FACT & LAW ARGUMENTS · DAY 7
Original record by Prison WatchEditorial reconstruction by Child Protection Action Alliance
Seventh trial hearing
Kaikai case citizen-judge trial record | Friday, May 2, 2025
As “I only saw it once,” “I was just saying it,” and “I occasionally helped” recur, the court begins overlaying three locations, photographs, messages and witness accounts.
This page concerns child maltreatment, binding, forced standing, injuries, malnutrition and death. It reconstructs Prison Watch’s DAY7 record. “Discrepancy comparison” presents differences among testimony, messages, photographs and parties’ arguments only; it neither replaces the court’s judgment nor treats any party’s account as established fact.
Today’s hearing at a glance
The court continued the evidence examination unfinished on April 30. The prosecutor, citizen judges and presiding judge questioned defendant Liu Ruolin, followed by factual and legal arguments. The prosecution addressed cause of death, binding, forced standing, beatings, abnormal meals, causation and joint principals. Counsel for the two defendants argued respectively from handover difficulties, requests for help, trust, risk reduction and guarantor status.
Locations A, B and C | Understand the spaces first
The anonymized location labels follow Day 4. They help check who had access, who saw the child when, and what “only occasionally helping” covered; they are not merely abstract symbols.
Family dining and main activity space
Liu Ruolin said she went to burn incense around 08:00 and downstairs for lunch. The prosecution argued she came and went frequently and could see forced standing, clothing and everyday conditions.
Liu Caixuan’s home
Some photographs, restraints and forced-standing strategies concern this location. The prosecution used messages to ask whether Liu Ruolin knew, followed up or offered advice.
Liu Ruolin’s home
The bath basin, scratches, photos, overnight stays and care were repeatedly questioned. Liu Ruolin also said Liu Caixuan held a key and could enter at any time.
Compiled from courtroom statements and parties’ arguments. Routes, frequency of visits and degree of control over the child remain disputed.
Location A/B/C event index
Fragments from different hearing dates are returned to their locations. Times show only dates or periods identifiable in the original record; uncertain times are not filled in.
Shared meals, forced standing and bathroom sounds
Main sources | DAY2, DAY4, DAY7People present / routes:Liu Ruolin said she went to burn incense around 08:00 and downstairs for lunch. Liu Caixuan said most lunchtime activity was at A.
Testimony:Mira said she saw Child A forced to stand almost every day when home. Liu Ruolin said she saw him standing but did not know whether it was punishment.
Record:The prosecution used interview records and communications to question what she could see.
People present:Liu Caixuan and Child A; Liu Ruolin said she was caring for another toddler.
Testimony:Liu Ruolin said she saw it only once. Mira said she heard screaming, crying and slapping sounds.
Limits:Mira’s view inside the bathroom was limited; sounds alone cannot establish every action.
Testimony:Mira described Child A lying on the floor with his feet against the door, and Liu Ruolin moving his feet.
Record status:This page does not treat this fragment as the bath-basin incident unless the timing is separately confirmed.
Nighttime, restraints and forced-standing messages
Main sources | DAY4, DAY7Photographs / presentation:The original record mentions a photo of restraint to a wooden chair.
Testimony:Liu Caixuan said the restraint prevented injury. The prosecution argued it should be assessed alongside repeated later restraints.
Photographs / presentation:The original record mentions dates of photos showing head coverings, net coverings and restrained limbs.
Testimony:Liu Caixuan admitted restraining Child A, explaining it as prevention of self-collision. Medical opinions require examining whether self-injury can fully explain the injuries.
Messages:The prosecution presented exchanges such as “I’ll shower first; he keeps standing.”
Testimony:Liu Caixuan initially said Liu Ruolin did not know; after the exchanges were shown, she said she did know and that she had forgotten because so much time had passed.
Neck injury, bath basin and actual care
Main sources | DAY4, DAY7People present:Liu Ruolin and Child A; Liu Caixuan later saw blood on the clothes.
Testimony:Liu Ruolin admitted her nails were long, saying the child did not cry and she noticed only on seeing the photo later.
Photos / messages:Photos of the wound and the sisters’ exchanges were used to check discovery, treatment and reasons for not reporting.
People present:Liu Caixuan left the child at C for Liu Ruolin to watch temporarily.
Testimony:Both acknowledged the basin and towel restraint. Disputes concern tipping, number of falls out, whether he was put back, when he was untied and collection the next day.
Photos / interview records:The mouth-opening photo, interview record and courtroom accounts must be checked separately. A photo alone may not prove when it was taken.
Testimony:Liu Ruolin admitted Child A bathed and used the toilet at C and that she occasionally helped. Liu Caixuan had a key and free access.
Limits:“Occasionally” describes frequency; actual control and scope of care must still be assessed incident by incident.
Liu Ruolin’s testimony | Six core answer groups
Recurring answers are grouped by theme, retaining their qualifications. Detailed questions and answers appear later in the full record.
Seeing forced standing and hearing crying
She said she did not order Child A to stand, went downstairs only at midday and heard bathroom crying only once. Asked about Mira saying the child dared not move or play in her care, she said she did not know why Mira said that.
Care and movements between spaces
She admitted Child A bathed and used the toilet at C and that she occasionally helped care for him. She said Liu Caixuan had C’s key and could enter at any time.
Violent language in messages
Regarding “I’ll put my things down, then go beat him,” she said it was only talk and she did not beat him. She explained “We really can’t give him too much freedom” as establishing routines and rules.
Scratches and reporting considerations
She admitted her nails were long and that she scratched Child A’s neck. Asked about blood on his clothes, she said she feared the Child Welfare League Foundation would stop assigning children to her; she applied medicine the next day.
The basin and “playing dead”
She said she supported the child as he tipped out, and “fell out three times” in the interview record was not what she meant. She also said “playing dead” merely described Child A falling out.
Social workers and abnormal signs
She said she did not report Child A’s abnormalities to social worker Chen or consult her own social worker, because they discussed only children in her own care. She had reminded Liu Caixuan to tell the social worker.
Comparing discrepancies across witnesses and records
Starting with Liu Ruolin’s Day 7 answers, this reconnects DAY2–DAY6 testimony from Mira, former carers, Wang ○-hong, Liu Caixuan and three doctors. Each evidence strand distinguishes direct differences, partial agreement, chronological reinforcement and limits of proof; the page does not replace judicial judgment.
DAY2Mira | Daily life at A and direct observations
DAY3Former carers, Wang ○-hong | Early baseline and household fragments
DAY4Liu Ruolin, Liu Caixuan | Each other’s testimony and routes among three sites
DAY5Hsu Cho-hsien, Lu Li | Cause of death and injury patterns
DAY6Chiu Yen-nan | Psychological trauma and diagnostic limits
DAY7Liu Ruolin | Courtroom answers and parties’ arguments
Direct discrepancyPartial agreementCross-disciplinary reinforcementNot directly offsetting
01Direct discrepancyFrequency of forced standing, presence and intervention
Frequency of forced standing, presence and intervention
DAY7 | Liu Ruolin
She said she went downstairs only at noon, did not order Child A to stand, and did not know why Mira said he dared not move or play in her care. Prison Watch’s answer field is blank for “Seeing Child A stand for two or three hours, did you take him away?”
Other hearing dates
DAY2｜Mira：She said she saw Child A forced to stand almost every day while at home, sometimes until he fell asleep, and never saw Liu Ruolin help him during it.
DAY4 | Liu Ruolin:She admitted seeing Child A naked and standing, but said she did not know whether it was punishment.
DAY4 | Liu Caixuan:She first called A a “calming-down area,” later admitted it also became a place for forced standing, and after messages were shown changed her account to say Liu Ruolin knew about forced standing at B.
02Partial agreementBathroom feeding, cries and number of direct sightings
Bathroom feeding, cries and number of direct sightings
DAY7 | Liu Ruolin
She said she saw Liu Caixuan take Child A to the bathroom to feed him only once, and heard crying only once; she was caring for another toddler at the time.
Other hearing dates
DAY2｜Mira：She said she heard Child A screaming, crying and slapping sounds in the bathroom; she also said Liu Ruolin was present when Liu Caixuan bathed the crying child but did not check on him.
DAY4 | Liu Ruolin:She similarly described one bathroom feeding, saying the child had mouth wounds and it was easier to clean spilled or vomited food; she did not know or recall the duration or sounds.
03Discrepancy in scope“Occasional help” and actual care routes through A, B and C
“Occasional help” and actual care routes through A, B and C
DAY7 | Liu Ruolin
She said Liu Caixuan was the main carer and she occasionally helped; she admitted Child A bathed and used the toilet at C, where Liu Caixuan had a key and free access.
Other hearing dates
DAY2｜Mira：She said she once saw Liu Ruolin give Child A something while Liu Caixuan was absent, but was unsure whether it was medicine; she never saw her feed meals, bathe him or show affection.
DAY4 | Liu Caixuan:She said they went through C to A almost daily and Liu Ruolin occasionally helped. Their children interacted, and they would still help a child up after a fall.
DAY4 | Liu Ruolin:She admitted putting Child A in the basin at C and dealing with him after it overturned.
04Interview/courtroom discrepancyBasin overturning, falls out, untying and sleeping beside him
Basin overturning, falls out, untying and sleeping beside him
DAY7 | Liu Ruolin
She said the interview record’s “When A came out, I put him back in” and “He fell out three times” did not convey her meaning. She said she protected the child and used “playing dead” to describe him falling out.
Other hearing dates
DAY4 | Liu Ruolin:She said he cried after the basin tipped over; she righted it, lifted him out, untied his limbs and took him to lie in the living room. She also said she did not question Liu Caixuan or think much at the time.
DAY4 | Liu Caixuan:She said she bound Child A with a long towel to prevent self-collision and asked Liu Ruolin to watch him temporarily. She collected him the next morning and did not see the towel again.
DAY2｜Mira：She separately described Child A lying on the floor with his feet against a door and Liu Ruolin only moving his feet. This may be a different event and cannot simply be combined.
05Cross-witness and cross-disciplinary reinforcementCan “the child self-injures” explain the injuries?
Can “the child self-injures” explain the injuries?
DAY7 | Liu Ruolin
She had no opinion when asked about psychiatric, forensic and pediatric opinions. Day 7 arguments treated the self-injury account as an issue requiring cross-evidence examination.
Other hearing dates
DAY3 | Former carer Chou ○:She said she saw no self-injury or rigid fixed standing during her care, and did not find him particularly difficult to care for.
DAY3 | Former carer Hsiao ○-hsiang:She said his limbs were rather tense in infancy, but she saw no self-injury or particular abnormalities in development or care overall.
DAY4 | Liu Caixuan:She said she discovered self-collision in early September and used it to explain the head covering, restraints and binding in the basin.
DAY5 | Lu Li:He noted that many injuries were in locations unlike those typical of accidental collisions.
DAY6 | Chiu Yen-nan:He explained that severe self-injury generally requires differential assessment in contexts such as severe neurodevelopmental disorders or severe abuse; a diagnosis cannot be inferred backwards from one behavior alone.
06Not directly offsetting“Playing with feces,” removing diapers and soiling
“Playing with feces,” removing diapers and soiling
DAY7 | Liu Ruolin
She said she personally saw feces on Child A’s hands, already smeared everywhere. But when asked whether Liu Caixuan had said he “played with feces,” she recalled only being told he removed his diaper.
Other hearing dates
DAY3 | Former carer Chou ○:She said he did not play with his excrement while in her care.
DAY3 | Wang ○-hong:Recounting a basin/bathroom episode, he said his mother told him the child urinated and defecated on himself.
DAY4 | Liu Ruolin and Liu Caixuan:They repeatedly explained some handling by reference to diaper removal, excrement or a need to clean.
07Unequal-treatment issueWas the mask disease prevention, isolation, or a restriction only on Child A?
Was the mask disease prevention, isolation, or a restriction only on Child A?
DAY7 | Liu Ruolin
She said Child A already wore a mask when brought over and was not forced, because his nose kept running. She denied isolating him or preventing play.
Other hearing dates
DAY2｜Mira：She said carers and other children did not wear masks at home; only Child A did.
DAY3 | Former carer Chou ○:She said she did not mask him or isolate him from another toddler when his nose ran at her home.
DAY4 | Liu Ruolin:She said she did not ask why he wore a mask and knew only that his nose kept running.
DAY4 | Liu Caixuan:She said an adult mask was used to block cold air or dust mites, admitting it sometimes shifted close to his eyes.
08Professional-standard/practice discrepancyNeck wound: discovery, reporting and whose risk came first
Neck wound: discovery, reporting and whose risk came first
DAY7 | Liu Ruolin
She admitted her nails were long, said he did not cry while changing clothes and she noticed only in a later photo. Asked about bloodstains, she feared losing Child Welfare League Foundation assignments and said she applied medicine the next day.
Other hearing dates
DAY4 | Liu Ruolin:She said she photographed injuries to children in her own care and told the social worker the location and cause via LINE. Child A’s wound might have been caused by her nail; he did not cry then.
DAY4 | Liu Caixuan:She said Liu Ruolin had reminded her to report injuries, but she put the child to sleep during the social worker’s visit, fearing discovery of the neck wound would affect future assignments.
09Chronological reinforcementConnecting early health/development baselines to later injuries and mental state
Connecting early health/development baselines to later injuries and mental state
DAY7 | Arguments and answers
The prosecution linked no obvious pre-handover injury, later restraints and forced standing, abnormal meals and three doctors’ opinions chronologically. Liu Ruolin largely bounded her knowledge with “only once,” “occasionally helped” and “no opinion.”
Other hearing dates
DAY3 | Chou ○:She saw no injuries, self-injury or fixed rigid standing during care or handover. He walked steadily, played and was not especially difficult to care for.
DAY3 | Hsiao ○-hsiang:Despite observing tense limbs in infancy, she reported no special care difficulties or self-injury.
DAY5 | Hsu Cho-hsien, Lu Li:They explained hypovolemic shock, malnutrition and at least 42 identifiable injuries through death mechanisms and pediatric medicine respectively.
DAY6 | Chiu Yen-nan:He retrospectively explored prolonged fear, withdrawal and trauma responses the child may have experienced, preserving the limits of retrospective diagnosis.
10Written-record/courtroom-explanation discrepancy“I’ll put my things down, then go beat him” and other violent messages
“I’ll put my things down, then go beat him” and other violent messages
DAY7 | Liu Ruolin
She explained that message as only talk, not an actual beating, and had no opinion on the doctors’ views.
Other hearing dates
DAY4 | Liu Ruolin:She admitted joining in inappropriate terms such as “damn kid,” describing some messages as chat or talk.
DAY4 | Liu Caixuan:She called messages such as “deserves a beating” and “I just beat him” idle talk or nonsense, adding that Liu Ruolin had verbally told her not to hit children.
DAY2｜Mira：She heard screaming, crying and flesh-slapping sounds from the bathroom, but sounds cannot identify every actor or each incident mentioned in messages.
Silence and unanswered-record section
“Answer blank,” “defendant silent,” “does not remember,” “photo cannot confirm” and “no opinion” are not equivalent. This section distinguishes them so important boundaries are not flattened in summaries.
“Seeing Child A stand for two or three hours, did you take him away?”
Prison Watch DAY7 leaves this answer field blank.
What is known:The public record does not record an answer.
What cannot be inferred:Do not fill it in as denial, admission or silence.
What does “You can’t outplay him; he has government certification” mean?
The defendant did not answer. The record states that she remained silent.
What is known:The original record explicitly states no answer was given.
What cannot be inferred:Silence itself does not admit a crime or prove an account true.
Photo presentation and timing of the basin incident
The court held that photos alone did not show when they were taken; Liu Ruolin also said she did not remember the hour of the basin incident.
What is known:Photo content and photo timing are separate questions.
What cannot be inferred:Do not complete a timeline from filenames, displayed times or gaps in memory alone.
Bathroom feeding: timing, sounds and exact setting
Answers include “only saw it once,” “don’t know the time,” “no recollection” and having forgotten most of the exact setting.
What is known:The witness admits some direct observation while qualifying details.
What cannot be inferred:Do not expand this into a complete eyewitness account, or erase admitted parts because memory is incomplete.
Psychiatric, forensic and pediatric opinions
Liu Ruolin answered “No.”
What is known:She offered no rebuttal when asked about three categories of expert opinion.
What cannot be inferred:“No opinion” does not admit every medical inference or legal attribution.
A sustained objection does not mean an event did not happen
Rulings that a photo cannot prove timing or cross-examination exceeds scope concern evidence presentation or questioning procedure.
What is known:The court limited that question or method of proof.
What cannot be inferred:A procedural ruling is not itself a final factual judgment on an event.
Three argument routes | How the court understands the same evidence
Continuing maltreatment, causation and joint principals
The prosecution argued Child A had been healthy before death and uninjured at handover, and that binding, forced standing, beatings and abnormal meals were repeated and ongoing. Liu Ruolin knew, commented, encouraged, followed up and participated in some acts. It linked death and foreseeability through communications, Mira’s testimony and three doctors’ opinions.
“The ignored care setting” and unsuccessful requests for help
The defense invoked inadequate handover information, separation anxiety, the child’s special conditions and social-worker responses. It said Liu Caixuan sought help, treated injuries and searched for methods but ultimately responded incorrectly, asking that wrongdoing be distinguished from the moral label “evil.”
Trust, risk reduction and guarantor status
The defense said longstanding trust between the sisters and limited observation prevented her recognizing abuse; untying, lifting and sleeping beside him reduced risk. It denied shared intent and division of acts necessary for joint principals, and any guarantor status arising from law, contract or assumed care.
Separating fact and law
“Did she help?” or “Why didn’t she stop it?” asks different questions at factual and legal levels. This plain-language organization follows Day 7 arguments and the judge’s guidance; it does not supply independent legal conclusions.
Legal concept
Plain-language question
Prosecution’s position
Liu Ruolin’s defense position
What the court must still decide
Joint principalsShared intent + division of acts
Did the sisters place different actions within one criminal plan rather than acting independently without connection?
It asserted shared intent and division of acts based on joint care, travel among three sites, message comments, knowing non-intervention and some actual handling.
It denied prior conspiracy or shared criminal intent, treating messages as complaints or chat and Liu Caixuan as responsible for primary care and handling.
Which acts are proved, how they connect and whether shared intent formed; sisterhood or presence alone does not establish joint liability.
Guarantor statusA special duty to prevent the result?
Was she more than a bystander, owing intervention, rescue or reporting duties through law, contract or actually assuming care?
It asserted a protective duty from professional childcare experience, joint-care context, control over C and actual assistance.
It said she was not Child A’s contracted carer and had not comprehensively assumed care, lacking duties from law, contract or factual assumption.
Degree of actual care, control over space and child, assumption of protection and legal connection between omission and result.
Risk-reducing conductDid conduct reduce or perpetuate danger?
Did untying, lifting, covering and sleeping beside him actually reduce danger or merely address part of an ongoing risk?
It argued against focusing on one rescue episode, citing knowledge, comments, failure to report and failure to stop it throughout the period.
It said lifting, protecting, untying, taking him to the living room and sleeping beside him reduced immediate risk and should not count as criminal participation.
Whether those acts occurred, how much risk they reduced and what other acts surrounded them; the judge also noted this concept was outside the pretrial instructions.
Day 7 full hearing: reconstructed question by question
The following reconstructs Prison Watch’s published DAY7 questions and answers in their original order. Only speaker labels, paragraphing and focus colors were added for readability; witness answers were not rewritten as judicial findings.
Questions by prosecutors, citizen judges and the presiding judge are retained. Showing records, photos or messages means only that evidence is being checked.
Liu Ruolin’s answers, nonspecific answers and blank answer fields are fully retained. None automatically constitutes a judicial finding.
These identify inconsistencies, key admissions, evidence prompts and procedure, not the truth or falsity of testimony.
Return to the cross-day section above to compare the same question with DAY2–DAY6 witnesses, doctors, photos, messages and earlier interviews.
Before/after discrepancyKey admissionEvidence promptProcedure / unanswered
I. Prosecutor questioning: forced standing, bathroom feeding and routes
Prosecutor’s examination-in-chief
Question |
Seeing Child A stand for two or three hours, did you take him away?
Original record |Answer field blank.
No answer recorded; the next “I did not order A to stand…” belongs to a different question and must not fill this oneQuestion |
Mira referred to the time Liu Caixuan left A alone with you (Exhibit B2-7, interview record of April 2, 2024): “The migrant domestic worker said A often stood naked as punishment all day,” and “Yes, I helped care for him.”
Liu Ruolin |I did not order A to stand as punishment; I don’t know why Mira says that.
Discrepancy: care scope and observations of forced standingQuestion |
Have you seen Liu Caixuan feed Child A in the bathroom and the child crying?
Liu Ruolin |Only once.
Key admission: witnessed bathroom feeding and cryingQuestion |
Have you been to Liu Caixuan’s home? Have you seen a green mat?
Liu Ruolin |I have not been there or seen it.
Question |
Where did Child A usually bathe and use the toilet?
Liu Ruolin |At C.
Routes: A, B and C must be understood togetherII. Excrement, violent messages, masks and isolation
Question |
Have you seen Child A play with feces or have excrement on his body?
Liu Ruolin |I have.
Key admissionQuestion |
What did your message “I’ll put my things down, then go beat him” mean?
Liu Ruolin |I was only saying it; I did not beat him.
Discrepancy between written content and courtroom explanationQuestion |
Why did Child A wear a mask and stay apart from other children?
Liu Ruolin |He was sick; we feared infection spreading.
Evidence prompt: compare photos, care context and other testimonyIII. Neck wound, basin interview record and “playing dead”
Question |
Did you see Child A’s neck wound? What was the reaction then?
Liu Ruolin |Yes; he did not cry. Perhaps the nails were long and I scratched him.
The injury source still requires checking against medical and photographic evidenceQuestion |
Your earlier record says “When A came out I put him back in” and “fell out three times.” Was that the basin?
Liu Ruolin |Yes; he would arch/tip backwards (“fan-khiau”).
Read the earlier record and courtroom account side by sideQuestion |
Why did you use “playing dead” in the message?
Liu Ruolin |I saw him lying there unresponsive and thought he was playing dead.
Key wording: her description of the child’s state at the timeQuestion |
What movement did the child make when Mira saw him?
Liu Ruolin |Only his feet were moving.
Child’s activity stateIV. Photo objections, opening the mouth, wrapping and medical opinions
Prosecutor |
Presents a photograph and asks about the circumstances when it was taken.
Defense / court |Objection sustained because the photo cannot establish timing.
Procedural ruling: visible photo content does not prove shooting timeQuestion |
Who asked you to photograph Child A’s mouth being forced open?
Liu Ruolin |Liu Caixuan asked me to take it.
Key admission: source of photography instructionQuestion |
Did anyone ask you to answer in a particular way?
Liu Ruolin |I was not under pressure.
Question |
Why wrap Child A up?
Liu Ruolin |Because we were downstairs, for safety.
Check the reason against wrapping method, time and settingQuestion |
What is your response to the doctors’ professional opinions?
Liu Ruolin |No opinion.
The witness offered no explanation on professional opinionsV. Follow-up by citizen judges and presiding judge
Citizen judge |
How long have you worked in child welfare? Did you discuss Child A’s condition with a social worker?
Liu Ruolin |Explains work duration; did not discuss it with a social worker.
Key admission: no social-worker discussionCitizen judge |
Are you afraid of Liu Caixuan? Did you see the excrement yourself? Was there a key to C?
Liu Ruolin |Answers yes to fear, having seen it, and a key to C.
Accessible space and direct-observation scopeCitizen judge |
Why did you not report the neck wound?
Liu Ruolin |I feared losing my work.
Key admission: stated reason for not reportingCitizen judge |
What did you mean by “not too much freedom”?
Liu Ruolin |Explains it as limits in care management.
Check wording against actual restrictionsPresiding judge |
Did you still care for Child A after he moved to C?
Liu Ruolin |I helped occasionally.
Check “occasionally” against keys, routes and messagesPresiding judge |
What did you mean by “will definitely change” and “government certification”?
Liu Ruolin |Explains the former; gives no specific answer on “government certification.”
No specific answerPresiding judge |
How do we understand your statements that he lies, has leg issues, “hasn’t eaten” and “his belly disappeared”?
Liu Ruolin |Answers each point based on her observations.
Cross-check nutrition, activity and medical testimonyPresiding judge |
Is “playing with feces” the same as having excrement on the body?
Liu Ruolin |Distinguishes the two.
Definitions and actual observations require the original Q&AVI. Remaining original questions and answers (retained in full)
Question |
Were you at A much more often than Mira?
Liu Ruolin |I only went down at noon.
Question |
Liu Caixuan said she opened A’s mouth with one hand and fed him with a spoon in the other. How could one person do that? Did you help?
Liu Ruolin |It wasn’t me.
Question |
What did you do after burning incense at A?
Liu Ruolin |Around 08:00 I went to burn incense, visited Dad if he was there, then went upstairs to feed milk and prepare two children (later one) to go down, then took them out, one in a stroller and one carried.
Routes into/out of AQuestion |
What was your afternoon routine after lunch at A?
Liu Ruolin |The children slept; at 13:00 I went down to eat, rested, ate fruit and watched TV, then returned to C to lie on the sofa and think where to go that afternoon.
Question |
Did A bathe and urinate or defecate at your home?
Liu Ruolin |He did.
Key admissionQuestion |
Liu Caixuan said “on your stairs he keeps walking back.” Did you do anything that made A keep going back?
Liu Ruolin |I thought A liked playing at our home, so he walked toward it.
Question |
What time did the children sleep?
Liu Ruolin |I did housework only after they slept; I myself slept at two or three.
Question |
Still awake at 04:00 during the bucket/basin incident?
Liu Ruolin |I don’t remember what time it was.
Question |
What words did you hear A say?
Liu Ruolin |“Grandma,” “lüe lüe-lüe,” and offensive words (“fuck your mother”).
Recess at 09:55. Resumed at 10:10.
Citizen judge No. 3 |
How long have you cared for children referred by the Child Welfare League Foundation?
Liu Ruolin |Since April 2023. One child was later adopted; I do not remember when.
Question |
Around the same time as Liu Caixuan?
Liu Ruolin |Yes, about the same.
Question |
Have you seen social worker Chen?
Liu Ruolin |Yes, at C.
Question |
Did you tell social worker Chen about Child A’s abnormal signs?
Liu Ruolin |Liu Caixuan did all the talking to the social worker; I probably didn’t speak.
Did not inform the social workerQuestion |
Did you discuss A’s abnormalities with Liu Caixuan?
Liu Ruolin |I reminded her to tell the social worker, but she disliked me interfering in her affairs.
Question |
Did you ask your own social worker what to do?
Liu Ruolin |We only discuss the children we ourselves care for, not other children.
Question |
How did you contact the organization?
Liu Ruolin |Only LINE with the social worker, nothing else.
Citizen judge No. 6 |
Are you afraid of Liu Caixuan?
Liu Ruolin |She is frightening when she loses her temper.
Alternate citizen judge No. 1 |
Did you personally see A play with feces?
Liu Ruolin |He had already smeared it everywhere, and there was feces on his hands (at C).
Question |
Why did A go to C before A?
Liu Ruolin |Liu Caixuan had C’s key and could come and go at any time.
Access rights at CCitizen judge No. 4 |
Why also tell Caixuan not to let A sleep yet, to make him sleep in the afternoon, and help her work out how to deal with the social worker?
Liu Ruolin |I was really frightened.
Gap between question and answerPresiding judge |
When did you move to C? Which ROC year?
Liu Ruolin |After the divorce, ROC 111 (2022), I think. I forget the month. Around after the Dragon Boat Festival.
Question |
Who besides Liu Caixuan cared for Child A?
Liu Ruolin |Mainly Liu Caixuan; sometimes me. I don’t know whether she asked anyone else.
Admits occasional careQuestion |
What does “You can’t outplay him; he has government certification” mean?
Original record |The defendant did not answer. The record states that she remained silent.
Silence retained in fullDay 7 procedure and parties’ arguments reconstructed
Prison Watch’s DAY7 record is reconstructed in eight chapters, retaining objections, recesses, each party’s arguments and the presiding judge’s guidance; no separate PDF or plain-text attachment is provided.
01 | Continued hearing: prosecutor questions Liu Ruolin
Using Mira’s testimony, interviews, Exhibit B exchanges and the three routes, the prosecutor asked whether Liu Ruolin saw prolonged forced standing, nakedness, bathroom feeding and cries, and whether she actually helped care. She said she did not order A to stand, went down only at midday and heard cries only once; she admitted bathing/toileting at C and occasional help.
She said “I’ll put my things down, then go beat him” was talk, not a beating. She did not know why Mira said A dared not move or play when left in her care.
02 | Neck scratch, basin and “playing dead”
Liu Ruolin admitted long nails and said A did not cry during changing; she noticed the neck wound only when Liu Caixuan sent a photo. Regarding the basin and “When A came out I put him back” / “fell out three times” in the interview, she said the record did not convey her meaning and she supported A.
The prosecutor further used April 28 testimony to ask about untying, singing and “playing dead.” She said the phrase described A falling out.
03 | Photos, wrapping and medical opinions
The prosecutor showed early-morning photos to ask where and when they were taken. Defense objected; the judge sustained it because photos alone do not establish timing. Liu Ruolin said Liu Caixuan requested the mouth-opening photo at C, denied pinning A down and explained wrapping him awake as safety when going downstairs. She had no opinion on psychiatric, forensic or pediatric views. Recess 09:55; resumed 10:10.
04 | Citizen judges’ questions
No. 3 asked about care experience, discussion of A’s abnormalities with social workers and contact channels. Liu Ruolin said she discussed only her own children with her own worker. No. 6 asked whether Caixuan frightened her: “She is frightening when she loses her temper.” Alternate No. 1 asked about feces and A/C movements; she said she saw feces on his hands and Caixuan held C’s key.
No. 4 asked about neck photos and bloodstains. She was frightened, feared losing foundation assignments and applied medicine the next day. “Not too much freedom” meant routines and rules.
05 | Presiding judge’s questions and defendant’s silence
The judge checked when Liu Ruolin moved to C, who cared for A, and the meanings of “will definitely change,” “hasn’t eaten today” and “his belly disappeared.” For “You can’t outplay him; he has government certification,” the record expressly notes no answer and silence. Citizen judges then withdrew; recess until 10:50 preceded factual and legal arguments.
06 | Prosecution’s factual and legal arguments
Beginning with children’s vulnerability, the prosecution framed cause of death, the defendants’ acts, causation and legal evaluation. It reviewed pre-handover condition, binding, forced standing, beatings, abnormal meals and expert opinions of Hsu Cho-hsien, Lu Li and Chiu Yen-nan in sequence.
It argued maltreatment was repeated and ongoing; Ruolin knew, commented, followed up or failed to stop it. Shared care experience, messages and deleted records supported its claims of joint principals, guarantor status and foreseeable death. These are prosecution arguments, not this page’s findings.
07 | Liu Caixuan’s counsel: factual and legal arguments
Under “The ignored care setting / the far side of the moon,” the defense alleged inadequate handover information: no warning of slow adjustment, stranger anxiety, respiratory infection or bodily tension. It dated discovery of abnormalities, restraints, a friend’s advice to stop caring and social-worker help requests.
It said Caixuan encouraged eating, cared for injuries, asked about dentures and sought religious help, but used misguided improvised methods, asking the court to distinguish wrongdoing and unprofessional care from “evil.” These are defense claims.
08 | Liu Ruolin’s counsel: factual and legal arguments
The defense said longstanding sisterly trust and limited observations prevented a full view of the bathroom and forced standing at A. Lifting, protecting, untying, moving him to the living room, covering and sleeping beside him were argued as risk reduction. The judge noted the concept was outside the pretrial instructions.
It denied prior conspiracy, shared intent and divided acts for joint principals, and legal, contractual or assumed duties for guarantor status. The judge gave additional guidance on participation and law. These defense legal arguments remain for the court to determine.
Five questions remaining at Day 7’s close
Day 7 moved from evidence examination toward legal evaluation. This is not a judgment prediction: available material, remaining disputes and the court’s task are placed alongside each other to show what the court must ultimately answer.
Across A, B and C, did Liu Ruolin merely help occasionally, or actually participate in care and control?
C’s key and free access, bathing/toileting, basin handling, photos, lunchtime routes, Mira’s and Caixuan’s testimony.
Access frequency, length of stays, field of view and specific acts included in “occasionally.”
Determine incident by incident whether this was actual care, control or brief assistance only.
Did she know forced standing, binding, abnormal feeding and the child’s condition were ongoing?
Photos/messages, Mira’s daily account, both defendants on DAY4 and DAY7 answers “only once” / “don’t know why she says that.”
Were messages chat, complaints or real acts? Did seeing individual fragments suffice to recognize the overall danger?
Assess subjective knowledge through timing, frequency and context, not a single sentence alone.
Can untying, lifting and sleeping beside him reduce risk, and how should other messages and non-intervention be evaluated?
Different basin accounts, interview “put him back in,” defense claims of untying/sleeping beside him, and violent messages.
Fall-out count, putting back, all actions after untying and the relationship between individual help and long-term conduct.
Do not cherry-pick favorable or adverse fragments; determine whether overall conduct reduced, maintained or increased risk.
In professional childcare and actual assistance, did she owe a special duty to intervene, rescue or report?
Care background, reporting standards for her own children, no report of A’s abnormalities, C incidents and the sisters’ cooperation.
Contractual duty, factual assumption of care, and which times and locations the duty covered.
Identify the duty’s source before omission, ability to act and responsibility; seeing danger alone does not warrant jumping to conviction.
How do injuries, malnutrition, psychological trauma and death connect to each defendant’s specific conduct?
Hsu Cho-hsien, Lu Li and Chiu Yen-nan addressed death mechanisms, injuries/care context, psychological trauma and professional limits respectively.
Who performed which acts, which outcomes stemmed from continuing maltreatment, and whether each defendant foresaw death risk.
Medicine explains what happened physically and mentally; law must still determine who is responsible for which acts and outcomes.
第7日｜原始紀錄逐列全文（併入完整紀錄）
本區直接依監所關注小組原始公開頁的表格順序重製，共 1 個表格、62 列。不合併問題、不濃縮回答；原始空白欄位保持空白並明確標示。上方導讀與摘要不得取代本區。
原始表格 01｜62 列
原始紀錄左欄
檢察官訊問
原始紀錄右欄
被告劉若琳回答
原始紀錄左欄
妳看A童站2、3小時，是否有帶他離開？
原始紀錄右欄
原始紀錄回答／右欄空白
原始紀錄左欄
Mira說劉彩萱單獨把A留給妳那次（提示乙證2-7，113年4月2日偵訊筆錄），筆錄記載「外傭說，A經常沒穿衣服整天罰站」、「對我有幫忙顧」
原始紀錄右欄
我沒叫A罰站，不知Mira為何如此說
原始紀錄左欄
妳聽過劉彩萱要餵A吃飯，看到劉彩萱帶A去廁所嗎？
原始紀錄右欄
我只看過一次，我幫忙顧另一個
原始紀錄左欄
妳在甲地頻率比Mira高很多嗎？
原始紀錄右欄
我只有中午下去
原始紀錄左欄
有無聽過A在廁所的哭聲、尖叫聲？
原始紀錄右欄
只聽過一次
原始紀錄左欄
妳說沒去過劉彩萱家，怎麼知道她家有綠色巧拼
原始紀錄右欄
我沒去過她家。是因為之前有開托兒所，所以知道有綠色巧拼
原始紀錄左欄
劉彩萱說有單手打開A嘴巴，另一隻手拿湯匙餵食，一人是如何做到？妳有協助她嗎？
原始紀錄右欄
不是我
原始紀錄左欄
妳在甲地點香後的行程？
原始紀錄右欄
我在08:00左右去上香，爸在的話會去看爸，之後上樓餵奶、準備兩個小孩（後來一個）下樓，接著一個推車、一個揹著出去走走
原始紀錄左欄
下午從甲地吃完午餐的作息
原始紀錄右欄
小孩睡覺，13:00下樓吃飯、休息一下吃水果看電視，再回丙地躺沙發休息，再想下午要去哪
原始紀錄左欄
A是否會在妳家洗澡、大小便？
原始紀錄右欄
有過
原始紀錄左欄
妳曾傳訊息跟劉彩萱說，我家被他臭，是如何臭？
原始紀錄右欄
當時A的尿布打開一邊，用手抹大便塗在巧拼及牆壁上
原始紀錄左欄
劉彩萱說「走妳家樓梯一直往回走」（提示乙證4），妳有做何事讓A一直往回走？
原始紀錄右欄
我當時是覺得A很喜歡去我們家玩，所以往我家走
原始紀錄左欄
先前詢問Mira說有什麼事情認為A會怕妳，Mira說有時A留給你照顧時，A也不敢動的站在那、也不敢玩
原始紀錄右欄
我都背對著A，Mira都坐房間裡，不知Mira為何這樣說
原始紀錄左欄
提示乙證4對話紀錄，有次回家後妳叫A脫鞋，A踢你。劉彩萱說「妳沒揍他？要揍啊」。妳回答說「我放東西後再去揍」。妳為何如此說？
原始紀錄右欄
我只是講，沒有揍
原始紀錄左欄
妳也會要A戴口罩？
原始紀錄右欄
劉彩萱帶來時就一直戴著，沒有強迫他戴。說A一直流鼻涕
原始紀錄左欄
有無隔離A，不讓A去玩？
原始紀錄右欄
沒有
原始紀錄左欄
A在112年9月7日脖子後方被劃到，當時情況為何？
原始紀錄右欄
當時幫A換衣服，A也沒哭。後來劉彩萱傳照片給我時才發現，因為在我家沒哭。承認確實指甲較長
原始紀錄左欄
那麼大的傷口，當下A都沒有表現痛？
原始紀錄右欄
真的沒有
原始紀錄左欄
小孩幾點睡？
原始紀錄右欄
小孩睡才會做家事，自己都2、3點睡
原始紀錄左欄
桶子（澡盆）事件凌晨四點還沒睡？
原始紀錄右欄
當時幾點不記得
原始紀錄左欄
在113年2月6日偵訊筆錄裡，筆錄記載「反ㄎ一ㄠ」是什麼意思？是指1.掉出2.腳朝上3.澡盆扶正後，身體一直往後仰的三階段動作嗎？
原始紀錄右欄
我幫劉彩萱顧一下，聽到聲音進去看，小孩翻過去，小孩腳撐著往後。我有過去扶他
原始紀錄左欄
「反ㄎ一ㄠ」是指第三個行為往後仰，但113年2月6日偵訊筆錄時說「A出來我再讓他進去」，「反ㄎ一ㄠ」是不是指A掉出來3次，而非第三個動作？當時筆錄問「是否裝進去三次？」回答：「就讓他進去啊，A出來我就讓A再進去啊」。對上開筆錄有何意見？
原始紀錄右欄
我聽不懂。當時有表達非此意思。
原始紀錄左欄
審判長訊問：有無對檢察官說過上開筆錄內容？請檢察官提示筆錄。並詢問有無意見？
原始紀錄右欄
有說但不是這意思。（檢視筆錄後表示）當時真的不是這意思，我有護著A
原始紀錄左欄
筆錄寫「他是掉出來三次」
原始紀錄右欄
原始紀錄回答／右欄空白
原始紀錄左欄
提示乙證3，於4月28日作證時說，我把A解開束縛還唱歌給他聽，又說A「裝死」是什麼意思？
原始紀錄右欄
指A掉出來，形容A裝死
原始紀錄左欄
Mira作證說要去地下室拿東西，A躺在地板腳頂著門，妳去把A腳移開。妳都能移動A腳，為何不讓他起來或坐下？
原始紀錄右欄
我有去問劉彩萱為何這樣？叫她出來看，她說好
原始紀錄左欄
在112年11月5日凌晨04:45分照片顯示，劉彩萱掰開A童嘴巴、妳拍照，為何此時他們在你家？
原始紀錄右欄
原始紀錄回答／右欄空白
原始紀錄左欄
劉若琳辯護人異議，依該張照片無法看出拍攝時點。
審判長裁定異議成立，從照片中無法看出拍攝時點。
原始紀錄右欄
原始紀錄回答／右欄空白
原始紀錄左欄
在114年4月28日作證時，提及於112年11月2日在丙地掰開嘴巴照片，為何掰開A童嘴巴需要兩個人？
原始紀錄右欄
劉彩萱請我拍的
原始紀錄左欄
提示甲證12-9，當時A未穿衣服，躺在磨石子地板上，當時有無壓住A，使他不反抗？
原始紀錄右欄
沒有
原始紀錄左欄
把小孩包裹通常是為避免新生兒的驚嚇反射才包覆，為何在小孩清醒時將他包覆？
原始紀錄右欄
當時要下樓，怕他動，下樓不安全
原始紀錄左欄
針對精神鑑定、法醫、兒童醫師之意見，有無意見？
原始紀錄右欄
沒有
原始紀錄左欄
有聽A說過那些話？
原始紀錄右欄
阿嬤、ㄌㄩㄝ ㄌㄩㄝㄌㄩㄝ、不好聽的話（幹你娘）
原始紀錄左欄
09:55休庭。10:10入庭
原始紀錄右欄
原始紀錄回答／右欄空白
原始紀錄左欄
國民法官（3號）詢問
原始紀錄右欄
被告劉若琳回答
原始紀錄左欄
接兒福聯盟的幼童托育多久時間？
原始紀錄右欄
自112年4月開始，之後有一個小朋友出養，出養時間不記得。
原始紀錄左欄
與劉彩萱差不多時間嗎？
原始紀錄右欄
是，差不多
原始紀錄左欄
指A不容易照顧，有無與社工討論過該如何照顧？有無與劉彩萱討論過如何照顧？
原始紀錄右欄
沒有，只有劉彩萱請我幫忙時才幫。
原始紀錄左欄
有無看過陳社工？
原始紀錄右欄
有，在丙地
原始紀錄左欄
有無向陳社工反應A童的異狀？
原始紀錄右欄
都劉彩萱在跟社工說話，我應該沒講話
原始紀錄左欄
就A的異狀有無與劉彩萱討論過？
原始紀錄右欄
有提醒劉彩萱要跟社工反應，但劉彩萱不喜歡我管她的事
原始紀錄左欄
有無向自己的社工詢問應如何處理？
原始紀錄右欄
我們只會針對自己帶的小孩討論，不會討論其他小孩
原始紀錄左欄
和機構的聯繫管道為何？
原始紀錄右欄
都與社工Line，沒有其他
原始紀錄左欄
國民法官（6號）詢問
原始紀錄右欄
被告劉若琳回答
原始紀錄左欄
是否會怕劉彩萱？
原始紀錄右欄
她脾氣發起來很可怕
原始紀錄左欄
國民法官（備位1號）詢問
原始紀錄右欄
被告劉若琳回答
原始紀錄左欄
是否親眼見過A玩大便？
原始紀錄右欄
他已經塗得到處都是，手上有大便（在丙地）
原始紀錄左欄
為何A要去丙地在去甲地？
原始紀錄右欄
劉彩萱有丙地鑰匙可隨時進出
原始紀錄左欄
國民法官（4號）詢問
原始紀錄右欄
被告劉若琳回答
原始紀錄左欄
就A脖子劃傷的照片，妳承認有劃傷，衣服有血漬，試想如果是妳被劃到會怎樣？
原始紀錄右欄
當時有嚇到，怕兒福聯盟不再讓我帶小孩。隔天我有幫A擦藥
原始紀錄左欄
妳為什麼又教彩萱先不要讓A睡覺，讓A下午才睡，又幫劉彩萱彌補如何對付社工？
原始紀錄右欄
我真的嚇到
原始紀錄左欄
妳於112年12月3日03:37分傳訊息說「真的不能讓他太自由」是什麼意思？建議用什麼方法？
原始紀錄右欄
指要有規律跟好的規則。要溝通。要好好教給他常規
原始紀錄左欄
審判長詢問
原始紀錄右欄
被告劉若琳回答
原始紀錄左欄
你何時搬去丙地？民國幾年？
原始紀錄右欄
離婚後，111年吧，幾月忘了。大約端午節之後
原始紀錄左欄
A童除由劉彩萱照顧外，還有誰照顧？
原始紀錄右欄
主要是劉彩萱，我偶爾也會，不知道會不會請別人
原始紀錄左欄
提示112年11月12日對話紀錄，你傳訊給劉彩萱說「一定會走樣」是什麼意思？
原始紀錄右欄
因為有去宮廟收驚等事，突然想到打上去
原始紀錄左欄
妳說「你玩不過他，他有政府認證」是什麼意思？什麼叫政府認證？什麼意思？什麼叫政府認證？
原始紀錄右欄
被告未答話。筆錄記載被告不語。
原始紀錄左欄
提示12月3日傳訊
A躺地板，白天不要讓他躺，腳跨是什麼意思？
原始紀錄右欄
指有看A躺著，腳掛著，指不要一直讓他躺著，也要坐，不要一直維持同姿勢
原始紀錄左欄
提示乙證3，說「今天沒吃東西」、「肚子不見了」是什麼意思？
原始紀錄右欄
指A看起來肚子比較小，是不是沒吃東西肚子才不見
原始紀錄左欄
劉彩萱是否有說過A會玩大便？
原始紀錄右欄
劉彩萱只說過A會脫尿布、不記得有說A會玩大便
原始紀錄左欄
審判長請國民法官先退庭，詢問檢察官就事實及法律辯論所需110分鐘有無辦法中間休息？檢方表示會就被告二人一同辯論，必要時可休息，但希望一次講完。諭知暫休庭至10:50
原始紀錄右欄
原始紀錄回答／右欄空白
Sources and editorial method
Primary source
Prison Watch: DAY2–DAY7 hearing records. DAY7 governs this day’s timing, Q&A, arguments and legal guidance. Cross-witness comparisons return to each witness’s actual hearing date, not Day 7 argument summaries in place of the original testimony.
Read Prison Watch’s DAY7 original ↗Cross-day comparison method
Fix people, dates, locations and evidentiary scope first, then distinguish direct observation, hearsay, messages, photos, earlier records, medical opinions and parties’ arguments. Only matching propositions are labeled direct discrepancies; different periods are change or reinforcement.
Editorial boundaries
Prosecution positions, defense positions, defendant answers, witness testimony and doctors’ opinions are labeled separately. Neither testimony nor arguments equal final judicial findings. Locations A, B and C retain Day 4 anonymization.