ZAIN DEAN CONVICTED KILLER ON THE LAM

[fenlander]

Deleted by whom?
Traffic police? So the cops went and deleted all those camera records and that exact time just to put Dean in prison because they were being paid off by the KTV owner to protect a KTV 100NT$ an hour driver? They'd rather make the case high profile by convicting a UK national and framing him rather than putting the KTV driver in jail? For fucks sake lol get real

[fenlander]

Last night my benz got messed up by some dumbass ktv driver but cause I am such a nice guy I decided to let it be and get my gf to scrap the car. Next thing i know i get accused of killing a Taiwanese guy!!! wtf? I was being so nice I mean most people would call the KTV and say "WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO MY BENZ YOU MORONS" Not me though I am a nice guy so just got my bitch to scrap the car. Then those bastard cops delete all the camera footage just at the time of the accident!!!! I would never drink drive, run someone over and drive away as I am such a nice guy demonstrated by the way I never get my gf and best friends into trouble. I've never even changed my name or been convicted of any crime in the past, so who would be stupid enough to believe such a respectable business man as myself would do such a thing.
he he you fucking mugs!
love vain

[VAIN DEAN]

As has been brought up numerous times, and as is mentioned in the trial accounts, a large number of the cameras at intersections enroute had their data deleted for the time frames in question. The driver was not identifiable in the footage of the actual collision.

Again, the prosecution was unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to prove that ZD was ever at the wheel after leaving the KTV.

Actually they do have video evidence of me driving home after leaving the KTV. That's the problem. I admitted driving home but I can't remember anything about any accident. So therefor it cannot have been me. Now that Chris has confessed and blown my cover story on fleeing I also had to change my story about taking his passport without his consent and I also lied about my GF not helping me as well. But I'm still innocent.

[serial killer on parole]

Actually they do have video evidence of me driving home after leaving the KTV. That's the problem. I admitted driving home but I can't remember anything about any accident. So therefor it cannot have been me. Now that Chris has confessed and blown my cover story on fleeing I also had to change my story about taking his passport without his consent and I also lied about my GF not helping me as well. But I'm still innocent.

Pretty much the evidence from the court proves all your claims are lies. The actual court record. English to follow

5.道路監視器之設置，固有維護治安、協助破案實效，然其
究非用以監控民眾所有舉動之工具，更非法定必要蒐證手
段。被告林克穎及其辯護人置前述客觀事證不論，徒以渠
等主張被告林克穎返家沿路，尚有眾多監視器鏡頭可能錄
到相關畫面，卻未經警方提供調查，質疑蒐證不當云云置
辯，實有未洽。況且監視器畫面之拍攝範圍，因受限於角
度、位置等影響，容有拍攝道路者，亦有拍攝騎樓或各該
設置人出入口位置者，更難憑空推論有如被告林克穎及其
辯護人所主張對其有利之內容存在。再其所指諸多監視器
中，或於99年3 月25日仍未開通使用、或至本院函詢時已
經覆蓋無法提供、或係當時尚未實際啟用傳送影像之公用
監視器、或屬未經實際裝設、提供之私人設置監視器，甚
至有錄影功能故障者（見本院卷一第122、204、205頁、1
72、174、176、295頁；偵查卷三第414至416頁）， 自難
據為有利被告林克穎之認定。被告林克穎辯護人另以偵查
卷中一紙載有「先做USB備份」 字樣之紙張（見偵查卷三
第422頁），指摘警方隱匿有利被告林克穎之證據（ 見本
院卷二第127頁）， 並據此作為有利被告林克穎反證之主
張，亦屬無據；蓋本案卷內確經調得經原審及本院勘驗在
案之監視器畫面，是以前開先做備份用語，核與現存卷證
資料難謂不符，此參看同一紙張，尚繪製有信義路、松仁
路路口簡圖，並於圖中之東北、西南方對角標示「沒有」
（監視器畫面）等情形，益證其實。至於上述監視器使用
情形之函查結果（各該單位回函），則屬本院查詢資料存
在與否之回函，並非用以證明被告林克穎犯罪之證據，是
與刑事訴訟法第154條第2項規定認定犯罪實所應依憑，而
經嚴格證明之「證據」不同，況且該等監視系統尚未正式
驗收，並有未為影像傳送之情形，亦經載明在卷，被告林
克穎辯護人徒以無法判斷警局是否僅依承商提供之報表，
而未進行實質查證，進而否認該回函之「證據能力」，亦
有誤會。被告林克穎辯護人另引用媒體報導中，關於「警
方過濾監視器畫面和目擊者提供的車號，循線逮捕肇事的
司機」之用語，質疑警方藏匿監視畫面云云（見本院卷第
97、109頁），更屬無稽； 蓋被告林克穎既為警方查獲之
嫌犯，果有該等所謂經警隱匿，並足以認定「肇事司機」
之監視器畫面存在，自可隨案移送，何來「隱匿」必要？
被告林克穎及其辯護人無限引申未有具體事證記載之報導
用語，及卷內資料之片段記載，強行附會，恣意指控，據
為前開答辯依據，實不足採。另被告林克穎及其辯護人一
再主張被告林克穎警詢當日，尚有一名至今未經傳喚到庭
之外事警察，見到卓俊呈表情惶恐、心神不寧，因而向被
告林克穎表示「應該有問題」云云，除經證人警員莊孟霖
證稱其僅前往臺北市政府警察局大安分局協助製作筆錄，
未到名亨酒店或車禍現場，並據被告林克穎確認莊孟霖並
非其所指之外事警察（見本院卷第218頁背面、第219頁）
。證人即於99年3 月間任職臺北市政府警察局大安分局敦
化派出所副所長，並支援戒護陪同被告林克穎前往分局應
訊之范達煥證稱其支援過程，未與被告林克穎直接對話，
且對被告林克穎主張另有其他外事警察到場一節，亦無印
象（見本院卷二第40、41頁）。佐以臺北市政府警察局僅
於99年3月27日上午8時派遣外事服務站警員莊孟霖赴大安
分局偵查隊執行涉外案件翻譯工作，有該局101 年7月3日
函（見本院卷第110頁）； 內政部警政署刑事警察局則未
於99年3 月26日至27日派員前往大安分局出勤，亦有內政
部警政署刑事警察局101 年7月5日函可憑（見本院卷二第
112頁）。 均無被告林克穎所辯該外事警察之相關資料。
況且被告林克穎辯稱該「外事警察」對其表示卓俊呈「應
該有問題」一節，縱屬實在，亦僅為該「外事警察」個人
推測判斷意見，並不足為被告林克穎遭受誣陷之認定。遑
論本件車禍事故涉及人命，以證人卓俊呈自承曾經駕駛肇
事車輛之情形而言，在結束調查程序，甚至釐清責任歸屬
以前，面對多名警察人員前往調查之場面，亦難期其得以
神情自若，輕鬆應對。故不論其表情緊張與否，均不足為
認定其供述內容真偽，乃至於被告林克穎涉案與否之證明
。被告林克穎辯護人再次聲請函詢「臺北市警察局外事課
」確認該課派員至大安分局出勤一節，除其行文對象並非
機關外，並經臺北市政府警察局回覆在卷，詳同前述，自
無就同一事件，向相同機關反覆函詢之必要。

[serial killer on parole]

Although security cameras on the road were helpful in detecting crime, they were not installed purposefully to monitor all the activities of civilians, and neither are they legally required means of proof. The defendant ZAIN TAJ HAMID and his attorney ignored the facts above, but claimed that there were other security cameras on the road which might have recorded relevant information but were not provided by the police, and accordingly questioned insufficiency of evidence provision. The claims are not supported by this Court.
Moreover, the coverage of the security cameras was affected by the angles and the positions of the cameras. Though some security cameras cover the roads, some security cameras cover buildings or entrance and exits instead; therefore it cannot be presumed there are evidences in favour of the defendant as the defendant claimed.
Furthermore, for the security cameras referred by the defendant, some of them were not switched on on the day of 25 March 2010, and some had been overwritten by the time the Court asked for evidence, and some had not been installed properly by the day, and the rest were faulty in recording. (See the File 1 of this Court, page 122, 204, 205, 172, 174, 176, 295; Investigation File 3, page 414-416). Therefore it cannot be presumed there were evidence in favour of the defendant ZAIN TAJ HAMID.
Based on the fact that in the Investigation file there is a piece of paper containing the words “make a copy in the USB drive”(see Investigation File 3, page 422), the attorney of the defendant ZAIN TAJ HAMID impeached the police of the act of sinking evidence (see File 2, page 127), and accordingly claimed that there are evidence in favour of the defendant ZAIN TAJ HAMID. The claim is in lack of evidence. The words on the paper were about making a copy of the footages of the security cameras that were investigated by the court of first instance. It matches the other documents currently on hold. This particular piece of paper also contains drawings of a brief map of Xinyi Road and Songren Road, which was marked on the northeast corner and southwest corner with “no (security cameras)”.

The replies from relevant institutions to the inquires of this Court are about whether the evidences inquired exist, and is not about whether the defendant is guilty.

Moreover, some of the security cameras were not formally in use and some were not recording anything. These facts are all recorded in the file. The denial of the “credibility” of the replies from the defendant and his attorney is not supported.

The attorney of the defendant impeached the police of sinking evidence security camera footages, based on the media reports about “the police went through the security camera footages and plate number provided by the witness, and found and arrested the accident driver”. The claim is in lack of evidence. Since the defendant was the suspect, if there was indeed evidence which was able to determine the “accident driver”, the police would have handed the evidence immediately to the Court but had no reason to “hide the evidence”.
The defendant and his attorney had no proof for the relevant claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[HEADHONCHO11]

Furthermore, for the security cameras referred by the defendant, some of them were not switched on on the day of 25 March 2010, and some had been overwritten by the time the Court asked for evidence, and some had not been installed properly by the day, and the rest were faulty in recording.

I don't presume to know Dean's guilt or innocence here. But the above quoted text seems extremely unlikely, not ONE camera can provide evidence to the court? Is it sufficient that the judge can then take the police's statement as golden? There was no evidence provided by the police so therefore Dean is talking shit? Hmmm.

[REPLICANT]

Furthermore, for the security cameras referred by the defendant, some of them were not switched on on the day of 25 March 2010, and some had been overwritten by the time the Court asked for evidence, and some had not been installed properly by the day, and the rest were faulty in recording.

I don't presume to know Dean's guilt or innocence here. But the above quoted text seems extremely unlikely, not ONE camera can provide evidence to the court? Is it sufficient that the judge can then take the police's statement as golden? There was no evidence provided by the police so therefore Dean is talking shit? Hmmm.

HH11 we do not need to presume anything as ZD was found guilty at both trials.

There is no “beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement to be met here.

The judge only needs to decide for himself that the probability was that ZD was driving when the accident took place. ZD could have appealed the second conviction but decided on another course of action. Also to say no evidence was provided is also incorrect. The KTV recording from 4am shows the KTV driver at his station and shows him leaving to drive ZD home and again returning to his station at 4:56am, before the accident took place. Witnesses placed him back at the KTV as well as the video record. The KTV driver says ZD drove himself home after asking the KTV driver to get out a short distance away from the KTV and he walked back. So you do not accept this evidence? If so why not?

ZD’s car was filmed on Zhongxiao East Road shortly before the accident, but cannot see who is driving or how many passenger ( or passengers as ZD claims not to be driving) are in the vehicle, and ZD was filmed driving the car into his apartment building. As the last known person driving the car ZD could not identify any of the other KTV staff as being the person who he claims drove the car, and the clothes of the person he did describe to the police do not match with the KTV’s staff uniforms. ZD cannot provide any evidence to the court that after 4:56am, before the accident took place, that he was not driving the car himself, as it could not have been the KTV staff driver assigned to drive the car as he was back at the KTV. ZD also could not say he wasn’t the one driving as he simply doesn’t remember the accident at all. There is ample evidence provided to the court that the KTV driver was not the one driving at the time of the accident. So then who was? ZD has no evidence apart from his drunken memory ( or what bits he can remember ) to disprove he was not driving and the court has no reason to believe that another person was driving at the time of the accident as ZD offered nothing to the court to show otherwise. As for all these people saying show me the video evidence or acquit ZD, how do you think people were convicted before video evidence?

The police didnt convict ZD, they just presented whatever evidence they had to a prosecutor on who they believed was driving the car. The defence had their say but could not answer the most important question put to them by the judge, who was driving the car at the time of the accident if it wasn't ZD? The defence had nothing to say, Nothing. Just post trial post fleeing Taiwan that some new video evidence would be released proving ZD's innocence. That turned out to be another non event the lawyer didnt even turn up to his own press conference.

The media were no worse here than that of any media in the USA or UK when reporting on cases high profice cases. Some facts are reported incorrectly, some news is completely wrong, some is correct and a lot is speculation. But the media did not convict ZD, the judge did. He did that based on the video and other evidence on hand. ZD wasn't convicted because he was a foreigner or because of his skin color. ZD admitted driving in a drunken state that night, was convicted of drunk driving and of being a danger to the public and of killing another man in a fatal hit and run and given a very low sentence for it. He would not even have served the full 2.5 years and may have done only 12 months. If he had not appealed his first court case would have left Taiwan without all the fanfare. After all, name one international rights organization has come out and said he got a bad trial? The UK government has not made mention on the case that they observed as well. Why is that? Perhaps thats because even though the Taiwan judicial system is not perfect like any other, there is not enough to suggest ZD was not given his day in court, and again on appeal. Whatever happens now he will never have those convictions quashed, nor will most people believe he is an innocent person wrongly convicted of a drunken fatal hit and run that ended with a man being killed and him fleeing a jail sentence for it, erased from record. Wherever he goes he takes that with him for the rest of his life

[HEADHONCHO11]

HH11 we do not need to presume anything as ZD was found guilty at both trials.

There is no “beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement to be met here.

yes the balance of probability points to ZD being the driver

It's all very convenient, no explanation this, missing that, not turned on yet, facing the wrong way, recorded over. What's the statistical likelihood of that happening?
It's troubling the judge does not question this. Where I'm from the judge would most likely openly castigate the police evidence collection procedures.

[serial killer on parole]

I'm pretty sure that where you are from, the police are not required to gather evidence to assist the defense.

Hit and run drivers were convicted for decades before the advent of digital video cameras. The judge in this case said in his statement that video evidence of the crime is not required for a conviction. Nor is it a requirement for any other conviction. A lot of people in this thread are buying into ZD's "pics or it didn't happen" defense. ALL the existing evidence points to ZD as being the driver. His behavior in the aftermath of the fatal accident is consistent with a person covering up the act. AND he has prior related convictions.

The judges job is not to tell the police or the defense teams how to do their jobs either. ZD is the one claiming evidence was withheld when no such thing ever happened. He claims the KTV Video may have been tampered with. This claim also refuted by the judge.

[VAIN DEAN]

The first time I found out that the accident had happened was on the evening of 26th, and the accident happened on Friday morning at 5:04 am.