Restore Justice: Reopen the 3/19 Shooting Case
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 17, 2012
Summary: Eight years ago, the 3/19 Shooting Incident reversed the outcome of the presidential election, and divided the public on Taiwan. This divide has yet to be healed. Most members of the public have put the incident out of their minds, intentionally or otherwise. Fortunately, a handful of individuals have continued to uncover the truth behind the 3/19 Shooting Incident. Without the truth. there can be no justice. Without the truth, there can be no public trust. The Ma administration must seize the opportunity to reopen the government's investigation into the 3/19 Shooting Incident. Only by doing so can it restore public trust in the government.
Full Text below:
Eight years ago, the 3/19 Shooting Incident reversed the outcome of the presidential election, and divided the public on Taiwan. This divide has yet to be healed. Most members of the public have put the incident out of their minds, intentionally or otherwise. Fortunately, a handful of individuals have continued to uncover the truth behind the 3/19 Shooting Incident. Without the truth. there can be no justice. Without the truth, there can be no public trust. The Ma administration must seize the opportunity to reopen the government's investigation into the 3/19 Shooting Incident. Only by doing so can it restore public trust in the government.
The 3/19 Shooting Incident occurred on the afternoon of March 19, 2004, Many strange events occurred just before the incident. Many suspicions linger because the incident was mishandled. The Prosecutor General's Office convened an ad hoc investigate group. On August 17, 2005 the group announced its findings. It alleged that Chen Yi-hsiung was the lone gunman, and that he fired two rounds from a single pistol. But according to a poll conducted by this newspaper at the time, only 19% of the public believed the group's conclusions. On January 21, the 3/19 Truth Commission, which the DPP regime resolutely stonewalled, released its summary report of the incident. The commission blasted the DPP government for gross discrepancies between its "official report" and the facts.
After the KMT returned to power, it expressed doubts about the 3/19 Shooting Incident. The Special Investigation Unit began investigating in 2002. They interviewed over 94 witnesses. But it has yet to make a single breakthrough. Government agencies have been passive. They have showed no initiative whatsoever. Fortunately a number of individuals have continued investigating the incident on their own over the past eight years. They have even introduced material evidence that casts doubt on the "official report." These individuals include "Miss Fu," who appeared briefly eight years ago, but then vanished mysteriously. They include Academia Sinica researcher Chu Hung-yuan. They include former Vice President Annette Lu, who was herself a victim of the shooting.
Last week the China Times Weekly News Magazine ran a cover story on Miss Fu, who investigated the 3/19 Shooting Incident eight years ago, Yesterday an exclusive report published photos of bullet holes in the right front side of the Jeep, taken immediately after the shooting occurred. The photos prove that the bullet holes in the windshield of President Chen's Jeep were fired from inside the vehicle. The bullet holes in the windshield were smaller on the inside, and larger on the outside, proving that the bullets were fired from inside Chen's Jeep. This evidence, if confirmed, is of critical importance, because it proves that the 3/19 Shooting Incident was a false flag operation from beginning to end. It proves that Chen Yi-hsiung was framed, and died for no good reason.
In the "official report," every photo of the bullet holes is taken from the outside looking in. Either that, or they are taken perpendicular to the windshield, from the inside looking out. Not one of the photos published in the "official report" is taken from the same angle as Miss Fu's. Miss Fu's photos are taken from an angle, and show a three-dimensional image of the bullet hole, from the interior of the vehicle. Was it mere chance that the "official report" failed to show holes made by bullets fired from the within? Or was the omission deliberate? This provokes even deeper suspicions. If the Special Investigation Unit refuses to investigate, it will be difficult to quell the rumors.
Historian Chu Hung-yuan is another investigator who maintains that the 3/19 Shooting Incident was a false flag operation. According to Chu Hung-yuan, he is in touch with three key witnesses. As soon as the government reopens an investigation, these witnesses will come forward. According to Chu, one of the witnesses says that on March 13, three days before the shooting, the planners of the false flag operation met. The key conspirators were present and in attendance. They include a National Security Bureau (NSB) bodyguard. the Commandant of the Military Police, and a senior DPP legislator. They discussed work assignments. The focus was on how to shoot Annette Lu with a steel BB.
Some people say claims that the 3/19 Shooting Incident was a false flag operation are too fantastic to believe. But the "official report" trotted out by the Chen regime's ad hoc group is more fantastic by far. Even Annette Lu, a victim of the shooting, finds it utterly incredible. After she read the "official report" she listed a number of major questions. One. Forensic expert Henry Lee's rushed forensic analysis is riddle with errors. The trajectory of the bullet was not downward. It was upward. This erroneous assumption about the trajectory led to erroneous assumptions about the hot zone. Two. The pistol used in the 3/19 Shooting Incident was never found. The Chen regime alleged that the pistol used was manufactured by Tang Shou-yi. But as soon as Tang fled the Mainland, he publicly denied that his bullets caused the alleged gunshot wounds to Chen Shui-bian's abdomen. Three. The allegation that Chen Yi-hsiung bought a pistol, is based solely on the word of his brother-in-law. The ad hoc group has never accounted for the money allegedly used in the purchase of the pistol. Four. Chen Yi-hsiung's death was bizarre. It was probably neither accidental drowning nor suicide. Yet the ad hoc group never conducted a detailed investigation of Chen Yi-hsiung's whereabouts prior to his death.
Other points are also suspicious. The ad hoc group deliberately twisted Henry Lee's words. They rushed to judgment, alleging that the copper-jacketed bullet and plain lead bullet were fired from the same pistol. They arbitrarily concluded that a lone gunman fired two rounds from a single pistol. Even the process by which they found two empty cartridge cases is dubious. The shooting occurred at 13:45. But the empty cartridge cases were found at about 17:30. The hot zone was not roped off in the interim. Therefore, how can we conclude that the two empty cartridge cases were actually the ones used in the shooting? Annette Lu has posed a number of serious questions. Each involves clear and concrete instances of negligence. The DPP regime's ad hoc group nevertheless hastily closed the books on the case, As a result, the public is right to be skeptical. The so-called ad hoc group clearly had no intention of uncovering the truth. The same is true of the Special Investigation Unit, which has been going through the motions for the past four years. They have never accounted for these new facts and evidence. They cannot escape responsibility for negligence.
For many people, the 3/19 Shooting Incident is a symbolic wound. As long as the truth remains hidden, democracy on Taiwan remains blemished. After all, uncovering the truth about the 3/19 Shooting Incident ought to transcend Blue or Green political allegiances. It ought to transcend which regime is in office. For the sake of democracy and justice, the government bears full responsibility.
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 2012.04.17
社論-重啟319槍擊案調查 找回公義
本報訊
八年前的三一九槍擊案,不但逆轉總統選情,台灣社會更因此割裂,至今仍無法彌合;值得慶幸的是,在眾人有意無意的遺忘中,仍有極少數人,鍥而不捨的追查三一九真相;沒有真相,就沒有公理與信任,馬政府應該掌握這個契機,重新檢視三一九槍擊案,才能找回台灣的信任。
發生在二○○四年三月十九日下午的三一九槍擊案,事前有許多蹊蹺,事後處置則是疑雲重重。當時由最高檢察署檢察長擔任召集人的專案小組,在二○○五年八月十七日宣布偵結,認定陳義雄是凶手,一人一槍兩彈,但那時本報的民調卻顯示,只有約一成九的民眾相信這個結論,而備受民進黨政府杯葛的三一九真相調查委員會,則於二○○八年一月三十一日公布三一九槍擊事件總結報告,批評民進黨政府公布的真相與證據多所不合。
國民黨重返執政後,針對三一九槍擊案疑點,特偵組已從民國九十九年重啟調查,並陸續約談超過九十四人次的相關人證;但至今仍無任何突破性發展,相對於官方的消極被動,這八年來仍然有少數人持續不懈的以個人之力調查,並提出關鍵性的證據及疑點,他們是八年前曾經短暫出現卻又神祕消失的「福小姐」、中研院研究員朱浤源以及三一九當事人的前副總統呂秀蓮等。
根據上周出刊的時報周刊封面故事,追查三一九長達八年的福小姐,日前獨家披露一張案發時吉普車右側前方拍攝的彈孔照片,在擋風玻璃上出現的彈孔,呈現「內縮外擴」的碗狀痕跡,證明子彈是由扁車內射出;此一證據若屬實,可說是攸關重大。因為,這將顯示三一九槍擊案一開始就是自導自演,陳義雄則是被栽贓的對象,而且因此冤死。
而官方報告中,所有關於彈孔的照片,不是從外往內照,就是從內往外拍的平面圖像,沒有任何一張照片,能像福小姐提供的角度一樣,從車子內部呈現玻璃側面的立體圖像,是巧合沒拍到?還是刻意不放?更是引人疑竇,未來特偵組若不調查、重新勘驗,只怕難杜悠悠之口。
支持三一九槍擊案是自導自演說法的,還有歷史學者朱浤源,根據時報周刊報導,朱浤源接受專訪時透露,他掌握了三位關鍵證人,只要重啟調查,他們應可現身;其中一位關鍵證人證稱,槍擊案發生前三天,即三月十三日有一個關鍵聚會,重要策畫人都在場,包括一名國安局隨扈、憲兵司令、還有一位民進黨重量級國會議員,當時就是討論工作分配,重點在於如何以鋼珠打中呂秀蓮。
如果說,三一九自導自演說太過匪夷所思,則官方版的專案小組偵結報告,顯然更為離譜,連當事人的呂秀蓮都完全不相信,她閱讀整理三一九相關報告後,提出數大疑點:第一、刑事鑑定專家李昌鈺鑑識忙中有錯,彈道不但不是下傾,應該是上揚,彈道軌跡出錯,整個槍擊案熱區完全錯置;二、三一九的手槍始終未被發現,但是被指為製槍的唐守義,則在逃到大陸後公開否認他的子彈會造成陳水扁腹部的槍傷;三、陳義雄買槍之說,只憑其姐夫片面之詞,至於買槍的錢,專案小組從未交代;四、陳義雄死因離奇,應非意外落水,也非自殺,但專案小組卻未詳查陳義雄死前行蹤。
其它可疑之點,還有專案小組曲解李昌鈺原意,冒然認定案發後的銅、鉛兩顆子彈都是出自同一把槍,因此武斷的認定是一人一槍兩彈。甚至,兩顆彈殼發現的過程也是疑雲重重,槍擊案是一點四十五分發生,但是彈殼卻是在五時三十分左右才發現,其間,槍擊案熱區並未被車輛覆蓋,因此,這兩顆彈殼真的和槍擊案有關嗎?呂秀蓮所提出數大疑點,都是明顯而具體的疏失,民進黨政府時代的專案小組仍草草結案,令人合理的懷疑,所謂的專案調查小組,顯然無意找到真相;同樣的,特偵組既然已經重啟調查四年,對於這些相關新事證,卻從未檢視,也難逃怠責之嫌。
對許多人而言,三一九已是個象徵性的創傷,只要真相不明,台灣的民主永遠存在著重大污點;畢竟,找出三一九真相,並無關藍綠,也無關政權,而是為了台灣的民主及公義,政府責無旁貸。
No comments:
Post a Comment