If all of this is factual, and then, we have, a SERIOUS problem of how the systems worked, from the Front Page Sections, translated…
The indictment trial of a woman, Chen in Chiayi who’d, been, accused by the stationery soldiers for passing amphetamine to her younger brother was stared, as the court began trial, Chen accused, that as she was being interrogated by the stationery armed services, she was insistent on that she’d not given the drugs to her younger brother, but the armed forces threatened her, “If you don’t admit to it, then, your younger brother will be sued for perjury”, the judge asked for the video of the squad, but, the armed forces told the judge, “the video camera was in repair, and all the data was, wiped clean.”, the judge believed that Chen’s testimonies didn’t prove that she’d, willingly sold the illegal substances, found her not guilty.
The verdict pointed out, that Chen’s younger brother was a serviceman, he gave an urine sample last March, which tested positive for amphetamine, Chen’s younger brother claimed that he’d used the drug at Chen’s resident in Taichung without paying anything for it. The Chiayi servicemen team brought Chen back on May 31st of last year to interrogate, the first time they’d interrogated him, she’d denied having provided the illegal substances, but, the second record, five hours later, Chen admitted to offering the drugs, after the case was sent to Taichung D.A.’s court, the D.A.s prosecuted Chen for drugs.
In the trial held by Taichung District Court, Chen denied having provided amphetamine for her younger brother to use. That she’d denied having done so as she was taken in by the squadrons in Chiayi, but the head of the squadron kept her in custody, and, used threatening tones, and, coerced her, and claimed, that “if you don’t admit to it, then, you’re younger brother will get charged with perjury”. She’d admitted, that the day she was taken in to the troops, she had, been using, she’d felt nervous, and as she’d given her statement a second time, “I no longer know what I was talking about.”
The judges from the Collectivist Court reviewed over the statements made by Chen twice, and it’d, proven what she said was true, and, the courts asked the squadron to provide the recordings of when they took down Chen’s statements, but the troops said, that the camera was in the repair shop, and the data was, lost, and they couldn’t, provide it. The Collectivist Court believed, that Chen’s confessions were doubtful, and that the D.A. couldn’t find any related evidence to find her guilty.
The investigations the Collectivist Court conducted showed, that Chen’s younger brother’s claims of where he got the illegal substance was inconsistent, that it was from Chen, then, it was, from his own girlfriend, and then, that he’d, bought it together, with Chen, his statements were very inconsistent, that there are, flaws in his testimonies, and his testimonies can’t be proven, to be used as the convictions on Chen’s guilt, and so, the court gave Chen a not-guilty verdict, the case can still be appealed.
And so, this, is a serious problem, on the disciplines of the armed services, because this case showed, that the armed services, will go the distances, to CONVICT someone who’s, innocent of a crime that s/he never committed, and if these are the men who are, supposed to, protect us when the needs come, then, we’re, in deep trouble!