Date: 2014-11-04 02:38 am (UTC)
um

are we just ignoring this bit?

"In Mong's second trial on 29 November 2010, after four of his dentists came forward to support his case, the fifth and the one previously stated who took out teeth number 46 and 47 changed his statement. He explained that tooth number 47 was acutely damaged, so he pulled it out. He pulled out tooth number 46 as there was a hole in the tooth, and explained that he could not know why the hole was there. He also explained that MC Mong had not taken good care of his teeth and most of his teeth needed either care or removal. He also explained that the police told him to write in words such as “forceful” and “intense” into his account, and that he was bothered about it constantly when he did not. He explained that he had never talked to MC Mong about enlistment evasion. He explained that unlike the reports suggested, he had never received any money from MC Mong for pulling the teeth out, and that the reason he took the teeth out was not from MC Mong’s request."

he didn't even get convicted on that charge, but 'deliberately delaying enlistment on false grounds', which still seems odd since the 'false grounds' were disproven
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

omonatheydid: (Default)
omonatheymoved

March 2022

S M T W T F S
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 2025-07-03 01:47 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios