After all, I had been trying to ‘win over’ Mr A and hopefully have him invest in my company, the last thing I wanted to do was to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Even this guy's initial statements point to his guilt. This is just NOT a plausible explanation for scrapping a car damaged under suspicious circumstances, within hours of the events, and for a mere 1/10th of the car's value. Reporting an accident to police is a routine procedure. The client would not have even known about it. Ditto for calling the ktv to ask what happened. Only Dean and the ktv would have known about that calls. But I suspect Dean has his metaphor reversed. It's pretty clear by attempting to scrap his damaged, blood spattered car that he was attempting to make a molehill out of a mountain-- or more likely, get rid of any evidence that a hill had ever existed in the first place. I don't get the people who still support this scoundrel. Can't they read? His defences are hastily constructed lies that don't add up or even make sense. Anyone who actually reads his statements and the facts in this case can see how guilty he is.
Other notes: He didn't scrap the car "the next day," as he claims. The accident occurred after 5 am in the morning and the car was sold before noon. That not only makes it the same day, but mere hours after the accident had occurred (he might have even had it sold it sooner, if he hadn't had to wait for business hours). That means, when Dean drove the car to sell it, he was still legally impaired; so that's a second proven DUI on the same day! It's also a pretty clear indication as to his real motives for selling the car-- to dispose of evidence as quickly as possible.
