. At least, the lady has an excuse of previos mental illness, what excuse has a bigot like you have?????

If you cannot an open mind, then keep your mouth shut!!!!

viciouskitty74 SG

Huh???

FrustMom SG

hi veryfaircomment

How's the weather at Blk 620 Ang Mo Kio Ave 9?

adetet SG

If you cannot an open mind, then keep your mouth shut!!!!

So interesting you talk about open mind, then you call me a bigot and ask me to shut my mouth. Practise what you preach then come back to the forum. I attended quite a number of court hearings and the sentiment of the public gallery is far different from what you claim!

the Bear SG

after all that, how goes the case?

Honeybunz SG

If you cannot an open mind, then keep your mouth shut!!!!

If you think the church is in the wrong and Amutha is the victim, by all means show your sympathy and open-mindedness by giving her $250,000 that she is asking for from the church and help her pay the legal fees. You want to sound like a hero, we respect that.

We are not interested in teaching people how to be smart.

« Previous Page Next Page »