That timeline is pretty convincing. I missed this at the time, I’d been hoping to see this kind of timeline. It’s hard to see under those circumstances how it could have happened without at least active knowledge by Dean of what had occurred.[/quote]
The poster’s timeline analysis is based on a lot if supposition on which of the clocks is incorrect and by how much, without any evidence at all to support it.[/quote]
Not really, you have 2 clocks in a residential compound out of sync about 5 minutes. Even if we build in a reasonable amount of time, say another 5 minutes, the case against Zain would still look strong.
The poster’s timeline analysis is based on a lot of supposition on which of the clocks is incorrect and by how much, without any evidence at all to support it.[/quote]
Yes, but the basic windows seem pretty clear. Even allowing for a generous tilt in Dean’s favor, it’s hard to see how it could work.
While not a smoking gun in his hand, I’d say yes. The possible scenarios I could imagine in his favor look less appealing under that timeline.
I’m not quite sure I follow the time line theory, if I am honest. It took 15 mins to drive the first 4km and 7 mins to drive the second 4km. Is that the gist of it? The idea is that it took Dean the extra time before the crash to kick the driver out, get in the drivers seat and find out where he was and which route he needed to take. Is that the idea? Sorry for being dense.
Also, how fast are you going if you drive 4km in 15 mins? 16km per hour. Not too fast. I can run that in about 18 mins, and I’m no Usain Bolt. And 4km in 7 mins puts the driver at about 35km per hour for the speed after the crash? Almost double the speed. So you have a vehicle crawling along prior to the accident and then motoring at a reasonable lick after. What speed was the vehicle travelling at when it hit Mr Huang?
I imagine once you hit something major you want to put as much physical distance between you and the accident as possible, as quickly as possible.
The poster’s timeline analysis is based on a lot of supposition on which of the clocks is incorrect and by how much, without any evidence at all to support it.[/quote]
Yes, but the basic windows seem pretty clear. Even allowing for a generous tilt in Dean’s favor, it’s hard to see how it could work.
[/quote]
If the camera clocks are inaccurate it could be by 20 minutes. Who knows? Then that would completely skew his analysis.
Yes, but there are two clockings at each end. That seems to me to decrease the possibility of a major error considerably. The clocks could be wrong but we have no way of knowing that at all.
It seems to me, it might be a window that allows for a conscious decision to leave the scene as quickly as possible if Dean wasn’t driving at the time of the accident, but not a completely drunken lack of knowledge of the situation.
Regarding the inconsistencies of what he may or may not have remembered or noticed, we should keep in mind the nature of human memory (imperfect) and awareness, especially while drunk (nonlinear).
Posted via Tapatalk on tiny smartphone keyboard. Expect typos.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”]Yes, but there are two clockings at each end. That seems to me to decrease the possibility of a major error considerably. The clocks could be wrong but we have no way of knowing that at all.
[/quote]
Not to belabor the point, but with such different times for the clocks, it is impossible to trust any of the clocks’ times.
[quote=“Chris”]Regarding the inconsistencies of what he may or may not have remembered or noticed, we should keep in mind the nature of human memory (imperfect) and awareness, especially while drunk (nonlinear).
Posted via Tapatalk on tiny smartphone keyboard. Expect typos.[/quote]
Yes we should, and we should use that to consider Mr Dean an unreliable witness to what he got up to whilst in the car. The human mind makes up all sorts of shit to create solutions to puzzles with missing pieces, especially when ones back is against the wall. He could quite easily have hit Mr Huang whilst pissed out of his mind and have no clue the next day. However, he can use the small fragments to create a perception of himself not hitting the scooter driver.
[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“Tempo Gain”]Yes, but there are two clockings at each end. That seems to me to decrease the possibility of a major error considerably. The clocks could be wrong but we have no way of knowing that at all.
[/quote]
Not to belabor the point, but with such different times for the clocks, it is impossible to trust any of the clocks’ times.[/quote]
5 minutes off? For a not often serviced clock in an elevator not too bad.
We have some more certain times, though.
5.06, when the hit and run was reported.
4:50 when Zain left the KTV.
5:07 when he was supposed to enter the carpark.
5:14 when he entered the elevator.
What we know is that the accident happened moments before they call from the accident scene was placed, so let’s say 5:05, we could say 5:04 too for argument’s sake.
That would give him 9 minutes AT MOST to go from the pace of the accident to his house. From Zhongxiao/Dunhua to Songren/Songqin (app where he lived), 9 minutes would be normal, as there are a few red lights there.
Songjiang to Zhongxiao would be faster to drive actually, unless you were to spend 5 minutes to get rid of a driver, say.
I’ve heard that rumor, too, but even if it’s true, I don’t think you should hold Omni accountable for his past. Perhaps he was led astray. Nobody’s perfect, and he seems to me to be a person of excellent character. So even if Omni has some lawyering in his past, I think he’s done a fine job of reforming himself since then.
The timing is so tight that any error in any of the clocks throws everything into chaos. THAT’s the problem. If the timing was calibrated on the clocks (you could do this from cell phone calls observed on video camera data) that would be fine. I highly doubt any calibration has been performed whatsoever. Any barrister worth his salt would make hay from such issues. Also the defendant and main witnesses work for the establishment that provides evidence of the initial timeline. They are hardly impartial observers. It needs to be checked out thoroughly and cross examined. The witnesses were questioned and different times were mentioned. This was summarily dismissed as ‘normal human error’. This is preposterous.
I’m really sick of this thread but you can’t make a solid conclusion from data that is not solid. The way the police acted on gathering evidence is really pathetic.
[quote=“headhonchoII”]The timing is so tight that any error in any of the clocks throws everything into chaos. THAT’s the problem. If the timing was calibrated on the clocks (you could do this from cell phone calls observed on video camera data) that would be fine. I highly doubt any calibration has been performed whatsoever. Any barrister worth his salt would make hay from such issues. Also the defendant and main witnesses work for the establishment that provides evidence of the initial timeline. They are hardly impartial observers. It needs to be checked out thoroughly and cross examined. The witnesses were questioned and different times were mentioned. This was summarily dismissed as ‘normal human error’. This is preposterous.
I’m really sick of this thread but you can’t make a solid conclusion from data that is not solid. The way the police acted on gathering evidence is really pathetic.[/quote]
4 years on I think this is not worth getting sick over now. People are curious and the case drags on and on and on and on and on and on. Of course, none of us has the answer, but it will never stop us from chewin the fat or speculating.
4 years on I think this is not worth getting sick over now. People are curious and the case drags on and on and on and on and on and on. Of course, none of us has the answer, but it will never stop us from chewin the fat or speculating.[/quote]
With all due respect. Once the Scottish jusge reaches a conclusion and either send him back or let him walk out, would you not think that all doubters would shut up?
My money is on him coming back, let’s make a support group, so we can knit woolen jerseys for the Taiwan winters in an unheated jail.
With all due respect. Once the Scottish judge reaches a conclusion and either send him back or let him walk out, would you not think that all doubters would shut up? [/quote]
Nah, don’t be daft mate! Unless there is a tape showing the drivers switch prior to or post accident, or showing someone in the passenger seat at the point of impact, the doubters will always have room. People will have their prejudices about Taiwan, about the law, about drink drivers etc. Then there are the out and out nutters. Like the people who suspected there was collusion by the passport agency in the UK as they allowed an Indian dude dressed as a white man to pass through border security in the UK. “Must have been pretty good make up to have stayed convincing after a 16 hour flight.”
This is the temp thread that keeps on giving. 4 years and counting.
It took 15 mins to drive the first 4km and 7 mins to drive the second 4km. Is that the gist of it? The idea is that it took Dean the extra time