There’s another hearing on the 5th. can someone get the details? Let’s pack the courtroom with foreigners in suits.
Taipei District Court Add: No.131, Bo-ai Rd., Zhongzheng District, Taipei City 100 TEL:(02)23146871
[quote=“yaoshema”]There’s another hearing coming up soon. I would have thought a strong showing by the expat community would help to make sure there is due process…reads like a gangster setup, for sure.
PS: Recently met the defendent. Read his statement of what happened, and was impressed with how important it is to make sure the Taiwan ‘judicial’ system (through the sieve of a hysterical, out of control media pressuring often incompetent and corrupt police force) does not allow an innocent person to be framed … on purely circumstantial evidence.[/quote]
Who said it’s circumstantial? Mr Dean admitted to driving the car that night, but claims it must have been after the accident as he was near his house when he resumed driving.
Satellite of love: I was going to respond, but figgered your questions are rhetorical for the most part.
Suffice it to say, I and many other people are concerned about this case, whether we know the fellow involved, and/or believe (or don’t believe, in your case) his statement, have an interest in the ‘justice’ system here, or sympathize with the treatment of foreigners here, want to help or at least stay informed… after all, it could happen to you, or any of us.
PS: your signature should read “… and ITS (not it’s) people…” But to address your idea: So wouldn’t that make you more apt to be interested in fair treatment?
Who said it’s circumstantial? Mr Dean admitted to driving the car that night, but claims it must have been after the accident as he was near his house when he resumed driving.[/quote]
What do you know about due process?
All the evidence supporting the charges against Mr. Dean is circumstantial, at best.
And a large portion of what there is has been pvroven to have been tampered with, anyway.
There was no evidence placing Dean at the scene of the crime.
There was no evidence that he was driving his car that night, to the contrary, in fact.
There certainly wasn’t any evidence that he was driving drunk, that’s why he wasn’t charged with driving drunk (a “confession” here is meaningless in the absence of any other evidence; imagine if you walked into the police station tomorrow afternoon and said you wanted to confess to driving drunk the night before, and were turning yourself in, how far do you think you’d get? :loco: ).
As has been mentioned here before, the complete absence of substantiative evidence to support Mr. Dean’s indictment is the reason that, after all this time, they still haven’t been able to set a court date.
Any DA who prosecutes this case is going to end up losing, it’s clear, and none of them want that.
FWIW, however, nobody with any (real) influence on the outcome of this case will give a monkey’s how many foreigners support Mr. Dean, nor how vehement that support may be.
Well then Mr Dean must have been lying when he wrote that he drove the car home for the last part of the journey. Was he not in the car when the accident occured? Mr Dean may have been too drunk and asleep to have noticed the accident. After all it’s not circumstantial evidence that it was his car involved and that Mr Dean had possession of the car. So one may ask, if Mr Dean was not at the scene of the crime, how was it then that he left the KTV in that car as a passenger, the accident killing another motorist occurs, yet Mr dean was back in the car near his home and was able to drive it, but he was not at the scene of the crime when it happened? After all being placed at scene doesn’t make one guilty does it?
I see his statements here on forumosa aren’t evidence. Plenty of people have gone to jail based on circumstantial evidence. All Mr Dean needs to show is that the KTV driver was driving at the time of the accident and Bob’s your uncle. Oops… I see now his statements here on forumosa aren’t evidence
Now the police may not have charged Mr Dean for drunk driving, but Mr Dean himself said he was too drunk to drive home so asked the KTV for a driver. But did he in a drunken and half sleepy state drive the car that night? His own statements suggest that he did so, but after the accident had occured.
Well then Mr Dean must have been lying when he wrote that he drove the car home for the last part of the journey.
Oops… I see now his statements here on forumosa aren’t evidence.[/quote]
First of all, that’s right, since he isn’t confessing to the charges as indicted.
However, and I’ll go slow here for you, simply driving his car that night is unrelated to any of the charges.
He’s being charged with Vehicular Manslaughter, in the death of the scooter driver, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident.
And there is no evidence to support him performing any of those acts.
Him driving the last 100 yards to his parking garage is immaterial to any of the charges.
Oh, and you really should learn to curb your form of expression, accusing anyone of “lying” in a public forum like this is the sort of thing that can get you into all kinds of trouble.
All kinds.
Perhaps SatTV is being a dinkus, but to a certain extent I agree with what he’s saying. I don’t agree with any statements he made about there being obvious guilt in this case. There’s not and I agree completely with all the others who say the police, prosecutors, judges and witnesses (the KTV people) appear to be all incompetent and/or corrupt, as usual. But I do agree with him that it seems somewhat odd and innappropriate for so many people who never met the defendant, weren’t there at the time, and have no first-hand knowlege of the facts to conclude so readily that he must be innocent. Hell, I have no idea if he’s innocent or guilty, so I’m not going to make that call either way and I’m not going to stand up in court or the media on behalf of the prosecution OR defense. I don’t want to advocate regarding something when I have no idea if my position is right or wrong. I think that’s part of the point SatTV’s trying to make and I agree with that part.
As for this . . .
I don’t know if that was meant to be critical or not, but isn’t that how it should be (at least with respect to guilt/innocence)? Perhaps the prosecutor’s decision whether or not to file charges should be influenced not just by evidence of the crime, but also by public opinion. But when deciding guilt or innocence, public opinion should have no part in the judge’s decision. It may, or may not, be relevant when it comes to sentencing, but it should be completely irrelevant with respect to the question of guilt/innocence.
As usual, if you don’t agree with the ‘consensus’ people try to shoot you down on this board. It doesn’t matter if Satellite TV is wrong or right, nobody knows what really happened, he has his own valid opinion as it’s a discussion board. Shut down this thread and it just confirms my theory 100%. I’m beginning to think I waste my time here (actually I do know I waste my time here 
).
[quote=“Toasty”]Any posts suggesting he isn’t totally blameless or may have actually done what he has been accused of doing are subject to immediate and harsh rebuttal and attack by none other than the friends and associates of the accused himself.[/quote] I’m neither a friend nor an associate of the accused.
[quote=“Toasty”]I understand this is a tough time for those close to the accused. . . .[/quote] I’m not close to the accused.
Here’s the “harsh rebuttal” that I wrote, my “attack”:
[quote=“On April 27, in this thread, I”]Just a couple of blasts from the past:
1.
Initial information:
Subsequent information:
[quote]The Filipina got sentenced to death.
If I read it correctly, David killed himself in the US in June.[/quote]
2.
Initial information:
Subsequent information:
Here’s an example of why I wrote my harsh attack, from the thread “Woman murdered in Kaohsiung,” also quoted above, a case in which the original suspect was finally released, apparently for lack of evidence:
That’s a joke right? [color=#FF0000]fack his human rights!!![/color][/quote] (emphasis added by me) Woman murdered in Gaoxiong (Kaohsiung) - #10 by igorveni
I thought I saw the beginnings of a pattern; i.e., someone is suspected or accused, some people flip out and jump to conclusions, and then after a time, the situation sometimes turns out not to be like the conclusions they jumped to.
I’m not saying that this case will turn out that way, and I’m not saying it won’t. I just thought I’d point out what looked to me like the beginnings of a pattern.
Many criminal cases take years before they get to trial. The time from the accident to the time of the trial has no bearing on his innocence or guilt. Many prosecutors around the world take on cases that are difficult to prosecute. You think the prosecutors here are running scared because they might lose? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Many are claiming that the whole police force and judiciary are corrupt and that Mr Dean is being framed. After all anytime a foreigner is charged with a crime here they must be innocent and are being setup right?
As for being a dinkus… so what? Of course when your the admin of a site you admonish other people for personally attacking the poster instead of addressing the thread but as a general hypocrite its do as you say not do as you do eh 
Read your own rules.
■Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other members of this discussion board.
I have the right to express my opnions. If some people here don’t like that then too bad. All I have questioned are the alleged facts to the statement Mr Dean wrote. I have spoken to some people who know Mr Dean who think he is guilty, and some who believe and hope he’s not.
thechief You claim there is no evidence that Mr Dean left the scene of the crime or that he was even in the car when it happened. I question that as Mr Dean has stated he was in the car at the time of the accident.
Does charging a person who was a passenger in a vehicle at the time of an accident who leaves the scene seem fair? Perhaps not, especially if they were incapacitated by being drunk. There is no dispute that Mr Dean was drunk at the time of the accident as Mr Dean has stated so himself, unless you believe that from the time he left the KTV until the point of the accident he sobered up, which is unlikely. Mr Dean says he has no recollection of the accident. So the prosecution may also argue he was so drunk he had no recollection as to the actual time he started driving the car again after leaving the KTV and was driving before the accident occured. I am not saying these are facts, just engaging in discussion.
The KTV driver is claiming Mr Dean drove himself home after asking him to get out of the car. Mr Dean claims it was near his home, the KTV driver claims Mr Dean took over driving was not far from the KTV and far away from before and where the accident occured. If Mr Dean can show the KTV driver was driving him until close to his home then would be aquitted.
So what you seem to claim does not even match up with what Mr dean himself wrote. Many people have been charged for crimes and been through the court system. It means nothing until judgements of innocence or guilt are decided by the court. Some people are wrongfully convicted, others are wrongfully aquitted, Some are rightfully convicted and some are rightfully found not guilty. Mr Deans lawyers will have their day in court to bring up the alleged tampering of the cctv footage some claim happened, and to the police getting together to frame Mr Dean. They will have the right to question the KTV driver and other witnesses statements. Mr Dean himself may testify in court.
i see what you did there…and i likes it :roflmao:
I wasn’t talking about you in particular, but rather those who are admittedly his friends IRL.
Thats right, a suspect was held but released after not being charged. Happens all the time. Mr Deans is a suspect and has been charged and released on bail. That is a common pattern. I was detained outside of Carnegies not long ago by the police, on suspicion that I may have been drunk driving. I was tested and released when the breathalyser showed no alcohol in my system.
[quote=“Toasty”][quote=“Charlie Jack”]
Here’s the “harsh rebuttal” that I wrote, my “attack”…
[/quote]
I wasn’t talking about you in particular, but rather those who are admittedly his friends IRL.[/quote]
No problem.
Thats right, a suspect was held but released after not being charged. Happens all the time. Mr Deans is a suspect and has been charged and released on bail. That is a common pattern. I was detained outside of Carnegies not long ago by the police, on suspicion that I may have been drunk driving. I was tested and released when the breathalyser showed no alcohol in my system.[/quote]
But the pattern I was referring to contains a [url=Woman murdered in Gaoxiong (Kaohsiung) - #10 by igorveni his human rights"[/url] part, and that’s an important part of that pattern, in my view.
By the way, I take back and apologize for my earlier remark about the Grinch 
. I thought maybe you was fixin’ to start talkin’ ‘bout takin’ people out back and shootin’ 'em (but apparently that punishment is restricted to foreigners who give the one-finger salute). 
[quote=“the chief”] imagine if you walked into the police station tomorrow afternoon and said you wanted to confess to driving drunk the night before, and were turning yourself in, how far do you think you’d get? :loco: ).[quote]
Well a young chappy in the USA complined to the police the drugs he bought were fake. He was charged with an offence anyways.
Self incrimination is still prosecutable.
[quote=“Charlie Jack”]But the pattern I was referring to contains a [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/woman-murdered-in-gaoxiong-kaohsiung/40374/10 his human rights"[/url] part, and that’s an important part of that pattern, in my view.
By the way, I take back and apologize for my earlier remark about the Grinch 
. I thought maybe you was fixin’ to start talkin’ ‘bout takin’ people out back and shootin’ 'em (but apparently that punishment is restricted to foreigners who give the one-finger salute). 
[/quote]
What human rights were violated?
As for the one finger salute, maybe they could just cut off the finger instead
Who said it should be restricted to foreingers? I’d hate to be excluded just because I’m not a foreigner here. :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
[quote=“Satellite TV”][quote=“Charlie Jack”]But the pattern I was referring to contains a [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/woman-murdered-in-gaoxiong-kaohsiung/40374/10 his human rights"[/url] part, and that’s an important part of that pattern, in my view.
By the way, I take back and apologize for my earlier remark about the Grinch . I thought maybe you was fixin’ to start talkin’ ‘bout takin’ people out back and shootin’ 'em (but apparently that punishment is restricted to foreigners who give the one-finger salute). [/quote]
What human rights were violated?[/quote] I was talking about the response I sometimes see on this board when a foreigner gets crossways with folks here. I wasn’t talking about what’s going on out there in the 3D world.
[quote=“Satellite TV”]As for the one finger salute, maybe they could just cut off the finger instead
Who said it should be restricted to foreingers? I’d hate to be excluded just because I’m not a foreigner here. :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:[/quote] Well, if we notice you or anybody missing a middle finger, it’ll be an example to us. 
[color=#008000][i]Just a reminder to all: In accordance with the Rules, please do not make strings of back to back posts.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
DB, Moderator[/i][/color]
[quote=“Dragonbones”][color=#008000][i]Just a reminder to all: In accordance with the Rules, please do not make strings of back to back posts.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
DB, Moderator[/i][/color][/quote]
Sorry about that. I didn’t notice it.