So far I have failed to find any reliable update on this (though I did not read through this whole thread once again). However a comment to Michael Turton’s blog is asserting, Zain Dean would have been sentenced again:
[quote]Anonymous said…
He has been sentenced to what the prosecutors were asking for; 2 years, 6 months.
March 25, 2011 at 10:44 PM
Anonymous said…
On appeal Deans sentence as [b]increased to 4 years in July 2012[/b]
August 12, 2012 at 11:22 AM [/quote]The new 4 year sentence after appeal has indeed be discussed in this thread, starting at the bottom of page 25: flob.me/p1449740
My 
: The whole video evidence / tampering stuff stinks like hell, and so does the media coverage assisted by the police - starting from day 1, with the invitation of press to the police station for presentation of the guilty driver. This already makes it very doubtful for me that the investigation was completely fair and correct, and thus maybe the subsequent trial might have been neither.
But then, which of the reports and statements to believe? What are the undisputed (maybe even stipulated?) facts? I wonder if someone will ever get the chance to go through all the steps that Charlie Jack mentioned. Probably you could write a whole book about this.
[quote=“olm”]My : The whole video evidence / tampering stuff stinks like hell, and so does the media coverage assisted by the police - starting from day 1, with the invitation of press to the police station for presentation of the guilty driver. This already makes it very doubtful for me that the investigation was completely fair and correct, and thus maybe the subsequent trial might have been neither.
But then, which of the reports and statements to believe? What are the undisputed (maybe even stipulated?) facts? I wonder if someone will ever get the chance to go through all the steps that Charlie Jack mentioned. Probably you could write a whole book about this.[/quote]
Zain Dean admits driving home drunk after ejecting KTV driver from car. ZD claims he cannot recall anything about the accident because he so drunk and passed out but can recall all the other parts of the journey home. He blames KTV driver for accident but cannot recall accident at all. He drives home not even knowing his car in accident and drives into his building car park and doesn’t see the damage to his car. His GF asks him about car damage and he doesnt know how the car is damaged goes to sleep. GF informs ZD of the news report about a black Mercedes Benz matching the description of ZD’s wrecked car in a hit and run accident that ended in the death of another person. After knowing about news report ZD arranges with his GF to get the car to car yard to be scrapped. Retired police officer who also saw the news report passes a car yard and sees a black mercedes benz ready to be scrapped with damage that matches accident on news and calls it in to the police. ZD arrested, charged, and convicted and given more time on appeal. During court case prosecutors discover ZD already has conviction for other crimes in Taiwan but ZD left Taiwan go back to UK and changed name and got new passport with different name and came back to Taiwan and use a different Chinese name. It’s a very short book.
So ZD actions wth tampering with evidence should be ignored? If police tamper with evidence this should not be ignored it is wrong to do this. The media, they just doing their job in reporting news. News doesn’t have to be totally accurate. It’s just news. Media want to sell news so need to have exciting news.
I don’t know if ZD actually in prison yet but I believe he was the one driving when the young man was killed. All my friends think he is guilty as well
I too believe there is much more weighing in on him being the driver when it hit the newsboy then him not being the driver.
Aboriginal girl, of course you are right: If those points really are true, exactly like you and your friends know them (from News, Forumosa, …?), then this really looks like someone guilty trying to hide his guilt. But there is one very big problem for me in seeing it exactly the same way: some of the points, and especially the conclusions from or interpretations of them, seem to be very different to what has been reported before. So I am not too sure if we can take them as the truth, and rely on them in trying to understand what really happened. Some examples:
According to ZD’s statement, the timeline of the events was very different: During the day after his car was damaged he didn’t know yet about the deadly hit-and-run accident on the news. He wanted to get the car repaired (why and who knew about this? see his statement). He went to his repair shop and left the damaged car parked at the road in front of the repair shop, in full public view (not hiding it). Second he learned that the repair would be costing more than the car’s worth, so he decided to have it scrapped. Only after that his wife learned about the deadly hit-and-run involving a black Mercedes like his and told him. After he discussed what to do with several people, his wife was being asked to come to the police. He decides to go to the police by himself immediately, without waiting for a lawyer, and report what he knows on his car’s accident, plus try to find out if his car and this hit-and-run are connected. When leaving the house to go to the nearby Xinyi Police he is apprehended by the Da An Police, who does not let him go to the Xinyi police to testify.
Also, his wife got the offer to sell the car instead of scrapping it immediately (which would have destroyed the evidence). He chose to sell the car - if he wanted to destroy evidence he would better have scrapped it immediately, and hidden it well before that… so these are indicators that he was either an extremely stupid criminal, or maybe really knew and believed what he stated.
According to news reports, the retired policeman saw the damaged car in front of the shop during the day. Only later he saw the news, made the connection in his mind, and called the police. I know this is probably “a minor inaccuracy” for you - but it also contradicts other (pro-ZD) comments I saw I think on Forumosa that this policeman was allegedly actively searching for the car.
That he was tampering with evidence is not an established fact, it is judging his actions by guessing his intentions. He has a different explanation for the known facts. For me both versions are worth considering.
Sure, if news are meant to be only entertainment, like so many people seem to see it, that could be acceptable. I believe news have to be perfectly accurate, though, if you want to use them for building an educated opinion about stuff - else what to believe? I believed the “reputable” news in my country pretty much blindly until I saw them reporting on stuff that I actually was knowledgeable about. I could actually see that there were blatant lies (to make the topic look more extreme and interesting), bullshit, cluelessness, etc in lots of reports from very widely accepted “quality” news sources. Those reports must have looked very straightforward and true to everyone who is not an expert on the matter. From then on I started asking myself “If they fuck up so royally in reporting on stuff where I can judge the facts right or wrong, how about the lots of stuff that I have no clue about? How can I know that these are not similarly wrong reports?”. I am not into conspiracy theories etc., but this showed me that for making news more interesting, the truth does not actually seem to matter much.
I can’t blame you or your friends. My wife strongly believes so too, because of what she knows from Taiwan news. And they really make it look like a very clear case… Pretty much everyone who sees the news has to believe so I guess. And that’s the point: Maybe this case is not so clear as it seems. Reports from people who actually have been to the court (Maoman) show a pretty different picture. There are lots of hints that it isn’t so easy. I am not saying ZD is not guilty, I am only saying this whole case as well as the reporting looks pretty fishy. And somehow I wonder what really happened, which story is correct, …
PS: Has anyone so far found anything from ZD’s statements being contradicted by undisputed facts, or maybe different to what the court documents show that his testimony was?
is/has. “news” is singular.
OK, carry on… 
I agree he is guilty of this.
All the other parts? In any case, part of the nature of being really drunk is that you drift in and out of awareness.
Logical inference: if the KTV driver was driving and an accident took place, the KTV driver would be the logical one to blame. No memory of actual accident required.
This points to his innocence. If he had known about the accident, he would expect there to be damage.
ZD goes to get an estimate of the repair costs. They were too much, and he’s moving anyway, so he decides to scrap the car. Makes sense. Reasonable doubt on “tampering with evidence”.
How many more times will the Police fuck up?
They did same in the actual investigations of at least two close friends of mine, that died. Though we were way out in the sticks, of course, not like the professionals in TaiBei.
: :roflmao:
ZD obviously fucked up. He admits the same. From then on, is a matter of sheer conjecture. On his part, and on and the rest of us.
The Cops?
Those keystone keys that can’t even shoot straight?
Well, no doubt, they have many more coming…
as in Judas Priest.
Yes. The judges who convicted him. ZD also posted a now removed Youtube clip where he invited the media to his office for an interview. He stated in that interview he NEVER drove the car home that night. This clearly conflicts with his statement. Even though the clip was removed for copywrite it doesn’t mean the clip was not recorded by others. Maybe the prosecutors and Judges have a copy of it.
Logical inference: if the KTV driver was driving and an accident took place, the KTV driver would be the logical one to blame. No memory of actual accident required.[/quote]
Big if. ZD cannot say he was not the person driving at time of accident as he was too drunk to recall. Its quite probable he was the driver and cannot recall the accident.
The KTV driver said he wasn’t driving and he can recall that. Of course its logical for ZD to blame the KTV driver, he doesn’t want to get a jail sentence for something he did.
With no evidence or witnesses at all, it is equally logical for the KTV driver to deny he was the driver, even if he was the driver. Same motive: to avoid jail time.
Mr Halford at his (commercial) best. I don’t exactly see the relevance here though.
I’d honestly consider myself a borderline alcoholic. Many who know me would say I’ve passed far over the line a long time ago. I can not recall an instance where I’ve blacked out so much, yet recalled certain events with such detail, as Mr Dean has concerning this particular night. For this reason alone I doubt his testimony.
C’mon navillus: all I meant was “You’ve got a nudder ting coming.’”
Forgive me if i went all Metal.
Jesus Wept!
One would think the bottom and final line would be the civic camera footage.
Of course, the police would never withhold, or tamper with same. would they?
As is the case with many an incident, we shall never know, as some silly farge erased all the evidence.
[i]...... SIGH,,,,,,[/i]
How Many More Times?
Can we stand it, until our love will break?
:ponder:Yes. The judges who convicted him. [/quote]
Yes we all know already the judge didn’t believe ZD wasn’t driving. I mean: Is any of the statements ZD posted here directly contradicted by any proof that is available publicly? Or did maybe ZD testify anything in court that doesn’t match his statement here?
Here is one of the court documents I believe: flob.me/p1450033
Unfortunately I cannot read Chinese, so I don’t know if there is anything interesting in there that would go as “undisputed”. All I can tell is that the KTV driver was believed to have returned soon after they left, based on a video that was allegedly tampered with according to earlier info…
Yeah, he commented on this allegation here already.
[quote=“olm”]Yes we all know already the judge didn’t believe ZD wasn’t driving. I mean: Is any of the statements ZD posted here directly contradicted by any proof that is available publicly? Or did maybe ZD testify anything in court that doesn’t match his statement here? Here is one of the court documents I believe: flob.me/p1450033
Unfortunately I cannot read Chinese, so I don’t know if there is anything interesting in there that would go as “undisputed”. All I can tell is that the KTV driver was believed to have returned soon after they left, based on a video that was allegedly tampered with according to earlier info…[/quote]
My husband and I think that because of his previous conviction then fleeing Taiwan to change his name and come back and use different names to avoid detection removed ZD’s chance of any credibility with the judge. So when its he said she said and one party is known to have previous legal issues and then is too drunk to recall if he was driving or not the court simply accepted ZD’s testimony was not to be trusted. Fenlander was correct to spot this very early on. Also ZD’s statement has been changed where he wrote he didnt drive the car home that night to admitting he did.
forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … &start=100
Foreigner in a Mercedes involved in hit and run
[quote]I am a City Girl » Fri May 14, 2010 10:50 pm
The question is… from my understanding on the news report, Mr.Zain Dean is as known as 林克穎. However during the trial today the court found out he got a different name,“柯瑞明” on the other ID document (I am not sure what it is, as I saw one TV station said, it’s another passort whereas some other TV station said it’s APRC) .
During the trial, the judge questioned him whether he holds another passport, according to the report, Mr. Dean bit the tongue. And the departure prohibition order on Mr. Dean was issued.[/quote]
A Personal Statement from Zain Dean
[quote]by fenlander » Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:59 pm
Sure but it is still not good for the defendent to have a record of dishonesty against his name right? They are insinuating that he changed his name because of this copyright case. If true then that is fraud. Changing your name for the purposes of deception and in this case avoidence of trial is a serious charge. Just because many others supposedly do this all the time has no bearing on this case does it? I’m not sure whether or not this record can be used against the defendent in the drunk driving case. This is undoubtedly unwelcome news for Mr Zain Deen. It casts doubt on the credibility of his words against the word of the driver, the police and all the others involved in the case.[/quote]
[quote]by Surf Punk » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:22 pm
Zain Dean wrote:
…as it was obvious that I would not be able to walk properly, let alone drive.
Further down in the statement:
Certainly I had not driven the car home so there didn’t seem to be any undue
reason to worry.
But then this?
I then got in the drivers seat (not even at this point noticing the damage on the
car) and drove the last couple of hundred meters home, parked the car and
somehow made it up to the house.
These statements are in conflict with each other. First, Zain states he’s not
able to walk properly, let alone drive, but then he hops in the driver seat and drives
home.[/quote]
If ZD really is innocent then we all hope he can prove it because he is the one who needs to show the judge he wasn’t driving at time of accident. How can he convince a judge when ZD really cannot remember if he was or wasn’t driving? ZD himself cannot know he wasnt driving by his own facts. He can only claim that he left KTV with KTV driver but drove himself home later on.
Of course there was some really strange posts claiming that nothing was going on with the case against ZD.
[quote]by the chief » Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:25 am
Latest news, and, of course, this isn’t “official”, that is it hasn’t appeared in any of the papers, you know, like the one where the guy’s being specifically labeled as having commited an act for which he has yet to be tried, but latest news is they’re taking forever to go to trial because the already circumstantial evidence is so weak, no Prosecutor will touch the case, it being pretty apparent it’ll get thrown out the first day.A forensic expert has identified numerous places where the security cam tapes from the KTV were clearly tampered with, and not very skillfully, either.
Upon cursory examination, none of the KTV employee’s stories matched, and were consistently contradicted by their cell phone records.
The driver kid’s deposition was wildly inconsistent and apparently collapsed upon even basic follow up questioning.
More than 5 Prosecutors have passed on going to trial, and it’s apparently been hot-potatoed down to like the most junior staff, like under-30s, and they don’t even want it.[/quote]
All the other stuff is fluff compared to getting actual evidence of the timeline and sequence of events. I believe there should have been enough of this evidence from CCTV cameras.
This case would have been thrown out of court in any Western country due to police fuck-ups and inconsistent witness testimony. The police are notoriously corrupt here, with their hands in illegal gambling and whorehouses etc. This is not conjecture either. Only recently Banqiao’s police chief and his wife was shown to have been involved in operating an illegal casino. It was an open secret but nobody would touch this for years.
taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003550050
Do I think Zain is guilty? Completely irrelevant. If I was the judge I want the facts. I want to know the facts have been collected impartially and that the police have made an effort to do an investigation. Unfortunately many judges here don’t seem to think like that.
The legal system here in Taiwan is weak, prosecutors used to be able to retry cases forever in order to keep people in prisons. Only now has the Hsichi three been released and they are due a big compensation package. Read the history of that case.
Lots of other such allegations seem to have turned out as only slander already. Well, if this was indeed correct, then it would surely make a bad impression - even it has nothing directly to do with the drunk driving case. At least from what was written about this topic there seem to be interpretations pretty different from that one.
Anyway, it would go in the same direction as some pretty crass allegations (also slander?) some poster commenting on a China Post article made about ZD and his family’s background, honesty and behavior in their home town. Also stuff about the involved company and whether or not it was registered in Scotland as claimed by it’s TW website.
Jeeez what a mess… Does anyone know if there will be another appeal?
It seems the ‘sources’ have gone to ground on this one.