No picture yet. Upload one or paste an image URL.
Statements CJC394 were challenged in validity by witnesses through short voice notes explaining their non-recognition and inconsistencies.
“both have provided short voice notes to explain why it is they challenge the validity of these documents commissioned by Mr Perumal”
Statement 3485 was commissioned by Rapetsu and provided by the witness, not post-factum and distinct from those commissioned by Mr Perumal.
“485 was commissioned by Rapetsu, so should it not be part of CJC 394... 3485 was provided by the witness ... No. It is only those commissioned by Mr Perumal”
Witnesses testifying to CJC394 deny knowledge of statements commissioned by Mr Perumal and state Mr Perumal took statements from Mr Adams, not on 6 January 2025 but at other times when Mr Adams and Rapetsu were together.
“they deny any knowledge of those statements as commissioned by Mr Perumal ... it definitely is not on the 6th of January 2025, because they were together at all times”