退休警察:邱和順案讓我們良心不安~邱和順案聲請再審國際記者會

2011年7月28日邱和順死刑定讞,隔日前新竹市警察局刑警隊隊員致電司改會。已退休的他說,當年參與偵辦的新竹市警察都知道邱和順案是冤枉的,邱和順被判死刑,他們良心不安。為了對自己所述負責,員警甚至願意出具書面給司改會,強調:「多次聽聞台北市刑大隊隊員毆打、大聲斥喝以及受訊嫌疑人哀嚎之過程。在訊問暫停與訊畢押回之空檔,邱和順等嫌疑人也多次向本人與同事陳述自己被台北市刑大修理,不得不承認自已沒有犯的罪。…在本案偵辦過程中,本人多次參與押解邱和順等嫌疑人至新竹、苗栗地區查證。然而,查證結果一無所獲,反而暴露自白內容與當時警方所掌握的案情嚴重不符。…因此,本人及許多當時有參與本案偵辦之新竹市警察局與苗栗縣竹南分局相關警員,深信陸正案與柯洪玉蘭案絕非邱和順等嫌疑人所為,犯下這二案的真兇依然逍遙法外,正義仍未實現。」(參附件一

B警察生更聯絡在邱和順第一份警訊筆錄上共同簽名的A警察,至監察院協助李復甸委員調查,並留下長達五頁的詢問筆錄,說明:「當時邱和順被警方問有無做陸正案的時候,叫羅濟勳把犯案經過講給邱聽,邱之後仍否認,否認後被刑求,刑求後就把羅濟勳講的經過都講出來,一個卡一個。我們有碰到一個女警○○○是問吳淑貞的女警,她衝出來跟我說學長,他們問筆錄怎麼是這樣問的,拿警棍修理,並戳女生下體,我們認為這不是他們犯案的,這個犯案手法比較像是胡關寶。」等刑求情節(參附件二)。二位警察指出,台北市刑大完全是依據羅濟勳的指證,再以刑求逼供取得邱和順等被告的自白。

巧合的是,羅濟勳看到邱和順死刑定讞的報導,同樣主動來信司改會,控訴:「不是我去指證這些同案的,之所以會有這些自白全都是這些刑警刑求逼供而來…」其實,羅濟勳在法庭上早已多次說明,法官們卻一直不採信。如今二位警察出面證明羅濟勳所言屬實,司法不應該繼續沈默,任由邱和順以及11位共同被告含冤莫白。

替罪羔羊就是邱和順案的真相。時間回到1988年,也就是解除戒嚴的隔年,台灣社會犯罪率突然提高,僅上半年就連續發生19件綁票勒贖案。其中以家屬宣佈懸賞新台幣100萬元的「國小學生陸正綁架案」,最受社會關切,也讓政府顏面盡失。回應破案壓力,警政署署長羅張公開指示刑事警察局局長莊亨岱務必在最短時間內破案。刑事警察局也宣佈加碼破案獎金100萬,任何外勤警員找到線索破案者,一律破格晉用。不久後,台北市刑警大隊利用邱和順等被告,宣佈偵破發生在新竹市的「國小學童陸正綁架案」,甚至連同發生在苗栗縣的「業務員柯洪玉蘭分屍案」也一併破案。對於台北市刑警大隊跨區破案的能力,長官與媒體大肆吹捧,有功人員紛紛升職加薪。知道真相並非如此的地方警察,在當時的政治氛圍下,只有默不作聲;在少數有勇氣反映實情的警察遭調職處分後,更讓邱和順案成為竹苗警界不能說的秘密。

美國平反超過329位冤獄被害人的非營利組織Innocence Project分析冤案成因,發現越是社會矚目的案件,越可能造成冤案。因為強大的破案壓力,會鼓勵執法人員不惜尋找替罪羔羊,以解燃眉之急。此時,群眾也特別能體諒執法人員的「辛勞」,包容辦案過程的「瑕疵」,以換得自己的安全感。邱和順以及11名共同被告就在這種氛圍下,被送進司法獻祭。台灣解除戒嚴已經28年了,司法能否徹底擺脫威權遺毒,邱和順案是最具指標性的案件。這麼多年過去,警察罪責早已超過刑法追訴時效。平反邱和順案,並不是要清算當年犯錯的執法人員,而是要實現轉型正義。

2013、2014年監察院史無前例地為邱和順案,連續作出第二份、第三份調查報告,連同警察詢問筆錄移送法務部,建請檢察總長提起非常上訴。由於檢察總長認為退休警察的證詞是新事實或新證據,司改會乃根據這項見解提起本次再審。今天所有關心邱和順案的夥伴們,陪同因此案受冤的同案被告。發表下列聲明:

  1. 台灣高等法院應依監察院調查報告與警察證詞,接受邱和順義務律師團為邱和順提出之聲請,開始再審程序。
  2. 台灣社會應謹記邱和順案之教訓,討論社會矚目案件嚴守無罪推定與證據法則,以免無辜者蒙受冤屈,公眾良心不安。

Retired Police Officer: I am uncomfortable about Chiou’s conviction

Call for a Retrial of Chiou

The day right after the final ruling on Chiou, Ho-Shun’s (“Chiou”) death penalty , the Judicial Reform Foundation (“JFR”) received a phone call from a retired police officer (“P.O. B”) who worked at the Criminal Investigation Division of Hsinchu City Police Bureau (“Hsinchu Bureau”). P.O. B made a statement about what he had seen and heard during the investigation of the Chiou case. Chiou and the other suspects were accused for involving kidnapping of Lu, Cheng (“Lu”) and murder of Ko Hung, Yu-lan (“Ko Hung”).

P.O. B’s statement brief (see Attachment I for detail)

“While I was in the guardroom, I frequently heard voices that sounded like beating, scolding and screaming from the next door.”

“Chiou in several occasions complained about the torture by the investigating officers. Chiou insisted that his confessions was obtained by coercion and he involuntarily admitted to the crimes that he was never part of.”

“I and my colleagues from Hsinchu Bureau assisted with the onsite investigation….. It appeared to me that the evidence gathered from the onsite investigation was inconsistent with Chiou’s confession.”

“I was under the impression that neither of the confessions nor the onsite evidence was sufficiently persuasive to prove Chiou’s guilt.”

Police Officer A

Through P.O. B, another police officer (“the P.O. A”) who cosigned on Chiou’s first police interview also stood out and assisted with the Control Yuan’s investigation of redress for the Chiou case.

Although the P.O. A preferred not to be identified at this stage, he nevertheless left a 5-page long inquiry record in response to the Control Yuan’s inquiry led by Li.2

The Control Yuan’s Inquiry record brief (see Attached II for detail)

“While Chiou was being interrogated as to whether or not he kidnapped Lu, the investigating officers at the TCPD requested Lo to tell Chiou what happened during the commission of the crime. Chiou denied any involvement and he was then being tortured. Chiou was forced to repeat the story he heard from Lo and gave names of the other suspects.”

“Based upon the pattern of the crime, it seemed to me that the crimes were more likely to be committed by the Hu Cartel ”

Rationale for retrial

According to the two police officers, A and B, the TCDC purely relied on Lo’s accusation coerced Chiou and the other suspects to make involuntary confessions.

Coincidentally, seeing Chiou’s final ruling, Lo, the secret witness that the TCDC built their case on, also approached JFR. In Lo’s email to JFR, he denied that he was the one who identified Chiou and the other suspects. Lo said the confessions were solely obtained by coercion.

Despite the fact that Lo in many occasions had testified in court against the identification of Chiou and expressed his knowledge on the involuntarily obtained confessions, the judges simply did not accept.

Taking the two police officers’ statements into consideration, it turns out Lo’s testimony is indeed true. The justice shall not remain silent and turn its eyes away from truth.

Find someone to blame!

Back to 1988, one year after the lifting of martial law, the crime rate increased sharply. There were 19 kidnapping cases in the first half year of 1988. Among them, the highest-profile case was Lu’s kidnapping.

The Lu family offered 1 million NTD for those who gave information. The government was embarrassed because the law enforcement could not solve the case in a given time. Under the huge pressure of public opinion, the Director General of the National Police Agency urged the Commissioner of the Criminal Investigation Bureau (“CIB”) to close the crime as early as they possibly could.

The CIB announced a promotion scheme plus another 1 million NTD reward to those police officers who catch the perpetrator(s). Shortly, the police officers at the TPCD arrested Chiou and the other suspects and declared that they had solved two crimes, the kidnapping of Lu as well as the murder of Ko Hung.

The press and the law enforcement highly praised the TPCD because of their ability to solve cross-region crime. Those who contributed to the investigation were credited and promoted.

Under such cheerful atmosphere, even some local police officers might be aware of the truth behind the cheer, they could not say anything but remained silent given some of them courageous enough to reveal the doubts were either reallocated or reassigned. The Chiou case then became a secret that no police officers in mid-Taiwan, including Hsinchu Bureau, would like to talk about.

The Innocence Project, an NGO established in the United States who has exonerated more than 300 innocent people from wrongful conviction, tried to figure out how miscarriage of justice happens. Their research shows that the more attention a case draws, the more likelihood it would be unjustly decided. Under the pressure coming from the society, law enforcements are encouraged to find somebody to blame. People ignore (and even forgive) legal flaws occurred during investigations as long as the justice they believe is served. This is exactly what happened in the Chiou case.

The martial law has been lifted in Taiwan for almost three decades, but has our judiciary got rid of dictatorship? The Chiou case may become a turning point.

The statute of limitation for asking police officers’ accountability has been gone. The JRF does not intend to accuse the police officers but simply correct the wrong; redress of grievance for Chiou.

For the first time in the history, the Control Yuan produced two reports in 2013 and 2014 respectively for Chiou. The two reports together with the inquiry record were sent to the Ministry of Justice and an extraordinary appeal was therefore recommended. However, the Attorney General rejected the recommendation of extraordinary appeal. The Attorney General was of the opinion that the inquiry record was made by a person who is not the defendant outside the courtroom; it is a hearsay and therefore inadmissible. Based up the Attorney General’s opinion, the JFR files a motion for retrial.

Today, the JRF joining with those who care about the Chiou case announce the following:

  1. We request the High Court to institute the motion for Chiou’s retrial based upon the Control Yuan’s reports as well as the inquiry record from the police officers.
  2. We urge the people in Taiwan that a lesson must be learned from the Chiou case; the notion of presumption of innocence and the evidentiary rules must be engraved in our mind. By doing so, there will be no wrongful convictions and justice will then be fairly served.

出席代表

退休警察/B先生
國際人權團體代表/國際特赦組織台灣分會秘書長 唐博偉
邱和順案當事人/林坤明、林信純
邱和順案律師團/尤伯祥律師、林鴻文律師、鄭凱鴻律師、周漢威律師、孫斌律師
救援團體代表/台灣人權促進會、國際特赦組織台灣分會、冤獄平反協會、蔡瑞月文化基金會、廢除死刑推動聯盟、民間司改會

附件下載

新聞連絡人

司改會執行秘書 黃暐庭、蕭逸民 02-25231178