Singapore woman loses exorcism case against church -- Vietnam's largest Online News Database by Intellasia

The woman who sued the Novena Church, two priests and six churchgoers over what she described as an exorcism has lost her case.

In a 59-page written judgment, a High Court judge yesterday dismissed her claim that an alleged exorcism carried out by the priests and six helpers is to blame for causing her psychological trauma and leaving her unable to lead a normal life.

The dramatic case had unfolded in the High Court over 32 days between October 2007 and July last year.

The trial began with much drama, when the plaintiff, Amutha Valli Krishnan, 52, a tutor and former national walker, took the stand on the third day�but barely made it through 15 minutes of testimony before she broke down.

It was a pattern that would continue: The next day, she broke down again and began giving incoherent answers. The hearing was then adjourned, but she never returned to be cross-examined, and was eventually certified as unfit to testify by a doctor.

Her absence did nothing to dent the drama, however. Over hours and hours of testimony and cross-examination, the court and rapt members of the public heard striking stories of a woman who crawled like a snake on the floor of a room at the church, alleged beatings, and even a "sworn brother" accused of being intimate with Valli.

In his judgment, Justice Lee Seiu Kin noted that both sides' accounts of what happened at the church on the night of August 10, 2004, stood in stark contrast to each other.

Calling the stories on both sides "equally bisarre", he said: "These two versions of the events of that night are so different that if one side is telling the truth, then the other side is brazenly lying."

Valli's story, noted the judge, is "a chilling tale of late-night abduction by fanatics bent on driving out imaginary spirits from her".

According to her account, she had fainted at the church on the night of the incident.

Out of nowhere, she said, Father Simon Tan and Father Jacob Ong appeared, and without rhyme or reason, took her to a room, where, for 2� hours, she was harassed, restrained, assaulted and even strangled. Her family said they were prevented from helping her until family friend Resham Singh finally barged in after hearing her screams.

The defendants' version was as dramatic.

They contended that Valli was brought to the church by her family, who claimed she was possessed and asked for a priest to pray over her.

She was then seen creeping on the ground like a snake and later marched like a soldier into the room.

For the next 2� hours, the priests and six helpers held her down as she struggled and manifested a snake spirit, a soldier and a male voice claiming to be Lucifer, the Biblical devil.

In the end, the judge said that after 'considering the totality of the evidence' before him, he accepted the version of the defendants' witnesses.

Lee also said that whether what was carried out was an exorcism or something else, the label was not important. The case boiled down to the actions of what the priests and helpers were doing to Valli and the circumstances under which these acts were carried out.

He gave five broad reasons for rejecting the plaintiff's claim.

The first, he wrote, was the demeanour and consistency of the witnesses on both sides.

Lee found the evidence of the defendants' witnesses to be consistent and the manner in which they answered questions in cross-examination to have "the ring of truth".

He accepted the possibility that the 15 witnesses may have colluded to tell the same story, but noted that their testimonies contained minor differences. However, their statements did not appear to be contrived and besides, the judge said, if there was collusion, the details would have been better matched.

The performance of the defendants' witnesses contrasted sharply with that of Valli's daughter Subashini, son Jairaj and Singh, said Lee. The trio made numerous attempts to conceal embarrassing facts about Valli's "rather eventful" life, and even changed their evidence during cross-examination.

He described Subashini as an "intelligent young lady with a sharp mind and an equally sharp tongue". Her brother was less confident, but no less intelligent or articulate.

The greatest confidence was displayed by Singh, even in the face of contradicting evidence.

The judge noted that Singh "occasionally changed his evidence in cross examination".

The second reason the judge gave for arriving at his decision was that he found many dubious areas in the testimony of Valli's witnesses.

"The evidence of Subashini, Jairaj and Resham, that they were somehow railroaded into the whole incident, did not sit well with the personalities they manifested at the trial."

He noted that the trio were articulate and confident in the witness box and were able to give as good as they received from defence lawyers.

Yet, on the night in question, they were apparently helpless for 2� hours, unable to enter the room, leave the church or make a phone call for help.

"The meekness with which they accepted their being locked in is in stark contrast to the personalities they displayed at the trial."

Third, said Lee, various parts of Valli's evidence contradicted contemporaneous documents.

She stated in her affidavit that after she was "released" from the room in the church, she went to the toilet, but was unable to urinate as she was prevented from closing the door and was being watched by a man. This was related to her psychiatrists, who concluded that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the dramatic episode.

However, she stated that she had relieved herself at the church in two documents�a police report she made some 12 hours after she left the church and a court statement she swore in September 2005.

Giving his fourth reason for dismissing the suit, Lee said he was not impressed by the three attempts made by Valli and her husband Jeyabal to hide evidence of her psychiatric history.

In October 2006, she asked the Institute of Mental Health for a medical report regarding her admission in 2000.

When the report contained a mention that she had been treated at the National University Hospital from 1986 to 1989, she and her husband separately called an IMH doctor to ask that this portion be removed from it.

Valli was also treated at the Flame Tree Medical Centre from 2000 to 2005. But when she asked for a medical report, she wanted no mention of her family problems, alcoholism and depression.

And as part of court procedures in the run-up to the trial, when she was asked if she had been treated for psychiatric conditions, she omitted mention of her NUH treatment.

The final reason Lee gave for accepting the defendants' version is that their accounts, such as descriptions of her slithering like a snake in church, were backed by strong corroborating evidence.

At the time that the defendants made these statements, they did not know she had been treated at NUH in the 1980s for going into snake-like trances.

After analysing the evidence, Lee dismissed her claims that she had been confined and assaulted. He said that any physical force applied to her that night was to stop her from hurting herself.

He also found that the defendants had acted reasonably that night and had not been negligent.

"For more than two hours... the defendants reacted to the events as they chillingly unfolded before them.

"They did what their religion taught them to do, that is, pray over the plaintiff."

He said the substance of the defendants' actions that night was the "invocation of divine assistance by prayer".

As for her medical condition, Lee noted that her psychiatrists saw her as a woman who was severely disabled by trauma and depression.

Yet, Valli was captured on video going about her daily activities, going out dressed in brightly coloured clothes and working out at the gym.

The opinion of the defendants' psychiatrists was that she had a pre-existing mental condition before the church incident and that she showed features of malingering with respect to PTSD.

Though Valli's doctors maintained their view, Lee said they had been hampered in their ability to come to a correct diagnosis because they were kept in the dark about her psychiatric history. The information was likely deliberately withheld by her and her family, said the judge.

He accepted the evidence of defendants' psychiatrist that she did not suffer PTSD as a result of the events at the church.

The question remains: So what exactly is she suffering from?

"All the doctors certainly agree that she is very ill," he noted.

But Lee said this was a question for her doctors, not the court, to answer.