MAOMAN wrote:And despite the claims of the KTV driver, there is no video evidence putting him back at the KTV six minutes later. None.Thu Jul 26, 2012 21:40
The court actually examined the two CCTV takes from 4am to 5am and 5am to 6am and found nothing wrong with their recordings. Nobody saw you there examining any videos now did that Mr Anthony Van Dyck?
Do you see how irresponsible you are Anthony Van Dyck? claiming to witness the trials and issue edicts that the case had fallen apart and that ZD would not be convicted.
Then you post more lies about the case. The KTV driver was not only on video as being back at the KTV, but other witnesses placed him there as well. These are in the official court records.
You have no credibility at all. None. You should be ashamed of yourself to go around pretending to be such an expert with all your experiences about traffic accidents and court proceedings. Yet here you are, making posts after the appeal courts ruling on the video evidence disputing the courts findings.
1. KTV video:
4:00:00 The valet (valet A: black thick frame glasses and black vest) and another valet (Valet B: dark down jacket) was in the scene.
4:43:57 The video showed defendant, his host, and one KTV employee (Employee E) entered the scene, talked with valet A
4:44:34 Valet A left the scene, defendant talked with the host
4:49:26 Vehicle entered the scene, E approached the vehicle, defendant and his host walked to the vehicle with each had one hand behind the other's back for support.
defendant and host chatted briefly, and the host opened the door of front passenger's seat, and closed the door after defendant entered the vehicle.
4:50:59 Vehicle left the scene.
4:56:06 Valet A entered the scene again and talked to another valet (Valet C: dark short shirt)
4:58:57 Employee E entered the scene, greeted with Valet A and left the scene again.
5:00:00 Video ended.
From here what different from the final verdict is two other valets was mentioned and Valet A was not mentioned from 4:44:34 to 4:56:06.
In addition, Valet A left the scene from 4:50:59 to 4:56:06, for 5 minutes, according to prosecutor's claim
2. Parking space video (16 fps)
5:10:00 Video started
5:10:41-6 Defendant went out the vehicle and left parking space.
5:10:49 Defendant left the scene
5:11:29-2 Defendant entered elevator, using his left hand to touch the elevator's wall for assisting.
Different point from final verdict is the timing of the video only start at 5:10:00, whether there was another video record around 5:07 was not mentioned.
3. Another KTV video start from 5:00
5:00:00 Video started, Valet A and other people were in the scene.
5:06:44 Employee E entered scene talking to somebody.
5:06:55 E left the scene
5:08:56 E entered the scene, talked with somebody, and either standed or sitted in the scene.
5:20:04 E left the scene.
During this part, according to the verdict, E did not chat with Valet A. This was remarked by the verdict and was contradicted to some witness's account.
If we could have the table on the contradiction of witnesses account which ZD wanted to post, one might know further about the argument point,
but it is a bit too complicated for me to sort the witness accounts out and post here.
4. The same KTV video as 3.
5:29:04 A valet previously not appearing in all video showed in the scene. (Valet D: thick frame glasses, down jacket)
In these earlier verdicts, defendant and his lawyer claiming it was not valet A but someone else driving the car.
Right before the court procedure to watch this video, defendant claimed he did not remember the driver.
In earlier investigation and inquiry, defendant never mentioned any feature of the possible driver.
Upon finishing watching this video on court, defendant pointed out it is Valet D who drove him home.
