ZAIN DEAN CONVICTED KILLER ON THE LAM

[OMNI]

If Dean has any conscience, he must be finding it hard to sleep soundly at night. If he has any conscience.

I don’t feel much pity for David. He must have understood the gravity of what he was doing, and that it would much more likely than not land him in a right royal mess. He deserves all that he’s got coming to him.

But the one I feel sorry for is the girlfriend/”wife”. We can all understand why she did what she did, but it’s hard to understand how Dean could have let her do it and then leave her here to face the music. The only doubt is whether she came up with the idea and insisted on it, or whether he planned it and cajoled or threatened her into doing his bidding. But whichever way it was, she’s going to have to take the rap for Dean, and is almost certain to be slapped with a heavy sentence.

The only honourable thing for Dean to do now is come back and do his best to exculpate his girlfriend. If he gives himself up to take his due punishment, and pleads on his girlfriend’s behalf that he forced her to do what she did (by threatening to dump her if she didn’t, by demanding it as proof of her devotion, by promising to marry her if she did it, or whatever – he should easily be able to come up with a convincing cock-and-bull story if the actual facts aren’t persuasive enough and need a bit of embroidering, since he’s evidently quite a master of spin), then the judge might well be persuaded to be lenient toward her, and she may even escape a custodial sentence. It’s quite likely that the prosecutors are working along this line, urging her to try to persuade him to come back and promising to seek a much lighter sentence for her if she succeeds in doing so.

If he has an ounce of honour in him, that’s what he should do. But will he do it? Judging from his record to date, I’ll be very surprised indeed if he does.

[SANDMAN]

I don’t feel much pity for David. He must have understood the gravity of what he was doing, and that it would much more likely than not land him in a right royal mess. He deserves all that he’s got coming to him.

Dude's name's Chris Churcher, by the way. Just in case any of you were placing any kind of trust in what the police, courts or media here say

[HEADHONCHO11]

Again why mention Dean's character? I believe Dean did get a raw deal though. Even if no tampering of evidence was apparent evidence simply was not provided which would have proven this case beyond a shadow of a doubt one way or the other. Not only that there didn't seem to be any real effort to look for further corroborating evidence. The police did not collect any public video evidence on the route of the Mercedes car. There were four different reasons given why no evidence was provided, but the single reason 'evidence was overwritten' has ineptness written all over it...and could throw in a huge gob of reasonable doubt into many a case! In fact I would bet many less important cases would be thrown out of courts immediately by the judge in a Western country ( I understand Taiwan is not a Western country).

Motivations were assumed for participants which were not logical. You don't rely on the side of the only other possible suspect for the entire evidence bag, do I have to spell that out to you as a major problem?

The evidence trail is very weak, and in my opinion does not lead to conclusions that show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Large amounts of doubt still exist due to inability to confirm both identity of KTV driver and timeline independently. Everything I wrote above is a reasonable conclusion from following this case and reading the summary. As brought up already, you need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in Taiwan. Is there not reasonable doubt in this case? The judge also ordered that no more appeals were to be allowed.

[BLACKCRUSADER]

HH11 most trials are done on circumstantial evidence such as this case. There is rarely a case where video evidence supports one person over another. The evidence trail is anything but weak. HH there are several mistakes in your arguments on this thread and perhaps this is why your think ZD needs a retrial. Firstly is that ZD can appeal the hit and run but not the drunk driving and other convictions. He fled that rather than appeal because remember he still hasn’t paid reparations in his civil trial as well.

Secondly, the police did have other photo’s of Zain Deans car going down Chung Hsiao East Road Section 4 not just him driving into his apartment building.

Also ZD and his lawyer decided to use an affirmative defence which is used to make an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof when making such claims. The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt if successful. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence which in this case ZD and his lawyers have none. One such case was of the US Lawyer Jerry Spence who defended in the Ruby Ridge USA FBI Shootout that killed a mans wife and son in a trial against his client. He never called any defense witnesses as he was able to take apart the prosecutions own case on the prosecutions claims.

Thirdly you claim nobody knows when the accident occurred. They do, at 5:04am, 3 minutes before ZD was filmed driving his smashed up car into his apartment building.

Fourthly; not only KTV Staff and video but other customers saw the KTV driver back prior to the accident time.

So when ZD made claims that the video was tampered with, or that police corruption was involved or that his race became a factor in his trial it became his lawyer’s responsibility to show clear and convincing evidence. The trial judges have ruled that not one of those claims was accepted and none were verified. Therefore in such a case the judge then decides based on the evidence in court.

In fact when ZD was first interviewed by the police all the KTV Drivers were present and yet ZD could not identify any of them as being the driver. One KTV Driver stated in court he was the assigned driver who drove ZD away from the KTV. Why do you not accept this testimony? You cannot just dismiss it and say it’s because he works for the KTV.

It is not the police who have to prove that ZD wasn’t driving after the KTV driver returned to the KTV. That evidence has been supported by both video and by staff and customers who witnessed him back at the KTV prior to the accident occurring. So when ZD tried to tell the police that the driver change took place after the accident, they did not accept that as being truthful. Why should they when there is no supporting evidence of such a claim. ZD knows there is no video evidence supporting that so he claims it must have been destroyed by the police.

There is no video showing anything other than Mr. Dean and a driver in the car when it left the KTV. ZD only now claims it must be someone else who was driving because it’s his only way to try and claim innocence. However the KTV driver admitted driving and ZD was too drunk to know which driver was in the car. It’s natural for the judge to accept the KTV Drivers testimony over ZD in this case. Why should’t he accept this evidence. Also there is no evidence supporting claims by ZD and friends that this particular KTV was involved in any gangster related activities. Mere speculation by the spin doctors on ZD’s behalf.

Also at the appeal trial, when the Judge asked Zain Dean who was driving if he wasn’t the one driving the car at the time of the accident ZD had nothing to say. He did not stand up and say it was someone else. So even in his retrial he could not defend himself against being the driver as he has no defence or alibi. Of course ZD cannot say who was driving at the time of the accident as he claims not to remember it. Very convenient, but useless in a court.

Now as to ZD’s prior convictions and change of name being addressed in the court. ZD is claiming that in 16 years he never went out to a KTV or night binging on alcohol prior to the night he was visiting a potential business investor in the wee hours of the morning.
So ZD has never been out drinking and has never been drunk before but does so just a short time before planning on leaving Taiwan?

When one makes such bold statements then the court finds out that you already have an existing warrant out for arrest, and the reason you were not arrested was because he left Taiwan, came back with a new identity and used a new Chinese name for his ARC, then that does lead to credibility issues for ZD.

ZD asks the judge to believe him but his prior convictions cast doubt on that. Also the judges asked him about possible dual names and dual passports and ZD refused to reply.
That’s why he was barred from leaving Taiwan.

ZD is accusing the KTV, the Police, the witnesses, and everyone else involved in his prosecution of corruption, and the judge hearing his appeal of judicial malfeasance. These are very serious accusations and not one was held up and no evidence was presented by ZD or his lawyer.

In many trials testimony for the defense and prosecution is challenged by either side. Often cases they do not match. That’s why you have trials to determine whose version of events will be accepted. You state that this case would have never gone to trial in a western country and I can tell you that you are quite incorrect.

Zain Dean admitted to driving drunk home in a state where he was barely awake and unable to walk without assistance of another person. He claims he failed to notice any damage on his car even with the bonnet raised up by 6 inches right in front of him. If he is that drunk why would any court value his testimony as to when he claims he changed places to drive home. He doesn’t recall anything else about such a major accident.

He would have faced multiple charges in a western country and not just drunk driving, driving a vehicle in a dangerous manner, driving an unroadworthy vehicle, failing to report an accident, leaving the scene of an accident, ( add that to fleeing causing death ) and several other possible charges. Also in some western countries you can also have a trial by jury or in many cases criminal trials are done in front of a magistrate, not a jury trial. Criminal trials as this case most certainly would have had a jury trial in a crown court in ZD case. But make no mistake he would have gone to trial. He also would have a very difficult time convincing a jury he wasn’t driving as the KTV driver has several witnesses and non-tampered video. Two separate video’s in fact, one video from 4am to 5am and one video from 5am to 6am. There is no reason to not accept these are not accurate in time.

Whether or not ones feels ZD got a bad trial, the blame must be put on his legal team. The prosecution takes evidence from the police and it is not the police who have to provide ZD with evidence of his claims of innocence. The police had no other reason to assume ZD was not the one driving as ZD was filmed on video driving home and the KTV Driver was back at the KTV prior to the accident time. So who else was driving if it wasn’t Zain Dean? Zain Dean doesn’t know defense? Was it the fairy godmother because that’s the best defense he can come up with is to accuse the police of withholding video which proves his innocence, because he has no alibi?

Do you really expect the judge to believe ZD’s claim that a KTV Driver had caused the fatal accident, with a customer in the car, only to drive him less than another minute and wake ZD up and say, where do you live I want to take you home? This wasn’t some minor collision it was a major impact at high speed.

Remember that ZD himself wrote that he was the one who refused to let the KTV driver know where he was living and drove home himself. Why is that do you suppose? Why would you not want the KTV driver to take you all the way home? After all ZD could barely walk and would need assistance to make it to his apartment.

ZD made it clear not to mention to the repair shop that his car had been in an accident on the way home from a hostess bar whilst he was driving it drunk.

ZD also never filed a claim for the damages to his car from the KTV. After all is the KTV driver had the accident one would persue a claim for damages no? I would.



Finally HH
In some western countries, please remember many western countries do not have ajury trial but a trial by judges, the presumption of innocence places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offense (generally beyond a reasonable doubt) and to disprove all the defenses except for affirmative defenses in which the proof of non-existence of all affirmative defense(s) is not constitutionally required of the prosecution. As ZD and his lawyers chose an affirmative defense by accusing the police, prosecution and judges of bias and corruption, even in a western country the beyond a reasonable doubt no longer applies. So now you can get off your high horse on spouting off about a reasonable defense because ZD and his lawyers forfeited that right when they accused the police of corruption, which was later found not to be true, in his traffic accident case.

Beyond reasonable doubt
This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings. It has been described as, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused’s guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death.

So we know ZD left the KTV in the passenger seat of his car with a nominated driver Mr Cho. Mr Cho has testified he is the one driving the car. It's also proved that Mr Cho was back at the KTV prior to the accident, on video that has not been tampered with as ZD claims, and by other KTV staff and other witness's. We know that ZD was the last known person driving the car is ZD. So it is ZD who is now claiming someone else he did not recognize (till after he left Taiwan ) was on the KTV video he claims was doctored in the first place.

Lets get real here.

[FUNKYMONKEY]

headhonchoII wrote:Again why mention Dean's character?

Are you serious? For me, Dean's character is a major concern in this case. It is relevant because his honesty or morality is an issue. He is a convicted criminal and a liar who left his friend and girlfriend to take the heat for him. Nothing he says can be trusted. A poor excuse for a man if there ever was one...

headhonchoII wrote: I believe Dean did get a raw deal though.

We shall agree to disagree and I have seen absolutely nothing to change my mind. He has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Twice. I haven't seen a single shred of evidence supporting Dean's claims.

[Ms Ogenee]

Zain Dean is quite clearly a victim of institutionalised racism. He was only found guilty because he's from an oppressed minority: Scottish.

One can only imagine the conversations between the police and the gangsters following his arrest: "We've never had someone in a kilt in court before. That'll be a first!"

Disgusting!

Then again, he is a male and by definition potentially guilty of anything. It's certainly a tough case.

[BLACKCRUSADER]

Zd also knew that by waiting long enough there would be no video to disprove he wasn't the one driving. He made no attempt to recover any video himself or with his legal team. So then they go on a fictitious manhunt for evidence ( only 2 years later ) that doesn't exist to prove him innocent, then he makes false accusations saying the video evidence must have been destroyed by the police.

Everybody knows you need to recover data quickly or it gets deleted, let alone that many cameras only record doorways of buildings and not the main roads. ZD knew by waiting there would be no evidence. Now he claims to have "new video evidence" Really new evidence, which of course he has to make up himself.

[MICHAEL GARY MILLER aka KEA]

And round and round it goes. Most of you are right, but it's pointless. ZD did not act like an innocent man quickly enough. Given the charges against him and the possibility (he admits he noticed at the time) that there was collusion between the KTV owner and the police, the reality is he was staring down the barrel of a guilty verdict. To argue that the next logical move he should do is trust the police/judiciary to give him a fair trial is ludicrous. It was up to him to loudly and thoroughly exhaust all avenues to show his innocence. That he did not do this leaves me distrustful of all his statements-plus I can see so many twists in his logic whenever he says something.

So, given that it was incumbent upon him to do all he could do to show his innocence, what did he do? Virtually nothing. What I have advocated from the earliest time on this thread is he could have used UK consular staff plus TV cameras and lawyers and visited every place he could find to view and then get copies of video footage along the whole route-plus near the KTV. You can be sure that there would have been evidence.
To instead sit on his hands, wait for all evidence to conveniently be erased (average 2 weeks), then later in the trial ask for the videos and complain that the police can't provide them, seems more like a plan of a guilty man to create doubt. I still have no firm idea if that is indeed the case, having not seen the KTV video in question.
And his subsequent actions have destroyed what credence he had remaining.

[REPLICANT]

What I have advocated from the earliest time on this thread is he could have used UK consular staff plus TV cameras and lawyers and visited every place he could find to view and then get copies of video footage along the whole route-plus near the KTV.

Kea don't know how many times it has been advised, but your embassy staf and consular offices do not conduct inverstigations into car accidents. All they can do is refer you to a lawyer and monitor your trials. Also there were no complaints made by the British Trade office to the ROC government over the prosection of Zain Dean. As far as they are concerned he got 2 fair trials. Also there was no race card being playd here except by Zain Dean. His ethnicitiy had nothing to do with his convictions.

[KTVDRIVER]

Discussions on Forumease and Taiwanosa demonstrate how even a collection of bullshit lies and made up tales can become truth for some people if they are repeated enough. Originally, there was a concerted effort to protect the culprit in this case. Many things were written that were out and out lies. The few stubborn adherents to the pro-Dean religion still believe these myths, even though none have ever been proven.

Video tampering? Sorry, no. That was an allegation made by the accused and his supporters. It was proven to be false.

Police corruption? No. Again an allegation made by the accused's side. Da'an police? None of the officers investigated for an unrelated incident were involved in the Dean case.

Trial. Fair according to any observers that matter. The British government has said nothing, nor any human rights organisation.

Media reporting? Not relevant. His case was decided by a judge. Most expats with an opinion on this issue are dealing with facts that are not in dispute, and not sourced from local media, besides. The age of his car has no bearing on his guilt or innocence.

Fact is, there are very few criminal cases where guilt is as clear, and as easy for the casual observer to discern as this one. Video evidence, and eye witnesses place the ktv driver back at the scene before the accident. Footage also showed a single occupant in Dean's car immediately before the crash, and confirmed Dean was behind the wheel after the crash (though he had denied driving at all that night). His version of the timeline of events would have required a Star Trek warp drive in his car to be remotely possible. And he sold the car for 1/10th of its value within hours (not the next day as claimed) of the accident. He did not report the accident, nor try to collect damages from the KTV. Even if you don't believe the guy is guilty of the vehicular manslaughter, he still drove drunk that night, behaved very suspiciously after, told numerous lies, and left his friend and girlfriend to rot in jail in his place. Really, I wonder at some people's IQs when they say they believe he was set up.