ZAIN DEAN CONVICTED KILLER ON THE LAM

[VAIN DEAN]

Will anyone be going to Chris Churcher's sentencing hearing? Please help my "friend".

[TROLL_UNDER_BRIDGE]

YOU EVER TAKEN A POLYGRAPH, VAIN? I BET IT WOULD EXPLODE AS SOON AS YOU SAID ANYTHING!

U MAD BRO?

[MAOMAN]

YOU EVER TAKEN A POLYGRAPH, VAIN? I BET IT WOULD EXPLODE AS SOON AS YOU SAID ANYTHING!

U MAD BRO?

I don't think lie detector tests are that great - I beat them three out of four times in university when I was a guinea pig for hypnosis experiments. I found out two things: I'm not not very susceptible to hypnosis; and lie detectors are extremely fallible.

[THE GINGER MINGE]

The main point is: Who fucking cares?

[FUNKYMONKEY]

The main point is: Who fucking cares?

He has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Twice. I haven't seen a single shred of evidence supporting Dean's claims.

[BLACKCRUSADER]

Why is he doing that with his head in the pic? Does he have a hangover

I think he was touching up his hairdo.

[over_active_moderator]

Whose head? Zain Dean, or Funky monkey's avatar? Inquiring minds want to know.

[CHAON THE SAGE]

Will anyone be going to Chris Churcher's sentencing hearing? Please help my "friend".

I'd like to go. I believe the judge is going to give him a nice long stay.

[VAIN DEAN]

Correction: I have been advised by the Taiwanese authorities that are monitoring these chat conversations that the Geneva convention does not apply. It only applies during wartime apparently. So I have found the correct one, just to be precise about the point:

The Taiwan Code of Criminal Procedure Article 154:
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.
刑事訴訟法第154條 ( The Code of Criminal Procedure Article 154 ) 被告未經審判證明有罪確定前，推定其為無罪。 犯罪事實應依證據認定之，無證據不得認定犯罪事實。

So yes, you are innocent until proven guilty in Taiwan. A policeman thus handing over a suspect in a car accident to the local media, the same few hours after the police interview is breaking the code above. This is a fact and is true, whether or not you believe that officer is in collusion with the KTV owners or not.

And once handed over to the media, and you have the whole country's media finding you guilty, what chance is there of any other conclusion? I can't think of any case where the media has apologised for mistakes they've made. Apart from Taipei Times which very early on printed a story quoting the prosecutors office stating that they had video of me driving the car at the time of the accident. I wrote to them and said that was not true and could you print a retraction. There were no such videos. Thus they printed a retraction. The same story was on other news sources, including TV, where the hosts were indignant with anger ... etc. but when the prosecutor was not able to produce any videos, there wasn't a single retraction. Apparently I couldn't sue them for libel either, since they were attributing their 'news' to the prosecutors office. It just wasn't realistic suing the prosecutors office, as I was also in court at the time.

In countries like UK there are strict laws on how crimes are investigated and how media operates. Since I'd spent most of my time promoting Taiwan's virtues, it never occurred to me that I would this kind of treatment. In any case, those who believe what they believe is their business. However, the facts above, regarding the code 154 and the fact it wasn't observed itself are unbiased and clear.

I am now looking for a international human rights group to work with and release the evidence. Giving it away via a website or such like is just not going to be given any credence and not help Chris in any way, and that is my main priority at the moment.

I'm sorry, what you guys say is incorrect. Since you weren't in court with the appeal judges, I don't know where you got your information. In fact, the appeal judges DID NOT examine the tapes between 4 and 6am and find nothing wrong with them. You also state my claims are inaccurate. Actually from hour 1, day 1 of this 'police investigation', I have said exactly the same thing all the way through to year 3, where we are now. I have at no point changed what I have said. On the other hand, the KTV staff changed their statements several times. Even at the end, there statements were out of sync with each other and had multiple inconsistencies.

Even more importantly, the prosecutor statements themselves turned out to be misleading and were changed over time (i.e. that they did have video evidence of me driving at the accident and later this was not mentioned again).

The fact of the matter is that the driver of the car is seen to be dressed differently to the guy who came to court and said he did the U-turn and came back in a few minutes. This was shown in court. The lead judge at that point decided to have a short afternoon nap. That's when it dawned on me that the whole trial was just a procedural process, no real court case was to happen.

From the very outset, my lawyers have been asking for those camera files. None has been forthcoming. We were asking for them within a day or two. During court we were told we couldn't have any video files to examine. This by the judge presiding. I don't know who told you I was doing nothing.

Also, I was asking for help from the UK trade office here, and they said they couldn't get involved in local court practices.

had to walk that narrow line of asserting my rights and innocence, and seen as "arrogant foreigner". Some friends were angry with me I wasn't loud enough, didn't get amnesty international or other human rights groups involved etc.
My later lawyer told me to keep a low profile and not stir things up. Don't challenge the judges. Don't say this, don't do that. Looking back, I'm not sure if I would have done things differently ... maybe I should have just been more local and dropped to my knees and cried, etc? But that's just not a natural thing for me to do.

[REPLICANT]

Here we go again. Everyone was laughing at your claim about the Geneva Convention for Prisoners of War applying to your case. Schoolboy error that even a quick google search would have informed you that you had again made claims in error. That is typical of your defense. You always claims things which are not relevant.

Now as for you helping Chris what are you going to do? Sweet Fuck All is what you will do. You don't give a shit about him being in jail. You stupidly thought the police here would let that slip past you didn't you. I am sure you told Chris everything would be alright nothing would happen. Yes you are innocent until proven guilty. You were proven guilty twice in a court. A verdict you will not accept because you were too drunk to remember anything so it can't have been you. What a load of shite.

All the people who know you here not one of them has said you are anything but guilty here. Forget the forums these are people who know you in real life. Not one has a kind word to say about you. Why is that? The judges here in your second appeal said you could again appeal the hit and run. But you chose not to.