Aboriginal girl, of course you are right: If those points really are true, exactly like you and your friends know them (from News, Forumosa, …?), then this really looks like someone guilty trying to hide his guilt. But there is one very big problem for me in seeing it exactly the same way: some of the points, and especially the conclusions from or interpretations of them, seem to be very different to what has been reported before. So I am not too sure if we can take them as the truth, and rely on them in trying to understand what really happened. Some examples:
According to ZD’s statement, the timeline of the events was very different: During the day after his car was damaged he didn’t know yet about the deadly hit-and-run accident on the news. He wanted to get the car repaired (why and who knew about this? see his statement). He went to his repair shop and left the damaged car parked at the road in front of the repair shop, in full public view (not hiding it). Second he learned that the repair would be costing more than the car’s worth, so he decided to have it scrapped. Only after that his wife learned about the deadly hit-and-run involving a black Mercedes like his and told him. After he discussed what to do with several people, his wife was being asked to come to the police. He decides to go to the police by himself immediately, without waiting for a lawyer, and report what he knows on his car’s accident, plus try to find out if his car and this hit-and-run are connected. When leaving the house to go to the nearby Xinyi Police he is apprehended by the Da An Police, who does not let him go to the Xinyi police to testify.
Also, his wife got the offer to sell the car instead of scrapping it immediately (which would have destroyed the evidence). He chose to sell the car - if he wanted to destroy evidence he would better have scrapped it immediately, and hidden it well before that… so these are indicators that he was either an extremely stupid criminal, or maybe really knew and believed what he stated.
According to news reports, the retired policeman saw the damaged car in front of the shop during the day. Only later he saw the news, made the connection in his mind, and called the police. I know this is probably “a minor inaccuracy” for you - but it also contradicts other (pro-ZD) comments I saw I think on Forumosa that this policeman was allegedly actively searching for the car.
That he was tampering with evidence is not an established fact, it is judging his actions by guessing his intentions. He has a different explanation for the known facts. For me both versions are worth considering.
Sure, if news are meant to be only entertainment, like so many people seem to see it, that could be acceptable. I believe news have to be perfectly accurate, though, if you want to use them for building an educated opinion about stuff - else what to believe? I believed the “reputable” news in my country pretty much blindly until I saw them reporting on stuff that I actually was knowledgeable about. I could actually see that there were blatant lies (to make the topic look more extreme and interesting), bullshit, cluelessness, etc in lots of reports from very widely accepted “quality” news sources. Those reports must have looked very straightforward and true to everyone who is not an expert on the matter. From then on I started asking myself “If they fuck up so royally in reporting on stuff where I can judge the facts right or wrong, how about the lots of stuff that I have no clue about? How can I know that these are not similarly wrong reports?”. I am not into conspiracy theories etc., but this showed me that for making news more interesting, the truth does not actually seem to matter much.
I can’t blame you or your friends. My wife strongly believes so too, because of what she knows from Taiwan news. And they really make it look like a very clear case… Pretty much everyone who sees the news has to believe so I guess. And that’s the point: Maybe this case is not so clear as it seems. Reports from people who actually have been to the court (Maoman) show a pretty different picture. There are lots of hints that it isn’t so easy. I am not saying ZD is not guilty, I am only saying this whole case as well as the reporting looks pretty fishy. And somehow I wonder what really happened, which story is correct, …
PS: Has anyone so far found anything from ZD’s statements being contradicted by undisputed facts, or maybe different to what the court documents show that his testimony was?