What did the co-defendants of Chen Tzu-chiang say?

Photograph / Tsai Ming-hsiu

On July 8, the retrial (Ninth Remand) of the Chen Tzu-chiang Case held its second evidence-investigation procedure. The collegial panel continued to present the successive records of interrogation of the co-defendants Huang Chun-chi and Chen I-lung, allowing defense counsel to express their opinions on the admissibility and probative force of the evidence. As the evidence used in previous judgments to convict Chen Tzu-chiang consisted of statements by co-defendants insisting on Chen's involvement, when the records containing these statements were laid out in court page by page for examination, their self-contradictions and mutual conflicts were laid bare, revealing an embarrassing spectacle.

Based on my court observation notes from that day, I have summarized the following:

1. Who had the motive to commit the crime? Judgment No. 2366 (1981) of the Supreme Court firmly requires judges to detail the criminal motive in their judgments. Because a crime must involve intent, and the formation of intent must stem from a criminal motive, this is an inevitable process of criminal psychology. Therefore, "what the motive was" should be detailed by judges in the judgment as a basis for establishing criminal intent.
   There is a cause for every event. In 1995, kidnapping for ransom resulting in murder was punishable by the death penalty as the sole statutory punishment (pursuant to the Statute for the Punishment of Bandits, which was abolished before 2002). Had there not been an extremely strong motive, the perpetrators would not have taken such a desperate risk. If the court determined that Chen Tzu-chiang truly committed the crime, it should have detailed his criminal motive.
   Previous judgments concluded that Huang Ming-ch'üan, Huang Chun-chi, Chen I-lung, and Chen Tzu-chiang all committed this offense because they were in urgent need of money. However:
   
   1. Huang Chun-chi owed tens of millions in gambling debts and had the strongest criminal motive
      • Huang Chun-chi himself stated during the prosecutor's interrogation on September 28: I owe more than 10 million NTD in gambling debts, and my creditors were pressing me very urgently.
      • Chen I-lung also stated during the interrogation on October 23: Huang Chun-chi owed 10 to 20 million NTD in external gambling debts and seemed to have been abducted by the underworld once or twice; he was being pressed very urgently.
      • Huang Chun-chi's girlfriend, Li Hsing-hua, testified during the interrogation on November 8: I heard from people who gambled with him in February [1995] that his gambling debts were about 10 million [NTD], and between late April and May, the other party seized me twice to contact Huang Chun-chi.
      • Huang Chun-chi changed his statement during the High Court second instance proceedings on August 19, saying: My gambling debts were only a little over 2 million NTD.
      Huang Chun-chi indeed owed gambling debts, and the amounts he stated varied inconsistently and did not match the witness testimonies. But whether it was over 10 million or a little over 2 million, his heavy debt gave him the strongest criminal motive.
      
   2. Chen I-lung: Poor business management and financial problems
      • Chen I-lung's wife, Chien Yü-chüan, testified during police questioning on September 26: Chen I-lung ran an arcade, but business later deteriorated, and his mobile phone service was suspended because he failed to pay bills for 4 or 5 months. She also stated that on June 16, 1995, Chen I-lung pawned his sedan for 60,000 NTD and failed to repay it on time, resulting in a demand letter from the pawnshop; from August onwards, there were only expenses and no income.
      • Chen I-lung stated during the interrogation on November 9: I participated in this case because my arcade was raided by the police around April and May.
   3. Chen Tzu-chiang: No financial problems, no debts, no criminal motive At the time of the incident in 1995, Chen Tzu-chiang was not short of money, had no debts, and had no financial problems. On the contrary, other co-defendants Huang Ming-ch'üan and Chen I-lung owed money to Chen Tzu-chiang:
      
      • Huang Chun-chi stated during the Shihlin District Court first instance trial on August 13: My older brother Huang Ming-ch'üan owed money to Chen Tzu-chiang.
      • Chen Tzu-chiang's ex-wife, Cho Chia-hui, testified during the High Court sixth remand trial on July 7: Chen Tzu-chiang lent about 200,000 NTD to Ch'en I-lung, but Ch'en I-lung did not repay it.
      Ch'en Tzu-chiang stated that in 1993, he purchased a large truck for over 1 million NTD and made a living driving it, earning a monthly income of over 100,000 NTD. Later, due to the high risks of driving, he sold it after about 7 or 8 months. That same year, he also bought a sedan for 460,000 NTD, which he later sold to buy a Chevrolet. In 1994, Ch'en Tzu-chiang and his older brother jointly purchased two pre-sale apartments. At the time of the incident, he was also running a betel nut stand business with his wife. To this end, Ch'en Tzu-chiang submitted purchase contracts to the court for land, houses, large trucks, and sedans to prove his financial capacity to purchase real estate and automobiles.
      Although Ch'en I-lung, after being arrested on October 22, 1995, stated during police questioning: All four of us (Huang Ming-ch'üan, Huang Chun-chi, Ch'en I-lung, and Ch'en Tzu-chiang) needed money, and Ch'en Tzu-chiang claimed he had borrowed money from his parents-in-law and had loans to repay. However, Ch'en Tzu-chiang's mother-in-law, Chang Hsi-mei, testified during the High Court fourth remand trial on August 28: Ch'en Tzu-chiang did not borrow money from her.
      Previous judgments ignored objective evidence, blindly believing the co-defendants' statements to conclude that Ch'en Tzu-chiang was facing financial difficulties, and hastily inferred that Ch'en Tzu-chiang had a criminal motive.
      
2. Who proposed committing this offense? Was the purpose "debt collection" or "extortion for ransom"? Huang Chun-chi and Ch'en I-lung confessed to committing this kidnapping-for-ransom and murder case. According to reasonable rules of thumb, these two individuals might have had slight discrepancies regarding details of the case due to memory, but regarding the "core key facts," the gap should not have been excessively wide.
   Regarding the key questions of "who proposed committing this offense?" and whether the purpose was "debt collection" or "extortion," the statements of Huang Chun-chi and Ch'en I-lung were astonishing:
   
   • Huang Chun-chi stated during police questioning on September 27: Ch'en I-lung proposed the kidnapping.
   • Huang Chun-chi stated during police questioning on September 28: Ch'en Tzu-chiang came to me and said we were going to collect a debt from Huang Ch'un-shu.
   • Huang Chun-chi stated during the prosecutor's interrogation on September 28: I am unclear when the planning began; on September 1, Ch'en Tzu-chiang only told me we were going to collect money from a friend.
   • Huang Chun-chi stated during the High Court second instance trial on August 19: On the day of the incident, Huang Ming-ch'üan asked me to go debt collection together; I did not participate in the planning. I do not know whether Ch'en Tzu-chiang participated in the conspiracy beforehand.
   • Huang Chun-chi stated during the High Court second instance trial on August 30: I told Ch'en Tzu-chiang we were going to collect a debt; it was my older brother (Huang Ming-ch'üan) who asked him to go.
   • Ch'en I-lung stated during police questioning on October 22: The four of us discussed the kidnapping.
   • Ch'en I-lung stated during the prosecutor's interrogation on October 23: Huang Chun-chi and Huang Ming-ch'üan initiated the kidnapping.
   • Ch'en I-lung stated during the Shihlin District Court first instance trial on February 8: Huang Ming-ch'üan expressed an intent to collect a debt from Huang Ch'un-shu.
   • Ch'en I-lung stated during the High Court third remand trial on February 16: After returning from participating on the afternoon of September 1, Huang Ming-ch'üan told Huang Chun-chi the details.
   • Ch'en I-lung stated during the High Court eighth remand trial on April 9: Ch'en Tzu-chiang and Huang Ming-ch'üan invested in Huang Ch'un-shu's brokerage firm, which went bankrupt, resulting in a debt dispute; therefore, they invited me to help collect the money.
   Hearing this complex permutation and combination in court, what crossed my mind was: utter nonsense!
   
3. Preparation for the crime: Who participated in the pre-crime site reconnaissance? In principle, the facts determined by the courts in previous judgments all included this segment: Starting in late August 1995 (before August 29, 1995), the accomplices went to wait near the victim Huang Ch'un-shu's residence to observe Huang Ch'un-shu's work schedule.
   Who exactly participated in this segment of "reconnaissance"?
   
   • Ch'en I-lung stated during police questioning on October 22 and the prosecutor's interrogation on October 23, 1995: Four times in total on August 29, August 30, August 31, and September 1. Each time, we arrived near Tachih around 7:30 AM to lie in ambush and wait. Every single time, all four of us participated together.
   • Huang Chun-chi stated during the Shihlin District Court first instance trial on July 1 when the judge asked: Did Ch'en Tzu-chiang go to stalk Huang Ch'un-shu? Huang Chun-chi actually replied: I don't know. But at that time, when Ch'en I-lung, who was also in the courtroom, was asked by the judge: Did Ch'en Tzu-chiang go with you to stalk Huang Ch'un-shu? He replied instead: When I went, Ch'en Tzu-chiang also went.
4. What happened on the day of the kidnapping, September 1? Previous judgments determined that on the day of the kidnapping, September 1, around 7:00 AM, Huang Ming-ch'üan, Huang Ch'un-shu, Ch'en I-lung, and Ch'en Tzu-chiang drove two cars to the residence of the victim Huang Ch'un-shu, and then used a knife to puncture the front-left tire of the victim Huang Ch'un-shu's car.
   Later, at 8:40 AM, the victim Huang Ch'un-shu left his home, discovered that the front-left tire was flat and out of air, and prepared to take out the spare tire from the rear trunk to replace it. Huang Chun-chi, Ch'en Tzu-chiang, and Ch'en I-lung swarmed forward; Ch'en I-lung held a small long knife to Huang Ch'un-shu's neck, Huang Chun-chi handcuffed Huang Ch'un-shu, and Ch'en Tzu-chiang helped push and pull from the side. Together, they forced the victim into the middle of the back seat of the stolen car driven by Huang Ming-ch'üan. Ch'en Tzu-chiang and Huang Chun-chi sat on the left and right sides of the victim respectively, and Huang Chun-chi tightly locked the victim's hands and taped the victim's eyes to prevent him from escaping.
   
   1. Who exactly punctured the tire? Regarding the question of "who exactly punctured the tire?," the statements of the two co-defendants can be summarized as follows:
      
      • Huang Chun-chi stated during police questioning on September 28: Ch'en [I-lung] punctured Huang Ch'un-shu's car tire with a knife resembling a sashimi knife.
      • Huang Chun-chi stated during the High Court first remand trial on May 13: Puncturing Huang Ch'un-shu's car tire was not done by me; Ch'en [I-lung] held the knife.
      • Huang Chun-chi stated during the second remand trial on September 23: I don't know who punctured it.
      • Huang Chun-chi stated during the fourth remand trial on March 24 when the judge asked: (Ch'en Tzu-chiang and Huang Chun-chi used a small long knife to puncture Huang Ch'un-shu's front-left car tire). Huang Chun-chi replied: Yes.
      • Huang Chun-chi stated during the fifth remand trial on August 13: The person who punctured the tire at the time was either Ch'en Tzu-chiang or Huang Ming-ch'üan.
      • Ch'en I-lung stated during the prosecutor's interrogation on October 23: Ch'en [Tzu-chiang] and Huang [Ming-ch'üan] got out of the car first; I don't know who used a small samurai sword to puncture Huang Ch'un-shu's front-left tire.
      • Ch'en I-lung stated during the first remand trial on March 18: Huang [Chun-chi] and Ch'en [Tzu-chiang] punctured Huang Ch'un-shu's front-left car tire.
      • Ch'en I-lung stated during the eighth remand trial on April 16: I punctured it.
   2. Who held the knife and who used handcuffs to abduct the person during the kidnapping?
      1. Regarding the question of "who held the knife during the kidnapping?":
         • Huang Chun-chi stated during the High Court second instance trial on August 19: The person holding the knife that day was Ch'en [I-lung].
         • Ch'en I-lung stated during police questioning on October 22 and the prosecutor's interrogation on October 23, 1995: Huang [Chun-chi] held a small samurai sword.
         • Ch'en I-lung stated during the District Court first instance trial on February 12: The knife was held by Huang [Chun-chi] or Ch'en [Tzu-chiang].
      2. Were handcuffs used? Who used the handcuffs? Was the victim forced or invited into the car?
         • Huang Chun-chi stated during police questioning on September 27: Ch'en [I-lung] and Ch'en [Tzu-chiang] used knives to force Huang Ch'un-shu into the car.
         • Huang Chun-chi wrote a confession during the investigation on November 2, but stated instead: Huang Ming-ch'üan, Ch'en I-lung, and Ch'en Tzu-chiang got out of the car to talk with Huang Ch'un-shu, and then Huang Ch'un-shu, Huang Ming-ch'üan, and Ch'en I-lung got into the car together; Ch'en Tzu-chiang did not get into the car.
         • Huang Chun-chi stated during the High Court second instance trial on August 30: Ch'en Tzu-chiang was also present and forced the victim into the car.
         • Huang Chun-chi stated during the High Court first remand trial on May 13: I took the handcuffs; I handcuffed Huang Ch'un-shu and forced him into the car.
         • Huang Chun-chi stated during the High Court fourth remand trial on March 5: Seeing Huang Ch'un-shu come out on September 1, I pulled him into the car.
         • Ch'en I-lung stated during police questioning on October 22 and the prosecutor's interrogation on October 23: Huang [Chun-chi] held a small samurai sword to his neck, I used handcuffs to handcuff one of his hands, Ch'en Tzu-chiang stood behind him and grabbed him, and the three of them jointly forced Huang Ch'un-shu into the stolen car.
         • Ch'en I-lung stated during the first instance trial on February 12: Ch'en Tzu-chiang knew Huang Ch'un-shu and said Huang Ming-ch'üan was waiting for him in the car. At this time, Huang Ch'un-shu was sitting inside the stolen car; after he was politely invited into the car, I then handcuffed him.
         During the kidnapping, was the victim threatened with a knife before being forced into the car and then handcuffed, or handcuffed first? Were handcuffs even used at all? Was the victim politely invited into the car or forced into it? A total fog! Huang Chun-chi and Ch'en I-lung shirk responsibility onto each other, dragging Ch'en Tzu-chiang into it whenever it crosses their minds; can their statements really be trusted?
         
      3. The divine logic that kidnapping during work hours wouldn't arouse suspicion?
         • Ch'en I-lung stated during police questioning on October 22: During the second and third times (August 30, August 31), because people passed by nearby and we were afraid of being discovered, we did not make a move.
         • Ch'en I-lung stated during the prosecutor's interrogation on October 23 when the prosecutor asked: The crime was committed during peak traffic hours; why weren't you afraid of being discovered? Ch'en I-lung actually replied: Huang Ming-ch'üan said that work hours wouldn't arouse suspicion.
         Why were they worried about being discovered on August 30 and August 31, but not worried on September 1? When abducting the person, they subdued the victim with a knife and handcuffs. September 1 at 8:40 AM was peak traffic time for commuting to work and school, at a location on Peian Road with heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Saying it wouldn't arouse suspicion instead is divine logic!
         "Even" the investigating prosecutor raised doubts, yet Ch'en I-lung gave no reasonable explanation, indicating that his statements might have been fabricated. Huang Ming-ch'üan, who is already deceased, never spoke during the litigation process, and no objective evidence supported the statements of Huang and Ch'en. Yet the indictment and previous judgments could simply copy and paste their statements without a shred of doubt.
         
      4. The cut seatbelts One matter is worth exploring: Upon learning that her husband had been abducted on September 2, 1995, the victim's wife, Huang Yü-yen, specifically went to look for her husband's car in the alleys near their residence. She found the car still parked on the roadside in front of "Chih-Fu Temple" and thus called her father-in-law, Huang Chien-yun. Huang Chien-yun relayed this to the police officer who was assisting with the handling at his residence at the time, and subsequent matters were handed over entirely to the police. (See Huang Yü-yen's testimony during the High Court seventh remand trial on August 19, 2011)
         The victim's father, Huang Chien-yun, testified during the prosecutor's interrogation on November 8, 1995: "Over the past few days, we retrieved my son's car; the seatbelts of the driver's seat and the rear-left seat were both cut off." However, when the prosecutor questioned Ch'en I-lung on the same day, he stated: (Did you cut off the seatbelts in the deceased's car?) No.
         If the method of forcing the person into the car was as stated by Huang Chun-chi and Ch'en I-lung—that the victim was abducted while taking out the spare tire—then the seatbelts of the victim's car would not, and need not, have been cut off. Conversely, starting from the fact that "the seatbelts of the victim's car were cut off," the accounts given by Huang Chun-chi and Ch'en I-lung regarding how the victim was forced into the car become questionable.
         Having read this far, do "keyboard Conan detectives" see any clues?
         Back then, to investigate this case, the Criminal Investigation Bureau of the National Police Agency under the Ministry of the Interior, the Criminal Investigation Corps of the Taipei City Police Department (referred to as the Taipei City Criminal Investigation Corps), and the Neihu Precinct of the Taipei City Police Department formed a joint task force. After the incident, with only this single vehicle available, the task force surely would have wanted to dig up every possible trace from the car, conducting searches, seizures, and fingerprint and DNA collection on the vehicle.
         And the result? The seventh remand judgment reads as follows: There is no record in the case files showing that the handling police officers or prosecutors performed any investigation or search actions regarding it. Upon writing to inquire whether relevant agencies could forward relevant materials, the Criminal Investigation Bureau of the National Police Agency replied: Due to Typhoon Nari in September 2001, no relevant case files for this case have been retained.
         Upon learning of this, the pro bono defense team retrieved data on flooding caused by Typhoon Nari in the Greater Taipei area; neither the office locations of the National Police Agency of the Ministry of the Interior nor the Taipei City Police Department fell within the flooded areas. The pro bono defense team petitioned the collegial panel of the Ninth Remand for the summoning of relevant police officers to explain, but has still not received approval!
         Are the police units hiding something? Does it not matter that the prosecutor cannot produce objective evidence? How much more absurd must things be before they can shake the status of the statements made by Huang Chun-chi and Ch'en I-lung in the judges' minds?
         
5. The Legend of Wiping Fingerprints In the Ch'en Tzu-chiang case, the co-defendants' contradictory statements can simply be described as "legendary" in two respects: "The Legend of Wiping Fingerprints" and "The Legend of Sulfuric Acid."
   "The Legend of Wiping Fingerprints" begins with the question: "Was Ch'en Tzu-chiang actually present when the murder took place?"
   The facts determined by previous judgments are roughly that on the morning of September 1, 1995, around 7:00 AM, the accomplices drove two cars to the home of the victim Huang Ch'un-shu on Peian Road in Tachih. After abducting and forcing the victim into a car, they brought the victim to the mountainous area of Hsichih at around 10:00 AM to murder him, and then returned to Ch'en Tzu-chiang's residence in Taoyuan between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM to split the property obtained from the victim and discuss matters regarding extorting a ransom from the victim's family.
   Regarding the question "Whether Ch'en Tzu-chiang was actually present when the victim was taken to the mountainous area of Hsichih to be murdered," the statements of co-defendants Huang Chun-chi and Ch'en I-lung are compiled in a table.
   Co-defendant Statements
   Ordered chronologically, summary and questioning
   
   Huang Chun-chi stated during police questioning on September 27, September 28, and the prosecutor's interrogation on September 28, 1995: Ch'en Tzu-chiang went up the mountain and participated in murdering the victim.
   Huang Chun-chi stated during police questioning and interrogation: Ch'en Tzu-chiang "was" at the murder scene.
   
    
   On October 6, 1995, Ch'en Tzu-chiang presented an alibi for the morning of September 1 (Note 2).
   
   
   Ch'en I-lung stated during police questioning on the day he was arrested, October 22, 1995: After driving for a distance after September 1 (abducting the person into the car), Ch'en Tzu-chiang got out of the car first near a gas station, returned to the kidnapping scene to check on the situation, and was responsible for cleaning up, wiping away any fingerprints we might have left on Huang Ch'un-shu's car.
   Ch'en I-lung stated during police questioning: Ch'en Tzu-chiang "was not" at the murder scene, because Ch'en Tzu-chiang got out early and went back to the victim's car to wipe fingerprints.
   • Ch'en I-lung originated the "Theory of Wiping Fingerprints" to rebut the alibi presented by Ch'en Tzu-chiang.
   
   
   Ch'en I-lung stated during the prosecutor's interrogation on October 23, 1995: After driving for one or two minutes, Huang Ming-ch'üan told Ch'en Tzu-chiang to get out of the car and wipe fingerprints, and told him to clean up and head straight back to his home in Kueishan to wait for us.
   The prosecutor followed up by asking: Such a major matter, why let Ch'en Tzu-chiang quit halfway?
   Ch'en I-lung replied: Because it seemed someone saw us kidnapping Huang Ch'un-shu, it was inappropriate for our two cars to wait there, and he had no transportation, so we told him to go back first.
   
   Ch'en I-lung stated during the interrogation: Ch'en Tzu-chiang "was not" at the murder scene, because Ch'en Tzu-chiang got out early and went back to the victim's car to wipe fingerprints. Questioning:
   
   • Ch'en I-lung also stated during the interrogation on the same day, October 23, 1995: Ch'en Tzu-chiang bought five pairs of transparent gloves in a package at a pharmacy. Since gloves were prepared, why was there a need to wipe fingerprints?
   • According to Ch'en I-lung's statement, if someone saw the kidnapping, why would they still ask Ch'en Tzu-chiang to go back and wipe fingerprints? Leaving Ch'en Tzu-chiang alone at the scene, weren't they worried he would be caught?
   • Ch'en I-lung stated during the prosecutor's interrogation on November 8, 1995: Around 9:00 AM, Ch'en Tzu-chiang parted ways with them to go wipe fingerprints. After a kidnapping, one should leave quickly, and during peak commute hours, how could he possibly risk returning to the scene to wipe fingerprints?
   • The co-defendants drove both cars they brought to the mountainous area of Hsichih. With Ch'en Tzu-chiang having no transportation and getting out to wipe fingerprints, wouldn't it be even more dangerous?
   
   
   After Ch'en I-lung was arrested, Huang Chun-chi still stated during the prosecutor's interrogation on October 26, 1995, that Ch'en Tzu-chiang went up the mountain and participated in the murder.
   However, when the prosecutor asked Huang Chun-chi: Ch'en Tzu-chiang presented an alibi; what are your thoughts? Huang Chun-chi actually replied: I don't know.
   
   Huang Chun-chi still said: Ch'en Tzu-chiang "was" at the murder scene.
   Questioning:
   
   • Did Ch'en Tzu-chiang follow them to the mountainous area of Hsichih to commit murder or not? Regarding such a critical (and uncomplicated) question, Huang Chun-chi's statement was completely opposite to Ch'en I-lung's! Which one should be believed? Or should neither be believed?
   
   
   In a confession written by Huang Chun-chi to the Shihlin District Prosecutors Office on November 2, 1995, he changed his statement, saying: "...seeing the victim come out, my older brother, Ch'en Tzu-chiang, and Ch'en I-lung got out of the car to talk with the victim. Soon after, my older brother, Ch'en I-lung, and the victim got into the car together; Ch'en Tzu-chiang did not get into the car, and my older brother told me: 'Ch'en Tzu-chiang has matters to attend to and is leaving first, no need to wait for him; the victim's car is broken and cannot be driven, we are giving him a ride to work at his company.'"
   
   Huang Chun-chi changed his statement to say: Ch'en Tzu-chiang "was not" at the murder scene.
   Questioning:
   
   • Only six days after the October 28 interrogation, Huang Chun-chi unexpectedly wrote a confession to the prosecutor, changing his statement to say that Ch'en Tzu-chiang did not follow them up to the Hsichih mountain murder scene, yet he could not state the reason why Ch'en Tzu-chiang left midway!
   
   
   After Ch'en I-lung was arrested, Huang Chun-chi, when interrogated by the prosecutor on November 8, 1995:
   
   • The prosecutor asked: Why did you previously claim that Ch'en Tzu-chiang also went up the mountain?
   • Huang Chun-chi replied: Because I didn't remember clearly.
   • The prosecutor asked again: Why did Ch'en Tzu-chiang leave beforehand?
   • Huang replied: I don't know.
   • The prosecutor directly led the interrogation: Was it because after driving for a distance, Ch'en Tzu-chiang was told to get out of the car, wipe the fingerprints on the victim's car, and leave first?
   • Huang Chun-chi replied: I don't know the purpose of my older brother telling him to get out.
   
   Huang Chun-chi said: Ch'en Tzu-chiang "was not" at the murder scene, and insisted that he did not know the reason.
   
   
   Huang Chun-chi stated during the Shihlin District Court first instance trial on July 1, 1996: Huang Ming-ch'üan asked Ch'en Tzu-chiang to return to the victim's parking spot to wipe fingerprints, so Ch'en Tzu-chiang did not go with the others to the body-disposal site.
   
   Huang Chun-chi said: Ch'en Tzu-chiang "was not" at the murder scene, because Ch'en Tzu-chiang had to go back to the victim's car first to wipe fingerprints.
   Questioning:
   
   • During the investigation on November 8, 1995, Huang Chun-chi did not know the reason why Ch'en Tzu-chiang got out of the car; why did it become known during the district court trial that Ch'en Tzu-chiang got out to wipe fingerprints?
   
   
   Huang Chun-chi stated during the High Court trial on August 30, 1996: My older brother asked Ch'en Tzu-chiang to return to the victim's car to wipe the fingerprints on it, and we left first.
   
   Huang Chun-chi said: Ch'en Tzu-chiang was not at the murder scene, because Ch'en Tzu-chiang had to go back to the victim's car first to wipe fingerprints.
   Questioning:
   
   • During the investigation on November 8, 1995, Huang Chun-chi did not know the reason why Ch'en Tzu-chiang got out of the car, but before the High Court, it became known that Ch'en Tzu-chiang got out to wipe fingerprints?
   
   
   
   
   

Regarding a fact as critical as whether Ch'en Tzu-chiang actually followed them to the mountainous area of Hsichih to commit murder, Huang Chun-chi's own statements varied inconsistently, and differed from Ch'en I-lung's account as well. Why would the court believe them yet refuse to believe Ch'en Tzu-chiang's alibi?

On the morning of October 11, 1996, the collegial panel of the Shihlin District Court first instance personally simulated driving from the kidnapping location in Tachih (Peian Road) to the post office where Ch'en Tzu-chiang withdrew money, taking approximately one hour to arrive. Additionally, the collegial panel asked police officers from the Neihu Precinct to simulate taking another route, which only took forty-five minutes.

Based on these two simulations, the court concluded that Ch'en Tzu-chiang participated in the kidnapping of Huang Ch'un-shu, got out of the car at 9:00 AM to wipe fingerprints, and had ample time to appear at the post office around 10:47 AM that same day. Therefore, Ch'en I-lung's "Theory of Wiping Fingerprints" was credible, and Ch'en Tzu-chiang's alibi proved nothing at all.

Furthermore, Ch'en I-lung stated during the prosecutor's interrogation on October 23, 1995, that when Ch'en Tzu-chiang got out to wipe fingerprints, he "had no transportation." Why did the court adopt the result of "driving a car" to determine the travel time? And why was the court empowered to decide which route to take?

Finally, what the court must face is how to explain the contradictions between the statements of Huang Chun-chi and Ch'en I-lung. If the court believes Ch'en I-lung, it means Huang Chun-chi lied; yet the court repeatedly adopted Huang Chun-chi's statements as evidence to conclude that Ch'en Tzu-chiang is guilty. How can such a judgment be convincing?