Continued from the two threads [color=#FF0000]Foreigner in a Mercedes involved in hit and run[/color] and [color=#FF0000]A Personal Statement from Zain Dean[/color] which can be found [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/foreigner-in-a-mercedes-involved-in-hit-and-run/57335/1 and [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/a-personal-statement-from-zain-dean/58156/1
Also, for your reference, Zain’s personal statement is [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/a-personal-statement-from-zain-dean/58156/1
[color=#008000]Moderator note: This topic has generated a lot of discussion, not all of it welcome here. Keep it civil, respectful, and on topic. Thanks. k.k.[/color]
My own opinion hasn’t changed. I don’t think Zain has had a fair trial. Just as there are elements of Zain’s story that lead some to believe he is hiding something, there are similar issues with the prosecution’s case. For me, I don’t understand how no street-cam video has been presented to back up the prosecution’s case–if Zain had made up his version of the night’s events, he would have had to know that no video captured the moment when the KTV employee got out of the car. That’s what seems most unbelievable to me.
I still don’t know who killed that poor guy. That death was a tragedy. I don’t like the idea of another in the form of a wrongful conviction.
Are NOT mutually exclusive. None of the information sources available have rock-solid credibility. Based on what I have read so far, I expect to never know the truth unless some new incontrovertible evidence is introduced.
But I’m not going to hack on anyone for saying they trust their friend, or for believing that local court findings should carry some weight. Sometimes friends are skilled manipulators, and sometimes local courts are hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.
Sit on the fence, and ignore the uncomfortable wedgie of indecision. You get used to it.
I’d agree if only the court had some findings. As it stands, there is still no evidence that puts Zain in the driver’s seat at the time of the accident, nor any evidence that shows the KTV driver turning around and getting out shortly after driving him, despite the presence of CCTV cameras at the spot where it happened. So, no “findings”, only a verdict. I’m not comfortable “sitting on the fence” when the investigation has been so shoddy. I can only presume incompetence or corruption.
[quote=“Stray Dog”]if Zain had made up his version of the night’s events, he would have had to know that no video captured the moment when the KTV employee got out of the car. That’s what seems most unbelievable to me.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. A hit and run driver would likely look around and check for video cameras or eyewitnesses. If the odds look good, why not take a gamble?
More generally, ALL hit and run drivers who are later apprehended could claim they weren’t at the wheel at the time of the accident (by pretending the car was stolen, for example). If the judges in these cases had to provide incontrovertible photographic evidence placing the car owner behind the wheel at the time of the accident, then there would be zero convictions. What kind of precedent would be set? Why would anyone bother stopping after an accident?
In this type of case, surely the burden of evidence has to lie with the accused.
Not in any civilized country. No one should have to prove his innocence. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. “Innocent until proven guilty”? Surely you’ve heard this concept before?
Not in any civilized country. No one should have to prove his innocence. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. “Innocent until proven guilty”? Surely you’ve heard this concept before?[/quote]
I’ve seen it in the movies. But real life is often different. Sometimes the burden of proof lies with the accused. Sometimes it lies with the prosecution. As facts are uncovered during a trial, the burden can even shift from prosecutor to the accused, or the other way.
Try telling the conductor on the train that he has to prove you didn’t buy a train ticket - see how far that gets you.
[quote=“monkey”][quote=“Stray Dog”]if Zain had made up his version of the night’s events, he would have had to know that no video captured the moment when the KTV employee got out of the car. That’s what seems most unbelievable to me.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. A hit and run driver would likely look around and check for video cameras or eyewitnesses. If the odds look good, why not take a gamble?
More generally, ALL hit and run drivers who are later apprehended could claim they weren’t at the wheel at the time of the accident (by pretending the car was stolen, for example). If the judges in these cases had to provide incontrovertible photographic evidence placing the car owner behind the wheel at the time of the accident, then there would be zero convictions. What kind of precedent would be set? Why would anyone bother stopping after an accident?
In this type of case, surely the burden of evidence has to lie with the accused.[/quote]
Thinking that a deeply inebriated person would have the wherewithal to look around to ensure that not a single camera would be recording him kicking the KTV employee out of the car shortly before it was to be involved in a fatal accident and be lucky enough for that to be the case the first time he tries it is about the most far-fetched notion I’ve read on this case so far.
It also ignores the possibility that Zain’s claim that the employee got out near his home is true; there is also CCTV footage lacking from that intersection at that time too. If the police wanted to prove Zain’s story inaccurate, they would just need to produce the video from that time and place. But they didn’t. They presented no proof that the KTV employee didn’t drive Zain most of the way home. Evidence is questionably lacking for both proving the police version of events and disproving Zain’s. That is very, very strange.
Not in any civilized country. No one should have to prove his innocence. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. “Innocent until proven guilty”? Surely you’ve heard this concept before?[/quote]
I’ve seen it in the movies. But real life is often different. Sometimes the burden of proof lies with the accused. Sometimes it lies with the prosecution. As facts are uncovered during a trial, the burden can even shift from prosecutor to the accused, or the other way.[/quote]
These responsibilities are set out in the Criminal Code of every country, there’s no shifting about of anything.
Except in the movies.
And, FWIW, while the judicial system in Taiwan may stray from that nominally accepted in Western countries, it does have in common that the burden of proof for both indictment and trial rests solely on the Prosecution, just like at home.
What the judges do with that demonstration, or lack thereof, well…
Not in any civilized country. No one should have to prove his innocence. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. “Innocent until proven guilty”? Surely you’ve heard this concept before?[/quote]
I’ve seen it in the movies. But real life is often different. Sometimes the burden of proof lies with the accused. Sometimes it lies with the prosecution. As facts are uncovered during a trial, the burden can even shift from prosecutor to the accused, or the other way.
Try telling the conductor on the train that he has to prove you didn’t buy a train ticket - see how far that gets you. [/quote]
I posted the material below about a year ago, but it certainly seems worth reposting.
Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of China, as translated, reads in pertinent part:
The burden of proof (onus probandi) does not always lie with the prosecution. For example, the presumption of innocence places a burden upon the prosecution to prove that Dean committed a crime (generally beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court) and to disprove Dean’s defense except for affirmative defenses in which the proof of non-existence of all affirmative defense is not necessary. Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the prosecution, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof. Also, fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.
If Dean’s defense is anything like his statement, his entire defense is affirmative, and as such, the burden to prove that he is saying the truth lies with him.
Not in any civilized country. No one should have to prove his innocence. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. “Innocent until proven guilty”? Surely you’ve heard this concept before?[/quote]
What’s the legal standard for conviction here? I know in the US, it’s “beyond reasonable doubt” (higher) in a criminal case and “preponderance of the evidence” (lower) for civil, so I think Zain would have gotten off in the US as the KTV driver serves as reasonable doubt. I think he’d get creamed in civil court, though.
He admitted that he was in his car at the time of the accident. He is assumed to be responsible for the accident unless he can prove that he wasn’t in control of the vehicle at that time. Why is that so hard to understand?
I would assume that the last known driver of the car would be at fault. There’s no dispute on either side that ZD didn’t drive away from the KTV - he went to the passenger seat. Why go to all the trouble of getting a valet to drive (he had already done this once before, earlier in the evening), only to kick him out a block down the road?
Did Mr. Dean check if the KTV guy has a mobile phone? Pretty much everyone does, so that would be a safe bet.
If so, did he try to get the courts to ask the mobile provider to release transponder data for that phone for the time in question? Which I would have thought would have been definitive in where the KTV employee was.
[quote=“Mick”]Did Mr. Dean check if the KTV guy has a mobile phone? Pretty much everyone does, so that would be a safe bet.
If so, did he try to get the courts to ask the mobile provider to release transponder data for that phone for the time in question? Which I would have thought would have been definitive in where the KTV employee was.[/quote]
This was all done in the first stages of the investigation, around the same time that it was confirmed, in court, that the KTV surveillance footage had been tampered with.
All the KTV staff’s stories and alibis were contradicted by their phone records, and they were thrown out as witnesses.
[quote=“the chief”][quote=“Mick”]Did Mr. Dean check if the KTV guy has a mobile phone? Pretty much everyone does, so that would be a safe bet.
If so, did he try to get the courts to ask the mobile provider to release transponder data for that phone for the time in question? Which I would have thought would have been definitive in where the KTV employee was.[/quote]
This was all done in the first stages of the investigation, around the same time that it was confirmed, in court, that the KTV surveillance footage had been tampered with.
All the KTV staff’s stories and alibis were contradicted by their phone records, and they were thrown out as witnesses.[/quote]
Just to be clear, I dont just mean records of telephone calls, the phone will act like a GPS in reverse, it will sync to local repeaters giving a precise location of where someone is at any given moment (or where the phone is to be more precise), this would be recorded in the transponder data. If Mr. Dean has that data, he should be able to prove the KTV driver drove him home, unless thats been tampered with also.
