Re-investigate the 3/19 Shooting Incident: Swiftly Establish the Truth

Re-investigate the 3/19 Shooting Incident: Swiftly Establish the Truth
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 20, 2009

The Control Yuan's report on the Tainan District Prosecutor's Office's handling of the 3/19 Shooting Incident was made public yesterday. The Control Yuan's finding was that prosecutors did not have enough evidence to conclude Chen Yi-hsiung was the sole perpetrator. Four aspects of the case remain in doubt. Prosecutors were clearly negligent in their handling of the case. The Control Yuan's findings were sent to the Ministry of Justice Supreme Prosecutor's Office, in the hope that the Special Investigation Unit will reopen the case, and carry out a thorough investigation.
The circumstances surrounding the 319 Shooting Incident are strange. The truth remains hidden. Prosecutors concluded that Chen Yi-hsiung was the perpetrator, then hastily closed the books on the case. The public remains deeply skeptical. Two reports issued by the Truth Investigation Committee have listed a number of doubts. Former Vice President Annette Lu was one of the victims of the shooting. Her own research has been published in her book, "Focus on 3/19." She has asked that the case be reopened. Rumors are that a just completed Control Yuan investigation headed by Control Yuan member Wu Feng-shan has arrived at the same conclusion. The truth of the incident remains hidden. Prosecutors must reopen the case. The Attorney-General recently revealed in the Legislative Yuan that the Supreme Prosecutor's Office Special Investigation Unit has obtained new facts and evidence and has reopened the investigation. The Control Yuan has merely released its report. It has not exercised its right of impeachment. It has not exercised its right of redress. It has investigated the prosecutors who handled the case for dereliction of duty. It merely wants to uncover the truth and uphold justice. The Special Investigation Unit has a responsibility to make amends. We would like to remind the Special Investigation Unit of these three points.

First, when the Special Investigation Unit reopens the case, it must explain why it is reopening the case. There is only one reason to reopen the case, and that is to unmask the real perpetrators, to discover why they committed these crimes, and how they committed these crimes. The previous investigation concluded that there was only one perpetrator, Chen Yi-hsiung. He allegedly committed the crime because he was unhappy with the Chen administration. He allegedly fired two rounds from a single gun. These and other conclusions have been called into question by two consecutive Truth Investigation Committee Reports, by Annette Lu's book "Focus on 3/19," and by the Control Yuan's report. Obviously the conclusions of the previous investigation have little credibility. Therefore a Special Investigation Unit must return to square one, and start all over again. It must ask who were the perpetrators? How many were there? It can no longer stonewall by stubbornly sticking to discredited and overturned conclusions. It can no longer defend the indefensible. It can no longer engage in self-deception. It can no longer neglect its duty by pointing the finger Chen Yi-hsiung without evidence.

Secondly, when the Special Investigation Unit reopens the case, it must uphold the strictest standards for professionalism and neutrality. It may not harbor any preconceived opinions. It may not rule out any possibilities. For example, it may not assume there was only one perpetrator. It may not assume that two rounds were fired from one gun, or that two rounds were fired from two guns. It may not assume that the conclusions of the Tainan Prosecutor's Office were flawless. It may not assume that no political conspiracy was involved. Above all, it may not assume that Chen Yi-hsiung was the sole perpetrator. The previous investigation concluded that the perpetrator was Chen Yi-hsiuing, and that the first shot was fired at Annette Lu and not at Chen Shui-bian. As the Control Yuan's report has already pointed out, these conclusions are difficult to reconcile with the facts, including the condition of Chen Yi-hsiung's body and the time of his death. Last time the prosecution closed the case because Chen Yi-hsiung was already dead. But it lacked sufficient evidence that he committed any crime. It also concluded that Chen was the sole perpetrator of the crime. Prosecutors violated proper procedure when handling the case. They caused serious injury to Chen Yi-hsiung's reputation and to the rights of his family. The Special Investigation Unit must not cover up the defects in their case. It must frankly admit that the original investigation was seriously flawed. Only then can it cast off its burden, rekindle the flames, and uncover the full truth.

Thirdly, when the Special Investigation Unit reopens the case, it must take into account serious public skepticism. It must seek a reasonable answer and a reasonable explanation. Frankly, given the conduct of Prosecutor General Chen Tsung-ming's Special Investigation Unit over the past two years, its credibility is limited, and its competence is in question. The prosecution originally concluded that Chen was the sole perpetrator. It lacked direct evidence for its conclusion. Even the evidence that Chen was "a perpetrator" rather than "the sole perpetrator" was unpersuasive. There were no eye witnesses. There was no plausible motive, let alone evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. There is probably more evidence that Chen Yi-hsiung's role was something else entirely, than that he was the perpetrator. When the Special Investigation Unit seeks new facts and evidence, it need not remain fixated on the idea that Chen Yi-hsiung was the perpetrator. It should be prepared to admit that Chen is not necessarily the perpetrator. It may be difficult to reconstruct the scene of the crime. The movements, itineraries, duty stations, and liaison arrangements of those involved that day, including one thousand bodyguards and members of the motorcade, must be reestablished. Only then can we even begin to approach the truth. Only then can we learn the full story. Only then can we learn who, why, and how the perpetrators committed their crime.

The uncovering of the real perpetrator of the 319 Shooting Incident has a bearing on criminal justice and the fundamental human rights of Chen Yi-hsiung and his family. It has a bearing on the use and abuse of official power on Taiwan. It has a bearing on the character and credibility of the president, his subordinates, his security detail, prosecutors, and police in the hearts of the public. The Control Yuan report calls for the truth. The Special Investigation Unit must overcome all difficulties, and uncover the truth!

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.11.20
社論－再查319槍擊案 速還原真相
本報訊

監察院調查台南地檢署偵辦三一九槍擊案的調查報告日前出爐，認定檢方辦案欠缺直接證物；判定陳義雄是唯一凶手明顯不當；全案還有四項重大疑點，偵辦過程顯有疏失。監察院決議通過調查報告，送法務部轉最高檢察署，期待特偵組重啟調查，並詳為調查。

三一九槍擊事件發生迄今，不僅情節詭異，真相也一直不明。當年檢方認定已死的陳義雄為凶手，草草結案，輿論已經普遍質疑。前後兩屆真調會均曾提出調查報告，列舉許多疑點；槍擊案件主要被害人前副總統呂秀蓮根據自己的調查研究曾經出版了《透視三一九》一書，要求重啟調查。現在監察院由吳豐山委員主持完成的調查報告也傳出了相同的結論，就是事件真相未明，檢方必須再為偵查。檢察總長不久前在立法院亦已透露最高檢察署特偵組現在從新的事證入手重為調查。監察院只公布調查報告，未動用彈劾權，未動用糾正權，追究當年辦案檢方人員的疏失責任，只是要求本案再發現真相伸張正義，特偵組就有責任代為將功補過。我們想在此提出三點做為特偵組辦案的提醒。

第一，特偵組重啟調查，必須確立調查的目的，只有一個，就是找出真凶，發現真凶為何犯案，如何犯案的真相。前次的偵查結論是真凶只有一個，就是陳義雄，因為不滿扁政而犯案，犯案方法是一槍兩彈。此等結論均遭兩屆真調會調查報告、呂秀蓮的《透視三一九》及監察院調查報告所提出的反駁與質疑，顯示其難以成立。因而特偵組的調查工作，應該要回到原點，重新來過，重問誰是凶手？參與者究竟有些什麼人，不能再拘泥於業已遭到質疑而推翻的結論，抱殘守缺，自欺欺人地以陳義雄死無對證搪塞其事。

第二，特偵組重啟調查，必須秉持專業而中立的態度辦案，不能有預設立場，也不能排除各種可能性。例如不能預設凶手只有一人，不能預設一槍兩彈或是兩槍兩彈，不能預設南檢的偵查結論並無錯誤，也不能預設此中全無任何政治操作斧鑿的陰謀，更不能預設陳義雄就是犯案凶手。監察院的調查報告已然指出，檢方前次的偵查認定陳義雄為凶手，從第一槍射向呂秀蓮而非陳水扁，到其屍體的狀態與死亡時間，都與檢方做出的結論難以吻合。檢方前次以陳義雄已死而結案，卻擅以不足以證明犯罪的證據，結論式地指控陳義雄為僅有的犯案凶手，不但違背檢方辦案的常軌，也對陳義雄的名譽，還有其家人的權利，造成嚴重的傷害。特偵組絕對不能懷著包庇護短的心態續辦此案，而應該坦率地承認原來的偵查犯下嚴重的錯誤，才有拋開既有包袱，重啟爐灶，發現完整真相的可能。

第三，特偵組重啟調查，必須將外界業已提出的重大疑點，列入考慮，也自我要求都能提出合理的回答與說明，容我們坦率直言，過去兩年有餘的表現，陳聰明檢察總長指揮領導的特偵組，公信力有限，能力印象也屬不足。原有檢方的偵查結論，判定陳義雄是唯一的凶手，欠缺直接證物，連陳義雄是凶手，也不具有說服力，既無現場目擊證人，也無合理的犯案動機，莫說是超越合理懷疑的證據並不存在，認定陳義雄是凶手的證據恐怕比起陳義雄不是凶手而有其他可能的情況證據，還來得不足。特偵組尋找新的事證，不必只以必須再度認定陳義雄是凶手為方向，也該有承認陳義雄並不足以認定為本案凶手的思想準備。涉案當時的現場重建雖有困難，但是案發當日當事人及一干隨扈人等的行蹤行程與遊行車隊出發前的布置與聯絡實情，都有必要予以還原，才能真正拼出接近事實真相，找到真凶是誰與犯案原委為何的答案。

三一九槍擊案真凶的發現，關係到陳義雄及其家屬的基本人權與社會正義的實現，也關係到台灣公權力體系，上至總統及其所屬，包括維安人員，下至檢警辦案人員的品格與信用，在台灣人民心中的評價與定位，監察院的調查報告要求知道真相，特偵組必須排除萬難，找出真相！