Zain Dean conviction--fatal hit & run case PART II

[Charlie Jack]

Where did you get that quote? According to the court notes, the victim died sometime after 10 AM (forgot the exact time.)

[Very important prefatory note: Y'all may have made me miss my Subway sandwich, but I think they may be open till ten.]

I posted that quote in this post:
http://forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p1450645

In hopes of preventing any future misunderstandings:

The first point of the post (under "Who knows?") was that it is possible for people in authority to suppress or (in one case) render ineffective this kind of electronic evidence (please note that the person who suppressed the video evidence in the Makiyo case was not indicted and that the person who passed footage to the media was convicted).

The second point (under "And if it does exist, who knows what it shows or doesn't show?") was that people's accounts of events recorded on video are not always reliable. The China Post article didn't mention surveillance cameras, but a Chinese language report seemed to mention them in the context of the motor scooter allegedly flying some distance from the crash (in this report it's 100 meters):

根據監視器畫面顯示，25日清晨5點04分，黃俊德的機車出現在忠孝東路四段上，過了一分鐘，這輛賓士E320出現，車速很快，疾駛而過，05：07黃俊德被撞飛將近100公尺，當場死亡。

http://www.nownews.com/2010/03/27/138-2584758.htm

I used Google translate on the above Chinese text (because I don't know Chinese), so maybe my translation was wrong, but it looked to me as if the article was associating the scooter's flying some difficult-to-imagine distance and surveillance video, as if the surveillance video showed that.

Now, none of this should be taken to mean that I don't appreciate archylgp's translations and explanations of the judgment. I do appreciate his efforts.

Now I'm gonna go see if I can get a sandwich.

Edit: got the sandwich. All is forgiven.

[Omniloquacious]

Omni,

Would you still take the same view if, for every 10 murderers caught and executed in a country which applies the death penalty for murder, 1 innocent person must be wrongly convicted and executed?

Yes, I would. Because the execution of one innocent man means the loss of one innocent life. Whereas allowing ten murderers to go scott free would most likely result in more than one additional murder, and hence the greater loss of innocent life. There will be a victim or victims either way it goes, so better the alternative that minimizes the number of victims.

But whereas I do support the death penalty, I believe it should be used very sparingly, only for the foulest and most brutal of crimes where there is absolutely no shred of possible doubt as to the accused being the perpetrator of the murder or murders for which he is charged. If there is even the tiniest scintilla of doubt as to his guilt or as to the degree of heinousness involved, he should not be executed but should receive a long sentence of imprisonment instead. Hence, under such a system, there would be almost no possibility of an innocent man being executed.

[Chris]

Omni,

Would you still take the same view if, for every 10 murderers caught and executed in a country which applies the death penalty for murder, 1 innocent person must be wrongly convicted and executed?

Yes, I would. Because the execution of one innocent man means the loss of one innocent life.

But what if the innocent person sentenced to be executed were you? Or a loved one?

[archylgp]

Where did you get that quote? According to the court notes, the victim died sometime after 10 AM (forgot the exact time.)

[Very important prefatory note: Y'all may have made me miss my Subway sandwich, but I think they may be open till ten.]

I posted that quote in this post:
http://forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p1450645

In hopes of preventing any future misunderstandings:

The first point of the post (under "Who knows?") was that it is possible for people in authority to suppress or (in one case) render ineffective this kind of electronic evidence (please note that the person who suppressed the video evidence in Makiyo case was not indicted and that the person who revealed it to the media was convicted).

The second point (under "And if it does exist, who knows what it shows or doesn't show?") was that people's accounts of events recorded on video are not always reliable. The China Post article didn't mention surveillance cameras, but a Chinese language report seemed to mention them in the context of the motor scooter allegedly flying some distance from the crash (in this report it's 100 meters):

根據監視器畫面顯示，25日清晨5點04分，黃俊德的機車出現在忠孝東路四段上，過了一分鐘，這輛賓士E320出現，車速很快，疾駛而過，05：07黃俊德被撞飛將近100公尺，當場死亡。

http://www.nownews.com/2010/03/27/138-2584758.htm

I used Google translate on the above Chinese text (because I don't know Chinese), so maybe my translation was wrong, but it looked to me as if the article was associating the scooter's flying some difficult-to-imagine distance with surveillance video, as if the surveillance video showed that.

Now, none of this should be taken to mean that I don't appreciate archylgp's translations and explanations of the judgment. I do appreciate his efforts.

Now I'm gonna go see if I can get a sandwich.

I just read that article you posted. If their time table is true, then there is reliable government video footage of where the cars were and at what time, which would make identifying when and where the driver left fairly easy. Such video was not allowed to be used in court, however. This is what was written in the court notes:

Spoiler: show

道路監視器之設置，固有維護治安、協助破案實效，然其究非用以監控民眾所有舉動之工具，更非法定必要蒐證手段。被告林克穎及其辯護人置前述客觀事證不論，徒以渠等主張被告林克穎返家沿路，尚有眾多監視器鏡頭可能錄到相關畫面，卻未經警方提供調查，質疑蒐證不當云云置辯，實有未洽。況且監視器畫面之拍攝範圍，因受限於角度、位置等影響，容有拍攝道路者，亦有拍攝騎樓或各該設置人出入口位置者，更難憑空推論有如被告林克穎及其辯護人所主張對其有利之內容存在。再其所指諸多監視器中，或於99年3 月25日仍未開通使用、或至本院函詢時已經覆蓋無法提供、或係當時尚未實際啟用傳送影像之公用監視器、或屬未經實際裝設、提供之私人設置監視器，甚至有錄影功能故障者（見本院卷一第122、204、205頁、172、174、176、295頁；偵查卷三第414至416頁）， 自難據為有利被告林克穎之認定。被告林克穎辯護人另以偵查卷中一紙載有「先做USB備份」 字樣之紙張（見偵查卷三第422頁），指摘警方隱匿有利被告林克穎之證據（ 見本院卷二第127頁）， 並據此作為有利被告林克穎反證之主張，亦屬無據；蓋本案卷內確經調得經原審及本院勘驗在案之監視器畫面，是以前開先做備份用語，核與現存卷證資料難謂不符，此參看同一紙張，尚繪製有信義路、松仁路路口簡圖，並於圖中之東北、西南方對角標示「沒有」（監視器畫面）等情形，益證其實。至於上述監視器使用情形之函查結果（各該單位回函），則屬本院查詢資料存在與否之回函，並非用以證明被告林克穎犯罪之證據，是與刑事訴訟法第154條第2項規定認定犯罪實所應依憑，而經嚴格證明之「證據」不同，況且該等監視系統尚未正式驗收，並有未為影像傳送之情形，亦經載明在卷，被告林克穎辯護人徒以無法判斷警局是否僅依承商提供之報表，而未進行實質查證，進而否認該回函之「證據能力」，亦有誤會。被告林克穎辯護人另引用媒體報導中，關於「警方過濾監視器畫面和目擊者提供的車號，循線逮捕肇事的司機」之用語，質疑警方藏匿監視畫面云云（見本院卷第97、109頁），更屬無稽； 蓋被告林克穎既為警方查獲之嫌犯，果有該等所謂經警隱匿，並足以認定「肇事司機」之監視器畫面存在，自可隨案移送，何來「隱匿」必要？被告林克穎及其辯護人無限引申未有具體事證記載之報導用語，及卷內資料之片段記載，強行附會，恣意指控，據為前開答辯依據，實不足採。另被告林克穎及其辯護人一再主張被告林克穎警詢當日，尚有一名至今未經傳喚到庭之外事警察，見到卓俊呈表情惶恐、心神不寧，因而向被告林克穎表示「應該有問題」云云，除經證人警員莊孟霖證稱其僅前往臺北市政府警察局大安分局協助製作筆錄，未到名亨酒店或車禍現場，並據被告林克穎確認莊孟霖並非其所指之外事警察（見本院卷第218頁背面、第219頁）。證人即於99年3 月間任職臺北市政府警察局大安分局敦化派出所副所長，並支援戒護陪同被告林克穎前往分局應訊之范達煥證稱其支援過程，未與被告林克穎直接對話，且對被告林克穎主張另有其他外事警察到場一節，亦無印象（見本院卷二第40、41頁）。佐以臺北市政府警察局僅於99年3月27日上午8時派遣外事服務站警員莊孟霖赴大安分局偵查隊執行涉外案件翻譯工作，有該局101 年7月3日函（見本院卷第110頁）； 內政部警政署刑事警察局則未於99年3 月26日至27日派員前往大安分局出勤，亦有內政部警政署刑事警察局101 年7月5日函可憑（見本院卷二第112頁）。 均無被告林克穎所辯該外事警察之相關資料。況且被告林克穎辯稱該「外事警察」對其表示卓俊呈「應該有問題」一節，縱屬實在，亦僅為該「外事警察」個人推測判斷意見，並不足為被告林克穎遭受誣陷之認定。遑論本件車禍事故涉及人命，以證人卓俊呈自承曾經駕駛肇事車輛之情形而言，在結束調查程序，甚至釐清責任歸屬以前，面對多名警察人員前往調查之場面，亦難期其得以神情自若，輕鬆應對。故不論其表情緊張與否，均不足為認定其供述內容真偽，乃至於被告林克穎涉案與否之證明。被告林克穎辯護人再次聲請函詢「臺北市警察局外事課」確認該課派員至大安分局出勤一節，除其行文對象並非機關外，並經臺北市政府警察局回覆在卷，詳同前述，自無就同一事件，向相同機關反覆函詢之必要.

I think there are a few things we can take from this case. If you get in trouble here, you can't depend on facts to reveal the truth. Information will not be made available and the system seems to have made its decision before trial begins. It is very easy to paint a certain picture and then exclude anything that contradicts it. With this in mind, I think it would be intelligent to avoid aspects of Taiwanese society that are known to be criminal, like certain KTVs, as well as doing anything that makes one vulnerable to manipulation, like becoming highly intoxicated. Whether Dean is guilty or not is impossible to tell with the information at hand. And this information does not include whatever the journalist writing that article had, which is telling, I think. These are just my thoughts on the matter, of course. This entire event is tragic and I'll leave it at that.

[headhonchoII]

Omni,

Would you still take the same view if, for every 10 murderers caught and executed in a country which applies the death penalty for murder, 1 innocent person must be wrongly convicted and executed?

Yes, I would. Because the execution of one innocent man means the loss of one innocent life. Whereas allowing ten murderers to go scott free would most likely result in more than one additional murder, and hence the greater loss of innocent life. There will be a victim or victims either way it goes, so better the alternative that minimizes the number of victims.

But whereas I do support the death penalty, I believe it should be used very sparingly, only for the foulest and most brutal of crimes where there is absolutely no shred of possible doubt as to the accused being the perpetrator of the murder or murders for which he is charged. If there is even the tiniest scintilla of doubt as to his guilt or as to the degree of heinousness involved, he should not be executed but should receive a long sentence of imprisonment instead. Hence, under such a system, there would be almost no possibility of an innocent man being executed.

There's a problem with this, because there is no check on this system being used to railroad people. As we can see happening now in China, it become a political tool.

[Charlie Jack]

I think there are a few things we can take from this case. If you get in trouble here, you can't depend on facts to reveal the truth. Information will not be made available and the system seems to have made its decision before trial begins. It is very easy to paint a certain picture and then exclude anything that contradicts it. With this in mind, I think it would be intelligent to avoid aspects of Taiwanese society that are known to be criminal, like certain KTVs, as well as doing anything that makes one vulnerable to manipulation, like becoming highly intoxicated. Whether Dean is guilty or not is impossible to tell with the information at hand. And this information does not include whatever the journalist writing that article had, which is telling, I think. These are just my thoughts on the matter, of course. This entire event is tragic and I'll leave it at that.

Your thoughts closely resemble mine.

[Omniloquacious]

Omni,

Would you still take the same view if, for every 10 murderers caught and executed in a country which applies the death penalty for murder, 1 innocent person must be wrongly convicted and executed?

Yes, I would. Because the execution of one innocent man means the loss of one innocent life.

But what if the innocent person sentenced to be executed were you? Or a loved one?

Then I would be prejudiced and probably view it differently.

But viewing it rationally and objectively, from the point of view of what's best for society, I must give my support to the outcome that delivers the best balance of benefit over harm to society as a whole, not to me as an individual member of it.

[TheGingerMan]

Omni,

Would you still take the same view if, for every 10 murderers caught and executed in a country which applies the death penalty for murder, 1 innocent person must be wrongly convicted and executed?

Yes, I would. Because the execution of one innocent man means the loss of one innocent life.

But what if the innocent person sentenced to be executed were you? Or a loved one?

One out of 10? Where do these Stats come from? Which Country is this?

[Super Hans]

One out of 10? Where do these Stats come from? Which Country is this?

The principality of Sealand.

[Confuzius]

Just a sidenote:

I know someone in the US who was convicted of a DUI while passed out drunk in his car. It was parked (legally) on the street and he was in the front seat, sleeping like a dunk little baby.