Quichocho witness finds Kim ‘very sophisticated’

»Witness testifies she did not see bruises on Kim’s wrists hours after alleged Guam rape
Share

Attorney Ramon K. Quichocho’s own witness found Jung Ja Kim, the businesswoman accusing Quichocho of raping her twice, to be “very pretty, cute, very sophisticated.” The witness also testified that she did not see any bruises on Kim’s wrist, hours after the alleged first rape occurred.
Barbara Iglecias testified in federal court on Wednesday that she first met Kim at King’s Restaurant in Guam on Nov. 2, 2008. Iglecias said she and her aunt had breakfast with Quichocho and Kim at that restaurant.

She said she was surprised to see Kim as she was expecting Quichocho’s wife, Frances, to be there.

Iglecias said that Quichocho, who is related to her fiancée, introduced her to Kim, who she later found out from her aunt was Quichocho’s client.

“She’s very pleasant. She’s pretty, cute, very sophisticated,” she said.

When asked by Quichocho’s counsel, Michael Dotts, if she noticed anything odd about Kim during their 45-minute-to-an-hour breakfast, Iglecias replied there was none.

Iglecias stated that she did not notice any bruises on Kim’s wrists and that she did not observe signs of crying like puffy eyes in Kim’s.

Kim earlier testified that Quichocho raped her inside the room they shared at Hyatt Hotel in Guam on Nov. 1, 2008. She alleged that as a result, she suffered bruises on her wrists. She also testified that after the incident she and Quichocho had breakfast with the latter’s aunt and another person.

Kim said the second rape was in Quichocho’s apartment unit in San Jose, Saipan, on Dec. 10, 2008. Iglecias said she found out only about the rape allegations on the news about Kim’s lawsuit.

Upon questioning by attorney Robert T. Torres, counsel for Kim, Iglecias agreed that at the time, she never saw Kim cry and that she was not aware that Kim was Quichocho’s client and that a psychiatrist saw her in Guam for anxiety and depression treatment.

Iglecias agreed she had no knowledge that Quichocho and Kim spent that night in one room at Hyatt Hotel in Guam. She agreed with Torres that when she looked at Kim she was not looking for bruises.

Quichocho’s expert witness, David Demapan, also testified yesterday. Demapan used to serve as chief financial officer for Marianas Public Lands Authority, and comptroller at the Commonwealth Ports Authority and the NMI Retirement Fund. He said he completed professional accountancy but is not a certified public accountant.

Quichocho hired Demapan to prepare an expert witness report to determine whether or not it was viable for Latte Stone LLC to continue operating on Rota or close it down. He was also asked to determine how much invested capital the owner put into the company.

Demapan’s opinion is that based on Latte Stone’s statement of cash flows from 2008 to 2011, it is very clear that the company was not viable to continue its poker operations on Rota.

Demapan also concluded that the owner of Latte Stone invested $100,784 in capital plus the company owes the owner $25,728 as of Dec. 31, 2011.

Kim said she formed Latte Stone in October 2008 under Frances’ name upon Quichocho’s advice, apparently so her name will not appear as the owner to prevent Kim’s ex-husband from harassing her. Frances claims she owns the company.

When Saipan Tribune left the courtroom yesterday afternoon, Tony Muña was also testifying as an expert witness for Quichocho. Muña used to serve as executive director of the Commonwealth Utilities Corp. and was a receiver for the Bank of Saipan.

Ferdie De La Torre | Reporter
Ferdie Ponce de la Torre is a senior reporter of Saipan Tribune. He has a bachelor’s degree in journalism and has covered all news beats in the CNMI. He is a recipient of the CNMI Supreme Court Justice Award. Contact him at ferdie_delatorre@Saipantribune.com

Related Posts

Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.