ZAIN DEAN CONVICTED KILLER ON THE LAM

[VAIN DEAN]

Surely the FACT that crucial video evidence went "missing" or was obviously tampered with should cast some illegitimacy on the credibility of the allegations?

The whole prosecutor argument has been whether or not I asked the driver to leave the car before the accident. The KTV alleges I did, but the facts show that what they said is untrue. The whole case revolves around this.

The entire prosecution argument rested on one simple fact: that after requesting a driver to take me home, I then allegedly promptly asked the driver to get out at the first intersection and thus the driver then did a U turn and walked back to the KTV. This is what I refer to as the KTV alibi.

My identity is known. You are an avatar online. Who are you to judge me in this way, it's a bit unfair. The whole focus is who drove the car during the accident. The fact I was seen getting in the passenger side before the accident happened is the whole point. It doesn't matter who drove the car at any other point of the evening.

[super danger mouse hans]

Nice photo you got there ZD.

Even so, justice and the apportioning of guilt should be black and white and clear-cut, regardless of cultural etiquette. Level of guilt and the harshness of the sentence should not depend on another person's opinion of whether somebody feels remorse or not. It should depend on clear-cut evidence, without which there should be not conviction in any case.
Again, my problem here, regardless of faults in Zain's story, is that the continuity of what questionable evidence they do have is broken, pasted over and fixed and this should not happen in a court of law.

[OMNI]

The entire prosecution argument rested on one simple fact: that after requesting a driver to take me home, I then allegedly promptly asked the driver to get out at the first intersection and thus the driver then did a U turn and walked back to the KTV. This is what I refer to as the KTV alibi.

I’m not going to express an opinion as to whether or not he was driving when his car struck the victim. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t, but I’m not sufficiently conversant with all of the evidence to be able to make an informed judgment on that either way. However, the most damning piece of evidence against him is that, despite claiming to have been so drunk that he had passed out in the car and was blissfully unaware of it having struck and killed a scooter rider, nevertheless, just a few minutes later, by his own admission, he ordered the KTV driver to get out of the car and drove himself the last part of his journey home.

So, despite his state of extreme intoxication, he did drive his car at least part of the way between the KTV and his home that night. Whether or not he actually did kill anyone while so doing, he most certainly was (by his own well publicized testimony) driving in such a state that anyone driving, riding or walking where he drove was severely imperiled by his action. Driving where he did in such a state is tantamount to pointing a loaded gun blindly into a downtown street and firing off several dozen rounds. In my opinion, that alone warrants a custodial sentence. The original 2.5-year sentence was reasonable for such a crime, and even a 4-year sentence (which probably means getting out of prison after a couple of years at most) is not excessively harsh for it.

Therefore, even if he wasn’t the driver, he’s still only been given a sentence that reasonably matches the crimes he admits to having committed. And if he was the driver, he’s very fortunate not to have been given a much, much longer prison sentence, which I and many others believe to be the just desserts of anyone who causes a fatal accident while driving under the influence.

I assume that the judges viewed this case in a similar light, and regardless of whether or not they judged it conclusively proven that he was the driver when the fatal accident occurred, judged that the sum of his actions on and after that fateful night warranted the imposition of a fairly stern punishment on him. Many people, perhaps even most, would agree with that, even if they believe he should be given the benefit of any doubt concerning his version of events.

Hence, I do not see the need to shed too many tears for Zain Dean, even if his version of events is entirely true and honest.

[BLACKCRUSADER]

While his conviction is a fact, his guilt isn't. Nobody saw it happen. And despite the claims of the KTV driver, there is no video evidence putting him back at the KTV six minutes later. None. Anyways dead is dead I've said it before on forumosa, and I'll say it again now. It's not my place to say whether he's guilty or innocent. But I'm pretty sure he's being railroaded. One's guilt or innocence can be an entirely separate issue from how the case was prosecuted. And this prosecution was a sham. There's no evidence. It's all speculation, missing tapes, and missing witnesses. Where do you get your superpowers that you can so confidently assert the guilt of another?

Maoman you for one know that the Judges dismissed some stills as evidence. Those stills were not allowed as evidence. You also know that the appeals court judges looked into claims by Zain Dean that the video evicdence was doctored. The court ruled that the 2 video's from the KTV one from 4am to 5am and the other from 5am to 6am were not tampered with. Zain Dean claims he drove home but only after the accident. But the KTV driver has a clear alibi that he wasnt driving. So as the appeals court judges asked Zain Dean, "if it wasn't you who was driving the car then who was it?" Zain Dean had nothing to say nor did he deny he was driving at the time of the accident because he knows the KTV driver was back at the KTV before the accident happened.

Those tapes show the KTV Driver MR Cho leaving to get Mr Deans car, and him arriving back at the KTV several minutes before the accident. Mr Cho admitted driving the car and apart from video several other witnesses saw Mr Cho back at the KTV prior to the accident. No evidence? On whose account? Yours? The drunk who couldn't identify and of the KTV drivers because he couldnt recollect who was driving?

[DIVEA DIVYA NARANG]

My identity is known. You are an avatar online. Who are you to judge me in this way, it's a bit unfair. The whole focus is who drove the car during the accident. The fact I was seen getting in the passenger side before the accident happened is the whole point. It doesn't matter who drove the car at any other point of the evening.

Of course your identity is known you are a wanted criminal. The fact that you were on video driving home drunk is a very important fact in this case. How you can you claim it doesnt matter who was driving the car at any other point in the evening. You are a pathetic liar who tried to accuse someone else so you could get away with this crime. Its why you left your girlfriend facing more criminal charges and your other friend in Jail for conspiring with you to escape Taiwan by using identity theft and fraud. No innocent perosn would leave 2 others facing long jail times so they could flee a prison sentence. Also you were jailed for other offences not just the murder you committed.

[fenlander]

My identity is known. You are an avatar online. Who are you to judge me in this way, it's a bit unfair. The whole focus is who drove the car during the accident. The fact I was seen getting in the passenger side before the accident happened is the whole point. It doesn't matter who drove the car at any other point of the evening.

No innocent perosn would leave 2 others facing long jail times so they could flee a prison sentence. Also you were jailed for other offences not just the murder you committed.

That is the crucial and most important part. I hope his gf finds someone better than this in the future. What a low life to leave others in trouble while he flees the country. You were convicted of other offenses as well, and now there is one more to add, fleeing illegally with a fraudulent identity through international borders.

btw was the KTV driver flying the plane too ? lol

[over_active_moderator]

However, the most damning piece of evidence against him is that, despite claiming to have been so drunk that he had passed out in the car and was blissfully unaware of it having struck and killed a scooter rider, nevertheless, just a few minutes later, by his own admission, he ordered the KTV driver to get out of the car and drove himself the last part of his journey home.

So, despite his state of extreme intoxication, he did drive his car at least part of the way between the KTV and his home that night. Whether or not he actually did kill anyone while so doing, he most certainly was (by his own well publicized testimony) driving in such a state that anyone driving, riding or walking where he drove was severely imperiled by his action. Driving where he did in such a state is tantamount to pointing a loaded gun blindly into a downtown street and firing off several dozen rounds. In my opinion, that alone warrants a custodial sentence. The original 2.5-year sentence was reasonable for such a crime, and even a 4-year sentence (which probably means getting out of prison after a couple of years at most) is not excessively harsh for it.

Therefore, even if he wasn’t the driver, he’s still only been given a sentence that reasonably matches the crimes he admits to having committed. And if he was the driver, he’s very fortunate not to have been given a much, much longer prison sentence, which I and many others believe to be the just desserts of anyone who causes a fatal accident while driving under the influence.

I assume that the judges viewed this case in a similar light, and regardless of whether or not they judged it conclusively proven that he was the driver when the fatal accident occurred, judged that the sum of his actions on and after that fateful night warranted the imposition of a fairly stern punishment on him. Many people, perhaps even most, would agree with that, even if they believe he should be given the benefit of any doubt concerning his version of events.

Hence, I do not see the need to shed too many tears for Zain Dean, even if his version of events is entirely true and honest.

Really, this is the money quote. He deserves his sentence whether or not it could be proven he was the driver at the second of impact (and if you believe he wasn't, I have a bridge to sell ya).

[ROBERT MUCHA MAN KELLY]

That is the crucial and most important part. I hope his gf finds someone better than this in the future.

Local people are morons unfortunately.

[VAIN DEAN]

Oh look I am in the press again. Too bad my cover story about using "Davids" passport without his consent got blown. Again I tell you it wasn't me driving the car when the accident happened. I don't remember the accident so it can't have been me.

"Chris David Churcher" and my GF both sung to the cops like fucking canaries and ratted me out. My guess is they give him the max penalty. I mean I said to "David" Hey mate the cops here are idiots they will fall for your story that your passport was stolen crap. I guess the cops didn't believe my GF when she told them she booked the tickets using her cell phone in his name because he couldn't speak Chinese. After all it's not like all the airlines don't have English websites and English speaking staff.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ ... 2003561675

The Taipei District Court yesterday ordered that a British man who helped a fellow Briton flee the country be detained before sentencing for showing contempt for the law.
The man, identified only as an English teacher named David, is accused of helping Zain Dean, who was convicted of a fatal hit-and-run in Taipei. Dean was sentenced to four years in prison in July last year for the death of a newspaper deliveryman in a drunk-driving accident in March 2010. Dean used David’s passport to board a flight at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport on Aug. 14 last year. During yesterday’s court hearing, David’s lawyer argued that since his client had admitted to helping Dean abscond, there was no longer any concern about colluding with witnesses, nor destruction of evidence and since he is not a suspect in a crime that carries a prison term of five years or more, there was no reason to keep him in custody. He asked that David be remanded on bail.

However, prosecutors said David had shown contempt for the nation’s laws by helping another foreign national flee the country. As a foreign national himself, there was also a risk that he might flee before going on trial, so the prosecutors asked that he be held in detention. The judge ruled that David had not abided by the law and shown contempt for it by helping Dean flee. Since there was a risk that he might try to leave the country, the judge granted the prosecutors’ request.
He is being held at the Taipei Foreigner Detention Center in Sansia Township (三峽), New Taipei City (新北市). David will be sentenced on May 30. He, along with Dean and Dean’s girlfriend, Tung Yu-chi (董玉琪), were charged with forgery and concealment, and violating the Immigration Act (入出國移民法). Tung reportedly helped apply make-up to change Dean’s facial appearance and assisted in making arrangements for his escape. An all-points bulletin was issued for Dean in January.

[aboriginal girl]

Oh look I am in the press again. Too bad my cover story about using "Davids" passport without his consent got blown. Again I tell you it wasn't me driving the car when the accident happened. I don't remember the accident so it can't have been me. .

You have been tried and convicted by somebody placed higher up in the appeals court, and yes we all agree court systems here need to get changed to a better system.
ZD you never address the issue of how you can be so drunk and not know about an accident that bent your car out of shape and killed someone, then a few seconds later you drive it home with the hood sticking up in front of your eyes and you don’t notice that? But you expect us to believe you really remember where you asked the KTV driver to get out. How can you really know if you were in such a drunken state?

When being told after you arrived home your car was in an accident you don’t make any effort to find out what happened? That’s a Thursday morning. You don’t report the car having been in an accident to the police. No, you go to work the same morning, the same day around noon you just DRIVE it to the wreckers. Of course as you said you never mention to the wreckers you had driven it home drunk after partying at a KTV the night before. We know why. They would ask questions too. And the last thing you wanted to do was make a mountain out of a molehill. Oh yeah your business deal more important than finding out what sort of accident you car had been in? You come to the conclusion that the driver hit a lamp post. You could also reasonably conclude that you have hit a person yes? After all they might look similar to light poles to a drunk. But you were the driver at one point. You drove it home and you don’t recall anything about any accident. Alarm bells not ringing yet? Really?

You expect me to believe the KTV Driver would just keep driving you home after such an accident hoping you wouldn’t notice the cars damage? He was taking you home, he wasn't to know you would ask him to get out. If you were so out of it he could have just parked the car and left you in the drivers seat there sleeping in on the side of the road for the police to find you. Why would he drive you home after an accident like that?

You didn't know then your car had been in a hit and run though, other wise your would have had the car scrapped right away.

On Friday you ask to have the car scrapped but it had been spotted by a retired police officer who saw the news about a car of your type being in a fatal hit and run. I think the judges believe you knew on Thursday night from the news about the fatal hit and run then you decided to scrap the car. Some other foreigners would say that’s impossible, Taiwanese don't understand logic.

The night you are arrested you know you and your car is wanted in a fatal hit and run. You've already told the wrecker to scrap the car so nothing to worry about. You don’t call the wreckers and say hey don’t scrap the car the police need it. Do you go to the police? No, the police come to get you at you but then you say you were just leaving to visit the police when they arrived at your apartment? What a coincidence!!!

Your excuse for not asking the KTV manaagment to ind out what happened to your car is because of a business deal with somebody who is a customer of the KTV? Surely if the car had so much damage that it may have hit a light pole as you claim then it could also have been a person it hit? But you can’t remember can you? You don’t know anything even if you were really driving or not. You were in a zombie state not knowing what you were doing it seems. In such a state how do you expect us to believe you can remember clearly you were not the driver at the time?

So a business deal is far more important than you reporting your car in an accident? We understand that you being so drunk and unable to drive would want to avoid that as you wanted to avoid being charged with drunk driving. But the point is that you did in a state drive and have no recollection of an accident just a few minutes earlier and then never noticed any damage to your car when you got out to drive your car home, then when you drove it home with the bonnet sticking up in front of your face, then when you got home you never noticed the damage again. Sorry I just don't believe that. However I may be wrong too. Your actions are not of someone being naive, they are of someone trying to avoid being convicted of drunk driving at best and of hiding from a hit and run fatal accident at worst.

By leaving Taiwan illegally you lost any hope of credibility. You will be fleeing the rest of your life.