Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Curious case of Mudd

I have no problem with a father fighting for his son, but I do find it problematic when the father choose to fight for his son through manipulating public sentiments, and glossing over details.

Yes, I am referring to the curious case of Kelsey Mudd.

First, here is a synopsis of what allegedly took place that got Mudd into trouble as translated by blogger EastSouthWestNorth base on the report filed by Clifford Lo of South China Morning Post:
(SCMP) Australian held after cabbie dies in crash. By Clifford Lo. June 28, 2009.

An Australian man was arrested after the driver of a taxi he was in died after a crash in Central yesterday morning. A police source said preliminary investigation showed there had been a dispute between the two men before the taxi crashed through a road divider and into three other taxis at about 3.30am in Harcourt Road. After the collision, Kelsey Michael Mudd, 22, an Australian passport holder, suddenly drove off in the taxi as a paramedic was checking his condition and traffic police were carrying out inquiries at the scene, they said. He allegedly drove against the traffic for about 50 metres before colliding head-on with another taxi.

A police spokeswoman said the man was arrested on suspicion of drink-driving and taking the vehicle without authority. But crime squad officers were treating the incident as a possible murder and would seek guidance from the Department of Justice before deciding what charges would be laid, another police source said.

The crash happened as Wong Chi-ming, 58, the driver of the taxi in which Mudd was a passenger, was driving east along Harcourt Road. The taxi, seemingly out of control, suddenly went through a metal road divider and crossed into the opposite lane outside Hutchison (SEHK: 0013) House, where it collided with three other taxis, according to police. Wong was semi-conscious as he was taken from the taxi by paramedics. Mr Mudd and another taxi driver, 57, were injured.

TVB footage showed Mr Mudd sitting in the front passenger seat, his head bleeding, before suddenly changing seats and driving off, forcing a paramedic trying to treat him to step back. A policeman gave chase on foot as the taxi was driven away at low speed into oncoming traffic. It collided with another taxi outside the Bank of America Tower, about 50 metres away. The driver of the other taxi, 44, sustained head injuries but his two women passengers were unhurt. The footage showed Mr Mudd raising his hands and putting them behind his head as police arrive, then getting out of the taxi and leaning on it. He was ordered to return to the taxi's rear seat before being taken by stretcher into an ambulance.

The four injured men were taken to Queen Mary Hospital, where Wong was declared dead at about 8.30am. Police said the cause of death was unknown and an autopsy would be carried out. "We are investigating what had happened on board Wong's taxi and what caused the accident," a police source said.

Mr Mudd was being held in the custodial ward at Queen Mary Hospital. No charge had been laid. The five taxis were taken to a vehicle plant in Quarry Bay for inspection.
A video taken post-accident is available on Youtube:


Now coming back to my problem (with daddy Mudd's choice of actions).

Not only has daddy Mudd and family cohorts set up a website www.bringkelseyhome.com to eulogize his son, they have also use the same site to appeal for donations to raise funds for his legal defence. Apparently you can give $20 or $5,000 depending on how taken (in) you are. But more importantly, I wonder why Mudd's lawyer is not taking the case pro bono? I mean if the case is such an air-tight one of "always was and is a traffic accident" then the lawyer should be fighting for justice in the name of justice, not money.

Separately while the eulogy bit is a little corny not to say tiresomely overused what I really like to know is what has character got to do with stupidity? For all we know Mudd may be a good little boy as eulogized but one significant detail which didn't appear in the eulogy was how intoxicated Mudd was on that fateful night. Just watch the video above and you will see and more importantly, hear how pissed our young friend Mudd was when the paramedics try to get him onto the stretcher.

Oh, there is also this gem found on the website from daddy Mudd: "Whilst he (Mudd) was at the accident scene awaiting treatment, the damaged taxi he was in – without the driver and apparently not secured by the authorities - moved off down a slight incline and hit another taxi....A video taken by a local TV crew of the damaged taxi moving slowly off supports this; Kelsey was clearly in the passenger seat and clearly not in control of this vehicle."

In other words, my son wasn't fleeing from the scene, the taxi was.

I don't know which video daddy Mudd was watching in coming to such a conclusion but if you take a look at the above video, Mudd was seen sitting in the driver's seat when approached by the policeman who was running after the allegedly runaway taxi. Enough said.

Mudd has not enter any plea and his case has been adjourned to 28 August, 2009.

But let's not forget this: while daddy Mudd abhors "trial by the media" as he so succinctly declare on the website, he most certainly have no qualms in using media to paint a saintly picture of his son in order to advance his son's case, all in the name of justice.

Justice?

Can I then ask who is claiming justice for Wong Chi-Ming?

2 comments:

Adrian said...

I don't think the test of whether Mudd is innocent or not is whether his lawyer is willing to defend him pro bono. Lawyers rarely work pro bono on this kind of case, especially not if the client clearly has the capacity to pay and there is no real important legal issue involved.

Setting that aside, I think it will be very very difficult for the prosecutor to prove that Mudd did anything to cause the accident and susbsequent death of the taxi driver. Sadly the only witness to the accident died in the crash and Mudd will continue to plead that he can't remember what happened. He will probably end up being found guilty for a number of traffic-related offences.

Lauren Rose said...

He wasn't int the drivers seat. The drivers seat is on the right. The vehicle starts moving and he leans over and grabs the wheel.