What on Earth Did Hsu TZU-ch'iang Do Wrong? A Summary of Doubts in the Case

Hsu Tzu-ch'iang voluntarily surrendered to authorities after learning that his co-defendants had been sentenced to death

Co-defendants Huang Ch'un-ch'i and Ch'en I-lung were sentenced to death by the Taiwan Shilin District Court on May 16, 1995. Hsu Tzu-ch'iang subsequently surrendered to the Shilin District Court on June 24, 1995. Unlike Huang and Ch'en, who were apprehended by the police, if Hsu had truly been involved in this case, why would he not only fail to flee, but instead voluntarily turn himself in despite knowing he could face the death penalty?

Hsu Tzu-ch'iang had an alibi at the time of the incident

The victim was victimized around 11:00 AM on September 1, 1995, in the mountainous area of Xizhi's Xiawan Road, while Hsu Tzu-ch'iang was withdrawing deposits at the Taoyuan Post Office Branch 5. This is verified by the surveillance footage attached to the case file, dated September 1, 1995, at 10:47 AM. This demonstrates that Hsu could not have participated in the offense.

Hsu Tzu-ch'iang never made a single extortion phone call

This is a fact undisputed by the judgment and the other defendants. Since Hsu neither participated in the abduction, murder, and corpse disposal committed by the other defendants, nor made extortion phone calls, what criminal act did Hsu Tzu-ch'iang actually commit in this case?

Aside from the confessions of co-defendants Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i, there is no other evidence to prove Hsu Tzu-ch'iang's involvement in this case

"While incriminating statements made by a co-defendant against themselves may be adopted as evidence of another co-defendant's crime, such incriminating statements must be free of flaws and, upon investigation from other aspects, must also conform with the facts before they can be adopted to establish the criminal facts of another co-defendant," as stated in Precedent No. 419 (1957) of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, countless cases in judicial practice involve individuals being incriminated and wrongfully convicted due to false accusations by co-defendants; the robbery and murder case of Su Ping-k'un, whose crimes and sentences were completely absolved by a presidential pardon, is a prime example.

The confessions of co-defendants Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i are not only inconsistent with the facts but also self-contradictory, making them difficult to credit

1. Regarding why Hsu Tzu-ch'iang did not make extortion calls and whether he was familiar with the victim's family

   Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i both claimed that because Hsu Tzu-ch'iang was familiar with the victim's family and feared his voice would be recognized, the two of them made the extortion calls. However, the victim's father, Huang Chien-yun, and the victim's wife, Huang Yu-yen, repeatedly testified during court hearings across various instances that they did not know Hsu at all. This shows that Hsu Tzu-ch'iang was not acquainted with the victim's family.

2. The statements of Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i are self-contradictory and flip-flop constantly, making them incredible

   Regarding the details of the crime—including the prior conspiracy, the location of the crime, who committed the murder, the vehicle used, and whether the sulfuric acid, gloves, and tape were purchased by Hsu Tzu-ch'iang—the statements of Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i are contradictory and constantly shifting, making them hard to believe.

3. Before being apprehended, Ch'en I-lung admitted that Hsu Tzu-ch'iang was not involved in this case

   Ch'en I-lung once told Hsu Tzu-ch'iang's mother on October 7, 1995, that Hsu was not involved in the case, as evidenced by the seized recording tape and its transcript.

4. Hsu Tzu-ch'iang truly never left the Taoyuan area on the day of the incident

   This can be verified by Chang Hsi-mei (mother-in-law) and Cho Chia-hui (wife). Additionally, witness Hung P'e-shan personally saw that Hsu was at his mother's home the entire afternoon of that day, making it impossible for him to split stolen money with other defendants at his own residence. Yet, the courts failed to summon her across all retrial instances.

After their death sentences were finalized, co-defendants Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i both admitted that Hsu Tzu-ch'iang was not involved in this case

Huang Ch'un-ch'i and Ch'en I-lung admitted to Hsu's family at the Taipei Detention Center on May 1, 2000, and May 16, 2000, respectively, that Hsu Tzu-ch'iang was not involved in the case. Ch'en even wrote a confession on the spot as proof.

Co-defendant Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ming-ch'üan, the older brother of Huang Ch'un-ch'i, both owed debts to Hsu Tzu-ch'iang

Ch'en I-lung does not deny owing Hsu Tzu-ch'iang 200,000 NTD, and Hsu holds a 400,000 NTD promissory note issued for a loan by Huang Ming-ch'üan. Furthermore, Ch'en I-lung stated in an interrogation record dated February 16, 1998: "Hsu Tzu-ch'iang called my pager as many as eight times consecutively on September 8, 1995, and I did not return the calls because I knew Hsu was pressing me to repay the money."

Regarding the investigation report by the Control Yuan and the extraordinary appeal filed by the Prosecutor-General of the Supreme Prosecutor's Office

1. The incriminating confessions made by co-defendants Ch'en I-lung and Huang Ch'un-ch'i regarding Hsu Tzu-ch'iang's alleged involvement contained numerous discrepancies with the facts and cannot serve as a basis for establishing Hsu's involvement.

2. The original final judgment merely used the fact that Hsu Tzu-ch'iang once helped other defendants rent a car as corroborating evidence to establish his involvement, which clearly violates the rules of empirical logic and logical reasoning. If Hsu had known the purpose for which the other co-conspirators were renting the car, how could he possibly have been foolish enough to rent the car using his real identity?

3. The original final judgment concluded that the alibi presented by Hsu Tzu-ch'iang was unworthy of credence without investigating other evidence, which violates the rules of evidence.

4. The original final judgment failed to summon witness Hung P'e-shan as requested by Hsu, constituting the illegality of failing to investigate evidence that ought to have been investigated during the trial date. Witness Hung could have proven that Hsu did not meet with Ch'en and others on the afternoon of the incident to discuss methods and division of labor for extorting the victim, but the court erroneously deemed this investigation irrelevant to the determination of whether he participated in the ransom-taking process in the morning, clearly misunderstanding the fact to be proven by the evidence.

5. The criminal facts ascertained in the original final judgment—such as the defendant's abduction time, modus operandi, whether Hsu was familiar with the victim's family, and whether Hsu's financial situation was unstable—largely contradict the case files and evidence, committing the illegality of establishing criminal facts without relying on evidence and failing to state the reasons in the judgment.

The Supreme Court's reasons for dismissing the extraordinary appeal

1. The confessions of other accomplices are supported by the statements of the victim's family, the victim's corpse, Hsu Tzu-ch'iang's car rental records, forensic notification documents, and wiretap transcripts, which are sufficient to prove that the accomplices' confessions conform with the facts.

   Critique: This constitutes corroborating evidence that the other accomplices indeed participated in the crime, not corroborating evidence indicating that Hsu Tzu-ch'iang participated in the portion of the crime confessed to.

2. Regarding evidence favorable to Hsu Tzu-ch'iang, such as whether he was familiar with the victim's family, since the original final judgment has already refuted them one by one and explained the reasons why they were unworthy of credence, there is no illegality of failing to state reasons in the judgment or of internal contradiction in the stated reasons.

   Critique: The reasons given in the original final judgment and the High Court's fifth retrial judgment failed to explain this matter; the Supreme Court clearly got it wrong!

3. Whether the victim was abducted at the "time" and "place" determined by the original final judgment, or how the victim's vehicle was found, both fall within the scope of fact-finding and evidence-appraisal by the fact-finding court, and contain no illegality.

   Critique: The original judgment suffers from the illegality of failing to investigate evidence that should have been investigated on the trial date. Furthermore, since the aforementioned facts are sufficient to affect the outcome of the judgment, how can the fact-finding court be allowed to freely select and discard evidence at will, disregarding the discovery of truth and the human rights of the defendant?

4. Based on the results of the judicial inspection, the original final judgment determined that after the abduction, Hsu Tzu-ch'iang left early to wipe away fingerprints and then returned to Kuishan to pay a loan. Since there was sufficient time, its adoption of the testimony of the other co-defendants did not violate the rules of evidence.

   Critique: This finding of fact was based purely on the confessions of the other co-defendants, with no other corroborating evidence to prove its truth. Moreover, the court's aforementioned determination strongly smacks of "speculation" and the presumption of criminal facts.

5. The original final judgment did not re-summon witness Hung P'e-shan because Hung's testimony would not affect the determination of whether Hsu Tzu-ch'iang participated in the kidnapping for ransom on the morning of September 1, nor would it affect the outcome of the judgment; therefore, there was no illegality of failing to investigate evidence that ought to have been investigated.

   Critique: Witness Hung P'e-shan could have proven that Hsu Tzu-ch'iang did not meet with Ch'en I-lung and others on the afternoon of the incident to discuss methods and division of labor for extorting the victim. Because this forms part of the criminal facts determined by the original final judgment and is also part of the accomplices' confessions, summoning witness Hung was precisely sufficient to test whether the criminal facts determined by the judgment were correct and whether the accomplices' confessions conformed with the facts—both of which could affect whether Hsu was involved. For the Supreme Court to claim that this has no bearing on the outcome of the judgment is truly hard to believe.