ZAIN DEAN CONVICTED KILLER ON THE LAM

[MODERATOR]

Yes and this point and other pints will be brought up in the next few days. ZD will have a hard time convincing the Scottish High Court Judge he wasn't driving.

Freudian slip? Somehow appropriate considering the case...

[REPLICANT]

Omniloquacious » 07 Feb 2013, 17:26

olm wrote:
根據監視器畫面顯示，25日清晨5點04分，黃俊德的機車出現在忠孝東路四段上，過了一分鐘，這輛賓士E320出現，車速很快，疾駛而過，05：07黃俊德被撞飛將近100公尺，當場死亡。

If the times reported here are correct, it goes very strongly against Dean’s account of events. It says that the camera footage shows the victim on his motorbike appearing in Zhongxiao E. Rd. Section 4 at 5:04 AM, followed one minute later by a speeding Mercedes E320, presumed to be Dean’s, which struck and killed the victim two minutes later at 5:07.

After that, we have the film of Dean’s car entering the parking basement of his apartment building at 5:07 (impossible to reconcile with the accident having occurred at exactly the same time more than 3 km away, so one of these times must be awry; since the accident was reported at 5:06, we can reasonably assume that the times shown on the filmed sightings of the victim and the black Mercedes were slightly inaccurate, fast by one or two minutes), and of Dean entering the lift/elevator to go up to his flat/apartment at 5:14.

If the clock on the camera at the entrance to the building car park is wrong, that gives us just 7 minutes (or 9 minutes if we assume that the Zhongxiao E. Rd. Sec. 4 camera times were a couple of minutes fast) from the time of the accident to the time of Dean’s getting into the lift. Is it possible that, in just 7-9 minutes, he could have come to from a drunken stupor (long enough after the occurrence of the crash to be blissfully unaware it had happened), assess the situation of the driver and their whereabouts, make his decision about driving himself the rest of the way home, convey his wish for the driver to pull over and get out, and after the driver has done so (which wouldn’t be likely to happen in just a matter of seconds), move into the driving seat, drive the last 3 or so km to his apartment building, park the car, get out, lock the car, get to the lift, call it and get into it? And all of this with the slowed-down movement of someone so drunk he could hardly walk unaided (he himself has said that someone had to support his arm when he went to his car to start the fateful journey).

It strikes me as extremely unlikely, if not downright impossible. If the times on the films are anything but wildly inaccurate, it is hard to reach any other conclusion but that Dean did indeed eject the driver from his car before the accident, during the more than 15 minutes (from 4:50 to 5:06 or 5:07) that it took them to drive the 3+ km from the girlie bar to the crash point, rather than during the 3+ km between the crash point and his home.

Since this conclusion is supported by witness and video evidence, versus Dean having no witness or video evidence to rebut it, it seems entirely reasonable to me that he should have been convicted, and that the verdict cannot be impugned on any convincing grounds.

One other thing: Although there is no extradition agreement between the UK and Taiwan, Section 194 of the UK’s Extradition Act 2003 provides for the negotiation of a special arrangement for extradition of an individual with states with which no other extradition provisions exist. Therefore, it is quite reasonable for the authorities here to expect to be able to secure Dean’s extradition under the provisions of this section. If they set about it with sufficient competence, I should think they ought to have a good chance of success, given the gravity of the offences for which Dean has been convicted, the lack of any strong public policy argument as to why he should not be returned, and the exacerbating circumstances surrounding his flight from Taiwan, especially his admission that he stole a British passport and used it to commit a serious offence of identity fraud. If the powers-that-be decide against indicting him for these offences in the UK, at least they should make sure that he’s sent back to Taiwan to answer for his crimes here.

I would be a very, very worried man if I were in Mr. Dean’s shoes.

One of the best posts on Flob.

He'll be selling his shoes to pay off his civil lawsuit. Anyways in prison he won't need any shoes at all.

[serial killer on parole]

Good to know ZD has his failed laywer to explain to the Scottish courts about Taiwan legal processes. I hope he doesn't get asked how he was convicted for practicing law without a license.



http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimene ... 9%E4%BA%BA

[VAIN DEAN]

Thank god for Linda Arrigo. She has put out the truth that my conviction was due to politics. As expected my lawyer Chen is claiming my life will be in danger if I am sent back.
Prison food in Taiwan just isn't up to western standards. My sentence should have been 4 days not 4 years.

Of course you will ask what has this got to with me drinking and driving which I admit to doing. I did that. I just can't remember much else and who knows why Mr Huang got in the way of my vehicle on the way home.

I'm a political prisoner. Chinese have been negative about foreigners since the Qing Dynasty and the recent Boxer Rebellion.

As a political prisoner and a prisoner of xenophic war I see it as my duty as a convict and a human being to escape.

If I am extradited I will ask to be on I Almost Got Away With It, or Locked Up Abroad. Hopefully they can pay off my civil suit and make me a superstar.

http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimene ... F%E3%80%8D

http://video.n.yam.com/20140226133901/% ... 9%E4%BA%BA

[JIMIPRESLEY]

These last few posts are classic examples of what's wrong with flob. Dean's friends were really allowed to run rampant in the Zain Dean thread. They could post lies, attack others and post threats to sue if someone called them out (and know that those posts would be allowed to remain). Moderating was unfairly in favour of the Dean camp; a reply to the threat of a lawsuit was removed, leaving the threat itself in place. Posts deemed too critical of Dean were pruned, but it didn't seem any post coming from a Dean supporter was ever too extreme. Shameful

I, along with many others, believe Zain Dean to innocent and a victim of an endemic, inherently corrupt system.

What I do know, however, is that Zain Dean has been fucked in the ass by an incompetent legal system

[MODERATOR]

Taipei, Feb. 27 (CNA) Taiwan's Ministry of Justice on Thursday denied that British fugitive Zain Dean would be in a life-threatening situation if he returned to Taiwan, as his Taiwan lawyer has testified.

Taiwan is seeking to extradite Dean, who fled the country in August 2012, shortly before he was due to begin serving a four-year prison sentence for manslaughter in a hit-and-run case.

In an extradition hearing held Wednesday in Edinburgh, Billy Chen, the lawyer who represented Dean in the hit-and-run case, testified via video link from Taiwan that there were several reasons why he was against Dean's extradition.

One of the reasons Chen gave is that Dean's life would be at risk if he was imprisoned in Taiwan.

Furthermore, the lawyer said, the four-year sentence against Dean was too harsh. Chen also told the Edinburgh court that the reporting of Taiwan's media outlets is xenophobic and their news reports on the case were largely unfavorable to Dean.

Responding to Chen's statements, Deputy Minister of Justice Chen Ming-tang said there are currently 461 foreign nationals in Taiwan's correctional institutions, including British citizens, and he is not aware that any of them is in a life-threatening situation.

The deputy minister said Dean had full litigation rights in the Taiwan court, and the sentence of four years in prison in a fatal hit-and-run case was in accordance with Taiwan's laws, considering that the defendant pleaded not guilty and showed no remorse.

The deputy minister said Dean has not paid any compensation to the victim's family.

Dean was arrested in Edinburgh on Oct. 17 last year, a day after Taiwan and the U.K. signed a memorandum of understanding regarding his extradition. The three-day extradition hearing in the Scottish court is the third one this year, as Taiwan seeks to have Dean returned to serve his sentence.

The Taiwanese witnesses in the extradition hearing, including Billy Chen and one of Dean's friends, are giving their testimony via Skype, telephone, and video conferencing from the lawyer's office.

Their testimony will be used to help the Edinburg court determine whether Dean was given a fair trial in Taiwan in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Dean had said consistently that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice.

The decision by the Scottish court in the extradition case would be subject to appeal by either Dean or Taiwan authorities.

Extradition cases generally can last for three months to several years.

[serial killer on parole]

Yes the anonymous witness who claims Taiwan courts are flawed. Any chance she is the one who helped ZD flee Taiwan and is a convicted criminal herself?

No wonder she didn't need cross examining.

http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/20 ... 003-1.aspx

[HEADHONCHO11]

Yes the anonymous witness who claims Taiwan courts are flawed. Any chance she is the one who helped ZD flee Taiwan and is a convicted criminal herself?

No wonder she didn't need cross examining.

http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/20 ... 003-1.aspx

Re: Zain Dean conviction--fatal hit & run case PART IV
Postby headhonchoII » Today, 08:11

Irrelevant, people lie here all the time, especially if they want to save face or support somebody or there is money involved. It's part of the culture. It's also part of being human (Dean also likes to make up some stories too). So you have to try and get at some objective facts and cross examine different witnesses to see if stories match.

[serial killer on parole]

Yes the anonymous witness who claims Taiwan courts are flawed. Any chance she is the one who helped ZD flee Taiwan and is a convicted criminal herself?

No wonder she didn't need cross examining.

http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/20 ... 003-1.aspx

Re: Zain Dean conviction--fatal hit & run case PART IV
Postby headhonchoII » Today, 08:11

Zain's story isn't crazy. Police corruption involving KTVs is well known (I have posted recent cases to this effect), and the reliability of the KTV witnesses evidence is surely low. The absence of any video evidence along the route is damning, even though a hit and run case had been reported almost immediately. I am also aware of cases where video evidence mysteriously went missing or was hidden away (Makio taxi driver assault case).
It doesn't mean that he is innocent, but the case stinks all round. What can you do..it's the police and judicial system here.
Also there are some differences in the justice systems. In many countries there is a presumption of innocence, but in Taiwan, often due to the need for 'civil compensation', there seems to be a need to convict SOMEBODY to effect justice for the bereaved families.

Irrelevant, people lie here all the time, especially if they want to save face or support somebody or there is money involved. It's part of the culture. It's also part of being human (Dean also likes to make up some stories too). So you have to try and get at some objective facts and cross examine different witnesses to see if stories match.

You think? ZD has shown what a liar he all the time. He lies about taking someones passport without their consent. He lies about posting new video to prove his innocence.
IMHO he lied about why he changed his name before. We know he did it to avoid criminal prosecution and was wanted on an arrest warrant for 8 years.

Fact is KTV driver left with ZD in the passenger seat. KTV driver stated that ZD became aggressive and told the KTV driver to get out of the car. So he did.
ZD then kills another person and lies about how it now must be a different KTV driver than the one who drove him, as he is proven to have been back at the KTV before the accident happened.

So ZD wants you to believe his fairytale that there is a third driver. Remember what ZD wrote about identifying the driver? let me refresh your memory.

Officer F asked me if I would be able to identify the driver. I said I wouldn’t, since I didn’t have a clear recollection of who the driver was (I had been drunk and sleepy) so I didn’t want to implicate anyone innocent.

OFFICER F from the FAP. The FAP called BS on this one as they had no FAP officer there in the early hours of the morning. In fact not until 8am. Also written into the court record

He also lied in his police interviews about not driving home at all. That is until they found the video tape of him driving home at his apartment building. Once they had that video of him driving ZD's story was fucked. He was proven to have been lying about not driving. So what does he do, he immediately claims the KTV video must have been fake. The KTV driver had that accident and magically time warped himself back to his place of work before ZD killed the newspaper guy.

And yet you want to say he got a bad trial. yeah not only video had the KTV driver back but several other witnesses. So oops, now ZD claims the guy who admitted driving him wasn't the guy who actually drove him. It was another guy he can't identify.

[BLACKCRUSADER]

Better if he reads the court transcript.

https://taiwan.piratenpad.de/ep/pad/vie ... hnY/latest?

Summarize:
ZAIN TAJ DEAN (林克穎, Lin Ke Ying), a British citizen, also known as KHALAD
HAMID, was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment on 7 April ROC year 98 (2009), for violations of copyright regulations , and the sentence was commuted to 5 months.
On 25 March ROC year 99 / 2010 at midnight, ZAIN TAJ DEAN went to a hotel drinking with his friend Guoming Chi (池國明, "business partner") until 4:38am. At 4:50am, ZAIN TAJ DEAN asked Juncheng Zhuo (卓俊呈, "driver"), the substitute driver of the hotel, to drive him back home. Between 4:50am and 4:56am, ZAIN TAJ DEAN insisted to drive himself and asked Juncheng Zhuo (driver) to get off the vehicle. After Juncheng Zhuo (driver) left, ZAIN TAJ DEAN continued to drive back home. At 5:4:54am, ZAIN TAJ DEAN drove past No. 128 of section 4 of Zhongxiao East Road in the Daan District of Taipei. Under the influence of alcohol, ZAIN TAJ DEAN did not notice the motorbike in front of him which was driven by Junde Huang (黃俊德, "victim"), and his the back of the motorbike. ZAIN TAJ DEAN then fled. Junde Huang (victim) was taken to the hospital later by someone passing by and died due to the injury. The vehicle caught attention of one customer in the garage because it was extremely damaged. The person then saw the TV news about the accident, which also said traces of the particular type of the vehicle were found on site. The person then reported to the police.

Although ZAIN TAJ DEAN admitted he drank alcohol with Guoming Chi (池國明, "business partner") at the time and place mentioned above, he denied he was in control of the vehicle when the accident happened. ZAIN TAJ DEAN claimed someone else was driving the vehicle, not Juncheng Zhuo (Driver), while he was aleep in the vehicle when the accident happened. He was not aware of the accident. He only started driving the vehicle after he woke up and did not have any accident or hit the victim.

ZAIN TAJ DEAN declared that "before going to the hotel, I was in a KTV which is located in Lin Sen North Road. I realized I was drunk when I left the KTV, so I asked the hotel to send a substitute drive to drive me there. I asked for a substitute drive again when I left the hotel."

This part was about the testimonial regarding asking for substitute drivers. According to the witness, Juncheng Zhuo (卓俊呈, "driver") the substitute drive was asked to drive the vehicle and ZAIN TAJ DEAN sat on the passenger seat. They left the hotel at 4:50am. The Court confirmed that the evidence was conclusive that Juncheng Zhuo (driver) drove the vehicle from the hotel and ZAIN TAJ DEAN sat on the passenger seat.

According to the witness Juncheng Zhuo (driver), he came back to the hotel 6 minutes later because ZAIN TAJ DEAN insisted on driving himself. Juncheng Zhuo (Driver)got off the vehicle and walked back to the hotel. Based on the footage from the security camera in the hotel, the Court confirmed the testimonial of Juncheng Zhuo(driver), and further confirmed the fact that Juncheng Zhuo (driver) did not drive ZAIN TAJ DEAN all the way home.

4:52 ejected driver (out at nearest light) who walked back by 4:56?
Juncheng Zhuo (driver) got off the vehicle at about 4:53am and walked back by 4:56am.

The Court confirmed that the victim Junde Huang (victim) was hit from behind while he was driving a motorbike on 25 March ROC year 99 (2010). Someone found him on the road around 5:04am and called the police at 5:04:54am. Junde Huang (victim) died around 10:05am the same day.
The Court then went through the evidence of the debris of the vehicle found on site matching the vehicle of the defendant.
The Court then came to the conclusion that the defendant hit the motorbike of the victim at the time and place mentioned above, resulting in death.

~5:03 accident?
(comment by someone: there could be a minute to check before reporting by phone, plus it was raining hard)
Scooter driver died by head injury
Debris on the car matches parts of the scooter
The defendant started to drive at 4:53am. The victim was found on the road at 5:04am. The accident happened somewhere between 4:53am and 5:04am.

Based on the security camera footage of the apartment building where ZAIN TAJ DEAN lived, ZAIN TAJ DEAN drove the vehicle alone back to the car park of his apartment building at around 5:07am on 25 March ROC year 99 (2010).
The Court confirmed that Juncheng Zhuo (driver) drove ZAIN TAJ DEAN away from the hotel and there were only Juncheng Zhuo (driver) and ZAIN TAJ DEAN on the vehicle. Juncheng Zhuo (driver) came back to the hotel alone after 5 or 6 minutes and appeared in the office of substitute drivers. ZAIN TAJ DEAN afterwards drove the vehicle alone back home, and there was no one else on the vehicle when he arrived. The Court then confirmed that it was ZAIN TAJ DEAN who drove the vehicle after Juncheng Zhuo (driver) got off. Therefore it was ZAIN TAJ DEAN who was driving the vehicle when the victim was hit at the time and place mentioned above.

The defendant claimed that the testimonials of Juncheng Zhuo (driver) was false. The Court confirmed that the testimonials were reliable, while there was not enough evidence to contest the testimonials.
Also, it was unlikely the witnesses would submit false statement, only to cover up “one substitute driver” referred by the defendant and his attorney, risking the crime of perjury which may lead to 7 years imprisonment.
Due to the lack of evidence, the Court rejected the claim from the defendant the substitute was not Juncheng Zhuo (driver).
The defendant claimed someone else, other then Juncheng Zhuo (driver) was driving the vehicle while the accident happened. However, if as the defendant claimed, he was so drunk and remained asleep in the vehicle when the accident happened, it was unlikely he knew who was driving the vehicle.

The defendant claimed that he was unaware of the accident, and did not check the car after went back home. The Court rejected the claim.

The defendant claimed that Juncheng Zhuo (driver) would not have agreed to get off the car without being paid a tip, and claimed that it was another substitute driver driving the vehicle while the defendant was resting and was unaware of the accident. The Court rejected the claim.


The witness Guoming Chi (business partner) called witness Wenyu Ji (姬文宇, KTV Emplyee) afterwards about the matter that the defendant drove back home. There was something that didn’t match between the testimonials regarding the time of these phone calls. It is understandable that witnesses may make some mistakes in details, but the main facts match. The facts which do not match between testimonials are not enough to overturn the testimonials.

The defendant claimed that the police did not provide the footages from all the security cameras on the road, which might include evidence supporting the defendant. He then further claimed the police concealed evidence supporting the defendant. The Court analyzed the relevant evidence and rejected the claims.
The part about "how the court analyzed the evidence and rejected the claims" looks like one part that would be interesting to have translated in more detail.
（This is word by word translation) 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.

Moreover, the defendant claimed that on the day of police investigation, a foreign affairs police officer, who had not been cited to appear in court, saw Juncheng Zhuo (driver) looked terrified and stressed, and thus said to the defendant “seems like there are problems with him”. The Court found that, according to the witness police officer Menglin Zhuang (foreign affairs police officer), he only went to Da An Police Station of Taipei Police to assist recording evidence, and did not go to Ming Heng Hotel or the site of the accident. The defendant confirmed that Menglin Zhuang (foreign affairs police officer) was not the foreign affairs police officer he referred (See File page 218, 219). The witness Da Huan Fan, who was the deputy head of the Dun Hua police station of Da An police of Taipei central Police and who kept accompany the defendant in recording evidence, did not speak directly with the defendant, and did not recall there was any other foreign affairs police officer on the scene(See File 2, page 40, 41). Besides, Menglin Zhuang (foreign affairs police officer) was the only foreign affairs police officers sent out by the Taipei Central Police on 27 March 2010 at 8am according the letter of the police on 3 July 2012.

The police of Internal Affairs did not sent any officers to Da An police on 26 and 27 March 2010 according to the letter from the police of Internal Affairs on 5 July 2012 (See File 2, page 112). There is no information found about the foreign affairs police officers referred by the defendant. Even if the claim of the defendant was true about a foreign affairs police office said to him that “seems like there are problems with Juncheng Zhuo (driver)”, it was only the presumption from the officer personally, and could not be held as evidence that the defendant was framed.

Since this accident involves death, considering that at the time of investigation, the witness Juncheng Zhuo (driver) had admitted driven the vehicle and was being investigated by a few police officers, it is understandable that he did not appear relaxed and comfortable. Whether he appeared stressed or not, this could not be considered as proof of the defendant’s innocence. The attorney of the defendant asked the “Department of foreign affairs of Taipei Police” to confirm whether it sent officers to Da An police. This request has been answered by the Taipei police as shown before.

The defendant claimed that the police was corrupted by someone important, and the time of investigation was too short, and there was some supporting evidence for the defendant had been concealed. But the defendant could not provide enough evidence to support these claims, and thus the claims were rejected.

The Court confirmed the conviction of ZAIN TAJ DEAN