Sorry, but there are so many errors in your assumtions that your result is even worser than any guess. To state just a few:
Vehicles are desigened to deform on inpact to absorb most of the energy of crashes, that’s why the guys car was at the work shop, so first part where energy is lost
Same goes with the scooter, also with the rider if he isnt made of steel or something
even on a head on impact, it’s not a 90 degree surface, so energy lost in spin, etc.
the direction, it not that you hit im in an angle where he will be shot away in 45 degree, either in a flat curve or spined high and over the car
if it hits him straight he will slide over the ground thus even losing more energy, you need to have an angle to start, those need energy to lift him up
energy also transfered to the scooter as well not only to the rider, most likely more to it as it is on the ground and hit by the car while the driver is higher up and more above the front of the car
reactions before impact, change of direction of vehicles, breaking on both sides, etc.
if one of the objects is way heavier than the other it simply won’t stop because of the impact nor will it transfer all energy to the other object (besides the stated losses)
and there are quite some more I am sure
Despite that, the guy is dead and nothing will bring him back, that includes exaggerating the details of his death.
I’ve been out of the States for quite a while; has the standard of proof changed?
[quote]Different standards of proof are commonly used to resolve disputed issues in the criminal justice process. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence simply means proof sufficient to establish that it is more likely than not that a contested fact or event occurred. Clear and convincing evidence requires more proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard but less than is required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The highest burden of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While this is well known as the standard that must be satisfied to convict a person of a criminal offense, prior to 1970 the Supreme Court had never explicitly so ruled. Ironically, the Court did not make this announcement in a criminal case but in a juvenile deliquency case involving a 12-year-old boy.
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed. 2d 368 (1970)[:]
[quote]* * *
Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable-doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.[/quote][/quote]-- James R. Acker and David C. Brody, [i]Criminal Procedure: A Contemporary Perspective[/i], 2nd edition (2004), pp. 516-517 (The bracketed colon and the asterisks to indicate ellipsis are mine; the italics are in the original.)
Well if it’s not 80 meters will it make the guy any less dead? Since when did any newspaper not embellish something of their stories?
Maybe it was 18 meters or 8 meters. It doesnt really matter. The guy might have been dragged 80 meters by the vehicle. The story line seems straight forward enough. We can remove all the drama and speculation of how far the dead man was sent flying.
A valet left the club driving the car with Mr Dean in the car in the early hours of the morning. Mr Dean we assume asked the valet to drive as he had been drinking and may have been over the legal limit to drive.
The valet returned several mintues later. He says Mr Dean asked him to get out of the car and drove on by himself. Witnesses confirm the valet returning to the club within 6 minutes of leaving.
The car belonging to Mr Dean was involved in a hit and run accident that kill a man. The hence unknown driver and car fled the scene of the crime. Mr Dean claims to not have been driving the car. Mr Dean had possession of the car after the accident. Mr Dean had his GF drive the car to the mechanics to be sold off. Mr Dean knew the car was involved in an accident yet hid the car from the police. An off duty policeman spotted the car by chance, a black mercedes that had been seen in a hit and run accident. So it seems that witnesses saw the car accident but not who was driving perhaps. The police were looking for a black mercedes invovled in a hit and run accident. so information about that had been sent out
The information above does not seem to be disputed. What we dont know is what time the accident occured exactly. Was it at the time the valet was driving or not? The police may know these facts.[/quote]
Mate, I agree that if he was driving, then drove away he should get due punishment for that, for not reporting it (conspiracy to hide evidence), and possibly for the crash itself. And some of these even if he wasn’t driving of course. However, the unanswered issues with your description (however plausible it is) are:
Which witnesses saw him return, and can they be trusted? How could he have returned within 6 minutes-he would have only driven 300-500 metres away? The valet says…so it’s his word against Mr. Deans?
What about the actual accident, who was likely at fault-have police released an accident mock-up? Did he have possession immediately after the accident, or at some other time? Did the valet drive him home, after the accident? Did the witnesses at the scene witness people changing seats, or a man walking away from the scene? When did he call his ‘wife’ (CSI call records and locations would be handy). When was the car taken to the repair shop?
That’s my last on this sad subject till some real facts come out. A poor young man died.
[quote=“Kea”]Which witnesses saw him return, and can they be trusted? How could he have returned within 6 minutes-he would have only driven 300-500 metres away? The valet says…so it’s his word against Mr. Deans? What about the actual accident, who was likely at fault-have police released an accident mock-up? Did he have possession immediately after the accident, or at some other time? Did the valet drive him home, after the accident? Did the witnesses at the scene witness people changing seats, or a man walking away from the scene? When did he call his ‘wife’ (CSI call records and locations would be handy). When was the car taken to the repair shop?
That’s my last on this sad subject till some real facts come out. A poor young man died.[/quote]
Bystanders apparently not related to the club saw him walking back. Why should they not be trusted?
Not possible for the valet to have driven Mr Deans, have had an accident then driven the car back to Mr Deans place, then have returned to the club inside of 6 minutes of leaving the club. Fault is not an issue in a hit and run acident when the other pseron is killed. Mr Dean didnt call his wife his wife called him at 11am the morning of the accident according to Mr dean on the you tube link I gave, which occured at just after 5am. CSI call records… do you guys watch too much TV? CSI?
The “wife” gf took the car that day to the mechanics. That is not in dispute. They decided to scrap the car even though they both knew it had been involved in a hit an run accident that killed somebody. Make of that what you will.
What’s in dispute is who was driving the car. Mr Dean said it was the club driver and it cannot have been himself as he was drunk and asleep and doesnt remember anything. The valet says he was told to get out of the car and Mr Dean drove himself home.The witnesses who saw a black mercedes kill the guy have not made statements to the media afaik most likely only to the police. The may not have seen how many people were in the car. The police have charged Mr Dean not the club driver so we can assume they accepted the club driver was not in the car when the acccident happened. The polce only happened upon the car by chance. The mechanic most likely did not know about the accident
. . . Bystanders apparently not related to the club saw him walking back. . . . [/quote]
I’m not doubting you, but I wonder where this information is from. Is it from one of the newspaper articles, one of the TV reports or the police?
Sorry if it’s already been covered in this thread, but does anyone know how far it is from the club on Songjiang to the scene of the accident on Chung Hsiao E. Rd. Sec 4? (3 kilometers?) At 5 a.m., traffic is probably moving along at a good clip. You can cover 3 kms. (or whatever the distance is) in very little time if you hit the lights right.
But we’re talking about Chung Hsiao East Road . . . Section Four!. I can imagine there is always some traffic on what may be the most famous stretch of road in Taiwan, and I was thinking that news crews would have usually dug up an eye witness or ten to such a violent collision on “Main Street” Taipei. Granted, many witnesses may prefer to quickly move on rather than deal with a gruesome traffic fatality.
Bystanders apparently not related to the club saw him walking back. . . . [/quote]
I’m not doubting you, but I wonder where this information is from. Is it from one of the newspaper articles, one of the TV reports or the police?.[/quote]
From the Police. I guess that the police can’t be trusted either. But also he is on club video coming back at the club as well. I guess some people will claim the time stamping has been fiddled with now too. The valet says he only drove from the club on Sungjiang Road to the corner of Songjiang and Shih Ping Street, a short distance away when he was asked to get out of the car and Mr Dean allegedly drove from then on. He walked back to the club as the distance is very short. So the police do not believe it could be possible the club driver drove the car, had the accident, took Mr Dean home then got back to the club within the time frame he was away. They accept his claim that Mr Dean drove from the corner of Songjiang and Shih Ping Street.
So if the valet could not have been in the car how did the car get back to where Mr Dean could tell his GD to take it to the mechanics shop?
Especially as Mr Dean apparently lives near Taipei 101 at Hsinyi Section 5 and Song Zhi Road. No way to get there and back to the club in a few minutes. If Mr Dean was so drunk and could not remember how did he know where his car was for the GF to take it away?
Maybe they should call Henry Lee back froim the US. Apparently for a Taiwanese he might have have enough credibility.
Dr. Henry C. Lee (Branford, CT), Professor of Forensic Science at the University of New Haven and Chief Emeritus in the Department of Public Safety in Meriden, CT, has been a consultant for over 300 police and law enforcement agencies and an expert witness in many high profile cases for both the prosecution and the defense. A distinguished fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, he is the author or coauthor of more than 20 books, including Cracking Cases
[quote=“zender”]Sorry if it’s already been covered in this thread, but does anyone know how far it is from the club on Songjiang to the scene of the accident on Zhongxiao E. Rd. Sec 4?[/quote] I don’t know, but according to this blog entry that cites ETTV News as its source, prosecutors said that the distance between the two places is 5.2 kilometers (unless I’ve misread the entry): tw.myblog.yahoo.com/asir-200/art … &next=9429
How was the valet going to get back after driving Dean home?
Maybe a second car followed, the valet crashed the car. They drove the valet back and dropped him off , Dean drove his wrecked car home or another driver from the second car drove Dean home from the scene of the accident. Why did the valet let an obviously drunk person drive when he was instructed to drive him home? If Dean did hit the guy why isn’t the KTV responsible for letting him drive home drunk?
What second car followed? There is no second car. You are just introducing things that don’t exist.
Maybe Mr Dean had to pay for the valet to drive him home and then get a taxi back. Thats not an issue here. The valet could not have been driving at the time of the accident as he was already back at the club when the accident happened. That is supported by witnesses and by video cameras, and by checking the time it takes to drive to the corner of Songjiang and Shih Ping Street and walking back to the club. That certainly seems to support the valets claims which the police and prosecutors accept.
Mr Dean has every right to tell somebody to get out of his car even if he is allegedly drunk. If the valet was not serving Mr Dean drinks he could not know if Mr Dean was drunk. Mr Dean owns the car, Mr Dean is an adult, you should not blame the KTV because he ejected the valet and drove himself home. He was being driven home by the KTV valet but obviously changed his mind. What did you want the valet to do?
In anycase Mr Dean claims he was drunk and asleep at the time and doesnt remember anything and wasnt driving the car. Maybe he doesnt remember telling the valet to get out and driving himself home, or the accident. Why would Mr Dean drive his car home if the valet had been driving and had been in an accident that killed somebeody?
But Mr Dean certainly remembered enough to take the car to a mechanic and to have it scrapped to avoid being caught knowing the car had been in an accident.
Lets wait for the court case to press on and see what comes of that.
Another way of looking at the possibilities might be -
If it is 5.2Km between the club and the accident. 60Kph = 1Kpm. “Bystanders” say the valet returned in 6 minutes. 3 minutes to go 5.2Km each way. 6 minutes to go 10.4Km. What is the average speed required?
Another, what if it was 10 minutes? 5 minutes each way. An average speed of just over 60Kph would make this. Even shorter at higher speeds. For fun look at an average of 80 forward and 120 back. Just saying, maybe that should be looked at. Who knows? For sure none of us.
What second car followed? There is no second car. You are just introducing things that don’t exist.
Maybe Mr Dean had to pay for the valet to drive him home and then get a taxi back. Thats not an issue here. The valet could not have been driving at the time of the accident as he was already back at the club when the accident happened. That is supported by witnesses and by video cameras, and by checking the time it takes to drive to the corner of Songjiang and Shih Ping Street and walking back to the club. That certainly seems to support the valets claims which the police and prosecutors accept.
Mr Dean has every right to tell somebody to get out of his car even if he is allegedly drunk. If the valet was not serving Mr Dean drinks he could not know if Mr Dean was drunk. Mr Dean owns the car, Mr Dean is an adult, you should not blame the KTV because he ejected the valet and drove himself home. He was being driven home by the KTV valet but obviously changed his mind. What did you want the valet to do?
In anycase Mr Dean claims he was drunk and asleep at the time and doesnt remember anything and wasn’t driving the car. Maybe he doesnt remember telling the valet to get out and driving himself home, or the accident. Why would Mr Dean drive his car home if the valet had been driving and had been in an accident that killed somebeody?
But Mr Dean certainly remembered enough to take the car to a mechanic and to have it scrapped to avoid being caught knowing the car had been in an accident.
Lets wait for the court case to press on and see what comes of that.[/quote]
Oh, the irony of starting an assumption-filled post by accusing another poster of making stuff up . . .
