Well, good for you.
May be you can represent me?
However, the opposite is not really true, is it? You were up against the word of two Taiwanese police officers, Why were you up against their word in the first place? If they were honest police officers who were doing what they should be doing - ie, delivering good, honest, well submitted evidence, THEY would have won.
Just because you got off, it doesn’t mean you weren’t subjected to corruption.
[quote=“Super Hans”]Well, good for you.
May be you can represent me?
However, the opposite is not really true, is it? You were up against the word of two Taiwanese police officers, Why were you up against their word in the first place? If they were honest police officers who were doing what they should be doing - ie, delivering good, honest, well submitted evidence, THEY would have won.
Just because you got off, it doesn’t mean you weren’t subjected to corruption.[/quote]
A HA!
In Communist Russia, points score YOU!!!
[quote=“Feiren”][quote=“Charlie Jack”]Well, that’s bad news.
I don’t know Chinese, so the following questions are mostly out of curiosity (but note to mod(s), they pertain to the topic): Does anyone know if courts here routinely make transcripts of criminal trials? If not, do they electronically record the trials for possible transcription on request (i. e., for a fee)? And do they keep files of cases in the courthouse (or anywhere) and make them available for examination by members of the public?[/quote]
Yes there is a transcript. The proceedings are recorded electronically. They are not available to members of the public, but they are available to the defendant and his lawyer. The defendant can release them to members of the public.
I don’t think you can get a transcript of the recorded proceedings. They can be reviewed on appeal–i.e. played for the lawyer to review and played in court if there are questions about the transcripts (bilu). This comes up more for transcripts of pre-trial police and prosecutor questioning though.
The do keep files of the case in the courthouse. Again the defendant and his lawyer can access these although there are limitations on what materials can be copied and the other parties may have moved to keep some materials out of the general file.[/quote]
Thanks very much for that information.
One more question (and it’s not meant to doubt or disagree with you in any way): How do you think Apple Daily (or I guess it was Apple Daily) got the (presumably) verbatim account of exchanges between Judge Tseng and Chen Shui-Bian from which this translation was presumably made (it’s just a little ways down the page, or you can just type money in your browser’s “Find” box)? Did one of their reporters transcribe it in the courtroom, or get access to an electronic recording of it, or even record it electronically? Serious, sincere question, not rhetorical, not sarcastic (note to mods: I’m asking this question in relation to Mr. Dean’s case, not in order to start a new topic).
[quote=“Super Hans”]Well, good for you.
May be you can represent me?
However, the opposite is not really true, is it? You were up against the word of two Taiwanese police officers, Why were you up against their word in the first place? If they were honest police officers who were doing what they should be doing - ie, delivering good, honest, well submitted evidence, THEY would have won.
Just because you got off, it doesn’t mean you weren’t subjected to corruption.[/quote]
Actually I was innocent.
I have no idea of whether he is innocent or not, and without seeing the evidence and investigating it carefully I wouldn’t guess, given the uncertain state of the justice system here. It’s sad for all involved.
One thing that has left me wondering-surely there should be enough video footage of the whole route to his home on random cameras. Therefore, if the actual crash is shown as per the quote above, it is extremely likely that other things such as the driver of the car at different times, or the KTV worker getting out of the car, or the parking of the car at Mr Dean’s home, could be found.[/quote]
As has been brought up numerous times, and as is mentioned in the trial accounts, a large number of the cameras at intersections enroute had their data deleted for the time frames in question.
The driver was not identifiable in the footage of the actual collision.
Again, the prosecution was unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to prove that ZD was ever at the wheel after leaving the KTV.[/quote]
Fairy muff, although I would quibble that it actually hasn’t been brought up numerous times, that Mr Dean hasn’t made a point of detailing his immediate efforts to seek out each and every camera along the route and near his home and his parking place to find the shred of evidence to exonerate himself, while out of all the supposed non-performing cameras along the way, prosecutors managed to find the exact one that actually shows impact.
Besides having still no idea if he was really driving at the time or not, I also have no idea how they can keep a straight face and convict him. Well, I do, but it’s perverting justice into farce.
[quote=“fenlander”]
Actually I was innocent.[/quote]Despite corruption and what have you, being innocent is, more often than not, the key to success as a defendant. 
[quote=“RobinTaiwan”][quote=“fenlander”]
Actually I was innocent.[/quote]Despite corruption and what have you, being innocent is, more often than not, the key to success as a defendant. [/quote]
Thanks Rob 
[quote=“fenlander”][quote=“Super Hans”]Well, good for you.
May be you can represent me?
However, the opposite is not really true, is it? You were up against the word of two Taiwanese police officers, Why were you up against their word in the first place? If they were honest police officers who were doing what they should be doing - ie, delivering good, honest, well submitted evidence, THEY would have won.
Just because you got off, it doesn’t mean you weren’t subjected to corruption.[/quote]
Actually I was innocent.[/quote]
Fenlander,
I think you misunderstood Hans here. The way I read his message is that he was agreeing that, by definition, because you were innocent, the policemen were lying, and therefore you were “subject to corruption” (poor choice of words, perhaps – I think he means “you experienced firsthand”) corruption by the police.
[quote=“Rotalsnart”][quote=“fenlander”][quote=“Super Hans”]Well, good for you.
May be you can represent me?
However, the opposite is not really true, is it? You were up against the word of two Taiwanese police officers, Why were you up against their word in the first place? If they were honest police officers who were doing what they should be doing - ie, delivering good, honest, well submitted evidence, THEY would have won.
Just because you got off, it doesn’t mean you weren’t subjected to corruption.[/quote]
Actually I was innocent.[/quote]
Fenlander,
I think you misunderstood Hans here. The way I read his message is that he was agreeing that, by definition, because you were innocent, the policemen were lying, and therefore you were “subject to corruption” (poor choice of words, perhaps – I think he means “you experienced firsthand”) corruption by the police.[/quote]
ok thanks.
[quote=“Rotalsnart”][quote=“fenlander”][quote=“Super Hans”]Well, good for you.
May be you can represent me?
However, the opposite is not really true, is it? You were up against the word of two Taiwanese police officers, Why were you up against their word in the first place? If they were honest police officers who were doing what they should be doing - ie, delivering good, honest, well submitted evidence, THEY would have won.
Just because you got off, it doesn’t mean you weren’t subjected to corruption.[/quote]
Actually I was innocent.[/quote]
Fenlander,
I think you misunderstood Hans here. The way I read his message is that he was agreeing that, by definition, because you were innocent, the policemen were lying, and therefore you were “subject to corruption” (poor choice of words, perhaps – I think he means “you experienced firsthand”) corruption by the police.[/quote]
That’s how I read it, too.
I have a question regarding Zain Dean. I am pretty sure I knew him back in Taiwan. He was running a new media company with a fellow called Warwick. I remember have lunch with him at Dan Ryans back in the mid-90’s. I know that info. is sketchy but any of you guys who know him confirm that this might be the same guy.
[quote=“Kea”]Fairy muff, although I would quibble that it actually hasn’t been brought up numerous times, that Mr Dean hasn’t made a point of detailing his immediate efforts to seek out each and every camera along the route and near his home and his parking place to find the shred of evidence to exonerate himself, while out of all the supposed non-performing cameras along the way, prosecutors managed to find the exact one that actually shows impact.
Besides having still no idea if he was really driving at the time or not, I also have no idea how they can keep a straight face and convict him. Well, I do, but it’s perverting justice into farce.[/quote]
Well as Mr Dean wrote himself on this forum, Mr Dean wrote about driving his car his car home after telling the driver to get near his home, which would have been after the accident, the cameras near his home would only show Mr Drean driving the car. Go read Mr Dean’s statement. There is no clear evidence the the jury of Forumosa knows about that he was driving the car at the time of the accident, but obviously the judge did not accept Mr Deans version of the event.
And here we have humanity in all its finest.
Someone is dead.
Someone is in prison.
Move along.
Yep, same guy.
[quote=“wollemi”]And here we have humanity in all its finest.
Someone is dead.
Someone is in prison.[/quote]
No one’s in prison. Yet.
Yep, same guy.
[quote=“wollemi”]And here we have humanity in all its finest.
Someone is dead.
Someone is in prison.[/quote]
No one’s in prison. Yet.[/quote]
Someone died. Someone got convicted of something.
And someone can appeal that conviction as well.
And someone can appeal that conviction as well.[/quote]
You can argue it any way that best makes sense to you. It boils down to this though. One person died. Another person has not escaped from thinking about that happening. There is the law. There is the justice. Everything exists in the mind.
Move along.
Moving along is for defeatists.
Rubbernecking is for the slack of jaw. 
I would dare say the deceased mans family is more than one person thinking about their loss.