"The complainant's story may seem like a bit ous of the movies," the Crown Advocate went on to say, "but there is other evidence which cannot be disregarded, even if the complainant had died the next day, and that is the medical evidence showing the injuries he yecvived. He was never gut of the police hands from 12 noon on the 5th until 3 a.m. on the following morning, and they themselves had to send him to be medically examined."
Counsel next commented on the fact that, although on the defaulters' list for that day, Loh was not taken to the Mixed Court on the 6th, being held back "for inquiry ies.".It was obvious he would not then have been a nice sight for the Mixed Court. On the following day he appeared there and the charge against him was dismissed. The injuries he received were such as could not possibly have been self-inflicted, and they must have been inflicted, the evidence would show, by the accused, with the assistance of other officers.
Referring to the alteration in Det.-Sgt, Balchin's diary, by which he sought to prove that he did not accompany Loh on his second trip te Burkill Read, the Crown Advocate said the original entry read:
"7 to 8, dinner; 8 to 12, station and office; 12 to 2 am., office inquiry into larceny from police quarters.""
When the diary came into the police court, the entry read:—
"8 to 12, station and office, and out to supper with Det.-Sgt. Schmidt." 12.45 to 3 a.m., office inquiry: into larceny from police quarters."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.