Doctor ‘concocted’ lubricant story as an excuse in case his DNA was found on rape victim: DPP

SINGAPORE — A day after he told the court that he did not use a lubricant when conducting a pelvic examination on his alleged rape victim, general practitioner Wee Teong Boo backtracked on his testimony on Friday (May 25).

On the final day of his cross-examination, the 67-year-old was presented with a statement he made to the police in 2015, that he had used saliva as a lubricant. Wee, who said he did not recall what he told the police two years ago, said the police statement had the correct version of events.

When the prosecution asked why he had used saliva when it was “full of bacteria”, Wee – a doctor of 40 years – said it was to his “general knowledge” that saliva has “antibacterial properties”.

When asked why he did not use a proper lubricant since he had remembered that he needed to use a lubricant, he said: “I can’t explain, but it was done.” Wee could not name any doctors who had used saliva as a lubricant when examining patients.

As she concluded Wee’s cross-examination, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Sharmila Sripathy-Shanaz put it to him that he had “concocted” the story to provide “an excuse” should traces of his DNA be found on his victim.

The DPP said that Wee was worried that his semen would be found in the victim as he knew he had penetrated her.

“That’s why you came up with this elaborate version of doing a vaginal examination ungloved with saliva as a lubricant,” the DPP told the High Court.

The victim, now 26, was at Wee’s clinic in Bedok at 11.30pm on Dec 30, 2015, to seek treatment for gastric problems, frequent urination and an itch on her genitals. Wee was checking her lower abdomen before he allegedly raped her.

The prosecution also pointed to other inconsistencies found over two days of cross-examination, such as the lack of medical records backing up Wee’s claim that he had conducted a vaginal examination to check for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).

The DPP said another inconsistency was found in Wee’s account of his erectile dysfunction. He had told the police on Jan 1, 2016, that he did not have the medical condition, but testified in court on May 10 that he had erectile dysfunction and would “take some time to achieve an erection”.

Pointing out the inconsistencies, DPP Sripathy-Shanaz said: “How you conducted a vaginal investigation to find PID is a lie. That’s why it was not mentioned in your case notes or any of the police statement.

“Erectile dysfunction was an afterthought… The fact is that you only saw (a urologist on Jan 5, 2016) because you were trying to find a way to get yourself out of a rape case.”

She also refuted his claim that he had not entertained thoughts of raping the victim as he knew she had a genital infection. DPP Sripathy-Shanaz said Wee “had no qualms raping her”, and that his medical conclusion was that she was suffering from urinary tract infection. That was why he had prescribed ciprofloxcin, an antibiotic that PID is known to be resistant to.

Wee also reiterated in court on Friday that the statement taken by Assistant Superintendent Carol Ong on Jan 1, 2016 was unfairly recorded.

Wee added that he did not know the “legal implications” of the statement as he did not have help from a legal counsel then, but that he had signed the statement anyway.

An impatient Justice Chua Lee Ming then asked Wee if the statement was given voluntarily, as a separate hearing would have to be catered if he wished to challenge the circumstances of how the statement was recorded as it had already been admitted as evidence.

Wee then said that it was given voluntarily, but he added: “I accept this as my signed statement, but as explained earlier…it was not 100 per cent accurate.”

Wee’s case will be heard again in the next tranche of his trial, which resumes on July 10. Nine defence witnesses are expected to be called, including Wee’s wife, and the nurses and clinic assistants who work with him.