Peng Yu Case Studies is a multi-disciplinary discipline involving jurisprudence, medicine, IT technology, philosophy of life, sociology, ethics, logic, journalism, investigative science, etc., and also involves the public security industry, political and legal industry , publicity industry, traditional media industry, online media industry, entertainment industry and other emerging interdisciplinary subjects.
On the basis of reviewing the data, this article re-reasoned the doubtful points in previous articles and finally came up with a more satisfactory answer. The inferred truth is that the three original transcripts of the witness, defendant, and plaintiff were all kept in Chief Pan's home, and the sealing order of the second trial settlement sealed this secret. The photos recorded in the defendant's transcript are authentic and have not been tampered with. Pan Yu later denied that what he said was included in the defendant's transcript, which was indeed a lie. But just because the defendant's transcript is true does not mean that it is an objective fact. Chen Erchun did not lie, and Peng Yu and Xu Shoulan did not collide.
This answer can clear up countless doubts.
①Basic logic
1. The plaintiff and defendant gave conflicting statements about the scene, and at least one of them was lying. The judge made the first-instance verdict, and both sides had different opinions. The defendant and the witnesses said the same thing.
Picture 1: The plaintiff said that the defendant rushed out of the car, ran a few steps and bumped into her head-on. Because Mrs. Xu ran to the front door of Hou 83 Road to grab a seat, the head-on collision could only be caused by Peng Yu retreating first and then turning back. This strange trend has a process of first decelerating and then accelerating, which is not consistent with common sense.
Picture 2: The defendant and witnesses said that after Peng Yu got out of the car, he walked a few steps and picked up the plaintiff about 2 meters away from the back door.
Figure 3: The court of first instance stated that the plaintiff collided with the defendant when passing through the back door and fell two meters away. The defendant then stepped forward to help the plaintiff. Mrs. Xu should have been near the front door before setting off and passing near the back door.
Picture 4: It is speculated on the scene that witnesses saw many people running to the back road 83 to grab seats. According to common sense analysis, there are people getting on the second bus. Their routes overlap with Mrs. Xu, and they may collide with Mrs. Xu.
2. If Chen Erchun’s testimony is true, Peng Yu is doing good things. On the contrary, if they really hit each other, his testimony must be lies and perjury.
3. The defendant’s confessions were made by Lu Shengrong (for questioning) and Shen Fugen (for recording). On May 11, 2007 (before the third hearing), the statements made to the plaintiff at Mrs. Xu’s home were made by Shen Fugen (inquiry) and Xia xx (recording). There are photos of the statements and later supplementary statements as evidence. According to public security regulations, the seniority asked for is higher than the seniority recorded. Therefore, in terms of seniority, Director Lu gt; Lu Shengrong gt; = Shen Fugen gt; = Xia xx.
4. If there is no conflict between the two parties, then Xia xx and Lu Shengrong should be opposites. If the two parties did not collide, the following inferences can be made:
(1) The police station testimony was perjury
(2) The judge misjudged the law and made an arbitrary judgment
(3) Duck Ya Ling's registration of the crime was perjury
(4) It was later claimed that Peng Yu admitted to the crash N years later, which was a lie. Various reports such as the statement by the Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Committee, focus interviews, and the Supreme Court Weibo are all lies.
2) The judgment is based on facts
5. When the plaintiff’s son and niece rushed to the scene, the defendant and witnesses had been helped to the roadside, so there were only plaintiff-defendant- The witness is clear that Section Chief Pan and niece Xu Daxue did not see the scene.
6. The plaintiff did not claim that he passed through the back door. He claimed that the defendant rushed out of the car and ran a few steps and knocked him down. Peng Yu and witnesses also confirmed that the point of contact between the two parties (the person supporting the person) was 2 meters away from the rear door of the car in front. Therefore, Peng Yu was hit on his left arm when he got out of the car, and it was definitely not the old lady who was hit. No matter what the truth of this case is, the plaintiff Mrs. Xu’s description of the scene was lying, and the judgment of the first instance court was definitely wrong. However, the judge also rejected Peng Yu's claim that he rushed out of the car, saying that neither party was responsible. It can be seen that the judge also believed that there was a problem with the old lady's statement, but he did not clearly point it out because he was biased towards the plaintiff.
7. Xu did not have a mobile phone, but he could remember the phone numbers of his son Pan Hui and niece Xu Daxi, and used Chen Erchun’s mobile phone to call them, which shows that there is no problem with his memory and IQ.
Therefore, the court denied that Chen Erchun's statement that "the man had a mole on his face at that time" was a deliberate lie, not a denial. She denied that Chen Erchun was a witness because she expected that Chen Erchun would help the defendant. At the same time, Chen Erchun was tricked into bringing his ID card the next day to buy one day so that the plaintiff could collude with the police station and use the photos of the defendant's statement as evidence.
8. Witness Chen Erchun ruled out the possibility that Peng got out of the car after hitting the old lady. When he saw other people getting out of the car, he ignored them and walked away. But he saw several people running to the back of the car to grab seats, so he could not rule out the possibility that people jostling for seats knocked down Mrs. Xu. This man hit the old lady directly after leaving the car behind. In addition, there must be people on the second car, and their route will overlap with Mrs. Xu's. The judge was wrong in thinking that the person who hit someone could not easily escape. Maybe everyone who saw it was busy getting on the bus to grab seats, and even if they saw it, they wouldn't care. If it was really Peng Yu who hit him, the people who got off the car behind him and the people sitting in the window on the right side of the car could have seen it. The plaintiff would just ask them to testify. However, the plaintiff never found a witness and even denied Chen Erchun's identity.
9. The witness did not see how the old lady fell, but testified that when the two post-83s arrived, the old lady ran in front of him. He was on the platform at the time, waiting for the 21st.
10. Niece Xu Daxue attended at least three trials, but never testified in court. At first, she did not testify in court because she was afraid that the defense would ask for Chen Erchun's phone number. Old man Chen has testified, but she has not come out to refute, which shows that what old man said is consistent with his views. It is more likely that they are afraid of being recognized and making a fuss out of a molehill, leading to greater risks.
11. The jurisdiction of the Public Security Detachment of the Municipal Public Security Bureau is the southern part of Gulou District and Baixia District. Shuiximen Police Station has no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction: civil disputes (Shuiximen Police Station in Baixia District), public security cases and criminal cases (Chengdong Police Station of the Public Security and Traffic Security Bureau has jurisdiction over Shuiximen Police Station in Baixia District).
12. Both parties called the police in the hospital, and the duck asked them to go to the police station for mediation. Director Pan did not go to the Shuiximen Police Station or the Chengdong Police Station, but went to the Chengzhong Police Station to seek distance. This caused the criminal police to come forward to write notes for Peng Yu. These are procedural injustices.
13. The Gulou District Court has no jurisdiction over this case. The old lady’s household registration and residence are in Dengfushan Village, Yuhuatai District. Peng Yu rents a house in Yanhe Village, Jianye District. He was in Siyang, Jiangsu Province at the time of the incident. The incident took place at Shuiximen Station in Baixia District. The two parties had a dispute over the Baixia District Provincial Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital. At the time of prosecution, Peng Yu had already bought a house in a community in Yuhuatai District, and it was inferred that his household registration should be in that community. Therefore, in any case, the Gulou District Court has no jurisdiction. The one that has jurisdiction is the Baixia District Court (where the case occurred), the Jianye District Court (where the defendant temporarily resided when the case occurred), or the Yuhuatai District Court (where the defendant lived when the lawsuit was filed). land).
14. Director Lu admitted on TV that he had lied and perjured himself, that is, the defendant’s transcript was not taken by him, but by the defendant’s son Pan Hui, and was recognized by Pan Hui. , thus confirming that the defendant’s transcript photos were taken by Section Chief Pan.
15. Pan Hui is the section chief of Division 8 of the Municipal Public Security Bureau, a first-class police inspector, and is said to be at the deputy division level. Later, things got serious. Some netizens anonymously published Pan Hui's identity, address, phone number and other information. His colleagues probably couldn't stand it anymore. This is also the first time that Pan Hui's real name has been made public. Previous pen names that have appeared in newspapers include Pan Bin, Pan Tao, etc.
16. In the second instance mediation, the defendant nominally admitted to hitting someone, assumed 10% of the responsibility, and compensated 10,000 yuan. However, this settlement compromise cannot be used as evidence for prosecution.