All occupants of that car are guilty of failing to report an accident and fleeing the scene of an accident. As ZD was certainly in the car, you can add those to your list.
All occupants of that car are guilty of failing to report an accident and fleeing the scene of an accident. As ZD was certainly in the car, you can add those to your list.
Then there is the issue of tampering with evidence.
[/quote]
Nanjing E. Road and Chang Chun Road are parallel.
Yes.
It looks like this:
S
O
N
G
J
I
A
N
G
Minquan E Road
Minsheng E Road-------------------------------
Changchun Road-------------------------------
Nanjing E. Road ------------------------------
Chunghsiao E. Rd Sec 3-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chunghsiao E. Rd Sec 4 (crash) Sec 5
I get the impression they were going south on Songjiang Road. Maybe the first (KTV) driver claims that after just a few minutes going south on Songjiang (from a bit north of Minchuan on Songjiang Rd), he was asked to get out between Changchun and Nanjing.
Is this right? 
Letâs get to the point. This case comes down to one thing: âWho was driving the car when it hit Mr. Huang?â Video evidence from the KTV shows Zain getting into the passenger seat and a valet driving the car away. The same video shows the valet coming back a few minutes later - too soon to crash into Huang and then get back to the KTV in time.
So whatâs more likely? (1) The prosecutorâs story that Zain kicked the valet out of the car a few minutes after leaving the KTV, and drove himself home in a drunken state, hitting Huang on the way? Or (2) Zainâs story, which involves a complex conspiracy between the authorities, the KTV staff, and the media, to tamper with video evidence and frame him with the crime?
I was at one of Zainâs court hearings, and I have to admit there were gaping holes in the police case, the KTV staffsâ statements, and Zainâs defense as well. Yet through all that bullshit, the prosecutor asked the key question, which I borrowed above: âWho was driving the car when it hit Mr. Huang?â Zainâs lawyer didnât have an answer to that question, and thatâs why the judge convicted him. I think almost any judge/jury almost anywhere in the world would do the same.
Monkey:
[quote]All occupants of that car are guilty of failing to report an accident and fleeing the scene of an accident. As ZD was certainly in the car, you can add those to your list.
Then there is the issue of tampering with evidence. [/quote]
The prosecution would then have to prove that Mr. Dean was aware of an accident at the time it happened. If Huang had fled the scene while Mr. Dean was asleep, then Mr. Dean cannot be held accountable for this.
Priest:
Just because a lawyer does not have an answer to a question does not give a judge the right to convict. What a mad and unjust world it would be if people were convicted on a whim because nobody knew what happened. If there was a possibility that either one or another person was driving a car at the time of an accident, a normal court, at being unable to get to the bottom of who was driving, would absolutely not convict as it is the safest option.
[quote=âzenderâ]
I get the impression they were going south on Songjiang Road. Maybe the first (KTV) driver claims that after just a few minutes going south on Songjiang (from a bit north of Minquan on Songjiang Rd), he was asked to get out between Changchun and Nanjing.
Is this right? [/quote]
There was some discussion about the locations here: flob.me/p1159388
ACcording to that, the locations (for example for google maps) are somewhere around these points:
KTV: 25.053738,121.532993
Accident: 25.041507,121.548145
Home: 25.041185,121.565968 (not sure if I got that right)
Can someone check with the two Chinese court documents if those are accurate?
[quote=âDevereauxâ]
Any other way and he would surely have been caught, and Zain would have had to have balls of steel to pull off a stunt like that. Immigration officials and airline staff are not blind, nor are they as stupid as the courts. I canât believe they could be that stupid, I just canât.[/quote]
Me either, nor that anyone would have the guts to try it as you note. I think there must be some other explanation.
[quote=âPriestâ]Letâs get to the point. This case comes down to one thing: âWho was driving the car when it hit Mr. Huang?â Video evidence from the KTV shows Zain getting into the passenger seat and a valet driving the car away. The same video shows the valet coming back a few minutes later - too soon to crash into Huang and then get back to the KTV in time.
So whatâs more likely? (1) The prosecutorâs story that Zain kicked the valet out of the car a few minutes after leaving the KTV, and drove himself home in a drunken state, hitting Huang on the way? Or (2) Zainâs story, which involves a complex conspiracy between the authorities, the KTV staff, and the media, to tamper with video evidence and frame him with the crime?
I was at one of Zainâs court hearings, and I have to admit there were gaping holes in the police case, the KTV staffsâ statements, and Zainâs defense as well. Yet through all that bullshit, the prosecutor asked the key question, which I borrowed above: âWho was driving the car when it hit Mr. Huang?â Zainâs lawyer didnât have an answer to that question, and thatâs why the judge convicted him. I think almost any judge/jury almost anywhere in the world would do the same.[/quote]
This is unfortunately, a lot of crap. Due process is required to be followed. In this case, it certainly looks like it wasnât. ZD, regardless of whether he was guilty or not, has certain rights. It seems he was denied many of these rights.
Most Judges or courts in the world would probably have thrown this case out due to the inconsistencies on the part of the prosecution. You have admitted the gaping holes yourself. Remember, it is not up to ZD to prove his innocence. It is up to the prosecution to prove his guilt. Again, the gaping inconsistencies, you yourself mentioned, would not proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There were enough technicalities in this case to get it thrown out 100 times over.
Zain claimed someone else was behind the wheel, heâs so drunk that he couldnât tell who that was, so that means heâs quite used to letting any average Joe into his car, he sure is holding things back.
itâs always convenient to team up with someone in performing the unspeakable, where A canât be proven guilty, and been protected B will never be heard.
Irrelevant. We are talking about the process of law, and whether due process was followed!
[quote=âPriestâ]Letâs get to the point. This case comes down to one thing: âWho was driving the car when it hit Mr. Huang?â
I was at one of Zainâs court hearings, and I have to admit there were gaping holes in the police case, the KTV staffsâ statements, and Zainâs defense as well. Yet through all that bullshit, the prosecutor asked the key question, which I borrowed above: âWho was driving the car when it hit Mr. Huang?â Zainâs lawyer didnât have an answer to that question, and thatâs why the judge convicted him. I think almost any judge/jury almost anywhere in the world would do the same.[/quote]
Well certain people who were taking AA sessions and who have amnesia and blackouts from being drunk like me shouldnât be drunk driving in a car. This is a case of zain dean not knowing if he was driving or not. His lawyer could not tell the judge who was driving. If ZD got the statement about the drivers clothes wrong to the police as another poster wrote then why should we accept the rest of his statement as being accurate. The KTV evidence only back up that he left in the car and video evidence at his home shows him driving home. ZD could not say to anyone he wasnt driving and if you look at all the other things he did or did not do his story has serious questions to be answered.
I have no doubt ZD believes he was not driving as he has no memory of doing so. He remembers where he changed places with the KTV Driver?. But drunks like us are certain of our memories but are in fact not correct. We remember what we want to believe and so it is truth. I remember waking up drunk in a field after a night out on a bender. I was dreaming about this beautiful girl I was kissing. All it happened to be was a massive snail sliming its way across my face and lips but the memory of that girl is still so vivid to me even today. But she was never real at all. No idea how I got to the field either.
Doesnât make us guilty of anything either, but ask yourselves this? You dont think ZD should have asked the KTV for money for his car? He just writes it off without questioning is this the right thing to do?
His actions of not wanting anyone to know his car was in an accident when he was driving it doesnt look good to any judge or jury I am sure. I think ZD panicked when he saw his car, knowing he had been drivng but not recalling any accident. He know full well it was probably him driving and thats why he has done the things he has done including fleeing Taiwan. On the other hand maybe the KTV guy is responsible but as somebody pointed out holes in the KTV story as well, but why the hell would he still be driving anyone home after a massive accident like that. He would have bailed and ZD would have been found in the car drunk and asleep. ZD I hope your are innocent but I doubt many people really believe that and the only one who you needed to convince didnt either.
While Iâm not prepared to subscribe to everything in their posts, hansioux and Devereaux each wrote a very good post, and presented fresh ways of looking at the case. Thanks, guys.
I find this especially interesting:
I still havenât gotten the hang of the search function(s) over at the Judicial Yuanâs website (which is putting it mildly, actually), mainly because I donât know Chinese, and anyway itâs possible that most records that concern video evidence from that street/those streets would not be contained in judgments. But it would be interesting if evidence of the kind to which Devereaux refers could be found in the judgment recordsâor in even one judgment recordâduring the time frame of the events in question. I think such evidence would go very nicely with this document: [quote=âZain Deanâ]Crucially, I also have the scan of a handwritten note written by CID police, that clearly shows that the video of the corner where I was dropped off near my house was successfully retrieved and copied to USB. This was taken from the prosecutions own file.[/quote] forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi ⌠2#p1497432
Is this true? The only one I have seen mention it is AG (and then I suspected it was due to her faulty English comprehension, though could be wrong), and you are a newbie-first post, so I wonder.
[quote=âDevereauxâ]Kea:
Claptrap. The whole purpose of video cameras is to is to protect the public by identifying crimes and the perpetrators thereof. It is up to the prosecution â and it is in their best interests â to secure as much evidence as possible in order to deliver a sound verdict. Any reasonably competent police force would collect the government video recordings as evidence from each of the cameras. Not only this, the police would endeavor to collect as many recordings as possible from commercial and private properties. It should not be up to a defendant to ask or plead for these.
In a normal, reasonably well functioning police force, logs would be made of maintenance schedules and evidence would be submitted as to whether these cameras were working or not. Simple maintenance contracts could be supplied and recordings could be found from cameras used and involved in other cases in the days leading up to the case. I bet that there were plenty of accidents and minor scratches along Zainâs route on the week preceding the accident and I bet some of that footage was used as evidence. If footage can be supplied from other cases leading up to the day of the accident, questions need to be asked as to why the cameras suddenly stopped working on the night of Zains accident.
The very fact that Zain dean had to ask for these tapes, and the very fact that these werenât offered at any time during the case, shows incredible ineptitude on behalf of the prosection, the police and the courts. It is the prosecutionâs responsibility to submit as much evidence as possible for any case to prove a defendant guilty. This was not done.
[/quote]
Bold 1. Bollocks. So this is interesting, you would leave yourself at the mercy of Taiwanâs systems when accused of vehicular manslaughter and leaving the scene, driving drunk, attempting to dispose of evidence, and when faced with a hostile KTV boss having tea with the head of a potentially corrupt police precinct. Thatâs a bit dim.
Bold 2. Bollocks. We still have seen no evidence from Zain Dean that the police said that the cameras were not working. He just said that was the judgement. Perhaps itâs true, in which case, sure, look for evidence during the time period, that they were. You understand for other accidents, the footage is processed immediately, before it is erased? Perhaps, however, the judgement said that no footage was retrieveableâŚin which case, it seems likely that the police didnât retrieve or hid the CCTV evidence, while Zain Dean did not get off his heinie to get the CCTV footage before it was erased, either through a PI or with consulate staff and TV cameras in tow.
I notice a lot of new accounts being open for the purposes of commenting on the case.
No, you are not fooling everyone to think that everyone agrees with you just because there are 10 new usernames supporting each other. Just quit it.
[quote=âdan2006â]I notice a lot of new accounts being open for the purposes of commenting on the case.
No, you are not fooling everyone to think that everyone agrees with you just because there are 10 new usernames supporting each other. Just quit it.[/quote]
In this leg of the thread, Iâve seen three relative newcomers so far (maybe I missed one or more), and it appears that two are more or less on one side of the issue and that a third one is more or less on the other side.
Iâm not saying youâre wrong; I canât really tell.
Gotta wonder when someone has such a powerful first flob post.
But I gotta admit, âHis actions of not wanting anyone to know his car was in an accidentâ makes me very suspicious.
According to Deanâs
âTimeline of events:
25 March 2010. 1am. I received a phone call from a Taiwanese manâŚ
After a few hours of intense drinking, I became very drunk and Mr A decided to change venueâŚ
The driver arrived, and took us to the 2nd KTVâŚ
When we arrived, the same process was enacted,âŚ
however, this time I was so tired, and drunk that I quickly became sleepyâŚ
(accident happened just after 5AM-my addition)
On arrival at the house, I had to ring the doorbell, as I hadnât brought my keys or briefcase. My wife asked me about these, and I was unable to answer, still quite drunkâŚ
I decided to take the car out to the repair shop I normally go to, near my houseâŚ
he was not able to give a price, so I left the car outside his shop in full public view and then went home. By this time, it was noon Thursday, the 25th MarchâŚâ
So, less than 7 hours after being so drunk that he didnât realize he was in the accident, heâd already taken the car to the repair shop and left it. (Please correct me if Iâm wrong.)
This to me is the most damning part. Not just that he didnât want to get some compensation from the KTV, but that the car was taken to be scrapped so quickly. Now you may argue that he says he didnât intend to have it scrapped; just repaired, but it does look suspicious.
Iâm not at all surprised that a drunk person would get the âdrivers clothes wrong to the police.â That is the sort of thing that isnât worth recalling.
Anyway, itâs a fascinating case. We know the KTV driver started that drive, and we know Dean finished the trip, but we donât know who was driving when it hit the poor man.
Yep. Thatâs the big question.
And yet ZD tried to destroy the evidence.That certainly doesnât appear to be the action of an innocent man.
[quote=âDevereauxâ]The prosecution would then have to prove that Mr. Dean was aware of an accident at the time it happened. If Huang had fled the scene while Mr. Dean was asleep, then Mr. Dean cannot be held accountable for this.
[/quote]
Being drunk doesnât free you from your obligations under the law, in any country, as far as I know.
Nor is it a valid defense against any prosecution. 