[quote=“RobinTaiwan”]I’m sorry but… I don’t believe you. As such, I don’t expect a court of law to do otherwise unless you can prove it.
My apologies in advance if the above offends some readers…[/quote]
No offense taken. You can say whatever you like.
The law of the Taiwan, and the greater western world indicates you are innocent until proven guilty. I am innocent, and not proven guilty. What do you want me to do? No ‘evidence’ showed me guilty.
[quote=“Mick”]Instead of just sympathizing, which I do. Go back and edit your post, or better still post it again. We are lazy people and dont take time to reference facts.
You say under law access should be provided, supply links. You make statements like.
Totally unclear to me, you haven’t received any, then what are the reference to 4 and 7 months? Perhaps its my English comprehension thats the problem.
You make reference to you being denied video footage, is this normal? Can you provide links, instances that this would be considered discriminatory treatment.
You say you are denied evidence you are entailed to by law, provide links to say you are entitled to that evidence.
People asked why you would listen to to this potential investor not to make a fuss. Why did he care? Why was he telling you not to make a fuss. Did he testify in court that he strongly requested you dont make a fuss?
Lastly, and if you have been following the thread. Why the fuck wasn’t the transponder records of the KTV guys cell phone requested?
Im sorry if this comes across as unsympathetic, in fact I am, but you need to hear the truth, which is a story about how I was going to do this, and so and so told me that, aint gonna fly.[/quote]
You make good points. I’m sorry if I can’t answer all of your points, the fact is that I’ve been through hell. I was given no evidence nor information why I was denied basic rights. You ask for links, I don’t have them. I have put it on my list of things to do; to list and link what the basic rights of man are in Taiwan.
You talk of transponder records - it took 7 months before the courts gave us a one off look at the footage used in evidence. Until now I still haven’t received the copy of the evidence against me. What could I do, shout about it?
This is not Europe. This is is Asia. I am an ‘alien’ and so are you. It took me a long time to figure this out. You should too, if you are so inclined.
Peace.
[quote=“Stray Dog”][quote=“RobinTaiwan”]You really have zero recollection of the accident but you vividly remember asking the driver to get out and let you drive home by yourself. You also remember everything else that happened on this short drive quite vividly. The only thing you have no recollection of is the SEVERE impact that killed a motorist.
I’m sorry but… I don’t believe you. As such, I don’t expect a court of law to do otherwise unless you can prove it.
Your affirmative approach to defending yourself will do very little for you unless you can back up your affirmations with a semblance of evidence.
My apologies in advance if the above offends some readers…[/quote]
Rob, you emphasized the severity of the impact, but this goes against the evidence; namely, that the airbag didn’t go off, which indicates an impact not very severe at all. I saw the damage to the car, which looked bad, so I can only conclude that that happened over a distance rather than bringing the car to an abrupt halt, which would have set off the airbag and–perhaps–woken Mr Dean. Also, in his statement, Mr Dean mentions that the driver had to try to wake him up; it is very feasible to me that one could be so unconscious as to sleep through an impact that was so weak as to not set off the airbag and need some considerable effort from another person to be awoken.
Just offering a plausible explanation to circumstances that lead you to believe that Mr Dean is lying.[/quote]
I agree on the airbag issue. The fact they they didn’t deploy demonstrates nothing. The primary trigger for front airbags (possibly the only trigger in older cars) is an accelerometer which measures how fast the vehicle decelerates in a collision. The threshold for deploying front airbags is an impact of about 15mph into a concrete barrier or 30mph into a stationary car. But because a motorcycle (with rider) is only about 10% of the weight of an average car, it won’t arrest a car’s speed quickly in the case of a collision. You’d need to hit a stationary motorcycle at about 300mph for the accelerometer to register the same as an impact into a stationary car at 30mph or a concrete barrier at 15mph.
You missed a vital piece of evidence and formed a strong opinion because of the illogical conclusion you had come to, and I highlighted that, offering my own opinion, which is what this forum is for. If you want a private conversation with Mr Dean, then you should do so by some other medium, perhaps by PM.
Great to see Zain here shedding more light on the case. 
[quote=“RobinTaiwan”]You really have zero recollection of the accident but you vividly remember asking the driver to get out and let you drive home by yourself. You also remember everything else that happened on this short drive quite vividly. The only thing you have no recollection of is the SEVERE impact that killed a motorist.
I’m sorry but… I don’t believe you.[/quote]
When seriously drunk or extremely tired, people often drift in and out of consciousness. I’ve experienced such in my life. I find nothing unbelievable at all with this claim.
Zain, thanks for keeping your cool while responding to some of our rather unsympathetic remarks.
It’s one more bit of evidence in my mind that you’ve been handed a raw deal.
God be with you!
Everybody deserves a right to a fair trial in my book, doesn’t look like Zain got one though. Lack of evidence to then make a final conclusion of ‘guilty’ is very troubling. Since Zain is a British citizen I think the British office here should get involved more so at least the case is debated on the facts at hand.
The Taiwan ‘justice’ system is not the same as the West by any means. I read of a case recently where a guy went through FIVE trials until he was finally exonerated of something that happened in 1997!
[quote=“headhonchoII”]Everybody deserves a right to a fair trial in my book, doesn’t look like Zain got one though. Lack of evidence to then make a final conclusion of ‘guilty’ is very troubling. Since Zain is a British citizen I think the British office here should get involved more so at least the case is debated on the facts at hand.
The Taiwan ‘justice’ system is not the same as the West by any means. I read of a case recently where a guy went through FIVE trials until he was finally exonerated of something that happened in 1997![/quote]
Agreed, and appreciate Mr. Dean has been through hell, it can show how quickly ones life can turn around on a single event.
In order to get those facts, either Mr. Dean is going to have to do research or pay the lawyer to provide the details or someone else is going to have to.
For example, in obtaining location details from a phone company. What are the laws, do they exist? How long (if any) time is the company required to hold this information. Under what circumstances would such details be released? Would a case like this normally warrant a disclosure. Armed with those facts and assuming such data does exist, if he were denied access, this lends weight to the argument information is being unfairly withheld. Facts, backed up with citations to law, backed up with examples. Then in my opinion, the British office might pay more attention.
Its only a trade and cultural office, Mick. It will do nothing, nor is it either mandated or expected to. I can’t be bothered checking but I’m fairly sure it makes this quite clear on its website.
I second that, Mr. Dean. God go with you, and good luck on your appeal.
I think when there is clear proof of discrimination or where the case is not handled with due process, they will approach the authorities. I’m not sure it would do anything and the onus seems to be on Mr. Dean to demonstrate that he is being unfairly treated.
The BTCO website suggests looking at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office for full information and under Publications , has one In prison abroad whre it says.
[quote=“Zain Dean”] I am innocent, and not proven guilty. [/quote]Actually, you were found guilty by the court of law.
[quote]What do you want me to do?[/quote]I don’t really want you to do anything but I would be interested to hear your answers to some questions some of us may have. Look at it as an opportunity for you to really clarify this and to show that you are indeed being framed. I’m very interested.
[quote]No ‘evidence’ showed me guilty.[/quote]That is not true. The evidence and your own statement put you in the car at the time of the accident and at the time the vehicle left the accident scene. You claim that you were sleeping but that is just like claiming to have been temporarily insane. It’s all good but the onus is on you to prove it.
I think we need some perspective, here. People get caught all the time for fleeing the scene of an accident while under the influence. In such cases, passengers are also guilty of fleeing the scene of a crime. Claiming to be passed out drunk NEVER works. Not in Taiwan, not anywhere else.
Can we ask some questions now?
[quote=“Stray Dog”] If you want a private conversation with Mr Dean, then you should do so by some other medium, perhaps by PM.[/quote]Why? Are you saying that we can only post in this thread if we believe him, or are you saying that I should talk about him in the third person? 
It’s kind of embarrassing that I have to keep explaining the obvious to you, Robin, but you said I couldn’t speak up on another mistake you made. Like this one:
Zain is stating his innocence and that there has been no proof that he committed the crime that he was found guilty of. I think you think that the two (proven guilty and found guilty) are the same thing, but they’re not. I’ll let a lawyer explain the difference to you. 
I am interested in what you’re saying about passed-out passengers being implicated in a hit-and-run that they slept through. Is there really no defence in such a case?
[quote=“Stray Dog”]
Zain is stating his innocence and that there has been no proof that he committed the crime that he was found guilty of[/quote]
Stray Dog, it seems from what I have read in this thread, Mr. Dean needs to provide proof he was not at the wheel.
I can accept this as law, otherwise people would all drive off and blame it on carjackers or something, and say “prove I was the one at the wheel”.
He was in the car, registered to him, a person died, and unless Mr. Dean can prove he was not the one driving, he will go to jail.
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“Stray Dog”]
Zain is stating his innocence and that there has been no proof that he committed the crime that he was found guilty of[/quote]
Stray Dog, it seems from what I have read in this thread, Mr. Dean needs to provide proof he was not at the wheel.
I can accept this as law, otherwise people would all drive off and blame it on carjackers or something, and say “prove I was the one at the wheel”.
He was in the car, registered to him, a person died, and unless Mr. Dean can prove he was not the one driving, he will go to jail.[/quote]
I don’t disagree. I’m only commenting on what Zain said, which is true, regardless of law.
[quote=“Stray Dog”]Zain is stating his innocence and that there has been no proof that he committed the crime that he was found guilty of. I think you think that the two (proven guilty and found guilty) are the same thing, but they’re not. I’ll let a lawyer explain the difference to you. 
[/quote]You do that. I see that you are well-versed on standards of proof. :roflmao:
[quote]I am interested in what you’re saying about passed-out passengers being implicated in a hit-and-run that they slept through. Is there really no defence in such a case?[/quote]Passed out in your own car and fleeing an accident scene… Good luck!
What proof was there then? As far as I can tell, you’ve been saying that he has to prove he didn’t do it. Now you’re saying there was proof he did do it? Robin, I know you’re an intelligent guy, but I get the impression you’re not thinking these things through before making a comment and then patting yourself on the back regardless of it being nonsensical. Oh, well. Laughing? Well, ignorance, bliss, and all that.
Thanks for attempting to explain the answer to my question. But I’m still in the dark, to be honest. I’m genuinely asking you to explain, as I’m seriously interested–I’ve never heard of this before. I’m not trying to catch you out, so don’t worry. I just figured you might know more about this than me.
I’ll have to ask a lawyer first. I’ll get back to you.
Taiwan law regarding presumed innocent or guilty is thus
"[i]Prior to a final conviction through trial, an accused is presumed to be innocent.
The facts of an offense shall be established by evidence. The facts of an offense shall not be established in the absence of evidence.
The public prosecutor shall bear the burden of proof as to the facts of the crime charged against an accused, and shall indicate the method of proof[/i]".
Those are the original words.
The burden of proof was obviously enough in the eyes of the court as you were found guilty.
Robin said this START" The evidence and your own statement put you in the car at the time of the accident and at the time the vehicle left the accident scene. You claim that you were sleeping but that is just like claiming to have been temporarily insane. It’s all good but the onus is on you to prove it.
I think we need some perspective, here. People get caught all the time for fleeing the scene of an accident while under the influence. In such cases, passengers are also guilty of fleeing the scene of a crime. Claiming to be passed out drunk NEVER works. Not in Taiwan, not anywhere else."END
Whether you were at the wheel or not you fled the scene of an accident. If you were passed out and did not realize then at the very least you are guilty of NOT reporting an accident. Do you accept that? Or despite your car being damaged you still were unaware that your car which you had been travelling in was involved in an accident despite the damage. So in order not to make a fuss and hurt your business interests you did not report an accident. Correct? A simple yes no would suffice to that?