Charlie Jack, it is accepted here that even the judges in Taiwan have none of those skills. Why would you need any of them on forumosa?
Its forum for open discourse and speculation.
All that is going on is that Zain Dean has been convicted. He is out on bail perhaps? Or does he start serving his sentence under appeal?
Welcome to forumosa, ghost in taiwan.
Boo hoo. The family of the deceased should be receiving all of our sympathy.
The whole thing seemed fishy to me from the start when he had his car wrecked the next day. I don’t know about anyone else, but after a huge bender, the last thing I would think of doing is having my car destroyed the next morning. Laying in bed/on the couch nursing my hangover is a much better idea.
They’d have more of my sympathy if they actually went after the man who killed their son, instead of allowing him to go scot free while an innocent man rots in jail.
And the valet couldn’t have hopped in a cab? You can get across town quite fast in a cab that late at night.
They’d have more of my sympathy if they actually went after the man who killed their son, instead of allowing him to go scot free while an innocent man rots in jail.[/quote]
It seems a lot more probable Zain did it considering the evidence and his actions afterwards: the cameras only show one person in the car (Edit: This is a false rumor.) and he wanted to have the care destroyed the next day. Did he notice the dent? Did he think to question it before going to have his car destroyed?
If Zain was asleep, he would have been slumped over and not visible to the camera. Also consider window tinting (Mercedes in Taiwan? of course), the darkness of the night, etc.
He had already been planning to move away shortly after the night the accident happened, and was going to sell the car anyway. He got up the next day, saw the car was damaged, thought “How did this happen? Damn, now the car is useless… let’s see how much I can get for it.” He had no idea the car was “evidence”: he just did what was necessary in preparation for his departure.
They’d have more of my sympathy if they actually went after the man who killed their son, instead of allowing him to go scot free while an innocent man rots in jail.[/quote]
It seems a lot more probable Zain did it considering the evidence and his actions afterwards: the cameras only show one person in the car and he wanted to have the care destroyed the next day. Did he notice the dent? Did he think to question it before going to have his car destroyed?[/quote]
Chris obviously already has his mind made up. Anything you or I say is irrelevant. Chris, all evidence points at him being the one driving at the time of the accident. Seriously, who would go and have their car destroyed, with obvious damage, after a night of drinking? C’mon…
I can’t tell if you’re serious or not. At best, that is the dumbest thing I have ever read. “My car has a big dent in it… I’m sure I didn’t hit anything…” :roflmao: :roflmao:
I’ve come to my conclusion based on the existence of reasonable doubt and the lack of clear and convincing evidence that he did it. I read his statement, and it made sense. I’ve read through all the back-and-forth too, from people supporting him and those opposing him. I have yet to see any evidence that shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was driving at the time of the accident.
I can’t tell if you’re serious or not. At best, that is the dumbest thing I have ever read. “My car has a big dent in it… I’m sure I didn’t hit anything…” :roflmao: :roflmao:[/quote]
Oh, come on. Of course it’s an oversimplification of the event. i don’t have the time to dedicate all my effort to it.
But the line of thinking “My car has a big dent in it… I’m sure I didn’t hit anything…” isn’t what I surmised he might have thought; that’s your interpretation. He might have concluded (I don’t know; I’m not him) that the valet caused the dent, or that someone crashed into the car while it was parked. I don’t know; I’m just guessing. I know if I was drunk the night before and I saw a dent in my car, I’d be thinking “Who the fuck did this?” since I’m not one to drink and drive.
And what do people do when they see damage to their car? They take it to the repair shop. And the mechanic may have said, “This will cost you XXXXXX dollars to fix.” And Dean may have thought, “That’s too much. I’m leaving in a couple weeks” and asked the mechanic what he could do. “Well, you can sell it for scrap.”
Plausible? Yes.
EDIT: In ZD’s [url=A Personal Statement from Zain Dean statement[/url], he said:
"I was unaware … that the car had received any damage. The next day my wife called me from work to wake me and asked me what had happened the night before, specifically to the car. I replied, nothing that I knew off… I was very surprised to see that the damage to the front right side of the car, a broken bumper, a crushed light fitting, body panel damage, radiator damage and some chassis damage.
After discussing this with my wife, I came to the conclusion that the driver must have hit a lamp post or suchlike…"
[quote]So its nice to know that you think that even if he was at the wheel of his car when a person was killed shouldnt be convicted because you think there is no evidence to support that.
Wow.[/quote]
If there is no proof or evidence to show that somebody did something, even if they did, then there should be no conviction. Of course - this is how judicial systems should work, and unfortunately, this is why many people get off on technicalities.
Even so, to have the most fair and just legal systems, one can not just create evidence, fill in the holes as one pleases and mount evidence against a suspect just because one thinks one is guilty.
I can’t tell if you’re serious or not. At best, that is the dumbest thing I have ever read. “My car has a big dent in it… I’m sure I didn’t hit anything…” :roflmao: :roflmao:[/quote][/quote]
Oh, come on. Of course it’s an oversimplification of the event. I don’t have the time to dedicate all my effort to it.
But the line of thinking “My car has a big dent in it… I’m sure I didn’t hit anything…” isn’t what I surmised he might have thought; that’s your interpretation. He might have concluded (I don’t know; I’m not him) that the valet caused the dent, or that someone crashed into the car while it was parked. I don’t know; I’m just guessing. I know if I was drunk the night before and I saw a dent in my car, I’d be thinking “Who the fuck did this?” since I’m not one to drink and drive.
And what do people do when they see damage to their car? They take it to the repair shop. And the mechanic may have said, “This will cost you XXXXXX dollars to fix.” And Dean may have thought, “That’s too much. I’m leaving in a couple weeks” and asked the mechanic what he could do. “Well, you can sell it for scrap.”
Plausible? Yes.[/quote=“Chris”]
Plausible? No. Any person with an ounce of brain power would have wanted to find out what had happened to their car. His wife even notified him of the huge dent. The next day, he decides (with a raging hangover I’m sure) to scrap the evidenc… I mean the car.
The courts have found him guilty, and I’m pretty sure the correct verdict was given.
funkymonkey obviously already has his mind made up. Anything you or I say is irrelevant.
Hi, pot… this is kettle. What a great argument, Chris. 
Edit: I suddenly agree with Chris because… uhhhhhhh… Oh, wait, there is no evidence supporting his claims… Ummmm… :loco: Oh wait, the first thing I think of doing after a LONG night of drinking is scrapping my car (just like everyone else, I’m sure)… :loco:
This post was based on false rumors. I deleted it.
Hi, pot… this is kettle. What a great argument, Chris. [/quote]
Hey, it was your argument first:
Yes, they did. However, I’m sure some will come here (mostly friends/acquaintances) to say that the courts were unfare, etc.
Hi, pot… this is kettle. What a great argument, Chris. [/quote]
Hey, it was your argument first:
Oh, the “He started it first” argument. Now, I’m sure, you have lost any followers. Another stellar argument! You are truly winning over the masses!!! Good night. You seem to need a good night sleep.
Yes, they did. However, I’m sure some will come here (mostly friends/acquaintances) to say that the courts were unfare, etc.[/quote]
A court basing its sentencing decision partially on a lack of remorse from a defendant who has all along maintained his innocence IS an unfair court, as is a court basing its guilty verdict on flimsy evidence. There is too much reasonable doubt in this case.