Offer To The CEO

Friday, continued …

During the course of being questioned by the two police officers, who acted on the information they accepted in the false statements of the first and second defendants to them, one police officer reacted slamming the first victim at least three times into a wall in the inverview room and dropping the first victim to the floor. The same police officer then proceeded to kick the first victim on the legs and over the body. Because of this assault the first victim suffered a concussion, a broken tibua and fibia in the left leg, and cuts and abraisions over her body. The first victim spent until this date in hospital.

As a result, independent investigtors were called in to examine the events that occurred during the police interview, the following was determined:

1. That during the telephone conversation with the two police officers the first defendant and second defendant lied to the police in that:

a. The First victim and Hou Yi were legally married in this country;

b. The orders that the first defendant were insisting were valid, had in fact been overturned by an Australian court, making them invalid and unenforceable

c. That the first and second defendants were interested in the wedding and engagement rings in question, however they had not committed to purchase

2. That in providing the information to the two police officers was misleading, and at least part of the information provided the first and second defendants clearly knew if was false and misleading.

3. That unintentionally the statements of the first and second defendants caused both police officers to believe a bribe was offered to them, and they acted upon this.

4. However, it is agreed for the purposes of this prosecution that there was in fact no bride offered to the police officers, they presumed there was.

5. The police officers, using that false information, then acted in such a manner during the police interview that resulted in the first victim being assaulted.

6. The first and the second defendant, given the nature of their conversation with both police officers via telephone should have or ought to have, in all the circumstances foreseen that the assault of the first victim would have been a consequence of their actions.

Further during the course of investigations into the assault of the first victim by the police officers the following information was obtained:

1. From the police in the state of Victoria in Australia, that during his relationship with the first victim, the first defendant:

a. On one occasion, was observed by two members of the public, punching the first victim in the stomach, and then he knocked her to the ground;

b. On one occasion, was observed by a member of the police, to twist the arm of the first victim behind her back, and pull her towards him. Once the first victim was in front of him, the first defendant proceeded to punch the first victim to the face and body 20 times;

c. On one occasion, in front of a security guard employed by the building where the first defendant and first victim lived, and which was recorded on CCTV footage, seen to slam the first victim into a wall, which caused her to fall to the ground, and then kicked her in the stomach area 10 times;

d. On one occasion where the first victim and first defendant were in a vehicle driven by the first victim, and hit from behind by another vehicle. The first victim was the only occupant of a vehicle assessed as requiring transportation to hospital for further evaluation. The first defendant verbally abused the first victim and grabbed her arms causing bruising and otherwise hurt the first victim, to the point that the first victim agreed to allow the first defendant to be taken to hospital for treatment and evaluation despite not needing it, and the first victim who needed it remained at the accident site until the vehicle was taken away by their insurance company, and not to have her injuries seen.

2. In each of these cases, the police in the state of Victoria, under applicable law made an application by a police officer for what is called a Family Violence Intervention Order, to protect the first victim from the first defendant. On each and every occasion the first victim refused to cooperate with the obtaining of such an order. The first defendant opposed every such application.

3. Given concerns for the first victim police in the state of Victoria made contact with the first victims employers raising concerns about the first victim's safety. The employers of the first victim recorded forty occasions where the first victim attended work with cuts, bruises or other signs that the first victim was being abused by the first defendant. Neither the first victim or the first defendant have ever confirmed any such incidents occurred.