◆

★

★ a larceny /theft/damage & impairment case ruled by Prosecutor WEN TZU-TE

 Argument  1. 

   ● Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE:
      The non-Prosecutor disposition states The suspect (household caregiver) pulled up the victim from bed till she stood stable in position with a stick, then the suspect turned back seemly to turn on the light or open the toilet door, at this moment, the victim released the stick and fell backward, the suspect turned back again and tried to hold the victim ...  Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE think it's difficult to know the suspect lacks reasonable care, it's neither a negligent conduct nor intentional harm/ willful act .  

★

   ● The victim/accuser :  It is a  criminal act!

★

       (1) The  victim is disabled elderly, aged 92, and is in a status of sleepy and dizzy for having taken  6 medication each with hospital's warning-remark: falling prevention .   The evidence DVD shows very clearly the old lady is dizzy and the whole body was very disabled.  

●

       (2)  The suspect led (by her hand) the old lady to move her stick one step ahead, at the very same moment  the suspect turned back,  before the  stick touched down the floor, dizzy old lady was already unstable and loosened her hand on the stick and fell down backward.    Even in daytime, the old lady is unstable, let alone It's sleeping time in very early morning.

●

       (3)  The suspect admitted supporting the old lady to move is her main job, she have been doing this correctly every day and night for about 6 months, in total about 1500~1800 times .  It's impossible the suspect, a young girl's brain memory did not serve only this time,  she should do it in safe way as usual -   first of all turn on the restroom light or open the toilet door when the old lady sit or lie on bed.   So, obviously it is an intentional harm/ willful act.  

●

       (4)  For years the old lady took lots of medicines, 6 of those cause dizziness, must prevent from falling.  The suspect certainly knew the old lady was unstable according to her day after day experience.  DVD shows the old lady is general fatigue very clearly.   So, it is an intentional crime.

●

         (5) The suspect's sister/bestie, a household care-giver had broken a 88 yrs-old old lady's arm by the same way - pulled her up and turn back, let her fall down behind.   Is it possible the suspect make terrible mistake again by accident?? 

  ●

        (6)  The suspect's blood sister made a phone call to apology the suspect "hit" the old lady.  It is easy for the Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE  to find out the truth ―  just investigate the phone.

●

        (7)  the Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE should read some previous judgments, such as (Chinese version)

●

 ●

        Therefore, what the suspect did is intentional harm/ willful act to impair a old lady, at least it is negligent conduct or fault liability impairment.

Argument  2. 

  ● Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE:
      The non-prosecutorial disposition states the  accused acknowledged she did throw away the  porcelain-chinaware, and expressed she can only understand simple Chinese language, it's because the victim 's son kept asking her 3 times to throw it away, so she followed his direct.

      Therefore the Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE ruled that the possibility of misunderstanding can't be ruled out.

★

  ● The victim :  It is a  criminal act of larceny /theft / damage

       (1) In the Inquiry Session dated 2-2-2016,  prosecutor-investigator questioned the caregiver (suspect) why she threw away a fine-quality porcelain-chinaware,  the caregiver answered "he hurt ...".   So,  the suspect already acknowledged mistake and proved what she did (larceny /theft, damage and even made old lady falling ) were designed to revenge a "hurt" which is her persecution mania or a trick -  because the house she work installed many video-camera, hence, any hurt will be taped as evidence.

★

       (2)  misunderstanding is not possible at all

★

           <1> reason 1: all related words such as "you", "throw it away", "do not" etc, are included in the suspect's <working manual - commonly used Chinese > , only 2 pages, 100+ words in total,  the suspect learned that 100 words for more than 4 months already,  and heard the direct "throw away"(garbage) day after day for several months , furthermore, all Indonesian must take intensive class about 3 months, if failed the test they are not allowed to come Taiwan.

             <2> reason 2:   The Prosecutor/judge summoned a witness who stated the suspect knows about 1/10 Chinese language.  According to a study (The most common Chinese characters in order of  frequency ) by Harvard Univ., all related words in this legal case locate within top range (of course within 1/10).   Eventually, the Prosecutor/judge changed his mind and does not buy the witness testimony.

★

             <3> reason 3:    the victim and victim 's son already stated by documents and statement in the Inquiry Session more than 2 times that porcelain is a legacy from her brother and a memento of remembrance, it's impossible to order the suspect to throw it away, so, misunderstanding won't happen to reacting "no order".    

★

             <4> reason 4:  The suspect agreed it's a fine-quality porcelain-chinaware, so, it's unreasonable and impossible for victim 's son ordered her to throw it away.   It violates the rule of thumb (erfahrungsmasig).

★

       (3) The suspect did all shopping by herself for more than 4 months, this proves she has enough Chinese comprehension ability. 

★

       (4) The non-prosecutorial disposition wrote the  accused expressed  the victim 's son "took out that porcelain-chinaware from refrigerator ", " asked her to throw it away 3 times consecutively ".    However, the evidence DVD proves the suspect did not follow his order to throw it away.   The prosecutor did not look the evidence DVD, obviously !

★

       (5)  Shifting the blame by "It's boss's order " to fool the judge is commonly seen in previous judgments, such as (in Chinese):

       (6)  DVD shows the suspect did not throw the  porcelain together with other garbage into the trash bag, instead, she held the trash bag by right hand, held the porcelain in left hand, and walk out, later, the porcelain disappeared.

       (7)  That porcelain is a property of the victim, from DVD evidence, she sit next to the refrigerator, why the suspect did not ask her if it should be throw away?

Argument 3. 

   ● Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE:
      The non-prosecutorial disposition states there's no proof to prove the suspect did them by intention, and those are not criminal wrongdoings.

   ● The victim :  It is a  criminal act of larceny /theft / damage

     (1) DVD as evidence:

   (2) The DVD proved the suspect deceited the officials several times, and should not be trusted.  Actually, many foreign laborers are hidden crimes, The United Daily 聯合報( 3-1-2016): "foreign laborers, one after another, came and run away illegally, " "More and more illegal foreign laborers are looking for jobs in Taiwan".  The image of maids in "House of Cards" of USA and Singapore's <Ilo Ilo> (Cannes film award) is a thief.   In contrast, The victim's son has a press card from Euro.

                Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE suppose know which one is trustable by doctrine of discretional evaluation of evidence.
     

Argument 4. 

   ● Prosecutor/judge Wen TZU-TE:
      

       The non-prosecutorial disposition states the Cathay hospital M.D. letter (9 months later than the date crimes occurred) mentioned there's no obvious external injury and broken-bone by X-ray examination.

   ● The victim : 

        (1) The medical records issued by Cathay Hospital proves the old lady suffered contusion etc.  The M.D. did  Patrick's test and medical examinations on local tenderness over low back area (see pic below)

        (2) The NTUH's  medical certificate (Certificate of diagnosis) proves it's a compression fracture by C.T. scan examination taken 2 months later.

 
        (3) The Supreme court's judgment : both medical records and medical certificate can be legal proof.

          (4)  Many other judgments (The prosecutor charged those cases for victims' contusion, or just painful without obvious external injuries) documents (in Chinese) support victim in this case: 

	pic: The medical record of that day proves the victim suffered contusion of buttock and back, local tenderness over low back area.   However, the prosecutor Wen Tzu-Te didn't buy it, which is quite different from many previous judgments by High court and local courts (pls. see those cases listed above). .

★ PS: The victim's arguments above are briefing from the document to High Court for reconsideration

★ Pls click to read full details, exact meanings in Chinese version web-page ...

Conclusion /