Must Chen Hsing-tzu Be the Killer Because He Is Not Stupid?

When mentioning the Chen Hsing-tzu case, one always thinks of the crime scene of the 2002 Shisan Yi KTV police-killing incident in Taichung—specifically, in the on-site verification video where Chen Hsing-tzu was brought to the scene to reenact the events.

The on-site verification began at 2:00 PM on January 6, 2002. Between 2:17:57 PM and 2:02:19 PM, there was a crucial conversation between the prosecutor and Chen Hsing-tzu. This was the so-called process during which Chen Hsing-tzu changed his statement (ellipses indicate repeated and incomplete dialogue in between).

〈Chen Hsing-tzu On-site Verification Video—Dialogue〉

Prosecutor: Where did you say you got the gun from? (2:17:57 PM)
Chen: I took the gun from here and then put it on the ground...
Prosecutor: No! I am not asking you how you threw it, I am asking you how you fired it!
Chen: At that time I didn't know how I fired it!
Prosecutor: Didn't you just tell me you fired two shots?
Chen: I took it out and put it on the ground...
Prosecutor: Didn't you just tell me you fired two shots? How did you fire?
Chen: I don't know... I took the gun out and put it on the ground... (2:19:6 PM)
Prosecutor: You fired from over here, right? (2:19:21 PM)
Chen: No, I didn't fire from over there. I put the gun in and then gave it a kick with my right foot, kicking it in a bit. (2:19:23 PM)
Prosecutor: Right! I am not asking you about hiding the gun now...
Chen: I didn't fire. I asked the prosecutor to inspect those two guns and see if they had been fired. (2:19:41 PM)
Prosecutor: Then you just told me that you fired two shots.
Chen: Because I was scared.
Prosecutor: Huh?
Chen: I was scared.
Prosecutor: So you never fired a gun at all, right? (2:19:58 PM)
Chen: Yes. (2:20:00 PM)
Prosecutor: Then why are you saying this now?
Chen: Because I was scared, I was scared.

How did the prosecutor respond? Let us hold the suspense for a moment.

This question has been posed to many people. Some guessed what he was afraid of; some guessed why he was afraid; some guessed that he wasn't scared anymore? But no one ever guessed correctly before the answer was revealed.

The prosecutor said: You are even more at fault for telling such a lie because you were scared. (2:20:09 PM)

Yet, it seems that as long as the air conditioning is turned down low enough, even prosecutors will lie (refer to Prosecutor Lin Hsiu-t'ao's confession in the Huang Shih-ming case).

The video recording of the inspection was not mentioned at all in the 2006 Supreme Court Final Judgment Tai-Shang No. 2853, nor was it mentioned in the Supreme Court's September 3 ruling dismissing the Prosecutor General's extraordinary appeal.

Both judgments stated that Chen Hsing-tzu only retracted his confession during the second prosecutorial interrogation at the Fengyuan Precinct on January 6, 2002, at 4:37 PM. Then what does this inspection video recording tell us? That he retracted his confession at 2:20 PM?

Incorrect! He had already retracted his confession during the first prosecutorial interrogation at Fengyuan Hospital at 10:40 AM that morning, by telling the prosecutor a fact different from what the evidence would show.

Therefore, the reasoning of both the final judgment and the dismissal of the extraordinary appeal—which held that while the police interrogation record and the first prosecutorial interrogation record were indeed not entirely identical, "regarding the point of confessing to the crime, although the interrogator changed from a police officer to a prosecutor, there was a one-hour time gap in the interrogation, and the interrogation location changed from the Fengyuan Precinct to Fengyuan Hospital, the appellant's confession remained unchanged"—is completely contrary to the facts!

This inspection record exposed the fact that the prosecutor only understood that two shots were fired, but failed to grasp the defendant's true intent of stating that he had fired an improvised firearm. Naturally, from beginning to end, the prosecutor completely disregarded the defendant's request to test the firearm he held, whereas forensic evidence showed that the police officer who lost his life was killed by a standard Glock pistol.

Consequently, the prosecutor stated in the indictment that Chen Hsing-tzu purposely claimed he used an improvised firearm to shoot out of a guilty conscience. The judgment dismissing the extraordinary appeal stated that Chen Hsing-tzu knew full well that the police officer was not killed by an improvised firearm, and purposely stated facts inconsistent with objective reality to deliberately mislead. They completely ignored why the defendant had to retract his confession in such a roundabout manner (the Prosecutor General, who need not rush to the Presidential Office to report behind the scenes, was precisely questioning this very point).

So both the courts and the prosecutors admit that Chen Hsing-tzu is not stupid? Is being "not stupid" the reason why Chen Hsing-tzu must be the killer?

It appears so. Both the indictment and the judgments insisted not to be fooled by Chen Hsing-tzu, holding that firing a gun is credible, while using an improvised firearm is not. The only thing they needed to prove was how Chen Hsing-tzu's hand touched the standard-issue pistol. So how exactly did they investigate and use the evidence? Please tune in for the next installment.

How did Chen Hsing-tzu shoot and kill the police officer? It is left entirely to imagination!
This crime scene inspection video of the Chen Hsing-tzu case tells us that interrogation videos and interrogation transcripts can be vastly different!
Chen Hsing-tzu did not actually "perform" at the crime scene. Those who want to know how he lay on the sofa, how he fired, and how he discarded the gun at the crime scene of the shootout will be deeply disappointed.

Ballistic Identification Done by Mere Assertion

This is not because Chen Hsing-tzu denied firing the gun anyway, but because the prosecutor sat in the so-called crime position using his own posture and had an abstract dialogue with him, never attempting to let him sit in the seat to reenact how he leaned against Liang Han-chang who was sitting next to him, how he lay or slumped on the sofa, nor asking him to clarify specific postures and physical movements to understand how his body height and shooting posture (if any) while sitting on the sofa could have shot and killed the deceased police officer (perhaps because Chen Hsing-tzu's right leg, which suffered a gunshot wound, was in a cast and made movement inconvenient, but there were several robust criminal investigators at the scene; it would not have been difficult to lift the short-statured Chen Hsing-tzu onto the spot for a concrete reenactment).

Although the trial judge of the first instance returned to the KTV crime scene—where the interior decoration had been completely dismantled—to conduct an inspection, he only allowed the prosecutor, three police officers, two eyewitnesses, and Chen Hsing-tzu's lawyer to be present. Although he simultaneously requested the Fengyuan Precinct to assign appropriate police forces to assist at the scene, he rejected Chen Hsing-tzu's request to be present on the grounds that Chen Hsing-tzu required custodial escort. One of the eyewitnesses was a hostess who ran out of the private room as soon as the police entered and before the shootout began; another was the girlfriend of Lo Wu-hsiung (who was shot and killed by the police for drawing his gun), but the direction in which she fell prostrate may have been completely opposite to the direction in which Chen Hsing-tzu lay down, having her back turned to the crossfire site with her eyes closed the entire time, making it impossible for her to have seen any actions by Chen Hsing-tzu during the shootout. By the second instance, the judge refused to reconstruct the scene on the grounds that the crime scene had already been dismantled.

Consequently, how Chen Hsing-tzu acted at the shootout scene lacks even the barest minimum of visual data for comparison and verification.

One Cannot Look Only at Transcripts; One Must Also Look at the Full-Process Video of Transcript Creation

In the on-site verification video from January 6, 2002, between 2:00:46 PM and 2:00:47 PM, Chen Hsing-tzu told the prosecutor that he did not see the front side of the killed police officer, Su Hsien-p'ei; when he saw him, the officer had already fallen to the ground. A police officer standing by the door could not help expressing his opinion: "You shot him through the gap" (2:17:34 PM). Later, he even stepped forward to the front of the alleged crime position, bent over to make a shooting gesture, and said, "Over here!" (2:17:44 PM). After stepping back to his original position, he said again, "Did you shoot him through over here?" (2:17:47 PM). The "gap" mentioned here refers to the open space between the two table legs under the marble table.

Seeing this, one cannot help wanting to look back at the contents of the earlier police interrogation transcripts. In the case file and dossier materials, Chen Hsing-tzu wrote two confessions at the Fengyuan Precinct on the morning of January 6, 2002. One contained these words: "I also fired shots in the direction of the police officers, because I also had the two guns that Lo Wu-hsiung told me to keep on my body, so I also fired shots." (Produced at 8:20 AM); another stated: "I took the gun on my body and fired two shots, and afterwards I put one gun on the ground and one in the trash can..." (Only the production date was written without hours and minutes). Sure enough! After these two confessions were completed, the police interrogation transcript produced at 9:40 AM (which should be the investigative transcript produced at 9:15 AM mentioned in the judgment) recorded: "I lay on the sofa and saw what looked like a police officer getting shot and squatting down. I then held a Glock pistol and shot at that police officer's 'head', firing a total of two shots."

The police interrogation transcript seems a bit brief; let us look at the police interrogation video!

After watching the full police interrogation video from 9:22:33 AM to 9:50:05 AM that morning, everything becomes completely clear.

The criminal facts ascertained by the first instance are: "Chen Hsing-tzu held a standard Glock pistol and shot at Su Hsien-p'ei, hitting Su Hsien-p'ei below the zygomatic bone of the right cheek, and after Su Hsien-p'ei was shot and fell to the ground, fired another shot each at Su Hsien-p'ei's head and chest." This was also the prosecutorial fact of indictment, and furthermore the criminal facts recorded in the police interrogation transcript. Since he was firing while lying on the sofa, and was hit only after falling, that naturally meant shooting through the space beneath the table.

Why did I want to look back at the police interrogation transcript after watching the inspection video? Why did I want to look back at the full-process video of the police interrogation after reading the police interrogation transcript? Because the police officers' performance in the crime scene inspection video tells us that this kind of criminal fact is what the police wanted, which cannot be discerned by merely reading the police interrogation transcripts.

The Basis of the Judgment in the Chen Case Is the Confession on the Police Interrogation Transcript

Police officer Su Hsien-p'ei died from three gunshot wounds, all fired by Chen Hsing-tzu. This is the fact told to us by the first-instance judgment. The judgment did not explain how Chen Hsing-tzu fired from his location, nor did it state that Chen Hsing-tzu shot through the gap between the table legs. From there, the fallen Su Hsien-p'ei could not possibly be seen, because he was blocked by the table legs on the other side.

So did the judgment not refer to the police interrogation transcript? Incorrect.

The police interrogation transcript did not state where the shooting came from, only where the shots hit, and the judgment clearly stated that the defendant's defense of being tortured was untenable and unworthy of adoption. Therefore, the basis of the judgment is the confession in the police interrogation transcript: Chen Hsing-tzu used a Glock pistol to shoot and kill the police officer.

The second-instance judgment stated that they did not adopt the police interrogation transcript, and that the first prosecutorial interrogation transcript was reliable. This assertion was maintained up to the final definitive judgment, and even up to the judgment dismissing the extraordinary appeal. However, in the first prosecutorial interrogation transcript, aside from Chen Hsing-tzu's statement that the police interrogation transcript was truthful being complete, his other statements were contradictory, and the content consistently claimed he fired using the gun on his body.

The forensic identification result is that the killer fired using a standard Glock pistol; anyone who fired an improvised firearm, or merely stated they fired a gun, was not the killer. Considering firing to be credible while considering using an improvised firearm to be incredible is called dismantling testimonial evidence. Arbitrarily dismantling testimonial evidence and randomly connecting evidence is called fabricating false evidence and obtaining evidence unlawfully.

In the first prosecutorial interrogation transcript, only the confession that "the police interrogation transcript is truthful" equates to firing with a Glock pistol. In the police interrogation video, Chen Hsing-tzu's testimony never featured the terminology "Glock pistol." The judgment accused him of setting up a smoke screen, obviously implying he deliberately evaded; but what if at the immediate moment following the end of the shootout, the police were the only ones who truly knew the murder weapon was a standard Glock pistol?

The judgments from the second instance onward modified, to a certain extent, the facts "imagined" prior to the first instance. Were they any more brilliant in discovering the path of truth?

※ This article was published in Liberty Times