I don’t know anything about forensic analysis, but from a common sense perspective, since this occurred in the early morning hours, it seems like one way to tell whether the time stamp has been changed would be by comparing the degree of daylight (intensity of sunlight) in the image at the time they got into the car and in the image showing the driver returning (“6 minutes later”), and taking into account the weather and so forth at the time.
Rotalsnart, that was suggested a few pages back. The weather is unlikely to have changed much within the hour or however long it did take the valet to get back, though. The crucial thing would be daylight; but plenty of CCTVs are indoors, and they would hardly be stupid enough to have changed the timestamp to a nighttime setting if the filming was obviously in daylight.
Maoman, Scomargo et al… and more news on the release of Dean’s own account? (And is he sure it’s wise to release it??)
[quote=“smithsgj”]Rotalsnart, that was suggested a few pages back. The weather is unlikely to have changed much within the hour or however long it did take the valet to get back, though. The crucial thing would be daylight; but plenty of CCTVs are indoors, and they would hardly be stupid enough to have changed the timestamp to a nighttime setting if the filming was obviously in daylight.
Maoman, Scomargo et al… and more news on the release of Dean’s own account? (And is he sure it’s wise to release it??)[/quote]
Yes, I believe he feels the same need for caution, I haven’t yet heard exactly what venue/forum he plans on using. I doubt very much that he’s considering simply providing it to the media, especially since the last version, as a frontispiece, has a screencap of the Taipei Times’ official correction of mis-stated events in an earlier story.
…we reported incorrectly that prosecutors said they had footage of Zain Dean, a British businessman, getting into the driver’s seat of his car before a fatal hit-and-run (“Expat bailed after hit and run,” page 2). The footage in fact showed a pub worker getting into the driver’s seat…
Hey, let’s not be too hard on the Times. At least they got the part about someone getting into the driver’s seat right.
And they said they were sorry. 
[quote=“smithsgj”]Rotalsnart, that was suggested a few pages back. The weather is unlikely to have changed much within the hour or however long it did take the valet to get back, though. The crucial thing would be daylight; but plenty of CCTVs are indoors, and they would hardly be stupid enough to have changed the timestamp to a nighttime setting if the filming was obviously in daylight.
[/quote]
Oops, I see. Apologies to Zender. Wasn’t meaning to steal his idea, but I may have unconsciously done just that when I scanned some of this thread absentmindedly before.
I also have now read Dean’s account and agree with Feiren at least that Dean’s assertion that he was not behind the wheel is not prima facie implausible from the information available so far. (I don’t know Dean personally.)
[quote=“zender”]…we reported incorrectly that prosecutors said they had footage of Zain Dean, a British businessman, getting into the driver’s seat of his car before a fatal hit-and-run (“Expat bailed after hit and run,” page 2). The footage in fact showed a pub worker getting into the driver’s seat…
Hey, let’s not be too hard on the Times. At least they got the part about someone getting into the driver’s seat right.
And they said they were sorry. [/quote]
No they didn’t. They admitted that they screwed up and expressed regret at their uselessness, but certainly no apology. Fucking half-arsed rag-artists.
[quote=“Rotalsnart”][quote=“smithsgj”]Rotalsnart, that was suggested a few pages back. The weather is unlikely to have changed much within the hour or however long it did take the valet to get back, though. The crucial thing would be daylight; but plenty of CCTVs are indoors, and they would hardly be stupid enough to have changed the timestamp to a nighttime setting if the filming was obviously in daylight.
[/quote]
Oops, I see. Apologies to Zender. Wasn’t meaning to steal his idea, but I may have unconsciously done just that when I scanned some of this thread absentmindedly before.
I also have now read Dean’s account and agree with Feiren at least that Dean’s assertion that he was not behind the wheel is not prima facie implausible from the information available so far. (I don’t know Dean personally.)[/quote]
This is odd. Seems everyone except me has read it. With such wide circulation isn’t it likely to get leaked at some point anyway?
The above two sentences aren’t necessarily at odds with each other. It’s possible that both are true - that prosecutors said they had footage of Zain Dean, and that the footage in fact showed a pub worker driving.
Is the Taipei Times apologizing because the prosecutors never said that, or because the prosecutors did say that, but were wrong? If the former, then they do need to apologize, to the public and to the prosecutors; if the latter, then no apology is required at all, just a caveat stating that the prosecutors were wrong.
It’s just lousy reporting. 
Good observation, Maoman.
Is this topic ready to be unlocked/merged yet?
The topic has been locked due to length, and discussion continues here:
[forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.ph … 4#p1285154](Zain Dean conviction--fatal hit & run case PART II